Discussion Paper

Strategic Research Agenda: An Informal Survey

Prepared for Architectural Research Centers Consortium Spring 1997 Research Conference
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, April 25-26, 1997

This paper summarizes an informal "straw" survey of architectural researchers, educators and practitioners to explore the idea of a strategic research agenda. The effort grew out of discussions at the November 1996 Board Meeting of the Architectural Research Centers Consortium (ARCC). Prior "research agenda" efforts related to research in architecture and construction have been undertaken by ARCC in the 1980s and, most recently, by the Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF) in the early 1990s. The motivating question of the present survey was whether a survey of research topics and some strategic ordering of them might provide guidelines to those who undertake, utilize or fund such research.

The survey is placed within a larger set of issues -- the relation between strategic agenda setting, research funding and guidance by those who use research -- which are discussed in a companion paper (Watson 1997). [1] The fact that these issues can be combined into an overall approach to research infrastructure is exemplified by organizations such as the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). Within ASHRAE, groups that represent special topic areas (Technical Committees) nominate research proposals, which are vetted and then awarded funding, in effect providing for continued development of new knowledge related to professional practice.

The survey took several paths. A set of questions was established, which formed the basis of two separate survey efforts. One survey was distributed to 44 members of the American Institute of Architects Professional Interest Areas (AIA/PIA). These were newly elected Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the 22 PIAs, or Committees, each representing an area of special interest within AIA (e.g., Justice Facilities, Health, Environment, Interiors, Design, Practice, etc.) This distribution was intended to determine the research topics of greatest interest to practitioners. It was distributed by FAX, and yielded 20 completed responses, a 46% return.

A second avenue of dissemination of the survey was to researchers and educators. The survey was distributed electronically, for example by "list-serve," to members of ARCC, the Society of Building Science Educators (SBSE) and others in the architectural research/education community. This was disseminated broadly, that is, recipients were encouraged to pass it on to colleagues. The survey was also printed in the March issue of ACSA News, with the cooperation of Martin Moeller, Jr., ASCA Executive Director, and Dean Linda W. Sanders, 1997 ACSA President, who highlighted the survey in "The President's Message" column in the same issue. This survey differed from that distributed to practitioners only in several appended questions (Questions 7, 8 and 9) which asked how individual research is recognized in the academic performance review process. Thirty-eight completed responses were received, all from full-time faculty members, but due to the nature of ARCC and SBSE membership, doubtlessly represent educators with a great interest and commitment to research.

The following provides an overview of results of the two parallel survey efforts. While interpretation of results may vary, there is sufficient evidence to draw conclusions and to shed light on the original questions. The tabulation of all survey responses is available in Appendices 1 and 2 (see end of this paper).

Limitations of the survey method

As mentioned, the survey was an informal one, appropriate to a "straw" effort. Responses to the survey were "open ended" and non-directive, that is, the questionnaire did not list predefined topics for multiple choice. Instead, respondents were asked to respond in their own words.

This method attempts to avoid "loading" the nature of responses. It leaves latitude in interpreting the results. For this reason, tabulation of results should not be taken as a "vote." Equally important in an "open ended" survey, what is not mentioned can be as important as topics that are mentioned. Therefore, the survey summaries below and given in complete detail in Appendices 1 and 2 are "tabulated" by the "number of mentions" made of a topic or issue. From these one can attempt to deduce or interpret trends and interests by their presence or absence.

Commentary on survey results

In the following commentary, responses are briefly summarized and, as appropriate, compared between those of practitioners (AIA/PIA) and educator/researchers (ARCC, SBSE, etc.).

Questions One and Two

(1) What THREE research topics are of GREATEST INTEREST to you?

(2) What ONE research topic represents your FOREMOST EXPERTISE?

These first two questions were intended to be "ice breakers," that is, to begin a reflective process in completing the survey.

In the survey tabulation on ARCC's URL, each response is recorded exactly as worded by the respondents (identified only by an assigned CODE number). By cross-referencing the code designation between the questions, one can see that topics listed in Question One conform in most (but not all) cases to the area of expertise of the respondent, which would be as expected.

The responses in each case were grouped or classified into twenty-four general topic areas or categories, designated for recording purposes in no particular order and assigned an alpha designation (A through X) in the URL tabulation and the Table A summary below. The categories are not intended to be precisely defining and mostly followed, as a matter of convenience, the terminology used in the wording of the respondents.

Question Three

(3) List up to FIVE research topics for which you have received funding in the past two years and the funding amounts for each.

This question was intended to indicate the levels of funding for research represented in the work of the respondents. Many of the responses from the practitioners listed "no funding," for the obvious reason that most practitioners do not engage in contract research. One exception, however, is included among respondents to the AIA/PIA survey, a principal of an architectural office that does in engage in significant contract research. This one firm represents two-thirds of the $978,000 of recent contracted research reported by the AIA/PIA respondents. The point here is that there are indeed important examples of significant contract research being undertaken by architects in practice.

The total amount of research funds indicated by the 38 educator/researcher respondents is $6,105,800. The contract research of one respondent represents $2.7 million or 45% of this total. Even allowing for the messiness of reporting "research in the last two years" (e.g., many research contracts run well over a two-year period), the reported amount indicates that research funds are available, and aligns with similar "guess-timates" of ARCC that the research volume in School of Architecture Research Centers is in the range of $30 million per year. This substantial level of funding for research is not widely recognized and is perhaps entirely unknown by practitioners who might utilize its results.

Questions Four and Five

(4) What professional and academic forums, conferences and/or associations do you most respect and seek to utilize to report your research (or to learn about research)?

(5) What professional publications represent the most important venue for publication of YOUR research (or to learn about research)?

The responses to these questions from both professionals and educators emphasize what might be an obvious but critical point: there is no one common and predominant source for conferences or publishing related to architectural research, education and practice. None of the practitioners mentioned ACSA conferences and only three educator/researchers mentioned AIA or AIA/PIA conferences. Only one publication received more than two mentions from practitioners, Architectural Record, which received no mentions from the educator/researchers. The publications of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA) -- conference proceedings and Journal of Architectural Education combined -- received the most mentions (6 total) by the educator/researchers, followed closely by the Journal of Architectural and Planning Research (5 mentions). None of the practitioners listed either of these sources in their responses to Questions Four and Five. A great diversity of sources is revealed by the number of organizations and publications with only one mention. The situation need not be considered "bad," but it does emphasize the fact that the communities of research/educators and practitioners are not jointly represented in any conference or publication.

Question Six

(6) What are the THREE MOST CRITICAL research topics that you would nominate for a strategic research agenda for architecture in 1997?

This was the central question of the survey. While the different answers to the prior questions might lead one to anticipate a similar diversity of opinion, the results are quite the opposite: the combined results of critical issues and topics nominated by practitioners and by researcher/educators share a surprising number of common threads and some additional opportunities for collaboration, as indicated in Table A (following page). The topic categories are indicated in order of their (arbitrary) designation, from A to X. The total number of mentions is listed under three columns, in the left-hand column for practitioners (AIA/PIA), in the middle column for educator/researchers (ARCC/SBSE) and the combined subtotals in the right-hand column tabulation.

Both groups nominated topics in the category of "energy and environment," which received the greatest number of mentions from all respondents, totaling 27% of the topics mentioned as strategic and critical. This is partly explained by the active participation of SBSE members, whose expertise is within this category, but the topic also received broad support from all respondents. The term "sustainability" was one of the key words most frequently mentioned in the educator/researcher responses. A great number of the educator/researchers listed "research related to architectural education," which thus is second in the combined totals, even though it received few mentions from practitioners (and principally refers to continuing education). The third-ranked category of interest for the combined groups includes the combined topics of design, aesthetics, history, preservation and civic architecture, which might be taken to represent the core of the architectural commitment to design.

Table A: Summary of the nominated strategic agenda topics

NOTES
[1] 20 completed surveys from AIA/PIA Chairs and Vice Chairs: FAX Survey January 1997
[2] 38 completed surveys from full-time faculty members also on ARCC and SBSE "list serves."

Civic architecture and design represents the second highest mentioned topic area of interest to practitioners. The important, perhaps obvious, conclusion reinforced here, is that this topic is critical to both the professional and academic communities. Its mode of investigation represents all traditions of scholarship, research and design, emphasizing the importance of "embracing all ways of knowing," described in Watson [Ref. 1].

If separate categories are combined -- such as environment, productivity and air-quality whereby the percentage of mentions mounts to 39% -- a strategic profile emerges. Other combinations might be suggested -- for example, combining "civic architecture, design, history" with "education." There are many other combinations that might create collaboration between practitioners, educators and researchers around topics that combine deep interest and support. These would properly emerge once the combined interests and capacities became better known.

This potential is further evidenced in the gaps in communication, characterized by "stranded experts, marooned communities of need, with no road maps and no addresses" [Ref. 1]. There is an evident lack of networking between the various communities and with other professional groups interested in the same topics. For example the AIA/PIA respondents listed "productivity and air quality" among their most critical research interests, yet none identified ASHRAE as an information source, an organization with world-class publications and conference proceedings on the topic.

The isolation is not one-sided. One educator/researcher respondent nominated as a strategic agenda item to "develop a database on 'green' building materials and systems," but did not list, in response to questions 5 and 6, as a significant source of information available in AIA/PIA Committee on the Environment publications (whose Environmental Resource Guide, and annual conference proceedings have addressed the topic for the past six years). Opportunities to match information needs and resources are revealed in the survey responses for any number of topics and issues deemed critical to the profession.

Questions 7 though 9

(7) Are you a full-time faculty member?

(8a) Does your university specify a percentage of your time (paid under 9- or 10-month salary) that is to be devoted to scholarship/research?

(8b) If yes, what percentage?

(9) Does your university (Dean or Department Head/Chair) EXPLICITLY evaluate your scholarship/research production as part of an annual review process?

These three questions were unique to the survey distributed to the academic community. 50% of the respondents answered "yes" to Question 8a, with respect to research/scholarship salary and time allocation. One response [submitted in combined jest and frustration] was: "100% teaching and 100% research." Excluding this and those that listed "0," the average research/scholarship time and salary commitment of the faculty who responded is 27%. This is higher than the prevailing (but often undocumented) "one day a week" of scholarship/research expectation of most teachers, that is 20%. The fact that the respondents reported higher levels is partly explained by the number of both ARCC and SBSE members who have successfully obtained funding for "research charge-out," through which their teaching obligations are reduced by research contract funding.

Of the 38 responses to Question 9, thirty said "yes," there is explicit evaluation of one's research, scholarship; with several commenting "sort of," or otherwise explaining that such feedback was "less than explicit."

The conclusion is that university administrators (Deans, Department Heads/Chairs) of Schools of Architecture do in fact set research/scholarship expectations, in some cases provided for by salary and in other cases subsumed as an obligation to be met while fulfilling teaching obligations. This expectation is part of formal performance evaluation for the majority of faculty who responded.

The resources of salary and time represented in this expectation are significant. If one calculates 20% of salaries (plus benefits) of all full-time faculty in North American Schools of Architecture, and includes sabbatical salaries, this represents a salaried support of research/scholarship in the range of $30 million/year. [See Note 2].

One could therefore roughly calculate that there is about $30 million in contract research (ARCC numbers) and perhaps an additional $30 million in regular faculty salaries allocated for scholarship/research in architecture. The question is how much of the two totals might represent double-counting, that is, research funding that replaces rather than supplements the 20% assumption of regular faculty scholarship/research -- a more careful and accurate accounting is certainly appropriate to substantiate the point. Nonetheless, by any accounting, it is obvious that there does exist a substantial resource of salary, time and talent allocated for scholarship/research. One cannot really support the frequent claim that funds do not exist for research and scholarship in architecture. The question for debate in a strategic agenda setting process is how some reasonable portion of this resource might better address the critical needs of the profession and the public as viewed by researchers, educators and practitioners.

In summary, the results of this informal and admittedly "straw case" sample survey, suggest the great value to be gained by combining the needs and capacities, funding and publication venues of the combined practice, education and research communities in architecture.

References and notes

[1] Watson, Donald. 1997. "The Need for a Research Infrastructure in Architecture." Proceedings of the Conference on Doctoral Education in Architectural Schools: The Challenge of the 21st Century. Jean Wineman, editor. Atlanta, Georgia: Georgia Institute of Technology College of Architecture April 1997 [in press]. Electronic copies available from the author via e-mail: lakesideDJ@aol.COM.

[2] The calculation goes as follows:

First to calculate 20% of salaries for all full-time faculty: Using the latest ACSA statistics (kindly provided by Martin Moeller, Jr.), there are 1,870 full-time faculty in Schools of Architecture in North America (of which 1,240 are tenured). The 1996 national average salaries of full-time faculty (tenured and non-tenured) combined is $50,750, to which one should add 30% to represent overhead and benefits. Thus, the average expenditure for a full-time faculty member is $66,000. The total salary line expenditure for all full-time faculty in Schools of Architecture is therefore $66,000 x 1,870 = $123.4 million per annum. If one assumes that one day of five (20%) is devoted to scholarship and research, then that represents $24.6 million.

Second, to calculate annual salary expenditures for sabbaticals: Assume that every thirteenth year, the 1,240 tenured faculty earn a full pay sabbatical (typically one-half year at full pay for every six years of service). The national average of Professor and Associate Professor salaries combined is $56,655, multiplied for overhead and benefits (1.3) = $73,650 per tenured faculty per year. Thus the total salary expenditure for tenured faculty is $73,650 x 1,240 = $91.3 million. One thirteenth of this amount, representing the annual average expenditure for sabbaticals = $7 million.

The combine total then to represent salary line expenditures assigned to scholarship and research by full-time faculty = $24.6 + $7= $31.6 million. This underestimates the resource by not including graduate students whose work is supported by research stipends.

Detailed survey responses

Go to Appendix 1: summary table of responses from AIA PIAs (Professional Interest Areas)

Go to Appendix 2: summary table of responses from educators (SBSE, ARCC & ACSA News)

Send a response: The purpose of the ARCC research exchange is to foster dialog and networking. If you would like to publicly respond to or comment on this paper, please send an e-mail with your thoughts to gzik@polaris.net. Your feedback will be posted on the ARCC Web site and linked to this page.

Back to ARCC Homepage | Back to "Discussion Papers"

Back to "Research Exchange" | To top of page

This page was last updated 1 July 1997.