Tolerance in the Peer Review of Interdisciplinary Research in Architectural Journal Publishing

References

• Banham, Reyner. 1999. “A Black Box, The Secret Profession of Architecture.” In A Critic Writes: Selected Essays by Reyner Banham, 292–299. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Banham, Reyner. 1964. “Convenient Benches and Handy Hooks: Functional Considerations in the Criticism of the Art of Architecture.” In The History, Theory and Criticism of Architecture: Papers from the 1964 AIA-ACSA Teacher Seminar, edited by Marcus Whiffen, 91–105. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baudoin, Genevieve. 2016. “A Matter of Tolerance.” The Plan Journal: 33–46. Available online: http://theplanjournal.com/system/files/articles/TPJ0_0_4_Art_Prof_Genevieve_Baudoin_1.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, Wendy. 2015. Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Charlesworth, J. J. 2003. “Features: The Dysfunction of Criticism.” Art Monthly (Archive: 1976–2005), September, no. 269: 1.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, Justine, and Paul Walker. 2013. “Negotiating the Intention of the Work.” Volume, 36 [special issue “Ways to Be Critical”]: 24–29.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, Peter. 1971. Architectural Judgement. London: Faber & Faber.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, Peter. 1965. “The Interrelated Roles of History, Theory, and Criticism in the Process of Architectural Design.” In The History, Theory and Criticism of Architecture: Papers from the 1964 AIA-ACSA Teacher Seminar, edited by Marcus Whiffen, 1–9. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Colomina, Beatriz, Gabriele Mastrigli, Matthew Stadler, and Kestrel Rattenbury. 2005. “4 Statements,” Volume, no. 1: 74–79.
   Google Scholar
• Coyne, Richard. 2013. “Even More than Architecture.” In Design Research in Architecture: An Overview, edited by Murray Fraser, 185–204. Aldershot: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Daichendt, James G. 2011. Artist Scholar: Reflections on Writing and Research. Bristol: Intellect.
   Google Scholar
• El-Husseiny, Momen. 2009. Review of “The Crit: An Architecture Student’s Handbook – Rosie Parnell and Rachel Sara.” Journal of Architectural Education, 62, no. 3 (2009): 90–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elkins, James, and Matthew Engelke. 2003. What Happened to Art Criticism? Chicago, IL: Prickly Paradigm.
   Google Scholar
• Ellison, Glenn. 2002. “Evolving Standards for Academic Publishing: A q r Theory.” Journal of Political Economy, 110, no. 5: 994–1034.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ewing, Suzanne, Jeremie M. McGowan, Chris Speed, and Victoria C. Bernie, eds. 2010. “Field/Work and Site.” In Architecture and Field/Work. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Forgey, Benjamin. 2003. “White, Male, Old.” Arkkitehti 100, no. 3: 95.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge, edited by A. Sheridan. London: Tavistock.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, Michel. 1980. “The Eye of Power.” In Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977, edited by C. Gordon. New York: Pantheon.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, William H. 2002. “Architectural Criticism.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 60, no. 4: 325–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaji-O’Grady, Sandra. 2018. “Gender and Anonymous Peer Review.” in Architecture and Feminisms: Ecologies, Economies, Technologies, edited by Hélène Frichot, Catharina Gabrielsson, and Helen Runting, 132–137. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kristeva, Julia. 1997. “Institutional Interdisciplinarity in Theory and Practice: An Interview.” In De-, Dis-, Ex, Volume Two: The Anxiety of Interdsiciplinarity, edited by Alex Coles and Alexia Defert, 1–22. London: Black Dog..
   Google Scholar
• Mecchia, G. 2008. “The Future of the Image” [Review]. Symplokē, 16, nos. 1–2: 313–316.
   Google Scholar
• Niedderer, K., and S. Roworth-Stokes. 2007. “The Role and Use of Creative Practice in Research and its Contribution to Knowledge.” Paper presented at the IASDR International Conference.
   Google Scholar
• Quirk, Vanessa. April 2012. “The Architect Critic is Dead (Just Not for the Reason You Think).” Archdaily. Available online: https://www.archdaily.com/223714/the-architect-critic-is-dead-just-not-for-the-reason-you-think/.
   Google Scholar
• Rancière, Jacques. 2007. The Future of the Image, translated by G. Elliot. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Research Excellence Framework. 2012. Panel Criteria and Working Methods REF01.2012.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, Gillian. 2012. Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to Researching with Visual Materials, 3rd ed. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Rykwert, Joseph. 2014. “Does Architecture Criticism Matter?” Domus 979, April: 4.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, Barbara H. 1988. Contingencies of Value: Alternative Perspectives for Critical Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stead, Naomi. 2003. “Three Complaints about Architectural Criticism.” Architecture Australia, 92, no. 6: 50–52.
   Google Scholar
• Troiani, Igea. 2017. “Academic Capitalism in Architecture Schools: A Feminist Critique of Employability, 24/7 Work and Entrepreneurship.” In Architecture and Feminisms: Ecologies, Economies, Technologies, edited by Hélène Frichot, Catharina Gabrielsson and Helen Runting. 170–180. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Troiani, Igea, and Suzanne Ewing. 2014. “Inside Architecture from the Outside: Architecture’s Disciplinary Practices.” Architecture and Culture, 2, no. 2: 151–166.
   Google Scholar
• Troiani, Igea, and Suzanne Ewing. 2015. “New Architectural Criticism: How to Separate the Wheat from the Chaff.” In Proceedings of The European Academy of Design (EAD 11) Conference, Paris Descartes University, Paris, and College of Arts, Paris & Boulogne sur Seine, France, 22–24 April 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Wager, Elizabeth, Fiona Godlee, and Tom Jefferson. 2002. How to Survive Peer Review. London: BMJ Books.
   Google Scholar
• Wild, David. 2009. “OP Arch.” Journal of Architectural Education, 62, no. 3: 2–32, 94.
   Google Scholar