Technology|Architecture + Design

ISSN: 2475-1448 (Print) 2475-143X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utad20

Describe, Explain, and Predict

Andrzej Zarzycki (Executive Editor)

To cite this article: Andrzej Zarzycki (Executive Editor) (2018) Describe, Explain, and Predict,
Technology|Architecture + Design, 2:1, 1-1, DOI: 10.1080/24751448.2018.1420955

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/24751448.2018.1420955

Published online: 02 Apr 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 289

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=utad20
 1

Describe, Contemporary design practice and education aim to address pressing social, environ-
mental, and technological problems. To realize these aspirations requires systematic and

Explain, and well-defined (re)search into human conditions, materiality, and the spatiality of architec-
ture. This is achieved through innovative and rigorous inquiry based on repetitive results,

Predict
Andrzej Zarzycki, Executive Editor
New Jersey Institute of Technology
the ability to validate them, and the transferability of the knowledge. While scholarly
work describes and explains the nature of a process or a phenomenon, applied research
also allows for the prediction of future outcomes—a projective explanation facilitating
new discoveries. This predictability is directly tied to achieving repetitive results and
advancing the broader design knowledge beyond a singular creative instance.
Architectural research also needs to be directed and intentional. When mathematics
found itself with a number of unresolved problems over a century ago, German math-
ematician David Hilbert proposed a collection of twenty-three problems that set the
course for mathematical research in the twentieth century. Similar vision and leadership
are necessary in our field today. Architecture has to develop a broad, socially supported,
timely vision to direct our future efforts. The 2030 carbon-neutral commitment is an
important part of this vision.1 However, it should be translated into discrete research
objectives jointly supported and advanced by practitioners and academics. New knowl-
edge needs to be developed and shared.
The research-in-practice perspective offered by AIA past President, and current UIA
President, Thomas Vonier advocates for research to take a more prominent role in pro-
fessional practice. This research, he argues, should build on the unknown and fill exper-
tise gaps while staying “focused on measurable results, demonstrable outcomes, and
tangible benefits.”2
The current discussion of sustainability, resiliency, and carbon/water net zero build-
ings expands to include research into human factors and the ways people operate within
the built environment. Designing for a statistically average person is no longer adequate

ED I TO R I A L
or appropriate. Considering each and every person individually is necessary as is already
accomplished in other media, design, and engineering disciplines. Mass-customization of
products and services is being extended into the built environment with buildings antici-
pating and adapting to user needs. Internet of Things technologies combined with com-
puter-human interactions provide new ways to interface with architecture and study
occupancy patterns and behaviors. However, to be effective and protect the public
welfare, we have to better understand scientific methodologies and frameworks that
ensure that user-based research is conducted scientifically and ethically. Institutional
review boards (IRB) provide such guidelines, as discussed in “Architectural Research
Legally and Ethically Considered” by Lynne M. Dearborn and AnnaMarie Bliss.
The tenuous and often indirect relationships between art/design and research are
evident in the creative works of Theo Jansen. His sketches and studio setup reveal
an in-depth engagement with scientific reasoning and technology. The “artificial life”
forms are informed by highly analytical studies of nature with thoughtful and imag-
inative syntheses. Jansen’s work provides a good example of design supported and
directed by research. The proof of concept manifests itself through fully accomplished
and functional designs that are appreciated by the broad public and that advance our
understanding of kinetic designs. The knowledge embedded in developments of analog
sensors and actuators is transferable into other disciplines, however it awaits meaningful
architectural responses and applications.
Another of Hilbert’s achievements is the formulation of the concept of metamath-
ematics—a mathematical reflection on the study of mathematics using mathematical
methods. This disciplinary self-reflection differentiates between reasoning from inside
and from outside of a system. It acknowledges that certain problems can only be under-
stood and solved with an outside-of-the-system perspective. Interdisciplinary team
research, evident in this issue of TAD, provides opportunities for both inside-out and
outside-in reflection on architecture. Not only do these contributions reveal underre-
searched and unresolved problems but also define new disciplinary goals and challenges.

Notes
1. “The 2030 Commitment,” American Institute of Architects, accessed December 16,
2017, https://www.aia.org/resources/6616-the-2030-commitment.
2. Thomas Vonier, “Re-Finding a Voice: Building an Agenda for research in
Architecture,” TAD 2 (1): 5.