Rebecca Leclerc: #3a

Assignment #3a: Compare & Contrast Essay

David Wang, “Design in Relation to Research”

B.D. Wortham, “The Way We Think about the Way We Think”

Research, in any form of academia, is a vital part of a students’ knowledge and growth, in any field that they are pursuing a career in. In terms of architecture school, research as well as design have become intricate parts of the curriculum. However, the relationship and connection between design and research is troubled with several complications. There seems to be an overall, fundamental divide between the two. In David Wang’s essay “Design in Relation to Research” the author takes the position that design and research are not the same, but that designers do research, and that design is a type of research. Wang also emphasizes the different ways in which architects use research methods to improve their designs. In contrast, “The Way We Think about the Way We Think” by B.D. Wortham, discusses his view that the discipline of architecture should become a leader in changing how research is understood. The purpose of this essay is to compare and contrast the differences between these articles and explore these varying ideas in regards to research and design within the realm of architecture.

Both B.D. Wortham and David Wang agree that the process of design and the process of research are different. Design is a subjective and multi-faceted subject, which can never be judged on a right or wrong basis like most research-based methods. Wang states that the design process “cannot be captured by rule-based propositions”, while the process of research is “rooted in rule-based frameworks”. Wortham agrees with this inherent difference between the two methods, as one that has measurable, objective rationale, while the other is unprovable, speculative, and open-ended. Wortham argues that methods are “not a mere means to an end of the research product, methods are a research in itself.” Architecture, in Wortham and in Wang’s eyes is not necessarily about proving a hypothesis. Both authors would also agree that architects and designers should be aware of the influence of research methods assumed in other fields, not necessarily as ideals to follow, but to be mindful of their existence and purpose.

The core difference between the two articles is how the authors view design as a type of research. Wang’s theory is that research about the design process can help better inform the design process itself, without giving credit to design as a type of research. Wortham would disagree unequivocally. To Wortham, architecture, and the way in which architects understand and use research should become the model for reassessing research in academe. While Wang seeks to improve architectural design by pursuing knowledge in scientific methods of research, Wortham wishes to broaden the definition of research in colleges and to professionals by using architectural methods as a model.

In “Design in Relation to Research”, Wang goes in great depth to discuss the gateways for bringing research into the design process. He explains a series of ways in which design can be examined, including design and history research, action research, qualitative research, experimental research, simulation research, and many other forms of research and analysis. In “The Way We Think about the Way We Think”, Wortham states that this way of thinking in terms of scientific reasoning and rationale only oppresses and homogenizes, rather than liberating our way of thinking. This type of empirical, quantitative research that Wang believes architecture needs, Wortham argues that it would only reduce the realm of interpretation and individual thought. Wortham also says that “instead of trying to conform to an architectural praxis to a scientific paradigm, architecture should provide a new model for research practice in all disciplines that carries academic and social mandates, that is intellectually coherent, capacious and integrative, that acknowledges that often it is the questions one asks that matter as much as, and occasionally more than, the answers one produces.” This importance on methodology and process is one that Wortham thinks is worthy of exploring in all fields of study.

Wortham’s argument also contends that scientific methods of research valorize the importance of becoming a “specialist” in a given field. America, in his eyes, has begun to put too much emphasis on knowing everything about one given thing, rather than having a greater understanding of broader ideas and philosophies. Wortham quotes Martin Heidegger by saying that “being in the world is just as important as knowing about the world”. This concept of research varies from the ideas of Wang’s essay, because it stresses the significance of the design method as a form of research. In fact, it goes beyond stating its importance, but accentuates architect’s methods as one that others should observe and understand.

It seems that the relationship between research and design is one of many conflicting views within the architectural community. Whether or not research should influence design methods, or if architectural methods and processes should influence the scientific research of current scholars is up for interpretation. While some will argue that architects must be more analytical and research-oriented, others may think that the value of architectural design as research is an ideology of trans disciplinary collaboration that is integrative of a variety of processes. It seems as though, whichever essay is correct, the importance of research within design, in any form, is a vital piece to our academic and professional understanding of architecture.