 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
COMMENT: I can’t miss the opportunity to remind you that in 2005 we investigated exactly that very issue—that one-third of that project is actually developing a model to create the opportunity to bring practitioners into research along with researchers and clients. Inviting practitioners into research causes an intelligible program and enhances research already underway. I think we agree that closely to the last 50 years American professional education marginalized researchers, and it allowed us to identify things that weren’t really research as research. And that’s why it was marginalized. COMMENT: It’s not about me. I’m always in our discussion about the research agenda, and since we were assigned the cultural research, while the sense was that it should be funded, we have to stretch. A funding body might look at architecture in a paler light than other bodies—say, in the cultural realm, for example—and find that offices or others are more credible in cultural issues. So, maybe, we should be thinking about where can we be credible. That’s what led our group to thinking about climate change and trickle-down subjects that fall under that to give us an area where we can be credible and people can look to us as leaders and study subjects. They fund disciplines that focus on those issues. So that we remain strategic in how we define our agenda by selecting those things that best can be funded and where you’re going to see the biggest change. |
