2014 President's Awards for Research
The RIBA's annual research awards exist to promote the innovation and insight that emerge from excellent research.
The awards acknowledge and encourage fresh and strategic thinking in architectural research for the benefit of the profession as a whole.
Projects are judged by a distinguished panel of experts in
Master's degree thesis
The winners will receive their awards in December at the RIBA Presidents Medals ceremony at 66 Portland Place, London W1.
The winners for the President's Awards for Research 2013 can be found here.
Call for entries for 2014 President's Awards for Research
We are now opening the call for entries for this year's President's Awards for Research. Please see below for the terms of reference document and application form. The closing date for entering this year is Monday 19 May 2014 at 5pm.
Application Form 2014
Terms of reference 2014
If you have any queries about the awards, please email email@example.com or call 020 7307 3679.
The judges in 2014 will be:
Ruth Morrow (Chair) - Queens University Belfast
Gerry Adler - Kent School of Architecture
Cany Ash - Ash Sakula
Barnabas Calder - University of Liverpool
Adam Sharr - University of Newcastle
Cindy Walters - Walters and Cohen
Andrew Waugh - Waugh Thistleton
Technical expertise is provided, where necessary by the Building Research Establishment.
The process is observed by Peter Gibbs-Kennet on behalf of the RIBA Research and Innovation Group.
Conflict of interest procedures
Judges declare their conflicts of interest as soon as the list of awards' candidates is circulated.
Judges are required to leave the room during the assessment of work where there is a conflict of interest.
Judges must not provide supporting statements for submissions to the RIBA President's Awards for Research.
Judges cannot make submissions for the RIBA President's Awards for Research.
At each stage of assessment the relevant materials are inspected by at least two impartial judges.
Where the Chair is involved in a conflict of interest, another member of the judging panel acts as Deputy Chair.
Cases of conflict of interest arise:
For PhD Award: where the judge has been involved in the supervision of and/or examination of the PhD.
For University-led Awards: where the judge has been involved as a member of the research team.
For Professional Practice-led Awards: where the judge has been involved in any way in the research project submitted.
The following circumstances will be considered on a case-by-case basis, depending on the level of involvement or familiarity with the research:
For the PhD and University-led Research Awards: where the submission is from the higher education institute in which the judge is currently, or has recently been, or will soon be, a member of staff (this is usually considered a conflict of interest).
For the University-led Research Awards: where the judge has been a nominated peer reviewer of the research submission for a research council or related body.
For Professional Practice-led Research Awards: where the judge has a business connection with the submitting practice (this is usually considered a conflict of interest).
For any of the four awards: where a professional or personal relationship may impede the judge's impartiality (this is usually considered a conflict of interest).