The relational and linguistic origins of architectural research. Relevance from a design teaching approach

The topic of research in architecture has been the subject of speculation for decades now, in the difficult attempt to frame a discipline whose strength is precisely its flexibility. Many researchers have wondered about a possible autonomy of architecture at the level of scientific research, and still others about the role of interdisciplinary research in dialogue with that of architecture. With the increase in public funding from the Italian Ministry of University and Research, assigned to strengthening the public-private relationship, the Italian academic panorama is the protagonist of an increase in research themes and projects in the doctoral field. This operation generated a series of debates and reflections among doctoral students on what it means to do research in architecture. Two approaches emerged during the debate: on the one hand a definition given by the operational dimension and the tools specific to the architectural discipline, and on the other a methodological approach dedicated to establishing an order among the innumerable elements with which architecture enters in dialogue. In trying to understand whether the language of architecture is a sufficient element for a research object to be recognized as architecture, the teaching experience of a degree course in which students are asked to operate according to the terms of the architecture. If we ask, “What is research in architecture?” to someone not related to the academic and scientific domains, they will respond us that we deal with some sort of guidelines as the output of our work. In the same way, such doubt reflected on someone dealing with another scientific sector will amateurishly explain to us that research in our field only deals with a constructive or technological perspective. And again, an Architect or a Designer will point us that it’s about the physical object itself, arguing with the “IT Architect” who will claim the word for his sphere. So, this chaotic mass of interpretations may lead us to ask ourselves, “What is truly Architecture? What are we studying?” – when the word itself is stolen and reclaimed even by other disciplines. Do we still have autonomy and defined boundaries in our domain, or are we some sort of interstitial gap that needs to be filled?