qualitative research examples in architecture

• Hispanoamérica
• Work at ArchDaily
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

Architectural Research: Three Myths and One Model

• Written by Jeremy Till
• Published on January 03, 2017

Jeremy Till's paper "Architectural Research: Three Myths and One Model" was originally commissioned by the Royal Institute of British Architects ( RIBA ) Research Committee, and published in 2007. In the past decade, however, it has grown in popularity not just in the UK, but around the world to become a canonical paper on architectural research. In order to help the paper reach new audiences, here Till presents an edited version of the original. The original was previously published on RIBA's research portal and on Jeremy Till's own website .

There is still, amazingly, debate as to what constitutes research in architecture. In the UK at least there should not be much confusion about the issue. The RIBA sets the ground very clearly in its founding charter , which states that the role of the Institute is:

The advancement of architecture and the promotion of the acquirement of the knowledge of the various arts and sciences connected therewith.

The charter thus links the advancement of architecture to the acquirement of knowledge. When one places this against the definition of research given for the UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), “research is to be understood as original investigation undertaken in order to gain knowledge and understanding”, one could argue that research should be at the core of RIBA ’s activities. This essay is based on the premise that architecture is a form of knowledge that can and should be developed through research, and that good research can be identified by applying the triple test of originality, significance and rigor. However, to develop this argument, it is first necessary to abandon three myths that have evolved around architectural research, and which have held back the development of research in our field.

Myth One: Architecture is just architecture

The first myth is that architecture is so different as a discipline and form of knowledge, that normal research definitions or processes cannot be applied to it.[1] “We are so unlike you,” the argument goes, “that you cannot understand how we work.” This myth has for too long been used as an excuse for the avoidance of research and the concomitant reliance on unspecified but supposedly powerful forces of creativity and professional authority. This myth looks to the muse of genius for succor, with the impulsive gestures of the individual architect seen to exceed the dry channels of research as the catalyst for architectural production. The problem is that these impulses are, almost by definition, beyond explanation and so the production of architecture is left mythologized rather than subjected to clear analysis. Architecture is limited to a form of semi-mystical activity, with the architect, as heroic genius, acting as the lightning rod for the storm of forces that goes into the making of buildings. This first myth also treats architecture as an autonomous discipline, beyond the reaches or control of outside influences, including those of normative research methodologies. This leads to the separation of architecture from other disciplines and their criteria for rigor. Self-referential arguments, be they theories of type, aesthetics or technique, are allowed to evolve beyond the remit or influence of accepted standards, and research into these arguments is conducted on architecture’s own terms.

The myth that architecture is just architecture, founded on the twin notions of genius and autonomy, leads eventually to the marginalization of architecture. A knowledge base is developed only fitfully and so architecture becomes increasingly irrelevant and, ultimately, irresponsible.

Myth Two: Architecture is not architecture

The second myth works in opposition to the first and argues that in order to establish itself as a credible and ‘strong’ epistemology, architecture must turn to other disciplines for authority. Architecture is stretched along a line from the arts to the sciences and then sliced into discrete chunks, each of which is subjected to the methods and values of another intellectual area. For example, the highly influential 1960s Oxford Conference on architectural education looked to scientific research as the means of establishing architecture within the academy. More recently architectural theory has immersed itself in the further reaches of critical theory in an effort to legitimize itself on the back of other discourses. In both these cases, and others that also rely on specific intellectual paradigms, architecture’s particularity is placed within a methodological straightjacket. In turning to others, architecture forgets what it might be in itself. The second myth, that architecture is not architecture, in editing the complexity of architecture thus describes it as something that it may not be. It is a myth fuelled by the funding mechanisms for research, with the various research councils defining acceptable areas through particular research paradigms, which simply do not fit the breadth of architecture.

Interestingly Myth One and Myth Two can and do operate in parallel, often within the same institution. Thus it is common to find the design core of a School of Architecture – playing out myth one - physically and intellectually separate from the ‘research’ core, with mutual antipathy between the two.

Myth Three: Building a building is research

The third myth is that designing a building is a form of research in its own right. It is a myth that allows architects and architectural academics to eschew the norms of research (and also to complain when those norms are used to critique buildings as research proposals). The argument to support this myth goes something like this:

• Architectural knowledge ultimately resides in the built object
• Every building is by definition unique and thus original 
• The production of buildings can thus be defined as the production of original knowledge
• This is a definition of research

It is compelling enough an argument to allow generations of architects (as well as designers and artists) to feel confident in saying that the very act of making is sufficient in terms of conducting research, and then to argue that the evidence is in front of all our eyes if we would just choose to look. However, it is also an argument that leads to denial of the real benefits of research, and so it is worth unpicking.

• Architectural knowledge may lie to some extent in the building, but it also lies elsewhere: in the processes that lead to the building, in the representation of the building, in its use, in the theories beyond the building, in the multiple interpretations of the building and so on. Architecture exceeds the building as object, just as art exceeds the painting as object. Architectural research must therefore address this expanded field.
• A ‘good’ building is not necessarily good research. Architecture is often described as ‘good’ because it fits into known and tested canons of taste, type or tectonics. But this ‘goodness’ does not necessarily constitute good research, in so much as it is not particularly original or significant. A ‘good’ building, far from pushing towards new forms of knowledge, merely establishes or incrementally shifts the status quo. The various architectural award systems consolidate and perpetuate such attitudes.
• Good research may lead to ‘bad’ buildings. For example the technologies and construction procedures of food distribution centers are pioneering in many ways and based on systematic research into the various options, but the resulting buildings clearly do not fit received values of what constitutes good aesthetics or tectonics. Of course ‘good’ buildings dominate architectural culture, which means that the research lessons from the ‘bad’ buildings are hardly ever transferred across.
• If we take Bruce Archer’s definition of research (that it is “systematic inquiry whose goal is communicable knowledge”), then the building as building fails the test. While architects may believe that knowledge is there in the building to appropriated by critics, users or other architects, they very rarely explicitly communicate the knowledge. The knowledge remains tacit, thereby failing Archer’s second test of communicability.

Designing a building is thus not necessarily research. The building as building reduces architecture to mute objects. These in themselves are not sufficient as the stuff of research inquiry. In order to move things on, to add to the store of knowledge, we need to understand the processes that led to the object and to interrogate the life of the object after its completion.

Making Architecture Speak

Against these myths, one has to understand that architecture has its own particular knowledge base and procedures. This particularity does not mean that one should avoid the normal expectations of research, but in fact demands us to define clearly the context, scope and modes of research appropriate to architecture, whilst at the same time employing the generic definitions of research in terms of originality, significance and rigor.

The normal stretching of the field of architecture along the arts to science line (with the social sciences somewhere in the middle) results in each place along the line being researched according to a particular paradigm and methodology from the research spectrum. This ignores design, which is clearly an essential feature of architectural production; design cannot be so easily categorized as a qualitative or quantitative activity, but should be seen as one that synthesizes a range of intellectual approaches. Architectural research is better described by Christopher Frayling’s oft-cited triad of research ‘into’, ‘for’ and ‘through.’[2] Frayling developed this approach for design research in order to address the specific relationship between design and research. In this model, research ‘into’ takes architecture as its subject matter, for instance in historical research, or explanatory studies of building performance. Research ‘for’ refers to specifically aimed at future applications, including the development of new materials, typologies and technologies; it is often driven by the perceived needs of the sector. Research ‘through’ uses architectural design and production as a part of the research methodology itself.

Architectural research may be seen to have two main contexts for its production, the academy and practice. Research ‘in’ is traditionally the domain of the academy and research ‘through’ that of practice, with research ‘for’ somewhere in the middle. Research ‘in’ has the most clearly defined methodologies and research outcomes, but at the same time is probably the most hermetic. Research ‘through’ is probably the least defined and often the most tacit but at the same time a key defining aspect of architectural research. It is this area that needs developing most of all.

It is vital that neither academic or practice-based is privileged over the other as a superior form of research, and equally vital that neither is dismissed by the other for being irrelevant. (“You are all out of touch with reality,” says the practitioner. “You are muddied by the market and philistinism,” says the academic). There is an unnecessary antipathy of one camp to the other, which means that in the end the worth of research in developing a sustainable knowledge base is devalued.

The key to overcoming this problem lies in communication. Both the academy and practice often do not meet this central test for research: the academy because of its inward looking processes, practice because of its lack of rigorous dissemination. Whilst academic research is subjected to stringent peer review and assessment procedures, it has been argued that this had led to inward-looking results produced more for the self-sustaining benefit of the academic community and less for the wider public and professional good. On the practice side, much of the most innovative research in design and, particularly, technology is founded in practice. However, much of this research remains tacit; it is either, for commercial reasons, not shared with the rest of the community or else in its dissemination through the press is not communicated with the rigor it deserves. For the leading practices intellectual property is what defines them and sustains them, and they understandably are loath to give it away. Research goes on, but silently. The development of architectural knowledge happens but fitfully, and so the long-term sustainability of the profession is threatened. To avoid this, we need to make architecture speak.

A New Model for Architectural Research

As we have seen, the stretching of architecture across separate areas of knowledge does not address the particular need for architectural knowledge and practice to be integrative across epistemological boundaries. Buildings as physical products function in a number of independent but interactive ways – they are structural entities, they act as environmental modifiers, they function socially, culturally and economically. Each of these types of function can be analyzed separately but the built form itself unifies and brings them together in such a way that they interact. Research into architecture thus has to be conscious of these interactions across traditionally separate intellectual fields.

In order to give some clarity to the scope of architectural research, these interactions can be divided into three stages:

• Architectural processes
• Architectural products
• Architectural performance

The first stage, process, refers to research into processes involved in the design and construction of buildings, and thus might include for example issues of representation, theories of design, modeling of the environment, and so on. The second, product, refers to research into buildings as projected or completed objects and systems and might include for example issues of aesthetics, materials, constructional techniques and so on. The third stage, performance, refers to research into buildings once completed and might for example include issues of social occupation, environmental performance, cultural assimilation, and so on. The advantage of this model is that it avoids the science/art and qualitative/quantitative splits, and allows interdisciplinary research into any of three stages. The model thus breaks the hold of research method and allows instead thematic approaches to emerge. It is possible for scientist and historian, academic and practitioner, to contribute to the research into each of the three stages.

Most importantly the model also describes architecture temporally (as opposed to a set of static fragments), with one stage leading to another and, crucially, creating an iterative loop in which one stage is informed by another. For research to be most effective, and thus for architectural knowledge to develop, it has to feed this loop. For example:

• Research into performance in use informing the processes of design. 
• Research into the products of design looking backwards to knowledge about the processes of design.
• Research into the performance of buildings being critically informed by knowledge of the processes of architecture.

A dynamic system thus emerges from this tripartite model, but it will only operate if academia and practice collaborate in order that the loop is continually fed with both data and analysis. However, this will open happen once we have cleared the three myths out of the way, and accept that architecture can, and should, be a research discipline in its own right, which both accords to the accepted criteria of research, but at the same time applies them in a manner appropriate to the issues at hand. There is some urgency in this, because as long as architecture fiddles around at the margins of the research debate, it will be confined to the margins of the development of knowledge. The present state of architecture, increasingly used to provide a velvet glove of aesthetics for the iron fist of the instrumental production of the capitalist built environment, is perhaps indicative that the state of marginality has been reached. The establishment of the discipline founded on research-led knowledge in the manner outlined above may be one small way of claiming a bit more of the center ground.

Jeremy Till is Head of Central Saint Martin and Pro Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Arts London .

A version of this paper was first written as a position paper for the RIBA Research Committee, and subsequently published on the RIBA Research Wiki. This is the reason that it starts with the RIBA Charter.

• In an exhaustive research project carried by Edinburgh College of Art in 2004, a significant minority of responders still clung to this belief. See Jenkins. P, L.Forsyth and H. Smith., "Research in UK Architecture Schools – an institutional perspective," Architectural Research Quarterly , Vol. 9, Issue 1, March 2005, pp33-43
• Frayling, C., Research in art and design , (London: Royal College of Art: Research Paper, 1993)

• Sustainability

世界上最受欢迎的建筑网站现已推出你的母语版本!

想浏览archdaily中国吗, you've started following your first account, did you know.

You'll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Use of Qualitative Research in Architectural Design and Evaluation of the Built Environment

2015, Procedia Manufacturing

Related Papers

IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

Anna Gumińska

Revitalizations are becoming a common activity giving new life to the abandoned buildings, districts, degraded areas, etc. The necessity of such actions results, among others, from the changing needs of users of these spaces, climate change and new technologies used. These activities are a strategic element of urban policy. They also fit into the context of sustainable development, causing a change in the value, reception and perception of degraded spaces and objects. New functions give a new quality, but also affect the neighbourhood, improve the quality of the immediate environment. They also enable the elimination of spatial conflicts, as well as the introduction of ecosystem services that reinforce the multi-range potential of these areas and facilities. During the study trips, the authors analyse in detail interesting examples of successful revitalization. The revitalizations are discussed: the factory building in Venice on the Giudecca Island (Italy), the entire quarter in the...

Architecture Civil Engineering Environment

Małgorzata Jastrzębska

The paper is the second part of the description of an interdisciplinary research concerning the modernization of laboratories at the Faculty of Civil Engineering, The Silesian University of Technology. This paper was focused on the conditions concerning the specific nature of laboratory works involving geotechnics and the methodology of pre-design studies performed in stages. The recapitulation contained the conclusions and a presentation of design solutions based on the conducted research. This text constitutes a continuation of the paper: ERGONOMICS OF LABORATORY ROOMS – CASE STUDIES BASED ON THE GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORIES AT THE SILESIAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY.

Sustainability

Michal Stangel

While there is a growing general awareness of sustainable development challenges among the students in Poland, the transition from a general notion to specific applications on various scales of designing the built environment is still a challenge. The described experience was aimed at setting up engaging learning experiences to improve education in sustainable urban design. In the presented case, introducing sustainability issues in urban design education was fostered by sharing international best practices and experiences through a Fulbright Specialist project, which allowed a range of means and opportunities to share knowledge and expertise in sustainable urban design. The Fulbright Specialist Program provides short-term consultancies of U.S. established professionals as experts on curriculum, faculty development, institutional planning, etc. In the discussed project, implemented in Poland, an American expert in real estate and sustainable urban development shared her experiences ...

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Katarzyna Ujma-Wąsowicz

Filip Piaścik

Joanna Bartnicka

The paper is an attempt to determine the assumptions for the development of working conditions including the needs of people with disabilities and the elderly. The basis for the development of assumptions were the experiences in the field of analysis of working conditions, mainly in health units and shaping of public space through innovative non-discriminatory solutions. Three main areas have been presented in the article, in which the transfer of knowledge may be acquired during the study: the area of ergonomics (ERG), the area of accessibility of work space with the relation of freedom in mobility and safety (SPA), and the area of information availability (INF). The considerations included in the article apply in the concept of Design for All (DFA), which is the one of the pillars of European Union directives, entitled European act on the availability, being a respond to the demographic challenge by increasing participation in the labour market and society for all.

An key part of the transformation and regeneration of the centre of Katowice is the emergence of an academic quarter. The Municipality of Katowice and University of Silesia conducted a workshop on the concepts of integrating an urban student centre. The proposed solutions were targeted at creating a student centre integrated with other public sites of Katowice, improving the attractiveness of the Rawa riverside, and providing a competitive advantage for the city of Katowice over other university cities in Poland.

Marek Salamak , Klaudiusz Fross

Bridges serve several functions but the main is of course to cross an obstacle and get to the other side. Bridges are often treated as an indicator of progress and engineering skills as well as a symbol of the economic potential of a city, region or country. This is why many urban bridges have become the most important structures in the cities. The paper discusses several examples of bridges that have a significant impact on the perception of the city or even the change of terrain configuration.

Transfer of knowledge and innovations in shaping working

RELATED PAPERS

Architectural Engineering and Design Management

Mohammad Hamida

Alessia Allegri

Agnieszka Bugno-Janik

Magdalena Żmudzińska

Katarzyna Rosłon

Erminia Attaianese

Advances in Human Computer Interaction

Katarzyna Ujma-Wąsowicz

Architecture, Civil Engineering, Environment

Agata Twardoch

Magdalena Żmudzińska , Jakub Bródka

Rafał Szrajber

Michal Stangel , Aleksandra Witeczek

Beata Komar

Anett Mizsei

Piotr Kmiecik , Jakub Świerzawski

Erkan Polat

Mariusz Szóstak

Advanced Engineering Forum

Tomasz Bradecki

Konrad Urbanowicz

MAZOWSZE Studia Regionalne

Małgorzata Kampka

Wojciech Bonenberg

Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Philosophica. Ethica-Aesthetica-Practica

elza cristina santos

Paolo Strina

Marcin Gorski

Bradecki, T., Stangel, M.: Freehand drawing for understanding and imagining urban space in design education. ACEE 2/2014

Cesar Bandera

Studia Regionalia

Prof. (Dr.) Jayeshkumar Pitroda

Muzeológia a kultúrne dedičstvo

Alicja Krzemińska , Janusz Łach

Lamberto Amistadi

Dorota Idziaszczyk , Bogusz Wisnicki

Valter Balducci

Angelika Lasiewicz-Sych

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSERVATION SCIENCE

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

World Conference on Qualitative Research

WCQR 2018: Computer Supported Qualitative Research pp 210–222 Cite as

Qualitative Architecture. A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Provision of Social Housing. Case Study Cuenca - Ecuador

• Marco Avila Calle   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2134-1432 17 ,
• Mauricio Orellana Quezada   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2423-7526 17 ,
• Jorge Toledo Toledo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0007-7510 17 ,
• María de los Ángeles Tello Atiencia   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0794-5600 17 &
• Federico Córdova González 17  
• Conference paper
• First Online: 27 September 2018

1054 Accesses

2 Citations

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 861))

The cost of social housing is very high in Ecuador and in some Latin American countries, so the social class with low economic resources cannot access these housing programs, which is why self-construction has become the only viable alternative. to obtain housing in this social level. In the present investigation of qualitative and multidisciplinary approach, the social and habitability conditions presented by the population of low economic resources categorized in social stratum C- in the city of Cuenca are analyzed, in order to establish the spatial and constructive requirements, which allows generating design strategies to achieve a sustainable and affordable housing proposal for the social study group, guaranteeing covering the qualitative and quantitative deficit of housing in the city, thus improving the perception of the quality of life of the users.

• Qualitative research
• Constant comparative
• Social housing
• Architecture

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Códigos Unesco: Nomenclatura para los campos de las ciencias y las tecnologías, 1–57 (n.d.). https://upct.es/contenido/doctorado/Documentos/2012/CODIGOS_UNESCO.pdf

Estudio del BID: América Latina y el Caribe encaran creciente déficit de vivienda | IADB (n.d.). https://www.iadb.org/es/noticias/comunicados-de-prensa/2012-05-14/deficit-de-vivienda-en-america-latina-y-el-caribe%2C9978.html#getNews(9969,’’) . Accessed 1 Feb 2018

Pérez, C.B.: Vivienda saludable: un espacio de salud pública. Revista Cubana de Higiene y Epidemiologia 50 (2), 131–135 (2012)

Google Scholar  

Inmobiliario, M.: Boletín CF + S 29/30, Junio 2005

Muñoz, O., Patricia, P., Ochoa, R., Maritza, J.: Estudio de Factibilidad Financiera para la Construcción y Comercialización de casas, Ubicadas en el sector de Challuabamba en la ciudad de Cuenca Estudio de Factibilidad Financiera para la construcción y, 111 (2011). http://www.google.com.ec/url?sa = t&rct = j&q = &esrc = s&source = web&cd = 5&cad = rja&uact = 8&ved = 0CEMQFjAE&url = http://dspace.ups.edu.ec/bitstream/123456789/1294/14/UPS-CT002241.pdf&ei = QDRdU4OmN8ThsAStzIGwCA&usg = AFQjCNGTHZxGEA7Du4Arh96knIL4qruFaQ&bvm = bv.65397613,d.cWc

Rodas, A.P.: La habitabilidad en la vivienda social en Ecuador a partir de la visión de la complejidad: elaboración de un sistema de análisis. In: X Seminario Investigación Urbana y Regional. POLÍTICAS DE VIVIENDA Y DERECHOS HABITACIONALES. Reflexiones Sobre La Justicia Espacial En La Ciudad Latinoamericana, pp. 1–10 (n.d.)

Strauss, A., Corbin, J.: Bases de la investigación cualitativa: técnicas y procedimientos para desarrollar la teoría fundamentada (2002). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153

Carrillo Pineda, M., Leyva-Moral, J.M., Medina Moya, J.L.: El análisis de los datos cualitativos: un proceso complejo. Index de Enfermería 20 (1–2), 96–100 (2011). https://doi.org/10.4321/S1132-12962011000100020

Article   Google Scholar  

Sandoval Casilimas, C.: Investigación cualitativa. Módulo (1996). ISBN: 958-9329-18-7

García, J.A.: Métodos y técnicas cualitativas en la investigación de la ciudad, 79–85 (n.d.)

Hernández Sampieri, R., et al.: Capítulo 14. Recolección y análisis de los datos cualitativos, Metodología de La Investigación (2006)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Catholic University of Cuenca, Academic Unit of Engineering, Industry and Construction, Av. De las Americas and General Torres corner s/n, Cuenca, Ecuador

Marco Avila Calle, Mauricio Orellana Quezada, Jorge Toledo Toledo, María de los Ángeles Tello Atiencia & Federico Córdova González

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Avila Calle .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Education and Psychology, Didactics and Technology in Teacher Education (CIDTFF) Research Centre, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

António Pedro Costa

Informatics Engineering Department Faculty of Engineering LIACC Research Center, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

Luís Paulo Reis

António Moreira

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Avila Calle, M., Orellana Quezada, M., Toledo Toledo, J., Tello Atiencia, M.d.l.Á., Córdova González, F. (2019). Qualitative Architecture. A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Provision of Social Housing. Case Study Cuenca - Ecuador. In: Costa, A., Reis, L., Moreira, A. (eds) Computer Supported Qualitative Research. WCQR 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 861. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01406-3_18

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01406-3_18

Published : 27 September 2018

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-01405-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-01406-3

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An interdisciplinary debate on project perspectives

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 23 December 2014

An activity theory of research methods in architecture and urbanism

• Michael AR Biggs 1  

City, Territory and Architecture volume  1 , Article number:  16 ( 2014 ) Cite this article

12k Accesses

1 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Using activity theory this article argues that intentional activities are central to knowledge-production and may be compared to methods in research, and the worldview within which these activities are perceived as meaningful by the actors who deploy them may be compared to methodologies. Accordingly, research activities are dependent on their context and cannot simply be transferred from one context to another.

Taking the scientific method as an example, the article discusses the underlying materialist assumptions that give the scientific method its meaning, and that helps to identify selective data as evidence for its propositions. By exposing this process as one of narrative construction that is situated and given meaning by the community that deploys it, the article argues that alternative narratives are possible and argues against the assumption that data and evidence are neutral or objective. The purpose of this argument is not to undermine the scientific method, but merely to show that its power lies in the strong connection between the worldview of science and the methods it employs for its development, with the intention of providing a similarly robust framework for architecture and urbanism.

The article rejects ontological and epistemological accounts of knowledge production in favour of a socio-cultural approach that sees a community of academics and professionals, such as those in science or in architecture and urbanism, as an interpretative community of shared values and beliefs. These communities share fundamental views about the nature of their disciplines and what is important within them. As a result they determine through their practices what kind of questions are important and what kind of responses are meaningful.

In the field of research, they also determine what research outcomes are significant and impactful, and hence represent an advance or knowledge production in the field.

Conclusions

On this basis, a proposal is made in which architecture and urbanism is one such interpretative community supporting methodologies and research methods, resulting in a framework for the further development of research practices and research by design.

According to activity theory, we construct our reality as a consequence of our actions. Who we are, and what we do, does not only define us in the eyes of those around us, but also determines how we see the world and what it offers us. For example, Gibson ([ 1986 ] [1979]) formulated his notion of “affordances” as a way of explaining how it is that some situations and objects seem to present themselves to us as things we can use. Wittgenstein ([ 1953 ]) talks about “language games” in which we share common attitudes towards the world and what it presents to us. These accounts, and many others, present a constructivist worldview in which we make or construct an interpretation of the world that facilitates certain interactions and limits others. This constructivist worldview can be contrasted with the scientific worldview in which everything about the real world lies out there to be discovered, independently of our attitudes or interpretations of it. Popper ([ 2002 ] [1963]) has problematized this ‘naïve’ , Realist account of the scientific worldview by pointing out that science is just as speculative as other disciplines, and that notions of disinterested deductions based on neutral data or evidence are unrealistic accounts of the kind of motivated or hypothesis-driven actions that scientists actually undertake in the laboratory in pursuit of the confirmation of their goals. Feyerabend ([ 1993 ] [1975]) has argued that even the claims of motivated or hypothesis-driven actions cannot really be defended and science is a much more creative and arbitrary business than is stereotypically assumed. Latour and Woolgar ([ 1986 ]) have exposed the human, interested, motivated world of the science laboratory that is usually excluded from accounts of scientific enquiry, and Bloor ([ 1991 ] [1976]) has taken this further by arguing that all kinds of knowledge, including the most apparently human-independent, is motivated and arises in a context of values and beliefs.

In response to the postmodern scepticism about the possibility of independent, value-free and belief-free knowledge production and the truth-claims of contemporary science, one can find debate about what methods should be required to improve the validity and reliability of research, and even whether these requirements are fundamental. The exact meaning of the notions of validity and reliability are context-dependent having, for example, different interpretations when applied to quantitative or qualitative data and methods. Indeed, in creative arts including architecture and urbanism, music, etc., there is disagreement about whether validity or reliability have any meaning in research. Nonetheless, in all areas, the general idea of how our practical actions can be mobilised into knowledge-production activities is a topical academic issue.

According to activity theory, an activity is an organised set of actions that combine together to construct our reality (Engeström et al. [ 1999 ]). Activities are therefore central to knowledge-production. We can consider activities as corresponding to methods in research, and the worldview within which these activities are perceived as meaningful by the actors who deploy them, as methodologies. Methodologies are value and belief sets that provide an interpretative framework for understanding the impact and significance of those activities.

Wittgenstein tells us that something is an answer to a question when it makes that question go away (1953) -- questioning is a kind of malady, a disquiet, that requires the remedy of a particular response for us to feel calm again. If we are architects, and our interest lies in the uses of architecture to understand the world, then our issues and concerns are going to be architectural, in the sense of “related to architecture”, and the responses that we seek are going to be architectural too. Sociological or astronomical responses are not going to satisfy us if we have an architectural question: only an architectural answer will satisfy us. Thus all our questions, and what we take to be answers to them, occur in a context, for example architecture or astronomy.

In research terms we occupy a worldview in which certain issues are meaningful and others are not. The term “meaningful” is adopted from Hirsch ([ 1984 ]), and refers to whether something is relevant to our field of interest. Similarly, certain responses or methods are going to be productive, or “significant” as Hirsch would say, and others are not. In any one research project, our research methodology or activity is going to determine a set of methods or actions that are deemed appropriate by ourselves and by our peers, with the potential to produce a significant response to our research question or issue. Ensuring the relevance, appropriateness and productivity of our method is part of making a research proposal, and explains how it is that we can write a proposal in a creative area such as architecture. An architectural research proposal does not anticipate the outcome of the research, as does the hypothetico-deductive scientific method, nor does it stifle creativity or serendipity. An architectural research proposal agues that undertaking a specified series of actions is a meaningful activity for the community of architect-peers who represent the users of the research outcomes. Coyne, writing about architects, describes such peer groups as “interpretative communities” in which “words and ideas are always half someone else’s” (Coyne [ 2009 ]). A successful research proposal therefore satisfies its interpretative community that the proposed activities are meaningful and therefore have the potential to produce outcomes that are significant to them (Hirsch [ 1984 ]).

Situating activity in a social context and in an interpretative community of users also provides us with evaluative tools, not only for assessing the appropriateness of the proposed methods, but also of assessing the appropriateness of data. In any given context, some things may count as data and others not. For example, in a murder trial, the blood on a blood-stained knife may be considered data relevant to the trial, but in a cookery competition it simply shows that basic hygiene standards have not been observed. Information only becomes data in relation to an objective. Data-gathering is therefore a constructive activity that reveals or responds to a worldview in which the information that is gathered has some use in relation to an activity. In considering the question of whether “doing architecture is doing research”, Till adopts an activity-theoretic model of architectural research when he says that “to add to the store of knowledge, we need to understand the process that led to the object” (Till [ 2011 ]).

This generic activity-theoretic account of research and knowledge production can now be used to discuss certain issues regarding research in creative arts [broadly construed to include creative aspects of arts, music, performance, architecture, etc.], and specifically to discuss the issue of validity in research and evaluation methods. The account can either be used to determine whether a particular method or action is appropriate in relation to a situated question, or it can be used to reveal the underlying methodological assumptions or worldview held by the advocates of a particular activity. In other words, one can use an activity-theoretic account to explain why an architectural activity is appropriate in response to an architectural question, i.e. a question posed in the context of architecture; or one can use it to identify the architectural worldview and values within which a response is perceived as meaningful by the interpretative community of architects. Within any particular worldview, certain data will be selected by the community as evidence for its research and other data will be overlooked or rejected.

The introduction of evidence-based assessment presents some interesting challenges for areas such as creative arts. On the one hand, it seems undeniable that decisions about funding or the evaluation of quality should be based on some kind of evidence. The counter position would seem to be absurd: that we should make decisions without evidence. But the question immediately arises, what constitutes evidence in such areas? This question, and related ones such as the impact on decision-making of choosing one kind of data over another as evidence, has plagued the design of research assessment systems around the world including the Australian “excellence in research for Australia” [ERA], the New Zealand “performance-based research fund” [PBRF], and the UK “research assessment exercise/research excellence framework” [RAE/REF], etc.

The assumption normally made in the design of research assessment and quality assurance systems -- that by grounding our decision-making in evidence we are somehow protected from error -- can be easily challenged. Take, for example, a commonplace example of the courtroom and how evidence is used. In the British court there is a requirement known as disclosure. Disclosure means that all of the evidence that will be produced in court is disclosed in advance by the prosecution to the defence and vice versa. As a result no new evidence is presented in court and none of the evidence that is used comes as a surprise to either side. One can therefore see that the basis for the argument presented by the prosecution is a singular narrative woven from the shared evidence, rather than being based in the use of different evidence from that deployed by the defence. This is itself is sufficient to show that a particular argument or outcome is not solely determined by the evidence that is used. In the courtroom we regularly see two different narratives being woven from the same evidence. Indeed, in the courtroom these narratives point to two completely opposed outcomes: guilt or innocence. It is the brief of the prosecution to assume that the defendant is guilty and to construe the evidence in such a way as to demonstrate that guilt. On the other hand, it is the brief of the defence to assume the innocence of the defendant and to construe the same evidence in such a way as to demonstrate that innocence. This reveals that it is false to assume that data alone, or evidence-based assessment, has the potential to point us towards a single narrative or argument leading to an incontrovertible conclusion in research.

Stepping back from the micro to the macro level, it has also been argued that many key scientific or sociological advances are themselves based on ungrounded assumptions, or on a persuasive narrative, in favour of a particular position at the expense of alternatives (Bloor [ 1991 ] [1976]). These grand narratives of science and of our contemporary society are not deliberate attempts to mislead, but are based on a series of motivated decisions that are to some extent discretionary. In other words, we have chosen certain data in preference to others and in another time and in another place we might have had reasons to prefer different data and come to different conclusions. Bloor’s scepticism is sufficiently radical that one might conclude that unmotivated decisions are impossible and every alterntive universe would be equally valid. However, it is the purpose of his Strong Programme in the sociology of scientific knowledge to simply problematize some of the fundamental assumptions of our scientific belief systems rather than to refute them. At this macro level the activity-theoretic conclusion is neither that evidence-based assessment must provide a robust foundation to any research evaluation, nor does it point towards a singular narrative or framework within which research must necessarily be assessed. So what does the activity-theoretic model offer?

If one takes Bloor’s criticisms seriously, the impact on research and its assessment in interpretative areas such as creative arts is dramatic. Not only does it add to the argument for the equal legitimacy of qualitative with quantitative methods, it challenges many of the fundamental assumptions made within the Western intellectual tradition about the necessary connection between conservative models of thought and knowledge production (Searle [ 1993 ]), thought and language (Whorf [ 1941 ]), and broadens the paradigms of thought and understanding described by Guba and Lincoln ([ 2005 ]). By legitimising alternative ways of interpreting data, and indeed what we might accept as data, the field of architectural research is given a voice with which to express alternative socio-cultural values and to describe how these values give rise to alternative, productive insights and understandings to traditional models of academic research, i.e. significant research outcomes, based in professional practices, which have potential impact.

Institutions of legitimacy have gradually shifted. In medieval times the church legitimized all knowledge, and the universities evolved out of these monastic institutions carrying forward their power to determine what constitutes new knowledge. Later one can identify a distinction between practical and professional knowledge on the one hand -- which was learned through the system of apprenticeships and was legitimized by the medieval guilds -- and academic knowledge that was legitimized by the universities on the other. Bourdieu has argued that there is a struggle for legitimacy between these societally authorized institutions and one might conclude that in contemporary times the universities have emerged as the dominant legitimizing power (Bourdieu [ 1988 ] [1984]). But according to a socio-cultural perspective, it is not so much that one institution dominates the other by virtue of the power of its knowledge-creating tools, so much as one institution emerging as societally dominant over another. Deer ([ 2002 ]) observes that the dominance of the university over the polytechnic in the higher education sector in the UK was a consequence of political decisions based largely on perceptions of increased economic efficiency rather than any fundamental superiority of academic knowledge production over professional know-how.

Instead of thinking that either reality, i.e. our data, or the nature of a particular field and its narratives; determine a professional activity; I would like to address this the other way around. We can diagnose the implicit values that are held in a field from the authorized activities of members of that field. If we look at the hard sciences, we can see that the procedures adopted in science tend to minimize the role of the opinions and the personality of the individual scientist herself, and maximize the claims that she is making for the objectivity of the findings. Broadly speaking, science tries to make claims about an external world that exists independently of the observer. This is a form of material Realism, and as a result, science tends to focus on the material aspects of this external world by looking at molecules and atoms, physical objects, chemical reactions, etc., and explaining them in causal ways that suggest that these actions and interactions go on independently of the observer. This explains why the scientist employs quantitative techniques that obviate the biases, interests and eccentricities of the individual person. This is based on a quite different set of basic assumptions from the ones made by the sociologist. The sociologist is interested in the social interaction of human beings that includes the opinions and personalities of the individuals concerned. It is essentially a science of the social world rather than a science of the material world. This explains why the sociologist employs qualitative techniques that value the biases, interests and eccentricities of the individual person. Even when adopting quantitative approaches, sociology has developed new methods of statistical analysis, such as Geometric Data Analysis, that reflect these complex relationships.

Results and discussion

At University of Hertfordshire we undertook some research using the data from the UK Research Assessment Exercise 2008 (Biggs and Büchler [ 2013 ]). The RAE data is organised in fields including one called “output type”. The output type records whether a research output is a journal article, a book, a building, etc. On reflection the mere presence of this category tells us something about research and research methods. It apparently says that an artefact or a design or a piece of music is not itself a research method, but an output type. Now perhaps nobody in creative arts was claiming that a building, a design, or a musical composition is a research method, but I suspect we can find some such claims in the literature. In earlier research I undertook an ontological investigation into research methods in creative arts and asked the question “what is the function of a research method?”. I concluded that a research method in any discipline has a structural role that connects the research issue to the research outcome or response (Biggs and Büchler [ 2007 ]). If an appropriate research method is chosen, then it ensures at the answer is meaningfully connected to the question and that the results or conclusions that are obtained are legitimate in the eyes of the community who recognise the appropriateness of the research method to the task at hand (Biggs [ 2004 ]). In terms of the present article this could be called an activity-theoretic account. This structural description also suggests that the research method occupies a position in between the research question and the research outcome (Biggs and Büchler [ 2008 ]), which corresponds to the differentiation by the RAE 2008 between an output type and a research method. In other words, we have research question in Position 1, we have research methods and activities in Position 2 and we have conclusions, artefacts, outcomes and output types in Position 3.

More recently I have rejected my previous ontological approach to understanding the nature of research, in favour of an explicitly socio-cultural approach (Biggs and Büchler [ 2011 ]). In a socio-cultural approach one does not look for fundamental definitions or criteria as one does in the ontological approach, and one looks instead for community endorsement and authorisation of certain practices. If one looks at research conducted in creative areas one will find that making a building or a design or a piece of music is regarded by some of the community as a legitimate research activity (JAR [ 2013 ]). In terms of the activity-theoretic model above, Position 2 is legitimized by the interpretative community who find the questions in Position1 worth asking, and the answers in Position 3 satisfying. As a result, we need to ask what kind of research methods are legitimised by the community and lead to valid and significant research outputs such as buildings, designs and music?

Research methods have a particular role within what can be called the “research net”. The traditional academic research net, which is derived from the hypothetico-deductive scientific method, includes an explicit research question or topic, the context in which this topic arises including the research work of other people in the field, the research methods that will be used in order to gather and analyse information or artefacts that are relevant to the question, and the outcomes of the research in terms of answers, responses, collections of work, exhibitions, etc. In some cases outputs and outcomes are differentiated, where the former are things that are created during the research project, and the latter are the conclusions, findings or “results”.

Activity theory interprets research methods as having an instrumental role to play in getting us from our question to our answer – they are integral to Wittgensteinian therapy for stuck epistemologists. The starting point is the research question but in framing the next few stages we will want to keep an eye on the kind of outputs that we are interested in generating. As an architect we will, quite legitimately, have an interest in ensuring that some of the outcomes will be buildings, i.e. retro-fitting the question to the methods. Indeed, this may be a requirement of a funding agency or an end result such as an commissioned project. This will frame the range of methods that we think are relevant to our enquiry because these methods must produce architecture. But inasmuch as the production of architecture is some kind of response to the question, so the research method is formative of of this architectural production. This can be seen at work in the architect’s studio when Schön ([ 1983 ]) adopted an ethnographic approach to observing the teacher and the student. The teacher tries to “frame” the question in was that facilitate a designed response by the student. Other ethnographic descriptions of the process reveal the instrumentality of the educational process (Cuff [ 1992 ]), or of the studio itself (Yaneva [ 2009 ]) in determining acceptable responses. More broadly, and non-architecturally, if I am a sociologist I might always be interested in what people have to say about their environment and therefore I will always want to ensure that my research methods include talking to people, interviewing them, reading what they have written such as their diaries, finding historical accounts by people from the past, etc. Depending on my research question I may choose a research method such as semi-structured interviews or ethnographic participant-observation in order to gather data that has the potential to tell me something about my research question. In such cases, the interviews that are gathered form the data for subsequent analysis. Alternatively the visual artist may generate artworks that form data for subsequent analysis. The sociologist or ethnographer will need a particular technique in order to analyse the written accounts that form the data. The selection of data and the form of analysis constitute the research method. If visual designs form data within a project then that data will need to be analysed using an explicit research method such as visual content analysis, etc.

On the other hand we need to address the situation in which the creative products are more integral to the research and are not merely data. We could imagine a journey that the artist takes and that the journey through the landscape is in some ways documented by the production of artefacts. In such cases it seems to me that the rationale for producing artworks is one of documentation, but also one in which there is some kind of re-creation or symbolic or metaphorical manifestation of the landscape experience had by the artist that is in some way recreated in the exhibition. In a project of this kind the research method would be the particular way in which the artist has imported or represented the landscape experience into the artwork. This may be explicitly encoded such as happens in the case of process art, e.g. the poet Kenneth Goldsmith, that requires us to be familiar with the style of the artist in order to understand what it is that he or she does when she brings us an experience through the format of the exhibition. In either case, or anywhere in the scale of possibilities in between, the mere production of the artwork is not the method but how the production of artwork addresses the question and leads us to the outcome of the research. Thus a research method is a link in the chain that validates the selection of data and the production of outputs such as paintings or buildings.

I have previously defined the research method as determining the connection between the research answer and the research question (Biggs and Büchler [ 2007 ]). We can evaluate the rigour of the research method by the persuasiveness with which it will take us from the question to the answer. An inappropriate or invalid research method will either not generate an answer to the question, or will not result in a meaningful or significant answer to the question. In this context, “meaningful” responds to the fitness for purpose of the answer, i.e. an architectural answer to an architectural question; and the “significance” responds to the impact of the answer or its contribution on the community who uses it. One could object to an inappropriate research method by saying “if I wanted to answer that question I would not to that” . Thus if the architectural researcher wants to make buildings, she must ask herself in what way, or perhaps what kind of buildings, would be relevant in response to this question in order to take us towards some kind of insightful outcome that will be relevant to other architects.

I had a student who made landscape art. In the beginning the artworks were abstract representations of the landscape. During his research he became interested in the literal processes that we used to shape the landscape during activities such as quarrying and road building. He characterised these processes as scraping, scratching, sorting piles of debris into heaps, etc. He went on to employ scraping, scratching and sorting activities in the creation of his artworks, thereby in some way making his art production analogous to the production of the landscape through industrial processes. The connection between his artwork and the landscape that it depicted, changed from one of visual representation into one of symbolism or analogy. I would describe his research method has something that emerged from his professional practices as an artist. He came to understand that he had a particular kind of relationship to the landscape when he was representing it pictorially, as he did in the beginning. Through an increased awareness of alternative relationships to depicting landscape, he developed a number of production techniques based on analogies to industrial processes. Thus we could say his research method was to develop art processes based on analogy with industrial production processes rather than through visual representation. Through employing this method, he produced artworks. He could account for the relationship of his artworks to the landscape through his research method. He could therefore account for the way in which his artworks acted as novel kinds of landscape depiction by understanding not only the relationship of his artwork to his landscapes but the ways in which other kinds of landscape art stand in relation to the landscape that they depict. The key outcome of the research, apart from the artworks themselves, was an awareness and a sharing of this tool. The tool (analogous production techniques) is the part that is transferable to others and therefore of significance to the community. The artworks themselves “demonstrate the operability of the tool” to use established research terminology.

It is quite common in creative arts research, indeed maybe it is even some kind of definition of such research, that the researcher should want to produce paintings, sculptures, dance performance, buildings, etc., as part of the research process. These buildings, designs, and other creative outputs, and in particular the creative processes, are often claimed to be the methods of creative arts research. I believe that this is a category mistake. Buildings, designs, etc. are some of the outputs of creative arts research. Other outputs may include, although they do not necessarily have to include, written documentation of processes, data sets, etc. It is also possible that artefacts are produced that become the data that are subject to analysis during a research project. However, what I want to differentiate, is that the production of creative works is not itself a research method. I believe that producing designs is not a method, but a form of outcome. The method has a particular role of shedding light on the research problem. Wanting to produce architecture is like wanting to talk to people: it determines what kind of activity the person wants to do rather than constituting a method.

The conclusion is not that we cannot undertake research through the practice of making, or through research by design, etc. Instead, it throws our focus on to what would constitute a research method in such a practice. I believe we need to rethink the whole notion of what would constitute research as an activity within the creative arts paradigms. It is unsatisfactory to simply map our existing scientific or sociological activities onto the creative arts. This mapping does not make sense because the objectives of our activity are quite different. Therefore, because research methods connect the legitimacy of the outcome to the issue being investigated, it makes no sense to undertake a legitimate scientific activity in pursuit of objectives in architecture and urbanism. So my conclusion is that we must reconsider the whole package: what are we trying to achieve, what are our objectives, and how do we make a valid, useful, meaningful, and significant contribution to the issue at hand?

We have to bear in mind that the objectives of creative arts research are themselves creative arts outputs. So one of the objectives is to generate a creative output, such as a building or a design: to do architecture. This is an objective but it is not the only objective. We also require the outputs to make a particular contribution: to have a particular relationship to the general field and the topic being investigated and to offer potential for significance. This is what will characterise the output as a research contribution rather than a studio contribution or simply a building. I have said elsewhere that research is an intentional activity, in which we direct our activity towards a particular goal. Although in the creative arts we are probably more open to serendipitous outcomes, research is nonetheless a selective process in which we reject some activities and outcomes in favour of others, bearing in mind the topic to be researched. We therefore require a decision-making framework within which we can judge the suitability of activities for our academic purpose in relation to the external framework which will judge the suitability of the outcomes as professionally impactful architecture, urban design, etc. This could constitute a Strong Programme of the type established by Bloor and claimed to some extent for urban studies by Farías and Bender ([ 2010 ]). However, the latter see the tendency in urban studies to be structuralist whereas what is proposed here is activity-theoretic. The main difference relates to focussing on what counts as data rather than how that data is interpreted. Socially engaged thick description has been undertaken in regard to architecture (Awan et al. [ 2011 ]; Yaneva [ 2009 ]) using Actor-Network Theory, although they differentiate between a “pragmatist” approach that calls upon descriptive pre-theoretic positions from within architecture, and what they would call a “critical” approach that calls on resources from outside architecture (Yaneva [ 2009 ]). The outcome of such a critical approach is the identification of the attitudes, beliefs and dispositions of interpretative communities themselves.

Such a critical activity-theoretic framework needs to be constructed before we can assess the appropriateness of an activity as a method of knowledge production, and such a framework needs to be grounded in an analysis of the values and aims of the discipline of architecture. Initially it will need to be done on a project-by-project basis in which the appropriateness of the method is made explicit. As the corpus of impactful projects grows so the community, or even its assessors such as ERA, PBRF, RAE, etc., will be able to make transferable statements about methods in general. Once this is done by the architectural community it will be apparent which activities have the potential to add knowledge that is valued by both the academic and the professional peers, and not solely valued by the established hegemony of legitimation in academia. It will also have the added benefit of bridging the academic and professional divide that has been exacerbated by the migration of education in architecture and urbanism from the studio into the university. Finally, it will respond to the foundational question of what activities have validity in research by design, and in what ways doing architecture is doing research.

Awan N, Schneider T, Till J (eds) (2011) Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture . Routledge, London.

Google Scholar  

Biggs MAR: Learning from Experience: Approaches to the Experiential Component of Practice-based Research. In Forskning-Reflektion-Utveckling . Edited by: Karlsson H. Swedish Research Council, Stockholm, Sweden; 2004:6–21.

Biggs MAR, Büchler D: Rigour and practice-based research. Design Issues 2007, 23 (3):62–69. 10.1162/desi.2007.23.3.62

Article   Google Scholar  

Biggs MAR, Büchler D: Eight criteria for practice-based research in the creative and cultural industries. ADCHE 2008, 7 (1):5–18. doi:10.1386/adch.7.1.5_1 doi:10.1386/adch.7.1.5_1

Biggs MAR, Büchler D: Communities, Values, Conventions and Actions. In The Routledge Companion to Research in the Arts . Edited by: Biggs M, Karlsson H. Routledge, London; 2011:82–98.

Biggs MAR, Büchler D: Inferring a collective concept of research from the actions of the art and design research community. ADCHE 2013, 12 (1):7–19. doi:10.1386/adch.12.1.7_1 doi:10.1386/adch.12.1.7_1 10.1386/adch.12.1.7_1

Bloor D (1991 [1976]) Knowledge and Social Imagery, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Bourdieu P (1988 [1984]) Homo Academicus (trans: Collier P). Polity Press, Cambridge

Coyne R: Interpretative communities as decisive agents: on pervasive digital technologies. Archit Res Q 2009, 13 (2):127–132. 10.1017/S1359135509990212

Cuff D: Architecture: the Story of Practice . MIT Press, Cambridge, MA; 1992.

Deer CMA: Higher Education in England and France since the 1980s . Symposium Books, Oxford; 2002.

Engeström Y, Miettinen R, Punamäki R-L: Perspectives on Activity Theory . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1999.

Book   Google Scholar  

Farías I, Bender T (eds) (2010) Urban Assemblages: How Actor-Network Theory Changes Urban Studies . Routledge, London.

Feyerabend P (1993 [1975]) Against Method. 3rd edition edn. Verso Books, London

Gibson JJ (1986 [1979]) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Psychology Press, Mahwah, NJ

Guba E, Lincoln Y: Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions and Emerging Confluences. In Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research . 3rd edition. Edited by: Denzin N, Lincoln Y. Sage, London; 2005:191–215.

Hirsch ED: Meaning and significance reinterpreted. Crit Inq 1984, 11 (2):202–225. 10.1086/448285

JAR (2013) Journal for Artistic Research. Society for Artistic Research. http://www.jar-online.net/ . Accessed 10 December 2014

Latour B, Woolgar S: Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts . Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ; 1986.

Popper KR (2002 [1963]) Science: Conjectures and Refutations. In: Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge, London, pp 43–86

Schön DA: The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action . Temple Smith, London; 1983.

Searle JR: Rationality and realism, what is at stake? Daedalus 1993, 122 (4):55–83.

Till J: Is Doing Architecture Doing Research? . Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia; 2011.

Whorf B: The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language. In Language, Culture, and Personality, Essays in Memory of Edward Sapir . Edited by: Spier L. Sapir Memorial Publication Fund, Menasha, WI; 1941:73–95.

Wittgenstein L: Philosophical Investigations . Basil Blackwell, Oxford; 1953.

Yaneva A: The Making of a Building, a Pragmatist Approach to Architecture . Peter Lang, Bern; 2009.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the support of the Australian Research Council (DP130100402) and the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (AH/F009828/1) in funding the research that underpins this article.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Creative Arts, University of Hertfordshire, College Lane, Hatfield, AL10 9AB, UK

Michael AR Biggs

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael AR Biggs .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The author declares that he has no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 ), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Biggs, M.A. An activity theory of research methods in architecture and urbanism. City Territ Archit 1 , 16 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-014-0016-z

Download citation

Received : 23 June 2014

Accepted : 29 November 2014

Published : 23 December 2014

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-014-0016-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• professional
• significance

Successful thesis proposals in architecture and urban planning

Archnet-IJAR

ISSN : 2631-6862

Article publication date: 1 May 2020

Issue publication date: 11 November 2020

The purpose of this research is to improve the understanding of what constitutes a successful thesis proposal (TP) and as such enhance the quality of the TP writing in architecture, planning and related disciplines.

Design/methodology/approach

Based on extended personal experience and a review of relevant literature, the authors proposed a conception of a successful TP comprising 13 standard components. The conception provides specific definition/s, attributes and success rules for each component. The conception was applied for 15 years on several batches of Saudi graduate students. The implications of the conception were assessed by a students' opinion survey. An expert inquiry of experienced academics from architectural schools in nine countries was applied to validate and improve the conception.

Assessment of the proposed conception demonstrated several positive implications on students' knowledge, performance and outputs which illustrates its applicability in real life. Experts' validation of the conception and constructive remarks have enabled further improvements on the definitions, attributes and success rules of the TP components.

Research limitations/implications

The proposed TP conception with its 13 components is limited to standard problem-solving research and will differ in the case of other types such as hypothesis-based research.

Practical implications

The proposed conception is a useful directive and evaluative tool for writing and assessing thesis proposals for graduate students, academic advisors and examiners.

Social implications

The research contributes to improving the quality of thesis production process among the academic community in the built environment fields.

Originality/value

The paper is meant to alleviate the confusion and hardship caused by the absence of a consensus on what constitutes a successful TP in the fields of architecture, urban planning and related disciplines.

• Urban planning
• Architecture
• Built environment
• Postgraduate research
• Writing successful thesis proposals

Abdellatif, M. and Abdellatif, R. (2020), "Successful thesis proposals in architecture and urban planning", Archnet-IJAR , Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 503-524. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-12-2019-0281

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2020, Mahmoud Abdellatif and Reham Abdellatif

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode .

1. Introduction

After the postgraduate student completes her/his coursework in a master programme or passes the comprehensive exam and becomes a doctoral candidate in a doctoral programme, s/he is allowed to submit a “Thesis Proposal” (TP) to her/his department whose main concern is to assess whether the topic is suitable for a graduate study and for the time and resources available ( Afful, 2008 ; Kivunja, 2016 ; Reddy, 2019 ).

The department then sends the submitted TP to higher bodies for official approval. Once approved, the TP becomes a legal binding or “a formal contract” ( Walliman, 2017 ) and “a statement of intent” ( Hofstee, 2006 ) between the researcher and the university. If the student adheres to all prescribed TP requirements within the specified time, s/he will be awarded the degree ( Leo, 2019 ).

Guided by his/her academic advisor, the student prepares the TP within which the researcher explains the research problem, questions, aim and objectives, scope, and methodologies to describe, analyse and synthesize the research problem and develop solutions for it ( Paltridge and Starfield, 2007 ). In addition, the proposal includes a brief about research significance and expected contributions; a preliminary review of literature; thesis structure and approximate completion timeline; and a list of relevant references ( Kivunja, 2016 ; Thomas, 2016 ; Kornuta and Germaine, 2019 ).

1.1 Statement of the problem and research aim

After decades of writing, supervising and refereeing master and doctoral theses in the fields of Architecture and Urban Planning, the authors noticed that TP's differ in format and content from a school to another. This may be considered a healthy matter because it gives room for flexibility that absorbs the variety of research problems and techniques. Yet, the absence of a consensus on what constitutes a successful TP could cause confusion and hardship to both students and advisors ( Kamler and Thomson, 2008 ; Abdulai and Owusu-Ansah, 2014 ). The review of literature indicates that TP writing has been tackled in depth in many fields (see for instance Gonzalez, 2007 ; Balakumar et al. , 2013 ; Eco, 2015 ; Kivunja, 2016 ; Glatthorn and Randy, 2018 ; Kornuta and Germaine, 2019 ). Apart from thesis proposal instruction and guideline manuals posted on universities' websites, the authors believe that there is a lack of in-depth research on the issue of producing successful thesis proposals in the fields of Architecture and Planning.

To propose a successful TP conception which determines the standard components of TP and sets specific definitions, attributes and rules of success for each component.

To apply the proposed conception on several batches of graduate students, then assess its impact on students' performance and output along the years of application.

To validate the proposed conception by getting the insights of experienced academics from architecture and planning schools worldwide, and as such, improve and finalize the conception.

1.2 Research methodology

To propose the Successful TP Conception , the authors relied on two sources: knowledge extracted from their extended experience and a review of relevant studies and instruction manuals and guidelines for preparing TP in several worldwide universities. The Conception has been applied on several batches of master and doctoral students from IAU, KSA for almost 15 years between 2005 and 2020 during their enrolment in three courses in the College of Architecture and Planning, IAU, KSA. These courses are “ARPL 603 Research Methods” and “BISC 600 Research Methods” for the master's level and “URPL 803 Seminar (3): Doctoral Research Methods” for the doctoral level.

From a total of 60 students, 39 students (65%) completed the survey; of whom 12 students (31%) were doctoral and 27 students (69%) were masters students.

- Improve their understanding of the components of a successful TP.

- Enhance their performance in developing their TP's.

- Conduct a more effective self-assessment of their developed TP's.

- Enhance their performance along other stages of producing their theses and dissertations.

- Maintain any other benefits adding to students' research capabilities.

The first part recorded the general characteristics of respondents.

The second inquired about experts' viewpoints on the definitions, attributes and the rules of success of the components of the proposed TP conception.

2. Proposing the Successful TP Conception

2.1 components of a tp for a standard problem-solving research type.

A review of thesis writing guidelines posted on universities' websites and other related literature has indicated that the number of components of a masters' or doctoral thesis proposal varies. After a thorough review of related literature and with their experience, the authors have been convinced that, in its standard form, a TP should include 13 components. Chronically arranged, as appearing in the proposal, they are: title page, abstract, keywords, background, statement of the problem, research questions, research aim and objectives, research scope, research significance and contributions, preliminary review of literature, research methodology, thesis structure and timeline, and references list ( Ostler, 1996 ; Simpson and Turner, 2004 ; Zhou, 2004 ; Davies, 2011 ; Axelrod and Windell, 2012 ; Donohue, 2018 ; Glatthorn and Randy, 2018 ; Kornuta and Germaine, 2019 ). It is worth mentioning that these 13 components will differ in the case of a hypothesis-based research whose aim is to validate a specific hypothesis that a specific variable/s is/are or is/are not the main cause/s of an investigated research problem. This paper is limited only to the standard problem-solving research type.

2.2 Building the Successful TP Conception

Setting a general definition for each component including its meaning, importance, functions and contents.

Outlining the most important attributes that must be considered when writing the component.

Based on step 1 and 2, the authors extracted a list of success rules which provides a concise definition for each component of the TP, and/or describes the relationship between the component and other components of the TP (the list is summarized at the end of Part 2).

2.2.1 Research title

This is the first item that appears to the reader. It invites or detains him/her from proceeding to other contents ( Blaxter et al. , 2010 ). The research title is positioned in the title page along with several basic data, namely, the title; the names of the Department, College, University, study programme, researcher and advisory committee; and submission date.

The research title should be useful, discussing an issue critical to society; true, conveying a real message about the investigated problem ( Donohue, 2018 ); concise, presenting the message with the minimum number of words; adequate, using the right wording to explain the intended meaning; and attractive , stimulating the reader's attention. Iterations in refining the research title go hand-in-hand with refining the research question ( Groat and Wang, 2013 ).

2.2.2 The abstract

It is the first item that appears in the TP after the title and of the same significance; yet, it is the last to be written ( Kornuta and Germaine, 2019 ). It has a marketing function ( Lamanauskas, 2019 ); it calls the reader in or alienates him out. A comprehensive abstract contains a summary of the problem, aim, scope, methodology, importance, contributions and outline ( Koopman, 1997 ).

The Abstract should be concise or brief with a maximum of 200–300 words; adequate, including profiles of all parts of the proposal; clear, expressing its message without ambiguity; and interrelated, serving as a body of sequential, coherent and connected ideas ( Blaxter et al. , 2010 ).

2.2.3 The keywords

These are a set of words or terms used for archiving, tabulation and electronic search on databases. They should include essential “subject terms” describing the research topic, the unique sub-specializations and focus of the research (what is researched), the contextual scope of the research (where and when), and the used research methodology (how to conduct the research) ( Lamanauskas, 2019 ). They are better written by splitting the title into its separate single words or terms which must be found in the abstract, as well ( Mack, 2012 ).

Keywords should be brief, not more than 8–12 words; adequate, conveying the research theme, scope, aim and approach; exact, focusing on the investigated topic and scope; and standard, using scientific terminology used in the field.

2.2.4 The background

This is a gradual preparation of the reader from the larger scientific field to the specific field, from the wider geographic area to the immediate area, and from the larger timeframe to the immediate one. It starts from the strategic level and general scope of the research and gradually reaches the level closer to the examined problem ( Abdellatif and Abdellatif, 2005 ). It places the study within the larger context of the research, creates interest to the reader and catches his attention, and includes quotations and statistics leading the reader to proceed ( Babbie, 2014 ).

The background statement should be striking, drawing the reader's attention to the research; brief, not lengthy; gradual, moving from the general level surrounding the investigated issue to the specific level; and careful, not speeding up in disclosing the study problem, aim or methodology to the reader ( Axelrod and Windell, 2012 ; Pautasso, 2013 ).

2.2.5 The statement of the problem

Statement of the General Research Problem is a narrative describing a negative aspect/s prevailing in the investigated urban environment/ecosystem or architectural setting; it is equivalent to the negative wording of the research aim ( Abdellatif and Abdellatif, 2005 ). It stimulates interest in the study; scientifically explained to convey a simple, clear and specific issue to which a reader can relate and is useful to the society at large ( Balakumar et al. , 2013 ). In the humanities and social sciences many dissertations endeavour to establish the conditions of the problem, not to solve it ( Dorst, 2011 ).

In formulating the research problem, it is useful to consider it a problem which hinders the natural development of the society and/or environment and leads to a decline in the Quality of Life (QOL) or Quality of Environment (QOE) or both. A development problem is a factor/cause leading to either a quantitative or qualitative deficiency in satisfying a human need or both such as a lack of certain service or inadequate provision of the service ( Abdellatif, 2015 ). To arrive at a successful statement of the general problem, the researcher should pinpoint the main cause/s behind the study problem. All what comes next depends on the clarity of the problem statement.

Technically oriented research (TOR), which places emphasis on the process and procedures as the primary basis of effective design, TOR can be either systematic, or computational, or managerial.

Conceptually driven research (CDR), which can be either psychological or person–environment. The psychological type is driven by the goal of matching knowledge with the nature of the design problem, its components, context and social and environmental requirements. Whereas, the person–environment type places emphasis on the socio-cultural and socio-behavioural factors as they relate to the design process itself and to settings, buildings and urban environments.

Classify the investigated situation to branched dimensions, e.g. demographic, planning, regulatory, economic, social, environmental, etc.

Trace the causes or the influencing factors that lead to the emergence or aggravation of the problem/s in each dimension.

Clarify the problem more by identifying the consequences or adverse effects (the symptoms of the problem) that resulted from those causes. This helps isolate the causes from the consequences to focus on treating the causes not the consequences. Using temporary painkillers will not eliminate the disease; it only tranquilizes the symptoms.

Statement of the consequences of the problem is a narrative that describes the negative effects caused by sub-problems on the investigated environment ( Goetz et al. , 2005 ).

The statement of consequences of the problem should be focused, where each consequence focuses on one independent sub-problem; articulate, not overlapping with other consequences; rooted, relating to one of the roots of the general problems; deep, providing description for specific symptom; and comprehended, could be perceived, described and determined ( Abdellatif, 2015 ).

2.2.6 Research questions

What is the nature of the development problem as defined by the latest findings of previous literature, similar studies and published statistical reports?

What are the key features of the investigated problem according to a direct field survey?

What are the appropriate links between different variables of the study (causes, consequences, etc.) according to the information gathered from the theoretical review and field surveys?

What are the extracted results and the appropriate solutions and/or recommendations to deal with the general research problem and its sub-problems?

What are the critical contributions of the research findings on the life and/or environmental qualities?

How can the research increase the benefits of research results on the ground?

What are the research areas/points that need further investigation?

Research questions should be specific, each question addresses one sub-problem; unduplicated, each question does not repeat itself in a different format; sequential, or arranged according to their importance and order; and interrelated, where each question relates to other questions.

2.2.7 Research aim, goals and objectives

The general aim of the research is a specific and clear statement presenting the overall purpose of the study. It is directed to find an appropriate and effective solution to the general research problem ( Donohue, 2018 ). It is an attempt to fill a gap between a negative reality of an environment/ecosystem/or development situation and a desired positive future to be achieved at the end of the research process ( Glatthorn and Randy, 2018 ). The aim should be properly stated to ensure the success of all the following stages of the scientific research process.

Exploring the problem by defining the research problem, formulating aim and objectives, designing the methodology, defining the scope, and highlighting the expected contributions.

Collecting secondary data by defining basic concepts and terms, reviewing relevant literature and previous studies, and describing the most important characteristics of the investigated environment from secondary sources and statistical reports.

Collecting primary data via direct field surveys and based on the views of concerned population, experts and officials to describe the characteristics of the investigated development problem.

Analysing the gathered data by using theoretical and field data to determine the appropriate links among different variables of the study (e.g. causes, consequences, etc.).

Synthesizing the gathered data by integrating the findings of analysis to build appropriate approaches or solutions to deal with the general problem.

Extracting conclusions and writing recommendations to highlight research findings and make them more useful and effective.

A micro level objective contributes to solving the specific investigated problem (e.g. a specific quantitative or qualitative problem that hinders the development of a sector of society, environment, or eco-system).

A macro level objective contributes to realizing a higher goal (e.g. improving the overall quality of life of a larger community, upgrading the quality of the larger environment, etc.).

Development objectives should apply the SMART goal rule (previously explained); and be non-overlapping by ensuring that each objective is focused and not conflicting with other objectives.

2.2.8 Research scope

Thematic scope clarifies the general and specific areas of the research (e.g. the research falls within the field of sustainable development in general and focuses on social sustainability).

Geographic/Spatial scope specifies the spatial boundaries of the physical environment within which the research is applied (e.g. a specific local or regional setting).

Temporal scope shows the past, present and future spans the research will cover indicating the number of years from the historical information inventory until the expected completion date. If the research aim is to develop future strategies or policies, the span will extend to future target point.

Research Scope should be categorized, by being classified by subject, place and time; focused, by reaching the closest limits of the investigated research problem, environment and time; and clear, by not being so general or ambiguous.

2.2.9 Research significance and contributions

They highlight the most important benefits and the main beneficiaries from solving the research problem; the potential positive impacts of the study on the life and environmental qualities ( Groat and Wang, 2013 ). Contributions differ in nature (theoretical or applied or both) and in size (huge, average, or marginal). There is a positive relationship between the size of contributions and the size of impacted beneficiaries (individuals, groups, institutions, communities, societies), the scale of the impacted geographic boundaries (local, national or global), the type of impacted development sectors (service, production, etc.) and the numbers of the impacted sectors (one, a few, or all sectors). Research significance increases as the size of contributions increases. Specifying the research significance, expected contributions and potential beneficiaries helps promote the research and provides rational justifications for conducting it. The higher the contributions and the greater the sectors of the beneficiaries, the more significant the research is ( Abdellatif and Abdellatif, 2005 ). According to Balakumar et al. (2013) research significance justifies the need for the research that is being proposed.

Research significance and expected contributions should be categorized, in terms of type (theoretical or applied contribution or both), size and nature of the beneficiaries (individuals, institutions, communities, etc.) and geographical extent (small site, district, city, region, nation, etc.); clear, simple and comprehensible to the reader; and realistic, real, accurate and not exaggerated.

2.2.10 The preliminary review of literature

This is an initial review of literature dealt with relevant problems. It aims to build an initial understanding of the problem, identify the most important variables that have been considered, cite methodologies used to deal with the problem; make use of the latest findings and record the various recommendations/solutions suggested to deal with the problem ( Hart, 1998 ; Grix, 2001 ). According to Dunleavy (2003) , it is a critical review on related recent research that is well documented, structured, analysed and synthesized. It offers the researcher an opportunity to engage with other scholars in one's disciplinary community.

In addition to having a separate part, it is useful to combine the literature review with other components of the TP (e.g. the research problem, questions, aim and objectives, and methodology). It is important that the review presents differing perspectives or contrasting views of the topic and reports the complexities of the issue ( Kornuta and Germaine, 2019 ). By conducting the review, the researcher becomes able to build an initial but comprehensive understanding of the causes and consequences of the problem, the methodologies used to study and analyse the problem and the solutions proposed to deal with it by synthesizing various viewpoints of previous studies, thereby, supporting her/his principle argument about the study problem with the results derived from previous literature ( Pautasso, 2013 ).

Definitions of key terms and concepts; standard terms to appear in the research and special concepts which are not formally provided by previous scholars. The definitions must be logic and derived from scientifically recognized sources.

Review of previous studies; focusing on identifying several issues, namely, the most important dimensions and variables of the research problem (the causes of the problem; why the problem has emerged or aggravated; the most important consequences of this problem on the human and/or physical environment); the methods used to deal with the problem; the latest findings of previous studies and the various approaches/solutions suggested to deal with the problem.

Contextual aspects of the investigated development situation; including a review of relevant characteristics of the researched environment (its basic dimensions and elements) as found in previous studies. Contextual aspects may be classified into physical and human components; or into environmental, functional, aesthetic, structural, economic and social design determinants; or into demographic, planning, regulatory, economic, social, environmental sectors or other classifications.

Preliminary review of literature should be indexed, from reliable scholarly sources; categorized or documented according to standard classification system; employed, used wisely to achieve a desired purpose; up to date, recent, however, in topics which address chronological development or evolutionary aspects references could be recent and old; and related, relevant to the study problem ( Hart, 1998 ).

2.2.11 Research methodology

Data collection methods including office methods used to collect secondary data from previous literature and case studies as well as field methods used to gather original data through field visits, surveying, questionnaires, interviews with stakeholders, etc.

Data analysis methods including methods used to analyse both the secondary and primary information collected from office and the field surveys such as Statistical Analysis, Environmental Scanning (SWOT), Development Components Analysis, etc.

Data synthesis methods including methods used to compile, synthesize the analysis and develop appropriate alternative scenarios or solutions to deal with the problem.

Data presentation methods including methods to present the research process and findings such as scientific research paper containing narratives, tables, figures, forms, maps, results and recommendations as well as final visual presentation to review panel to get remarks and write the last version of the TP.

Research methodology should be appropriate, aligned with the purpose/s in which they will be used; achievable, within the reach of the researcher; effective, achieving the purpose fast and with high quality; reliable, previously tested, applied and approved in similar cases; and precise, accurate and specific.

2.2.12 Research structure and timeline

This is a brief statement of the main sections of the master's/doctoral thesis with tentative dates for completing the various stages of the research. Careful preparation of research structure and timeline ensures the effectiveness and integrity of the plan of actions towards the completion of the study ( Kivunja, 2016 ). It is also a criterion to judge the achieved progress and seriousness of the researcher.

Research structure and timeline should be sequential, arranged according to a standard scientific research process; logical, proportionate to the total period available for completion; and balanced, distributing time properly among various stages.

2.2.13 The list of references

This is a list which contains a reasonable number of relevant references on the topic which were actually cited in the TP ( Kornuta and Germaine, 2019 ). Including a list of the references about the topic demonstrates that the researcher is familiar with the basic and latest knowledge on his/her problem.

The list of references should be relevant, closely related to the investigated subject; up to date, recent yet containing old and new according the topic and context; and reliable, published in dependable vessels.

2.3 Extracting the success rules

Based on the above definitions and attributes provided for each of the 13 TP components, the authors were able to extract a number of success rules that took the form of equations, each of which describes an equality function between each component and its counterpart component/s as shown in Table 1 . For instance, rule #1 shows that “research title” is equal to “the general aim of the research” and is equal to “the negative wording of the research problem”.

3. Assessing the Successful TP Conception from students' viewpoints

They better understood the meanings of each component (97% agree and strongly agree and 3% neutral).

They better understood the attributes of each component (94% agree and strongly agree and 6% neutral).

They better understood the rules which control the relations between the various components of the TP (87% agree and strongly agree and 13% neutral).

The process of writing the proposal has become easier and more convenient (100% agree and strongly agree).

The effort, cost and time spent in submitting the proposal have been substantially saved (87% agree and strongly and 12% neutral).

The relationship with academic advisor has improved (87% agree and strongly agree and 12% neutral).

The students' confidence in advancing their own learning abilities has improved (93% agree and strongly agree and 7% neutral).

The students' abilities to address the strengths and weaknesses of their personal skills have improved (93% agree and strongly agree and 7% neutral).

The students' abilities to manage their learning process more independently have improved (90% agree and strongly agree, 7% neutral and 3% disagree).

The students have created a clearer and better mutual understanding with their academic advisors (90% agree and strongly agree and 10% neutral).

The students have reduced their distraction from the original target set out in the proposal (81% agree and strongly agree, 16% neutral and 3% disagree).

The students have been able to finish their research on time (78% agree and strongly agree, 19% neutral and 3% disagree).

They gained better analytical skills (87% agree and strongly agree, 10% neutral and 3% disagree).

They gained better problem-solving skills (87% agree and strongly agree, 10% neutral and 3% disagree).

They gained better critical thinking skills (87% agree and strongly agree, 10% neutral and 3% disagree).

4. Verifying the Successful TP Conception based on experts' viewpoints

Having proposed, applied and assessed the Successful TP Conception, it becomes important to validate it using the insights of experienced academics from Architectural and Planning schools worldwide. This part summarizes the results of the experts' inquiry survey conducted in November 2019 to February 2020. It shows the characteristics of experts and their viewpoints and remarks on the originally proposed definitions, attributes and success rules.

4.1 Experts' characteristics

They were from nine countries, namely, the United States of America, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain.

About 75% of the experts were males and 25% were females. About 5% were 35–45 years old, 20% were 45–55 years, 55% were 55–65 years and 20% were 65 years and over.

About 5% were Assistant Professors, 10% Associate Professors and the majority (85%) were Professors.

The experts had teaching experiences in undergraduate and graduate levels (masters, doctoral, diploma, postdoctoral and continuing professional development).

The general specialization of 70% of the experts was Architecture and 30% of experts were specialized in Urban Planning. They taught in several built environment fields (Architecture, Interior Design, Building Technology, Urban Design, Landscape Architecture and Urban and Regional Planning).

The experts had several focus areas, namely, Architecture, History and Theories of Architecture, Assessment of Designed Environments, Design Methods, Pedagogy, Architecture and Digital Technologies, Heritage Conservation, Middle East Architecture and Cities, Construction Project Management, Urban Design, Spatial Development Planning, Landscape, Built Environment and Behaviour, Urban Studies, Techniques and Quantitative Methods of Urban Planning, Urban Conflict, Urban Justice, Community Development, Environmental Management and Planning and Development Approaches.

About 10% of the experts supervised 5 theses, 5% supervised 6–10 theses, 50% supervised 11–20 theses and 35% supervised more than 20 theses.

4.2 Experts' viewpoints and remarks

Concerning the proposed definitions of the TP components, the experts expressed their agreement which ranged between 73 and 96%. Some experts provided additional remarks to help improve the definitions. Table 2 presents the originally proposed definitions, the percentages of agreed experts and their additional remarks.

Regarding the attributes of each component of the TP, the original conception proposed 38 attributes, the experts added 18 attributes resulting in a total of 56 attributes. Table 3 presents a matrix showing the percentages of experts' agreement of the originally proposed attributes as well as the added attributes. The lowest agreement percentage was 59% and the highest was 96%.

Concerning the proposed success rules which were called “equations” in the originally proposed conception, the experts suggested to change the expression into “rules”; which is more appropriate for subjective contents than mathematical expression. Table 4 presents the final 19 success rules for the components/sub-components of a TP and the percentage of experts' agreement which ranged between 57 and 95%.

5. Conclusion

Based on their experience in preparing and supervising masters and doctoral theses and after a thorough review of the literature on preparing thesis proposals, the authors drafted a conception of a successful thesis proposal comprising specific definitions, attributes and rules for each of the 13 components of a standard TP. The conception had been applied over a duration of 15 years (2005–2020) on several batches of master and doctoral students in IAU, KSA. Through an online survey, the majority of students (78–100%) have indicated that understanding and applying the conception helped them improve their performances and outputs during the TP development process and beyond.

The conception was then validated by getting the insights of 39 experienced academics from worldwide architectural schools. The experts accepted the proposed definitions with (73–96%) agreement rate. The experts also accepted the proposed attributes with (59–96%) agreement rate. As for the success rules, the experts' agreed as well with an acceptance rate ranging from (57–95%). The experts suggested constructive remarks which were considered in writing the final version of the conception.

The extracted success rules combine the definitions and attributes of each component of the TP and present them in a concise statement which defines the component and, where applicable, exemplifies its relationship to another corresponding or counterpart component of the TP. For example, rule #1 shows that “research title” should reflect “the general aim and scope of the research” and should also reflect “the negative wording of the research problem”. Extracted also is rule #14 which indicates that “the whole thesis proposal” written in future tenses, should resemble “the introduction of the final thesis” written in past tenses.

A directive tool that assists the researcher in writing a sound TP. Combining the last three tables (2, 3 and 4) into a comprehensive checklist would aid the students in preparing their TP's; enhancing the quality of their performance and outputs.

An evaluative tool that helps in assessing the validity and integrity of the submitted TP's that can be used by the researcher for self-assessment, or by the academic advisor, or by an examiner/evaluator before sending the proposal to higher authorities for approval.

The findings of this paper could be useful not only in evaluating thesis proposals, but also, with proper modifications, in assessing various scientific research documents, including scientific thesis, research papers and others; which is another research topic that will be addressed in the future.

The stages of developing the successful thesis proposal conception

Proposed list of success rules for the TP components

An extracted list of success rules for thesis proposals

Source(s) : Prepared by the authors based on the above analysis and the results of expert inquiry

Abdellatif , M. ( 2015 ), The Simplifying-Integrating Approach to Deal with Contemporary Design, Planning and Urban Development Problems , Scientific Publication Center, Imam Abdulrahman bin Faisal University , Dammam .

Abdellatif , M. and Abdellatif , R. ( 2005 ), Scientific Research Methods and Techniques in Architecture and Urban Planning , Unpublished Textbook for Graduate Students in Abdulrahman bin Faisal University , Dammam .

Abdulai , R.T. and Owusu-Ansah , A. ( 2014 ), “ Essential ingredients of a good research proposal for undergraduate and postgraduate students in the social sciences ”, SAGE Open , Vol. 4 No. 3 , pp. 1 - 15 .

Afful , J.B. ( 2008 ), “ Research proposal and thesis writing: narrative of a recently graduated researcher in applied linguistics ”, Nebula , Vol. 5 No. 4 , pp. 193 - 211 .

Axelrod , B. and Windell , J. ( 2012 ), Dissertation Solutions: A Concise Guide to Planning, Implementing, and Surviving the Dissertation Process , Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. , Plymouth .

Babbie , E. ( 2014 ), The Basics of Social Research , 6th ed. , Wadsworth Cengage Learning , Belmont, CA .

Balakumar , P. , Inamdar , M. and Jagadeesh , G. ( 2013 ), “ The critical steps for successful research: the research proposal and scientific writing ”, Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics , Vol. 4 No. 2 , pp. 130 - 138 .

Blaxter , L. , Hughes , C. and Tight , M. ( 2010 ), How to Research , Open University Press MaGraw-Hill Education , New York, NY .

Davies , W.M. ( 2011 ), Study Skills for International Postgraduate Students , Palgrave, MacMillan , Basingstoke .

Donohue , M. ( 2018 ), “ Research proposal toolkit: design tools for developing multi-stakeholder research proposals ”, available at: https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/files/neu:m044c6541 ( accessed 24 October 2019 ).

Doran , G.T. ( 1981 ), “ There's, a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management's goals and objectives ”, Management Review , Vol. 70 No. 11 , pp. 35 - 36 .

Dorst , K. ( 2011 ), “ The core of “design thinking” and its application ”, Design Studies , Vol. 32 No. 6 , pp. 521 - 532 .

Dunleavy , P. ( 2003 ), Authoring a PhD: How to Plan, Draft, Write and Finish a Doctoral Thesis or Dissertation , Macmillan International Higher Education , Hampshire .

Eco , U. ( 2015 ), How to Write a Thesis , MIT Press, ProQuest Ebook Central , Cambridge .

Experts_Survey ( 2019 ), “ Opinion poll on definitions, attributes and equations of the successful thesis proposal ”, available at: https://www.questionpro.com/t/AOkM7ZdeXy ( accessed 01 November 2019 ).

Glatthorn , A.A. and Randy , L.J. ( 2018 ), Writing the Winning Thesis or Dissertation; a Step-by-step Guide , Corwin , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Goetz , S.J. , Shortle , J.S. and Bergstrom , J.C. ( 2005 ), Land Use Problems and Conflict: Causes, Consequences and Solutions , Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group , London .

Gonzalez , A.M. ( 2007 ), Shaping the Thesis and Dissertation: Case Studies of Writers across the Curriculum , Texas Christian University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing , Fort Worth, TX .

Grix , J. ( 2001 ), Demystifying Postgraduate Research from MA to PhD , University of Birmingram Press , Birmingham .

Groat , L. and Wang , D. ( 2013 ), Architectural Research Methods , Wiley & Sons, Inc. , Hoboken, NJ .

Hart , C. ( 1998 ), Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination , Sage Publications , London .

Hofstee , E. ( 2006 ), Constructing a Good Dissertation: A Practical Guide to Finishing a Master's, MBA or PhD on Schedule , EPE , Sandton .

Kamler , B. and Thomson , P. ( 2008 ), “ The failure of dissertation advice books: toward alternative' ”, Educational Researcher , Vol. 37 No. 8 , pp. 507 - 514 .

Kivunja , C. ( 2016 ), “ How to write an effective research proposal for higher degree research in higher education ”, International Journal of Higher Education , Vol. 5 No. 2 , pp. 163 - 172 .

Koopman , P. ( 1997 ), “ How to write an abstract ”, available at: http://users.ece.cmu.edu/∼koopman/essays/abstract.html ( accessed October 2019 ).

Kornuta , H.M. and Germaine , R.W. ( 2019 ), A Concise Guide to Writing a Thesis or Dissertation Educational Research and beyond , Routledge , New York, NY .

Lamanauskas , V. ( 2019 ), “ Scientific article preparation: title, abstract and keywords ”, Problems in Education in the 21st Century , Vol. 77 No. 4 , pp. 456 - 462 .

Leo , S. ( 2019 ), “ Pitfalls of tourism graduate students in presenting the ingredients of research proposals ”, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education , Vol. 24 , pp. 178 - 189 .

Mack , C. ( 2012 ), “ How to write a good scientific paper: title, abstract, and keywords ”, Journal of Micro/Nanolithography, MEMS, and MOEMS , Vol. 11 No. 2 , pp. 1 - 5 .

Ostler , E. ( 1996 ), Guidelines for Writing Research Proposals, Reports, Theses, and Dissertations , The Educational Resources Information Center (Eric) , Washington, DC .

Paltridge , B. and Starfield , S. ( 2007 ), Thesis and Dissertation Writing in a Second Language: A Handbook for Supervisors , Routledge , London .

Pautasso , M. ( 2013 ), “ Ten simple rules for writing a literature review ”, PLoS Computational Biology , Vol. 9 No. 7 , pp. 1 - 4 .

Reddy , C.D. ( 2019 ), “ Thinking through a research proposal: a question approach ”, in 18th European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies , Academic Conferences International Limited , Johannesburg , pp. 271 - 277 .

Salama , A.M. ( 2019 ), “ Methodological research in architecture and allied disciplines: philosophical positions, frames of reference, and spheres of inquiry ”, Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research , Vol. 13 No. 1 , pp. 8 - 24 .

Simpson , D.D. and Turner , L.W. ( 2004 ), “ Guide for preparing a thesis or dissertation ”, American Journal of Health Behavior , Vol. 28 No. 5 , pp. 477 - 478 .

Students_Survey ( 2020 ), “ Implication of the successful thesis proposal conception on the students' performance and output ”, available at: https://www.questionpro.com/t/AOkM7ZgieG ( accessed 02 February 2020 ).

Thomas , D. ( 2016 ), The PhD Writing Handbook , Palgrave, Macmillan Publisher Limited , New York, NY .

Walliman , N. ( 2017 ), Research Methods: The Basics , Routledge , New York, NY .

Zhou , A.A. ( 2004 ), Writing the Dissertation Proposal: A Comparative Case Study of Four Nonnative- and Two Native -English -speaking Doctoral Students of Education , University of Toronto, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing , Toronto .

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the sincere assistance provided by the team of experts from several Architectural Schools worldwide to verify and improve the TP Conception. Appreciation is also extended to the post graduate students of the College of Architecture and Planning, IAU, who have positively responded to the students' opinion survey.

Corresponding author

About the authors.

Mahmoud Abdellatif is a Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, College of Architecture and Planning, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University (IAU), Dammam, Saudi Arabia. He received an MSc from Assuit University, Egypt in 1977 and another MSc from Iowa State University in 1981 and a PhD degree from Texas A&M University in 1985. He has taught and practiced Architecture and Urban Planning for more than 45 years in Egypt, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. His main research focus is on research methods, strategic planning and design and development approaches. He is currently the adviser of IAU Vice President for Studies, Development and Community Services. His last book (published in Arabic) entitled The Simplifying-Integrating Approach to Contemporary Design, Planning and Urban Development articulates his own problem-solving approach. He is the principle editor of the Strategic Plan of Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University 2018–2025.

Reham Abdellatif is an Assistant Professor in Architecture, College of Design, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University (IAU), Dammam, Saudi Arabia. She obtained an MSc degree from Assiut University in 2003 and a PhD degree from Newcastle University, UK, in 2012. She has taught and practiced Architecture and Interior Design for more than 22 years in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Her main research focus is on Architectural Education and Curriculum Development, Analysing Design Learning Activities, Distant/Online Learning, Communication and Computation, VR and Information Technologies in Architecture. She ran the interior design curriculum development committee in Assiut University and in IAU.

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

We want to hear from you! Fill out the Library's User Survey and enter to win.

Thesis Research in Architecture: Research methods

• Get started
• Finding theses
• Literature reviews
• Research methods
• Primary Sources

Unless noted, books listed here are located in the Musagetes Architecture Library.

Architectural and design research

• Architectural Ethnography Call Number: NA2543.S6 A73x 2018
• Architectural Research Methods Call Number: NA2000 .G76 2013
• Architectural Technology: Research and Practice (ebook)
• The Changing Shape of Architecture: Further Cases of Integrating Research and Design in Practice Call Number: NA1995 .C42 2019
• Design + Anthropology: Converging Pathways in Anthropology and Design Call Number: NK1520 .M55 2018
• Design Anthropology: Object Cultures in Transition Call Number: NK1520 .D458 2017
• Design Informed: Driving Innovation with Evidence-Based Design (ebook)
• Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need (ebook)
• Discursive Design: Critical, Speculative, and Alternative Things (ebook)
• Ethnography for Designers Call Number: NA2543.S6 C74
• Exploring: Research-Driven Building Design Call Number: NA2000 .E98x 2019
• Inquiry by Design: Environment/Behavior/ Neuroscience in Architecture, Interiors, Landscape, and Planning Call Number: BF353 .Z44 2005
• Landscape Architecture Research: Inquiry, Strategy, Design Call Number: SB469.4 .D46 2011
• Making Homes: Ethnography and Design Call Number: GT170 .P56 2017
• Practice-Based Design Research (ebook)
• Reading Architecture and Culture: Researching Buildings, Spaces, and Documents Call Number: NA2560 .R38 2012
• Refractions: Artistic Research in Architecture Call Number: NA2000 .H68x 2016 (also available temporary as ebook through HaitiTrust)
• Research in Landscape Architecture: Methods and Methodology Call Number: SB469.4 .R47 2017
• Research Methodology in the Built Environment Call Number: NA2000 .R48 2016
• Research Methods and Techniques in Architecture Call Number: NA2000 .N5413 2018
• Research Methods for Architecture Call Number: NA2000 .L83x 2016
• Routledge Companion to Design Research Call Number: NK1520 .R68 2015 (also available temporary as ebook through HaitiTrust)
• Routledge Handbook of Planning Research Methods (ebook)
• Spatializing Culture: The Ethnography of Space and Place (ebook)
• Visual Research Methods in Design (also a temporary ebook) Call Number: NA2750 .S25 1991

"Fieldwork can mean the data collection stage of a project (particularly in the qualitative tradition); or how researchers go about collecting data; or more narrowly, data collection in a social setting that tries to reflect the naturally occurring order of events and subjective meanings of those being studied." 1

• Being There: The Fieldwork Encounter and the Making of Truth (ebook)
• The Charrette Handbook: The Essential Guide for Accelerated, Collaborative Community Planning Call Number: HT167 .N33x 2006 (Dana Porter Library)
• Constructing the Field: Ethnographic Fieldwork in the Contemporary World (ebook)
• The Design Charrette: Ways to Envision Sustainable Futures (ebook)
• Development Fieldwork: A Practical Guide (ebook)
• A Handbook for Social Science Field Research: Essays & Bibliographic Sources on Research Design and Methods (ebook)

Research Methods (general)

• Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (ebook)
• The Craft of Research Call Number: Q180.55.M4 B66 2016 (Dana Porter and Milton Good libraries) (also available temporary as ebook through HaitiTrust)
• Doing Qualitative Research Call Number: H62 .S472 2013 (Davis Centre Library)
• Introducing Quantitative methods: A practical Guide Call Number: H62 .A4275x 2019 (Dana Porter Library)
• Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry (ebook)
• Practicing Ethnography: A Student Guide to Method and Methodology (ebook)
• Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches Call Number: H62 .C6963 2018 (Dana Porter and St. Jerome's libraries)
• The SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods (ebook)
• The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Geography Call Number: GF21 .S233 2010 (Dana Porter Library)
• The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Call Number: H62 .H2455 2011 (Dana Porter and Lusi Wong libraries)
• The SAGE Handbook of Quantitative Methodology for the Social Sciences (ebook)
• SAGE Quantitative Research Methods (ebook)
• Salsa Dancing into the Social Sciences: Research in an Age of Info-Glut Call Number: H62 .L7995 2008 (Dana Porter Library)

Case Studies

Where can you find case studies?

• Case studies are often published in  journal articles , so consult the  journals listed  in Architecture Research Guide , and search for articles using the Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals .
• Some case studies are presented as  conference papers , which are sometimes published as part of conference proceedings, as well as in journals.
• Look for projects that have received formal recognition; awards announcements will usually provide details about a project that may be helpful to you. These announcements are sometimes published in journals, as well as on the web sites of the organizations making the awards.
• You can also try searching for  Case studies  as a subject combining other key words or subject headings, and/or filtering by library to only include books from Musagetes. Please keep in mind that this will exclude a lot of sources that are not formally considered to be case studies

Case Study Methodology

• Case Studies: Case-Based Research (ebook)
• The Case Study as Research Method: A Practical Handbook (ebook)
• Case Study Research: Design and Methods (temporary ebook)
• Case Study Research: Principles and Practices (ebook)
• Qualitative Research Through Case Studies (ebook)

Case Study Sources

• 20/20 Visions: Collaborative Planning and Placemaking Call Number: HT166 .C253x 2018
• Architecture Against the Post-Political: Essays in Reclaiming the Critical Project Call Number: NA2500 .A7129 2014
• Creative Placemaking: Research, Theory and Practice (ebook)
• Research Methodology in the Built Environment: A Selection of Case Studies Call Number: NA2000 .R48 2016
• Sustainability, Energy and Architecture: Case Studies in Realizing Green Buildings (ebook)
• Sustainable Housing Reconstruction: Designing Resilient Housing after Natural disasters Call Number: HV554.5 .C43 2015

Writing and presenting your research

• The Dissertation: A Guide for Architecture Students Call Number: NA2108 .B67 2006
• Presenting Your Research: Conferences, Symposiums, Poster Presentations and Beyond (ebook)
• Architect's Guide to Writing: For Design and Construction Professionals Call Number: NA2540 .S36x 2014

Social Justice and Critical Research Methods

• Data Feminism (ebook)
• Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (ebook)
• Decolonizing Research: Indigenous Storywork as Methodology Call Number: GN378 .D43 2019 (Dana Porter Library)
• Doing Respectful Research: Power, Privilege and Passion Call Number: GN345 .T54 2016 (Dana Porter Library)
• Experience, Research, Social Change: Critical Methods (ebook)
• Fostering Social Justice Through Qualitative Inquiry: A Methodological Guide (ebook)
• Indigenous Research: Theories, Practices, and Relationships (ebook)
• Indigenous Statistics: A Quantitative Research Methodology (ebook)
• Other, Please Specify: Queer Methods in Sociology Call Number: HQ76.25 .O84 2018
• Queer Methods and Methodologies: Intersecting Queer Theories and Social Science Research Call Number: HQ76.25 .Q44 2016
• Research as Resistance: Revisiting Critical, Indigenous, and Anti-Oppressive Approaches (ebook)
• The Responsible Methodologist: Inquiry, Truth-Telling, and Social Justice Call Number: BD241 .K827 2015 (Dana Porter Library)

Interviews and Surveys

Doing interviews, focus groups, or surveys? See the University of Waterloo's  Office of Research Ethics  requirements for research with human participants .

• Collective Memory Work: A Methodology for Learning with, and from Lived Experience (ebook)
• Interviewing for Social Scientists: An Introductory Resource with Examples (ebook)
• Learning From Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies (temporary ebook) Call Number: HN29 .W42 1994 (Davis Centre Library) (also available temporary as ebook through HaitiTrust)
• Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data Call Number: H62 .R737 2005 (Dana Porter Library) (also available temporary as ebook through HaitiTrust)
• Reflective Interviewing: A Guide to Theory and Practice (ebook)
• The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft Call Number: H61.28 .H36 2012 (Dana Porter Library)

Focus Groups

• Doing Focus Groups (ebook)
• Focus Group Discussions Call Number: H61.28 .H45 2014 (Dana Porter Library)
• Focus Groups: Theory and Practice (ebook)
• Constructing Survey Data: An Interactional Approach Call Number: HA31.2 .G63x 2014 (Dana Porter Library)
• Design, Evaluation, and Analysis of Questionnaires for Survey Research (ebook)
• Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences (ebook)
• The SAGE Handbook of Survey Methodology (ebook)

1. Geoff Payne, and Judy Payne, Key Concepts in Social Research (London ; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2004), 94.

• << Previous: Literature reviews
• Next: Primary Sources >>
• Last Updated: Jul 28, 2023 12:03 PM
• URL: https://subjectguides.uwaterloo.ca/architecturethesis

Research guides by subject

Course reserves

My library account

Book a study room

News and events

Work for the library

Support the library

We want to hear from you. You're viewing the newest version of the Library's website. Please send us your feedback !

• Contact Waterloo
• Maps & Directions
• Accessibility

How to Develop a Research Question

You've identified a research topic and have done the background information gathering to understand current knowledge and gaps related to that topic. The next step in developing a research proposal is to craft a clear and focused research question.

Put simply, a research question is the question that your research aims to answer. It narrows down a broad topic of interest into a specific area of study (Creswell 2014). The research question serves as the “guiding light” and provides a framework for the research that is being proposed.

Although grant applications, RFPs, and thesis committees may not explicitly ask you to state your research question, doing so will lend clarity and help to define your work – for you as much as for potential funders, partners, and supporters.

Below we offer general guidance on developing a research question.

1) To begin

Do a literature review on your topic, making note of what is known and what is not known. Think about what you are hoping to contribute to this body of knowledge. How does your research idea fit in: Does it seek to answer a question that has not yet been asked…or answered? Does it confirm or add clarity to current understanding? Does it describe, explain, or define something new or in a new way?

Consider the “so what.” Why does the thing you want to research matter to you, and why should it matter to others?

Read examples of research questions. From your literature review, identify some of the specific research questions of others exploring your topic. Ask colleagues about their research questions. Some general examples of good and bad research questions can be found here .

2) CREATE AND Narrow your list

Warm up by making a list of many potential research questions relating to your topic. Use this to create your working list of research questions that you are interested in answering. 

Start by eliminating any potential research questions that aren’t researchable, meaning that they can’t be answered through systematic inquiry, such as value-based questions or questions that involve choosing a moral course of action. Nevertheless, non-researchable questions can often be reworked into a form that is researchable. For example, the non-researchable question “Should landscape architecture be taught in high school?” can be modified into the researchable question “Do high schools that offer a landscape architecture course see higher college acceptance rates among students who took that course?” 

Your research question is closely related to your research design, so you will need to begin to think through the research strategy and methods that could be used to answer each of your remaining research questions. How would you conduct experiments, obtain data/information, or analyze existing information to answer the question? In addition to confirming that these methods are ethical and legal, consider social and political factors that might affect their feasibility. For example, due to the federal HIPAA Privacy Rule, health information for individuals in the U.S. is very difficult to obtain. Conducting surveys or observations may be problematic in social groups mistrustful of researchers or outsiders. 

Next, consider your particular circumstances. Do you have the interest and expertise to carry out the needed research following appropriate methods? Will you have access to necessary information, people/locations, technology, or equipment? Will you have adequate time and funding to be able to address the research question? If not, can the scope of the research question be modified to better align with what you can do?

3) Select and refine your research question

Once you have identified a viable research question or questions, ask yourself the following. Is your research question:

• Clear? Understandable without providing additional background information; who, what, when, where, and why are all evident in the research question
• Focused? Centered on a single question, problem, or issue; not overly broad or generic
• Concise? Stated in as few words as possible while conveying key information
• Feasible? Able to be answered or explored through your research design with all given constraints
• Complex? Not able to be answered with a yes/no or simple statistic; requires investigation and analysis to develop an answer
• Arguable? Open to debate; not presenting information that is accepted fact

4) Continue to test and refine

After you have formulated your research question, test how it might sound to answer the question. Does this align with the potential results or findings you might expect from your proposed research strategy? If not, you may need to adjust either the question or your methods.

As you further develop your research strategy and methods, your research question may need to be changed or redefined. This is especially true for research that will occur in phases or when the scope needs to be adjusted to fit within particular timing or budget constraints, such as those introduced by the parameters of a potential grant. You may even need to break your research question down into more discrete sub-questions that can be answered in different phases of research.

References and Further Reading

Bouchrika, Imed. “How to Write a Research Question: Types, Steps, and Examples.” Research.com. September 8, 2021. https://research.com/research/how-to-write-a-research-question

Creswell, John W. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2014).

Deming, Elen and Simon Swaffield. Landscape Architecture Research: Inquiry, Strategy, Design (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2011), 52. 

“How to Write a Research Question.” The Writing Center. Accessed July 18, 2022. https://writingcenter.gmu.edu/guides/how-to-write-a-research-question

McCombes, Shona. “Developing Strong Research Questions.” Scribbr. April 16, 2019 (revised July 12, 2022).   https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-questions/

Olsen, Jr., Dan R. “Five Questions for Good Research.” ICE Lab Guidance. Accessed July 18, 2022. http://byu.danrolsenjr.org/ResearchGuidance/ResearchQuestions.html

Related Resources

Design Research: What Is It and How Is It Changing the Field of Practice?

A Case Study Method for Landscape Architecture

LAF is grateful to the many individuals and organizations that provide financial support towards fulfilling our mission to support the preservation, improvement, and enhancement of the environment.

Much of what LAF is able to accomplish would not be possible without the thought leadership and financial investment of our major supporters, including ASLA, which provides over $125,000 of in-kind support annually.

• View All Donors
• Become a Supporter

Utility navigation

Connect with us, stay in the know, support laf.

As a non-member, charitable organization we rely on the support of our generous donors.

Make a Donation

• Landscape Performance
• Case Study Investigation
• Deb Mitchell Research Grant
• CSI Research Fellows
• CSI Firms and Projects
• Application Process
• Eligibility & Expectations
• Grant Recipients
• Student Scholarships
• Awards Available
• General Application Guidelines
• Scholarship FAQs
• LAF Honor Scholarship in Memory of Joe Lalli, FASLA
• LAF Honor Scholarship for Inclusive Community Design
• ASLA Council of Fellows Scholarships
• ASLA Florida Chapter Career Discovery Scholarships
• ASLA-NY Equitable Public Urban Space Scholarship
• Daniel Zwier/Permaloc Innovation Scholarship
• EDSA Minority Scholarship
• Hawaii Chapter ASLA/David T. Woolsey Scholarship
• Kenneth R. Brooks MLA Research Scholarship
• LandDesign Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Scholarship
• Landscape Forms Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Scholarship
• Landscape Forms Scholarship in Memory of Peter Schaudt, FASLA
• MIG Scholarship for the Design of Equitable and Inclusive Environments
• Rain Bird Intelligent Use of Water Scholarship
• Steven G. King Play Environments Scholarship
• Douglas Dockery Thomas Fellowship in Garden History and Design
• Program Expectations
• Ignite FAQs
• For Internship Providers
• For Mentors
• LAF Fellowship for Innovation and Leadership
• Olmsted Scholars Program
• LAF Medal and Founders' Award
• Award & Expectations
• Fellowship FAQs
• LAF Fellows
• Nomination and Selection Process
• Nominee Submission Packet
• Recognition and Benefits
• Past Olmsted Scholars
• Ignite and Fuel
• 50 & Forward
• LAF Legacy Society
• Ways to Give
• Action Plan
• Up Your Game
• Superstudio