Could a design be the product of scientific work to be compared with a scientific report? If so, under which conditions and when? The topic is eagerly discussed both within and outside of faculties of architecture. On the web-site of the Design Research Society (DRS) there is a lively debate on what a design study and a study by design really are and when a designer can also be designated a scientist. These questions stood central during the 1996 EAAE Congress organised by the Delft Faculty of Architecture on the theme ‘Doctorates in Design + Architecture’.a In order to answer these questions we discuss first the terms ‘research’ and ‘study’ and the usual pre-requisites that must be met for study to be designated ‘scientific’. Next, similarities and differences between designing and studying are dealt with. Following that, we discuss the usual way in the scientific community of looking at the criteria for a design to be branded as a product of scientific study. For that purpose a summary is given of the requirements the Technical University in Delft associates with a the rôle it played during the initiative leading to this handbook of design related study. Finally we give a specimen of criteria for evaluation of a scientific architectural design (ex post) and of a proposal for a design related study (ex ante).
|Title of host publication||Ways to study and research urban, architectural and technical design|
|Editors||T.M. de Jong, D.J.M. van der Voordt|
|Place of Publication||Delft|
|Publication status||Published - 2002|