تدوین چارچوب نظری معرفت‌شناسی مکان در مطالعات میان‌رشته‌ای

نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکتری شهرسازی، دانشگاه تربیت‌مدرس

2 دانشیار برنامه‌ریزی شهری و منطقه‌ای، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه تربیت‌مدرس

3 دانشیار مطالعات اجتماعی، دانشکده علوم اجتماعی دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

تخصص‌گرایی شکل‌گرفته میان رشته‌های مختلف موجب شده است پدیدة مکان به‌دلیل ماهیت گسترده و پیچیده‌، با تعارضات معنایی بسیاری در بستر فلسفی ماهیت خود مواجه شود. این آشفتگی معنایی به‌دلیل نبود معنای مشترک میان رشته‌های درگیر در مفهوم‌سازی این پدیده است. در این مقاله دیدگاه‌های مختلفی درمورد مکان بررسی شد. هدف این پژوهش، یافتن روایتی منفرد و منحصر به یک رشته نیست، بلکه به‌دنبال نگاهی منسجم‌تر برای گونه‌شناسی تعاریف و تدوین مدلی برای درک میان‌رشته‌ای این پدیده است. مفهوم مکان پویاست و پیوسته در طول زمان بازتعریف می‌شود؛ بنابراین این مفهوم‌یابی بدون درنظرگرفتن بعد زمان کامل نیست. براین‌اساس مفاهیم مرتبط با چیستی مکان در گذر زمان با تکیه بر روش کیفی و تحلیل محتوا بررسی شد. در گام نخست رشته‌های مطالعاتی گوناگون، واژگان و مفاهیم آن‌ها در مطالعات مکان شناسایی شد. فلسفه و پدیدارشناسی، روان‌شناسی محیطی، جغرافیای انسانی، جامعه‌شناسی، اقتصاد شهری، مدیریت و سیاست‌گذاری، فضای سایبری، طراحی و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، هریک واژگان و تعاریف خاصی برای ساخت مکان ارائه کرده‌اند. سپس تعاریف مختلف ارائه‌شده در چهار گونة مکان به‌عنوان مجموعه‌ای از نشانه‌های بصری، مکان به‌عنوان محصول، مکان به‌عنوان فرایند و مکان به‌عنوان معنا دسته‌بندی شدند. این تقسیم‌بندی نشان‌دهندة تحول مطالعات مکان از رویکردهای مبتنی بر عینیت به مطالعات مبتنی بر حقیقت و معنای مکان است. به‌منظور دستیابی به فهمی مشترک در مطالعات معرفت‌شناسی مکان، مدلی بر مبنای مطالعات میان‌رشته‌ای تدوین شد. با توجه به ماهیت میان‌رشته‌ای طراحی و برنامه‌ریزی شهری این رشته می‌تواند حلقة واسط نظری میان رشته‌های مختلف عمل کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Designing a theoretical Framework for the epistemology of place in interdisciplinary studies

نویسندگان [English]

  • Zeinab Adeli 1
  • mojtaba rafieian 2
  • Hossein ImaniJajarmi 3
1 Urban planning department, Art faculty, Tarbiat Modares Qazvin
2 d
3 Department of Rural Development,Tehran university
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Specialization after World War II, led to limited views and weak interdisciplinary communications. Paradigms and expertise, as narrow glasses, ignored wide range of features. This specialization caused some conflicts in the meaning of place, as an extensive and complex concept which is rooted in social, cultural, political, and economic and personality context. This semantic confusion is due to lack of common conceptualization among various disciplines involved. The concept of place plays a central role in planning.
To properly understand the concept of place, different views should be considered. Hence, beyond a unique narrative limited to one specific field, this research is to provide a typology of place definitions and a more coherent view in order to develop an interdisciplinary model for understanding this phenomenon. This typology would not be complete and reliable without considering the concept of time. Because place is a dynamic concept which has been historically defined and redefined.
Methodology
In this paper, based on a qualitative approach and the content analysis methodology, the ontology of place over time was studied. The method of data collection that used in this article is Library resources related to the analysis of the development process and the evolution of the concept of place and examine the interdisciplinary nature of the phenomenon. In the process of this research, the specialized vocabulary of the site and related terms in various fields were searched in the search engine of Scopus. In this research, 25 specialist fields were identified in various fields of philosophy and phenomenology, sociology, environmental psychology, urban economics, human geography, management and politics, cyber technology, environment, urban design and planning with 8031 repetitions. For more precise studies, in each discipline, 5 articles with the highest number of referrals were reviewed in more succinct terms.
Results and discussion
In the first step, the vocabularies, concepts and methods related to the “concept of place” have been identified in various fields and disciplines. Philosophy and phenomenology, environmental psychology, human geography, sociology, urban economics, management and policy - making, cyber technology, urban design and urban planning have their own keywords and definitions for the creation of place. Researches indicate that the most useful term in place studies related to the concept of "sense of place" with a total of 2668 repetitions, followed by the concept of "place making" and its derivative compounds with a total of 1,279 repetitions. Of course, the term "place making" also has the greatest effect on composite concepts.
In the second step, concepts and definitions were categorized to four "types": place as a set of visual signs, place as a product (the dominant approach before the 1960s), place as a process (the dominant approach between 1960s-1990s) and places as meaning (the dominant approach after 1990s).
In "place as a set of visual signs" approach, urban designers and architects have developed various Ways to represent the visual attributes of place. The visual attributes of place are often used as parts of a shared language, which enable designers to differentiate the elements of urban form, for example streets, squares, and buildings. The study of place height, width, depth, proportions, edging, and subdivisions provides a common set of principles for differentiating the visual attributes of place and, in turn, creating “visual excitement”. Considering the concepts presented by scholars and the thematic characteristics of this type, urban design can be considered as the most important field of study in this category of theories.
Place as product constitutes the second ontological construct of place. This approach to architecture and city planning attempts to develop archetypes as a rational method of place making. At the close of the twentieth century, a substantial portion of the tenets of postmodern architecture, New Urbanism, and urban design looked at the past to define spatial typologies that have timeless qualities and can be applied as solutions to contemporary urban problems. The product-oriented approach focuses on tangible aspects of place, shorter rather than longer time spans, and a specific type of clientele rather than the entire community’s. Considering the nature of the methodology and the concepts and vocabulary raised in this approach, urban design, urban planning, environment, technology and technical are disciplines that can be considered in this type of theories.
The third aspect of the conception of place (place as process) deals with the transformation of place throughout time. Places transform— grow, decline, and are often redeveloped. These processes, among others, reflect the social and political economic forces affecting place, which in turn transform its image. Urban design, environment, economics, sociology, management, and politics are the most important disciplines in this ontology approach.
Place as meaning addresses how people perceive the built environment and impart meaning to it. Scholars have been intrigued by the ways in which people assign meaning. Viewing “place as meaning” is highly subjective. Cultural geographers, among others, have attempted to interpret the meaning of place by translating the stories of the collective experience and memory of place.
Regarding the range of vocabulary, concepts and methods used in local studies around the meaning of place, disciplines such as urban design, urban planning, philosophy, human geography, and environmental psychology have played the most role in location studies in terms of meaning.
Conclusion
According to what has been said, the concept of place is a multi-dimensional conceptual and different disciplines get involved in the formation of this concept.
The typology that is found in concept of place shows a profound change in studying the concept of place: changing from place-based approaches to meaning-based approaches. In order to achieve a common understanding in the epistemological studies of place, an interdisciplinary model was developed. Interdisciplinary nature of urban design and urban planning can be used as an intermediate link between the various disciplines involved in studies of place

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • place
  • Ontology
  • Typology
  • interdisciplinary
  • place meaning
  1. ایران‌دوست، کیومرث، 1391، درآمدی بر ماهیت میان‌رشته‌ای جغرافیای شهری و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، فصلنامة مطالعات میان‌رشته‌ای در علوم انسانی، دورة چهارم، شمارة 3، صص 1-14.
  2. پرتوی، پروین، 1382، مکان و بی‌مکانی رویکردی پدیدارشناسانه، نشریة هنرهای زیبا، شمارة 14، صص 40-50. 
  3. تولایی، نوین، 1381، شکل شهر منسجم، مجلة علمی-پژوهشی صفه، شمارة 22، صص 38-65.
  4. حاتمی‌نژاد، حسین و ناصح عبدی، 1386، اقتصاد سیاسی و فضای شهری، نشریة اطلاعات سیاسی-اقتصادی، شمارة1، صص 196-205.
  5. راپاپورت، ایموس، 1384، معنای محیط ساخته‌شده، مترجم فرح حبیب، شرکت پردازش و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، تهران.
  6. ریاضی، سید ابوالحسن، 1392، شهر؛ پدیده‌ای میان‌رشته‌ای، فصلنامة مطالعات میان‌رشته‌ای در علوم انسانی، دورة ششم، شمارة 1، صص 101-115.
  7. فکوهی، ناصر، 1383، انسان‌شناسی شهری، نشر نی، تهران.
  8. فلاحت، محمدصادق، 1385، مفهوم حس مکان و عوامل شکل‌دهندة آن، نشریة هنرهای زیبا، شمارة 26، صص 57-66.
  9. کاشانی جو، خشایار، 1389، بازشناخت رویکردهای نظری به فضاهای عمومی شهری، نشریة هویت شهر، سال چهارم، شمارة 6، صص 95-106.
  10. کاللی، پریسا و آتوسا مدیری، 1391، تبیین نقش مؤلفة معنا در فرایند شکل‌گیری حس مکان، نشریة هنرهای زیبا، شمارة 6، صص 43-51
  11. کالن، گوردون، 1376، گزیدة منظر شهری، ترجمة منوچهر طبیبیان، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، تهران.
  12. کرمونا، متیو و هیت تیم، 1390، مکان‌های عمومی، فضاهای شهری، ابعاد گوناگون طراحی شهری، مترجمین فریبا قرایی، مهشید شکوهی، زهرا اهری، اسماعیل صالحی، انتشارات دانشگاه هنر، تهران.
  13. گلکار، کوروش، 1379، مؤلفه‌های سازندة کیفیت طراحی شهری، نشریة علمی-پژوهشی صفه، شمارهة 22، صص 38-65.
  14. لینچ، کوین، 1387، سیمای شهر، ترجمة منوچهر مزینی، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، تهران.
  15. مدنی‌پور، علی، 1379، طراحی فضاهای شهری: نگرشی بر فرایندی اجتماعی و مکانی، ترجمة فرهاد مرتضایی، شرکت پردازش و برنامه‌ریزی، تهران.
  16. ناری‌قمی، مسعود و مینو قره‌بگلو، 1394، الگووارة دانش روان‌شناسی در تعامل با اندیشة اسلامی، فصلنامة پژوهش‌های معماری اسلامی، شمارة ششم، سال 3، صص 19-36
  17. نوربرگ شولتز، کریستین، 1386، معنا در معماری غرب، ترجمة مرداد قیومی بید هندی، انتشارات فرهنگستان هنر، تهران.
  18. نیک‌روش، ریحانه و مریم قاسمی سیچانی، 1393، بازشناسی جایگاه روح مکان در طراحی فضای کودکان بر مبنای آرای پدیدارشناختی نوربرگ شولتز، فصلنامة مطالعات میان‌رشته‌ای در علوم انسانی، دورة هفتم، شمارة 1، صص 145- 172.
19. Irandoost, K., 2012, Introduction to the Interdisciplinary Nature of Urban Geography and Urban Planning, Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, Vol. 4, No. 3, PP. 1-14. (In Persian)

20. Partoi, P., 2003, Place and Non-Place Phenomenological Approach, Journal of Fine Arts, No.14, PP. 40-50. (In Persian)

21. Tavallai, N., 2002, Coherent City Form, Journal of Soffe, No. 22, PP. 38-65. (In Persian)

22. Hatami Nejad, H., and Abdi, N., 2007, Political Economy and Urban Space, Journal of Political-Economic Information, No. 1, PP. 196-205. (In Persian)

23. Rapoport, A., 2005, The Meaning of the Built Environment (F. Habib, Trans), Urban Processing and Planning Company, Tehran. (In Persian)

24. Riazi, A., 2013, City as an Interdisciplinary Phenomenon, Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, Vol. 6, No. 1, PP. 101-115. (In Persian)

25. Fakoohi, N., 2004, Urban Anthropology, Nashr Ney, Tehran. (In Persian)

26. Falahat, M., 2006, The Concept of the Sense of Place and Its Forming Factors, Journal of Fine Arts, No. 26, PP. 57-66. (In Persian)

27. Kashani joo, Kh., 2010, Recognizing Theoretical Approaches to Urban Public Spaces, Journal of Urban Identity, No. 6, PP. 95-106. (In Persian)

28. Kalali, P., and Modiri, A., 2012, Explaining the Role of the Component of Meaning in the Process of Forming a Sense of Place, Journal of Fine Arts- Architecture and Urbanism, Vol. 17, No. 2, PP. 43-51. (In Persian)

29. Cullen, G., 1997,The Concise Townscape. (M. Tabibian, Trans). Tehran University Press, Tehran. (In Persian)

30. Carmona, M., & Heath, T. (2011). Public Places, Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. (F. Gharai, M. Shakoohi, Z. Ahari, and S. Salehi, Trans). Honar University Press, Tehran. (In Persian)

31. Journal: Golkar, K., 2000, The Components That Shape Quality of Urban Design, Journal of Soffe, No. 22, PP. 38-65. (In Persian)

32. Lynch, K., 2008, The Image Of The City. (M. Mozayeni, Trans). Tehran University Press, Tehran. ‌(In Persian)

33. Madanipour, A., 1996, Design of Urban Space: An Inquiry Into a Socio-Spatial Process. John Wiley and Son Ltd. (In Persian)

34. Nari Ghomi, M., and Gharehbaglou, M., 2015, A Model of Environmental Psychology in Interaction with Islamic Thought, Journal of Islamic Architecture Research, Vol. 3, No. 1, PP. 19-36. (In Persian)

35. Norberg Schulz, C., 2007, Meaning in Western Architecture. (M. Ghayomi Bidhendi, Trans), Farhangestan, Tehran. (In Persian)

36. Nikravesh, R., and Ghasemi Sichani, M., 2014, Recognizing Genius loci in Designing Children’s Spaces, Due to the Phenomenological Ideas of Norberg-Schulz, Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, Vol. 7, No. 1, PP. 145-172. (In Persian)

37. Christopher, A., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., and S., Angel. 1977, A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction, Oxford University Press, NewYork.

38. Altman, I., And Low, S., 1992, Place Attachment, Plenum Press, NewYork.

39. Arefi, M., 2004, The Pedagogy of the American City: Revisiting the Concepts of Place, Non Place, and Placelessness, Urban Design International, Vol. 9, No. 3, PP. 103-117.

40. Arefi, M., 2014, Deconstructing Placemaking: Needs, Opportunities, and Assets, Routledge.

41. Arefi, M., and Triantafillou, M., 2005, Reflections on the Pedagogy of Place in Planning and Urban Design, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 25, No. 1, PP. 75-88.

42. Arnheim, R., 1974, Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye, Berkeley: University of California Press.

43. Arnheim, R., 1977, The Dynamics of Architectural Form, Berkeley, University of California Press.

44. Augé, M., 1995, Non-Lieux, Verso.

45. Bacon, E., 1974, Design of Cities. (F. Taheri, Trans), Shahidi, Tehran.

46. Bahreini, H., and Taghabon, S., 2011, Testing the Application of Space Syntax Method in the Design of Traditional Urban Spaces, Journal of Fine Arts- Architecture and Urbanism, Vol. 3, No. 4, PP. 5-18.

47. Banerjee, T., and Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (Eds.), 2011, Companion to Urban Design, Routledge, Burton.

48. Burton, M., Dempsey, N., and Stefan, K., 2010, Place-Keeping, In the Cultural Landscape: The Role of Long-Term Maintenance and Management, European Council of Landscape Architecture Schools (ECLAS) Conference: Cultural Landscape, ECLAS, Istanbul, Turkey.

49. Burton, M., and Dempsey, N., 2012, Defining Place-Keeping: The Long-Term Management of Public Spaces, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening Vol. 11, No. 1, PP. 11-20.

50. Canter, D., 2013, The Psychology of Place, (M. Amirikhah, Trans), Faza, Tehran.

51. Carmona, M., 2014, The Place-Shaping Continuum: A Theory of Urban Design Process, Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 19, No. 1, PP. 2-36.

52. Day, C., 2002, Spirit and Place: Healing Our Environment, Healing Environment, Oxford: Architectural Press.

53. Duany, A., Plater Zyberk, E., Alminana, R., and Lejeune, J. F., 2003, The New Civic Art: Elements of Town Planning, Rizzoli, NewYork.

54. Ellin, N., et al., 1997, Architecture of fear, Princeton Archi tectural Press, NewYork.

55. Entrikin, J. N., and Tepple, J. H., 2006, Humanism and Democratic Place-Making, Approaches to Human Geography, PP. 30-41

56. Gilmore, J. H, and Pine B. J., 1998, Welcome to the Experience Economy, Harvard Business Review, No. 76, PP. 97-105.

57. Harvey, D., 1993, From Space to Place and Back Again, Reflections on the Condition of Postmodernity (PP. 3-29).

58. Hidalgo, M. C., and Hernandez, B., 2001, Place Attachment: Conceptual and Empirical Questions, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 3, PP. 273-281.

59. Hough, M., 1994, Place-Making and Design Review, In Design Review (PP. 147-155), Springer US.

60. https://www.pps.org/ 2016/11/12.

61. Kalay, Y. E., 2006, The Impact of Information Technology on Design Methods, Products and Practices, Design Studies, Vol. 27, No. 3, PP. 357-380.

62. Kaplan, R., and Kaplan, S., 2005, Preference, Restoration, and Meaningful Action in the Context of Nearby Nature, Urban Place: Reconnecting with the Natural World, PP. 271-298.

63. Koolhaas, R., 1995, The Generic City (P. 1255), Sikkens Foundation.

64. Krier, R., and Rowe, C., 2005, Urban Space, (Kh. Hashemi Nejad, Trans), Khak, Tehran.

65. Lefebvre, H., 1974, Production of Space, Translated by Donald Nicholson Smith, Oxford, Blackwell.

66. Moon, J. A., 1999, Reflection in Learning and Professional Development: Theory and Practice, Kogan Page, London.

67. Nagel, T., 1989, The View From Nowhere, Oxford University Press.

68. Nasar, J. L., 1998, The Evaluative Image of the City, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

69. Relph, E., 1976, Place and Placelessness (Vol. 67), Pion, London.

70. Relph, E., 2007, Prospects for Places (PP. 119-124), Routledge, NewYork, NY, USA.

71. Rogerson, C. M., 2014, Reframing Place-Based Economic Development in South Africa: The Example of Local Economic Development. Bulletin of Geography, Socio-Economic Series, Vol. 24, No. 24, PP. 203-218.

72. Scannell, L., and Gifford, R., 2010, Defining Place Attachment: A Tripartite Organizing Framework, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 30, No. 1, PP. 1-10.

73. Schroeder, H. W., 1996, Ecology of the Heart, Understanding How People Experience Natural Environments.

74. Seamon, D., 2000, Phenomenology, Place, Environment and Architecture: A Review of the Literature, Phenomenology Online, 36.

75. Shamai, S., 1991, Sense of Place: An Empirical Measurement, Geoforum, Vol. 22, No. 3, PP. 347-358.

76. Sorkin, Michael. 1992. Variations On A Theme Park: Scenes From The New American City And The End Of Public Space. Newyork: Hill And Wang.

77. Stern, E., and Krakover, S., 1993, The Formation of a Composite Urban Image, Geographical Analysis, Vol. 25, No. 2, PP. 130-146.

78. Stilgenbauer, J., 2014, Dynamic Placemaking, Now Urbanism: The Future City Is Here, 92.

79. TAN, B. K., and YEE, S. L. T., 2009, Place-Making in Online Virtual Envionment.

80. Tuan, Y. F., 1991, Language and the Making of Place: A Narrative-Descriptive Approach, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 81, No. 4, PP. 684-696.

81. Walsh, P., 2001, Improving Governments' Response to Local Communities Is Place Management an Answer? Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 60, No. 2, PP. 3-12.

82. Wild, T. C., Ogden, S., and Lerner, D. N., 2008, An Innovative Partnership Response to the Management of Urban River Corridors – Sheffield’s River Stewardship Company, In:11th International Conference on Urban Drainage IAHR/IWA Edinburgh.

83. Zukin, S., 2001, How to Create a Cultural Capital: Reflections on Urban Markets and Places, In Century City: Art and Culture in Modern Metropolis, Edited by Iwona Blazwick, 258-65, Tate Gallery Publishing, London.