Frances to Luis and others... The division of architecture for purposes of philosophic inquiry and pedagogic faculty is often categorized in academia differently or even reversed, depending on the institution consulted.
In the theoretical study of architecture the raw list of grand divisions is usually sorted as tendency and practice and theory. In the practical field of architecture the raw list of grand divisions is alternatively sorted as theory and research and practice, but in some venues it is sorted only as theory and practice. The implication here in any event is that the division of theory for example in coming before practice or after practice would thereby be either preparatory to practice or consummatory of practice. The key point to consider in formulating some kind of hierarchy is whether practice is necessary to theory, or whether theory is necessary to practice. In the evolution of humanity and architecture, an intelligent mind must have come before the creative planning and making and using of edifices as habitats, therefore theory would have come before practice, because the dumb brute brain of an animal or primal human cannot be filled with images and ideas on how to instruct or construct a building. It is further usually assumed that some innate tendency is naturally given, which would entail intuition and instinct and intellect. The role of research furthermore turns on a concern for material and technical stuff, but research is also concerned with the review and archive of relevant matters. It would seem therefore that the best list is as tendency and practice and theory, where tendency embraces an intelligent experiential predisposition and perhaps even a creative talented ability in preparation of practice, and where practice as a plan and project and product would also entail research and experiment and review, thereby contributing to the framing of theory. The eventual theory of architecture would likely fall under some philosophy of architecture, to further embrace the notion of purposive design in the telic cosmos of the human world. Just how broad the concept of design should be to satisfy the tenets and needs of architecture seemingly remains to be settled. At its broadest, the process of design is the mechanism of evolution, whereby things have a dispositional tendency to struggle and grow in the direction of a good end goal, toward which all their energy and correction is expended. This view of design may of course be too broad and realist for any theory or philosophy of architecture. The view also merely embeds any artistic and aesthetic and ethic concerns into the design process. (PS: The notion of distance and empathy by Worringer might impact here.)
