We will consider that there are four main subjects to be discussed and defined at this conference:

Theme I: Knowledge
Architectural knowledge: What kinds of knowledge are we talking about when we consider research by design? Is it insight specific to architectural knowledge, or is it about method?

Theme II: Methods
Transparent processes of inquiry: What is the “process of inquiry” in architectural practice? In what way can we talk about a research process that is based on the design process? And in what way can we use the notion of transparency in relation to research by design? Is it possible to demonstrate the value of research by design? How can we promote research by design as an important methodology for spatial design and the creation of public space?

Theme III: Communication and notation
What kind of modes of communication should be considered to be adequate to the scientific community? Architectural practice uses different types of notation, mainly drawings and physical models, and nowadays a range of digital media, for communicating to the various agents within the architectural industry, whereas traditional academic research tends to use mainly verbal forms of communication. What type of notations can be used, and what kind of weight should be given to each type, in architectural research by design?
How can we communicate the creative process? Is it even possible to do so? Or should we assume that in research by design only the more descriptive part of research can be explicitly communicated?

Theme IV: Evaluation and assessment
How can we evaluate data and outcomes in the context of research by design? Should originality, significance and rigour be the same in architectural practice as it is within research? Who should make the assessment? Should recognized practicing architects, with no academic positions, be appointed as members in the assessment process? Should relevance for practice, theoretical and procedural consistency, transparency of the processes and outcomes, inter-disciplinarity and trans-disciplinarity, engagement with architectural competences and experiences, be included as part of the assessment?
It is in the nature of research by design that it should be useful and have more engagement with the world outside academia; therefore should ‘impact’ on society be a measure?
Also, what can we learn about research by design from other fields where it is more developed, such as in industrial design?