Research in Architecture: Looking Backward and Forward: Forty-Year Experience in Architectural Research at the Faculty of Architecture STU

The introduction of my contribution contains a brief information on the Faculty of Architecture of the Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava (FA STU) and the architectural research performed at this institution. Schemes and priorities of our research in architecture have changed several times since the very beginning in early 50’s. The most significant change occurred after “the velvet revolution” in 1989. Since 1990 there have been several sources to support research at universities. The significant part of my contribution is rooted in my own research experience since the time I had joined FA STU in 1975 as a young architect and researcher. The period of the 80’s is characterized by the first unintentional attempts to do “research by design” and my “scientific” achievements as by-products of my design work. Some of them resulted in the following issues: conception of mezzo-space, theory of the complex perception of architectural space and definition of basic principles of ecologically conscious architecture. Nowadays I continue my research by design within the application of so called solar envelope in urban scale with my students.

Museums and quality, from the concept of the museum that carries out functions to the museum that provides services

Quality management Self-evaluation of the organisation Citizens/customers satisfaction Impact on society evaluation Key performance evaluation Good practices comparison (Benchmarking) Continuous improvement In professional environments, when quality assessment of museums is discussed, one immediately thinks of the honourableness of the directors and curators, the erudition and specialisation of knowledge, the diversity of the gathered material and study of the collections, the collections conservation methods and environmental control, the regularity and notoriety of the exhibitions and artists, the building’s architecture and site, the recreation of environments, the museographic equipment design. We admit that the roles and attributes listed above can contribute to the definition of a specificity of museological good practice within a hierarchised functional perspective (the museum functions) and for the classification of museums according to a scale, validated between peers, based on “installed” appreciation criteria, enforced from above downwards, according to the “prestige” of the products and of those who conceive them, but that say nothing about the effective satisfaction of the citizen/customers and the real impact on society. There is a lack of evaluation instruments that would give us a return of all that the museum is and represents in contemporary society, focused on being and on the relation with the other, in detriment of the ostentatious possession and of the doing in order to meet one’s duties. But it is only possible to evaluate something by measurement and comparison, on the basis of well defined criteria, from a common grid, implicating all of the actors in the self-evaluation, in the definition of the aims to fulfil and in the obtaining of results.