Intricacy of Architectural Design Process as a Heterogeneous Network
Subject Areas : ArchitectureFatemeh Zare 1 , Kaveh Bazrafkan 2 , Homa Irani Behbahani 3 , Behrooz Mansouri 4
1 - Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
2 - Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
3 - Faculty of Environment, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
4 - Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
Keywords: Designers' Network, Co-design, Actor-Network Theory, Architectural design process,
Abstract :
Architectural design has grown alongside the expansion of digitalism's aspects, and design initiatives are the product of several collaborations, interactions, and nodes. Focusing on an architectural competition as a case study, this article demonstrates how the architectural design process works by highlighting the characteristics of a network produced by the assemblage between heterogeneous nodes. These assemblages could modify every design phase and outcome according to their strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, the socio-technical aspect of the design process is used to demonstrate the reciprocal relationship between nodes as humans and nonhumans. This paper uses a qualitative approach by using the methodological aspect of actor-network theory to map the intricacies of the design process from three independent narrations to give complementary components to form the design process's multiplex network. Thus, the study proposes a paradigm for exhibiting and grasping the complex data network in architectural design and boosting the value of unseen data that may significantly impact outcomes.
Akama, Y. (2015). Being awake to Ma: designing in-between-ness as a way of becoming with. CoDesign, 11(3-4), 262-274.
Andersen, L, B., Danholt, P., Halskov, K., Hansen, N. B., & Lauritsen, P. (2015). Participation as a matter of concern in participatory design. CoDesign, 11 (3-4), 250-261.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1973). Questions of Literature and Aesthetics: (Russian) Progress Moscow.
Belliger, A, & Krieger. D. J. (2006). ANThology. Ein einführendes Handbuch zur Akteur ‐ Netzwerk. Theorie. Bielefeld.
Binder, T., Brandt, E. Ehn, P. & Halse, J. (2015). Democratic design experiments: between parliament and laboratory. CoDesign, 11(3-4), 152-165,
Bradbury, S. (2014). Learning from Actor-Network Theory: Bridging the gap between research in science and research by design. Revista Lusófona de Arquitectura e Educaçao. 11, 453-470.
Callon, M. (1986). Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32 (1), 196–233.
Chitanana, L. (2021). The role of Web 2.0 in collaborative design: an ANT perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31, 965–980.
Dincer, D. (2020). The Act-Shifts Between Humans and Nonhumans in Architecture: A Reading of Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network Theory, 33-50. In: I. Williams (eds) Contemporary Applications of Actor-Network Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore.
DiSalvo, C., Lodato, T., Fries, L., Schechter, B., & Barnwell, T. (2011). The Collective Articulation of Issues as Design Practice. CoDesign, 7 (3–4), 185–197.
Duerk, D. P. (2007). Architectural Programming: Information Management for Design. Van Nostrand Reinhold, the University of Michigan.
Ekomadyo, A. S. & Riyadi, A. (2020). Design in Socio-technical Perspective: An Actor-Network Theory Reflection on Community Project ‘Kampung Kreatif’ in Bandung. Archives of Design Research, 33(2),19-36.
Erlhoff, M. & Marshall, T. (2007). Design Dictionary: Perspectives on Design Terminology, Berlin, Boston: Birkhäuser.
Fraser, M. (2013). Design Research in Architecture, Ashgate: Routledge Publishing Company.
Hassard, J., Law, J., & Lee., N. (1999). Preface. Organization, (6)3, 387–390.
Horelli, l. (2002). A Methodology of Participatory Planning, in Betchel B, Churchman A., Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hu, X. & Liu, Q. (2013). The Complex Network of Architectural Design. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 357-360, 349-353.
Kozikglu, N. & Dursun, C. (2015). Thinking and designing with the idea of network in architecture. ITU A|Z, 12(3), 71-87.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1996). Aramis: Or the Love of Technology. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora's hope: essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Latour, B. (2008). Powers of the Facsimile: A Turing Test on Science and Literature. In Intersections: Essays on Richard Powers, edited by Stephen J. Burn and Peter Dempsey, 263–292. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Archive Press.
Latour, B. (2013). Biography of an inquiry: On a book about modes of existence”. Social Studies of Science. 43(2), 287–301.
Latour, B. (2020). On Using ANT for Studying Information Systems: A (Somewhat) Socratic Dialogue. Sociologija. Mintis ir veiksmas.
Latour, B. & Yaneva. A. (2008). Give me a Gun, and I will Make All Buildings Move: An ANT’s View of Architecture. in Geiser, Reto (ed.), Explorations in Architecture: Teaching, Design, Research, Basel: Birkhäuser, 80–89.
Lindstrom, K. & Stahl, A. (2015). Figurations of spatiality and temporality in participatory design and after–networks, meshworks, and patchworking. CoDesign, 11(3-4), 222-235.
Palmas, K. & Von Busch, O. (2015). Quasi-Quisling: co-design and the assembly of collaborateurs, CoDesign, 11(3-4): 236-249.
Schoffelen, J., Claes, S., Huybrechts, L., Martens, S., Chua, A. & Vande Moere. A., (2015). Visualising things. Perspectives on how to make things public through visualization, CoDesign, 11(3-4), 179-192.
Storni, C., Binder, T., Linde P. & Stuedahl, D. (2015). Designing things together: intersections of co-design and actor-network theory, CoDesign, 11(3-4), 149-151.
Storni, C. (2015). Notes on ANT for designers: ontological, methodological and epistemological turn in collaborative design. CoDesign, 11(3-4), 166-178,
Telier, A., Binder, T., De Michelis, G., Ehn, P., Jacucci, G. & Wagner, I. (2011). Design Things (Design Thinking, Design Theory). The MIT Press.
Tummons, J. (2021). Ontological Pluralism, Modes of Existence, and Actor-Network Theory: Upgrading Latour with Latour. Social Epistemology, 35(1), 1-11.
Vaagan, R. (2007). Ownership and Minorities in Norwegian Media: From Monophony to Polyphony. Political Science. XVI: 2.
Yaneva, A. (2009). Making the Social Hold: Towards an Actor-Network Theory of Design. Design and Culture, 1(3), 273-288.
Zare, F., Bazrafkan, K., Irani Behbahani, H. & Mansouri. B. (2021). Co-designers’ Interaction: A Network-Based Approach. The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh-e Nazar, 18(99), 65-78.
Knox, K. (2021). Communicative Performance of Interactive Space in Social Relationship Through Actor-Network Theory. International Conference on Engineering Management of Communication and Technology (EMCTECH). 2021, 1-6.