The built environment has often been designed with only visual principles in mind. This study is an initial attempt to understand the relationship of our basic five senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste) with the spaces we occupy and how it affects architecture students’ well-being. Many spaces engage only with our sight and often touch, but rarely do they captivate our other senses. By interacting with all of our senses can we start to interpret the poetic nature of the spaces we are in and start to feel more empowered. Occupying a multi-sensory environment can be enriching, promote socialization, comfortability, pleasurability, and creative thinking. Data for this research was obtained by observing social behaviors, conducting various surveys, ethnomethodology, and coordinating a few experiments by placing familiar congenial objects in spaces. In a place where there is very little stimulation, how are users creating their own multi sensory environments? What is value of having a multi-sensory environment? Does it stimulate creative process?

Designerly Ways of Knowing, Nigel Cross

1. “Traditionally, design teachers have been practicing designers who pass on their knowledge, skills, and values through a process of apprenticeship.” Wouldn’t it be more ideal for students to have an educator that is a currently a practicing designer opposed to one that used to be?
2. “Education must be designed deliberately to enhance and to develop students intrinsic cognitive process and abilities.” If education was to be designed to enhance not only cognitive, but also tactile, auditory, and sensory abilities, would it be more beneficial?
3. “The concrete/iconic modes of cognition are particularly relevant in design where as formal/symbolic modes are more relevant in the sciences…it is clear that there is a strong justification for design education in that it provides opportunities particularly the development of concrete/iconic modes.” Can design education also help formal/symbolic modes or the other way around?

This is Research by Design, Johan Verbeke

1. Instead of simply research ‘on’ architecture, researchers should try to establish research ‘in the medium’ of architecture. This means to investigate architecture through architecture not through history, theory, social science or environmental science. If “developing architecture research is to incorporate practice and design studio work into it,” should we not research through other mediums as well to further help develop our research?
2. Verdeke explains the difference between nomothetic and idiographic. Would it be beneficial to the field if architecture was researched through a nomothetic sense? Or would the study of different fields in a nomothetic sense be more beneficial to architecture?
3. “The problem hence with academia today is that is undervalues the diversity in knowledge…This overly particular interpretation is one of the major problems that the ‘creative and ‘making’ disciplines currently face as they attempt to incorporate several types of knowledge.” Doesn’t this some what contradict what Verdeke states later on about how research should be investigated purely ‘in the medium’ of architecture? Does that mean design also undervalues the diversity in knowledge?

Experimental Cultures: On the “End” of the Design Thesis and Rise of the Research Studio

1. Saloman states in the text, “The dilemma of the design thesis is further exacerbated by the problem of establishing the limits of what qualifies as one today…As the diversity of  these projects illustrate, nothing reveals the paradoxical nature of architectural education more than the status, state, and function of the independent design thesis.” With the time given to students to study, research, and narrow their ideas down, who is to say what qualifies as a good or a bad thesis? Does a good thesis have to be a scientific journal, an art gallery displaying the works? Is a bad thesis something that produces a temporary moment? Who is to say that a thesis is better than another?
2. The concept of independency was also brought up in the text, “…the independent design thesis is the place in architectural education  where students’ personal desires and abilities directly intersect the field’s intra- and extra-disciplinary responsibilities.” It all sounds wonderful and exciting, however, often times the line of independence gets slightly blurred. At what point would the project ultimately become the professors’/committees’ thesis, rather than the students? While some channel the thesis towards a more curriculum-based agenda, would a research studio be best in lieu of the thesis?
3. The main benefit of taking on the thesis is having the freedom to develop a “factish” project, “factish- equal parts empirical facts and fetish…Composed of both objective truths and personal fictions.” The limits of the thesis is the student’s imagination (limited and grounded by facts and the committee). A major benefit of being involved in a research studio is the ability to be in a setting that is better equipped to produce research, being surrounded by relevent research, and curious students can help promote learning and understanding. Is there a way that these two can merge together, and allow for students to do a thesis while in research studios? Can professors help intertwine the personal fantasy/fetish/interest of particular students to the research studio? Would this set up be more beneficial?

Royal College of Arts: Research in Art and Design

1. As mentioned in the text, when the word research comes up, we all immediately think of scientists in white lab coats, goggles, and data. Very rarely do we think that research can be done through art and design. “If the stereotype of the scientist as researcher needs some adjusting…there are of course countless examples of artists who have explored their materials for what they are and not simply as ‘raw materials’.” Is there an extent to how we research through art and design? At what point does it count start to become a series of projects oppose to research?
2. Art History does, however, play a very important role in this discussion, for Art History is the study (or research, if you must) into art and design. It tells us more about the specific era that the art work was created in. It gives us a different perspective how people lived their lives, how things were interpreted, and how other things were valued. Should Art History be a part of our curriculum? Do designers need a brief seminar regarding Art History so they have more facts to base their works off of?
3. All in all, researching through and researching into art and design ultimately becomes research for art and design. Through all the various experiments, literature reviews, and etc, it all winds up as something to base our design processes on, something for us to justify our choices. “At the College, we give Higher Doctorates or Honorary Doctorates to individuals with a distinguished body of exhibited and published work – but we do not at present offer research degrees entirely for work where art is said to ‘speak for itself’. Rightly or wrongly, we tend to feel the goal here is the art rather than the knowledge and understanding.” Half agreeing with this quote, are the main reasons why we do the research we do for the sake of art or for our own ego/fame?