Research is incorporated into design all the time.  Oscar Newman's study of housing and crime in St. Louis helped fundamentally transform public housing policy and design, for example.

Zoning regulations, building codes, ADA standards and more are all based on research (on building materials, ergonomics, infrastructure capacity, structural behavior, human behavior, etcetera).  And project design and construction are governed by these and other codes.  This is applied research in the extreme.

Your comments are generally correct about lag time, though: many of these applications of research to regulation are based on older findings, and are of course filtered through the public policymaking process.  This all takes time, and so the immediacy of choosing to apply the latest findings on this or that topic into a project currently on the boards is left up to individual practitioners and their clients and budgets.  So, your frustration is understandable on that count. 

There's research around, but I think part of the problem is that research is seen as a separate 'problem' from getting buildings built. I think if you're super cutting edge, this may be less true.  (Also, as a personal bias, I trust 'behavioral research' much less than 'preference research' - semantics, maybe, but the former seems to imply that you can direct people like puppets.)

Much of the results of research is used on a daily basis by architects, but it's not typically considered within the scope of an average building to actually *produce* research.  Standards are usually an implementation of some body of research that was done in the past.  Typically, research results get passed down to an architect through numbers required by the codes as opposed to intimately studying the particularities of an individual building's requirements. 

Some firms out there have dedicated research programs (Cannon Design, Gensler, I think HOK might), but I think this is typically seen as a separate kind of work than your average billable project.  There are also research organizations out there that are specific to certain kinds of architecture (evidence-based design in healthcare, for example).

Also, 'architectural research' is a really huge concept compared to other fields.  Are you doing historical research on buildings?  Physical building science research?  Theoretical nonsens^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdesign research?  Architecture is a big tent that has a lot of different kinds of practitioners and academics, so you may find that some areas of' 'research' are more solidly represented in practice than others.

As an industrial designer that practices architecture, I can say that studying ID will have benefits for your skill set. But you may be frustrated to find that architecture is more resistant to "human factor" design than any field I can think of (except possibly economics). 

I believe architecture is a bit behind in incorporating new technology and research

No, architecture does incorporate research. Research has also shown us that, in many cases, new technology is too expensive, cumbersome and does not provide a significant enough benefit to warrant the costs.

It's just not the cool 1960s era kind of research. It's the soul-crushing value-engineering 1980s kind of research.

The main reason "research" is not done in your average firm (beyond the basic explorations) is that no one pays you to do it!  

Don't know about you, but I don't like to work for free.  Large firms can afford it and get some value out of specific research.  I also know of some developers that have developed very efficient ways of doing things.  But overall, true research is left to those that are subsidized by other means (teaching, personal wealth, etc.).

I think it depends on what could or should be researched, and how this might be part of the approach of an architecture practice.

For example, are there any practices that specifically state that they are principally interested in affordable housing? They don't or wont do retail, commercial, health or education, forsaking variety for an intense interest in an area that needs attention.

If that was their modus operandi, it would necessitate some research and development, otherwise their claim would be weakened. This research would take in materials, building methodology, economics, social factors etc.

If, for example, there was a practice that had a stated interest in 'materiality' then this would lead down another track. Same applies for those practices interested in 'high-end residential'.

All 3 approaches are valid, and research can applied to all. But the limiting factors in the successful application of the research might be:

1. Market Demand

2. Opportunity to develop IP

3. The ability to define and the scope of the problem to be researched

Like most things,  an average practice will spend an average amount of time researching. The trouble is that the average time spent researching is very little in the first place.

 I think the idea of academic style research is problematic for most practicing architects. It's hard to compare architects to technology firms with R & D departments that have the possibillity of producing profitable innovations. Research for architects is much more practical, you learn what solutions work, both in designing for the end user, and from a building technology standpoint. You will learn more about building a warehouse by doing ten different warehouse projects with ten different clients, than you will by going to the library or from studying warehouse design in an academic setting.  Same goes for just about any building type. You will learn more by doing a set of working drawings and building a tiltwall building than by reading about it.

 There is a place for some more traditional research or R & D by people that service the architecture and construction industries. Architects have their place as consultants and have some influence to what products are brought to the marketplace. But the vast majority of architects are building buildings for people and companies to use, and most clients want something that is tested and proven to work, both from a design and acceptable construction method standpoint.

 That being said, it would be a boring static world if there weren't groundbreaking innovative architects that constantly push the envelope in design and technology. But 99% of real world architecture as a profession is about building everyday buildings. I know you architectural professor types out there hate the ranchburger houses and the strip malls, but thats what we do to make a living.

more firms would benefit from better building science basics than design research... and there are a number of firms that combine architects, engineers and building scientists - like transsolar, arup, etc.

Thanks everyone for you comments. I didn't mean to say that research is not, at all, incorporated into architectural practice.  As a few of you pointed out, I agree that the current codes and regulations have stemmed from previous research. 

I understand that we don't get paid to do research; but why not?  all other fields value research and theory, and so should architecture. 

Do we just want to leave the future of our profession up to those few "groundbreaking innovative architects"?  wouldn't it be better/more efficient to incorporate research as a part of the routine to ensure that we are constantly progressing our field and keeping up with the ever changing world?

These are just things I'm wondering about.  I'm not saying that just getting buildings built is pointless, but I think practice could hugely benefit from constant research and collaboration in terms of advancing the field.  Practice cannot exist without theory, so why the big disconnect?

I guess I'm just a bit frustrated because of this disconnect.  I don't want to have to choose between theory or practice - and maybe it's not as black and white as I think it is.  But this is exactly why I started this discussion, because I want to know if anybody else has experienced this frustration and if so, how have you approached it? 

i am wondering when you say research if you actually mean just plain old learning?

if there is no new knowledge being generated then it is not research, it's just looking something up.  most architects don't do research really, and don't need to because they are practitioners.  same as doctors.  i don't think that makes any of us less than cutting edge or whatever.

there are firms that do some kinds of simple research as part of their work .  kieran timberlake comes to mind. in general though i think building scientists do research, architects apply the results. nothing wrong with that.

That comparison to doctors is a good one.  Look at drugs - millions go into r&d to make billions for the drug companies, but the individual doctors don't do anything but write a prescription for it.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you (op) seem to want to do the "fun" research that you do in school, the "theory".  That's just not reality.  Research, as holz points out, needs to be scientific and result in a way to increase efficiency/technology/etc., which translates quickly into money.

So, you can do all the research you want if it makes a ton more money later on.  That's r&d and that's an investment.  Large firms are using the economy of scales to do this, also look at developers like apartment devs that are, typically, very large companies.  They'd done their r&d and have found ways to do things more efficiently, ie make more profits.

You have to realize that architecture, first and foremost, is a service that results by large investments.  It does not exist without that money, it does not exist without financing, credit, loans, etc., etc.  As they say, money makes the world go round and that is more true with architecture/building than most professions (which seems ironic when you look back at school).

If you really want to do "research" that is useful, then it must factor the business side in.  

Research is only possible (economically feasible) when a project has all its stakeholders interested in looking for new solutions - it can never be the architecture firm on its own (research here meaning other things than folding paper and casting balloons...)

I'm sure architects value research - you say "I understand that we don't get paid to do research; but why not?  all other fields value research and theory, and so should architecture. " but this question is obviously misdirected - ask some developers and you'll get fairly straightforward (and terse) answers.

But interesting research gets done - there's a promising project in the works in Helsinki at the moment, have a look at this: http://www.low2no.org/

since you reference other design fields that do incorporate research, few thoughts:

1 - other building, product or technology-related design fields teach that there has to be a business case for all work, research included, otherwise it will not be sustainable, no matter how worthwhile the intentions behind the practice.  In your assessment, what is the business case for incorporating behavioral research into architectural practice?  if you can answer that, you'll probably be able to convince somebody to pay you to do it.    

2 - other design fields have the same bifurcation between true (academic-style) research and what Nielsen calls 'discount' methods (in referring to usability engineering).  while big dogs in any industry can justify keeping researchers on staff doing 'real research', in most cases in design fields, practice-related research may be loosely classified as such but not strictly classified as such --- and there is nothing wrong with this --- often times in practice, the gist suffices and is all we can afford to do.

3 - at the sixty minute mark in the video linked to below, joyce bromberg, formerly of steelcase, talks about research for designing furniture and environments --- she mentions one full, exhaustive study they did to design a patient meeting room and why the cost and time it took to do this for architecture is not justifiable --- actually the whole video is worth a look but the last part is most germane.  also, if you look at the video from the november or march lecture from that same year in the series, there is an audience/panel discussion at the end, after fred gage speaks, about the issue/problem/question of research in architecture.

http://www.anfarch.org/news/interfaces/2010-05-19.shtml

i totally agree with the OP, and have been making this point for quite a while.  the profit margin is so small these days in traditional architectural practice that it seems that the only way architects can make their business operations make sense is to streamline their process--do similar types of projects and reuse knowledge, staff, details as much as possible.  a small firm that did work where every project was completely different and required staff to learn new skills at every turn would not only lose money, but risk all sorts of errors and delays.  add to that the EXTREMELY cumbersome process of becoming an architect, where there is an institutionalized status-quo body of knowledge that is completely at odds with flexibility and innovation, hamstrings young designers at the very phase of their lives where they would have the energy and vigor to break the mold, and ensures that the only ones who make it into the 'club' have 'paid their dues'--literally--and are probably middle-aged.  and of course then there is the regulation/liability issue, which hamstrings even those guys. not to blame everyone else though, since architects have had a hand in this as well...they never built innovation into their practice model in this country, and neither have the affiliated trades...builders, product manufacturers...in the way the construction trades in, say, germany or switzerland have.  in this country, material and technological innovations have traditionally filtred down through the military-industrial complex, while the architects that are now in control of the industry were off wearing tweed jackets and sketching rome with conte crayon...

lest i sound TOO bitter, i do think american firms are rethinking this a bit, now that they fear being overtaken by foreign firms (foster, grimshaw) or even the success of local firms like gehry technologies.  i still think they've got a long way to go, though...

It would be nice if academia and practice were more fluid.  Seems to be a problem in a lot of fields, though less so where there's more money (engineering, medicine, and pharma) and less worry of job stability.  Metrics on real economic gain relative to design could help produce more funds for research but that involves more POE.  At some point the research pushed by those who can afford it (by virtue of being at a larger corporation, having inheritance/patron/other income) needs to be leveraged to allow more of us to spend valuable time on more research of all types.

My sense is that we spend more time and money on research than most professions.  That's probably a good thing..

what exactly is 'behavioral design research?'  Wouldn't that be similar to designing a bathroom where the door opens out because people in offices will often grab a paper towel to open the door if they have to pull and then throw said paper towel on the ground?  Or proper placement of a trash receptacle if you can't control door swing.  That's pretty close to the same thing as "experience."

Also, I've worked on office toilets where the toilets flush themselves.  Seriously, you can't get much better response/interaction between design component and environment than that.  Of course that research was led by the toilet manufacturers rather than architects. . .

Or are you in a more academic mode where "behavioral design research" means a design parti dependent upon a mobius loop? 

curtkram -environmental psychology

there's a lot more to learn in architecture practice that you think, and there's also a lot more theoretical things happening.  it's not something you jump into and six months later leave because it isn't what you thought it was.  and i think the same could be said for most related disciplines.  architecture, industrial design, whatever, you are going to be working for a long time before you really figure out what is going on, and before you are allowed to design, or you find work in a desireable firm.  i would just stay where you are and keep hitting it, but that's just me.