Transdisciplinarity and New Paradigm Research
This chapter considers architecture as a discipline, the role of practice in its academic research, and its potentially transdisciplinary character. Developing an earlier study of theses, we differentiate the plane of traditional academic research from an additional dimension offered by practice. However, we note that generic forms of practice occur in all disciplines and so we further differentiate creative practice as a characteristic of architectural research. We identify a number of strategies adopted by architectural researchers through which they attempt to maintain a link between this novel creative practice and the underlying values of traditional academic research. These form bridging strategies, comparable with Haberli’s definition of interdisciplinary research in which the traditional boundaries persist. But we find in Gibbon’s definition of transdisciplinarity, a glimpse of what we have previously claimed to be a new paradigm in which there is no boundary between the concepts and the practices, and therefore no boundaries between traditional and non-traditional cultures of knowledge.
KeywordsAcademic Research Research Model Professional Practice Compensatory Strategy Academic Community
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Swedish Institute (SE) and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (UK) for funding the research.
- Biggs, M., & Büchler, D. (2008a). Architectural practice and academic research. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 20(1), 83–94.Google Scholar
- Biggs, M., & Büchler, D. (2010). Communities, values, conventions and actions. In M. Biggs, & H. Karlsson (Eds.), The routledge companion to research in the arts. (pp. 82–98) London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Bourdieu, P. (1992). The logic of practice. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Büchler, D., Biggs, M. A. R., & Ståhl, L.-H. (2009). Areas of design practice as an alternative research paradigm. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, 3(2), 327–338. http://ijg.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.154/prod.196
- Engeström, Y., Miettinen R., & Punamäki, R. L. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 191–215). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Häberli, R., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., & Klein, J. T. (2001). Summary. In J. T. Klein, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, R. Häberli, A. Bill, R. W. Scholtz & M. Welti (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology, and society. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
- OECD (2002). Frascati manual: Proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
- Schön, D. A. (1991). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Arena.Google Scholar
- Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar