Despite work by the professional associations, social research, and intent in education to develop the productive field of architecture, the practice of architecture is becoming more problematic. Even through the popular arena of working with market forces, although often necessitated by law, the results are dubious. Studying the practice of architecture proves difficult when assessed in term of its cultural context. It forms a very broad set of factors which lack grounding. Architectural practice is structured in layers of subjective value based upon individuals and their context, resulting in an expansion which makes focus on a key aspect elusive. Our research approaches an underlying point which anchors us.

We will research the nexus where the work intended to provide architecture is allowed to enter the world and be presenced. (We use ‘presenced’ to allow that architecture may not be strictly what is built.) We intend to focus at an objective point where the ‘professional’ right to practice architecture is located. The research will be in seven venues, which are nations, and will include defining this nexus in each as narrowly as possible. At that compression point, into which at least a century of thousands of people’s efforts have gone, is borne the form of architectural practice that we know. The nexus will be assessed for how architecture and the work of an architect are defined.

We will define each nexus, and evaluate the documents of legislation and the articles of the associations in each nexus using mainly interpretive analysis. We will then extend this to the intents of the leadership. The interviews of the leadership are narrow in scope and synchronous with the approach to the documents:
What is the intent of (your) assembly and what are its successes? These interviews will open our work to implicit nuances and vectors of action. Giving evidence of the movement within the data of the law and the associations where pressures, even in stagnant situations, will make a direction evident.

The two part output will be a mapping of the productive field of architecture underlying localized practice. This mapping within a customized database tool, forms an artifact, akin to filling a canvas. A linked textual report, documenting the research, analysis and conclusions, will be derived from this.

Our research will yield proof that architectural practice is defined in terms of technic, and is therefore circumstantial. We will be able to give grounding to our situation with evidence that technology is used as a proxy: the form of this condition bears its resolution, when it is posed as a question. This research will give a foundation to the social and cultural investigations, and to efforts within practice, that they gain in relevance and effectiveness.