Epistemic disjunction in architectural design: insights from a non-western context

This study investigates the epistemic divergence in architectural design conceptualization between academic researchers and professional practitioners in a non-Western context (Iran). Using a three-phase experiment, comprising in-depth interviews, a conceptual design task, and document review, it identifies differences in how each group develops architectural design ideas. Academics emphasize systematic development of design ideas leveraging contextual reasoning and structured analysis, whereas practitioners tend to generate design ideas through personal experience, abstraction, and pre-formed frameworks. This represents a deep epistemic split that fragments architectural discourse and challenges disciplinary coherence. Iran provides a distinctive case, with shared educational structures but contrasting professional norms, yet remains underrepresented in architectural epistemology literature. The study contributes (i) empirical clarification of this split; (ii) theoretical synthesis and refinement of architectural design epistemology; (iii) practical guidance for aligning academic and professional agendas; and (iv) an adaptable comparative methodology. It also informs curricula by advocating intentional integration of context-driven analytical reasoning with conceptual exploration to meet contemporary demands.