Presence-in-person paradigm

Given that mediated spaces, specifically synchronous audiovisual spatial extensions using video and media technology as design components, may provide viable alternatives for meetings and interactions, the implications for workplace design are noteworthy. My study thus explores the contribution from presence design to architectural practice—as well as the reciprocal contribution
from architecture to presence design.
I will briefly explore the foundations of a presence-inperson paradigm, arguing that, in line with the emerging network society, it is currently renegotiated with implications for architectural practice and theory. My focus is the relationship between presence design and architecture, with
a particular interest in the implications for work and learning contexts where dialogic interaction and close collaboration are crucial. This design-led research is based on my reflective practice, first, as architectural designer (1990–2005) specialized in workplace design, and secondly
as presence designer (2000–2010). It thus summarizes work carried out over a long period of time during which an iterative research-by-design process has developed from combining my experiences from practice with the theoretical and analytical tools of a reflective practitioner
(Scho¨n 1983).
To address knowledge management as a spatial and temporal design issue assumes a correlation between spatial organization and human interaction, which is a longstanding debate, not least within architectural theory. There is, for example, no scientific evidence that an open plan
office layout stimulates more interaction than a cell-office layout (Steen 2009) but space syntax theory has, to anextent, shown that spatial features such as proximity, visibility and layout stimulate interaction and collaboration (Hillier 1996; Allen 1977; Nonaka and Konno 1998; Sailer
2010).
My study is equally informed by research that has determined factors that may contribute to poorer synchronizing (Argyle and Cook 1976); and ‘frictions’ (Davenport and Prusak 1998) that inhibit knowledge sharing in human interaction and collaborative co-present contexts. These are, for example, mutual gaze and trust. In effect, to be able to achieve mutual gaze has been observed as a key element in establishing trust, also in mediated interaction (Heath and Luff 1992; Heath et al. 1995; Rocco 1998; Acker and Levitt 1987; Ishii and Kobayashi 1992; Fullwood 2006). As noted by Caroline Nevejan (2007), trust is a prerequisite to the individual
experience of presence in mediated environments, contributing a ‘sense of being there’ or of ‘non-mediation’ (IJsellsteijn and Riva 2003; Lombard and Ditton 1997; Held and Durlach 1992).
Trust is, further, a core element in the body of ‘informal and tacit practices’, which sustain knowledge sharing in accordance with Polanyi’s notion of tacit knowing (Polanyi
1958, 1966) and Wittgenstein’s concepts of rule-following and collectively established meaning (Wittgenstein 1953).
A large body of existing research from the area of dialogue, skill and tacit knowledge (e.g. Go¨ranzon et al. 2006) may thus be applied to presence design.
In the following, I will attempt to show how the issue of trust relates to architectural design—if by architectural design, we also encompass the spatial extensions enabled through presence design.