| A re-examination of the inception of modern architectural theory and education in the United States in the mid-twentieth century, this study focuses on the work of architects who resisted the dogma of the "International Style" and advocated an alternative approach to design free of aesthetic preferences and preconceptions. Instead of design precedents, they proposed to base architecture on scientific knowledge gleaned through "research," including both the products of scientific inquiry and the work of reformers and city planners engaged in New Deal and wartime housing projects. Though not synonymous, "research" was closely linked to concepts of regionalism (as opposed to internationalism), empiricism (as opposed to rationalism or humanism), and environmental studies.;"Research for architecture" was at the same time a call for re-professionalization, the modernization of the profession in conformance with the epistemology of "Technical Rationality." Architects introduced housing and building research into architectural education, creating the necessary institutions to support an academic discipline. They developed the concept of "architectural research" and later adopted environment-behavior studies as a paradigm for architectural research and practice.;The institutionalization of "research" revealed the gap between practical applied knowledge and the postwar ideology of basic research, which prized theoretical and apolitical knowledge. The inconsistency produced a conundrum: architectural knowledge produced through research could either be practical---and therefore "inferior"---or abstract---and thus removed from the practice of architecture. In addressing this conundrum, some architects further emphasized science and technology, redefining design (the core of architectural practice) as a form of rational and systematic problem-solving. Other architects responded by insisting that design itself constitutes research---bringing the research for architecture project full circle.;"Research for architecture" was ultimately no more than a rhetorical device; no object would be served by resurrecting the original project. The effort was not without value, however. The attempt to institutionalize practical, situated knowledge and the collaborative approach that supported it should remain a focus of architectural theory and education. |
