بررسی نظری مفهوم دلپذیری در مقیاس مطالعات فضای شهری با کمک روش تحلیل محتوا (نمونه منتخب: مطالعات بازه زمانی 1998-2020)

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار/ گروه مهندسی شهرسازی/دانشکده هنر و معماری/ دانشگاه کردستان/ سنندج/ کردستان/ ایران

2 استاد تمام دانشکده هنر و معماری دانشگاه تربیت مدرس تهران

چکیده

دلپذیری به عنوان یکی از کیفیت های فضای شهری، از سال 1998 وارد ادبیات جهانی شهرسازی گردید. با ورود این مفهوم، اهمیت آن به عنوان کیفیتی پایه و پیچیده در مطالعات معدودی مورد توجه قرار گرفت. اما با این وجود، مدلی مفهومی که بتواند ابعاد گوناگون تشکیل دهنده ی این مفهوم در حوزه فضای شهری را به صورتی جامع ارائه کند، یافت نگردید. همچنین در حوزه مطالعات طراحی شهری در ایران جایگاه این کیفیت، با وجود کاربرد گسترده آن در سایر نقاط جهان، هنوز نوپاست. اگرچه این مفهوم به دلیل ارتباط نزدیکش با فرهنگ، امری زمینه محور به شمار می آید؛ اما شناسایی و استخراج مفاهیم و مقولات مشترک در پیشینه مطالعاتی، قیل از کاربست آن در بستر فرهنگی- فضایی خاص، امری ضروری به نظر میرسد.بنابراین، هدف مقاله پیش رو، شناسایی و دسته بندی مقولات مشترک و سازنده ی دلپذیری و دستیابی به مدل مفهومی عام برای تعریف این کیفیت در مقیاس فضای شهری از میان مطالعات جهانی است. پژوهش حاضر بر پایه رویکرد کیفی و با کمک روش تحلیل محتوا، به شناسایی 178 مفهوم پایه و دسته بندی 34 مقوله مشترک مستخرج از مجموع 40 مطالعه نظری و عملی معتبر حول کیفیت دلپذیری در مقیاس فضای شهری در بازه زمانی 1998 الی 2020، پرداخته است. مهمترین دستاورد این مقاله، مدلی هشت لایه متشکل از 4 بعد اصلی با توانایی کمی سازی مقولات کیفی دلپذیری در ارزیابی فضاهای شهری است. با توجه به نتایج مدل نهایی، بعد اجتماعی- فرهنگی از میان سایر ابعاد، مهمترین و پرکاربردترین مضمون مشترک در حوزه مطالعات کیفیت دلپذیری به شمار می آید.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Explaining Concept of Conviviality in Urban Space literature Using Content Analysis (Studies From 1998 to 2020)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Nina Khalighi 1
  • Mohammadreza PourJafar 2
1 Assistant Professor, Department of urban Design and Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Kurdistan, Iran.
2 Ph.D, Full Professor, Department of Urban Planning, Art and Architecture Faculty, University of Tarbiat Modarres
چکیده [English]

Since the emergence of using conviviality concept in urban planning field of study in 1998, different scholars have addressed this concept as a quality of urban spaces. Although, few of them consider conviviality as a complex and fundamental quality but, most of the studies used it as an obvious and one-dimensional objective. Therefore there is no comprehensive conceptual framework which can explain conviviality in urban space thoroughly. Another concern of this article is the lack of knowledge about this multilayered quality of space, in Iranian urban literature. To better understand the multi-aspects of convivial quality in urban spaces, the main objective of this article is to extract different concepts, categories and themes from reliable previous studies. Although, this quality is known as a context-based quality, but there is an urgent need for a conceptual framework to better study a specific physical context, considering this quality.
The article is based on qualitative research and uses content analysis methodology in order to study 40 related research papers and thesis from 1998 to 2020. Three-phased coding system is used to extract total 178 concepts and 34 categories, which eventually resulted in conviviality conceptual framework. The final circular shaped framework includes 4themes and 8 layers. The most important theme in convivial urban spaces model, is socio-cultural dimension which shows the importance of intangible aspect of this quality in previous studies. The hierarchical model has the ability to quantify the results of convivial quality in urban spaces. The closer the categories are to the center of the model, the more important the category is. Therefore, if one category is located in the first layer (the closest layer to the center of the model) the weight factor of the category is considered as the highest one. Another main feature of this model is flexibility and applicability which helps future researchers to use it in variety of urban areas. Of course, based on different urban spaces, the priority of categories may change or even some new categories may be added to the model. To prove this claim, future studies on the specific physical context are required.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Conviviality
  • Urban Space
  • Fundamental Quality
  • Content Analysis
  • Coding
استراوس، انسلم و کربین، جولیت. ) 1998(. مبانی پژوهش کیفی فنون و مراحل تولید نظریه زمینه. ترجمه ابراهیم افشار . )1394(. تهران:
نشر نی.
ایمان، محمدتقی و نوشادی، محمودرضا. )1390(. تحلیل محتوای کیفی. نشریه پژوهش، 3) 2(، .44-15
بلیکی، نورمن. ) 2000(. طراحی پژوهش های اجتماعی. ترجمه حسن چاوشیان. )1384(. تهران: نشر نی.
خلیقی، نینا. )1397(. تبیین الگوی مفهومی دلپذیری در مجموعه بازارهای سنتی ایران. رساله دکتری منتشرنشده. دانشگاه تربیت مدرس،
دانشکده هنر و معماری.
دهخدا، علی اکبر. )1377(. لغت نامه. تهران: موسسه انتشارات و چاپ دانشگاه تهران.
گلکار، کوروش. )1380(. مؤلفه های سازنده کیفیت طراحی شهری. صفه، 11) 32(، .65-38
گلکار، کوروش. )1386(. مفهوم کیفیت سرزندگی در طراحی شهری. صفه، 16) 44(، .75-66
Amin, A. (2008). Collective Culture and Urban Public Space. City, 12(1), 5-24.
Amin, A. (2012). Land of Strangers. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Amin Nayeri, B., Zali, N., & Motavaf, S. H. (2019). Identification of regional development drivers by scenario Planning. International Journal of Urban Management and Energy Sustainability1(2), 67-80..
Arizpe, L. (1998). Convivencia: The Goal of Conviviality, World Culture Report: Culture, Creativity
and Markets. Paris: UNESCO.
Back, L., & sinha, S. (2016). Multicultural Conviviality in the Midst of Racism’s Ruins. Journal of
international studies, 37(5), 517-532.
Bauman, Z. (2003). Liquid Love: On the Frailty of Human Bonds. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beltran Rodriguez, M., & Simon, M. (2015). Conceptualizing Conviviality in Urban Landscapes.
Athens Journal of Architecture, 1(4), 311-325.
Beltran Rodriguez, M., & Simon, M. (2015). Towards A Definition of Convivial Urban Spaces [Paper
presentation]. the 52th International Making Cities livable Conference, Bristol, Uk.
Beltran Rodriguez, M., & Simon, M. (2015). Towards a post-occupancy methodology for measuring
conviviality in the public realm [Paper presentation]. International Conference Arquitectonics
Network: Architecture, Education and Society, Barcelona.
Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Duke University Press.
Blaikie, N. W. H. (2000). Designing social research: The logic of anticipation (H. Chavoshian,
Trans.). Tehran: Nashr-e Ney. (In Persian)
Blommaert, J. (2012). Complexity, accent and conviviality: Concluding comments. (Tilburg Papers
in Culture Studies; No. 26).
Blommaert, J. (2014). Infrastructures of Super diversity: Conviviality and Language in an Antwerp
Neighbourhood. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 17(4), 431-451.
Boisvert, R. D. (2010). Convivialism: A Philosophical Manifesto. The Pluralist, 5(2), 57-68.
Carmona, M., Health, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (2003). public Places Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of
Urban Design. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Childs, M. C. (2004). Squares: A Public Place Design Guise for Urbanists. Albuquerque: University of
New Mexico Press.
Dehkhoda, A. A. (1998). Dictionary. Tehran: University of Tehran. (in Persian)
Erickson, B. (2011). Utopian Virtues: Muslim Neighbours, Ritual Sociality, and the Politics of
Convivència. American Ethnologist, 38(1), 114-131.
Ewing, K. (2006). Investigation Of a Traders’ Route the Analysis of The Street Edge That Informs
Public Space, With Reference to The Indian City of Jaipur, Isfahan in Iran And Harare, Zimbabwe. In
I. Borden & K. Rüedi Ray (Eds.), The Dissertation: An Architecture Student’s Handbook (pp. 156).
Architectural Press.
Fincher, R. (2003). Planning for Cities of Diversity, Different and Encounter. Australian Planner,
40(1), 55-58.
Fincher, R., & Iveson, K. (2008). Planning and Diversity in the City: Redistribution, Recognition and
Encounter. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gilroy, P. (2004). After Empire: Melancholia or Convivial Culture. Abingdon: Routledge.
Gilroy, P. (2006). Colonial Crimes and Convivial Cultures. Rethinking Nordic Colonialism.
Gilroy, P. (2006). Multiculture in times of war: an inaugural lecture given at the London School of
Economics. Critical quarterly, 48(4), 27-45.
Golkar, K. (2001). Components Of Urban Design Quality. Soffeh, 11(32), 38-65. (In Persian)
Golkar, K. (2007). The Liveability Concept in Urban Planning. Soffeh, 16(44), 66-75. (In Persian)
Gomes, P. (2020). The birth of public space privatization: How entrepreneurialism, convivial
urbanism and stakeholder interactions made the Martim Moniz square, in Lisbon, privatizationready. European Urban and Regional Studies, 27(1), 86-100.
Harun, N. Z., Mansor, M., & Said, I. (2013). The experience of diversity in open spaces of two
historical towns in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 85, 582-591.
Hattam, R., & Zembylas, M. (2010). what’s Anger Got to Do with It? Towards A Post-Indignation
Pedagogy for Communities in Conflict. Social Identities, 16(1), 23-40.
Heil, T. (2014). Are neighbours alike? Practices of conviviality in Catalonia and Casamance.
European Journal of Cultural Studies, 17(4), 452-470.
Hinchliffe, S., & Whatmore, S. (2006). Living Cities: Towards a Politics of Conviviality. Science as
Culture, 15(2), 123-138.
Hofkirchner, H. (2004). Unity through Diversity. Dialectics-Systems Thinking-Semiotics. Trans,
Internet journal for cultural sciences, 15, 20-23
Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three Approaches to Content Analysis. Qualitative Health
Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Husband, C., & Alam, Y. (2011). Social Cohesion and Counter-Terrorism. Bristol: Policy Press.
Illich, I. (1973). Tools for Conviviality. London: Marion Boyars.
Iman, M., & Noushadi, M. R. (2011). Qualitative Content Analysis. Pazhuhesh, 3(2), 15-44. (In
Persian)
Kathiravelu, L. (2013). Friendship and The Urban Encounter: Towards a Research Agenda (MMG
Working Paper 13-10). Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity.
Khalighi, N. (2018). proposing a Conceptual Framework for Conviviality in Iranian Traditional
Bazaar Complexes [Doctoral dissertation, Tarbiat Modares]. (In Persian)
Koch, R., & Latham, A. (2012). Rethinking urban public space: accounts from a junction in West
London. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(4), 515-529.
Koskinen, L. (2016). Agonistic, Convivial, and Conceptual Aesthetics in New Social Design. Design
issues, 32(3), 18-29.
Laurier, E., & Philo, C. (2006a). Cold shoulders and napkins handed: gestures of responsibility.
Transactions of the institute of British geographers, 31(2), 193-207.
Laurier, E., & Philo, C. (2006b). Possible Geographies: A Passing Encounter in a cafee. Area, 38(4),
353-363.
Low, S., Taplin, D., & Scheld, S. (2005). Rethinking Urban Parks, Public space and Cultural Diversity.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Maitland, R. (2008). Conviviality and Everyday Life: The Appeal of New Areas of London for
Visitors. International Journal of Tourism Research, 10(1), 15-25.
Malyutina, D. (2016). Friendship in a ‘Russian Bar’ In London: Ethnography of a Young RussianSpeaking Migrant Community. Urban Studies, 55(3), 589-604.
Mattioli, F. (2012). Conflicting Conviviality: Ethnic Forms of Resistance to Border-Making at The
Bottom of The US Embassy of Skopje, Macedonia, Journal of Borderlands Studies, 27(2), 185-198.
Mead, W. B. (2013). Michael Polanyi's Social/Political Order: Design for a Society of Explorers.
Journal of Perspectives on Political Science, 42(3), 172-177,
Miles, M. (1998). Strategies for the convivial city: A new agenda for education for the built
environment. Journal of Art & Design Education, 17(1), 17-25.
Montgomery, C. (2013). Happy city: Happy City: Transforming Our Lives Through Urban Design.
Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Morawska, E. (2014). Composite meaning, flexible ranges, and multi-level conditions of
conviviality: Exploring the polymorph. European Journal of cultural studies, 17(4), 357-374.
Murat Colpa, Z. (2015). Convivial urban spaces: The case of Sakarya street, Ankara [Master's thesis,
Middle East Technical University].
Neal, S., & Walters, S. (2008). Rural be/longing and rural social organizations: Conviviality and
community-making in the English countryside. Sociology, 42(2), 279-297.
Neal, S., Bennett, K., Cochrane, A., & Mohan, G. (2013). Living Multiculture: Understanding the
New Spatial and Social Relations of Ethnicity and Multiculture in England. Environment and
Planning C: Government and Policy, 31(2), 308-323.
Nowicka, M., & Vertovec, S. (2014). Comparing convivialities: Dreams and realities of living-withdifference. European journal of cultural studies, 17(4), 341-356.
 
Overing, J., & Passes, A. (Eds.). (2000). The Anthropology of Love and Anger: The Aesthetics of
Conviviality in Native Amazonia. London: Routledge.
Peattie, L. (1998). Convivial Cities. In M. Douglass & J. Friedmann (Eds.), Cities and Citizens:
Planning and The Rise of Civil Society in a Global Age (PP. 247-253). Chichester: Wiley & Sons.
Polanyi, M. (1964). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago
Press.
Potvin, A., & Demers, C. (2016, September). Ambiences in the City: Longitudinal surveys in the
dynamic representation of built environments to observe, measure and speculate. Strolling in
Panama City, Panama. In Ambiances, tomorrow. Proceedings of 3rd International Congress on
Ambiances. Septembre 2016, Volos, Greece (Vol. 2, pp. 841-846). International Network Ambiances;
University of Thessaly.
Rabo, A. (2011). Conviviality and Conflict in Contemporary Aleppo. In A. Nga Longva & A. S. Roald
(Eds.), Religious Minorities in The Middle East: Domination, self-empowerment, accommodation (pp.
123-147). Brill.
Rhys-Taylor, A. (2017). Food and Urbanism: The Convivial City and Sustainable Future. Social &
Cultural Geography, 18(2), 291-292.
Schechter, M. (2004). Conviviality, gender and love stories: Plato’s symposium and ISAK
Dinesen’s (K. Blixen’s) Babette’s feast. Trans, Internet journal for cultural sciences, 15, 20-25.
Scialabba, G. (2017). Against Everything: On Ivan lllich, scourge of the professions. The Baffler,
(34), 174-181.
Shaftoe, H. (2008). Convivial Urban Spaces: Creating Effective Public Places. London: Earth Scan.
Simpson, P. (2011). Street performance and the city: Public space, sociality, and intervening in the
everyday. Space and Culture, 14(4), 415-430.
Somov, G. Y. (2004). Conviviality problems in the structure of semiotic objects. Trans, Internet
journal for cultural sciences, 15.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques (E. Afshar, Trans.). Tehran: Nashr-e Ney. (In Persian)
Thrift, N. (2005). But malice aforethought: cities and the natural history of hatred. Transactions of
the institute of British Geographers, 30(2), 133-150.
Valentine, G. (2008). Living with Difference: Reflections on Geographies of Encounter. Progress in
Human Geography, 32(3), 323-337.
Zali, N., Ghal'ejough, F. H., & Esmailzadeh, Y. (2016). Analyzing Urban Sprawl of Tehran Metropolis in Iran (During 1956-2011). Anuario do Instituto de Geociencias39(3).
Vigneswaran, D. (2014). Protection and Conviviality: Community Policing in Johannesburg.
European Journal of Cultural Studies, 17(4), 471-486.
Wessendorf, S. (2014). Being Open, But Sometimes Closed: Conviviality in a Super-Diverse
London Neighbourhood. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 17(4), 392-405.
Wiesemann, L. (2012). Public Spaces, Social Interaction and the Negotiation of Difference (MMG
Working Paper 12-08). Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity.
Wise, A., & Noble, G. (2016). Convivialities: an orientation. Journal of intercultural studies, 37(5),
423-431.
Wise, A., & Velayutham. S. (2014). Conviviality in Everyday Multiculturalism: Some Brief
comparisons Between Singapore and Sydney. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 17(4), 406-430.
Wood, L., Frank, L., & Giles-Corti, B. (2010). Sense of Community and Its Relationship with
Walking and Neighbourhood Design. Social Science & Medicine, 70(9), 1381-1390.