Interdisciplinary integration or cooperation?
The practice of the reconstruction of the urban environment in
the late 1970s, and in particular the role played by civic initiatives
in this process have failed to an ever greater degree to provide
an adequate explanation in the framework of traditional methodology.
In fact, the urban environment in its totality has been captured
most fully by purely artistic means—in literature, painting, cinema—through
the creation of an image. What you gain in con-creteness ends
in this case in a loss of strictness or comparability, in personalism,
in connection with which the artistic perception of the urban
environment has had to find itself beyond the limits of scientific
knowledge, beyond the field of vision of scientists and planners.
On the other hand, when considering the situation in the framework
of the disciplinary approach, what you gain in strictness of approach
will inevitably turn into a loss of the integrity of the object.
Practical research in the sphere of the urban environment conducted
during the last few decades has given birth to a vast body of
specialized texts of such different content that any attempt at
generalizing this totality would be an unrealistic undertaking.
The most important thing, though, is the fact that in each specialized
block of knowledge we have to deal with a «different» urban environment
than in the adjoining blocks.
The city from the point of view of an ecologist, and the same
city from the point of view of a theoretician specializing in
settlement problems, are qualitatively different objects. Each
of these «cities», in turn, has little in common with the city
viewed by a sociologist and, on the other hand, is hardly comparable
with the image of a city from the viewpoint of a historian. Information
about the city contained in these four interpretations does not
tally, first and foremost, because here we deal not with one,
but with four different objects. An element of the «ecosystem»,
a spot in the settlement system, an autonomous social «cosmos»,
a juncture of intertwining world historical processes—none of
this can be described by one language. Despite the fact that,
from the genetic point of view, we are dealing with different
projections of one object on different planes of study, from the
methodological point of view, they are independent objects.
The comprehension of this unavoidable obstacle to adequate reflection
of the integral nature of the urban environment in scientific
knowledge resulted in the fact that when the UNESCO programme
«Man and the Biosphere» was being established in 1971, the problem
of the interdisciplinary integration of knowledge concerning the
urban environment was made a definite priority. During a decade
of intensive work, a whole range of case-studies in the full sense
of the word have been made in West Berlin under the methodological
guidance of H. Sukopp (Berlin..., 1984), and in Hong Kong under
the methodological guidance of S. Boyden and S. Millar (Boyden,
Millar, 1981), etc. But even in these cases there are no real
grounds to speak about an integral methodological approach to
the subject of «the urban environment».
Strictly speaking, it could not have been different, because
in each concrete case there exists a certain specialist, inevitably
accenting that image of the urban environment which is discernible
and operational in his professional methods. If an ecologist plays
the role of the integrator-methodologist, then almost inevitably
practically all questions of human relations find themselves pushed
into the background (unless they are interactions directly influencing
the city's ecosystem). If this role belongs to the sociologist,
then, on the contrary, the urban ecosystem is pushed into the
background (or even further)—in complete correspondence with the
actual scale of the factors of social concern (in comparison with
the availability and quality of work, availability and quality
of housing, unless, of course, catastrophic situations of the
urban ecosystem as a whole are concerned).
Any attempt to surmount this kind of «usurpation» of the role
of the integrator through artificially introducing the practice
of forming an interdisciplinary research team, as has in actual
fact been demonstrated, is inevitably doomed to failure. In accordance
with the laws of social psychology, even if each participant in
the group process accepts the equality of qualifications, the
actual role of the integrator will go, in this case, to the more
powerful personality. As the «integrator problem» becomes increasingly
obvious, it would be quite natural to expect that some individual
researchers would attempt to set up a metamethodological system
of procedures allowing interdisciplinary integration, while the
role of the integrator could be performed by the very sequence
of the binding methodological procedures.
Among these bold attempts, it is worth singling out works by
A. Whyte (Whyte, 1981) and S. Boyden (Boyden, 1979). The content
of these studies has been thoroughly analysed by O. Yantis (Yantis,
1984) and V. Glazychev (Glazychev, 1984). Boyden wrote that at
the time the integral ecological approach to the study of human
settlements was still in an elementary stage, and at this stage
there was no possibility of producing an indisputable document
concerning methods used in this sphere (Boyden, 1979, p. 39).
Firstly, any attempt to build a model of an «integral ecological
approach» to the urban environment while remaining entirely inside
the system of scientific knowledge cannot be considered correct
from the methodological point of view. The formation of urban
ecosystems is done, first and foremost, by the planner (urbanist,
architect, designer, engineer, economist) with specific professional
knowledge and skills. The only approach which can be considered
integrative, is that which creates a common basis both for the
planner and the scientist. Secondly, as has been demonstrated
by the social practice of the last few decades, it is impossible
to build a model of a «monological» approach to the urban environment
from the position of specialists (scientists and planners) without
taking into account the values and attitudes of socio-cultural
groups of urban residents. Consequently, only the «dialogical»
approach to the urban environment as an object of understanding
and assessment can be considered integrative in reality. As M.
Castells justly emphasized when characterizing a kind of challenge
to scientific thought extended by the residents' civic initiatives,
their «growing impact on the city and urban policies called into
question the whole logic of the model of urban development» (Castells,
1983).
From our point of view, the introduction of new complicating
factors clearly demonstrates the lack of promise in further attempts
to reach an «integral ecological approach». At the same time,
these complicating factors urge us to accept the change of attitude
as productive: not an integrative, but a cooperative
principle of the interaction of knowledge, skills, and values.
From the point of view of logic, the cooperative principle removes
the unsolvable problem of the «integrator» because every specialized
projection of the urban environment on the plane of specific knowledge
preserves its sovereignty. The introduction of the principle of
cooperation takes us back to the vital problem of understanding
the nature of the object as an entity. It is exactly the comprehension
of the totality of the urban environment that later becomes the
basis both for research and for planning in order that the researcher
as well as the planner can combine their efforts to solve the
concrete problematic situation of a particular city. Thus, from
our point of view the only real form of the «integrative ecological
approach» is the establishment of a complex «link»: an «environmental»
approach to the comprehension of the totality of the urban environment
binding for each participant in the interaction; pooling of knowledge
and skills in a concrete problem situation. In the environmental
approach, in our view, the incompatibility of individual specific
approaches—research, socio-technical (designing), socio-cultural
and finally, methodological—is potentially removed. In contrast
to two-dimensional schematizations (S. Boyden) we—see fig. 1—go
over to the three-dimensional model representing an image equivalent
to a certain new reality in thought.
The mastering of the totality of the object in accordance with
our model does not infringe upon the autonomy of each of the specialised
approaches formed by the age-old history of knowledge and skills,
but rather builds over them a holistic ideology embracing them
all.
However, it should be emphasized quite definitely that our working
model, while characterising the idea of the totality of the object,
cannot be considered satisfactory. Determining, to a large extent,
the nature of the necessary pedagogical procedures for the restoration
of holistic ideology, countering the disintegration of knowledge
and skills into individual disciplines, in its primary form this
model does not embrace the nature of the environmental approach
to the «city» as active. In order to make our model operational,
it is necessary to transform it by introducing a fourth dimension—the
time of activity.
As follows from fig. 2, such a transformation can be adequately
carried out by transforming the tetrahedron ABCD into a «hyper-tetrahedron»
(by «pulling» a pyramid through its centre).
Now through an externally uncomplicated transformation, we receive
an extensive model of an environmental approach joining into a
single whole both the basic specialized approaches (research,
socio-technical, socio-cultural, methodological) and the main
interactions of characters possessing knowledge and skills, in
the process of formation and reconstruction of the urban environment:
programme, project, plan, action. Strictly speaking, only the
introduction of this last element ensures both theoretical and
practical novelty for our working model. Until recently the methodological
activities of professionals have been concentrated on project
and programme, to a lesser degree on plan and planning, while
the direct practical action aimed at the realization of plan,
project and programme has been left beyond the field of vision
of researchers. But it is in action that the social nature of
communication between specialists and civic initiatives is demonstrated
with particular clarity. Only through action and its result (including
an expected result) is the assessment of both plan, project, programme
and feasibility studies made in such communication. Only action
in a concrete urban environment has a direct social nature, while
in plan, project, programme and studies this social nature of
communication has an increasingly indirect character.
In spite of its abstraction, our working model outlines the major
lines of interaction between the basic specialized approaches
to the object: research and socio-technical approaches (plan of
action), socio-technical and socio-cultural approaches (programme
for exerting influence on the object through the alteration project),
meta-methodological approach (action proper). It is this circumstance
that makes it possible to speak about the fact that our model
of an environmental approach is at the same time a model of joint
activities aimed at transforming the urban environment as an integral
ecosystem.
The working model submitted is easy to understand, but its practical
implementation involves considerable difficulties. That is only
natural, as the simpler, «two-dimensional» schematizations have
revealed their inability to grasp the phenomenon of the environment.
The means of interaction and the «languages» of communication
Beginning with the publications by K. Lynch (Lynch, 1960), C.
Alexander (Alexander, 1972), V. Glazychev (Glazychev, 1973) and
other experimental researchers, the technical problem of the «language»
of supradisciplinary communication in the understanding of the
urban environment has gradually become a priority in methodological
studies. While in the process of interaction between prominent
specialists, communication is established with a certain degree
of difficulty using maps, schemes, graphs, tables and commentary
on them in the everyday cultural language, the necessity of interaction
between specialists and initiative groups of residents confronts
the former with a rather complicated problem.
Even the simplest symbolizations, like the plan of the city or
part of it executed on a conventional scale, seemingly familiar
from high school, are interpreted, as was convincingly demonstrated
by K. Lynch, with a great deal of difficulty and, as a rule, inadequately.
Our experience shows that the problem is aggravated by the fact
that adult residents feel uncomfortable with the insufficiently
clear understanding of information given them by reputable self-reliant
specialists, which often results in imitation of understanding.
In these numerous cases the outward appearance, the ritual of
interaction, only hides the fact that there was no genuine interaction.
Both in Western and Eastern Europe, attempts have been made for
almost last two decades to overcome this standard difficulty.
At least four main directions have been revealed.
The first direction, most advanced in West Germany, combines
the work of plan methodists with individuals, families, small
groups (dialogue in the everyday cultural language) with the graphic
means of execution of plans, perspectives, axonometries, as close
as possible to ability of perception of the «man in the street»
(for instance: Stadt Koln, 1984). Natural colouring (grey asphalt,
green trees, blue water, etc.), a detailed legend for each image,
clear business-like commentary on every spot marked by an ordinal
number on the plan—all this undoubtedly simplifies communication.
But it is obvious that here we are dealing with a purely auxiliary
method which has no independent significance without accompanying
oral commentary. At any rate, only a very intelligent partner
skilled in the art of image-dimensional perception is capable
of making an independent comparison of several variants of the
principal planning solution (of a block, a park, a region) without
such commentary. Nevertheless, the practice of continuous contacts
between specialists and individual families by means of graphic
information accompanied by commentaries deserves attention and
study. Of particular significance is the specialists' striving
in preparing such texts to take into account ethnic heterogeneity,
addressing residents in several languages.
The second direction, theoretically developed by C. Alexander,
stresses a prolonged educational interaction between a planning
group of skilled professionals and a large group of partners in
order that the influence of specialists could be aimed at initiation
of consistent self-organisation and self-education in groups.
The notes by the dean of a faculty at the University of Oregon
most clearly demonstrate the effect of mastering new intellectual
experience. He wrote that the majority of us, no doubt for the
first time, had to think in terms of dimensional relations, encountering
the problems of spatial perception. We also (which was rather
an exception) began to deal directly with each other, while experts
did not play cat-and-mouse with us but simply talked to us,...
no, they did not even talk to us but somehow made us understand
that the thing was not that they knew exactly what should be done
and hid it from us, but it so happened that in essence what came
of it originated within us (Alexander, 1975).
There are no grounds to doubt the high efficiency of such activities,
but this efficiency depends on the ability of experts to devote
a great amount of time to interaction with «consumers» who become
co-planners, and on the quality of the partners' general education.
The third direction actively developed during the last two decades
by the associates of the Central Experimental Studio of the USSR
Artists' Union (E. A. Rosenblum, M. A. Konik, V. L. Glazychev)
(Rosenblum, 1974) stresses the intensity of the imagination of
mass viewers through artistic means. In this case the expert takes
the initiative, advances a principal design proposition aimed
at reconstructing the urban environment, imparts to this proposition
the form of an artistic exhibition at which are represented image
models of concrete situations accompanied by a brief oral commentary.
As has been demonstrated by prolonged practice in numerous cities
of the USSR, an exhibition of this kind on the one hand creates
a general attitude of interest and sympathy for ideas of reconstructing
the environment; and, on the other, gathers around it people capable
of setting up an initiative group of experts to continue planning
and research activities in the future.
The initiating function—frequently a counter-proposition is formed
in relation to the officially submitted reconstruction project,
a line also pursued by the L. Krier independent bureau active
in a number of cities in Western Europe (see, for instance, Krier,
1987)—is realized most efficiently in this form of activities.
But it is apparent that the fate of the temporarily established
understanding between professionals and non-professionals depends
entirely on the technique and tactics of further interactions
already requiring different language forms.
Lastly, it is necessary to single out the pedagogical direction
in which experts intend to form a stable minimum of environmental
perceptions with the residents, beginning with the first year
of high school and continuing these activities until graduation.
With the help of a painstakingly developed sequence of exercises
performed in small groups there emerges a real possibility of
sharply improving the level of environmental perception of the
residents of the next generation (Environmental Awareness, 1986).
There is no doubt that the fundamental groundwork for environmental
communication in the future is laid in the framework of these
activities. With educational activities supplemented by specially
developed games and active organisational games for adults, we
have every reason to count on a significant improvement in communication
in 10-15 years.
It seems obvious that all the above directions of experimental
activities in the sphere of developing environmental communication
are supplementary. In an ideal situation their combination could
have been capable of producing the cumulative effect of mutual
intensification. Regrettably, until recently all similar efforts
(methodological materials show that the fortunate exceptions are
Japan and some Scandinavian countries) have been implemented mostly
by enthusiasts and have had insufficient material and organisational
support. We still encounter a highly insufficient understanding
of the impact of the language of communication on the efficiency
of application of complex and expensive methods of research and
design activities. This lack of understanding on the part of the
bureaucratic apparatus of state or municipal departments comes
as no surprise, and even at present this lack of understanding
is characteristic of the professional milieu of scientists and
designers. In this connection it is becoming ever more apparent
that the generalization of the accumulated experience and its
polarization are acquiring key significance.
The practice of creating the environment and the
comparability of the results
The rapidly growing practical experience of environment formation
activities in the dialogue mode engenders a complex problem of
comparing the results. Obviously a strict scientific comparison
of the quality of the urban environment is no more than an ideal.
We are capable of comparing individual parameters characterising
living standards in settlements predominantly on the basis of
measured «negative» characteristics: water, soil and air pollution;
the residents' state of health; the level of crime, etc. We are
also capable of individually comparing the formal data on the
educational level of the population or the level of environmental
concern of its various groups. But as soon as we touch upon the
quality of the environment, i.e., its comparison with a certain
subject model existing in the human consciousness, we categorically
cannot ignore the particular socio-cultural context of a country
or region.
Even concentrating on Europe alone, we discover a qualitative
multitude of environmental situations (taken in a given context)
which cannot be subjected to strict comparison in principle. First
of all, even if we attempt to compare the pictures of environment
formation activities for cities formally belonging to one class
in size and functional specialization (say, Glasgow in Scotland
and Arkhangelsk in the North of the European part of the USSR),
we find ourselves in a very difficult situation. One urban community
(Glasgow) is built into the system of private capitalist social
relations, while the other (Arkhangelsk) belongs to the system
of socialist relations. The economic fate of the former is directly
dependent on the international market situation, and the shrinking
of the British ship-building industry brings the urban community
of Glasgow into direct confrontation with the sharpest problems
of sustaining life in conditions of growing unemployment. The
economic fate of the latter is directly dependent on the national
programme of the distribution of productive forces, so the development
of the manufacturing industry confronts the urban community of
Arkhangelsk with acute problems linked with the comfort of the
urban environment in conditions of an influx of migrants and a
shortage of housing.
The external resemblance of the problem situations of old city
centres (the necessity of their preservation and revitalization),
the external likelihood of the formation of initiative groups
of residents should not hide from us the principal diversity of
socio-economic mechanisms into which are built both the problem
situations themselves and urban initiatives developing in their
context. Strictly speaking, the only comparable thing is the change
between a certain initial situation with a new situation arising
in five, ten or fifteen years.
Moreover, as follows from long studies in the Soviet Union, even
with an identical socio-economic structure we succeed only in
comparing the fact of change in the context of a concrete urban
situation taken separately. When speaking about changes, we have
in mind not only the number of apartments (in due proportion to
the growth of the city population), but first and foremost change
in a certain integral level of the state of the urban environment,
which is interpreted by the residents and outside observers as
an obvious change in quality. For instance, among the cities of
Soviet Lithuania for the last fifteen years on the basis of the
«obvious» quality of the environment, the city of Siauliai advanced
to one of the leading places—previously an outsider, at present
it has edged ahead of both the capital city of the republic,Vilnius,
and its perennial rival Kaunas. The active environment formation
attitude of the city council in Shaulyai has long consolidated
a tradition of active participation of the majority of the city's
residents in the transformation of the city's urban environment
(for instance, the formation of a developed system of bicycle
paths as well as an integral system of urban design) and ensured
for it an acceleration of development that has left other cities
far behind.
A similar process is observed in the city of Sumy (Soviet Ukraine)
where in a short period of time the urban environment began developing
with such a rapidity that it managed to edge past the former favourite—the
city of Donetsk (for instance, in such an exotic indicator as
the number of rose bushes growing in the streets and squares—approximately
one million bushes in Donetsk against two million bushes in Sumy).
A similar process is taking place in all Soviet republics.
And still, it appears that we can solve the task of comparing
the results of urban environment formation activities if we use
several indicators of the «second order». In spite of all the
diversity in social and cultural contexts, all the differences
in the scenarios of urban environment formation activities and
the means of the implementation of these scenarios, there still
exist some universal features.
Evidently, it concerns an average rate of tangible reconstructive
transformations interpreted by the residents and independent observers
in the categories «rapid», «average», «slow», «zero». In the final
analysis, in these generalized estimates is integrated the entire
volume of perceived changes at the expense of the aggregate human
experience. Whatever the number of attempts to replace this rough
estimate with a system of formalized procedures, in the end they
will inevitably encounter a similar approximate picture of expert
estimates based on the similarly approximate procedure for establishing
the «weights» of any given factor.
It is similarly advisable, in our view, to take into account
the share of environment formation actions implemented with the
real participation of residents in the totality of reconstructive
influences of the urban environment. With a high accuracy of registration,
this percentage can be established in documentary form, but in
reality the most important thing is again the subjective perception
of this contribution by residents and experts from among their
number. In the final analysis the common feeling of the residents,
whether the changes in the urban environment happen with or without
their participation is, in our opinion, an integral indicator
efficient enough for comparative studies of cities.
Finally, it seems reasonable to establish the ratio between residents
who are inclined to assess the state of the urban environment
as «balanced», «improving» or «deteriorating». It stands to reason
that in each individual case such a generalized estimate can depend
on a multitude of personal circumstances, but when the number
of people questioned is large enough, it is reasonable to expect
a mutual exclusion of such individual deviations and emergence
of an integral estimate of the quality of the urban environment.
From our point of view, the above generalized indicators are
sufficient for a basic comparison of the total quality of the
urban environment in settlements of various types, situated in
different social and cultural contexts. And on the contrary, any
attempt to overspecify indicators and formalize their compatibility
among themselves will inevitably result in the inapplicability
of methodologies with a change in the objects and contexts, and
will make fundamental comparison more difficult.
When conducting large-scale, periodically repeated studies based
only on the three above-mentioned generalized indicators, which
can be obtained in the framework of simple procedures of sociological
investigation, we have every right to hope to obtain a general
picture of changes in the urban environment of European countries.
It goes without saying that on the basis of broad consultation
with specialists, the character of generalized indicators can
be made more precise or even changed, but at any rate it is obvious
that only after attaining a consensus on the standard methodology
of the simplest studies can we hope to achieve a more or less
complete picture of comparable effects of environment formation
activities.
|
