Designing a Counter: the Constitutive Entanglement of the Social and the Material in Architectural Desi

  • Marianne Stang Våland
  • Susse Georg
Chapter

Abstract

The relationship between the design and construction of architectural objects — the material — and the social context in which these objects are shaped and used — the social — is a key issue within the sociology of architecture. The relationship between the material and the social is contested: some tend to reify one, be it the material or the social, at the expense of the other, whereas others consider the material and the social to be ‘constitutively entangled’ (Orlikowski 2007:1437). In keeping with the latter perspective, we investigate the recursive interplay between the material and the social in the context of a design process that involved both architectural and organizational design. Particular emphasis is given to how extensive user participation was brought to bear in developing the architectural design and the implications of this for the users’ sense of their work and organization, as well as for the architectural designers’ sense of their professional practice.

Keywords

Design Process Organizational Change Architectural Design Organizational Design Organization Study 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Abbott, Andrew. 1988. The System of Professions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Akrich, Madeline. 1997. “The De-Scription of Technical Objects” Pp. 205–24 in Shaping. Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by W. E. Bijker and J. Law. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, Robert J. 1994. “Representations and Requirements: The Value of Ethnography in System Design.” Human-Computer Interaction 9(3):151–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bate, Paul. 2007. “Bringing the Design Sciences to Organization Development and Change Management: Introduction to the Special Issue.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(1):8–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bevan, Helen, Glenn Robert, Paul Bate, Lynne Maher, and Julie Wells. 2007. “Using a Design Approach to Assist Large-Scale Organizational Change: ‘10 High Impact Changes’ to Improve the National Health Service in England.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 43(1):135–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bjerrum, Eva and Susanne Bødker. 2003. “Knowledge Sharing in the ‘New Office’ — Possibility or Problem?” Pp. 199–218 in ECSCW 2003: Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, edited by K. Kuutti, E. H. Karsten, G. Fitzpatrick, P. Dourish, and K. Schmidt. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blomberg, Jeanette, Jean Giacomi, Andrea Mosher, and Pat Swendon-Wall. 1993. “Ethnographic Field Methods and Their Relations to Design.” Pp. 123–55 in Participatory Design — Principles and Practices, edited by D. Schuler and A. Namioka. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Boland, Richard J. and Fred Collopy, eds. 2004. Managing as Designing. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Boland, Richard J., Fred Collopy, Kalle Lyytinen, and Youngjin Yoo. 2008. “Managing as Designing: Lessons for Organizational Leaders From the Design Practice of Frank O. Gehry.” Design Issues 24(1):10–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braun, Virgina and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2):77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bryson, John M., Kathryn S. Quick, Clarissa S. Slotterback, and Barbara C. Crosby. 2013. “Designing Public Participation Processes.” Public Adminstration Review 73(1):23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burton, Richard M., Børge Obel, and Gerardine DeSanctis. 2006. Organizational Design: A Step-by-Step Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clegg, Stewart and Martin Kornberger, eds. 2006. Space, Organizations and Management Theory. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dale, Karen. 2005. “Building a Social Materiality: Spatial and Embodied Politics in Organizational Control.” Organization 12(5):649–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dale, Karen and Gibson Burrell. 2011. “Disturbing Structure, Reading the Ruins.” Culture and Organization 17(2):107–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut. 2006. Transforming Tradition. International Benchmarking of the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture. Copenhagen: Kunstakademiets Arkitektskole.Google Scholar
  17. DanskeArk. 2007. Jeg kan — En kortlægning af danske arkitektvirksomheders hovedud-fordringer og kompetenceprofi ler. Copenhagen: DanskeArk.Google Scholar
  18. Dourish, Paul. 2006. “Implications for Design” Pp. 541–50 in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’06, edited by R. Grinter, T. Rodden, P. Aoki, E. Cutrell, R. Jeffries, and G. Olson. New York: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duffy, Francis and John Worthington. 2004. Working Without Walls. An Insight into the Transforming Government Workplace. DEGW and Office of Government Commerce.Google Scholar
  20. Dunne, David. 2011. “User-Centred Design and Design-Centred Business Schools.” Pp. 128–43 in The Handbook of Design Management, edited by R. Cooper, S. Junginger, and T. Lockwood. London: Bloomsbury Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Eriksson, Johanna, Peter Fröst, and Nina Ryd. 2012. “Mapping a Framework for Co-Design in Healthcare Buildings — an Empirical Study.” International Conference ARCH12.Google Scholar
  22. Ewenstein, Boris and Jennifer Whyte. 2007a. “Beyond Words: Aesthetic Knowledge and Knowing in Organizations.” Organization Studies 28(5):689–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ewenstein, Boris and Jennifer Whyte. 2007b. “Visual Representations as ‘Artefacts of Knowing’.” Building Research and Information 35(1):81–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Forsythe, Diana E. 1999. “It’s Just a Matter of Common Sense: Ethnography as Invisible Work.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work 8:127–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Freidson, Eliot. 2001. Professionalism, the Third Logic. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  26. Galbraith, Jay R. 1973. Organizational Design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  27. Garud, Raghu, Sanjay Jain, and Philipp Tuertscher. 2008. “Incomplete by Design and Designing for Incompleteness.” Organization Studies 29(3):351–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gehry, Frank O. 2004. “Reflections on Designing and Architectural Practice” Pp. 19–35 in Managing as Designing, edited by R. J. Boland Jr. and F. Collopy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Gieryn, Thomas F. 2002. “What Buildings Do.” Theory and Society 31:35–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greenbaum, Joan and Morten Kyng. 1993. Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Greenwood, Royston and Danny Miller. 2010. “Tackling Design Anew: Getting Back to the Heart of Organizational Theory.” Academy of Management Perspectives, November 2010:78–89.Google Scholar
  32. Halford, Susan. 2004. “Towards a Sociology of Organizational Space.” Sociological Research Online 9(1). Retrieved 4 October 2014 (http://www.socresonline.org.uk/9/1/halford/halford.pdf).
  33. Hernes, Tor. 2004. The Spatial Construction of Organization. Advances in Organization Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Indenrigs- og Sundhedsministeriet 2005. Kommunal Reformen — Kort Fortalt. København: Indenrigs- og Sundhedsministeriet.Google Scholar
  35. Ivey, Marlene and Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders. 2006. “Designing a Physical Environment for Co-experience and Assessing Participant Use”. Design Research Society International Conference.Google Scholar
  36. Jelinek, Mariann, A. Georges L. Romme, and Richard J. Boland. 2008. “Introduction to the Special Issue: Organization Studies as a Science for Design: Creating Collaborative Artefacts and Research.” Organization Studies 29(3):317–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johansson-Sköldberg, Ulla, Jill Woodilla, and Mehves Çetinkaya. 2013. “Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures.” Creativity and Innovation Management 22(2):121–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kornberger, Martin and Stewart R. Clegg. 2004. “Bringing Space Back In: Organizing the Generative Building.” Organization Studies 25 (7):1095–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kreiner, Kristian. 2010. “Balancing Multiple Matters of Concern.” Conditions: Scandinavian Magazine on Architecture and Urbanism 7:12–7.Google Scholar
  40. Larson, Magali S. [1977] 2013. The Rise of Professionalism. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Larson, Magali S. 1993. Behind the Postmodern Facade: Architectural Change in Late Twentieth-Century America. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  42. Latour, Bruno. 1991. “Technology is Society Made Durable” Pp. 103–32 in A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, edited by J. Law. Abington: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Latour, Bruno. 2004. “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Facts to Matters of Concern.” Critical Inquiry 30 (2):225–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social — an Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Law, John. [1992] 2003. “Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy, and Heterogeneity.” First published in Systems Practice 5(4):379–393. Retrieved 4 October 2014 (http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/sociology/research/publications/papers/law-notes-on-ant.pdf).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Law, John. 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Leer Sørensen, Leif and Marius Lyhne-Knudsen. 2007. Aftagerundersøgelsen, Arkitektskolen Aarhus.Google Scholar
  48. Lefèbvre, Henri. [1974] 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. Luck, Rachael. 2005. “Dialogue in Participatory Design.” Design Studies 24:523–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mandag Morgen. 2010. Fremtidens Arkitektbranche, Analyse og rapport. Copenhagen: Danske.Google Scholar
  51. Michlewski, Kamil. 2008. “Uncovering Design Attitude: Inside the Culture of Designers.” Organization Studies 29(3): 373–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Orlikowski, Wanda. 2007. “Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work.” Organization Studies 28(9):1435–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Peltonen, Tuomo. 2011. “Multiple Architectures and the Production of Organizational Space in a Finnish University.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 24(6):806–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Romme, A. Georges L. 2003. “Making a Difference: Organization as Design.” Organization Science 14(5):558–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schmidt, Kjeld and Liam J. Bannon. 2013. “Constructing CSCW: The First Quarter Century.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work 22(4–6):345–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schoch, Odilo. 2010. “Hvordan designer vi og hvorfor?” Arkitekten 112(6):33–5.Google Scholar
  57. Schuler, Douglas and Aki Namioka, eds. 1993. Participatory Design — Principles and Practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association Publishers.Google Scholar
  58. Simon, Herbert A. [1966] 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  59. Stang Våland, Marianne. 2010. What We Talk About When We Talk About Space: End User Participation Between Processes of Organizational and Architectural Design. PhD dissertation, Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
  60. Stang Våland, Marianne and Susse Georg. 2014. “The Sociomateriality of Designing Organizational Change.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 27(3):391–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Storvang, Pia. 2012. Brugerinddragelse i byggeriet. PhD dissertation, University of Southern Denmark, Odense.Google Scholar
  62. Strukturkommissionen. 2004. Strukturkommissionens betænkning, nr. 1434, Copenhagen: Indenrigs- og Sundhedsministeriet.Google Scholar
  63. Suchman, Lucy A. 2004. “Decentering the Manager/Designer.” Pp. 169–73 in Managing as Designing, edited by R. Boland and F. Collopy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Thompson, James D. 1967. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  65. Tryggestad, Kjell and Susse Georg. 2011. “How Objects Shape Logics in Construction.” Culture and Organization 17(3):181–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yanow, Dvora. 1995. “Built Space as Story: The Policy Stories That Buildings Tell.” Policy Studies Journal 23(3):407–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yanow, Dvora. 1998. “Space Stories: Studying Museum Buildings as Organizational Spaces While Reflecting on Interpretive Methods and Their Narration.” Journal of Management Inquiry 7(3):215–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yoo, Youngjin, Richard J. Boland, and Kalle Lyytinen. 2006. “From Organization Design to Organization Designing.” Organization Science 17(2):215–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. van Marrewijk, Alfons and Dvora Yanow, eds. 2011. Space, Meaning and Organisation. Oxford: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  70. von Hippel, Eric. 2007. “Horizontal Innovation Networks — by and for Users.” Industrial and Corporate Change 16(2):293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Weick, Karl E. 2001. Making Sense of the Organization. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  72. Weick, Karl E. 2003. “Organizational Design and the Gehry Experience.” Journal of Management Inquiry 12(1):93–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marianne Stang Våland and Susse Georg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marianne Stang Våland
    • 1
  • Susse Georg
    • 2
  1. 1.Copenhagen Business SchoolDenmark
  2. 2.Aalborg UniversityDenmark

Personalised recommendations