Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T23:29:29.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Visible Colleges: Structure and Randomness in the Place of Discovery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Bill Hillier  and
Alan Penn
Bill Hillier
Affiliation:
Unit for Architectural Studies, Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning, University College London
Alan Penn
Affiliation:
Unit for Architectural Studies, Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning, University College London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Visible colleges, in contrast to the “invisible colleges” familiar to historians of science, are the collective places of science, the places where the “creation of phenomena” and theoretical speculation proceed side by side. To understand their spatial form, we must understand first how buildings can structure space to both conserve and generate social forms, depending on how they relate structure in space to randomness. Randomness is shown to play a crucial role in morphogenetic models of many kinds, especially in spatial forms and in social networks. We argue here that it can also play a crucial role in the advance of science.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , Spring 1991 , pp. 23 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, T. 1977. Managing the Flow of Technology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Blau, J. 1980. “When Weak Ties are Structured.” Unpublished. Department of Sociology, Albany: SUNY.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. [1970] 1973. Natural Symbols. New York: Pelican Books.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. 1982. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” In Social Structure and Network Analysis, edited by Marsden, P. V. and Lin, N., 101–30. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. 1983. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, J. and Hillier, W.. 1982. “Domestic Space Organisation.” Architecture and Behaviour 2(1):5–25.Google Scholar
Hillier, W. 1985. “The Nature of the Artificial: The Contingent and the Necessary in Spatial Form in Architecture.” Geoforum 16(3): 163–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillier, W. 1988. “Against Enclosure.” In Rehumanising Housing, edited by Teymour, N., Markus, T., and Woolley, T.. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Hillier, W., and Hanson, J.. 1984. The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillier, W., and Hanson, J.. 1987. “A Second Paradigm.” Architecture and Behaviour 3(3):197–203.Google Scholar
Hillier, W., Hanson, J., and Graham, H.. 1987. “Ideas Are in Things.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 14:363–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillier, W., and Leaman, A.. 1973. “The Man-Environment Paradigm and Its Paradoxes.” Architectural Design, August 507–11.Google Scholar
Hillier, W., Hanson, J., and Peponis, J.. 1984. “What Do We Mean by Building Function?” In Designing for Building Utilization, edited by Powell, J., Cooper, I., and Lera., S. London: Spon.Google Scholar
Karweit, N., Hansell, S. and Ricks, M.. 1979. “The Conditions for Peer Associations in Schools.” Report No. 282, Center for Social Organization of Schools. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. [1953] 1967. “Social Structure.” Reprinted in Structural Anthropology. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. 1964. The Raw and the Cooked. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Peponis, J. 1983. “The Spatial Culture of Factories.” Ph.D. diss., University College, London.Google Scholar