Tracing (in)visibilising practices: engaging with simulations for architecture and spatial planning

References

• Ahrens, C., and A. Sprecher. 2019. Instabilities and Potentialities: Notes on the Nature of Knowledge in Digital Architecture. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Akrich, M. 1992. “The de-Scription of Technical Objects.” In Shaping Technology, Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by W. E. Bijker, and J. Law, VII, 341 S., Ill., Graph. Darst., 323 cm. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ammon, S., and R. Capdevila Werning. 2017. The Active Image: Architecture and Engineering in the Age of Modeling. Vol. 28. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Awan, N. 2017. “Mapping Otherwise: Imagining Other Possibilities and Other Futures.” In Feminist Futures of Spatial Practice: Materialisms, Activisms, Dialogues, Pedagogies, Projections, edited by T. Kristiansson, R. Mazé, and M. Schalk, 33–42. Baunach: AADR - Art Architecture Design Research.
   Google Scholar
• Barad, K. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bernstein, P. G. 2004. Digital Representation and Process Change in the Building Industry.” Perspecta, 35. http://www-jstor-org.uaccess.univie.ac.at/stable/1567352.
   Google Scholar
• Blanchette, J. F. 2011. “A Material History of Bits.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62: 1057. doi:10.1002/asi.21542.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blok, A., and I. Farias2016. Urban Cosmopolitics: Agencements, Assemblies, Atmospheres. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bloom-Christen, A., and H. Grunow. 2022. “What’s (in) a Vignette? History, Functions, and Development of an Elusive Ethnographic Sub-Genre.” Ethnos, 19: 1–19. doi:10.1080/00141844.2022.2052927.
   Google Scholar
• Borgman, C. L. 2015. Big Data, Little Data, no Data: Scholarship in the Networked World. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Britton, L., G. Klumbyte, and C. Draude. 2019. “Doing Thinking: Revisiting Computing with Artistic Research and Technofeminism.” Digital Creativity 30: 328. doi:10.1080/14626268.2019.1684322.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camus, A., and D. Vinck. 2019. “Unfolding Digital Materiality: How Engineers Struggle to Shape Tangible and Fluid Objects.” In digitalSTS. A Field Guide for Science & Technology Studies, edited by J. Vertesi, and D. Ribes, 41. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cardoso Llach, D. 2015. Builders of the Vision. Software and the Imagination of Design. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cardoso Llach, D. 2019. “Tracing Design Ecologies: Collecting and Visualizing Ephemeral Data as a Method in Design and Technology Studies.” In digitaSTS: A Field Guide for Science & Technology Studies, edited by J. V. D. Ribes, 451–471. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, A. E., C. Friese, and R. Washburn. 2018. Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Interpretive Turn. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Crawford, K. 2021. Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. New Haven London: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cupkova, D. 2019. “Interview.” In Instabilities and Potentialities, edited by C. Ahrens, and A. Sprecer, 16. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• de la Bellacasa, M. P. 2011. “Matters of Care in Technoscience: Assembling Neglected Things.” Social Studies of Science 41 (1): 85–106. doi:10.1177/0306312710380301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, P. N., M. S. Mayernik, A. L. Batcheller, G. C. Bowker, and C. L. Borgman. 2011. “Science Friction: Data, Metadata, and Collaboration.” Social Studies of Science 41: 690. doi:10.1177/0306312711413314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farías, I. 2015. “Epistemic Dissonance. Reconfiguring Valuation in Architectural Practice.” In Moments of Valuation. Exploring Sites of Dissonance, edited by A. B. Antal, M. Hutter, and D. Stark, 271–289. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fritz, O., U. Hirschberg, and L. Hovestadt, eds. 2020. Atlas of Digital Architecture: Terminology, Concepts, Methods, Tools, Examples, Phenomena. Basel: Birkhäuser.
   Google Scholar
• Galison, P. 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Galison, P. 2014. “Scientific Forms of Sight.” In Wahrnehmung, Erfahrung, Experiment, Wissen Objektivität und Subjektivität in den Künsten und den Wissenschaften, edited by S. Stemmler, 23–36. Zürich: Diaphanes.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, J., L. Bounegru, S. Milan, and P. Ciuccarelli. 2016. “Ways of Seeing Data: Toward a Critical Literacy for Data Visualizations as Research Objects and Research Devices.” In Innovative Methods in Media and Communication Research, edited by S. Kubitschko, and A. Kaun, 227–252. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Guggenheim, M. 2016. “Im/Mutable im/Mobiles: From the Socio- Materiality of Cities Towards a Differential Cosmopolitics.” In Urban Cosmopolitics. Agencements, Assemblies, Atmosphere, edited by A. Blok, and I. Farias, 81. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hacking, I. 1983. “Speculation, Calculation, Models, Approximations.” In Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science, edited by I. Hacking, 210–219. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hayles, N. K. 2005. My Mother was a Computer: Digital Subjects and Literary Texts. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Helmreich, S. 2009. “Intimate Sensing.” In Simulation and its Discontents, edited by S. Turkle, 129–150. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, R. L. 2020. “What is at Stake in Data Visualization? A Feminist Critique of the Rhetorical Power of Data Visualizations in the Media.” In Data Visualization in Society, edited by M. Engebretsen, and H. Kennedy, 391–406. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Houdart, S. 2008. “Copying, Cutting and Pasting Social Spheres: Computer Designers’ Participation in Architectural Projects.” Science Studies (Helsinki, Finland) 21: 63. doi:10.23987/sts.55233.
   Google Scholar
• Igelsböck, J. 2016. “Designing “Integration Machines”.” In Scientific Knowledge and the Transgression of Boundaries, edited by B.-J. Krings, H. Rodríguez, and A. Schleisiek, 133–160. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
   Google Scholar
• Irani, L. 2019. “Justice for Data Janitors.” In Think in Public, edited by S. Marcus, and C. Zaloom, 40. New York Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, H., and M. Engebretsen. 2020. “Introduction: The Relationships Between Graphs, Charts, Maps and Meanings, Feelings, Engagements.” In Data Visualization in Society, edited by H. Kennedy, and M. Engebretsen, 19–32. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knuuttila, T., and M. Merz. 2009. “Understanding by Modeling: An Objectual Approach.” In Scientific Understanding: Philosophical Perspectives, edited by H. W. d Regt, S. Leonelli, and K. Eigner, 146–165. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lenhard, J. 2007. “Computer Simulation: The Cooperation Between Experimenting and Modeling*.” Philosophy of Science 74 (2): 176–194. doi:10.1086/519029.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorenz, R. 2017. “Unfinished Glossary of Artistic Research” In Futures of Artistic Research: At the Intersection of Utopia, Academia and Power, edited by J. Kaila, A. Seppä and H. P. Slager. Helsinki, Finland: Academy of Fine Arts, Uniarts Helsinki.
   Google Scholar
• Loukissas, Y. A. 2008. Conceptions of Design in a Culture of Simulation. (Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture: Design and Computation). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Loukissas, Y. A. 2009. “Keepers of the Geometry.” In Simulation and Its Discontents, edited by S. Turkle, 153–170. Ipswich, MA: EBSCO Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Loukissas, Y. A. 2012. Co-designers: Cultures of Computer Simulation in Architecture (1. Publ. ed.). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Malazita, J. W., and K. Resetar. 2019. “Infrastructures of Abstraction: How Computer Science Education Produces Anti-Political Subjects.” Digital Creativity (Exeter) 30: 312. doi:10.1080/14626268.2019.1682616.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markham, A., and A. K. Gammelby. 2018. “Moving Through Digital Flows: An Epistemological and Practical Approach.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection, edited by U. Flick, 451–465. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Mol, A. 1999. “Ontological Politics. A Word and Some Questions.” The Sociological Review (Keele) 47: 89. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.1999.tb03483.x.
   Google Scholar
• Mol, A. 2003. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice (edited by B. H. Smith and E. R. Weintraub). Durham: Durham University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mommersteeg, B. 2022. “Approximations: On Some Ways to Listen to a Building “in the Making”.” Science, Technology, & Human Values: 1–25. doi:10.1177/01622439221116964.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, N. 2009. “Performing the Protein Fold.” In Simulation and its Discontents, edited by S. Turkle, 171–188. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, N. 2015. Rendering Life Molecular. Models, Modelers, and Excitable Matter. Durham & London: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, W. S. 2009. “Does Matter Really Matter? Computer Simulations, Experiments, and Materiality.” Synthese 169 (3): 483–496. doi:10.1007/s11229-008-9434-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pink, S., H. A. Horst, J. Postill, L. Hjorth, T. Lewis, and J. Tacchi. 2016. Digital Ethnography: Principles and Practice. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington, DC: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Plantin, J.-C. 2018. “Data Cleaners for Pristine Datasets: Visibility and Invisibility of Data Processors in Social Science.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 44: 73. doi:10.1177/0162243918781268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rettberg, J. W. 2020. “Ways of Knowing with Data Visualizations.” In Data Visualization in Society, edited by M. Engebretsen, and H. Kennedy, 35–48. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ruppert, E., and S. Scheel, eds. 2021. Data Practices - Making up a European People. London: Goldsmith’s Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sanchez, J. 2019. “From an Autopoietic to a Sympoietic Architecture Discipline.” In Instabilities and Potentialities, edited by A. Sprecher, and C. Ahrens, 203–208. 1st ed. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schumacher, P. 2011. The Autopoiesis of Architecture: A New Framework for Architecture. Vol. 1. West Sussex: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Schwennesen, N. 2019. “Algorithmic Assemblages of Care: Imaginaries, Epistemologies and Repair Work.” Sociology of Health & Illness 41: 192. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.12900.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sismondo, S. 1999. “Models, Simulations, and Their Objects.” Science in Context 12 (2): 247–260. doi:10.1017/S0269889700003409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Star, S. L., and A. Strauss. 1999. “Layers of Silence, Arenas of Voice: The Ecology of Visible and Invisible Work.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 8 (1): 9–30. doi:10.1023/A:1008651105359.
   Google Scholar
• Suchman, L. 2016. “Making Work Visible”. In The New Production of Users, edited by T. E. Jensen, N. Oudshoorn, and S. Hyysalo, 125–135. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Suchman, L., and R. H. Trigg. 1993. “Artificial Intelligence as Craftwork.” In Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context, edited by S. Chaiklin, and J. Lave, 144–178. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar