Q+A: Dr. Ajla Aksamija

By Dr. Franca Trubiano 

“In an academic context, we are required to publish,” says Dr. Ajla Aksamija. “That’s how we progress through our careers: publish or perish. However, few firms understand that to be an innovator in a field you need to publish and share research results. Without documentation of our research, there is no dissemination, and without dissemination of our research, there are no future projects.” 

Aksamija (LEED AP BD+C, CDT, FTI Fellow) is an architectural researcher, author, professor, Distinguished Chair for Resilient Places, and former chair of the School of Architecture at the University of Utah. Her research is centered on building science and sustainability, emerging technologies, digital design and representations, and innovations in architecture. She served as president of the Facade Tectonics Institute. She is the author of three books, Research Methods for the Architectural Profession (Routledge, 2021), Integrating Innovation in Architecture, Design, Methods and Technology for Progressive Practice and Research (John Wiley & Sons, 2016), and Sustainable Facades: Design Methods for High-Performance Building Envelopes (John Wiley & Sons, 2013).  

She also served as director of Perkins&Will’s Building Technology Laboratory for five years. This “practice-driven research laboratory” focused on advanced building technologies, high-performance buildings, computational design, and building facades. A founder of the Perkins&Will Research Journal, the first peer-reviewed research journal borne of an architectural practice, Aksamija served as its editor for fourteen years, until 2022.  

Franca Trubiano: What are some important successes in research achieved by practicing architects over the past decade?  

Dr. Ajla Aksamija: In the past 15 years, we’ve made significant progress and achievements in integrating research in architectural practice. Starting in the late 2000s, the architectural profession realized the value of research and why it is necessary to integrate its methods within practice, as within the delivery of individual projects. We also began to disseminate our findings in a better and more organized way. Although there is a lot more room to grow when it comes to the dissemination of architectural research, we have made significant progress.  

The architectural profession also realized that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to innovate without integrating research within practice. The reasons for this are several. First, there are technological advancements which architects are asked to master, including computational design and BIM collaborative practices. Secondly, both the profession and buildings are more complicated and complex than they’ve ever been. Clients require more from us as architects, especially considering performance-based building design. Thirdly, the paradigm shift towards sustainable design and resilient places has required greater attention to research. 

What are some opportunities that have yet to be mined for practicing architects who wish to pursue research and what are some of the lingering barriers for entry into this space?  

The largest opportunity we have when addressing complex and complicated research questions within architectural practice is the ability to move our questions beyond the scope of a single architectural project or building typology. Beyond being experts in housing, museums, and labs, we might become more knowledgeable in new materials, construction methods, innovative facade systems, or the application of digital design and fabrication. Another opportunity is collaborating with academic institutions and national laboratories.  

The most common barriers, however, include lack of funding and time, not being sure how to execute and engage in long term research projects, and not having trained researchers on staff. Typically, only large firms can afford to have full-time trained researchers as part of their practice. Most practices in the U.S. are small to medium-sized firms that do not have the necessary resources to engage in the how and why of research. In this case, a solution might be to collaborate with academics and institutes who also want to solve what I call “wicked problems” facing the architectural profession.  

What are some of the benefits that accrue to firms that engage in research?  

In my book Integrating Innovation in Architecture, I interviewed close to 70 firms asking them to define the characteristics of innovative firms — how they defined the value of innovation, and why they pursued research and development as part of their practice. In most cases, the definition of innovation was very specific to the size and goals of the firm, to their areas of practice, and to the building types/market sectors common in the firm. It was also important that they define both implicit and explicit values.  

Explicit values included improved building performance, better marketing opportunities, being more competitive against their peers, and appearing more knowledgeable in their client’s eyes. These values are easily reflected in business metrics and profits.  

Implicit values included fostering an employee culture that supported the kinds of experiments whose goals were larger than simply achieving a better bottom line (the reduction of work hours spent on projects for increasing productivity, business, financial performance, and marketing), even if these were more difficult to quantify. The range of possible benefits is wide, from better building and business performance to more lofty goals that include broadening knowledge and improving confidence and satisfaction at work.   

How is architectural research fundamentally different from architectural practice? Can forms of architectural research taking place in universities be easily integrated into professional practice?  

The main differences between academic architectural research and research in professional practice relates to the kinds of questions, scope, and timeline of the studies. In academic research, we typically have long term studies where the scope is larger than any specific architectural project. When addressing broader research questions, we have more time, and we’re expected to not only conduct the research, but to publish, present, and educate others with our findings.  

In architectural practice, research typically relates to a specific architectural project or to specific areas of practice important to the firm and in need of improvement (for example, facades, planning, systems integration, or sustainable design). Professional research is aimed at project team effectiveness and understanding how different digital tools might impact architectural design or ways of collaborating. Timelines in practice are much shorter; we typically don’t have the freedom to engage in long term studies that require significant time resources. Moreover, if firms bring in external research expertise, they should understand how their expertise can best fit within architectural projects or the areas of practice that need improvement.  

Individuals who focus on building technology and performance or digital design tools have more opportunities to engage in professional research and development, because the need for this type of expertise is great. However, firms who hire such research expertise need to identify their goals for doing so, including expected timelines. For example, if a firm is doing building performance analysis on an architectural project, a design team cannot wait for extensive periods of time for research analysts to run different types of simulation models to find the best optimized solution for a certain design problem. Answers are needed quickly and in sync with the design process. 

What are some of the most recalcitrant misconceptions held by practicing architects about research?  

That it takes too much time and resources. Also, architects sometimes don’t fully understand the scientific research process or how it might relate to the design process. The AIA does offer continuing education courses on a variety of topics, and it may be of value to think about organizing workshops for architects who wish to be trained to conduct research. We lack training materials for practicing architects on how to conduct research and how to relate research to architectural design.  

What are some reasons architects are less likely to publish the results of their research activities? Compared to our colleagues in engineering and medicine, architects in practice hardly ever disseminate their findings. Why?  

Three reasons: not understanding the value of publishing, not building the expertise in writing research reports, and liability. Writing research reports is different than writing a firm’s marketing materials. This requires knowing how to write objectively and understanding the structure of research publications. Typically, this is not something we are taught in professional architecture schools. Lastly, some firms doing cutting edge research are concerned with publicly releasing intellectual property. For legal teams, they may see risks rather than value when sharing knowledge in a peer-reviewed, scientific and objective way.  

Can you offer a closing anecdote that speaks to the value of “writing and sharing” our discoveries from architectural research that could inspire others to do so?  

In 2008/2009, I did a study for a project that was in a hot and dry area in Saudi Arabia. It was a sports and recreation facility that had a courtyard with shading devices. The client wanted to remove the shading devices. For us, as architects, it was obvious that if you don’t have shading devices, given the harsh external environment, nobody’s going to use the courtyard. But, as is often the case due to value engineering, the client wanted to remove the shading devices. So, we engaged in a study that investigated thermal comfort in exterior environments and how different design strategies could improve occupant comfort. We used a simulation tool developed by the University of California, Berkeley’s Center for the Built Environment for the research.  

After extensive study and modeling, results showed that after five minutes of being outside, a person would be too hot to stay in the open courtyard. The same methodology was used to find an optimal design solution for the shading device. The report was written, shared with the client, and optimized shading devices went back into the project.  

I had completely forgotten about the project when, two years ago, a colleague who was also at Perkins&Will asked me if I had a copy of the report. I looked through my files and found the study, the procedures, and the report, which I shared with him. He used the findings and was able to land a project that his firm was competing for. If I hadn’t documented the project with a report, all that knowledge would have been lost to someone who, 15 years later, sought to drive design decisions for a major urban redevelopment project. The anecdote reminds us that without documentation of our research, there is no dissemination, and without dissemination of our research, there are no future projects.  

FRANCA TRUBIANO is Graduate Group Chair of the PhD Program in Architecture, Associate Professor, and a Registered Architect with l’Ordre des Architects du Québec. She is also co-director of Penn’s Mellon-funded Humanities + Urban + Design Initiative. 

CAPTIONS:  

SPREAD THE WORD  
Dr. Aksamija is the author of three books based on her work. Photo: Ajla Aksamija, Perkins&Will 

SHOW AND TELL  
Cover pages from the Perkins&Will Research Journal’s past issues. Photos: Perkins&Will