Your discussion begs the wider question about whether design can or even should be practiced within some philosophical approach. Over many year I have studied many successful and interesting designers. I would say the vast majority do not claim to have some overarching philosophy. some would undoubtedly say that you should not design to prove a theory. My view is that design is simultaneously a wonderful and yet highly problematic cognitive activity. Anything that is found useful by any designer to aid their thinking seems fine. The idea however that one approach is more correct or useful than any other does not find favour with me. I have found a tendency to claim the fundamental rightness of some philosopy exists in design schools, more often in architecture than other areas of design. In my view this is dangerous for the young design student struggling to find their way.

Your discussion begs the wider question about whether design can or even should be practiced within some philosophical approach. Over many year I have studied many successful and interesting designers. I would say the vast majority do not claim to have some overarching philosophy. some would undoubtedly say that you should not design to prove a theory. My view is that design is simultaneously a wonderful and yet highly problematic cognitive activity. Anything that is found useful by any designer to aid their thinking seems fine. The idea however that one approach is more correct or useful than any other does not find favour with me. I have found a tendency to claim the fundamental rightness of some philosopy exists in design schools, more often in architecture than other areas of design. In my view this is dangerous for the young design student struggling to find their way.

I can understand taking a phenomenological approach to architecture research, although I imagine it would mainly be theses written this way, more than individual papers. I can't imagine how one would take phenomenological approach to design, since phenomenology is a way of seeking further truths about an individual phenomenon, and buildings are not usually built to seek anything. Someone may have built something in response to a phenomenological study, but you would need to identify the phenomenon first, wouldn't you? So the question is hard to answer.

Bryan R Lawson Your answer made me think about my experience as an Architecture graduate student, studying in a school where phenomenology and philosophy in exploring the local historical architecture were so popular among the supervisors. However, this approach didn’t seem to be effective in creating new designs (which were highly encouraged by them) trying to regenerate or mimic the past architecture employing the same philosophy. So, given the historical contextual background, the primary approach in such architecture schools appears to be shaped based on the attempts to explain and comprehend the architectural masterpieces inherited from hundreds of years ago. But the point you mentioned here about “…the vast majority [of designers] do not claim to have some overarching philosophy” really fascinates me as it can suggest why many of the newly designed buildings, inspired by historical architecture, are not very successful. The transition from an era where the builders or architects (as a role that we define now) were dominated by design to an era that architects establish their individual styles is essential to discuss and understand especially for young design students.

We are all aware that architectural education should be improved and we are trying to find the answer from others. Although those who without a university learned to invent buildings and cities, had to analyse the building experience themselves and study the thoughts of philosophers. It should not be forgotten that from Imhotep architecture was practiced by both ordinary fellah and prominent statesmen. Everyone who knows how to create an image on a computer screen or has the power to choose a spatial image has every right to consider himself a designer and receive not only a moral reward for the ability to create a picture or to finance his own project. Due to social restrictions, the designer has no way now to create a building for that will be immediately require the use of explosives and a bulldozer. History teaches that only the collapse of the state, revolution or war forces architects to break away from the routine of pseudo-creative typed architectural production. Therefore, all that a modern teacher can do for a student who won’t leave the profession after graduation is to allow him to become a first-level expert (the widest humanitarian and technical knowledge by self-education and developed ability to represent the spatial image of the transformed site in the state premises). If he will be lucky make design and conduct research at the same time, then we will probably be able immensely grateful for can look behind the facades of buildings located far away in the different place and create our own valuation more truthful.

What exactly do you think would qualify as a "phenomenological approach" in architecture?

Yes! And what does it mean from design and research perspective?

Imre, thank you very much for the question. This means (like 30 thousand years ago) to be an expert in your own environment and look for ways to improve the property of your community premises by geometric methods (but it’s better to rely on mathematics).

If your work is of cross-disciplinary nature and you are dealing with place-based, anthropological, person-environment relationship research, this approach might be very insightful. Have a look at this work by David Seamon, which perhaps responds to your query.

Article Phenomenology, place, environment, and architecture: A review

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_does_the_Phenomenological_Approach_influence_architectural_design_and_research

Jelle Stienstra has used and reflected upon a phenomenological approach in interaction design. Have a look at his PhD thesis: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312116023_Designing_for_Respectful_Embodied_Interactions

Dear Ehsan and Jelle, I hope that Filippo Brunelleschii thought like you "that a respectful embodied approach to interaction design can benefit reconsideration of objective measures and numeric system (the discrete) in order to make them compatible with the subtle subjective and everchanging qualities of life (the continuous)" when he made incarnation to dome life but from mine point of view it was "unity undiscrete divine stability".

I think that the following article is an example of the evidence that you are looking for: Interaction Design for and with the Lived Body: Some Implications of Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology. Cheers.

Akram J. Al-Akkam - I suggest starting with Otero-Pailos' book: Otero-Pailos, Jorge. Architecture's Historical Turn: Phenomenology and the Rise of the Postmodern. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2010.