Interpretative-Historical Research:

The interpretative – historical method uses the philosophy that the world is
comprehensible and can be known through narratives. The historical research
always brings into view of something from the past. This doesn’t mean the history
will always be in a written or literary form. The narratives or evidences can be found
from sources like, archival resources, public and private historic records,
interrogation of witnesses, evaluating with comparable situation etc. The
observation, curiosity and scepticism of a researcher will always be key element in
identifying and interpreting these narratives. While analysing such historic narratives
or events, certain factors should be taken into consideration because, it has
happened in the past where lifestyle, tradition and situations were different from now.
The analysis should give an insight on the cultural, traditional, social impacts that
affected the subject. Technically it involves finding, evaluating, organising and
analysing the facts. This requires interpretive imagination, practical awareness,
comprehensive questioning and effective judgement skills as analysing the historic
events can be a conflicting journey between facts and fiction.
Like every other research method, there are certain tactics used for the Historic
interpretation. Some of which are:
 Using documents
 Visual comparison
 Analysing material evidence
 Onsite familiarity
 Comparing with conditions elsewhere

Even though history is an interpretive enterprise, any evidence or narratives on a

subject can be a single viewpoint of the same. That is, there can be different but
logical aspects or interpretations for a single event or subject. At a strategic level,
school of thought affects how past conditions are interpreted. But as I pointed out
before it requires deep knowledge, high interpretation and analytical skills inrder to
do so because multiple evidence or history of a single topic are probaby needed for
an absolute analysis of that topic.
Qualitative Research:
Qualitative research is often defined as research which requires collection,
organisation, interpretation and analysis of qualitative data of any kind. It can be any
non-numeric data like text, video, image etc. It can be effectively used as a tool to
understand ideas, thoughts, experiences by giving deep insights into a problem and
create new concepts for research. It may be a multi-method in centre, including
interpretative, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This implies that qualitative
researchers study things in their natural settings, endeavouring to create sense of, or
explain phenomena in terms of the logic individuals bring to them. Qualitative
research includes the examined use and collection of variety of experimental
materials.
The qualitative research often uses a variety of processes and tactics for the
collection, analysis, interpretation and organisation of data. This includes; the
process, data collection, coding, data display, drawing conclusion and verifying etc.
The researcher is thus obliged to exercise great care and thoughtfulness throughout
the research study. In spite of the fact that there are certainly unpretentious, but
important, contrasts between the a several point of views, it is certain that the overall
strength and weakness can be compared.

The major strengths of using qualitative researches are:

 Capacity to take in rich and holistic qualities of real-life circumstances.
 Flexibility in design and procedures allowing adjustments in process
 Sensitivity to meanings and processes of artifacts and people’s activities.

The weaknesses in using qualitative researches are:

 Challenges of dealing with vast quantities of data.
 Few guidelines or step by step procedures established.
 The credibility of qualitative data can be seen as suspect with the
postpositivist standard.
However, the clear inclination, in areas such as architecture, to give assurance to
qualitative research through the noble evaluation processes of academic journals
and conference groups proposes that the role of the qualitative strategy will continue
to progress as a vital line of research
Correlational Research:

Correlational exploration is a kind of non-experimental research technique in which

an analyst estimates two factors, comprehends and surveys the statistical
connection between them with no impact from any unnecessary variable. It is one of
the best strategies for exploring the relationship among two or more variables of
interest. In contrast to experimental research, in which a variable is deliberately
controlled by the researcher, correlational research tries to record the naturally
occurring patterns among variables. This distinctive implies that it is especially
suitable in conditions when variables either can't be controlled for practical reasons
or ought not be controlled for ethical reasons.
There are variety of methods in which correlation research can be done. The most
common tactics for data collection include
 Survey
 Observation
 Mapping
 Sorting
 archives

Strengths of correlation strategy:

 Can clarify the relationships among two or more naturally occurring variables.
 Well suited for studying the breadth of a setting or phenomenon.
 Can establish predictive relationships.
Weaknesses of correlation strategy:
 Researcher cannot control the levels of degrees of variables.
 Not suitable for exploring the setting or phenomenon in depth.
 Cannot establish causality.

Correlational research empowers researchers to create the measurable pattern

between two apparently interconnected variables; as such, it is the beginning stage
of any research. It permits you to connect two variables by noticing their behaviour in
the most natural state.
Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research

These research findings may appear to be poles apart in some useful ways. The
Givoni et al. study addresses specific facet of sustainable design, whereas the
Devlin study tries to elucidate the phenomena of discrimination in architectural
design. Second, the research contexts differ greatly. The former is carried out in a
laboratory context, whilst the latter is carried out in a real-life or "field" situation.
Third, the factors are fairly diverse. The Givoni et al. study only takes into account
physical traits, but the Devlin study takes into account cultural or social perspectives.
Despite their significant variations, the Givoni et al. and Devlin research are both
illustrations of experimental research design. Field research studies sometimes
involve conditions in which randomisation cannot be achieved for philosophical or
moral reasons. The experiment is most likely the most debatable of all the study
design methodologies routinely used by researchers. On the one hand, realist
scholars see experimental design as the gold standard of research. The ideal
method, the only truly convincing method—of demonstrating correlation is to
undertake a carefully planned experiment in which the influences of any lurking
circumstances are controlled.

STRENGTHS

 Potential for establishing causality.

 Ability to control all aspects of experimental design enables attribution of
causality.
 Potential for generalising results to other settings and phenomena

WEAKNESS

 Misuse by overgeneralisation to different ethnic and gender populations.

 Over emphasis on control yields ethical problems and dehumanisation.
 Reduction of complex reality to identify “casual” or independent variables.
Experimenting entails deliberately changing something and observing how it affects
the outcome. The experimental design method is often criticised by academics from
both the inter-subjective and subjectivist perspectives for a variety of reasons.
Furthermore, the scientific setting is viewed as a "particular physical setting that
exerts its very own effects," rather than a "neutral physical setting." Instead, critics
contend, situations and behaviours should be examined in complex and convoluted
different habitats.

Simulation Research

Simulation allows us to learn about potential real world scenarios without having to
deal with the ethical issues, hazardous conditions, or costs involved associated with
the actual scenarios. We learn nothing that can be used to successfully anticipate
behaviour. However, our simulation experience tells us trends of activity, or
expectations of events can be described, that are based on a substantially and
presumably thoroughly produced clone of the exact conditions. There seem to be
four primary areas of focus: data input completeness, replication accuracy,
"programmed spontaneity," and cost/workability. There's almost probably no solid
indication of how an intentionally manufactured environment may be completely
accurate. The usage of VR product development process encouraged the
comprehensive construction of both the interior and external spaces. Because the
designer was able to "get in there" the concept and experience it from the inside, he
was compelled to solve complicated linkages and nuances that would not have been
noticeable with other technology. It is one of the perks of simulation research: we
can discover about seismic events without risking life; we can learn to fly aircraft
without fear of collapsing; and we can mimic a whole bustling metropolis without the
price of designing and building it. Simulation is an extremely common research
methodology that can be used for a wide range of goals, from extremely specialized
implementations in design work to conceptualization. Similarly, simulation typically
adapts itself to a variety of applications as a technique inside other research
strategies or as a complete partner in communication and analytical projects.
simulations of real objects or elements by employing the actual objects and/or
materials in the proportion that they would actually exist (e.g., fullsize replicas). The
simulations must take place in a setting that is as close to reality as appropriate.
Simulation may be especially well-suited for usage as a technique in research
strategies. In many circumstances, the problem is creating cost-effective simulation
frameworks. To aid in this, it may be useful to establish a range of assumptions for
the consequences, ranging from "approximation" for teaching reasons to "actual" for
practical uses in promotion or development.

Logical Argumentation:

The very first basic concept is a foundational notion that is so easy to identify that it
does not require deeper justification. Basic concepts are thus logical foundations
upon which broad interpretive frameworks can be built. The term "logical
argumentation" isn't very well known as other research methodologies, such as
correlational research or history research. Logical argumentation has a tendency to
integrate traditionally divergent components, or completely undiscovered and/or
unrecognised factors, into coherent approaches with significant and sometimes
innovative plausibility. The enabling circumstances for a certain explanatory
framework are referred to as the first standards; they are rationally a priori in
reference to the actual issue. If a general concept can be recognized a priori, then
logical consequences follow. Many logical argumentation systems are
interdisciplinary in scope owing to their wide usability. It is clear that Aristotle's four
causes create an evidence base that is so extensive that it may be applied to nearly
every research method. Kuhn's paradigm shift hypothesis is equally essential.
Primary logical frameworks describe the fundamental principles and linkages that
sustain the system, but as a result, they spawn later frameworks with smaller but
more concentrated applicability fields. The secondary studies normally do not
provide any new information to the primary system. Furthermore, they tend to dig a
bit deeper into the field that the primary system has specified. In the Metaphysics,
Aristotle says this about the sciences: “those with fewer principles are more exact
than those which involve additional principles.” He contends that a simplified method
has always been truer to the idea of something than a more sophisticated one.
Identifying diverse parts that are the subject of conversation is one of the main tools
of quasi logical reasoning. The purpose is to instil in the listener a sense of what is
really being specified is relevant to him or her not only on the level of intellectual
reason, but also on the level of psychosocial identification.

In diverse styles of inquiry and writing, logical reasoning is frequently implicit. Logical
argumentation identifies first principles as the standard denominator for a wide range
of different scientific factors and contains an implicit framework that connects them
into a research paradigm capable of describing, explaining, and forecasting within its
domain of concern. A logical system may not be a realistic picture of the reality it
pretends to explain while remaining consistent with reality from a practical
perspective. As a result, rational frameworks must be inspected.

Case Studies and Combined Strategies:

Case study is a research methodology which can be defined as an intensive study or

a systematic investigation about a topic which the researcher inspects in-depth data
relating to several variables. Researchers define how case studies scrutinize
complex phenomena in the natural setting to increase understanding of them. While
describing the steps taken while utilizing a case study analysis approach, this
technique for research allows the analyst to take a perplexing and vast topic, or
phenomenon, and thin down into practicable research question(s). By gathering
qualitative or quantitative datasets about the topic, the analyst acquires a more
comprehensive knowledge into the topic than would be obtained with the help of just
one type of data.

The basic identifying characters of a case study are:

 Focus on either single or multiple cases, studied in their real-life contexts.

 The capacity to explain casual links.
 the importance of theory development in the research design phase
 a reliance on multiple sources of evidence, with data converging in a
triangular fashion
 the power to generalize to theory.
Combined strategies research is a methodology for leading research that includes
collecting, analysing and incorporating quantitative and qualitative research. This
way to deal with research is helpful when this incorporation gives a better
comprehension of the research issue than either of each alone. It is a fact that while
there is much to be gained by integrating different research designs, the researcher
may also find that combining strategies requires a higher level of sophistication in
research methodology than would be expected if he or she were to use a more
conventional approach.

The three general models used that are suitable for combined strategies are:

 The two-face approach

 The dominant less dominant research
 The mixed methodology designs.

Because there are, at this point, lesser recognized rules and measures for designing
combined research strategies, the researcher must exercise more attention and care
on a superior range of knowledge in research methodologies. But, despite this
complex level of challenge, we believe that architectural research that combines
strategies represents an important and necessary frontier in our field.