Architecture: Art or Science?

Ana Pereira Roders

No matter how long one works in academia, whether Architecture is science or art remains a popular question. Let me share with you a possible answer.

Architecture is a fascinating discipline that attracts natural problem-solvers who gladly use their creativity and vision to convert any challenge into a handful of opportunities. Unlike many graduates who crossed my path, Architects effortlessly bridge the qualitative and quantitative worlds, arguing design decisions with interlinked principles of engineering, economy, biology, urban planning, history, architecture, and philosophy. They are well-intentioned and positive-driven. Architects passionately direct all their energy and attention to persuade others (and themselves!) on the outstanding concepts and design decisions they define, highlighting the problems solved and values (re)created. So, architecture can undoubtedly be an art: creative, visionary, interdisciplinary, well-intentioned and positive-driven.

Science, however, is a rigorous, systematic endeavour that builds and organises knowledge in the form of either theories to be tested or questions to be answered. Architecture today is undoubtedly far more scientific than when I was a student. There is a growing wealth of scientific publications and research in bachelor, master, and postgraduate education programs. Yet, a scientific approach in Architecture is not a given. But, we are far closer than you may think! Let me share some tips on making your designs and/or research in Architecture more scientific.

1. Make time for it!

Scientific research cannot be done at the last minute, before the deadlines. So, ensure you create a time plan and follow it as much as possible. Every research needs a period of preparation, where you review references to evidence the relevance of your work for science and society, and discuss how others address (or not) your question. You need to choose and justify your method and case study. You will need to collect/structure the data (and trust me, challenges always emerge). And last, to analyse everything and draw valuable conclusions (yes, now you will regret having collected more data than you need). So, it is time to sharpen your priorities!

2. Less is more!

No matter what research question you choose, experience taught us, that it will probably still be too big (remember, we are well-intentioned and positive-driven?). So, if you have little time due to very short deadlines, make sure you start with pragmatism, by either defining a smaller research question, teaming up with others (make it also fun), or evolving from the work of others, sharing their aims, methodology, case study and/or results (1+1=3).

3. Grow on structure and transparency!

To consider alternatives while defining design solutions is common in Architecture. However, unlike in other sciences, we seldom take the time to structure and share the outcome of such comparisons in writing. The final designs are heavily illustrated in drawings, images and 3D models. Narratives are limited and descriptive, missing critical conclusions on the problems solved, unsolved or caused, and the values (re)created, maintained, destroyed or ignored. Keep this in mind! Not everyone understands illustrations. Narratives strengthen communication and understanding.

4. Replace "inspirations" with "references"!

Nothing makes one researcher prouder than to see their work referenced and used for future research. Unfortunately, Architects do it (yet) too little. We learned to consult the work of fellow architects and literature, as most scientists do when reviewing the literature to discuss the state-of-the-art. However, these "references" are often cherrypicked and used as "inspirations". Use them instead to frame your work, and evidence your "originality" and "innovation", now more often assumed than proven.

5. Design = Research!

In the universities I have studied or worked in, design and research are still two different worlds, whereas to design is yet to be understood as a research process and the design its product. By strengthening this relation, designs can improve in quality and impact, supported by research results. But also, slowly, we could develop more and better theories (beyond untested ideas) on the complexity of design processes, their interdisciplinarity and hierarchies in decision-making.

Externally to the discipline, it would surely help if Architecture would be better recognised as a discipline within the scientific panels supporting research funding and not a subset of engineering, urban planning, architectural history or other established sciences. But we also have a role to play, helping promote and join research in architecture, whether you work in practice, education or research. Like learning to ride a bike, do not expect to win the Nobel prize with your first research project. But, your second project will surely be more scientific than the first!

Feel free to share your successes and challenges in doing research in Architecture so we can also learn from your experiences.