voi Cesqualities/character of relationships the assemblage structures ‘context’ and helps to
compose the research situation and its specific connections to other research and
relevant material, examples, etc.
These six themes constitute different approaches to the interaction between
thinking- doing/acting- composing. in each of them, traditional research questions can
appear as tools for creative, analytical, associative and critical confrontation with other
operations – to help open up the situation when it threatens to become stagnant, and
to generate precision as the research problem is constructed, when hidden aspects are
revealed, knowledge produced and new meaning (through argumentation, in whatever
medium) is composed.
one may ask, then: how does this affect – and attract – other research practices?
Today’s heterogenic, often transdisciplinary conditions of enquiry, i would argue,
need a non- linear approach that provides system thinking that is flexible and open
enough to replace context with assemblages of relevance. The mode of architectural
thinking, as a fundamental cognitive practice, is essential here. Research strategies
cannot be simplified into a prescription for action, but combinatory approaches can
be suggested that open up new formations of generating knowledge, or as John ziman
concludes: ‘in the long run, moreover, the post- academic drive to “rationalize” the
research process may damp down its creativity’ (ziman 2000: 330). a large part of the
research community recognizes knowledge as being socially and culturally constructed
in a collective practice. Therefore, we equally need to accept the element of fiction and
artistic creativity, not merely as an exception to ‘truth’ and ‘proof’ but as a necessary
part of innovative practice inherent in research.
But what about the playful and the uncontrollable? most scientists claim that playing
and creativity form an important part of scientific work. systematic, operative models
and controlled experiments belong to the scientific game rules and, i would argue, they
have an inherent beauty, a stringency that could well be included as elements in abR,
but only if not converted to dogma. as for the uncontrollable, this is a necessary part of
innovation and cross- disciplinary contact and therefore not only acceptable, but also
needed as an ingredient in most research processes today – to find out new things, one
has to let go of some old conventions.
and what about this other kind of precision that has to do with intuitive accuracy
in relation to complexity, to do with artistic skills and insight, with the competences
of the art- based researcher? artistic practice is often accused by scientists of being
imprecise and overly relativistic in the handling of data and controllable experiments,
while scholars from the humanities may claim that a constant doing- making leads to
theoretical eclecticism and a lack of stringency in argumentation. But, i would argue,
with an increased awareness of the fact that contexts must be constructed, and therefore
composed, to function in relevant ways, all research is challenged to develop intuitive
accuracy. This accuracy can best be trained by combining several intelligences, by
using diverse modes of representation and modelling as well as critical reflection, and
by becoming ever more familiar with the triangle of thinking- performing- composing.
most people today, including researchers, realize the challenge, or the complement,
to the written text offered by other modes of communication. Technical scientists are
often familiar with simulation, practical laboratory work and construction, while this
may sometimes still be strange to people from the humanities tradition. Will advanced