Why Do We Like Research Infrastructures? Architecture and Knowledge Production with Gaia S. Ferraro

So, good afternoon everyone again and thank you very much for the invitation from Lynx. Um, it's a pleasure for me to be here and to have the opportunity to share part of my ongoing doctoral research. So, you already know my name is Gaia Ferrero. I'm a PhD candidate in architectural environment at the University of Sil. And today we will discuss a topic that lies in the intersection of architecture, science and society. So you like it? Yeah. Can I go? Okay. So I would like to begin with the concept of spa. No. Yeah. Since this uh with the concept of space of knowledge. So space of knowledge are physical places where knowledge is generated and exchanged, consolidated and transformed. So scientific research infrastructure are in many ways heavily specialized space of knowledge. So they are environment designed to produce a scientific advancement and they are characterized by high technological and organizational complexity. But what interested me in particular is that they are not natural container. So we are not talking about white boxes that we put and inside of them we just put technology. This is the things that I'm trying to argue. But uh they are places with architectural perceptual social consequences and their special organization influence how research work researchers work interate and we will see that obviously let me briefly guide you through the structure of today's talk. We will have one hour. I will try to do it less than one hour so we can talk about that together and I will be begin with a definition of large research infrastructure. Uh then I will briefly discuss the first historical example of a research infrastructure. Then I will introduce the theoretic objective rumor research followed by the things that I call contemporary contemporary paradox of research infrastructure and then we will have my research hypothesis methodology and the second part will focus on learn as a case study and finally I will discuss my three analytical scale. [clears throat] So the first one the sec sorry the 21st century had witnessed an extra extraordinary race toward the construction of scientific infrastructure. H in this context the concept of large resources infrastructure becomes becomes central. So according to the G7 vision, a large research infrastructure that I will start to talk to to call LRI just to make it quick is not simply a laboratory but is an ecosystem characterized by four essential dimensions. So scientific impact, accessibility, international cooperation and social societal value. And this definition is particularly important because it already expand our understanding beyond pure technology. Okay. So research infrastructure are not isolated scientific object but our um ecosystem with scientical, political and social implication. But we will see very quickly. Uh come on. Okay. [gasps] Um we will unpack this third dimension very quickly. So the scientific impact is because the research infrastructure are designed to generate knowledge at scale that would otherwise be impossible. Okay. They enable discovery through large data set advanced instrumentation and interdisiplinary research. They also um have accessibility to a broad and diverse scientific community. So they serve as an international and interdisciplinary scientific user base. Third most major infrastructure today are transnational enterprises involving shared governance, shared expert expertise, a collaborative network. So [clears throat] we have international collaboration cooperation efforts social economic role values to society. So they contribute to innovation specialized skills regional development. However, I would argue that this fictional definition is still incomplete because if we stop here, we risk understanding research infrastructure only as technical system and architecture just disappear from the discussion. To better understand contemporary infrastructure, I find it useful to look historically. So one fascinating example is Uranim that I don't know if I am pronouncing in the perfect way uh created by Tiko Brah Tito Bra if I'm not wrong in the 16th century and Uranim is perhaps the first largest infrastructure in history because it already emboded many characteristic sorry that resemble a modern facilities. So it was state funed because it has the um the support of the Danish family. It was internationally recognized. It was m it had multidisiplinarity and was designed specifically for scientific production. So in many ways it function fictioned as a scientific ecosystem. And another remarkable aspect was its openness. So universities sent student there because uranable possessed instrument and capacities and available elsewhere. So this is important because accessibility is a key criterion of today infrastructure and it's already existed and yes >> yeah just a second can you check that the people online can hear you? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I check it. They they can hear me. >> Okay. But yeah, this body tell you no. >> Yeah, I know. But >> can you hear me? Uh everybody, I will see. >> Yes, we can. >> Yes, we can. Amazing. Thank you. And um another lessons that we can learn is an architectural one because Rainberg had also a underground observatory that was design was designed specifically to reduce vibration cases cases by horses and cars. So in another world architecture was already mediating scientific precision and space was already shaping scientific possibility. So why [clears throat] now we saw historically but now why are research large research infrastructure so compelling? Well because they are much more than machines. They are much more than technological system but they are space where knowledge is productive experienced and transformal. So they are places where people from different discipline meet exchange perspective and collectiv collectivity build understanding and they are also places where society encounters science sometimes directly sometimes symbolically. This is why I believe they deserve to be studied not only through engineering or policy but also through architecture. And the core aim of my research is to understand how does the architecture of large scientific infrastructure contribute to knowledge production and innovation through cognitive perceptual and social dynamic. Okay. So this means shifting of attention from technologies along toward the relationship between the build environment, the human behavior and the knowledge ecosystem. Okay. My my focus is not only on what technologics do but it also on what spaces make possible. So much [clears throat] of the existing literature focus on technology, governance, scientific outpost and innovation metrics and these are obviously fundamental but several dimension remain underexplored. For example, um example, how does special organization influence collaboration? How do environment affect connection, creativity? How do informal interaction emerge? Okay, so scientific knowledge is rarely the production the product of isolated genus. It often emerge through relationship, accidental encounters and collective problem solving and architecture may play a role in enabling this process. So this bring me to my central hypothesis. Traditionally research infrastructure are interpreted as technological too. We already say that but my argument is that is [clears throat] a little bit different because scientific knowledge does not emerge solely from advanced technologies rather it emerge through interaction of different things. This is why it's interdisciplinary interdisiplinary research because we have technology architecture social practice and cognitive process. In other word the b the build environment mediate scientific work and the architecture of a laboratory is not simply a technical shell is a cognitive and relational environment. So this bring us to what I call the contemporary paradox of research infrastructure because this place produce knowledge that shapes humanity future because they influence medicine climate change materials and yet they often remain especially opaque that means that I don't know what's happen inside of these buildings h socially remote because I don't I do not have any access and culturally diff difficult to interpret interpret. Yeah. Um so the public rarely understand what happens inside them and they are essential to society but frequently perceived as black boxes. Black boxes. So I see that I know that there is something there. I don't have any idea what happened inside of them. So how can scientific infrastructure become space where science is not only produced but also perceived understood by people and also collectively experienced. So historically 20 20th century infrastructural priority was technical e precision and performance that is not a bad things obviously and architecture followed function but and [clears throat] technology generated for so monumentally often emerged accidentally from scale but today this model reveals a limitation. Science is no longer isolated from society. We can see that in Lun here. It's really near and it also directly shapes daily life. And if science shapes society, perhaps scientific space must also become more socially but also culturally legible. The research infrastructure they do also another things. They produce landscape. They reshape territories. They influence uh the territory identities and importantly they shape the public imaginations of science. So buildings such as Max 4 or ESS become symbolic representation of innovation. They literally make science visible in space. In this sense, infrastructure infrastructure function as cultural devices and they participate in producing meaning not only obviously experiment and shape culture along the science itself. So to investigate this in my research, I developed three interconnected analytical scales. Okay. Where I can go and understand uh the different relationship that um the infrastructure has with everything. So the first is territory infrastructure and this can analyze the relationship between infrastructure and territory. We already saw that considering factors such as accessibilities, urban scientific ecosystem and the impact on the formation of research communities. And the goal is to understand how the presence of infrastructure can influence the construction of scientific networks, territorial dynamic and former cognitive instit institutional attractiveness. The second one is infrastructure and human and the question in how the question that is obviously my field a little bit more is how does architecture shapes perception concentration wellbeing and cognitive comfort. So we can see this observing aspect such as perception of space uh space of cons concentration, social interaction and the way in which the architectural environment influence the daily experience of scientific research. So we are talking about uh the experience of the researcher the scientists that are inside these facilities. And the third is the human and human. So how do how do informal encounter interdisciplinary collaboration and scientific serendipity emerge? So uh I see that the space can push this kind of interaction. But how? So we have to go back to the first to the second point. The relationship between infrastructure and human So architecture can either support or inhibit this environment. [clears throat] Let me know briefly explain. Do you have any question? Yeah. Am I clear? >> Okay. I will briefly explain the methodological framework of this research that is ongoing. So obviously I don't have yet everything set. So the methodology is primarily qualitative and multiscolar. So the assumption behind is that architecture is not natural. And to investigate this I commend several methods. So we have special analysis, architectural observation, comparative case study, literature review and interview and the interpretation of social special dynamic. So the objective is not simply to understand what research infrastructure are. We are we already saw the definition the official one but how they work specially and socially and how knowledge emerge inside them. So to investigate this question empirically I selected loom. So this is the reason I'm here because is one of my primary case study and I believe LON is particularly interesting fascinating because it represent one of the strongest concentration concentration of scientific infrastructure here in Europe or in Northern Europe and here infrastructure are not isolated object they are embedded within our entire scientific ecosystem. Okay. So, uh we have a strong innovation ecosystem and interdisciplinary environment because we have a lot [clears throat] of different things happening here and we have in my main case studies there is a um infrastructure from Europe international one max 4 there is a national infrastructure and we have the science village that is trying to merge all the ecosystem and to fit everything. So I don't know what I did. Okay. [clears throat] So Lund is particularly interesting because it's allow us to study scientific infrastructure not as isolated machines but as part of a broader territorial and urban ecosystem. Okay. The first analytical scale concern the relationship between territory infrastructure. So the one that I told you um before and large L or I large should not be understood as a related laboratory but act they act as a territorial actor. They shape accessibility, mobility, institutional network, scientific attractive attractiveness. So we can say that ESS and Max 4 attract researcher, startup, collaboration, investment and new European development. That means that it will shape the territory around this infrastructure. Since science begins to reshape the territory and territory in turn influence scientific activity. So we have a mutual exchange and this bring to me to a very central question. So why does architecture matters? It matters also because it shape movement visibility its structure encounters and influences special perception. And this is why I introduced this question. Can architecture act as an epi epistemic infrastructure? That means that can ar the question mean can architecture actively contribute to the production of knowledge. So we're not just talking about influencing the territory attracting people but also pushing the production of this knowledge. I believe the answer may be yes but I will see at the end of my PhD for sure. So to understand this process I developed a conceptual framework based on three dimension and we have the cognitive one the social one and the special one and the key idea is that these dimension constantly interact. Okay. So knowledge does not emerge just from one single factor but from these three factor that continually interact and [clears throat] and this is very close to the theories of distributed cognition where cognition is not confined to one individual mind but is distributed across environment object and social system. And in this sense research infrastructure become cognitive ecosystem. So starting with the cognitive dimension architecture affect how researcher experience science every day because it influence orientation focus creativity even wellbeing. I I this morning I was at ESS and I what I understood is that a scientist doesn't love the open space um offices. >> No, not the offices. No. >> No. Yeah. >> Or lack thereof. >> So that means that the space can can really influence also your well your well-being and the production of knowledge inside the building. even if it's really beautiful by the outside. This is not I'm not go talking bad about ESS and so this is particularly important in highly special environment where concentration and long-term cognitive effort are essential and the building environment may shape attention in formal learning scientific imagination and problem solving. So for example, how does natural light affect concentration? How does special clarity reduce cognitive overload? Okay. How does how do spaces support transition between deep focus and collaboration? So I have to change space to change the type of working that I'm do. So architecture becomes not simply a container of science but a mediator of cognition. The second dimension is the social one. So scientific discovery I already told this is rarely individually individual it very often it is collective and one of the most fascinating aspect of research infrastructure is the role of informal interaction. So many important scientific conversation happens accidentally and scientific collaboration does not happen in abstraction. It happens somewhere. It happens in corridor, lunch, cafeterias, transitional space, meeting room. So we need a space where dy cutters happen. And very often innovation emerge also from a planet moment. So these spaces may become actual cat actual catalyst of innovation. And it's interesting also for an architect because that mean the designing our our research infrastructure also mean designing possibilities for intellectual exchange anyway doesn't go okay but infrastructure do something else as well they contribute to forming scientific communities is so they foster shared identity, collective practice, knowledge circulation and social cohesion. So social in this sense becomes a deeply social and spe special practice and also science needs social special practice. Oh okay. And the third dimension concern architecture as a special and symbolic aspect. So [clears throat] floor architecture abstra scientific ideas become perceptible and buildings communicate values, openness, precision, innovation but also authority because architecture shapes the first impress impression and it influence also how science become visible to society and perhaps I think even how science science become trusted. For this I was talking about public narrative. So at this point I would like if I'm too fast just tell me I would like to propose a shifty p perspective. So research infrastructure are not only scientific facilities, technological platform and functional building but they may also be understood as cultural symbolic aesthetic device that make science visible and perceptible. So we we will see in this really um small talk how this infrastructure are from technical container to culture radiator from scientific machines to knowledge production environment and this is really important today where scientific when science increasingly affect everyday life. So this lead me to a broader reflection. Perhaps we need to rethink research infrastructure altogether, not simply as technical facilities, but as an environment where scientific performance and special experience intersect and architecture at point becomes part of the scientific performance because special quality influence interaction, interaction influence collaboration, collaboration influence innovation. So uh as I already said this research infrastructure enables societies to see imagine and experiencing science through space. So we can finally return to the nation question. Why do society need research infrastructure? At the beginning the title was why do we like research infrastructure but at this point um I decided to change because do we need research infrastructure and we can say yes because they put advanced science so it is our future but why society need it and how society can understood understand these facilities because they materialize ize the way science is imagined, practiced and collectively experienced. So the significance of this infrastructure lies not only in discoveries but also in their capacity to specially embody processes, values and aspiration of contemporary science. And that's all. Thank you very much for listening. It was a really quick talk.