Explore the vast range of titles available.

Lokale Bildungslandschaften sind in Deutschland in den letzten Jahren ein viel zitiertes Konzept. In diesem Beitrag behandeln wir die sozialräumliche Bildungslandschaft in Form eines Campus, der die Akteur*innen in Bildung und Stadtplanung an ein spezifisches Leitbild – die Konzentration auf die physische Form und programmatisches Handeln – bindet. Ein Bildungsraum als Campus beinhaltet somit konstitutive Dimensionen von Bildungspraktiken und räumlicher Refiguration von Bildungsbedingungen, die es noch zu entdecken und zu untersuchen gilt. Wir fokussieren die Perspektive von Kindern und Jugendlichen als Hauptzielgruppe dieses Leitbildes sowie die Perspektive der professionellen Akteur*innen. Wir geben daher einen kurzen Überblick über die Charakteristika sozialräumlicher Bildungslandschaften. Zunächst zeichnen wir die planerischen und pädagogischen Prozesse nach, die sich in Bildungsräumen eines Campus in ausgewählten deutschen Kommunen abspielen und vergleichen sie systematisch. Ein Schwerpunkt liegt dabei auf den Aneignungen und Atmosphären von Zugängen und Übergängen sowie auf Nutzungs- und Raumwahrnehmungsmustern. Nach der Analyse der laufenden Entwicklungsprozesse von sozialräumlichen Bildungslandschaften als Campus nehmen wir eine international vergleichende Perspektive ein, um diese zu erforschen.

Building on an in-depth ethnographic study at a renowned research laboratory, we show how the interactions of organizational routines can be more or less generative by tracing and analyzing how human and nonhuman actors (actants) connect routines. Adopting a performative perspective, we compare the connecting of such actants and study how they are engaged in routine performances. We relate observed differences in the generativity of routine interactions to whether actants become mediators or intermediaries. Whereas intermediaries merely maintain connections between routines, mediators can modify them when performing routine connections. We identify three generative effects mediators can lead to: (1) the creation of innovative outcomes, (2) the adaptation of existing routine performances, and/or (3) the emergence of new routine performances. Similar to the conception of organizational routines as dynamic and generative systems, we show that the way actants operate through their engagement renders routine interactions and thus ecologies of routines more or less generative.

Five Ways to Make Architecture Political presents an innovative pragmatist agenda that will inspire new thinking about the politics of design and architectural practice.Moving beyond conventional conversations about design and politics, the book shows how recent developments in political philosophy can transform our understanding of the role of.

This book takes it as a given that the city is made of multiple partially localized assemblages built of heterogeneous networks, spaces, and practices. The past century of urban studies has focused on various aspects-space, culture, politics, economy-but these too often address each domain and the city itself as a bounded and cohesive entity. The multiple and overlapping enactments that constitute urban life require a commensurate method of analysis that encompasses the human and non-human aspects of cities-from nature to socio-technical networks, to hybrid collectivities, physical artefacts and historical legacies, and the virtual or imagined city. This book proposes-and its various chapters offer demonstrations-importing into urban studies a body of theories, concepts, and perspectives developed in the field of science and technology studies (STS) and, more specifically, Actor-Network Theory (ANT). The essays examine artefacts, technical systems, architectures, place and eventful spaces, the persistence of history, imaginary and virtual elements of city life, and the politics and ethical challenges of a mode of analysis that incorporates multiple actors as hybrid chains of causation. The chapters are attentive to the multiple scales of both the object of analysis and the analysis itself. The aim is more ambitious than the mere transfer of a fashionable template. The authors embrace ANT critically, as much as a metaphor as a method of analysis, deploying it to think with, to ask new questions, to find the language to achieve more compelling descriptions of city life and of urban transformations. By greatly extending the chain or network of causation, proliferating heterogeneous agents, non-human as well as human, without limit as to their enrolment in urban assemblages, Actor-Network Theory offers a way of addressing the particular complexity and openness characteristic of cities. By enabling an escape from the reification of the

Reassembling the Social is a fundamental challenge from one of the world’s leading social theorists to how we understand society and the ‘social ‘. Bruno Latour’s contention is that the word ‘social’, as used by Social Scientists, has become laden with assumptions to the point where it has become misnomer. When the adjective is applied to a phenomenon, it is used to indicate a stablilized state of affairs, a bundle of ties that in due course may be used to account for another phenomenon. But Latour also finds the word used as if it described a type of material, in a comparable way to an adjective such as ‘wooden’ or ‘steely ‘. Rather than simply indicating what is already assembled together, it is now used in a way that makes assumptions about the nature of what is assembled. It has become a word that designates two distinct things: a process of assembling; and a type of material, distinct from others. Latour shows why ‘the social’ cannot be thought of as a kind of material or domain, and disputes attempts to provide a ‘social explanations’ of other states of affairs. While these attempts have been productive (and probably necessary) in the past, the very success of the social sciences mean that they are largely no longer so. At the present stage it is no longer possible to inspect the precise constituents entering the social domain. Latour returns to the original meaning of ‘the social’ to redefine the notion, and allow it to trace connections again. It will then be possible to resume the traditional goal of the social sciences, but using more refined tools. Drawing on his extensive work examining the ‘assemblages’ of nature, Latour finds it necessary to scrutinize thoroughly the exact content of what is assembled under the umbrella of Society. This approach, a ‘sociology of associations’, has become known as Actor-Network-Theory, and this book is an essential introduction both for those seeking to understand Actor-Network Theory, or the ideas of one of its most influential proponents.