The Sociology of Science Buildings

Trevor Calarco, AIA, Flad & Associates

The value of interaction is cited as the holy grail of science buildings, while individual principal investigators battle with administrators over the quantity of space to be provided. Often the conversation devolves into trading what some consider being discretionary non-lab space for precious lab space.

Utilizing the work of many researchers over the past 30 years and his own groundbreaking work, Tom Gieryn (Professor of Sociology, Indiana University) and Flad & Associates began a series of conversations, sociologist and architect, about what sociology has to say about the architecture of science buildings. The result is this presentation concerning:

1. The extent of evidence available,
2. The design principles for multi-disciplinary research buildings,
3. The do's and don'ts of making such buildings happen, and
4. The directions suggested for future exploration.

Myths and Mantras
Along the way, we came upon several myths and mantras. Among these are two that challenge the value of the current wave of multi-disciplinary science buildings.

Myth 1:
"The best science is always done by a brilliant scientist working alone in a dank basement or underlit garage."
Myth 2:
"The only connection between the quality of facilities and the quality of the science is our ability to recruit and retain productive scientists."

While both myths may be emotionally attractive to some, they are false. At the same time, the prevailing mantras of science buildings are:

Mantra 1:
"Interaction space is essential."
Mantra 2:
"It's all about dollars of external funding per square foot per year."

The romantic and naïve notion of Isaac Newton working alone in the explanation of gravity persists. The metaphor is often extended to the garages of the California Bay Area to include the creation of personal computing. The truth is that science, and even computer engineering, are social disciplines.

This presentation is about these myths and mantras and the social dynamics of building the "right" science building.

Labs21 Connection:

Context
Increasingly, campus administrators push for multi-disciplinary research environments. The concepts frequently derive more from the ability to control and churn space outside the control at department level. Architects and academic facilities managers are challenged to respond to this changing reality in their science buildings.

• What do sociologists have to say about science buildings?
• Why are these buildings being built?
• Who benefits?
• Is the science better? Are the individuals more productive?
• What are the common elements?
• Which team structure works best?
• What principles of design can be abstracted from the evidence?

Utilizing the research of Tom Gieryn, other noted researchers, and testing the resultant principles on 15 noted science buildings, we have attempted to answer these questions in the following topics:

The Design Product

• The relationship between quality of space and quality of science
• The relationship between the design process and quality of space
• The relationship between design principles and the design process

The Design Process

• Participants
• Negotiating strategies
• Procedural do's and don'ts
• Design principles
• Transparency
• Proximity
• Quantity
• Identity

Biography:

Trevor Calarco, AIA, is a registered architect with more than eight years of experience in laboratory design and project coordination and, in that time, he has been involved in all phases of complex projects from master planning through construction. His project experience includes national and international laboratory and advanced technology projects ranging from academic, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, chemical research facilities, and physical laboratories. Recent representative clients include Indiana University, University of Missouri, University of Northern Iowa, Purdue University, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. In addition to his practical knowledge, Mr. Calarco is well-versed in new and emerging technologies for sustainable research environments.

Back to the Agenda