1 Introduction

Engaging in speculative endeavors beyond the confines of academia entails a deliberate focus on forging novel trajectories within the cognitive and knowledge-production realms of architectural research. It can be understood as an approach where research acts as a continuous path of inspiration and not (only) as a procedural tool for academic advancement. Within architectural doctoral studies, research by design and design driven research emerge as attitudes towards incorporating the artistic design processes in research, trespassing the scope of architectural research within academic boundaries.

This pursuit of research aimed at enriching applied architecture through the exploration of newly opened cognitive paths calls for recognizing research on architecture as a dynamic sphere. Research and practice enter an interrelation where thinking, practice and social factors go back and forth, contributing essentially to the formation of both research and applied architecture. Similarly, investigating the impact of architectural research necessitates a paradigm shift mirroring the spontaneous and creative nature of design processes and possibilities in the architecture(s) field.

2 The Process: How to Speculate Beyond Academia?

The PhD Workshop commenced with thought-provoking questions which set departure points to ignite the dialectic and reform genealogies, in aim to explore the concept of impact and how it could be interpreted beyond academic boundaries. Amidst delving into these considerations, the dialogue transgressed into several key questions: What impact do PhD students hope to achieve? Can impact be effectively evaluated? How can it be measured? Does it share commonalities with scientific relevance, and what constitutes scientific relevance in the context of architecture?

Doctoral students were key participants in this workshop, however interventions from professors and conference participants enriched the discussion and widened the lens to understanding impact and its implications. Seated in a round-table dynamic facilitated the integration of dialectics as a central axis. The discussion reiterated keywords that called for visualization and classification of meanings as a step forward to dissecting how impact unfolds in architectural research. Essentially, the exploration revealed that knowledge in the field of architecture isn’t solely contingent on the (potential) impact or impact factor as conventionally defined in scientific fields. The workshop participants recognized the importance of shifting meanings and the dynamic relationships between them (Fig. 1). This realization prompted a reevaluation of the fundamental question: What is ultimately defined as impact in the context of architecture?

In adopting a perspective for a qualitative rather than quantitative framework to describe impact, the workshop participants reached a juncture where the initial questions spurred the generation of new inquiries. Is impact tied to the research’s relevance? Would ‘influence’ better capture the essence of impact? Or is impact more aligned with the practical utility of the research? When does the impact of the research begin?

Furthermore, the discussions questioned how our understanding of architectural research and knowledge affects the forms of impact we, as architects, imagine and seek. These questions gave rise to a consideration of the nature of objective truth in architectural research. Architectural research and knowledge are recognized as dealing and interacting with dynamics, issues or processes that take place outside of a laboratory. Ιt depends on observing and remarking interrelations through architecture, spatial experience and the user. Social and political aspects enveloped in problems of architecture and the city may act as major and contemporaneous contributors to the research path. Therefore, in recognizing the social potential of architectural research, time plays a key determinant in assessing how and when the impact unfolds. It follows then that measuring the impact of architectural research cannot be iterated with quantitative metrics.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Post-it notes representing the keywords and factors that influence research impact. EAAE 23 PhD Workshop outcomes, September 2023.

Full size image

Furthermore, when discussing different forms of impact, it was evidently agreed that there are both tangible and intangible dimensions. For example, doctoral research can have a profound methodological impact; not only in producing a novel research methodology but inspiring unconventional perspectives and research tools. Moreover, an equally noteworthy impact, albeit subtle in its definition, is the interpersonal form.

Unanticipated reading encounters have the potential to exert influence over the personal trajectory or scholarly purview of that individual. Architectural research frequently delves into the realms of creative knowledge and the expanses of design possibilities. Consequently, architectural research possesses the capacity to instill inspiration in a manner that is unpredictable and transformative. It has the potential to induce a paradigm shift within the design process, operating within a dynamic, non-linear interactive relationship.

3 Drawing Towards Impact: An Architect’s Tool to Speculation

In the process of shuffling, categorizing, and restructuring the post-it notes to visualize the dialectic and the relationship between factors that influence and contribute to research impact, the workshop participants faced a practical challenge. Encapsulating the complex networks into a compact diagram was confronted by the potential limitations of keywords and their associated definitions. As such this necessitated an alternative exploration into the depth of ideas, transcending potential divergences arising from linguistic nuances or contexts, and engaging in different research tools from the architect’s toolkit.

This awareness prompted an artistic exercise proposed by Professor Zupančić. The exercise entailed a five-minute sketch to visually represent an individual interpretation of research impact (Fig. 2). The result was a tapestry of symbolic, abstract, and diagrammatic sketches. The diversity of visuals reflected the interconnectedness of ideas and doctoral students’ arrays of hopes and forms of impact within their research journeys. Evidently the exercise unveiled the intrinsic language of sketches, the power of drawing as a form of dialogue and the nuances of translation; mirroring the parallels in architectural research that meanders between linguistics and design, artistic expression and language competence.

Fig. 2.
figure 2

Several sketches created in the workshop aimed to encapsulate an understanding of research impact. EAAE 23 PhD Workshop outcomes, September 2023.

Full size image

4 Reflections: Towards a Nuanced Appreciation of Architectural Research and Its Impact

Within the realm of architecture, diversity assumes a pivotal role in the intricate interplay of imagination, research, and creation. Analogously, the workshop discussions recognized that the impact of architectural research manifests itself at varying stages, scales, and extents throughout the research process. However, the challenge lies in the complexity of articulating the impact of architectural research, greatly influenced by the disparity between how it is envisioned by the researcher and anticipated by the public and academic society, in contrast to the reality of how impact unfolds in diverse and unforeseen ways.

Moreover, the discussions underscored that impact is a qualitatively diverse concept, encompassing both tangible and intangible forms. Undeniably, doctoral research carries transformative potential, influencing the researcher through self-development and self-reflection. Consequently, although the measurement of impact may elude direct quantification, it remains imperative to actively seek and detect impact, recognizing its nuanced and multifaceted nature.

Thus, the conventional definition of impact underwent a shift. In architectural research, scientific relevance is viewed as generating outcomes that contribute to the field’s thinking, philosophy, and perception, fostering innovation and advancement. In parallel, a potential qualitative impact may correlate to a societal shift, architecture—either imaginary or implemented—scope to facilitate society and to be inhabited by societal dynamics. Essentially, architectural research catalyzes innovation in both theory and practice, emphasizing the reciprocal relationship. This interplay emerges as the pathway to unveiling complex truths in architecture and architectural processes. This perspective challenges the linear interpretation of impact found in other scientific fields, as impact in architectural research defies straightforward translation into measurable financial results or production processes.

Finally, the Workshop yielded a diverse array of perspectives on “the impact of architectural research,” sparking a dialogue that beckons for further exploration. The workshop’s overall creative and critical dynamic interactions served as a reflection of the transformative potential inherent in architectural research, extending beyond its immediate academic context to envision a broader societal influence. Recognizing the vigorous interaction with both societal and scientific dimensions in architectural research expands the scope of its impact.