A Comparative Study on the Importance of the Quality of the Design in Sociable Spaces in Iran University of Science and Technology, Al-Zahra University and University of Tehran

Subject Areas : Life Space Journal

Seyed Ali Sharifian ¹ , Maryam Ghalambor Dezfuly ²

1 - PhD, Department of Architecture, Semnan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Semnan, Iran
2 - Assistant Professor, Urban Development Department, Pardis Branch, Islamic Azad University, Pardis, Iran.

Received: 2023-04-29 Accepted : 2025-06-12 Published : 2025-09-22

Keywords: sociable spaces, educational centers, Iran University of Science and Technology, Al-Zahra University, University of Tehran.,

Abstract :

The existence of successful sociable spaces is one of the most important manifestations of achieving social sustainability in academic spaces. Students' interaction and presence in educational spaces are among the factors that can be effective in the development of students' community, culture, and education. According to the data of environmental psychology, one of the most important environmental values is sociability and the quality of behavioral settlements; thus, environmental and architectural successes can be checked by measuring them. The purpose of this research was to evaluate environmental indicators in terms of the formation of sociability in academic environments, and assess the desirable characteristics for the formation of behavioral camps and, consequently, investigate the sociability of the university environment.

In order to investigate sociability and behavioral orientation in three universities of Iran University of Science and technology, Al-Zahra University and University of Tehran, at first the affecting factors were examined by reviewing previous researches and the main factors were extracted and analyzed in the form of a structured interview in an architectural space. Through examining the variables, the relationships between the indicators were determined after doing graphical analysis with Spss, version 22, software. Accordingly, the rate of efficiency and performance of the desirable components of sociability was evaluated from the point of view of the users of a certain space. Moreover, to continue the investigation of these data, the interpretive-descriptive method was utilized, which was considered to balance the generalizability. The studied variables were in the form of a conceptual model. In addition, the description of their examination as well as the measurement of the variables was based on the literature studies of environmental psychology and behavioral sciences in architecture. The main framework was in the context of certain man-made environment studies. On the other hand, the indicators and components affecting sociability (variabledependent) was discussed and they were measured in the environment of the three universities namely Iran University of Science and Technology, Al-Zahra University, and University of Tehran (independent variable). This study was a descriptive-analytical research of correlation-survey type and used a questionnaire as the study instrument. The required information was collected from 386 students studying in three universities. The result of the ANOVA assumption test indicated that there was no significant differences between the students of three universities in terms of the importance of the type of space in the formation of social interactions since the value of significance was greater than 0.05. This finding meant that even though all three universities had different buildings and architectural spaces, different design features were not effective in the importance of indicators affecting social interactions. This issue could indicate that perhaps our educational spaces in general gave little importance to some design indicators affecting sociability, or that these indicators had the same importance in other urban spaces. The result of the middle hypothesis test indicated that there was a significant difference in terms of the importance of the subject in the formation of social interactions and also the reasons for stopping in the university spaces between three universities. In order to socialize with their friends, students chose the university campus, the library, and the cafeteria, which were the most common in the University of Science and Technology and University of Tehran; however, in Al-Zahra University, it was the front desk and the cafeteria. Therefore, it was more possible for students to communicate with others and have social interactions in restaurants, buffets, and teahouses. After that, there was the possibility of communication in the area and yard and then the corridor and lobby, respectively.

The findings meant that even though all three universities had different buildings and architectural spaces, different design features were not effective in the importance of indicators affecting social interactions. Using the results of the recorded field observations and the analysis of the components of sociability in the focal points of the study case, the factors affecting the success of these spaces were extracted in the form of social interactions. The results indicated that the appropriate spatial arrangement in cultural and educational complexes like universities could affect the sociability of these spaces. Also, the importance of design indicators was significant among the three universities.

References:

 بنتلی، ایان؛ پالمورین, سومک گلین, گراهام اسمیت. (1382). محیط های پاسخده, کتاب راهنمای طراحان. ترجمه, مصطفی بهزادفر. تهران, دانشگاه علم و صنعت. (تاریخ انتشار متن اصلی 1985).
 پوردیهیمی، شهرام؛ و نورتقانی، عبدالمجید. (1392). هویت و مسکن؛ بررسی ساز و کار تعامل هویت ساکنین و محیط مسکونی. مسکن و محیط روستا. ۳۲ (۱۴۱) ،۳-۱۸.
 حبیب، فرح. (1386). رویکرد پایداری در متن شهرسازی. فصلنامه علوم و تکنولوژی محیط زیست، 9(1)، 111-120.
 حمزه‌نژاد, مهدی؛ و قلیچی, پدرام. (1397). بررسی اجتماع‌پذیری و کیفیت قرارگاه‌های رفتاری در پارک‌های درون دانشگاهی، مورد مطالعاتی, پارک دانشگاه علم‌وصنعت ایران. معماری و شهرسازی آرمان شهر, 11(25), 45-55.
 دانشپور, سید عبدالهادی و چرخچیان, مریم . (1386). فضاهای عمومی و عوامل مؤثر بر حیات جمعی. باغ نظر, 4(7), 19-28.
 دانشگاه الزهرا. (1401). بر گرفته از https,//www.alzahra.ac.ir/، تاریخ بازیابی 10/10/1401
 دانشگاه تهران. (1401). برگرفته از https,//ut.ac.ir/ ، تاریخ بازیابی 10/10/1401
 دانشگاه علم و صنعت. (1400). برگرفته از https,//www.iust.ac.ir/، تاریخ بازیابی 10/10/1401
 دانشگر مقدم, گلرخ, بحرینی, سیدحسین, و عینی فر, علیرضا. (1390). تحلیل اجتماع پذیری محیط کالبدی متأثر از ادراک طبیعت در محیط انسان ساخت. نشریه هنرهای زیبا, معماری و شهرسازی، 3(45)، 27-38.
 شجاعی, دلارام و پرتوی, پروین . (1394). عوامل مؤثر بر ایجاد و ارتقاء اجتماع‌پذیری در فضاهای عمومی با مقیاس‌های مختلف شهر تهران (‌نمونه موردی : فضاهای عمومی دو محله و یک ناحیه در منطقه 7 تهران‌). باغ نظر, 12(34), 93-108.
 شریفیان, سید علی؛ مرادی نسب, حسین؛ قلمبردزفولی, مریم؛ و ملاصالحی, ودیهه. (1400). تبیین مؤلفه های تأثیر گذار بر شکل گیری فضاهای اجتماع پذیر در محیط های آموزشی با استفاده از روش تحلیل عاملی(نمونه موردی, فضاهای دانشگاهی). علوم و تکنولوژی محیط زیست, 23(7), 207-222. doi, 10.30495/jest.2021.53276.5090
 صالحی‌نیا، مجید. (1388). تحلیل تأثیر معماری فضای شهری بر تعامل انسانی, مطالعه موردی, سنجش فضاهای اجتماعی عمومی معماری. رساله دکتری، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران. تهران، ایران.
 کارمونا، متیو؛ تنراک، استیون تیسدل، تیم هیت. (1388). مکان های عمومی، فضاهای شهری، ترجمه, فریبا قرائی و همکاران. تهران, انتشارات دانشگاه هنر. (تاریخ انتشار متن اصلی 2003).
 کامل نیا،حامد.(1386). دستور زبان طراحی محیط‌های یادگیری، مفاهیم و تجربه‌ها در طراحی, مراکز پیش‌دبستانی، مدارس، دانشگاه‌ها. تهران, سبحان نور.
 کربلایی حسینی غیاثوند, ابوالفضل و سهیلی, جمال‌الدین. (1397). بررسی نقش مؤلفه‌های کالبدی محیط در اجتماع‌پذیری فضاهای فرهنگی با استفاده از تکنیک چیدمان فضا، مورد مطالعاتی: مجتمع‌های فرهنگی دزفول و نیاوران. معماری و شهرسازی آرمان شهر, 11(25), 361-373.
 گروتر، یورگ کورت. (1375). زیبایی شناسی در معماری. ترجمه, جهانشاه پا کزاد و عبدالرضا همایون، تهران, انتشارات دانشگاه شهید بهشتی. (تاریخ انتشار متن اصلی 1987).
 گیدنز،آنتونی. (1373). جامعه شناسی. ترجمه, منوچهر صبوری. تهران, نشر نی.
 لنارد،کروهرست سوزان و لنارد، هنری.(1377). طراحی فضاهای شهری و زندگی اجتماعی. ترجمه, رسول مجتبی پور. معماری و شهرسازی، 45-44، 82-87.
 لنگ، جان.(1381). آفرینش نظریه ی معماری, نقش علوم رفتاری در طراحی محیط. ترجمه, علیرضا عینی فر. تهران, انتشارات دانشگاه تهران. (تاریخ انتشار متن اصلی 1987).



 Alexander, Christopher, Sara Ishikawa, & Murray Silverstein. (1968). A Pattern Language Which Generates Multi-service Centers. CA,Center for Environmental Structure Berkeley.
 Barker, Roger. (1968). Ecological Psychology, Concepts and Methods for Studying the Environment of Human Behavior, Stanford University Press.
 Canter, David. (1977). The Psychology of Place. London, Architectural Press.
 Eisenhauer, Brian W.; Krannich, Richard S.; Blahna, Dale J.. (2000). Attachments to special places on public lands, An analysis of activities, reason for attachments, and community connections. Society & Natural Resources, 13(5), 421-441.‏
 Fisher, Kevin. (2009). Placing social interaction, An integrative approach to analyzing past built environments. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 28(4), 439-457.‏
 Gehl, Jan. (1986). Soft edges” in residential streets. Scandinavian housing and planning research, 3(2), 89-102.‏
 Hall, Edward T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, NY, Doubleday..
 Kasali, Altuğ; & Doğan, Fehmi. (2010). Fifth-, sixth-, and seventh-grade students’ use of non-classroom spaces during recess, The case of three private schools in Izmir, Turkey. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 518-532.‏
 Lang, Jon. (1987). Creating Architectural Theory, The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design.Van Nostrand Reinhold New York.
 Lansdale, Mark., Parkin, Jeniffer., Austin, Simon., & Baguley, Thom. (2011). Designing for interaction in research environments, A case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(4), 407-420.‏
 Moleski, Walter ., & Lang, Jon. (1986). Organizational Goals and Human Needs in Office Planning. Behavioral Issues in Office planning.
 Pasalar, Celen. (2004). The effects of spatial layouts on students' interactions in middle schools, Multiple case analysis. North Carolina State University.‏ Advisors Candy Beal. Committee Member, Frank J. Smith, Committee Member, Henry Sanoff, Committee Chair., Robin Moore, Committee Member. NCSU Libraries.
 Peters, Karin., Elands, Birgit., & Buijs, Arjen. (2010). Social interactions in urban parks, Stimulating social cohesion?. Urban forestry & urban greening, 9(2), 93-100.‏
 Rapoport, Amos. (2013). Human Aspects of Urban Form, Towards a Man Environment Approach to Urban Form and Design. Elsevier.
 Skjaeveland, Oddvar., & Garling, Tommy. (1997). Effects of interactional space on neighbouring. Journal of environmental psychology, 17(3), 181-198.‏