Reading 1

1: “Research to the painter equals visual intention”.  In architecture, we often look up existing buildings to gain an understanding of existing solutions to problems our design might be facing. Is research in architecture to find forms a bad thing then? Should architecture be a purely internal design process with the lead architect being the engine driving design? This could be a lead into the topic of plagiarism in architecture as well.

2: Is the type of research (r vs R) something that we need to definitively state in school today? Maybe not just in school but in general as well. Or is it accepted that depending on your profession that you are already doing one r verses the other due to your work? Is it wrong to be doing one or the other? I believe that it is dependent on the type of research thesis that you are doing. It would be a situational selection of doing one or the other.

3: Is Research better than research? Or vice versa? “If the stereotype of the scientist as researcher needs some adjusting – to make it seem closer to art and design (though by no means identical with it) – the popular image of the fine artist needs a lot of work as well.” Why would we want to merge the two forms of research? It seems to me that both forms have their advantages. Why do we need to make them more alike?

Reading 2

1: Is it possible that the state of the architecture profession has been a driving factor in how we treat our design studios and thesis work? In reading this paper the thought just jumped out to me. Since a large portion of professors of architecture (and Deans of the school) studied and practiced architecture, could it be their experience in the field that has led them to bring about this change from thesis to research studio?

2: The Boyer Report makes a comment about the “conventional curriculum” and that got me thinking about these two research paths from the school side of things. With the evolving forms of technologies, “conventional curriculum” would be educational suicide for a school to continue doing. Does the research studio allow for a wider inclusion of design in regards to the ever expanding technologies field? Something that perhaps the thesis methodology might not be formatted to accommodate?

3: “In short, this model of a research studio as a substitute for the individual design thesis presents a definitive move away from independent explorations and toward the collective production of disciplinary knowledge”.  Does a research studio allow for a collective production of disciplinary knowledge more than a thesis? Is this because a thesis is more of an independent design project?