Reading 1 – Fraser

Q1_  In general the other is always pushing design research in a social, economical or environmental way.  Why is this being celebrated over other research areas.

Q2_ Foucault is response to Corbusier’s work, “I think that it can never be inherent in the structure of things to guarantee the exercise of freedom.  The guarantee of freedom is freedom.”  Here, what I understand is that is it very difficult for a static object to fully affect people’s social problems or issues.  Does this mean that Patrick Schumacher’s philosophy that architecture is not the profession to solve huge social problems has validity?

Q3_ “Design research in architecture has to form its operations around a dialectical engagement between ideas and practice.  Nothing can be prefigure.  All has to be questioned.”  Is this why we haven’t seen architecture manifestos published in our lifetimes?

Reading 2: Rendell

Q1_ In reference to multidisciplinary research, “…increasingly such knowledge may not be valued if it is not seen to be of direct relevance to the needs of commerce and industry.” Unfortunately, this seems to be a growing trend across education in general.  Should this not be addressed by the oppressed research groups and responded to in a way that shows the importance of research outside of economical value?

Q2_”…instead showing how design is a research led process, while research can also be thought of as a form of design”  I am having a little trouble wrapping my head around this idea.  Does this mean they are “designing” knowledge.

Q3_”Although muf have never referred to themselves as feminists, their work has had a huge influence on the development of feminist architectural design.”  If you are not labeling yourself as a feminist, and your work is not driven with that in mind, how are you contributing to the idea other than practicing architecture like normal.