architecture and design research paper

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, architectural design research in small practices.

Archnet-IJAR

ISSN : 2631-6862

Article publication date: 3 January 2023

Issue publication date: 7 March 2024

There has been a recently growing interest by architects in practice-based research and the impact of research. At the same time, several post-graduate architecture programmes with practice-led research agendas were founded. This shift towards architectural design research is analysed using the notions of “process-driven research”, “output-driven research” and “impact”. The study aims to investigate and unveil the link between graduate programmes and graduates with a research interest and to test the tripartite model of “process-driven research”, “output-driven research” and “impact” in the context of small architectural practices.

Design/methodology/approach

The study uses a qualitative and exploratory research approach that includes 11 in-depth interviews conducted in 2020, during the first nationwide COVID-19 lockdown in the United Kingdom (UK) selected interviews were architects representing (1) members or alumni of practice-related graduate architecture programmes in London and (2) founders of London-based small architectural practices within the last decade.

While focussing on the London context, the paper offers transferable insights for the key potentials of practice-led design research in small architectural practices and the actions that might improve research practice.

Originality/value

This paper addresses a lack of studies on how design research differs between diverse types and sizes of architectural firms, why emerging small architectural practices increasingly engage with research and how this shapes their practice. This knowledge is important to fully understanding architectural design research and its strengths or weaknesses.

• Architectural design research
• Architectural practice
• Architectural education

Acknowledgements

This paper is produced as a part of a postdoctoral research project supervised by Professor Sam Jacoby, funded by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK, grant number 1059B191801865) and undertaken at the Royal College of Art, School of Architecture in London.

Aydemir, A.Z. and Jacoby, S. (2024), "Architectural design research in small practices", Archnet-IJAR , Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 191-205. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-07-2022-0142

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2022, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

• Hispanoamérica
• Work at ArchDaily
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

The Architect-Researcher: Exploring New Possibilities for the Production of Architecture

• Written by Andreea Cutieru
• Published on January 28, 2022

While research seems intrinsic to the design process, architectural research is a professional path in itself, whose purpose is to highlight scientific evidence and explore alternatives outside of pre-established norms or empirical considerations. Its purpose is to create a framework of knowledge that can inform the design to reach objectively better outcomes. The following discusses the role and state of research in architecture, some prominent areas of inquiry, and the architects or institutions that dedicate their work to these subjects.

In 2018, AIA stated that "the research available for study of architecture and buildings is disproportionate to its impact [on societies and economies] " and proposed an extensive research agenda while promoting increased investment in research and research literacy. The argument was that the way architecture addresses major technological, environmental and societal shifts "affects all levels of scale—from the individual to larger society" and thus requires research efforts at par with the implications.

Architectural Research versus Research Through Practice

Jeremy Till's canonical paper commissioned by RIBA, Architectural Research : Three Myths and One Model , argues that "architecture is a form of knowledge that can and should be developed through research", but most importantly, helps define what exactly constitutes research in architecture. In his essay, initially published in 2007, with a revised version presented in 2017, Till contradicts the idea that practice is intrinsically a form of research by saying that architecture knowledge exceeds the built object and that whatever knowledge a building contains, it is not explicitly communicated. He also critiques architecture's avoidance of research methodologies and makes a case for architectural research conducted through a paradigm specific to architecture rather than the methodologies of other fields it intersects in the process.

In his keynote lecture at KU Leuven's The Practice of Architectural Research Symposium , prof. Wilfried Wang describes architectural research as "publicly transparent, scientifically analytical and independently verifiable", thus distinguishing it from empirical ideas and assumptions stemming from daily practice. Architectural research falls under three categories: research that creates and expands knowledge, usually conducted within academia and research laboratories, applied research, designed for a specific application, transferring new pieces of knowledge into practice and project-based research.

Fields of Inquiry

Understanding how a building improves performance, influences health, or how the built environment impacts people's behaviour and cognitive functions, the potential of new technologies for architecture and construction, and material innovation are just some critical areas of study. In addition, new ideas in urbanism, studies on resilience, design interventions that reduce environmental impact, and understanding how could architecture improve equity are equally essential research needs within the field of architecture.

Neuroscience, human behaviour, health and wellbeing are currently flourishing areas of inquiry in architectural research, as the body of knowledge in these fields has expanded significantly during the last two decades. In this sense, the Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture (ANFA) explores the intersection between design and behaviour, with a mission of using neuro and cognitive science research to improve the design of the built environment. The study of architecture through these lenses has also given rise to new areas of study such as environmental neuroscience and neuroarchitecture , shaping a scientific understanding of the built environment's impact on brain processes and behaviour.

Neri Oxman and her exploration of material ecology , or Jenny Sabin and her research into the application of science and biology into architecture pursue architecture innovation through transdisciplinarity and cross breedings of different areas of expertise. MIT's now discontinued Mediated Matter Group conducted research at the intersection of computational design, digital fabrication, materials science, and synthetic biology. At the same time, new technologies, whether those used in the design of buildings such as digital fabrication or technologies used in building operations are fertile ground for architectural research. Also at MIT, the Self-Assembly Lab looks to develop self-assembly and programmable material technologies, while the Sustainable Design Lab develops tools to evaluate the environmental performance of buildings. At the University of Stuttgart, Professor Achim Menges' research focuses on developing "design processes at the intersection of morphogenetic design computation, biomimetic engineering and computer-aided manufacturing", essentially working towards developing a new design and construction paradigm.

Research within the Practice

At the same time, research doesn't reside solely in academia, as some firms bring it at the forefront of their practice. Perkins+Will goes beyond the typical preoccupations of an architecture office and publishes a peer-reviewed journal twice a year for which researchers and designers investigate topics that, although might have the potential to inform future design projects, are developed outside the ordinary practice. In addition, the firm hosts several Research Labs, where, together with academics and experts in different fields, it pursues various lines of inquiry in building technology, human experience, material performance, mobility or resilience. The topics of these studies range from the impact of adaptive working behaviour on the carbon footprint, factors that reduce noise pollution in urban spaces or creating a framework of social equity indicators. Another take on research within the practice is White Arkitketer's Research Lab , whose agenda for 2020-2023 is to explore through interdisciplinary collaborations the subject of circular architecture, investigating product flows, transformation and re-use or strategies for climate positive projects.

Academic research has the shortcoming of being somewhat hermetic. While journals like Frontiers of Architectural Research disseminate works in the field of architectural research, and prestigious universities attempt to popularize their findings, they rarely penetrate through mainstream practice. Often criticized for being self-referential and inward-looking, architectural research is slowly developing its own methodologies, serving the design process in shaping a better built environment.

This article is part of the ArchDaily Topics: Architecture Without Buildings . Every month we explore a topic in-depth through articles, interviews, news, and projects. Learn more about our ArchDaily topics . As always, at ArchDaily we welcome the contributions of our readers; if you want to submit an article or project, contact us .

Image gallery

• Sustainability

想阅读文章的中文版本吗?

建筑生产者与建筑研究者，有何关系？

You've started following your first account, did you know.

You'll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Journal Description

Architecture.

• Open Access — free for readers, with article processing charges (APC) paid by authors or their institutions.
• Rapid Publication: manuscripts are peer-reviewed and a first decision is provided to authors approximately 26.4 days after submission; acceptance to publication is undertaken in 4.5 days (median values for papers published in this journal in the second half of 2023).
• Recognition of Reviewers:  APC discount vouchers, optional signed peer review, and reviewer names published annually in the journal.
• Architecture is a companion journal of  Buildings   and  Sustainability .

Latest Articles

Journal Menu

• Architecture Home
• Aims & Scope
• Editorial Board
• Topical Advisory Panel
• Instructions for Authors

Special Issues

• Article Processing Charge
• Indexing & Archiving
• Most Cited & Viewed
• Journal History
• Editorial Office

Journal Browser

• arrow_forward_ios Forthcoming issue arrow_forward_ios Current issue
• Vol. 4 (2024)
• Vol. 3 (2023)
• Vol. 2 (2022)
• Vol. 1 (2021)

Highly Accessed Articles

Latest books, e-mail alert, conferences, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Exploring the architectural design process assisted in conventional design studio: a systematic literature review

• Open access
• Published: 11 December 2022
• Volume 33 , pages 1835–1859, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Upeksha Hettithanthri   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1337-4234 1 , 2 ,
• Preben Hansen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5150-9101 1 &
• Harsha Munasinghe   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3804-5100 3  

6297 Accesses

4 Citations

Explore all metrics

The architectural design process is a unique process that has its inherent phases with specific activities within. Exploring and identifying the real design process which occurs within the conventional design studio is the key focus of this study. This study was carried out by adopting systematic literature review methodology. The most relevant articles for the review were identified by applying an inclusion and exclusion criteria based on a rubric developed to find answers to the research questions developed. For the literature review, 50 articles were selected by eliminating the non-related and non-suitable articles based on the rubric developed. The data was analysed by the content analysis based on the Grounded Theory. Grounded Theory was applied to generate a theory based on the data or findings. The results have given data to draw a Design Process model which is specific for architectural design studio practice. It is evident that the lack of integrating the intended user in the design process has impacted the solutions. Furthermore, many scholars have discussed the architectural design process, but there is a significant gap in discussing the involvement of users and context during the design process.

Similar content being viewed by others

AI art in architecture

Joern Ploennigs & Markus Berger

Introduction to Design Science Research

Design and Development Research

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Exploring the architectural design studio process and its practice was the key focus of this article. An architectural design studio is a learning process that consists of unique and specific processes adopted on designing (Schön, 2016 ). Architects create human-friendly living spaces for various functions (Abdullah et al., 2011 ). The question is if those design solutions address the needs of the users. Since the solutions are generated through a specific process, we have identified a problem that generates problematic results. The voids in the design process led students to generate less realistic solutions. In order to understand the architectural design process, a proper in-depth exploration is needed. This literature review focuses on exploring the process followed in architectural practice which could be helpful in giving potential suggestions to fine-tune the design process to fill the existing voids in the current design process.

Since the actual user of a building is important, our focus is on integrating their involvement into the design process. The research questions were aligned to find answers on how the architectural design process assisted in the conventional design studio has been addressing the actual user of the final product, a space. Investigating how the intended user has been integrated during the design process is the key objective of this study. The voice and insights of the real user could significantly impact the final design, and this will be varied according to the level of their involvement. Especially when, where, and how they get involved in the design process are essential facts that need to be explored.

The ADP should be involved with the mix of functional, structural, environmental and socio-cultural values (Abdelhameed, 2017 ). In order to do this, a clear picture of the current process needs to be drawn. The product-oriented process does not give the designer sufficient room to empathise (Hargrove & Nietfeld, 2015 ; Taneri & Dogan, 2021 ). We believe empathising in an architectural context needs to cover a broader spectrum than being familiar with the site and the users. The support and space created in the ADP to empathise is the problem we see and intend to explore. Moreover, in order to provide remedial solutions, a clear understanding of the problem is needed to be aware. Many design teachers are experiencing less practical, less human-friendly, less focused design solutions while tutoring (Webster, 2004 ; Yorgancıoğlu & Tunalı, 2020 ).

Architectural design process

In the architectural design process, the designer (architect) has the sole authority and freedom on developing design ideas and concepts (Lawson, 2006 ). Those ideas and concepts are refined through several intermediate tutoring sessions where architectural students get the exposure of expert designers within the studio setup (Cennamo et al., 2011 ). Reflection on action is a prevalent methodology followed in architectural design studio, where students get direct reflections from their design tutors (Schön, 2016 ). Sometimes, this made them follow their design tutors as role models rather than understanding real meanings or values demanded by the problem at hand.

Architectural design ideas are not generated as a complete formation (Demirkan & Hasirci, 2009 ; Sinnamon & Miller, 2021 ; van Dooren, 2020 ). It is usually a raw, formless, diffuse feeling which needs to be refined through a specific process (Sinnamon & Miller, 2021 ). This refinement process plays a significant role in generating a design solution. The initial ideas could be displayed through multiple mechanisms, such as sketches, rough prototypes etc. (Demirkan & Hasirci, 2009 ). This design process is moulding the inadequately dignified feelings, and finally, the design idea will be materialised on real grounds. Furthermore, by utilising a methodological framework, the design process goes across iterative refinements, creating final design outcomes. The architectural design studio process is a structure that is not focused on a single-dimensional and uniform teaching system (Önal & Turgut, 2017 ). However, the design student's role should cover from a researcher, ethnographer to designer inculcating many job roles in-between to cater to complex human needs which could be solved through spatial solutions. Design students generate concepts and provide philosophical grounding to their approach, but the problem is how much those concepts could be sustained in real-world scenarios. In order to create novel design concepts, the designer should have a sound understanding and empathetic point of view towards the problem at hand and its associated context (Pallasmaa, 2014 ).

Soliman ( 2017 ) proposed an architectural practice model (Fig.  1 ) involving four major phases: (a) Programming Phases; (b) Schematic Design Phase; (c) Design development phase; and (d) Construction Documents Phase. According to his model, the design process begins with the Programming phase. Design students are supposed to explore the context and user in detail during the programming phase. In order to explore the context and the user, they are using several tools and techniques. Usually, several field visits, interviews with users, observations are the most common ways followed at the initial programming phase to collect information. The programming phase is followed by the schematic design phase, where students get the opportunity to develop ideas. For that, they use techniques such as brainstorming and analysing. The schematic design phase allows students to ideate their designs. This is the phase where many design generators are coming into play. As suggested by Soliman, there is a possibility to walk back and forth to do necessary refinements. They move forward to the detail design stage to select the most suitable design idea to do further refinements. At this stage, multiple solutions will be discussed in tutoring sessions between the student and the design lecturer. The design will be further modified with the multiple feedback of the peer lectures. The fourth phase is not practised in the pedagogic design studio, because students mainly deal with pseudo projects that will not be constructed in a real-world context. However, the critical fact is that they learn to do an actual project in a real context while working in an imaginative framework.

Design process of architectural practice—Model 1 (Soliman, 2017 )

Testing the design ideas and solutions is predominantly done within the design studio and testing against the physical and social cultural context is rarely identified in the design process. The critiques in the design studio are open only for the students and design jurors, and it limits the countability of the voice of the real user and the demands of the context.

Rahbarianyazd and Nia ( 2019a ) explained that a design process has more liner characteristics (Fig.  2 ). It is again starting with identifying the problem. Identification of the problem leads the designer to the analysis phase. They conduct formulations, articulations, transformations, redefining the problem in hand and research. All those activities support understanding the scope of the project and its periphery. According to this model, the Analysis phase leads to the Synthesis phase, which comes with elaboration, ideation, alternative generation, working with variety, proposing divergence, and picturing the status. The outcome of the Synthesis phase leads to the Evolution phase, where the students have a choice upon the design solutions they created; they work with convergence thinking at this stage. The Evolution stage is followed by the Solution phase, marked as the final phase of the design. It is associated with prototyping, composition, modelling, planning, and creating detailed designs. This process has linear development, where all the phases have the possibility to revert to the previous phase. The back-and-forth movement only accommodated within phases which are neighbouring in-between. It acknowledges reverting to the problem from synthesis, evaluation and solution phases.

Design process of architectural practice—Model 2 (Rahbarianyazd & Nia, 2019a )

The below model explains the design thinking process that architectural students are undergoing. The model creates further questions on the analysis phase, there the activities listed have given no sights on exploring the user and the context in depth. The user and context analysis might be hidden within those phases. However, we believe the prominence given to user and context is really lacking in both models we found in the literature.

Even though the architectural design process has several iterations in between, it has shown a linear approach in accommodating the point of view of the stakeholders (Stevens et al., 2019 ). The design process technically consists of context and user analysis at its inception; however, once the design ideations and solutions were generated, those were never tested with multiple stakeholders to get their reflective feedback, and the designs were only tested with design studio tutors who have no relationship to the socio-economic, cultural context of the user. The architectural design process is based on an objective evaluation of data and the designer's perception (Önal & Turgut, 2017 ). This quantitative approach lacks empathetic understanding towards multiple stakeholders. Unlike the other form of design, the involvement of real users or stakeholders in the design process is a requirement in the architectural design process (Crowther, 2013 ). Moreover, this made the designer/architect away from real human needs. However, the initial idea and the process it is taking through will create a scaffolding to place the general solution into a more specific human-friendly solution with embedded empathy (Pallasmaa, 2013 ).

The mental process the architects are going through with the blend of emotions, notions, and objectives is hard to materialise, and it needs a more unique process than a process-driven technical line-up (Nazidizaji et al., 2015 ). The involvement of other stakeholders such as users and clients are unlikely in the architectural design process. According to Pallasmaa ( 2014 ), "a sensitive designer imagine the acts, experiences and feelings of the user of the space, but human empathic capacity does not work in that way" During the design process, the designer switch his role from the designer to the user and imagine the situation and usability of the anonymous user and test his design ideas through imaginative visualisation. This cannot be validated in a real living context and understanding the actual usability and user expectations through the imaginative process is not a successful mechanism because many buildings have been failed during real-life operations (Shin & Thomas, 2015 ). So, the imaginative approach is not working anymore in real-life usage. The other major problem is how this imaginative process works in group activities. When many designers imagine one usage, they could visualise it in multiple ways, leading the team to wrong dictated design solutions. The expectations, beliefs, values, and socio-cultural context of the designer affects the architect's design space (Önal & Turgut, 2017 ). This fact needs to be taken into consideration because what we heavily neglect is the social norms, values and socio-cultural context of the designer and the different stakeholders while being in the design studio context (Biskjaer et al., 2021 ; Ismail et al., 2012 ).

The interest in the aesthetic appearance of a building or a space is placed at a higher level in architectural practice. Architects and architectural students mainly learn from precedents and provide insightful inspirations to novel designs. However, these precedents and inspirations that they are following might not be feasible in specific contexts. The contextual factors play a vital role in functioning and surviving the building in various socio-cultural contexts.

Is something missing in architectural design process?

The ADP has many conversational moves embedded into its process (Biskjaer et al., 2021 ). Most of those conversations contain introverted nature because it usually happens with the involvement of a design student and tutor. In the real ground, the design solutions which architects generate will be utilised by a wide range of stakeholders who do not have any voice during the design process. The voice of the ultimate end users was heavily neglected in the architectural design process. Those stakeholders represent heterogenous contextual conditions and span over a broader spectrum of actual requirements that need to be considered while designing (Patria et al., 2018 ). Collaborative negotiations and information sharing with heterogeneous stakeholders are lacking in ADP. The assumptions and decisions made in the design studio context will not be valid in the real-world context regarding the actual functionality. Even though the ADP happening in a conventional design studio motivates assumption-based solutions, it could generate many socio and psychological issues while operating (Dizdar, 2015 ; Pallasmaa, 2014 ).

Human values, their contextual considerations, the socio-cultural context of various stakeholders plus the cultural schema of the designers, which includes lifestyle, beliefs, perception, living environment, are not counted much during the design process (Önal & Turgut, 2017 ). The user's context and the designer's context are two significant factors influencing the ultimate design solution. The ADP is creating severe blind spots which were not addressed and will lead to less empathetic and less functional design solutions (Biskjaer et al., 2021 ).

The voices of the different stakeholders are not counted for ADP. According to the literature reviewed and analysed below, the prominence given on getting the users' point of view and prominence given on experiencing real contextual values are limited. The ADP is more focused on refining and fine-tuning the design ideations through a rigorous supervision process, and in architectural practice, this is called design tutoring (Webster, 2004 ). The attention to refining the design ideation is visible, but getting reflections from real users who intended to use the building to refine the design was missing. This lap limits the opportunity to make changes as per the reflections of the users during the design process (Hong & Choi, 2011 ). This has been resulted in generating less functional, less human-friendly design solutions even after going through a very systematic process. The inherent phases of ADP are more steady and show less flexibility in getting the real users into the design process.

Problem formulation

Identifying the missing phases in the architectural design process to develop more human-centric design solutions is the key focus of this study. Analysing the current design process in the design studios supports identifying potential gaps in the practice. The most common and popular design thinking model: Double Diamond Design Thinking process starts from empathising, wrapped with divergent and convergent thinking from either side. This has given room to look and feel the problem at hand from a broader perspective. Investigating why ADP lacks human-centric approaches is a demanding need.

The missing phase/phases could be the most critical phases that could make the design more practical and grounded. Nowadays, the design solutions provided by the students are stereotypical and do not address the different layers of contextual needs (Cennamo et al., 2011 ). To make this rectified, a proper diagnosis is needed. This literature review aims to identify existing models of the design process practised across the globe. Later, this identification will prepare a solid foundation for suggestions to amend the design process to make it more empathetic.

Research questions

What is the design process followed in a conventional design studio?

How has the real user and context addressed during the architectural design process?

What are the gaps identified in ADP to address the needs of the user?

The goal of constructing the RQ 1 is to investigate the literature on what components are usually involved in the design process in Conventional Design Studio. RQ2 will explore to which extent the actual user and the context have been catered to throughout the ADP. Finally, through this literature review, RQ3 focuses on identifying the gaps of ADP to make possible suggestions/interventions to amend the ADP.

Methodology

For this literature review, articles were browsed and selected systematically. A systematic literature review is a comprehensive analysis conducted to identify, evaluate and synthesise the existing body of complete recorded work. Systematic literature review is a mechanism to synthesise the evidence under a selected subject area which has been presented by using critical and scientific methodologies in identifying the articles, defining the knowledge, presenting them and assessing (Denscombe, 2014 ). Systematic Literature reviews aims to find most relevant publications presented that could be supportive in answering the research questions generated by adopting explicit methodologies to identify potential articles (Okoli & Schabram, 2010 ). As depicted by Marvasti ( 2020 ) A stand-alone literature review should be systematic, explicit, comprehensive and reproducible (Corbin & Strauss, 2020 ). Being systematic means those researches need to have been conducted methodically, following a systematic and methodical approach and having rigorous explanations on procedures used. Furthermore, they need to have a comprehensive scope with relevant materials. This systematic review was conducted in 5 key stages: (1) Scoping, (2) Planning, (3) Searching, (4) Screening and (5) Eligibility (Siddaway, n.d.).

Search strategy

As the initial step we browsed articles from well-recognised databases such as SCOPUS, Web of Science, Research Gate, and ScienceDirect. The rationale for selecting those databases is the availability of rich peer-reviewed articles under the subject stream of architectural studies. Peer-reviewed empirical studies written in English were selected at the initial browsing to apply inclusion and exclusion criteria. Peer-reviewed empirical studies written in the English language within the last ten years (2011–2021) were the central focus whilst searching relevant literature for the review (Fig. 3 ). The reason to select the most recent ten years is to gather the most updated knowledge about architectural design processes currently practised. We established a rubric to filter articles which could explain the architectural design process. Being peer reviewed and published in English, discussions and empirical studies on design process, critical reviews on architectural design phases and studies on design process models were the main rubric in selecting the suitable articles for the review. Rubrics were established in order to find answers to the research questions generated.

Flow chart of inclusion and exclusion

Articles were browsed through the advanced search option by using the following keywords. "Architectural Design Process" OR "Design Process of Architects" OR "Designing Process" OR "Design Thinking Process of Architects" OR "Architectural Design Phases and user involvement " OR "Design Phases and user integration" OR “User integration in architectural design phases” were the keywords used in searching. The key words were established to find the most relevant articles which could answer the research questions 1–3 in page no 5. The main aim of this study is to understand the current design process which is practised in the architectural study domain. Therefore, we established the above key words emphasising and giving more focus to the design process or design phases as it will help to answer the research questions constructed. Peer-reviewed empirical studies, literature reviews, peer-reviewed concept papers based on empirical observations and studies were included for initial browsing. Results generated from the initial search were rigorously filtered by reading the Abstract and Introduction. The articles containing empirical studies, observations, studio testing, and quantitative and qualitative approaches to exploring the architectural design process were selected for the second filtration. Duplicates were removed during the second filtration. Most importantly, the articles which contain the studies conducted on exploring the architectural design process, its phases and line up were selected during the first filtration.

Using the above keywords, 3073 articles were found at the initial article browsing. After initial screening, 488 articles were identified and selected for further readings. The duplicates were removed, and 316 remained for abstract reading. After reading the Abstract and Keywords, 123 articles were identified for further readings. Articles containing non-imperial studies, discussion on architectural products but not the process, articles on computer architecture and design learning methods were excluded during the second filtration. After reading the full paper, 73 articles were removed due to no empirical studies on the design process. Furthermore, articles with hypothetical summaries, studies on the artistic process of art studios, and unavailability of full text were removed. Finally, 50 relevant articles were selected for the literature review and analysis.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Further, we developed an inclusion and exclusion criteria to filter the articles which could explain the architectural design process. The articles which are having scientific explorations, explanations under below listed 6 criteria were eligible for the final review. The criteria were generated to answer the research questions created. RQ 1 focuses on identifying the design studio's existing process practised. In order to do that, relevant articles were browsed by using a rigorous filtration process. The criteria were generated through the literature content that is relevant to answer the research questions created. The first question identifies the design process followed in the design studio and criteria 1–5 catering to that aspect. These criteria give a clear view of the activities, features, tools, and mechanisms applied and followed in each phase of the design. The literature, which contains discussions on each phase, have been categorised according to the below criteria.

Criteria one focuses on discussions made in the pre-design stage. According to the literature, the pre-design stage consists of site analysis, user analysis, zoning and concept development. Criteria 2 facilitates the schematic design stage, which consists of several brainstorming activities, feedback, and again advanced concept developments addressing the problems they identified during the pre-design stage. The articles, consisting of discussions on those areas, were categorised under criteria 2. Criteria 3 focuses on discussions made in the design development phase, and it consists of creative activities, drawings, model making and presentations. Criteria 4 has listed the activities and features of the fourth phase of the design process, which consists of detailed drawings, 2D, 3D model making, peer feedback, and Interim critiques. The criteria 5 is listing down the studies conducted on presentations and critics happening in the design studio. Criteria 6 addresses the contents that explain the existence of empathising in ADP. The articles containing the above information necessary to answer RQs have been listed in Table 1 .

Criteria 1—discussions on Pre Design stage

Site analysis (SA)

Interaction/socialisation (IS)

Context (C)

User analysis (UA)

Problem Framing (PF)

Precedents (P)

Concept development (CD)

Criteria 2—Discussions on Schematic Design Stage

Brainstorming (BS)

Imagination (I)

Getting Inspired (GI)

Abstractions (Ab)

Graphical Simulations (GS)

Instructor/Tutor Feedback (FB)

Concept Development (CD)

Creative Stimulants (CS)

Criteria 3—Discussions on Design Development Stage

Creative activities (CA)

Visual communication (VC)

Drawings (DR)

Model making (MM)

Prototyping (P)

Presentations (PR)

Criteria 4—Detail Design Stage

Detail Drawings (DD)

2D/3D model making (2D/3D MM)

Peer feedback (PFB)

Interim critics (IC)

Criteria 5—Presentations/Critics (PR/CR)

Criteria 6—Empathising in Architectural design Process

Bringing stakeholders in to ADP (SH)

Getting reflections (Re)

Data analysis

To analyse the data collected through the rigorous reviewing process, we applied the grounded theory followed by the content analysis method under the umbrella of qualitative data analysis methods. Grounded theory is a specific mechanism that could be applied to build a theory based on the data collected and analysed (Corbin & Strauss, 2020 ). Grounded Theory will construct a theoretical explanation for the data analysed. Content analysis was adopted to analyse the data generated through the review. The main reason to apply Content analysis (CA) is because it is very supportive in identifying and analysing any mode of data provided in the literature. Content analysis is a flexible methodology for analysing research text data that could be applied in qualitative data analysis (Neuendorf, 2022 ). Content analysis allows the researchers to reach the broader spectrum of data, including text, figures and graphical interpretations, in an impressionistic, intuitive and interpretative way (Franzosi, 2022 ).

Content analysis allows the researcher to code the text's data into explicit categories (Weber, 2022 ). " The goal of the content analysis is to provide knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon under study" (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005 ). The content analysis starts from familiarising data, generating initial codes, examining initial codes and generating subcategories, Reviewing the subcategories, developing main categories, defining those categories and reporting them. Those meaningful clusters will show the data's links patterns, formation, and sequences.

The row data identified in the review were fed into an excel sheet and started coding focusing on finding answers to the research questions generated. Inductive coding methodology was adopted for this study. Furthermore, the design process models developed by the research were counted under the content analysis.

Design process followed in conventional design studio

In order to answer the research question 1;” what the design process is followed in a conventional design studio, we found 42 primary codes, 10 secondary codes, 4 categories and 4 major themes.

The primary codes 1–18 in Table 2 are describing the design activities which are done by students at the inception. Stevens et al. ( 2019 ) described the scope identification, site analysis and the initial contextual observations are placed at the very beginning at the design process.

The secondary code we identified as Problem seeking consists of 9 major design activities listed as understanding the scope, site analysis, photographic studies, user analysis, user interviews, user observations, brief preparation, observing client requirements and precedents (refer Table 2 ). Exploring the site, capturing the context through photographs, site analysis are conducted by design students at the very beginning of the design process (Dizdar, 2015 ). As explained by Önal and Turgut ( 2017 ), these initial activities provide a primary understanding about the design scope, context and the user, but it does not give an in-depth understanding about the socio-cultural representation of a particular location. The user interviews, user analysis are conducted by students during initial site visits to understand the user point of views on the given scope (van Dooren et al., 2018 ). Bickert and Johansson ( 2012 ) have explained, the time spent on these initial design activities which are placed at the inception phase of the design process could generate impacts on the design process.

The four major secondary codes listed down under the design objectives are falling under the programming phase. The results depict the programming phase which consists of problem seeking which was placed at the very beginning as the first phase of the design process and we labelled it as the empathising phase, because it consisted of all the activities which are related to empathising in the design process.

Problem seeking is leading to problem identification which consists of SWOT analysis, mapping the information, inspirations and brainstorming (Rahbarianyazd & Nia, 2019a ; Raonic, 2015 ). Building cognitive abilities, logical thinking and rationalising are key objectives which lead the design students to put an initial foundation on the design process (refer secondary codes 1–4 in Table 2 ). logical thinking and rationalising support on defining the scope and we identified it as the second phase of the design process which has been placed in the middle of the empathising phase and ideation phase.

Primary codes no. 19–29 (refer Table 2 ) have listed ten design activities which support exploring ideas, creative thinking, developing and testing ideas. As explained by Cikis and Ek ( 2010 ), students are starting their visual communication through idea sketches, abstractions, mind mapping, mood boards, developing concepts and conceptual diagrams. During this stage creative thinking supports on bringing novel design ideations to solve the problem at hand (Casakin & Wodehouse, 2021 ). These ideas get expanded with collaborative brainstorming and peer reflections (Uysal et al., 2012 ). The results depicted the schematic design stage which consists of Ideation coming after the defining phase.

To describe the fourth phase of the design process which is labelled as design development, we identified 7 primary codes from code no 30 -37 which have been listed in Table 2 . The fourth phase consists of developing detailed drawings, 2D and 3D visualisations, physical models along with detailed explanations through detailed drawings developed. As explained by Jabeen et al. ( 2021 ) the students are integrating advanced design skills along with their creative thinking to express their design solution. This stage is more focused on expressing the design solution through architectural drawings, models and 3D visualisations to design tutors they met at the design studio (Lizondo-Sevilla et al., 2019 ). The secondary code labelled as “Moderating” has listed down the activities that students are undergoing to get their design proposal moderated. As reported by Kim ( 2019 ) the 3D visualisation and 3D modelling have expanded the visualisation ability of students at the design development stage. At the same time 3D visualisations and 3D models have made design tutors easy to understand the student’s design approach. To prototype the design solution, students have used 3D visualisations and physical models. The results depict the design development phase is more focused on prototyping the design solutions they generated through several modelling mechanisms. We identified this as the fourth phase of the architectural design process which students are undergoing in conventional design studios.

The codes listed from 38 to 42 (refer Table 2 ) are showing the testing activities which are undergoing by students during the testing phase. Students are getting tutoring from design tutors, interim critics to assess their design solution and peer reflections from fellow novice designers. The testing design solutions come after the fourth stage of the design process which is taking place in the design studio context. Since students are not going to construct their design solution on ground, they will not get a chance to go ahead with the contract documentation stage and final construction stage (Pallasmaa, 2019 ). And the literature has not brought any evidence to identify another stage which is followed by testing.

As a consequence of the finding of RQ 1, we have developed the design process model which is shown in Fig.  4 . The architectural design process which is done by design students have shown a line-up of sequential activities clustered with in 5 phases starting from empathising which takes place at Inception, defining, Ideation occurs in schematic design stage, Prototyping in design Development phase and Testing happening in solutions stage (refer Fig.  4 ).

Design process model followed in conventional design studio (developed by authors)

Grounded Theory can be identified as a systematic way of constructing a theory based on the data presented and analysed (Clarke & Charmaz, 2022 ). Further GT helps the researcher to develop his own theoretical underpinning based on the patterns, connections and information presented in the data which he analysed (Charmaz & Henwood, 2019 ). After analysing the data presented in literature, we got a clear picture of the current design process which is practised in Conventional design studios. The literature we reviewed has generated empirical data to demonstrate the current design process. The data has been summarised in the Table 2 . The Table 2 describes the design activities, design objectives, design focus and design phases very clearly with each and every activity they are engaging in. The Design process model we developed is specifically relevant to the architectural study domain. In literature we found many process models of architectural practice which are relevant to real life design projects. But the design process which is undergoing by architectural students was not identified or developed by any of those researchers. The design process model we developed, is clearly showing all the phases and interconnections and missing connections between some phases. This is a new finding and a novel theoretical explanation on the architectural design process. This model we developed is a new finding which is developed through the data presented and analysed empirically. Developing the design process model which is practised in conventional design studio context is the outcome of the application of Grounded Theory in this research. This is a new finding which came out as a result of this literature review.

Existence of real user and context in architectural design process

In order to answer the RQ2; “How has the real user and context addressed during the architectural design process?'' We observed the primary codes, secondary codes and themes mapped in Table 2 . We observed the user, and the context have been explored by students during the very first phase of the architectural design process which has been labelled as empathising in our design process model (Fig.  4 ). The primary codes have listed the design activities which are undertaken by students. We identified 42 primary codes explaining the design activities which have been presented in the articles (refer Table 2 ). Among those, 8 codes are showing up with user analysis, understanding the scope, user interviews, user observations, brief preparation which addresses the user and contextual demands. We observed that the user and context have been addressed during the very first phase of the design process which is labelled as empathising in our design process model (Fig.  4 ). The codes listed under the other four phases of the design process do not show any evidence on user related activities. Further, the codes listed from 19 to 42 in Table 2 is sequencing down the design activities which come under the rest of the four phases. None of those phases consist of user integration or user related activities. The codes and categories provide the prominence given to the user and context which have been placed at the very beginning of the design process under the empathising phase.

The results depict, the empathising process is only happening at the very first phase and students carry the information they gathered from the first phase to the other four phases. As explained by Ustaomeroglu ( 2015 ) the information related to user and context are reflected in the schematic design stage which is titled as Ideation and design development phase under prototyping. As explained by Jabeen et al. ( 2021 ), our results concur with non-existence of users in prototyping and testing phases. Further the codes numbered from 30 to 42 show the methods undertaken by students for prototyping and testing. Design tutors provide their reflections to refine design ideations developed and testing which happens only between design students and design tutors (Shin & Thomas, 2015 ). We observed the design process has no mechanism to revert back to the user nor context during ideation, prototyping and testing phases. We further, identified this as a missing connection to the empathising phase. We observed the non-existence of user and contextual matters during the other four phases of the design process have created the missing connections to empathy.

The gaps identified architectural design process (ADP)

In order to answer the RQ 3; “What are the gaps identified in ADP to address the needs of the user?”, we have analysed the design process model we developed (refer Fig.  4 ). The design process has given lack of space for the students to empathise with the real requirements. It is evident that user and context exist only during the first phase of the ADP (refer Fig.  4 ). The data which is summarised in Table 2 has coded the design activities which are undergoing in each phase. It is evident that the existence of the user and the contextual factors are not visible after the initial inception phase of the design process. Students have moved ahead with other activities such as idea sketching, modelling, drawing and tutoring (codes listed from 19 to 42 in Table 2 ), but none of these activities have reflected the integration of the real user or contextual factors. The limited existence of user and context in the design process is the major problem we identified through this study. This creates a vacuum in the design process. The design ideations, detail designs, and final solutions and testing have become isolated phases without any connections made with user and real contextual factors. We identified this as a missing connection to the empathising phase in our design process model (refer Fig.  4 ).

We observed that the students are moving from the empathising phase to define phase carrying the data gathered during the empathising phase. They, then move ahead to the Ideation phase. From Ideation phase to Prototype phase and then testing phase. The Ideation phase has no codes generated related to empathising and prototyping phase, it has only activities related to modelling, visualising and 3D presentation with no involvement of user nor context. The testing phase consists of design tutoring, critics, and interim assessments, but again no connection made with users to test design solutions or no contextual testing done. But walking back and forth to the empathising phase, testing design ideas generated, testing design solutions generated with the real user and context is not visible in the data we gathered through this literature review. This is the gap we identified in the architectural design process. The possibilities to walk back and forth to the empathising phase and limited empathising activities are found as problematic gaps in the architectural design process. In answering the RQ 3, we observed the missing connections to the empathising phase have created a vacuum in the architectural design process. Due to those missing connections, ADP has become more lintier with no rational iterations made in-between phases. Less addressed empathy is the gap we observed during ADP.

The purpose of this literature review is to get an overview of the design process practised in Architectural Design Studio. Further, it discusses the level of existence of the real user and the context during the design process. For this purpose, 50 papers were identified for review through a systematic filtration process. This study adopted a systematic literature review methodology and data analysed through content analysis based on the Grounded Theory. The RQ1 focuses on identifying the ADP which is followed in conventional design studios. To answer that question, we have developed a design process model based on the findings which are summarised in Table 2 . The design process model demonstrates the current practice with certain missing connections we identified. In literature we found many process models of architectural practices which are relevant to real life design projects. However, the design process which is undergoing by architectural students was not identified or developed by any of those researchers. The Design process model we developed (refer Fig.  4 ) is specifically relevant to the architectural study domain and it is clearly showing all the phases and interconnections and missing connections between some phases. This is a new and novel theoretical finding, describing the architectural design process.

Answering RQ2 has contributed to identifying the placement of the user and context in the design process. It is evident that the user and the context is only visible during the first phase of the design process. Students are empathising only during the initial phase and when they are going forward the empathising activities will get reduced. The missing connections to the empathising phase have created less addressed user requirements. The DP models we identified through the literature survey (refer Figs. 1 and 2 ) contain similar phases and activities with no significant differences. All the phases were accommodated with a back-and-forth movement with an adjoining phase to refine.

Furthermore, we observed that the active existence of the real user is only visible during the very first phase of those design process models (Figs. 1 , 2 and 4 ). The user has been placed as a source of information, and then their involvement was not taken into the process. After the first phase, the real user and their requirements were represented by design students, and it increases the chances to misinterpret or manipulate the real user requirements. In addition, we observed the non-existence of the user and context in other phases of the design process (Ideation, prototype, testing) has made students less empathetic.

In answering RQ 3, we observed the ability to walk back and forth during the design process. The ability to go through a cyclic process has got limited, because of the missing connections made with the empathising phase. This made the design process linier without cyclic iterations to the empathising phase from ideation, prototyping and testing phases. We identified this as a gap in the architectural design process which needed more interventions. The findings of RQ 3, have contributed to identifying the existing loopholes of the conventional design studio practice.

It is evident that among the selected 50 articles, only three articles have shown interest in bringing the users into the design process. Again, among those three articles, one article discusses urban design practice with the involvement of citizens, which is typically expected in urban design practice. We also observed a gap in the literature on experimenting the user involvement in ADP (refer Table 1 ) Current ADP lacks revising, observing, and testing design solutions against real contextual demands.

Based on the results and the discussions, we conclude that the architectural design process contains very linier characteristics without the ability to walk back and forth to the empathising phase from ideation, prototyping and testing phases. This linearity has limited the empathising ability of the design students, because there is no room provided in the design process to revert back to the user or the context while designing. Furthermore, we conclude that the real user and the contextual demands have been addressed only during the very first phase (empathising phase) of the ADP and students are carrying information they found at the initial phase to the other phases. This study has brought us the facts to identify the missing connections from ideation, prototyping and testing phases to empathising phase. We conclude by identifying missing connections to the empathising phase which are essential and crucial for the design process.

These three missing connections between the empathising phase are at the ideation phase and occur during the schematic design stage, at the prototyping phase and occur during the design development stage and finally, at the testing phase and occur during the solutions stage of the architectural design process (ADP). Even though the design process has many iterations in between each phase, it fails to modify the design based on feedback from the user point of view. We argue that the involvement of real users has a role to play in the design process, and it needs to be addressed. Finally, in order to visualise the short-comings based on the literature study, we developed a model depicting the relationships and connections between the different stages and phases in a design process, highlighting the discussed missing connections that need to be considered for improvements.

Future research

This study will contribute to identifying the current design process model and potential gaps to suggest possible amendments in future research. There is a need to investigate potential mechanisms to interconnect the missing connections we identified in ADP in future. The design process of students needs to be refined with research interventions which could integrate the user and contextual scenarios into all the phases of the design process. This intervention will help to increase the empathy of the students and will strengthen the act of empathising. There is a need for more empirical investigations on methods which could bring the real user and real context into the design process. We believe those interventions could create a positive impact on the architectural design process of students which is not much investigated yet.

Data availability

Not applicable.

Code availability

Abdelhameed, W. (2017). Creativity in the initial phases of architectural design. Open House International, 42 (1), 29–34.

Article   Google Scholar  

Abdullah, N. A. G., Beh, S. C., Tahir, M. M., Ani, A. I. C., & Tawil, N. M. (2011). Architecture design studio culture and learning spaces: A holistic approach to the design and planning of learning facilities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15 , 27–32.

Bar-Eli, A. (2020). Architectural drawings new uses in the architectural design process. Athens Journal of Architecture, 6 (3), 273–292. https://doi.org/10.30958/aja.6-3-4

Belmonte, M.-V., Millán, E., Ruiz-Montiel, M., Badillo, R., Boned, J., Mandow, L., & Pérez-de-la-Cruz, J.-L. (2014). Randomness and control in design processes: An empirical study with architecture students. Design Studies, 35 (4), 392–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.01.002

Bickert, S., & Johansson, E. (2012). Learning from the past to challenge the contemporary context of design: A collaborative enquiry investigating the effect of time on the design process. Journal of Writing in Creative Practice, 5 (2), 223–237.

Biskjaer, M. M., Kamari, A., Jensen, S. R., & Kirkegaard, P. H. (2021). Exploring blind spots in collaborative value creation in building design: A creativity perspective. CoDesign, 17 (4), 374–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2019.1654521

Casakin, H., & Wodehouse, A. (2021). A systematic review of design creativity in the architectural design studio. Buildings, 11 (1), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11010031

Cennamo, K., Brandt, C., Scott, B., Douglas, S., McGrath, M., Reimer, Y., & Vernon, M. (2011). Managing the complexity of design problems through studio-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 5 (2), 12–36.

Charmaz, K., & Henwood, K. (2019). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 238–256). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526405555

Book   Google Scholar  

Cikis, S., & Ek, F. (2010). Conceptualization by visual and verbal representations: An experience in an architectural design studio. Design Journal, 13 (3), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.2752/146069210X12766130824975

Clarke, A., & Charmaz, K. (2022). Grounded theory and situational. Analysis . https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036825838

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2020). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.): Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (pp. 87–116). SAGE Publications Inc.

Google Scholar  

Crowther, P. (2013). Understanding the signature pedagogy of the design studio and the opportunities for its technological enhancement. Journal of Learning Design, 6 (3), 18–28.

Demirkan, H., & Hasirci, D. (2009). Hidden dimensions of creativity elements in design process. Creativity Research Journal, 21 (2/3), 294–301.

Denscombe, M. (2014). The good research guide: for small-scale research projects: Vol. Fifth edition . McGraw-Hill Education; eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). https://ezp.sub.su.se/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=937947&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Dizdar, S. (2015). Architectural education, project design course and education process using examples (A. Isman, Ed.; WOS:000380487100041; Vol. 176, pp. 276–283). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.472

Dorta, T., Kinayoglu, G., & Boudhraa, S. (2016). A new representational ecosystem for design teaching in the studio. DESIGN STUDIES, 47 , 164–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.09.003

Durmus Ozturk, S. (2020). Rethinking the black box in architecture design studio. SAGE Open, 10 (2), 2158244020927408. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020927408

Eissa, D. (2019). Concept generation in the architectural design process: A suggested hybrid model of vertical and lateral thinking approaches. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 33 , 100589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100589

Franzosi, R. (2022). Content analysis (Vol. 1–4). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446271308

Grover, R., Emmitt, S., & Copping, A. (2018). The typological learning framework: The application of structured precedent design knowledge in the architectural design studio. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28 (4), 1019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9421-4

Halawa, F., Madathil, S. C., Gittler, A., & Khasawneh, M. T. (2020). Advancing evidence-based healthcare facility design: A systematic literature review. Health Care Management Science, 23 (3), 453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-020-09506-4

Ham, D. A. (2016). How designers play: The ludic modalities of the creative process. Design Issues, 32 (4), 16–28.

Hargrove, R. A., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2015). The impact of metacognitive instruction on creative problem solving. Journal of Experimental Education, 83 (3), 291–318.

Harputlugil, T. (2018). Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as an assessment approach for architectural design: Case study of architectural design studio. ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning, 6 (2), 217–245. https://doi.org/10.15320/ICONARP.2018.53

Haupt, G. (2015). Learning from experts: Fostering extended thinking in the early phases of the design process. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 25 (4), 483–520.

Hisarligil, B. (2012). Franz Kafka in the Design Studio: A hermeneutic-phenomenological approach to architectural design education. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 31 (3), 256–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2012.01764.x

Hong, Y.-C., & Choi, I. (2011). Three dimensions of reflective thinking in solving design problems: A conceptual model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59 (5), 687.

Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15 (9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

Ismail, M. A., Mahmud, R., & Hassan, I. S. (2012). Digital studio vs. conventional in teaching architectural design process. In 12th International Educational Technology Conference—IETC 2012 (Vol. 64 , pp. 18–25). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.003

Jabeen, H., Kabir, K. H., & Aziz, T. (2021). Balancing rationalism with creativity: An architectural studio’s experience of responsive design solutions. Environment & Urbanization, 33 (1), 63–82.

Karslı, U. T. (2015). Factors influencing function and form decisions of interior architectural design studio students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174 , 1090–1098.

Kavousi, S., Miller, P. A., & Alexander, P. A. (2019). Modeling metacognition in design thinking and design making. International Journal of Technology and Design Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09521-9

KhakZand, M., & Babaei, S. (2018). Developing a new method for the architectural design process: An experimental study using found-object art in the design studio. Design Journal, 21 (2), 209–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2018.1429368

Kim, D. Y. (2019). A Design methodology using prototyping based on the digital-physical models in the architectural design process. Sustainability, 11 (16), 4416–4416. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164416

Kurak Acici, F. (2015). A studio study on re-interpret the comments of a brand in the design training (F. Ozdamli, Ed.; WOS:000380397600042; Vol. 182, pp. 295–300). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.769

Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified . Architectural Press.

Lizondo-Sevilla, L., Bosch-Roig, L., Ferrer-Ribera, C., & Alapont-Ramon, J. (2019). Teaching architectural design through creative practices. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 36 (1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.4305/METU.JFA.2019.1.8

Mahdavinejad, M., & Pourbaqer, S. (2014). The impacts of formalistic approach in architectural design process on quality of students’ learning, case: Design studio II, IV. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136 , 271–277.

Mahdavinejad, M., Shahrigharahkoshan, S., & Ghasempourabadi, M. (2012). The role of site analysis in creativity of students of bachelor of architecture, case: Design studio III. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51 , 1000–1004.

Marvasti, A. B. (2020). The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 354–366). Berlin: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243

Nazidizaji, S., Tomé, A., & Regateiro, F. (2015). Does the smartest designer design better? Effect of intelligence quotient on students’ design skills in architectural design studio. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 4 (4), 318–329.

Neuendorf KA (2022) The content analysis guidebook (Second). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802878

Okoli, C., & Schabram, K. (2010). A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research. SSRN Electronic Journal . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1954824

Önal, G. K., & Turgut, H. (2017). Cultural schema and design activity in an architectural design studio. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 6 (2), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2017.02.006

Orbey, B., & Erdogdu, G. (2021). Design process re-visited in the first year design studio: Between intuition and reasoning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31 (4), 771–795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09573-2

Pallasmaa, J. (2013). The eyes of the skin: Architecture and the senses [Elektronisk resurs] . Wiley.

Pallasmaa, J. (2014). Empathic imagination: Formal and experiential projection: Empathic imagination: Formal and experiential projection. Architectural Design, 84 (5), 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.1812

Pallasmaa, J. (2019). Design for sensory reality: From visuality to existential experience. Architectural Design, 89 (6), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2496

Patria, A., Putra, D., & Lukito, Y. N. (2018). Architect and empathy: The importance of human experience in architectural design. International Journal of Built Environment and Scientific Research, 02 (01), 8.

Rahbarianyazd, R., & Nia, H. (2019a). Aesthetic cognition in architectural education: A methodological approach to develop learning process in design studios. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science Engineering and Education-IJCRSEE, 7 (3), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.5937/IJCRSEE1903061R

Rahbarianyazd, R., & Nia, H. A. (2019b). Aesthetic cognition in architectural education: A methodological approach to develop learning process in design studios. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering & Education (IJCRSEE), 7 , 61–69.

Raonic, A. (2015). From model to drawing and back: Reversing the design process (R. Crawford & A. Stephan, Eds.; WOS:000381380100076; pp. 788–796).

Safin, S., Détienne, F., Burkhardt, J.-M., Hébert, A.-M., & Leclercq, P. (2019). The interplay between quality of collaboration, design project evolution and outcome in an architectural design studio. CoDesign . https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2019.1699935

Sagdic, Z., & Degirmenci, A. (2015). Searching of the concept in Tirilye: An architectural design studio. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174 , 977–983.

Saris, B. (2020). A review of engagement with creativity and creative design processes for visual communication design (VCD) learning in China. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 39 (2), 306–318.

Schön, D. A. (2016). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action . Routledge. https://ezp.sub.su.se/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsebk&AN=1480239&site=eds-live&scope=site

Shin, C., & Thomas, J. (2015). Exploring the emotional experience of the user and designer, both in the design process and classroom. Procedia Manufacturing, 3 , 2267–2274.

Siddaway, D. A. (n.d.). What is a systematic literature review and how do I do one? 13.

Sinnamon, C., & Miller, E. (2021). Architectural concept design process impacted by body and movement. International Journal of Technology and Design Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09636-4

Soliman, A. M. (2017). Appropriate teaching and learning strategies for the architectural design process in pedagogic design studios. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 6 (2), 204–217.

Stevens, R., Petermans, A., & Vanrie, J. (2019). Design for human flourishing: A novel design approach for a more ‘humane’ architecture. The Design Journal, 22 (4), 391–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2019.1612574

Taneri, B., & Dogan, F. (2021). How to learn to be creative in design: Architecture students’ perceptions of design, design process, design learning, and their transformations throughout their education. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 39 . https://ezp.sub.su.se/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edselp&AN=S1871187120302558&site=eds-live&scope=site

Turgay, O. (2017). The meaning of studio practice over shadowed by technology in design process. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13 (12), 7659–7670. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/80322

Ustaomeroglu, A. A. (2015a). Concept-interpretation-product in architectural design studios-Karadeniz Technical Universty 2nd semester sample. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197 , 1897–1906.

Uysal, M., Aydin, D., & Siramkaya, S. (2012). A model intended for building the design education in the context of cultural variety and continuity: Sille design studio (A. Ilhan, Ed.; WOS:000316256000010; Vol. 51, pp. 53–63). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.118

van Amstel, F. M. C., Hartmann, T., van der Voort, M. C., & Dewulf, G. P. M. R. (2016). The social production of design space. Design Studies, 46 , 199–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.06.002

Van Dooren, E., Van Dorst, M., Asselbergs, T., Van Merrienboer, J., & Boshuizen, E. (2019). The Tacit Design Process in Architectural Design Education. Design and Technology Education , 24 (1). https://ezp.sub.su.se/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1212036&site=eds-live&scope=site

van Dooren, E. (2020). Anchoring the design process. A+be: Architecture and the Built Environment, 10 (20), 176. https://doi.org/10.7480/abe.2020.19.5351

van Dooren, E. J. G. C., van Merriënboer, J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., van Dorst, M., & Asselbergs, M. F. (2018). Architectural design education: “In varietate unitas.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28 (2), 431–449.

Weber, R. (2022). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983488

Webster, H. (2004). Facilitating critically reflective learning: Excavating the role of the design tutor in architectural education. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 2 (3), 101–111.

Xu, L., & Izadpanahi, P. (2016). Creative architectural design with children: A collaborative design project informed by Rhodes’s theory. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 4 (3–4), 234–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2015.1043352

Yorgancıoğlu, D., & Tunalı, S. (2020). Changing pedagogic identities of tutors and students in the design studio: Case study of desk and peer critiques. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 19 (1), 19–32.

Yuksel, C., & Uyaroglu, I. (2021). Experiential learning in basic design studio: Body, space and the design process. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 40 , 508–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12364

Yurtkuran, S., Kırlı, G., & Taneli, Y. (2013). An Innovative approach in architectural education: Designing a utopia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 89 , 821–829.

Yurtsever, B. (2012). Re-thinking Bauhaus on the Context of Architectural Education. In The World Conference on Design, Arts and Education (DAE-2012) (Vol. 51, pp. 135–139), May 1–3 2012, Antalya, Turkey. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.132

Download references

Open access funding provided by Stockholm University. The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Computer and Systems Sciences/DSV, Stockholm University, Postbox 7003, 164 07, Kista, Sweden

Upeksha Hettithanthri & Preben Hansen

Department of Design Studies, NSBM, Green University Town, Pitipana, Homagama, Sri Lanka

Upeksha Hettithanthri

School of Architectural Studies, George Brown College, Toronto, Canada

Harsha Munasinghe

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Upeksha Hettithanthri .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Hettithanthri, U., Hansen, P. & Munasinghe, H. Exploring the architectural design process assisted in conventional design studio: a systematic literature review. Int J Technol Des Educ 33 , 1835–1859 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09792-9

Download citation

Accepted : 15 November 2022

Published : 11 December 2022

Issue Date : November 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09792-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Architectural design process (ADP)
• User participation
• Design thinking
• Empathising
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Review article, the embodiment of architectural experience: a methodological perspective on neuro-architecture.

• 1 Biological Psychology and Neuroergonomics, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
• 2 Department of Architecture, Design and Media Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

People spend a large portion of their time inside built environments. Research in neuro-architecture—the neural basis of human perception of and interaction with the surrounding architecture—promises to advance our understanding of the cognitive processes underlying this common human experience and also to inspire evidence-based architectural design principles. This article examines the current state of the field and offers a path for moving closer to fulfilling this promise. The paper is structured in three sections, beginning with an introduction to neuro-architecture, outlining its main objectives and giving an overview of experimental research in the field. Afterward, two methodological limitations attending current brain-imaging architectural research are discussed: the first concerns the limited focus of the research, which is often restricted to the aesthetic dimension of architectural experience; the second concerns practical limitations imposed by the typical experimental tools and methods, which often require participants to remain stationary and prevent naturalistic interaction with architectural surroundings. Next, we propose that the theoretical basis of ecological psychology provides a framework for addressing these limitations and motivates emphasizing the role of embodied exploration in architectural experience, which encompasses but is not limited to aesthetic contemplation. In this section, some basic concepts within ecological psychology and their convergences with architecture are described. Lastly, we introduce Mobile Brain/Body Imaging (MoBI) as one emerging brain imaging approach with the potential to improve the ecological validity of neuro-architecture research. Accordingly, we suggest that combining theoretical and conceptual resources from ecological psychology with state-of-the-art neuroscience methods (Mobile Brain/Body Imaging) is a promising way to bring neuro-architecture closer to accomplishing its scientific and practical goals.

A Brief Introduction: From Pre-Neuro-Architecture to Neuro-Architecture

Before the recent development of neuro-architecture as a research field ( Eberhard and Gage, 2003 ; Eberhard, 2009b ; Ruiz-Arellano, 2015 ), many scholars studied psychological and behavioral effects of architectural experiences in their own way. If we consider architecture as “composed structural space,” three themes that reoccur in the history of architecture practice and theory are those of utilitas, firmitas, et venustas , or utility, strength, and beauty ( Pollio, 1914 ), even if this architectural triad has changed in balance and definition at different points in time. For instance, not only were the Egyptian pyramids a utility and structural achievement, but the spatial design decisions were based on beliefs about the passage from this world to the afterworld and the goal of inducing in visitors experiences related to the afterworld ( Fazio et al., 2008 , p. 27–33). Equally, the Greeks, who were deeply inspired by Egyptian culture ( Rutherford, 2016 ), refined their understanding of buildings expressed in their symmetrical and pillared architecture but continued to reserve special places in the city for buildings that were considered important, such as temples. Important buildings are situated in important places, which remains a common way of building today.

Throughout the history of architecture, from Byzantine, Islamic, Medieval and Romanesque eras to Gothic, Renaissance, and Baroque architecture, the conception of architecture continuously approximated a powerful spiritual status ( Fazio et al., 2008 , p. 1–7). Dominating cities and important religious buildings, including churches, temples, and mosques, were carefully designed according to cultural beliefs. The implicit agreement, throughout history, seems to be that architecture, through its utility, strength, and beauty, affects the human perceiver beyond the ordinary, material world as we know it because it affects the soul and mind ( Stendhal, 2010 ). The relation between divinity and architecture was also expressed by applying the laws of nature in spatial ratios and proportions expressed both through the facades and the plan of buildings [see e.g., Palladio (1965) ]. At any rate, although design decisions about the spatial structures had for a long time been guided by metaphysical views about how the space affects the perceiver, in the nineteenth century this came to change as religion, science and technology became more independent cultural forces.

With technological advancements, such as reinforced concrete, architects began exploring how beauty emerged from the structure and utility of the building itself ( Frascari, 1983 ; Frampton, 1985 ; Corbusier, 2013 ). Open spaces with wide-spanning beams and few structural elements commenced a turn toward the performance of the building. Statements of influential architects point to the importance of functionality for architectural design, such as Louis Sullivan 1 , Mies van der Rohe 2 , or Augustus Pugin 3 . Modern architecture has developed into an interdisciplinary field, taking advantage of the experience of other areas of science, and especially ergonomics has increasingly been reflected in modern architecture ( Charytonowicz, 2000 ).

Modernism made one of its marks through the famous 1910 essay by Loos (2019) in which he describes how ornamentation and art had no function and were thus redundant. In European building culture, it became customary for those influenced by these ideas to see any artistic addition or ornamentation to the interior of spaces or the exterior of buildings as superfluous and to be avoided. Instead, the focus was reoriented toward the building performance, e.g., increased window sizes, bigger open spaces, rethinking city infrastructure according to means of transportation, etc. Architects would optimize the building for its conceptual function and consequently base their design decisions on how well the building would perform. The users of the building, on the other hand, have been reduced to a matter of physical proportions ( Corbusier, 1954 ) associated with a series of assumptions on psychological and behavioral impact.

The pre-neuro-architecture belief that spatial configurations alter psychological and behavioral outcomes is clear throughout history. Designing the world meant to design human lives (including their afterlife according to the ancient Egyptians). Yet, exactly how the designed environment affects our lives remains uncovered and typically inaccessible in the writings of architects and architectural scholars. It is not the question of why we place important buildings in important places in the cities, but why we consider places to be important to begin with. If it is due to its visual exposure from within as well as from exterior vantage points, then we must acknowledge that it is based on the properties of human perception. This is precisely where neuro-architecture comes in.

Neuro-Architecture Definition and Objectives

Neuro-architecture can be seen as an emerging field that combines neuroscience, environmental psychology, and architecture to focus on human brain dynamics resulting from action in and interaction with the built environment ( Karakas and Yildiz, 2020 ). Some scholars also describe neuro-architecture as a field where architects collaborate with neuroscientists to scientifically explore the relationship between individuals and their surrounding environment ( Ezzat Ahmed and Kamel, 2021 ). Regarding the rise of this discipline, the necessity of convergence among architects and neuroscientists was first mentioned in 2003 in an interview with Eberhard and Gage (2003 ; see also Azzazy et al., 2021 ). In that year, the first academic organization focusing on neuro-architecture was formed, the Academy of Neuroscience for Architecture (ANFA; Ruiz-Arellano, 2015 ).

According to Azzazy et al. (2021) , the main objective of neuro-architecture is to study the impact of the architectural environment on the neural system. Based on the understanding of how the brain perceives its surroundings, neuroscience can improve the design process, design strategies, and inform regulations that eventually improve human health and well-being in the future ( Eberhard, 2009b ; Dougherty and Arbib, 2013 ; Azzazy et al., 2021 ). One of the primary foci of this framework is to investigate peoples’ experiences in various contexts, such as the role of office space design in the reduction of stress and increase in productivity, how the design of hospital rooms enhances the recovery of patients, or how the design of churches increases the sense of awe and inspiration.

Overview of Research Paradigms and Methods in Neuro-Architecture

With the continuous development of new brain imaging technologies and new experimental paradigms over the last decades, recent neuro-architectural studies have become increasingly sophisticated. The studies can be roughly divided into two categories that either require participants to remain motionless (stationary paradigms) or that allow physical interaction with the environment (mobile paradigms). Stationary neuroimaging protocols present participants with static visual stimuli of architectural environments while they are sitting in a well-controlled laboratory or while lying in a scanner. Stationary imaging methods like magnetoencephalography (MEG), electroencephalography (EEG), or functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) can reveal the neural basis of statically experiencing the built environment. While the experimental control of stationary architectural studies is often high, the ecological validity is usually low as only two-dimensional snapshots of complex three-dimensional environments are presented that do not allow any kind of interaction with the perceived environment. Mobile protocols, in contrast, allow participants to actively experience real or virtual three-dimensional artifacts with high ecological validity, at the cost of introducing noise to the recordings due to uncontrollable environments and movement-related artifacts in the few select imaging methods that are portable ( Gramann et al., 2021 ). Thus, while stationary protocols allow for experimental control they might not be able to measure the neural aspects of humans perceiving and interacting with the built environment, rendering mobile brain imaging methods an important tool to gain deeper insights into the impact of architecture on the human experience and behavior. Together, results from both stationary and mobile brain imaging approaches can complement each other and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the human brain. Several studies using stationary protocols provided first important insights into the relationship of architectural design and human brain responses. These will be introduced in the next section.

Neuro-Architecture Research Methods, Findings and Limitations

Previous studies in neuro-architecture.

Most existing neuro-architectural studies are based on stationary protocols with participants focusing on visual stimuli while being seated or lying down to measure the subjective experience of architectural aesthetics. Investigating event-related potentials (ERP) of the EEG, Oppenheim et al. (2009 , 2010) found that buildings that rank high regarding their social status as they are designed to be more important (like government buildings) or sublime (like religious buildings) have more impact on the perception of sublimity than low-ranking buildings (such as buildings associated with economy or the private life). In these studies, the hippocampus was shown to contribute to the processing of architectural ranking. Other studies discovered that participants perceived curvilinear spaces as more beautiful than rectilinear ones ( Vartanian et al., 2013 ). Using fMRI, the authors explored the neural mechanism behind this phenomenon and found that when participants made approach-avoidance decisions, images of curvilinear architectural interiors activated the lingual and the calcarine gyrus in the visual cortex more than images of rectilinear interiors. When contemplating beauty, curvilinear contours activated the anterior cingulate cortex exclusively ( Vartanian et al., 2013 ). Using the same fMRI dataset, Vartanian et al. (2015) also examined the effects of ceiling height and perceived enclosure on aesthetic judgments in architectural design. They found that rooms with higher ceilings were more likely to be judged as beautiful and activated structures involved in visuospatial exploration and attention in the dorsal stream. Open rooms were judged as more beautiful compared with enclosed rooms and activated regions in the temporal lobes associated with perceived visual motion ( Vartanian et al., 2015 ).

While visual sensory information about architectural features directly impacts architectural experience and the accompanying brain dynamics, higher cognitive processes were also shown to provoke changes in brain activity in the context of architectural experience. For example, expectations about aesthetic value moderated people’s aesthetic judgment. Kirk et al. (2009b) found that if the same image was labeled as being sourced from a gallery rather than being computer generated, its aesthetic ratings were significantly higher. The neural mechanisms involved in this difference in aesthetic ratings were traced to the medial orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and the prefrontal cortex (PFC; Kirk et al., 2009b ). Memories and experience can also moderate architectural aesthetics judgments. This was shown by Kirk et al. (2009b) who found that architects, compared with non-architects, had increased activity of the bilateral medial OFC and the subcallosal cingulate gyrus, when making aesthetic judgments about buildings, rather than faces. These results show that expertise can modulate the response in reward-related brain areas ( Kirk et al., 2009b ).

While most of the above-described studies focused on the impact of architecture on aesthetic judgments and the accompanying brain dynamics, another line of research focuses on the impact of architectural designs on people’s emotional and affective state. As there are too many studies in this area to report in detail [for an overview see Higuera-Trujillo et al. (2021) ], the following exemplary studies suffice to provide the reader with a broad sense of the research questions and imaging methods used in this field. For example, using EEG in a psychophysics experiment, Naghibi Rad et al. (2019) investigated the impact that window shapes in building facades had on the perceivers’ emotional state and cortical activity. Their behavioral results showed that rectangular, square, circular and semi-circular arches were considered as pleasant window shapes, while windows with triangle and triangular arches were determined as unpleasant. Regarding ERP results, the authors found that the effect of pleasant stimuli was larger in the left hemisphere than that of unpleasant ones ( Naghibi Rad et al., 2019 ), consistent with previous notions of lateralization with regards to emotional processes ( Dimond and Farrington, 1977 ; Reuter-Lorenz and Davidson, 1981 ; Canli et al., 1998 ). By using physiological sensors, such as EEG, Galvanic Skin Response (GSR), and eye-tracking (ET), Shemesh et al. (2021) examined the connection between geometrical aspects of architectural spaces (such as scale, proportion, protrusion, and curvature) and the user’s emotional state in expert and non-expert participants (designers and non-designers, respectively). In general, they found that large symmetrical spaces positively affect users. In addition, the more extreme a change of proportion in height P(H) or width P(W) of virtual spaces was displayed, the stronger the response of distress was observed. All physiological measurements demonstrated significantly increased signals in non-designers than those of designers. This study reflected the connection between manipulations in the geometry of the virtual space and the user’s emotional reaction, especially for non-designers ( Shemesh et al., 2021 ). Analyzing the neural response to restorative environments to investigate stress restoration, Martínez-Soto et al. (2013) found that exposure to restorative environments (like buildings with vegetation-surrounding) led to activation of the middle frontal gyrus, middle and inferior temporal gyrus, insula, inferior parietal lobe, and cuneus. Their findings reflected that endogenous, top-down, directed attention is more active during viewing of low restorative potential vs. high restorative potential environments. This article provided empirical evidence that building-integrated vegetation could be considered for architects in order to improve stress-restoration for residents. As a last example, a study by Fich et al. (2014) found that participants immersed in an enclosed virtual room without windows exhibited greater reactivity to a stress test than those in a virtual room with windows. Physiological reactions of this stress state consisted of both heightened and prolonged spikes in salivary cortisol ( Fich et al., 2014 ). This finding is also consistent with the conclusion of Vartanian et al. (2015) , who found that participants were more likely to judge open rooms as beautiful as compared to enclosed rooms.

Methodological Limitations of Existing Neuro-Architecture Research

A recent literature review in the field of neuro-architecture ( Higuera-Trujillo et al., 2021 ) provided a summary of limitations of current neuro-architectural research. The first limitation, according to the authors, is that the majority of studies are confined to architectural aesthetics, not regarding other aspects of architecture like ergonomics, affordances, or functionality. Accordingly, the authors point out that it is not possible to liken architectural experience to the artistic-aesthetic experience because the latter is only one of the components of the cognitive-emotional dimension of architecture ( Higuera-Trujillo et al., 2021 ). Combining architectural ergonomics with architectural aesthetics facilitates architectural research as it leads to a more comprehensive picture of how architecture is perceived and acted upon. That is, the utility and beauty should be investigated in combination along with the underlying neural mechanism of the user interacting with the environment.

A second limitation according to Higuera-Trujillo et al. (2021) is the low ecological validity of established brain imaging methods that come with significant restrictions regarding the mobility of the participant. Data collection in stationary participants experiencing 2D images of architectural designs come with reduced ecological validity in neuro-architecture research ( Higuera-Trujillo et al., 2021 ). Experimental design and techniques that allow participants to freely explore their built environment will provide an ecological account of the psychological and behavioral phenomena underlying human-architecture interactions.

New Horizons for Architectural Neuroscience

There is a demand for new research approaches to neuro-architecture expanding the horizon for neuroscience and resulting in a wider knowledge base for architecture ( Eberhard, 2009a ). Aligned with Eberhard’s proposition, our contention is that current neuro-architecture methodology should be compatible with ecological psychology (one of many aspects of embodied cognitive sciences) and should make use of mobile brain imaging approaches in order to overcome the above-described limitations.

Architectural experiences are embodied in the sense that people physically interact with architectural spaces while moving through a building, opening doors, or taking the stairs to perceive different perspectives of the built environment through movement ( Pektaş, 2021 ). Therefore, the research object of neuro-architecture itself has inherent embodied features and the appropriate research methodology should also correspond to these embodied properties. In general, the proposed methodology for an ecologically more valid neuro-architecture should be in line with an architectural interaction process which is constituted by closely linked perception and action, and by an indispensable connection of our body, brain, and the environment. Architectural environments provide us with action possibilities ( Jelić et al., 2016 ). The possibilities to act emerge from, and are automatically processed by, our brain-body system during active exploration of our surroundings.

In what follows, we first introduce the theoretical foundation of ecological psychology to then address how ecological psychology theories can be integrated with architectural principles and how the neuro-architectural research questions can be extended from aesthetics to ergonomics within an ecological psychology framework. This offers a solution to existing limitations in current neuro-architectural research. Secondly, we will introduce Mobile Brain/Body Imaging (MoBI; Makeig et al., 2009 ; Gramann et al., 2011 , 2014 ) as one emerging brain imaging approach with the potential to improve the ecological validity of neuro-architecture research. By introducing representative MoBI studies, we will elucidate how the neuro-architectural research’s limitation with regards to brain imaging technique can be overcome.

Extending the Research Question From Aesthetics to Ergonomics Using the Framework of Ecological Psychology

Ecological psychology is an embodied, situated, and non-representationalist approach to cognition pioneered by J. J. Gibson (1904–1979) in the field of perception and by E. J. Gibson (1910–2002) in the field of developmental psychology ( Richardson et al., 2008 ; Lobo et al., 2018 ). Theorizing in psychology has traditionally relied on a number of dichotomies, including those of perception and action, of organism and environment, of subject and object, and of mind and body. The “ecological approach” as articulated by Gibson offers an alternative way of understanding psychological phenomena that challenges these concepts and categories. One illustration of this anti-dualism is evident in the name of the approach. Ecology is the branch of biological science concerned with understanding the relations that biological organisms bear to other organisms and to the environment. The Gibsonian approach is “ecological” because, in contrast with the idea that psychology studies the organism (i.e., its mind and behavior), it instead sees relations between organism and environment as the proper level of analysis: in this view, understanding the organism-environment system as a whole is the starting point for understanding mind and behavior (see e.g., Michaels and Palatinus (2014) ).

Following from this, another dichotomy rejected in the ecological approach is the one between perception and action. As it is usually conceived, perception is an “indirect” process in which meaning is attached to otherwise meaningless or ambiguous sensory information via “detailed internal representations” ( Handford et al., 1997 ; Craig and Watson, 2011 ; Rogers, 2017 ); or as the prominent cognitive scientist David Marr put it, “vision is the process of discovering from images what is present in the world and where it is” ( Marr, 1982 , p. 3). Importantly, in this understanding of perception as a matter of internally reconstructing the external world, perception is also seen as distinct and independent from action: moving around can change the input for perception, but it does not significantly alter the perceptual process itself. Ecological psychology challenges this view by treating perception and action as mutual, reciprocal, continuous and symmetrically constraining processes ( Warren, 2006 ; Richardson et al., 2008 ; Heras-Escribano, 2021 ). In the Gibsonian view, perception isn’t merely associated with action, but it is an action, a process of active exploration of the environment: “perceiving is an act, not a response, an act of attention, not a triggered impression, an achievement, not a reflex” ( Gibson, 1979 , p. 149). As a result, in contrast with the description of the visual system as extracting information about the external world from images, Gibson proposed that the visual system is itself constituted by eyes “set in a head that can turn, attached to a body that can move from place to place” ( Gibson, 1979 , p. 53). And besides being inherently active, perception is also for action—a claim that is central to the Gibsonian theory of affordances.

Affordances

“Affordance” is the term that Gibson (1966; 1977; 1979 ) coined to refer to the possibilities for action that the environment offers to a given organism or agent. For example, a chair affords sitting on, a cup affords grasping with one hand and drinking from, and a table affords supporting the cup. For Gibson, we don’t simply perceive chairs, cups and tables as such (i.e., as mere material objects), but rather we perceive the opportunities for action that those objects make possible for us. It is in this sense that, in the ecological view, perception is for action: perception is of affordances. Importantly, however, affordances are not properties of the objects in and of themselves. The uses and meaning that objects have (i.e., their affordances) are relative to some organism or other. For instance, in the examples just given, the cup only affords grasping and holding for agents that have opposable thumbs (or their functional equivalent); for other organisms, the cup affords different uses, including hiding behind or inside (e.g., for an insect) and a place within which to grow (e.g., for a plant, if the cup is used as a vase). Similarly, the chair affords sitting on, and it also affords stepping on (e.g., to change a lightbulb), but only for people of a certain height: for others (e.g., babies) the chair might afford hiding under or support for standing up, but it might be too tall for other uses.

It is for reasons such as these that affordances have been traditionally understood as relational or agent-relative properties: affordances are “relations between the abilities of organisms and features of the environment” [ Chemero, 2003 , p. 189; see also Chemero (2011) ]. In a landmark study that provided early support for this relational understanding of affordances, Warren (1984) found that the boundary between climbable and unclimbable stairways corresponds to a fixed ratio between riser height and leg length. That is, instead of the stairway having the affordance of “climbability” on its own, the affordance is rather a relational property, and one that participants in Warren’s study were found to be perceptually sensitive to Warren (1984) . This research provided a methodology called intrinsic measurement to quantify affordances, since the unit of climbability is not an extrinsic unit such as centimeters, but the unit intrinsic to the body-environment relation that depends on leg lengths ( Warren, 1984 ). In a follow-up study Warren and Whang (1987) found similar results for the visual guidance of walking through apertures like doorways or other gaps on a wall: consistent with the findings from the study on stairways, an aperture’s passability was found to correspond to an objective body-scale ratio (i.e., a relational property) that is visually perceivable ( Warren and Whang, 1987 ).

Other studies have shown that our perceptual access to such action boundaries fixed at body-scale ratios is not static, but can change over time with changes in body-scale: this varies from the short-term effect that wearing a tall wooden block under one’s shoes has on the perception of opportunities for sitting and stair climbing ( Mark, 1987 ) up to comparatively longer-term effect of bodily changes during pregnancy on (the perception of) the passability of apertures ( Franchak and Adolph, 2014 ). Interestingly, some of these and other studies have found that participants were wildly inaccurate when asked to estimate absolute properties (such as heights and widths in centimeters or inches), which suggests that the perception of affordances (i.e., agent-relative properties) is more fundamental than, and independent from, the perception of non-agent-relative properties.

As these examples illustrate, the concept of affordance undermines the dichotomy of perception and action because, in this view, perception is the active exploration of opportunities for action in the environment (i.e., affordances). Moreover, the ecological theory of affordance perception also illustrates the rejection of the dichotomies between organism and environment, subject and object: as relational properties, affordances are features of an organism-environment system as a whole rather than characteristics of the environment and environmental objects on their own. And insofar as affordances constitute the action possibilities that an object or the environment offers some agent, the ecological approach also challenges traditional separations between mind and body. In this view the functional “meaning” of an object does not belong to an immaterial mental dimension separate from the material dimension of the body, as if the mind has to interpret sensory stimulation in order to infer what might be possible to do: rather, affordances are the action opportunities that objects have for some agent (and that the agent can directly perceive) precisely because of the agent’s particular physical structure and bodily activity.

Through embodied experience in architectural spaces we thus encounter possibilities for action that are linked to affective, cognitive, and physiological responses. In this sense, architecture shapes the way we perceive the environment. This should change the view on how architecture influences brain dynamics. Moreover, Warren’s (1984) research can be considered as an exemplary case to combine affordances with ergonomics in an architectural environment. The intrinsic measurement of this study demonstrates that research questions on ergonomic dimensions in architecture can be raised at the ecological scale allowing for a better understanding of the user’s interaction with the architectural environment in terms of complementarity between subjective capacities and objective properties. For instance, inspired by the above studies ( Warren, 1984 ; Mark, 1987 ; Warren and Whang, 1987 ; Franchak and Adolph, 2014 ), in neuro-architectural research the operationalization of experimental variables with regards to architectural affordances should take into account both environmental properties (such as the height of stairs, the size of the apertures, etc.) and participants’ physical capabilities (such as the height of legs, the width changes of the body during pregnancy, etc.). It is promising to investigate this complementarity between architectural properties and the users’ embodied abilities at the ecological scale and also its underlying brain dynamics. In addition, it demonstrates the potential of neuro-architectural research questions to be extended from aesthetics to ergonomics within an ecological psychology framework.

Active Exploration

As just seen, according to ecological psychology agents perceive affordances in a direct process of embodied activity: it is through the agents’ active exploration of the environment ( Michaels and Carello, 1981 ; Heft, 1989 ; Rietveld and Kiverstein, 2014 ) that affordances are perceived, rendering the embodied experience of the built environment a perception-action loop. While in the last section we described how affordances impact active exploration, we now turn to the impact of active exploration on affordances.

Architectural affordances are perceived directly when we move through the built environment. When the observer remains stationary, or when architecture is presented as an image, architectural affordances will be limited to this one specific perspective ( Heft, 2010 ). As stated by Heras-Escribano (2019) , all organisms perceive affordances directly on the condition of unrestricted exploration and sufficient ecological information in their environment. The significance of active exploration is not only reflected in the process to discover new affordances, but also in the process of modifying existing perceptual information. The popular optical illusion of the Ames room (see Figure 1 ; Ittelson, 1952 ) was discussed by Gibson to demonstrate that the illusion could be reduced through unrestricted exploration ( Gibson, 1979 ). Under a single and stationary point of observation of the Ames Room, the eye of the observer is fooled. When an observer views the Ames Room from various angles with binocular information, however, it is easy to notice the sharp sloped floor of the room. Normally, the ceiling and floor are parallel and walls are at a right angle to the ground; but when looking into the Ames Room, the observer can only assume that the room is geometric if active exploration is restricted. Once the observer discovers the abnormal conditions of the Ames room through active exploration, the observer will immediately reject their earlier assumption and also the existing illusory impression ( Gibson, 1979 ). In short, the exploratory activity is crucial for both picking up new affordances and modifying existing ones. Therefore, active exploration is the core ecological approach for investigating an agents’ perception of architectural affordances.

Figure 1. A sketch of the Ames Room. (A) Displays what the perceiver encounters from a given point. Color-codes are used throughout the diagrams. (B) Displays a conceptual plan-drawing of an Ames Room. The red dashed lines represent the field of view of the perceiver. (C) Reveals the actual conditions under which an Ames room functions. The red dashed lines represent the field of view of the perceiver, while the blue dashed lines represent the outline of a rectangle, which the Ames room illusion suggests to exist from a specific angle (A) .

The Convergence of “Exploration” and “Affordance” With Architectural Design

Ecological psychology provides us with a relational perspective to account for perception and action: perception is for action, and action is for perception. This perception-action loop is neither understood as an organism-only nor an environment-only scale, but as co-depending between organism and environment. As affordances of most environments have been designed either by ourselves (e.g., our private spaces) or by architects (e.g., public spaces), we briefly investigate how architectural affordances relate to active exploration. Providing examples of ergonomic dimensions of architectural experience, the following illustrations demonstrate the convergence of “exploration” and “affordance” with architectural design.

Affordances and active exploration are not only theoretical tenets of ecological psychology, but a practical requirement of architecture: after all, every built environment, whether natural or virtual, has affordances. Instead, we focus on features of architecture that have an inviting affordance that appeals to the physical structure of the organism and its immediate relation. Carlo Scarpa, an Italian architect, was famously known for his capacity to address the rhythm of the body by creating details that invited certain movements in a specific order. Giardino Querini Stampalia (1961–1963) uses strategic changes in the pavement from grass, to small cobblestones and concrete, to intentionally alter the velocity of the walking, moreover all stairs in the garden have each a step for either the right or the left foot [see e.g., Dodds (2000) ]. This eventually also causes different heights between steps which now also invites sitting. The rhythm and affordances of walking have then been designed by confining the actively exploring body in this case to both the velocity of the walkability and the specific order of movement for the climbability of the stairs. The very same applies to the staircase of Scarpa’s Olivetti Showroom (1958). As some of the steps are stretched so they float mid-air, they afford being used as a table or a place to sit ( Carter, 2018 ).

As a second contemporary example, consider the work of RAAAF who explicitly attempts to design the affordances of the environment to make the spaces more suitable for the designed function. Consisting of the ecological psychologist and philosopher Erik Rietveld and the architect Ronald Rietveld, the duo has produced numerous projects that demonstrate how architectural affordances can inherently be used to alter the behavior of users. For instance, the project The End of Sitting (2014) radically challenged the mainstream structure of office landscapes by altering the affordances of “working at a desk” ( Rietveld, 2016 ). Instead, RAAAF designed a physical landscape that invites various body postures suitable while working, e.g., laying, leaning, semi-crouching, and so on. Through active exploration, the users would realize that each part of the landscape provided its unique affordances. These examples all share inviting/suggestive designs that couple the agent with the environment in ways that alter neurobehavioral states.

These are only two of many cases in architecture in which a design principle with regards to active exploration and affordances were applied. We believe that since active exploration and affordances constitute our perception of the environment, including architectural design, any serious investigation of the experience of architecture must provide an active interaction with the environment under investigation. This view raises an important challenge for the field of neuro-architecture: studying the cognitive and neural basis of the effect of architectural features requires an interactive neuroimaging approach. In the next section, we demonstrate one way of overcoming this challenge.

Mobile Brain/Body Imaging as a Practical Basis for Architectural Neuroscience

Mobile Brain/Body Imaging is an emerging brain/body imaging method which allows for investigating the exploratory proposition of ecological psychology with the potential to improve the ecological validity of empirical research ( Parada and Rossi, 2021 ). Several studies in the last few years demonstrated that MoBI can be used to specifically improve the ecological validity in neuro-architectural studies by allowing for active exploration of the built environment ( Banaei et al., 2017 ; Djebbara et al., 2019 , 2021 ). In this section, we will describe how MoBI can improve the ecological validity of research within the field of neuro-architecture providing a brief introduction to the methods and a review of representative studies in the field of neuro-architecture.

Mobile Brain/Body Imaging: Definition, Main Goals and Instruments

Mobile Brain/Body Imaging is defined as a multimethod approach to imaging brain dynamics in humans actively moving through and interacting with the environment ( Jungnickel et al., 2019 ). It requires adequate hardware and software solutions to simultaneously record data streams from brain dynamics, motor behavior, and environmental events, and it requires data-driven analyses methods for multi-modal data to dissociate the brain from non-brain processes ( Makeig et al., 2009 ; Gramann et al., 2011 ). The main goal of MoBI is to model and understand natural cognition during unrestricted exploratory action in the immediate environment ( Gramann et al., 2014 ; Parada, 2018 ; Parada and Rossi, 2021 ).

Mobile Imaging means that participants should be allowed to actively explore the environment in order to reflect the neural dynamics underlying embodied cognitive processes. This necessitates small and lightweight measurement instruments. Brain/Body Imaging refers to the investigation of the neural mechanisms of cognitive processes that make use of our physical structure for cognitive goals, and the connection of mind and behavior, perception and action, and sensorimotor coupling on the ecological scale. Both brain and behavioral dynamics have to be recorded in synchrony to explore the bidirectional influence between behavior and brain dynamics. Capturing brain/body dynamics will require multiple sensors to record the different data streams and software to integrate them synchronously (see Figure 2 ).

Figure 2. The illustration depicts a MoBI setup using mobile EEG hardware combined with virtual reality and motion capture through the VR tracking system [from Djebbara et al. (2021) ; used with permission].

Studies in the real world, while providing high ecological validity, do miss control of unwanted factors and cannot simply repeat stimuli material to gain a better signal-to-noise ratio in the signal of interest. Thus, for controlled and repeated stimulus presentation, head-mounted virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR) displays can be integrated in the MoBI hardware system providing an alternative for presenting participants with different environments that can be actively explored while allowing for experimental control and systematically manipulating experimental variables of interest. Furthermore, other stimulus modalities, such as auditory and tactile stimuli, could also be compatible with head-mounted VR displays ( Jungnickel et al., 2019 ).

Previous Mobile Brain/Body Imaging Studies in Neuro-Architecture

Using MoBI, Banaei et al. (2017) investigated human brain dynamics related to the affective impact of interior forms when the perceiver actively explores an architectural space. The experimental task required participants to naturally walk through different architectural spaces with interior forms extracted from a large corpus of architectural pictures. The rooms represented different combinations of interior forms derived from formal cluster analysis of pictures of the real built environment. Importantly, in order to investigate human brain dynamics related to the affective experience of interior forms during architectural exploration, multimodal data were recorded including EEG and motion capture ( Banaei et al., 2017 ).

The authors found that curvature geometries of interior forms influenced brain activity originating from the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) while the posterior cingulate cortex and the occipital lobe were involved in the processing of different room perspectives ( Banaei et al., 2017 ). This MoBI architectural neuroscience study demonstrates that both the architectural interior form (such as type, location, scale, and angle) and the exploration of the surroundings will shape the experience of the built environment, providing a neuroscientific basis for architectural design ( Banaei et al., 2017 ). Additionally, this research illustrates the potential of MoBI to investigate human brain dynamics and natural experience of participants actively exploring architectural environments.

Another MoBI study by Djebbara et al. (2019 , 2021) investigated the human brain dynamics during transitions through doors of different widths. The authors aimed to investigate how architectural affordances affect brain dynamics by creating three kinds of transitions differing in their passability. Of the three doors, only one did not afford to be transitioned. In the experimental task, implemented in VR, the participants moved from one room to a second room, passing one of the three doors connecting the rooms. The door width which could either be impassable (narrow), passable (medium), or easily passable (wide) formed the operational definition of architectural affordance in their experiment. For priming different interactions with this environment, the authors used a Go/NoGo paradigm either prompting the person to pass through the door (the Go condition), or indicating that the person should not pass through the door (NoGo condition). EEG was used to record their brain activity during the task and a Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) questionnaire was used to measure participants’ emotional experience after every trial ( Djebbara et al., 2019 , 2021 ).

The subjective reports from the SAM showed that different transition affordances influenced the architectural experience of participants. Different door widths influenced participants’ emotional experience, especially when instructed to pass through the door (i.e., forced interaction with the environment) as compared to instructions that did not require interactions with the environment. The physiological results, on the other hand, revealed that brain activity in visual sensory regions and motor areas reflected the affordance of the transition already around 200 ms, irrespective of whether participants knew that they should or should not pass into the second room. This reflects an automated processing of the affordance present in the built environment even if no further interaction with the environment is planned. In addition, differences in the post-imperative negative variation (PINV), a component of the event-related potential (ERP) of the EEG, were visible only in trials that required an interaction with the environment (Go-trials) while in the NoGo condition, this architectural affordance effect was not observed. In other words, the possible interactions with the transition automatically activated cortical areas underlying perceptual and motor responses even in the absence of planned interactions while additional affordance-specific modulations of brain activity were observed during interactions with the built environment ( Djebbara et al., 2019 , 2021 ).

The results from Djebbara et al. (2019) support the view that possibilities of imminent actions shape our perception ( Djebbara and Gramann, 2022 ). This view is consistent with the propositions of direct perception and perception-action coupling within ecological psychology ( Djebbara et al., 2019 ; Gepshtein and Snider, 2019 ). The reasons why imminent action possibilities will influence our architectural perception are that the information is exactly embedded inside imminent action and will further emerge and be perceived during the exploration process rather than a signal transformation, representation, and computation process. Much like Warren’s (1984) research helped elucidate the behavioral dimension of architectural experience, the study of Djebbara et al. (2019) is an exemplary case of integrating the theoretical framework of ecological psychology with neuro-architecture.

In short, MoBI makes it possible to discover, quantify and visualize the embodiment of human agents in an architectural environment with all relevant dimensions of architecture such as aesthetics, ergonomics and more, which can’t be realized by a stationary experimental paradigm. MoBI is an efficient technique to study natural cognition in architectural exploration. However, as the interaction with the environment can become relatively complex in terms of sensory information and motor behavior, a cautious and systematic approach is advisable. As suggested by Parada (2018) and King and Parada (2021) , the careful and incremental approach to introducing more complex environments and motor behavior, going from highly controlled setups to more ecologically valid ones, ensures the replicability and control over variables. In other words, by first identifying what to look for, e.g., cortical or behavioral features, in a highly controlled experiment, it is then possible to introduce incremental complexity and assess the quality of the more ecologically valid experiments.

Although neuro-architecture is a thriving field, there are two methodological limitations within neuro-architectural research ( Higuera-Trujillo et al., 2021 ). The existing research in the field of architectural neuroscience mainly addresses aesthetics out of many different relevant architectural aspects. The brain imaging methods that are typically used require participants to remain stationary, which prevents natural interactions with their architectural surroundings.

In the present article, we argued that concepts of ecological psychology like affordance and active exploration could extend the horizon of the research questions within neuro-architecture to include ergonomics in architecture, which widens the theoretical and empirical framework under which neuro-architectural research is conducted leading to a more comprehensive picture. That is, both the utility and beauty in architecture should be investigated including the analyses of the underlying neural mechanism. Accordingly, inspired by several empirical studies, the operational definition of variables with regards to architectural ergonomics could be established from the perspectives of the complementarity between environmental properties and the agent’s physical capacities, as well as the perception-action loop during architectural exploration. This, however, requires new technological solutions to imaging human brain dynamics during active exploration and interaction with the built environment.

Emerging brain imaging techniques like MoBI, implementing the exploration proposition of ecological psychology in experimental protocols, overcome the limitations of prevalent stationary brain imaging methods and improve the ecological validity of empirical neuroscientific research. Based on the potential of MoBI, more ecologically valid experimental research within the field of neuro-architecture can be conducted. Existing MoBI studies already show evidence of how the brain perceives its surroundings. These new insights can be used to improve architectural design strategies and regulations to eventually improve human health and well-being.

In summary, we described an integrative methodological framework to combine ecological psychology with state-of-the-art neuroscience methods for neuro-architectural empirical research, aiming at extending the horizon of the research questions in the field of neuro-architecture and improving the ecological validity of its experimental framework. This is a promising way to push the field of neuro-architecture forward.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

We acknowledge support by the German Research Foundation and Open Access Publication Fund of TU Berlin. SW was funded by a grant from China Scholarship Council (File No. 201906750020).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Bilal Arafaat for fruitful discussions and proofreading of the manuscript.

• ^ “Form follows function.”
• ^ “Less is more.”
• ^ “There should be no features about a building which are not necessary for convenience, construction or propriety” (Pugin, 1841).

Azzazy, S., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., GhaffarianHoseini, A., Naismith, N., and Doborjeh, Z. (2021). A critical review on the impact of built environment on users’ measured brain activity. Archit. Sci. Rev. 64, 319–335. doi: 10.1080/00038628.2020.1749980

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Banaei, M., Hatami, J., Yazdanfar, A., and Gramann, K. (2017). Walking through architectural spaces: the impact of interior forms on human brain dynamics. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 11:477. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00477

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Canli, T., Desmond, J. E., Zhao, Z., Glover, G., and Gabrieli, J. D. (1998). Hemispheric asymmetry for emotional stimuli detected with fMRI. Neuroreport 9, 3233–3239. doi: 10.1097/00001756-199810050-00019

Carter, J. (2018). Italy on fifth ave: from the museum of modern art to the olivetti showroom. Mod. Italy 23, 103–122. doi: 10.1017/mit.2017.65

Charytonowicz, J. (2000). “Architecture and ergonomics,” in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting , Vol. 44, (Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications), 6–103. No. 33. doi: 10.1177/154193120004403305

Chemero, A. (2003). An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecol. Psychol. 15, 181–195. doi: 10.4324/9780203726655-5

Chemero, A. (2011). Radical Embodied Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

Google Scholar

Corbusier, L. (1954). The Modulor: A Harmonious Measure to the Human Scale Universally Applicable to Architecture and Mechanics , Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Corbusier, L. (2013). Towards a New Architecture. North Chelmsford, MA: Courier Corporation.

Craig, C., and Watson, G. (2011). An affordance based approach to decision making in sport: discussing a novel methodological framework. Rev. Psicol. Deport. 20, 689–708.

Dimond, S. J., and Farrington, L. (1977). Emotional response to films shown to the right or left hemisphere of the brain measured by heart rate. Acta Psychol. 41, 255–260. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(77)90020-8

Djebbara, Z., and Gramann, K. (2022). “Architectural affordances: linking action, perception, and cognition,” in Brain, Beauty, and Art: Essays Bringing Neuroaesthetics into Focus , eds A. Chatterjee and E. Cardillo (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Djebbara, Z., Fich, L. B., and Gramann, K. (2021). The brain dynamics of architectural affordances during transition. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–15. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-82504-w

Djebbara, Z., Fich, L. B., Petrini, L., and Gramann, K. (2019). Sensorimotor brain dynamics reflect architectural affordances. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 116, 14769–14778. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1900648116

Dodds, G. P. (2000). Landscape and Garden in the Work of Carlo Scarpa. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.

Dougherty, B. O., and Arbib, M. A. (2013). The evolution of neuroscience for architecture: introducing the special issue. Intell. Build. Int. 5, 4–9. doi: 10.1080/17508975.2013.818763

Eberhard, J. P. (2009a). Applying neuroscience to architecture. Neuron 62, 753–756. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.06.001

Eberhard, J. P. (2009b). Brain Landscape the Coexistence of Neuroscience and Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eberhard, J. P., and Gage, F. H. (2003). An architect and a neuroscientist discuss how neuroscience can influence architectural design. Neurosci. Q. 6–7.

Ezzat Ahmed, D., and Kamel, S. (2021). Exploring the contribution of neuroarchitecture in learning environments design “a review”. Int. J. Archit. Eng. Urban Res. 4, 102–119. doi: 10.2478/dfl-2014-0018

Fazio, M. W., Moffett, M., and Wodehouse, L. (2008). A World History of Architecture. London: Laurence King.

Fich, L. B., Jönsson, P., Kirkegaard, P. H., Wallergård, M., Garde, A. H., and Hansen, Å (2014). Can architectural design alter the physiological reaction to psychosocial stress? a virtual TSST experiment. Physiol. Behav. 135, 91–97. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.05.034

Frampton, K. (1985). Studies in Tectonic Culture. Cambridge: Harvard University Graduate School of Design Cambridge.

Franchak, J. M., and Adolph, K. E. (2014). Gut estimates: pregnant women adapt to changing possibilities for squeezing through doorways. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 76, 460–472. doi: 10.3758/s13414-013-0578-y

Frascari, M. (1983). “The tell-the-tale detail,” in Semiotics 1981 , ed. J. N. Deely (Boston, MA: Springer), 325–336. doi: 10.5840/cpsem198115

Gepshtein, S., and Snider, J. (2019). Neuroscience for architecture: the evolving science of perceptual meaning. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 116, 14404–14406. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1908868116

Gibson, J. J. (1966). The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston, MS: Houghton Mifflin.

Gibson, J. J. (1977). “The theory of affordances,” in Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology , eds R. Shaw and J. Bransford (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 67–82.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston, MS: Houghton Mifflin.

Gramann, K., Ferris, D. P., Gwin, J., and Makeig, S. (2014). Imaging natural cognition in action. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 91, 22–29. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2013.09.003

Gramann, K., Gwin, J. T., Ferris, D. P., Oie, K., Jung, T.-P., Lin, C.-T., et al. (2011). Cognition in action: imaging brain/body dynamics in mobile humans. Rev. Neurosci. 22, 593–608. doi: 10.1515/RNS.2011.047

Gramann, K., McKendrick, R., Baldwin, C., Roy, R. N., Jeunet, C., Mehta, R. K., et al. (2021). Grand field challenges for cognitive neuroergonomics in the coming decade. Front. Neuroergonom. 2:6. doi: 10.3389/fnrgo.2021.643969

Handford, C., Davids, K., Bennett, S., and Button, C. (1997). Skill acquisition in sport: some applications of an evolving practice ecology. J. Sports Sci. 15, 621–640. doi: 10.1080/026404197367056

Heft, H. (1989). Affordances and the body: an intentional analysis of gibson’s ecological approach to visual perception. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 19, 1–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5914.1989.tb00133.x

Heft, H. (2010). Affordances and the perception of landscape. Innovative Approaches to Research Landscape Health: Open Space: People Space Ed C W Thompson and P Aspinall 2, 9–32 Routledge: Abingdon.

Heras-Escribano, M. (2019). The Philosophy of Affordances. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Heras-Escribano, M. (2021). Pragmatism, enactivism, and ecological psychology: towards a unified approach to post-cognitivism. Synthese 198, 337–363. doi: 10.1007/s11229-019-02111-1

Higuera-Trujillo, J. L., Llinares, C., and Macagno, E. (2021). The cognitive-emotional design and study of architectural space: a scoping review of neuroarchitecture and its precursor approaches. Sensors 21: 2193. doi: 10.3390/s21062193

Ittelson, W. H. (1952). The Ames Demonstrations in Perception; a Guide to their Construction and Use. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Jelić, A., Tieri, G., Matteis, F., Babiloni, F., and Vecchiato, G. (2016). The enactive approach to architectural experience: a neurophysiological perspective on embodiment. motivation, and affordances. Front. Psychol. 7:481. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00481

Jungnickel, E., Gehrke, L., Klug, M., and Gramann, K. (2019). “MoBI—Mobile brain/body imaging,” in Neuroergonomics The Brain at Work and in Everyday Life , eds H. Ayaz and F. Dehais 59–63. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-811926-6.00010-5

Karakas, T., and Yildiz, D. (2020). Exploring the influence of the built environment on human experience through a neuroscience approach: a systematic review. Front. Archit. Res. 9:236–247. doi: 10.1016/j.foar.2019.10.005

King, J. L., and Parada, F. J. (2021). Using mobile brain/body imaging to advance research in arts, health, and related therapeutics. J. Eur. J. Neurosci. 54, 8364–8380. doi: 10.1111/ejn.15313

Kirk, U., Skov, M., Christensen, M. S., and Nygaard, N. (2009a). Brain correlates of aesthetic expertise: a parametric fMRI study. Brain Cogn. 69, 306–315. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2008.08.004

Kirk, U., Skov, M., Hulme, O., Christensen, M. S., and Zeki, S. (2009b). Modulation of aesthetic value by semantic context: an fMRI study. Neuroimage 44, 1125–1132. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.009

Lobo, L., Heras-Escribano, M., and Travieso, D. (2018). The history and philosophy of ecological psychology. Front. Psychol. 9:2228. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02228

Loos, A. (2019). Ornament and Crime. London: Penguin UK.

Makeig, S., Gramann, K., Jung, T.-P., Sejnowski, T. J., and Poizner, H. (2009). Linking brain, mind and behavior. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 73, 95–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-228x.2010.01088.x

Mark, L. S. (1987). Eyeheight-scaled information about affordances: a study of sitting and stair climbing. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform 13:361. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.13.3.361

Marr, D. (1982). Vision: a Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. Cambridge, MS: MIT Press.

Martínez-Soto, J., Gonzales-Santos, L., Pasaye, E., and Barrios, F. A. (2013). Exploration of neural correlates of restorative environment exposure through functional magnetic resonance. Intell. Build. Int. 5, 10–28. doi: 10.1080/17508975.2013.807765

Michaels, C. F., and Carello, C. (1981). Direct Perception. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1–208.

Michaels, C. F., and Palatinus, Z. (2014). “A ten commandments for ecological psychology,” in The Routledge Handbook of Embodied Cognition , ed. L. Shapiro (Abingdon: Routledge), 19–28.

Naghibi Rad, P., Shahroudi, A. A., Shabani, H., Ajami, S., and Lashgari, R. (2019). Encoding pleasant and unpleasant expression of the architectural window shapes: an erp study. Front.Behav. Neurosci. 13:186. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00186

Oppenheim, I., Mühlmann, H., Blechinger, G., Mothersill, I. W., Hilfiker, P., Jokeit, H., et al. (2009). Brain electrical responses to high-and low-ranking buildings. Clin. EEG Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 40, 157–161. doi: 10.1177/155005940904000307

Oppenheim, I., Vannucci, M., Mühlmann, H., Gabriel, R., Jokeit, H., Kurthen, M., et al. (2010). Hippocampal contributions to the processing of architectural ranking. Neuroimage 50, 742–752. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.078

Palladio, A. (1965). The Four Books of Architecture , Vol. 1. North Chelmsford, MS: Courier Corporation.

Parada, F. J. (2018). Understanding natural cognition in everyday settings: 3 pressing challenges. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 12:386. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00386

Parada, F. J., and Rossi, A. (2021). Perfect timing: mobile brain/body imaging scaffolds the 4E-cognition research program. Eur. J. Neurosci. 54, 8081–8091. doi: 10.1111/ejn.14783

Pektaş, Ş.T. (2021). A scientometric analysis and review of spatial cognition studies within the framework of neuroscience and architecture. Archit. Sci. Rev. 64, 1–9.

Pollio, V. (1914). Vitruvius, the Ten Books on Architecture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard university press.

Reuter-Lorenz, P., and Davidson, R. J. (1981). Differential contributions of the two cerebral hemispheres to the perception of happy and sad faces. Neuropsychologia 19, 609–613. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(81)90030-0

Richardson, M. J., Shockley, K., Fajen, B. R., Riley, M. A., and Turvey, M. T. (2008). “Ecological psychology: Six principles for an embodied–embedded approach to behavior. In,” in Handbook of Cognitive Science , eds P. Calvo and T. Gomila (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 159–187.

Rietveld, E. (2016). Situating the embodied mind in a landscape of standing affordances for living without chairs: materializing a philosophical worldview. Sports Med. 46, 927–932. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0520-2

Rietveld, E., and Kiverstein, J. (2014). A rich landscape of affordances. Ecol. Psychol. 26, 325–352. doi: 10.1080/10407413.2014.958035

Rogers, B. (2017). Perception: A very Short Introduction. Oxford: OXFORD University press.

Ruiz-Arellano, M. (2015). Hawaiian Healing Center: A Weaving of Neuro-Architecture and Cultural Practices. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa. May 2015.

Rutherford, I. (ed.) (2016). Greco-Egyptian Interactions: Literature, Translation, and Culture, 500 BCE-300 CE. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shemesh, A., Leisman, G., Bar, M., and Grobman, Y. J. (2021). A neurocognitive study of the emotional impact of geometrical criteria of architectural space. Archit. Sci. Rev. 64, 394–407.

Stendhal (2010). Rome, Naples and Florence . trans. R. N. Coe. Alma Books.

Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Gonzalez-Mora, J. L., Leder, H., et al. (2015). Architectural design and the brain: effects of ceiling height and perceived enclosure on beauty judgments and approach-avoidance decisions. J. Environ. Psychol. 41, 10–18. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.006

Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Leder, H., Modroño, C., et al. (2013). Impact of contour on aesthetic judgments and approach-avoidance decisions in architecture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 110(Suppl. 2), 10446–10453. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1301227110

Warren, W. H. (1984). Perceiving affordances: visual guidance of stair climbing. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 10:683. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.10.5.683

Warren, W. H. (2006). The dynamics of perception and action. Psychol. Rev. 113:358.

Warren, W. H. Jr., and Whang, S. (1987). Visual guidance of walking through apertures: body-scaled information for affordances. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 13:371. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.13.3.371

Keywords : neuro-architecture, ecological psychology, mobile brain/body imaging (MoBI), methodology, aesthetics and ergonomics, ecological validity

Citation: Wang S, Sanches de Oliveira G, Djebbara Z and Gramann K (2022) The Embodiment of Architectural Experience: A Methodological Perspective on Neuro-Architecture. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 16:833528. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.833528

Received: 11 December 2021; Accepted: 30 March 2022; Published: 09 May 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Wang, Sanches de Oliveira, Djebbara and Gramann. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Sheng Wang, [email protected]

The Practice of Architectural Research: How to start

Architectural research is the organized investigation done in the architectural field by studying materials and sources to generate insights, knowledge, and understanding. This research is based on tools, competencies, and methods found in the architectural field and possesses its strategies, scope, knowledge base and tactics. Research is vital to architectural practice, as it teaches prospective architects important architectural skills in research. Exposure to research-based education for architecture students creates better development and learning experiences. Research in schools helps to create a research mentality in architects.

There was a rise in the independence of architectural theory as a discipline in the 1960s, developing the theory of architectural practice. This creates a self-referential and independent area in architecture which is separate from the world of production and the sphere of action. The break between theory and practice was stated to be linked in the 1990s through the development and use of ontological research of exemplary buildings integrated with analytical research methods. This approach was developed by architects in the academic field, and it focuses on the principles of architecture, grand narratives production and the voice of the architect.

There are three types of research approaches in architecture, with each having a distinct approach (Seppo  et al.  2002). Practice-based research and architectural design -based research are created from the architect’s theory or related disciplines. These two types of research are research approaches which are theory-based and come from scientific practice. The action research approach is the last type of architectural research; it is practice-oriented and originates from architectural practice. This article will consider methods to go about the action research approach and the architectural design-based research.

Architectural design -based research 

Create your research paper topic

Identifying a research topic is the first line of action in starting research. Architecture is a broad field of study with different research areas such as architectural history, philosophy of architecture, design theory, interpretation of architecture , etc. Reviewing from a wide perspective to a narrower perspective enables one to grasp the topic better.

Resources Gathering 

Choosing a research topic is followed by obtaining relevant data to carry out the research. This relevant data may include building codes and existing research to write discussion points. These existing studies are found in articles and journals and must be cited accordingly if used in the research paper. Research resources are also collected by the use of research questions developed, which serves as the advanced search feature.

Structure of the research paper

The detailed structuring of a research paper involves arranging the points in an orderly way for the smooth flow of the article. Abstract and introduction are the first point of call in a research paper. They are important elements of the research paper, providing the overview for a reader to continue going over the research paper.

Review the research paper

A research paper must be properly cited and reviewed after writing to correct errors within the article . This review can be done using an editing tool which helps produce grammatically correct content which is easily understandable by the reader. A proper citation of the article should be carried out to acknowledge the use of individuals’ ideas and for further reading by prospective readers.

Getting Funding | Architectural Research

Funding is a major issue in carrying out architectural research. There are numerous ways to get funding for research projects. Architectural bodies offer to fund researchers, which the funding is based on how feasible the projects are and their relevance to the architectural field. Schools also provide funding for researchers and some help researchers in finding grant opportunities.

Action research approach | Architectural Research

Research Strategy

In action research, knowledge is developed and integrated into a particular area in the architectural field. This knowledge is researched by an architectural firm, which in turn focuses its research efforts on aligning with the firm’s business strategy . Architectural research is carried out by different organizations to give the firm strategic benefits and a comparative advantage in the field. This research may focus on the technical or the material research process to create new areas of expertise for the firm or improve the current areas.

Daring during research

Architectural firms sometimes focus their research on new and revolutionary innovations as opposed to research aimed at improving the current architectural field. Research is made to test new methods and ideas, i.e., research is mistake bound and about trial and error. Risky research gives the firm a comparative advantage and can cause a big edge in business.

Networking in research

Building a network of experts and advisers focused on research in an architectural firm. This group tests and discusses new concepts which are essential in research. Networking is used to gather knowledge about new research development and new ideas across the research areas. Networking creates an ecosystem of research collaborators which create new knowledge in the field and recognize what happens in the architectural profession.

Teamwork in Research

Collaboration within a firm to carry out research in the architectural field is another dilemma for architectural firms. Architecture is an area that focuses on creativity, and such creativity can be discovered through collaboration. Teamwork should be encouraged in research as it produces new design processes and conceptual ideas through an iterative process which gives a competitive advantage to the architectural firm involved in the research.

Involving the academics | Architectural Research

The architecture academia is focused on research and development, which is an interesting area for architectural firms. Encouraging the participation of academic researchers to participate in a firm’s research through workshops . This allows for a better understanding of happenings both in academics and in architectural practice, such as the time pressures of practice and roles in research projects.

References:

• Plans, M. H. (2021) How to Write a Research Paper on Architecture: Step-by-Step Guide , maramani.com . Available at: https://www.maramani.com/blogs/home-design-ideas/research-paper-architecture (Accessed: August 4, 2022).
• efront (2016) Research in Architectural Practice – 6 ways for architects to create upstream knowledge , ACA – Association of Consulting Architects Australia . Available at: https://aca.org.au/research-in-architectural-practice-6-ways-for-architects-to-create-upstream-knowledge/ (Accessed: August 4, 2022).
• How to Write a Research Paper on Architecture (no date) Fiu.edu . Available at: https://faculty.fiu.edu/~readg/TipsLinks/HowtoWriteaResearchPaper.htm (Accessed: August 4, 2022).
• Lock, H. (2015) “How to apply for research funding: 10 tips for academics,” 10 May. Available at: https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2015/may/10/how-to-apply-for-research-funding-10-tips-for-academics(Accessed: August 4, 2022).
• View of How to Start a Research Program as an Architect in Academia (AIA) (no date) Iit.edu . Available at: https://prometheus.library.iit.edu/index.php/journal/article/view/45/31 (Accessed: August 4, 2022).
• Faculty of Architecture (no date) Research centres and areas of interest – Architecture – Architecture – The University of Sydney , Faculty of Architecture . Available at: https://www.sydney.edu.au/handbooks/archive/2016/architecture/postgraduate/research/research_areas_architecture.shtml.html (Accessed: August 4, 2022).
• Candid Learning (no date) Candid Learning . Available at: https://learning.candid.org/resources/knowledge-base/researchers; (Accessed: August 4, 2022).
• Dr Prem Community Writer (2019) How architecture students can benefit from research papers on architecture , Designbuzz . Available at: https://designbuzz.com/how-architecture-students-can-benefit-from-research-papers-on-architecture/ (Accessed: August 4, 2022).
• Rawat, Karmakar and Sharma (2021) “Importance of Research in Architecture,” International journal of engineering research & technology (Ahmedabad) , 10(1). doi: 10.17577/IJERTV10IS010057.
• CfP: The Practice of Architectural Research. Ghent, 8-10 October 2020 (no date) Eahn.org . Available at: https://eahn.org/2020/05/cfp-the-practice-of-architectural-research-ghent-8-10-october-2020/ (Accessed: August 4, 2022).

Chukwuebuka is an architecture student and an amateur writer using his skills to express his ideas to the world. He has written a few articles for DAPC Uniben and he is adventuring to become a popular writer.

Book in Focus: The Future of Architecture in 100 Buildings by Marc Kushner

Public Spaces: a universal perspective

Related posts.

The decline of crypto art

Why architecture is difficult these days

Career Advice: Networking and Professional Development

Architecture from a user’s perspective

Role Of Bio-Materials In Molding The Future Of Sustainable Design

How architecture is changing developing and underdeveloped countries.

• Architectural Community
• Architectural Facts
• RTF Architectural Reviews
• Architectural styles
• City and Architecture
• Fun & Architecture
• History of Architecture
• Design Studio Portfolios
• Designing for typologies
• RTF Design Inspiration
• Architecture News
• Career Advice
• Case Studies
• Construction & Materials
• Covid and Architecture
• Interior Design
• Know Your Architects
• Landscape Architecture
• Materials & Construction
• Product Design
• RTF Fresh Perspectives
• Sustainable Architecture
• Top Architects
• Travel and Architecture
• Rethinking The Future Awards 2022
• RTF Awards 2021 | Results
• GADA 2021 | Results
• RTF Awards 2020 | Results
• ACD Awards 2020 | Results
• GADA 2019 | Results
• ACD Awards 2018 | Results
• GADA 2018 | Results
• RTF Awards 2017 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2017 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2016 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2015 | Results
• RTF Awards 2014 | Results
• RTF Architectural Visualization Competition 2020 – Results
• Architectural Photography Competition 2020 – Results
• Designer’s Days of Quarantine Contest – Results
• Urban Sketching Competition May 2020 – Results
• RTF Essay Writing Competition April 2020 – Results
• Architectural Photography Competition 2019 – Finalists
• The Ultimate Thesis Guide
• Introduction to Landscape Architecture
• Perfect Guide to Architecting Your Career
• How to Design Architecture Portfolio
• How to Design Streets
• Introduction to Urban Design
• Introduction to Product Design
• Complete Guide to Dissertation Writing
• Introduction to Skyscraper Design
• Educational
• Hospitality
• Institutional
• Office Buildings
• Public Building
• Residential
• Sports & Recreation
• Temporary Structure
• Commercial Interior Design
• Corporate Interior Design
• Healthcare Interior Design
• Hospitality Interior Design
• Residential Interior Design
• Sustainability
• Transportation
• Urban Design
• Host your Course with RTF
• Architectural Writing Training Programme | WFH
• Editorial Internship | In-office
• Graphic Design Internship
• Research Internship | WFH
• Research Internship | New Delhi
• RTF | About RTF
• Submit Your Story

Looking for Job/ Internship?

Rtf will connect you with right design studios.