There is a definition of space syntax provided in the symposium flyers and
in the list description of this mailbase which presumably is there to
describe, to the anyone who is interested, what space syntax is all about.
For those who have not seen it:

>Space syntax is a set of techniques usually, but not always, involving
>computers for the analysis of spatial configurations of all kinds,
>especially where spatial configuration seems to be a significant aspect of
>human affairs, as it is in buildings and cities.

The more I read this, the more restrictive and unsatisfactory I find it.
The problem with this definition is that it takes the set of techniques
that we use to be the thing that defines us as a research community. This
is dangerous, because techniques are always by their nature transient. They
are simply tools that we use to test our ideas by investigating the world
and allowing it to surprise us.

For this reason, there is no static 'set' of space syntax techniques. In
the past, established space syntax research techniques have been discarded
as soon as something better came along: for example the route observation
method used to measure movement flow was discarded in favour of the more
reliable 'gate' method.  We may in future discard techniques such as the
axial map representation or the RRA integration calculation in favour of
new representation or analysis techniques, if they prove to be 'better'.

And new techniques are being invented all the time. For example, at the
last symposium John Peponis presented new techniques for the definition of
sub-spaces within a spatial system, Bill Hillier presented the beginnings
of a set of techniques for investigating the geometric properties of urban
plans and it could be argued that most papers offered some innovation in
terms of technique. These would all fall outside the existing 'set of
techniques' definition of space syntax.

So how should we define space syntax, and how should we define ourselves as
a research community for the purposes of events such as the symposium?

Should it be the theories associated with space syntax (natural movement,
the movement economy) that define us? These are also inappropriate because,
like techniques, theories too are transient. Neither techniques nor
theories should be things that we sign up to in order to belong to the
research community, because they should be the subject of vigorous
competitive debate. Within the rules of empirical research and logical
discourse, we should be attempting to criticise our theories and our
methods in order to advance them. The fact that we already do this and that
a lively culture of critical debate exists makes the inadequacy of the
symposium definition given above even more apparent.

What I think should define us are not our answers, but the problems that
these answers are seeking to address. As Karl Popper said, "We are not
students of some subject matter but students of problems. And problems may
cut right across the borders of any subject matter or discipline."

Personally, if asked what this space syntax thing is that I am involved
with, I would offer something like the following definition:
Space syntax is a Scientific Research Programme (SRP) investigating the
role of spatial configuration as an independent variable in social systems.
It is concerned with such problems as:
-how can we measure the configurational properties of spatial systems?
-what is the role of configuration in movement, co-presence and higher
order social phenomena?
-What is the nature of the relationship between social organisation and
spatial configuration?

That's why the term 'space syntax' is so good, because in alluding to the
way that space is put together, it describes an idea that is at the heart
of our problem definition. Our research programme is bigger than just a set
of techniques and it crosses conventional subject boundaries. And
philosophical problems, unlike the theories built to answer them, are not
transient.

I think that what defines us as a research community is the fact that we
are investigating and debating these problems together and the belief that
it is a worthwhile pursuit- that "space matters" enough to bother investing
some of our precious time in investigating it. Apart from the more general
rules of empirical research and logical discourse that apply to any serious
research community, this is the only belief that it is necessary for us to
share.

Sometimes I wonder what subscribers to the "space syntax" mailbase think it
is that they are subscribing to, and how they would define themselves as
members of a research community.


Jake Desyllas
Bartlett School of Graduate Studies
1-19 Torrington Place
University College London
Gower Street
London WC1E 6BT
tel: +44 171 504 5611
fax: +44 171 813 2843
email: [log in to unmask]
http://doric.bart.ucl.ac.uk/web/spacesyntax/people/jdesyllashome.html




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%