“Architectural research: Incorporating Myth and Science”

Review of Julia Robinson, W, “Architectural research: Incorporating Myth and Science”

Robinson discussed myth and science in terms of methodology especially in the field of architectural design with architectural movement from modernism to postmodernism. The essay points out that there are some misunderstandings of categorizing and it produced some problems. According to Robinson, in modern period, architecture tried to develop scientific buildings by scientific process and ignored myth. On the other hand, in postmodern period, the challenge was to create mythopoetic architecture because postmodernists thought the field of architecture lost myth in modern movement. However, the understanding of scientific and mythopoetic approaches was limited. Consequently, what modern architecture achieved was not really scientific but just image of science, in other words the myth of science. Postmodern architecture also achieve only image of myth not really mythpoethic. In Robinson’s opinion, architecture is related with culture so it is necessary to consider mythical side of architecture. Author thinks it is not necessary to align science to learn myth, but it may make research stronger. Anthropology is expected to connect science and myth in the architectural practice.

            I do not understand how anthropology works to combine science and myth, however, I agree that combining two methods are valid. I support her discussion that the explanation of design by using both of science and myth methods, could be very powerful. I think that the integration of science and myth in research or design process is expected to produce real scientific and mythic architecture, no more just images.

Robinson, Julia W. “Architectural research: Incorporating Myth and Science”. Journal of Architectural Education, 44 no.1 (1990): PP20-32.

“Architectural Research Methods”

Review of Linda Groat and David Wang, “Architectural Research Methods”

This reading illustrated various systems of inquiry with advantages and disadvantages. To understand the systems, some methodologists have clarified the systems of inquiry and created several model frameworks.Robinson categories research systems into two groups, science and myth, in other words quantitative and qualitative. Jorff and Morse, and Morgan and Smith create the continuum framework model. The author warned that the two groups’ framework might lead to misunderstanding, as it is too rough. According to author, the continuum framework is still based on the two groups’ framework. The author then proposed three groups framework, postpositivism, naturalism and emancipatory.

               In my opinion, it is important to understand the systems of inquiry to manage my own research, as I agree that the system which researchers use effect research. To advance the quality of my research, it may be very helpful to know what kind of research I am doing and what is the weakness of that system of research, then I might be able to avoid disambiguation. To achieve this goal, a clear framework is required to understand the position of my inquiry system.  I think a two groups’ framework to include continuum is clear and easy to understand rather than the three groups’ frame work which author recommends. The two of three groups; naturalism and emancipatory have similarities and have some overlaps, therefore it is hard to distinguish. Although I agree that two groups is too simple and some research systems do not fit, the clearness of the framework is manageable.  I would like to judge my research system by simple two groups’ framework inclusive of a continuum framework that uses several different continuums. For example from the view of quantitative and qualitative, Ontology and Epistemology, and any other work.

Groat, Linda and David Wang. Architectural Research Methods. John Wiley & Sons, INC, 2002: PP21-43.