Editorial: ‘network’

Edward Hanfling; Scott Klenner

doi:10.34074/junc.24006

Abstract

Literature Map

Similar Papers

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The theme, ‘network,’ speaks to the idea that relationships between phenomena are more important than—and indeed produce or perform—things and beings themselves. Some such things and beings might typically be regarded as relatively proximate, the connections well-known and reiterated; others more distant and the act of connecting them daring, difficult or speculative. These latter relationships often depend on a willingness to traverse multiple areas of knowledge or disciplines, which is precisely what this journal, The Journal for Thematic Dialogue, encourages. In recent decades, there has been much ‘thematic dialogue’ about the place of human beings in the greater scheme of things. Contrary to dominant tendencies in Western thought since the Enlightenment, a ‘networked’ perspective suggests that the putative intelligence of people does not make them separate from everything else on the planet; but, at the same time, this same intelligence, or an assumption of its distinctiveness and superiority, has succeeded in having an exceptional—to the point of catastrophic—impact on the planet’s ecosystem. If there is any way out of this pickle, or at least of surviving in the midst of it a little while longer, it would seem propitious to regard human beings merely as constituent factors in a much vaster and multitudinous assemblage, constellation or ecology, not as the centre around which everything else revolves, while, at the same time, recognising that this puts us in a place of responsibility—to care for everything else we connect with, for the sake of sustaining the wider network and by extension our place within it.

Research Article
2
10.1162/desi_a_00232

Engaging Complexity: Social Science Approaches to Green Building Design

Oct 01, 2013
Design Issues
Krishna Bharathi

Introduction Every design discipline has its own way of seeing, evident in the range of artifacts, theories, methods, and contextual discourses each produces. Given that the practice of design is broadly understood as a reflective, inquiry-driven endeavor undertaken by a diversity of “fragmented”1 knowledge cultures, the success of designers who opt to tackle new realms of application requires a greater awareness of connections, not only between theory and practice within a discipline,2 but also between different types of relevant theories and practices across disciplines. In an era where pluralistic concerns must be balanced with ontological understanding, all designers should consider how disciplinary framings can shape their solutions. A very simple illustrative example that cuts across field boundaries is to consider “drawing,” rather than a specific discipline, as an analytic frame—one that reveals particular types of understanding and generates formal conclusions relative to, but distinct from, other modes of production. De Frietas observes that employing a multiplicity of “approaches and applications” in processes of making, not only reveals differences in “systems of logic,” but also broadens the scope of analytic opportunities available during “the early phases of discovering and evaluating ideas prior to the development of specific artifacts or systems.”3 From this perspective, this essay delves into a family of social science framing approaches that address the built environment to provide insight into increasingly complex design problems, which fall within multiple domains of knowledge and disciplinary areas of expertise. Like most of the design professions, the practice of architecture is inextricably object oriented, with its strongest affinity to the building scale and the narrative of the design architect’s intuitive relationship to it. However, as buildings continue to evolve into more complex assemblies,4 modern architects have been required to develop design and coordination competencies that differ from their professional predecessors; skills which span a wide range of building systems planning, construction, management, and visualization skills. And thus, although the need to appropriate relevant competencies of neighboring fields 1 C. M. Eckert, A. F. Blackwell, L. L. Bucciarelli, and C. F. Earl, “Shared Conversations Across Design,” Design Issues 26, no. 3 (2010): 27. 2 Richard Buchanan, “Introduction: Design and Organizational Change,” Design Issues 24, no. 1 (2008): 3-4. 3 Nancy de Frietas, “Materiality of Drawing/Thinking,” Studies in Material Thinking 4 (2010): 2. 4 Stephan Kieran and James Timberlake, Refabricating Architecture: How Manufacturing Methodologies are Poised to Transform Building Construction (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004), 1-178.