ABSTRACT

In some cases, however, the lines are blurred. GXN has started to move within both spheres. Through participation in academic conferences and research papers, GXN has found that distributing the results of research and discussing the project structure can be useful because it can facilitate future collaboration, knowledge sharing and funding opportunities between researchers from various disciplines. But GXN is still very much a practice with commercial goals and structures. If architectural research is not carried out according to a set of rules and guidelines that can be trusted, and frameworks used to evaluate the research, then, for example, biologists or sociologists or other researchers will not feel they can rely on the research from the architects. This could lead to architects not being the ones conducting architectural research; instead, other researchers will do the research. Rather than competing, these two ways of gaining knowledge should be seen as complementary, with generally the practice-based study being more flexible and applied, and the academic research engaging with wider research communities and providing more reliable results. Both ways of working have challenges, but encouraging a relevant and rigorous culture of architectural research is important to the profession as it may uncover new approaches and methods for sustainable building.