Reading 1
Fraser, “A Two Fold Movement”
Question 1:
“Design research in architecture thus needs to see itself as being entirely framed by socio-economic and cultural factors, with, as noted, these largely located within urban practices and processes.” Is Fraser stating that all design research needs to do this? Or is he saying this in response to what the Architectural ideology is in the previous paragraph?
Question 2:
Is the example of Rem Koolhas looking at history in reverse an new way of looking at how research is done? When looking at design research, don’t we generally find precedents that relate to what we are trying to do and then research the history of the particular type of design we wish to research?
Question 3:
The idea of “research toward design” is an interesting way at looking how one might conduct research. But is it practical? Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to design while researching? This method would allow one to gather information and put it to use simultaneously rather then collect all of their information and then react to it afterwards.
Reading 2
Rendell, “A Way With Words”
Question 1:
Does design provide the best avenue to work in an interdisciplinary way? It is true that many other professions, especially the sciences, only focus on their own sector of research. Does design include so many fields that it is inevitable that almost all design research will require one to work on a diagonal axis? From the aspect of gaining new knowledge, interdisciplinary research makes sense, but does it then make you a “jack of all trades” and a “master of none”?
Question 2:
Is feminist architecture a new form of practice? Does it help further architectural design, or is it being used as a statement against the norms of it?
Question 3:
The design by writing approach is an interesting idea when thinking about conceptualizations of positionality, subjectivity and textuality, but is it enough to just write about design? Should there be a physical act of making besides writing pen on paper?
