The debate on the UK Government's recent Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), which has grown steadily over our past two issues (5/4 and 6/1), reaches a climax in this one. Perhaps the time has come to ask whether arq is becoming parochial in its focus on a matter that seems of concern only to the UK. However, we offer no apologies for using the RAE debate to highlight the research crisis in architecture – a crisis that is by no means confined to the UK.

There are many issues under discussion. There is the simple matter of the ‘accuracy’ of the system in recognising high quality work: our correspondents (pp. 101–103) seem divided on this. Then there is the question of ‘fairness’ in the size of the financial reward: the sums available for distribution meant that many who performed well were awarded less than in the last round. And there is the ever recurring question of design as ‘research’: Bryan Lawson's contribution (pp. 109–114) surely provides the last word on this.

Three correspondents widen the debate beyond the RAE. Colin Stansfield Smith (p. 104) writes of a procurement system in which architecture has become marginalised. John Worthington (p. 104) makes a plea for both the profession and the schools to look outwards. And, almost incredibly, the letter from the outgoing RIBA Vice President for Education, Alan Jones (p. 105), seems to suggest that arq's prodding may have provoked coordinated action within the Institute.

The latest news is that the two incoming Vice Presidents for Education and Practice, Jack Pringle and Richard Saxon, are practitioners who are determined to bridge the gap between the profession and academia. Each is committed to promoting, supporting and disseminating research. Both see it not as a problem to be ignored but as an opportunity to be grasped. We wish them every success.

There is much to be done. Real needs must be identified and matched to available means in academia and practice; valuable unpublished material uncovered; appropriate methods of dissemination developed; and a realistic implementation strategy evolved. If the RIBA could, in partnership with practice and academia, develop such a programme, it would, in the process, acquire the ability to support the architecture schools in the pursuit of their own (and the profession's) interests. It would also enable the profession to speak with the kind of authority that the RICS Foundation has given the surveyors.

It is this wider agenda with which arq is concerned. If leading-edge practitioners and academics have a duty to enhance the profession's knowledge base then professional institutes have a responsibility as its guardians and sponsors. All must work together in a world in which architecture is increasingly under threat.

As a former student of Leslie Martin I well understand that ‘in the UK, architecture's standing as a research-led University discipline remains as low as ever’ (arq 5/4, p291). But then I share my own generation's disbelief about the current state of the Profession and the failure of any architecture school to be awarded the highest rating (5*)in the latest Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). The internecine misunderstandings between practice and schools of architecture are hardly helpful to the cause: the Profession's refusal to understand the current plight of schools with regard to resources and the low esteem and status of academic staff and – in the reverse perspective – academia seems oblivious to the cowed posture of large sections of the Profession in a world driven by the imperatives of the government's Private Finance Initiative (PFI). This more or less symbolizes in a general sense the current client/architect relationship or lack of it in the public realm.

Christine Hawley writes (arq 6/1, p5) that true architectural research, particularly that of a highly theoretical kind, is not acknowledged by the government bodies responsible for evaluating an architecture school's research output – and thereby, its funding.

In their leader to arq 6/1, the editors quite justifiably express a fear that ‘the gap between lecture theatre and studio will grow ever wider and the schools ever more divorced from practice’. They also acknowledge that ‘of course, it doesn't have to be like that’. In the University of North London architecture school, for example, a research culture of design as research has emerged over the past decade or so. This has been supported by the past Head of School, Helen Mallinson, and continues to be supported by the new Head, Robert Mull, as well as the Vice Chancellor (Research) of the University, Chris Topley. This culture of critical practice affects the studio in a number of direct ways.

I received a copy of your letter inviting a response to the issues regarding research and its relationship with practising and teaching architecture.

Thomas Muirhead's letter (arq 6/1, pp5–6) raises interesting points concerning Stirling's ‘variability’ – a quality I for one do not dispute: in my article (arq 5/4, pp333–353) I had chosen to focus on schemes which for one reason or another have been less fully revisited than more celebrated icons.

Your leader (arq 6/1, p3) correctly concluded that the latest round of the UK Government's Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) results are the best yet overall for those departments in universities that include the subject of architecture. But we are in danger of misinterpreting this complex set of results as a result of some other more emotive and unclear arguments. Let me take the process apart slightly in order to clarify.

I read Christine Hawley's letter (arq 6/1, p5)with sympathy and agree that the generally poor showing by architecture schools in the Research Assessment Exercise has repercussions beyond the universities. It helps reinforce the lowly position of the profession in the eyes of the government – that we are a second order service provider within the construction industry.

Inevitably, as some went up the pecking order and others down, the results of the latest Research Assessment Exercise will have delighted some schools of architecture and disappointed others. Now may be the time for recriminations and breast-beating. But it would be dangerous for architecture's standing in the academic firmament if it were to claim separate status or that research is somehow different for architects. Instead it is important that the architecture community responds positively to the outcome and understands what it takes to succeed within the rules. A fundamental question to be asked is whether the judgements meted out were deserved.

Your leader (arq 6/1, p3) raised the critical issue of the nature of architectural research and where the responsibility and leadership should rest. You rightly point out that the dilemma for schools of architecture is how to integrate design thinking and research, and whether to see research as arts and design-based or part of the tradition of the physical sciences.

This March, the University of Bath Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering held a conference on the ways that computing can be used to generate architecture and engineering. Sponsored by RIBA Future Studies, Buro Happold and Ove Arup, and bringing together lecturers from a variety of disciplines, it considered both practical and philosophical aspects. A publication is planned, edited by the organizers, Neil Leach, Chris Williams and David Turnbull.

Design is central to the discipline of architecture. Despite this, the question as to whether design constitutes a form of research seems to raise more questions and strong feelings than any other aspect of the UK Government's research assessments of university architecture schools (arq 6/1, p5). No one is better fitted to set out the arguments than Bryan Lawson: an architect and psychologist, he has acted as an assessor for the last two exercises, has extensive knowledge of the university sector and has undertaken research on the design processes of such influential designers as Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown, Herman Hertzberger and Ken Yeang. (See also leader, p99, and letters, pp101–106 in this issue.)

In the Berkeley Prize essay competition for 2002 (see p119), architecture students were asked to consider the role of the street in fostering public life by addressing the following Question:

Throughout history, the Street has served as a mediator between our public and private lives. With rapid change occurring today in every culture, the traditional social value of the street is also undergoing change and in many instances is losing this human element. As an architect, how do you address this issue?

A third year student at the University of Waterloo, Thomas-Bernard Kenniff, was awarded the prize for the following essay.

Steven Holl, Time Magazine's Architect of the Year, has had his own office in New York since 1976 and has taught at Columbia University since 1981. Winner of over 20 honour awards from the American Institute of Architects, he has published widely and become one of the most visionary architectural thinkers and practitioners of our time. Thomas Fisher interviewed him for arq

This small pavilion and related earth-bound woodstore demonstrate how, on a modest budget, the necessary can rise to the level of the poetic. An appendix summarises the architect's design approach

Establishing a horizontal plane is basic to architecture. Jørn Utzon's use of the platform inspired the authors' entry to the recent international competition for the design of a new theatre in Copenhagen.

This modest building questions basic assumptions about processes and finishes, about the nature of brickwork and the detailing of window frames – and provides a powerful space for worship.

Launched overnight into Cambodia, the author was responsible for the design and construction of a small residential community. Researching local traditions, she constantly adapted to local culture and conditions.