Developing Making Scholarship From Making Disciplines to Field-specific Research in Creative Practices Halina Dunin-Woyseth 1 & Fredrik Nilsson 2 1 Oslo School of Architecture and Design, Norway 2 Department of Architecture, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden 1 halina.dunin-woyseth@aho.no, 2 fredrik.nilsson@chalmers.se Keywords: making scholarship, permeable practices, field-specific research, intellectual self-confidence This paper describes a project which will result in a book with the intentions to present and discuss certain developments in establishing field-specific scholarship within architecture, design and the arts. The idea is that the book will address three periods which differed in their degree of maturing towards a more established and “self-confident” scholarly culture in several schools of architecture in Belgium, Sweden and Norway, where the authors have had the opportunity to teach at the level of doctoral studies. The intention of the book is that each period studied will be illustrated by cases of “excellent research practice” which we regard to have played the role of turning points in the development of the recent decades. These cases will not be discussed in this paper, since its aim is to present the overall set-up of the project and our stance in relation to its different aspects. The book project builds on the authors’ own writings from the period 2001–2012 and will be supplied by commentaries on the role we have played in developing a certain model of understanding what field-specific research in creative practices could be. The first period (1990 – 2005) The first period of the development is the fifteen years starting from 1990, and here we will especially describe how a doctoral curriculum was defined for and practiced by PhD students, recruited first solely from architecture, and later on, from other creative practices of designers of various kinds and artists. The challenge was to legitimize this curriculum as “academic enough” first and foremost with regard to the academia of the established, discipline-based bodies of decision-makers. In this period, attempts were made to formulate frameworks for researchability for practice-embedded issues. A concept of Making Disciplines was developed at certain Scandinavian schools of architecture which co-operated on research education at their doctoral programmes. This concept was meant to attend both to the academic standards of research and to creative practice-relevance of the output of this research derived from these creative practices (Dunin-Woyseth & Michl 2001b; Dunin-Woyseth & Nilsson 2011b). The description of this period will be based on several writings. The point of departure will be grounded in the publication “Towards a Disciplinary Identity of the Making Professions” (Dunin-Woyseth & Michl 2001a). This publication consists of several chapters which all address the issue of knowledge in the so-called making professions. The term has been applied to the fields of art production, object design, industrial design, architecture, landscape architecture etc. These fields of professional expertise are responsible for design and production of remarkable variety and volume of artefacts and man-made environments. Of the authors’ special interest was the kind of