Framing the Field: A Critical Systematic Review of Research Problems and Methods in Architecture

Abstract

This article offers a critical systematic review of how architectural research articulates its problems and methods in the contemporary academic landscape. Through the analysis of 68 peer-reviewed articles published between 2013 and 2024 and indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, the study identifies prevailing thematic areas, innovation, heritage, diagnostics, and education, and reframes methodological approaches within the classical triad of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. While acknowledging the hybrid and practice-based nature of architectural inquiry, this framework seeks to counter the epistemological fragmentation that often obscures methodological clarity and interdisciplinary dialogue in the field. By employing the PRISMA protocol and the Bibliometrix tool, the study reveals patterns, omissions, and disciplinary silences in architectural scholarship, particularly the frequent lack of explicit research problems and methodological transparency. These findings are situated within broader concerns around curriculum design, research training, and the positioning of architecture within global knowledge production systems. The proposed classification serves both pedagogical and reflective functions: it assists early-career researchers and educators in navigating methodological complexity, while also promoting alignment with epistemic standards adopted in other disciplines. Ultimately, the article contributes to the consolidation of architecture as a research-driven discipline, one that values methodological literacy not as a procedural formality but as a critical and ethical practice. It advocates for a more coherent, inclusive, and socially engaged research culture capable of addressing pressing urban, educational, and environmental challenges.