دسته‌بندی مبانی نظری معماری و شهرسازی مبتنی بر لایه‌ها، راهبرها و ویژگی‌های شاخص ماهیت شناسی

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناس ارشد معماری اسلامی، دانشکده هنر و معماری اسلامی، دانشگاه بین‌المللی امام رضا (ع)، مشهد، ایران.

2 دانشیار گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد مشهد، مشهد، ایران.

چکیده

 مقدمه: پژوهش حاضر به مسئله‌ای بنیادین در معماری و شهرسازی می‌پردازد که ناشی از دشواری شناخت و دسته‌بندی مبانی نظری به دلیل گستردگی مفاهیم، پیچیدگی تعاریف و ابهام در روابط متقابل آن‌ها با مداخلات محیطی است. این وضعیت موجب محدودیت در انتخاب و انطباق نظریات با نیازهای طراحی و تصمیم‌گیری‌های محیطی شده و ضرورت ارائه شاخصی شفاف و کارآمد را دوچندان کرده است.
هدف پژوهش: تدوین چارچوبی تحلیلی بر پایه شاخص ماهیت‌شناسانه برای تفکیک مبانی نظری براساس توان بالقوه (نقش شناختی) و بالفعل (نقش میانجی‌گری) و سازمان‌دهی آن‌ها میان شش‌لایه و هشت ویژگی مشترک است. ضرورت پژوهش از شکاف‌های موجود در ادبیات و فقدان چارچوبی برای اتصال نظام‌مند میان نظریات و مداخلات محیطی ناشی می‌شود. این امر، به‌ویژه در پروژه‌هایی که نیازمند انطباق انعطاف‌پذیر نظریات با شرایط متغیر محیطی هستند، اهمیت دارد.
روش‌شناسی: روش‌شناسی تحقیق بر تحلیل گفتمان کیفی استوار بوده و با استفاده از نرم‌افزار MAXQDA، کدگذاری، مدل‌سازی مفهومی، هم‌بستگی یابی و اعتبارسنجی شاخص‌ها انجام شده است. جامعه آماری این پژوهش، شامل ۱۱۱ منبع منتخب تخصصی در پنج دهه اخیر بوده که براساس نمونه‌گیری هدفمند، گردآوری و تحلیل شدند.
یافته‌ها و بحث: نتایج نشان می‌دهد که مفهوم «راهبر» برآمده از اشتراک محتوا بین لایه و ویژگی‌های مشترک مبانی نظری، موجب تفکیک دقیق مبانی نظری به دو دسته درون‌رشته‌ای (انواع عینی و توصیه‌ای) و بین/فرارشته‌ای (انواع ذهنی و تجویزی) شده است. این دسته‌بندی توانسته دقت در تطبیق مبانی با نیازهای طراحی و مداخلات محیطی را به طور چشم‌گیری افزایش دهد. همچنین، خصلت‌های بنیادین هر دسته و مصادیق انتسابی آنها، همراه با روابط میان‌لایه‌ها و ویژگی‌ها، استخراج و ارائه شده است.
نتیجه‌گیری: شاخص ماهیت‌شناسانه پیشنهادی، ضمن تقویت قابلیت تفکیک و انطباق مبانی نظری، ابزار تحلیلی ارزشمندی برای طراحان، برنامه‌ریزان و پژوهشگران فراهم می‌کند که می‌تواند به بهبود کیفیت تصمیم‌گیری‌های محیطی و ارتقای همگرایی میان نظریه و عمل در معماری و شهرسازی بینجامد. 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Categorizing the Theoretical Foundations of Architecture and Urbanism Based on Layers, Drivers, and Ontological Indicators

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hadi Farhangdoust 1
  • Toktam Hanaee 2
1 Master of Science in Islamic Architectural Engineering, Faculty of Islamic Art and Architecture, Imam Reza International University, Mashhad, Iran.
2 Associate Professor of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad Branch, Mashhad, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Introduction: This research addresses a foundational problem within the domains of architecture and urban planning, which stems from the inherent difficulty in identifying and classifying theoretical underpinnings due to the sheer breadth of concepts, the complexity of their definitions, and the ambiguity in the reciprocal relationships between these theories and environmental interventions. This condition, wherein the design and planning processes are exposed to epistemological disarray, often leads to decisions that are incongruous with the social, cultural, and physical fabric of the built environment, thereby limiting the selection and adaptation of theories to meet specific design requirements and decision-making exigencies. The absence of explanatory frameworks for a structured categorization has consequently reduced the application of theory to generalized or abstract levels.
The Purpose of the Research: In response, the principal objective of this research is to formulate an analytical framework predicated on an ontological index for the demarcation of theoretical foundations. This cognitive framework, based on an analysis of the potential capacity (cognitive role) and the actualized capacity (mediating role) of theories, and their organization across six distinct layers and eight common features, seeks to provide a systematic solution that enhances the adaptability and effective utilization of theoretical foundations in the processes of environmental design and planning. The necessity for this research arises from palpable gaps in the theoretical literature and the conspicuous absence of a systemic framework to forge a systematic connection between diverse theories and practical environmental interventions. This deficiency is of critical importance, particularly in projects that demand the flexible adaptation of theories to shifting environmental conditions.
Methodology: The research methodology is anchored in a structuralist qualitative discourse analysis. This approach was chosen for its suitability in navigating the complex and semantic-rich nature of theoretical foundations, enabling the identification of latent semantic structures and the proposed ontological indices. To implement this method, the MAXQDA software was utilized for comprehensive coding, conceptual modeling, correlation analysis, and the validation of the indices. The statistical population for this research comprised 111 selected specialized sources from the past five decades, which were compiled and analyzed through purposive sampling.
Findings and Discussion: The results of the investigation indicate that the concept of the "driver", extracted from the shared content between the layers and common features of theoretical foundations, facilitates a precise demarcation of theory into two principal categories: intra-disciplinary and inter/trans-disciplinary. These drivers function as semantic-functional patterns, providing a diagnostic tool for determining where and how to use theories when confronting an architectural or urban problem. The intra-disciplinary driver, possessing a cognitive-interpretive role, is further subdivided into "objective' and "advisory" types, which focus on specialized analyses and the provision of operational guidelines within the architectural and urban planning frameworks. Conversely, the inter/trans-disciplinary driver, characterized by its applied-interdisciplinary role, encompasses subjective and prescriptive types, which concentrate on interdisciplinary interactions with an emphasis on cultural and social values, and on the regulatory imperatives derived from other fields, respectively. This categorization has been shown to significantly enhance the precision of aligning theoretical foundations with design needs and environmental interventions. Furthermore, the fundamental characteristics of each of the four types—namely, the degree of semantic certainty, the level of generalizability, the scope of operational authority, and the level of perceptual accessibility—have been extracted and presented alongside their respective exemplars and the intricate relationships between the layers and features. The reliability and validity of these drivers were confirmed via Cronbach's Alpha testing, which yielded a strong correlation coefficient of 0.797 for both constructs, affirming their internal consistency and robustness.
Conclusion: The conclusion of this research posits that the proposed ontological index provides an invaluable analytical instrument for designers, planners, and researchers. This index can contribute to an enhanced quality of environmental decision-making and promote a greater convergence between theory and practice in architecture and urban planning. This achievement finds direct application in fields such as strategic design, spatial analysis, sustainable planning, and even the development of pedagogical tools for a more profound comprehension of these theories. The final proposed framework, by establishing a conceptual-applicative relationship between the four types of theoretical foundations, enables an informed and targeted selection process based on the value and capability of each theory across both cognitive and mediating roles. This contribution promises to make design more efficient.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Theoretical foundations driver
  • cognitive classification
  • semantic mediation
  • cognitive structure
  • Environmental interventions
  1. Abbott, P., D’Ambruoso, L., Shanks, R., Engdawork, K., & Mihretu, A. (2025). Conceptual Architecture for a Critical ‎Realist Synthesis of a Universal School-based Mindfulness Intervention. Qeios, Preprint. ‎doi:32388/UP1VR6
  2. Adeli, S., & Nadimi, H. (2022). Form as Affordance: The Theoretical Basis and Conceptual Framework for the Meaning of Architecture. Soffeh, 32(1), 21-40. [In Persian] doi: 52547/sofeh.32.1.21
  3. Adeli, Z., Rafieian, M., & Imani Jajarmi, H. (2019). Designing a Theoretical Framework for Epistemology of Place in Interdisciplinary Studies. Human Geography Research, 51(4), 911-929. [In Persian] doi: 22059/jhgr.2018.238798.1007518
  4. Ahari, Z., Nadimi, H., Aberi Zahed, S., Tavanaie Marvi, F., Rahimzadeh, P., Heidarkhani, M., & Fallah Najmabadi, S. (2020). Problem-solving Researches in Architecture. Iranian Journal of Engineering Education22(87), 1-29. [In Persian] doi: 22047/ijee.2020.234541.1750
  5. Al Sayed, K. (2007). Discursive and Non-Discursive Design Processes. Masters thesis, UCL University ‎College London. URL: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/4928‎
  6. Alikaei, S., & Aminzadeh Goharrizi, B. (2019). An Analysis of Substantial and Procedural Evolution of Urban Design Process and Its Application in Iranian Urban Design Projects. Journal of Fine Arts: Architecture & Urban Planning, 23(4), 67-80. [In Persian] doi: 22059/jfaup.2019.266627.672126
  7. Bacchini, F. (2018). The Ontology of the Architectural Work and Its Closeness to the Culinary Work. City, Territory ‎and Architecture, 5, 21. doi:1186/s40410-018-0097-1‎
  8. Bussolon, S. (2009). Card Sorting, Category Validity, and Contextual Navigation. Journal of Information ‎Architecture, 2(1), 5–32. doi:55135/1015060901/092.002/2.007
  9. Esnaola-Gonzalez, I., Bermúdez, J., Fernandez, I., & Arnaiz, A. (2020). Ontologies for Observations and Actuations ‎in Buildings: A Survey. Semantic Web: – Interoperability, Usability, Applicability, 11(4), 593-621. ‎doi:3233/SW-200378
  10. Farhangdoust, H., & Farkisch, H. (2022). Investigating the Scope and System of Theoretical Foundations in the Study of Contemporary Architecture. Andišnāme-ye Me’māri, 2(3), 161-182. [In Persian] doi: 30480/arcand.2022.4381.1036
  11. Farhangdoust, H., Farkisch, H., & Hanaee,, T. (2022). Evolution of Theoretical Foundations of Contemporary Architecture and Urban Planning; Transition From the Discourse of Impressionability to Influence. Interdisciplinary Studies of Iranian Architecture, 1(2), 71-103. [In Persian] doi: 22133/isia.2023.371008.1025
  12. Foley, H., Bogue, J., & Onakuse, S. (2016). New Conceptual Framework for Sustainability. Irish Studies in ‎International Affairs, 27, 145-163. doi:3318/isia.2016.27.11
  13. Groat, L. N., & Wang, D. (2013). Architectural Research Methods. New Jersey: Wiley.‎
  14. Hasani, A., & Mofidi Shemirani, S. M. (2020). Theoretical Interaction of Principles and Indicators of Urban Design in Adaptation to the Climate Change and Redefining Its Position. Urban Planning Knowledge, 4(1), 97-112. [In Persian] doi: 22124/upk.2020.14732.1317
  15. Houshiar, M. (2021). A Critical Review on the Book Theoretical Foundations from the Collection of Art in Islamic Civilization. Critical research paper on humanities texts and programs, 21(8), 433-456. [In Persian] doi: 30465/crtls.2021.35366.2167
  16. Hultzsch, A., & Martínez, S. P. (2023). Reading-With: A Collaborative Method for Inclusive Architectural Histories. ‎Architectural Histories, 11(1). doi:16995/ah.10332‎
  17. Jacoby, v. v. (2013). The Reasoning Of Architecture: Type And The Problem Of Historicity. ‎Doctor of Engineering Diploma - The Technical University of Berlin.‎
  18. Jarecki, J. B., Tan, J. H., & Jenny, M. A. (2020). A Framework for Building Cognitive Process Models. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 27(6), 1218-1229. doi:3758/s13423-020-01747-2‎
  19. King, G., Cohen, R., & Verba, S. (2021). Social Research Design: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Translated by Ali Abedi-Ranani. Tehran: Allameh Tabatabaei University. [In Persian]
  20. McBride, D. M., Cutting, J. C., & Zimmerman, C. L. (2022). Cognitive Psychology: Theory, Process, and ‎Methodology. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.‎
  21. Moon, K., & Blackman, D. (2017). A Guide to Ontology, Epistemology, and Philosophical Perspectives for ‎Interdisciplinary Researchers. Retrieved from Integration and Implementation Insights: ‎https://i2insights.org/2017/05/02/philosophy-for-interdisciplinarity/‎
  22. Moosavian, S. (2021). Analysis of Theoretical Approaches to Perceiving and Matching Aesthetics Experience in Environmental Sciences. Bagh-e Nazar, 18(101), 37-50. [In Persian] doi: 22034/bagh.2021.253388.4694
  23. Mordecai, Y., Fairbanks, J. P., & Crawley , E. F. (2021). Category-Theoretic Formulation of the Model-Based ‎Systems Architecting Cognitive-Computational Cycle. applied sciences, 11(4), 1945. ‎doi:3390/app11041945‎
  24. Naghdbishi, R. (2018). Environment-Behavior (E.B) Based Architectural Training Modeling. Architectural and Environmental Research, 1(1), 55-68. [In Persian] doi: 30470/jaer.2018.32728
  25. Naghizade, M., & Ostadi, M. (2014). A Comparative Analysis of the Notion of Perception and Its Process in Environmental Psychology and Philosophy with an Emphasis on Its Application to Urban Design . 1(3), 3-14. [In Persian] https://jria.iust.ac.ir/article-1-151-fa.html
  26. Nourmohammadzad, H., & Zare, E. (2024). Analysis of Urban Design Subjects Associated with the Concept of “Linkage”. The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh-e Nazar, 21(133), 57-64. [In Persian] doi: 22034/bagh.2024.425111.5490
  27. Rahmani, E., Etesam, I., & Mokhtabad Amraee, M. (2016). A Comparative Analysis of Modernist and Postmodernist Readings of Architectural Works. Journal of Iranian Architecture & Urbanism(JIAU), 7(2), 95-112. [In Persian] doi: 30475/isau.2017.62033
  28. Read, J., & Meath, C. (2024). A Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Evidence-Based Design for Aligning ‎Therapeutic and Sustainability Outcomes in Healthcare Facilities: A Systematic Literature Review. HERD: ‎Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 18(1), 86-107. doi:1177/19375867241302793‎
  29. Recalde, L., Meza, J., & Terán, L. (2019). Cognitive Systems for Urban Planning: A Literature Review. International Summit Smart City 360°, 249-270. doi:1007/978-3-030-51005-3_22‎
  30. Rezaei, H., keramati, G., Dehbashi sharif, M., & Nasir Salami, M. (2018). A Schematic Explanatory Pattern for the Psychological Process of Achieving Environmental Meaning and Actualizing Sense of Place Focusing on the Intervening Role of the Perception. Bagh-e Nazar, 15(65), 49-66. [In Persian] doi: 22034/bagh.2018.74083
  31. Tavangar, M. R., & Habibi, M. (2022). Applications of the Critical Analysis of Discourse in Urban Research. Soffeh, 32(2), 89-104. [In Persian] doi: 52547/sofeh.32.2.89
  32. Terrone, E. (2019). Principles of Construction. An Ontology of Design. Ardeth, 5, 26-41. ‎doi:17454/ARDETH05.03‎
  33. Vidler, A. (2018). Theories in and of History. Retrieved from e-flux Architecture: https://www.e-‎com/architecture/history-theory/225183/theories-in-and-of-history
  34. Weber, R. A. (2020). Constructs and Indicators: An Ontological Analysis. Management Information Systems ‎Quarterly, 45(4), 1645-1678.‎ https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/15999
  35. Yadegarzade, B., & Nourian, F. (2018). An Explanation of Professional Associations in Urban Planning Based on Critical Discourse Analysis. Journal of Fine Arts: Architecture & Urban Planning, 23(3), 41-52. [In Persian] doi: 22059/jfaup.2019.268826.672153
  36. Yang, N., Chen, B., & Xi, J. (2024). A Theoretical Design Framework of Contemporary Vernacular Architecture ‎Based on a Scoping Review of the Best Practices Worldwide. Buildings, 14(11), 3525. ‎doi:3390/buildings14113525