Integrative Interfaces

nearesearch — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:34:58 +0000

Welcome to the neasearch blog, with thoughts related to my ongoing research of my doctoral dissertation. This page is currently under construction.

About

Coming soon

Nina Edwards Anker gsd m.arch1

Oslo School of Architecture and Design

Fundamental Questions

nearesearch — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:11:58 +0000

Architect Hilde Haslum, doctoral candidate, presents her dissertation: Reading Socio-Spatial Interplay

During the discussion yesterday, both opponents posed many surprisingly fundamental questions which address the basic nature of reflective research. Observing this presentation proved how helpful the recent scholarly discussions within our PhD group were. We have already asked one another many of the same questions (they were left largely unanswered at this point) even though we are in the first semester of our thesis projects.

The first opponent, Kirsten Simonsen, from the University of Roskilde, brought up the three following issues for discussion: the social theoretical landscape of the thesis, methodology and empirical material, use and applicability of theory.

Within the first category, the social theoretical landscape of the thesis, Simonsen pointed out two vulnerable aspects of interdisciplinary work. First, when applying broad theories from different disciplines and approaches, those theories should be commensurate. Do the concepts play well together? Secondly, she asks how much we are allowed to depoliticize/violate people in order to combine their ideas for our own purposes. How much can one cut a person’s theory to make it work? Can one combine different theories without being self-reflexive? Perhaps stating, ‘I take x’s theory, but I’m aware that I’m cutting z and y out’ is the way forward. These are two dangers one can run by being half in/half out of certain schools of thought.

With regards to the discussion on methodology and empirical material, the opponent underlines the necessity of explaining the construction of one’s thinking behind the seductive words. Being reflexive about the kind of material one uses with regards to the way it is produced is key to one’s analysis. Who produced the historical data, with what purposes? The author chooses to use something and leave something else out. When producing, what perspective do we put on our production and what criteria do we use? As the material (maps, drawings, photo archives, videos, monographs, interviews, etc.) is not straightforward, one should be aware of what kind of production one chooses and why. In selecting a certain type of representation one should ask ‘what does that mean?’ During the discussion of the third issue, use and applicability of theory, the question of the fairness of only partially using others’ theories came up again.

The second opponent, Terttu Pakarinen, from Tampere University of Technology, points out the importance of clarifying one’s own analysis in addition to analysis based on established sources. What is one’s own interpretation of the sources one chooses? She also brought up the issue of information being up to date, which is always a challenge. Finally, who is the thesis written for? Who does it empower?

The questions listed above are fundamentally relevant to research in general. These are the kinds of essential questions we should not lose sight of while embarking on our own doctoral dissertations.

AHO Seminar: Research by Design

nearesearch — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:15:50 +0000

Led by Andrew Morrison

Two members from the Ocean Group, Michael Weinstock from the Architectural Association in London and Michael Hensel from the Oslo School of Architecture and Design, spoke on the topic of the relation of biology and architecture during Thursday’s seminar (12.04.08). Although neither of them focused on the built artefact so much as on biological principles, their talks addressed new possible developments within the field of architecture.
Michael Weinstock, in his presentation Forms and Process in Nature and Civilization, gave a couple of examples of built structures which exemplified the fact that bringing design in technology closer to that in nature necessarily entails increasing amounts of information. In both the Architectural Association’s annual pavilion for 2008 and the Water Cube in Beijing by PTW architects, the formal complexity of the structures was not the issue, thanks to digital technology. The difficulty was in controlling delivery and sequencing of the parts. The way forward thus seems to be in improving ways of handling the complexity of information within the timeline of the building process.
Michael Weinstock also spoke about the fact that metabolic processes, his area of focus within biology, require fluid transportation and surfaces in order to maintain the flow of energy through the system. He gave the examples of lungs, trees, and sea corals. The question is how can these paradigms be translated into a system of network branches in built form? This is a relevant question as engineering, like nature, is based on minimum use of energy. The fact that organisms have to be efficient in terms of energy to survive involves efficiency both in terms of metabolism and optimal appointment of energy between the various functions of life.
This brings us to Michael Hensel’s point in his talk Constructing a Research Programme: Performance Oriented Design along a Biological Paradigm, about the interrelated functions in the subsystems of an assembly needing to be in sync with one another in order to optimize assembly performance. He explained that although we cannot fabricate the bio-membranes which carry out photosynthesis, for example, we can layer material assemblies with particular performance profiles.
By fabricating smart materials, or material assemblies which are responsive in a controlled manner, we can pursue the biological principle of openness. Through sensory and control systems a building can exchange information with the environment. The threshold becomes dynamic and adaptable, thus escaping its traditional hermetic nature. The discussion of ’skins’ in architecture, popular at the turn of the millennium, thus steps beyond its generic term to specifically include the concept of functionality of pores in the skin. New technologies could allow the fabrication of adaptable semi permeable interfaces.

What is Research by Design?

As for the discussion around ‘Research by Design’, Birger Sevaldson from the industrial design department at the AHO, a third member of the Ocean group, gave a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the current debate around the term in his presentation Being Specific about Practice Based Research in Design: An Attempt at Mapping the Field. Chris Rust, chair of the Design Research Society at the Sheffield Hallam University UK, emphasized in his talk A Hopeful Marriage: Artistic Inquiry in the Academy, the importance of designing over ‘theorizing’, and warned us of the danger of getting lost in over-theorizing. He showed an example of how design can support theory in a student’s work in which each step in the design process was explained through hand drawings with text. This was a successful thesis as the student managed to make the purpose of his argument clear in each step of the process. This presentation inspired the following definition of Research by Design:

Research by Design is to extract principles from a certain field in order to create new designs. Because the designs are based on specific ideas which demonstrate a certain intention, it is possible to reflect on the concepts embodied in the resulting artefact.
In Research by Design, the process comprises the documentation part of the research. The more clearly this process is explained, whether through text, video, photos, or drawings, the better. The intentionality comes across more clearly the more precise the documentation is. Each step, which is based on the overall purpose of the design, can be explained in order to support the argument behind the research.
In the subsequent discussion with classmate Alice Labadini, we agreed that Research by Design is interdisciplinary by nature, because it involves both the academic theoretical world and the intuitive risk-taking world. We spoke about the risk of not meeting deadlines by being dependant on other parties during this collaborative process.