Just picked this up off the Volume Magazine RSS, a course initiated and managed by Dr Albena Yaneva of Manchester University which attempts to map architectural controversies for projects such as the London Olympic Stadium.  I'm particularly thinking about how these sorts of mapping strategies might be useful to trace local examples (such as nearly every "waterfront" design in Wellington and Auckland in the last five years), and reveal consistencies or inadequacies of the processes and final outcomes of the projects.  I would love to have the 'actual effectiveness' of all the stakeholders represented and played out, who's listening, who isn't, who's talking, and who's being heard...  It could make a huge difference to how organisations operate and facilitate effective resistance or dissidence for example, how designers might persuade clients, or small groups or individuals might engage with corporate identities.

The method is transferred from the social-scientific community, based on the work of Bruno Latour, and seems to ascribe to the fashionable Actor-Network Theory:

“The methodological and conceptual roots of this approach stem from the discipline of Science Studies, with the writings of the French sociologist and philosopher Bruno Latour forming the primary source for its subsequent development. Latour first developed his ideas in relation to the analysis of scientific and technological controversies in his book Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1987. Controversy analysis is also part of the Actor-Network-Theory developed in his most recent book Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. ”
www.mappingcontroversies.co.uk 'History of the Concept'.

The published work samples to date seem to have followed the London Olympic Stadium with some animated network diagrams, with a bunch more seemingly in pipeline. The project sounds interesting, Like I mention above, I would be curious about the production of outcomes which might effect the design or regulatory processes of similar schemes, so that the work becomes more then merely a recording of traces and relationships, but I’m ahead of myself there without having gone into this in any considerable depth, or understanding the social theory and implementation.

Here’s some more about the project and its supporters:

"Mapping Controversies comprises a research method, a teaching philosophy and a way to approach public debates. The platform serves as a database on controversies related to a variety of topics from Science, Technology, Innovation, Design and Urban Planning, provides tutorial guidance to the Mapping Controversies teaching and learning methods and their relevance to architectural studies, and showcases some initiatives in enhancing the public understanding of controversies."


Christian Derix & Aedas|R&D - London 2012 Olympic Stadium case study project.

“Documenting and visualising recent controversies in architecture, it also aims to address a broader audience interested in the design of cities, spatial networks and built environments as well as planners, representatives of city government, NGOs and citizens. As it is a part of the EU-funded project MACOSPOL, Mapping Architectural Controversies draws on a variety of documental sources and visual methods to explore the multifarious connections of architecture and society.”

Title image: Christian Derix & Aedas|R&D - London 2012 Olympic Stadium case study project.