Review of an Academic Research Project “as Done”

Context: In this study we investigate the difference between research “as done” and research “as reported” as a specific instance of the broader distinction between embodied experience and its description. Problem: Despite a long-standing tradition within the philosophy of science that views research as a complex and often messy process, designers and architects have tended to neglect this discourse, favoring instead superficial claims of objectivity often associated with scientific research. Consequently, reports on architectural and design research tend to omit unexpected insights or failures encountered along the path of inquiry, creating the misleading impression that outcomes emerge automatically along rational and deterministic processes. Method: We provide an account of the first author’s recently conducted PhD project, aiming to faithfully portray an academic research project “as done” and relate this portrayal to its formal report. Results: We draw on discussions within the philosophy of science and design research to exemplify the conceptualization of academic research as an uncertain journey, thereby aligning design and architectural research with constructivist approaches. This highlights the potentially mutually enriching relationship between the lived experience of inquiry and its portrayal in formal reports while acknowledging the inherent distinctions between the two. Implications: We hope that this study will benefit researchers, particularly early-career architectural researchers. The latter, whose studio upbrinnging emphasizes similarities across all forms of open-ended inquiry, may be misled into believing that good research is based entirely on rational and linear processes of inquiry, as it often appears when viewed superficially through the lens of formal research reports. Constructivist content: The work presented here puts forward a personal journey of constructing academic research through exemplifying and accounting for various mismatches between research “as done” and research “as reported.” This exemplification highlights aspects of the research process that are often overlooked or omitted in favor of ease of research consumption.