Actor-Network Theory Methodology in Architectural Co-design Process

Document Type : Scientific Research

Authors

1 Department of Architecture,, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Department of Architecture, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch

3 College of Engineering / Faculty of environment,, Tehran University

Abstract

 
Research Problem: Design research is the field of dealing with content and procedural areas. Architectural design is the result of assemblage between diverse actors. The advent of technology-driven procedures has broadened the range of actors in the design process. This has led the balance of the share of designers and technical objects in the final result of the design disturbed. With the advent of technology-based procedures, machines are playing substantial roles in design and hence, changed the way designers face architectural challenges. Accordingly, it seems that the current design process has shifted from a reciprocal relationship to a spiral movement in which the role of each actor can be analyzed as an actor in the multidimensional network of design. Consequently, the design procedure would be analyzed as a network of actants. The actor-network theory, as a result, provides an approach to analyze events in the design process and is profoundly applied as a methodological tool. Every detail in the design process is like an actor who changes the course of the design. Therefore, the main problem this research is going to undertake is to explain how the actor network theory works in clarifying the role of actors and their impact on the collective design process.
Research Question: The main objective of this research is to enlighten the essence of actor-network theory as a research methodology and tries to find the answer to the subsequent questions: How to analyze the architectural design process with actor-network theory and how does this theory influence designers’ interactions?
Research Method: The current research is applying design research methodology in a qualitative approach and tries to explain actor-network theory as a research method in architectural design. A practical experiment is demonstrated due to actor-network theory and socio-technical diagrams were qualitatively described.
The Most Important Results and Conclusion: The networked nature of the design process has enabled research studies to investigate the design process by actor-network theory. The analysis of the experiment (architectural competition) revealed that connections of nodes in the network were not hierarchically observable and they had a hybrid characteristic. In this sense, non-human existence in the design process was inevitable. The results of the analysis also revealed that collective design can be network-oriented if, in addition to being valuable among human actors, it accepts non-humans in an influential position. Such a design has a very mixed atmosphere and any (unforeseen) event in it can change the design process like an action. Human and non-human actors must actively participate in the design process to stay in the network. Finally, not only the contribution of the actor-network theory in the identification of the design network was revealed, but also it facilitated the analysis of nodes’ connections. Thus, in answer to the research questions, it should be acknowledged that by using actor-network theory in the analysis of the design process, the black box of design could be opened and with a new composition, design actors could be expressed in a socio-technical way so that designers, users and technical objects have an equal and interconnected role. This provides a new reflection of the links in design process and makes a unique narrative of design to each project. In addition, the role of the actor-network theory is to track actors, highlight links, and provide unseen details in the design network. Moreover, it also changes the way designers deal with design issues; as designers with a socio-technical approach would advance the design process in the context of networks and use any event as an opportunity to intervene in the design process.
 

Graphical Abstract

Actor-Network Theory Methodology in Architectural Co-design Process

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

انواری، محمدرضا و کرم اللهی، نعمت‌الله. 1397. بررسی انتقادی مبانی معرفتی نظریه کنشگر -شبکه برونو لاتور. معرفت فرهنگی اجتماعی. سال 9 (3): 54-35. http://ensani.ir/file/download/article/1579412210-9718-35-3.pdf
بذرافکن، کاوه. 1386. فقدان فضای مساله در معماری ایران. معماری و شهرسازی (89-88): 17-12. https://library.jsu.ac.ir/Inventory/114/4146.htm
بذرافکن، کاوه.1391. ضرورت روش در طراحی. معمار. ناشر اندیشه و هنر معماری. ساخت و صنعت و شهرسازی. (72). 26-30. https://urlis.net/86r4icx
شریف‌زاده، رحمان. 1397. مذاکره با اشیا. برونولاتور و نظریه کنشگر-شبکه. تهران: نشر نی. https://nashreney.com
زارع، فاطمه؛ بذرافکن، کاوه؛ ایرانی‌بهبهانی، هما و منصوری، بهروز. 1400. نقش رهیافت شبکه بر تعامل کنشگران طراحی جمعی. باغ نظر 18(99): 78-65. http://www.bagh-sj.com/article_125744_b1a0ddc1d3db3f78839e3cbec9fc0460.pdf
رستمی، حمیدرضا؛ الهی، شعبان؛ معینی، علی و حسن زاده، علیرضا؛ 1400. همزیستی انسان و فناوری معنایی از منظر نظریه کنش‌گر-شبکه. تعامل انسان و اطلاعات 8 (4): 1-14. https://iranjournals.nlai.ir/handle/123456789/883664
روشندل اربطانی، طاهر؛ لبافی، سمیه و شهمیرزادی، محسن؛ 1400. شناسایی شبکه کنشگران و تحلیل روابط سیاستگذاری در صنعت موسیقی. فصلنامه علمی وسایل ارتباط جمعی رسانه 32(2): 131-107. https://dx.doi.org/10.22034/bmsp.2021.136843
زهرانی، داوود؛ ربانی خوراسگانی، علی؛ شریف‌زاده، رحمان و قنبری برزیان، علی. 1400. عاملیت‌های نامتجانس در جامعه‌شناسیِ بیش از انسان؛ واکاویِ چیستی و جایگاه عاملیت در رویکردهای بیش از انسان در جامعه شناسی، با تاکید بر نظریه کنشگر-شبکه. جامعه‌پژوهی‌فرهنگی. پژوهشگاه ‌علوم‌انسانی‌ و ‌مطالعات‌ فرهنگی. 12 (2): 81-116. https://socialstudy.ihcs.ac.ir/article_6716.html
یورماکا، کاری؛ شرر، اولیور و کوهلمن، درت. 1400. مقدماتی بر روش‌های طراحی {معماری}، ترجمه کاوه بذرافکن، انتشارات دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد تهران مرکزی. https://urlis.net/06myytp
Akama, Yoko, 2015. being awake to Ma: designing in between-ness as a way of becoming with. CoDesign. 11:3-4, 262-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081243
Andersen, Lars, Danholt, Peter, Halskov, Kim, Hansen, Nicolai & Lauritsen, Peter. 2015. Participation as a matter of concern in participatory design. CoDesign. 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081246
Buchanan, R. 2019. Systems Thinking and Design Thinking: The Search for Principles in the World We Are Making. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 5)2(: 85-104. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872618301370
Callon M. 1999. Actor-Network Theory—The Market Test. The Sociological Review. 1999. 47(1_suppl):181-195. Doi:10.1111/j.1467954X.1999.tb03488.x
Callon, M. 1986. Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay, in John Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul: 196-233.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x
Dincer D. 2020. The Act-Shifts Between Humans and Nonhumans in Architecture: A Reading of Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network Theory. In: Williams I. (eds) Contemporary Applications of Actor Network Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore.
DOI: 10.1007/978-981-15-7066-7_3
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. DOI:10.15187/adr.2020.05.33.2.19
Fallan, Kjetil. 2008. Architecture in action: Traveling with actor-network theory in the land of architectural research, Architectural Theory Review, 13,1:80-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/13264820801918306
Fraser, M. 2013. Design Research in Architecture: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Hansmann, Sabine. 2021. Monospace and Multiverse: Exploring Space with Actor-Network-Theory. https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/47135
Knox, k. 2021. Communicative Performance of Interactive Space in Social Relationship Through Actor-Network Theory. International Conference on Engineering Management of Communication and echnology (EMCTECH). 2021, pp. 1-6,
DOI:10.1109/EMCTECH53459.2021.9619170.
Latour, B. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674948396
Latour, B. 2008. A cautious prometheus? a few steps toward a philosophy of design (with special attention to peter sloterdijk). Keynote lecture. Proceedings of the 2008 annual international conference of the design history society: University College Farmouth.
http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/112-DESIGN-CORNWALL-GB.pdf
Latour, B. 2013. An Inquiry into Modes of Existence: An Anthropology of the Moderns. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674984028
Latour. B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society: Harvard University Press.
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674792913
Latour. B. 1999. Pandora’s hope: essays on the reality of science studies, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674653368
Latour. B. 2005. Reassembling the social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/reassembling-the-social-9780199256051?cc=us&lang=en&
Lindstrom, Kristina & Stahl, Asa. 2015. Figurations of spatiality and temporality in participatory design and after – networks, meshworks and patchworking, CoDesign, 11:3-4, 222-235. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081244
Matthews, B., & Heinemann, T. 2012. Analysing conversation: Studying design as social action. Design Studies. 33 (6): 649-672.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0142694X12000452
Matthews, Adam .2020. Blurring boundaries between humans and technology: postdigital, postphenomenology and actor-network theory in qualitative research, Qualitative
Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, DOI: 10.1080/2159676X.2020.1836508
Pedersen, S. 2020. Staging negotiation spaces: A co-design framework, Design Studies, Volume 68: 58-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2020.02.002
Stephan, P. F. 2015. Designing 'matters of concern' (Latour) - a future design challenge? In W. Jonas, S. Zerwas, and K. von Anshelm, (Eds.), Transformation design perspectives on a new design attitude. Birkhäuser, Basels. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783035606539-016
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.
DOI:10.1080/15710882.2015.1081442
Tummons, Jonathan .2020. Ontological Pluralism, Modes of Existence, and Actor-network Theory: Upgrading Latour with Latour, Social Epistemology, DOI: 10.1080/02691728.2020.1774815
Yaneva, A. 2009. Making the Social Hold: Towards an Actor-Network Theory of Design, Design and Culture 1(3): 273-288.https://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2009.11643291
Journal of Architectural Thought
Volume 7, Issue 13 - Serial Number 13
Spring and Summer 2023
March 2023
Pages 21-33

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics