Integration and Autonomy of Epistemic Culture and Cognition Styles in Practice-driven Architectural Research

The entire CA²RE enterprise well reflects the dilemmas and possible directions of transformation of (academic) research caused by major societal changes. It addresses broader issues of knowledge production, contemporary discourses about science, their epistemic cultures, cognitions, technologies, and innovative researches. Concepts such as “responsible” and “immersive” research and innovation, transdisciplinary, citizen science, and participatory research are just some vividly discussed but still not well thought out general cases in point. In this context, reserves against the universalization of (academic) research achievements are justified and being gradually replaced by concepts such as “situated knowledge” and “distributed cognition”. The call for the CA²RE community to reformulate and re-evaluate the question of what belongs to design / artistic practice-driven research in order to achieve internal disciplinary and external social relevance (validation) is a specific case-in-point. From a sociological perspective, such a call for reformulation is a question of (self) reflexivity, which includes the question of (self) positionality in the face of complexity of the social, linked to the production of knowledge through a research style. Reflexivity is an internal dialogue that leads to action for transformative practices. One of the focuses on reformulation may relate to the question of how to achieve a meaningful integration of different epistemic cultures and cognitive styles without compromising their individual autonomies (or even idiosyncrasies). How to acknowledge the contingencies of the social through design / artistic practice-driven research? In the case of questioning the relevance of design / artistic practice-driven research, it is about how to best reflect (and partially incorporate) other epistemic cultures and cognitive styles in order to confidently maintain autonomy in developing one’s own. In my exposition, I will tentatively illustrate three ideal-type cognitive styles that would require some effort in architectural design to achieve their meaningful degree of integration without compromising the autonomy and distinctiveness of design / artistic practice-driven research. These three cognitive styles are 1) visual art, 2) rational engineering, and 3) social / cultural analytic. The reflection of all three can be part of the contemplated reformulation.