چکیده:
برای ادراک محیط انسان نیازمند ایجاد نوعی تطابق میان حالات روانی خود و نیروهای محیطی ناشی از پدیده است، بنابراین فضای احاطه کننده مخاطب از طریق سازمان عناصر، بر احساس ما از محیط تأثیر می گذارد. ازاین رو یافتن عوامل معناساز در فرآیند ادراک به معماران برای طراحی کمک می کند. هدف پژوهش حاضر یافتن عوامل تأثیرگذار بر شکل گیری معنا، رتبه بندی این عوامل به منظور یافتن اولویت های برتر تأثیرگذار، یافتن نحوه ارتباط و تأثیرگذاری متقابل عوامل بر یکدیگر و چگونگی کارکرد بهینه آنها می باشد. این پژوهش از لحاظ هدف، یک پژوهش کاربردی و از نظر طرح پژوهش، توصیفی محسوب می شود. در بخش نظری به منظور یافتن عوامل معناساز، از منابع اینترنتی، مطالعات کتابخانه ای و اسنادی استفاده شده است. در این راستا 28 عامل تأثیرگذار بر معنا شناسایی شدند و پرسشنامه بر اساس الزامات تکنیک تاپسیس تنظیم شد. جامعه آماری پژوهش، شامل استادان و دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی دانشگاههای شهر شیراز می باشد. اطلاعات حاصل از تعداد 203 پرسشنامه های برگشتی، با استفاده از تکنیک تاپسیس و روش آنتروپی شانون، تجزیه و تحلیل شد. یافته ها نشان داد که عامل «هویت و شخصیت»(Ci=1.00، Di+=0.00، Di-=0.20)در زیرمعیارهای شخصیتی و «نوع رابطه انسان با محیط» (Ci=1.00، Di+=0.00، Di-=0.26) در زیرمعیارهای محیط رفتاری در رتبه ی اول تأثیرگذاری قرار دارند. در نهایت به تدوین مدلی جامع و ساختاری نظام مند از عوامل تأثیرگذار بر شکل گیری معنا با استفاده از نرم افزار ونسیم اقدام گردید. این مدل علت و معلولی با تشکیل یک ساختار به هم پیوسته از عوامل با توجه به اولویت آن ها، نشانگر نحوه ارتباط و تأثیرگذاری متقابل عوامل بر یکدیگر است.
Extended Abstract Objective and Background:Humans need to understand the meanings to perceive the environment. Perception is the process by which we select and interpret environmental stimuli to achieve meaningful experiences. In this process, as an audience, the mind looks for specific dimensions of the subject to find the meaning and concept. Every phenomenon transfers its message through meaning in the scope of human perception. The first deliberate or unconscious attempt by human beings is based on creating a kind of alignment between their mental states and environmental forces arising from the phenomenon. Only in this case, effective communication with the environment and a meaningful experience is possible. In other words, human tries to create a personal identity of architectural space in his mind. Therefore, the audience’s atmosphere affects our sense of environment by the organization of elements. Therefore, the cognition of latent signs in the environment contributes to meaning perception by the audience. Hence, in environmental psychology, the process of perception and finding meaning determinants will help architects design. Previous studies in the field of humanities and psychology related to meaning have been carried out rarely, with regard to the extent of the factors influencing the formation of meaning. So far, no research in the field of architecture and environmental sciences has examined these variables. In addition, the influence of these factors and their interactions, prioritization, and measurement of their importance is not observed. The purpose of this study is to investigate factors affecting the creation of meaning in individuals’ minds, rank these factors to find the most effective priorities, find the means of communication and interaction of these factors on each other, and show how they optimally function. Methods: This study is applied research in terms of research aim and a descriptive research from the design viewpoint. It is carried out in a subgroup of the Delphi-type survey method. In the theoretical section of the research, internet resources, archives, and documentary studies have been used to find meaning determinant. In this regard, 28 factors affecting meaning were categorized into five sub-criteria. They included 20 “personal factors” in the three sub-criteria of “social and predestination”, “personality” and “adventitious”; and 8 “environmental factors” in two sub-criteria of “physical environment” and “behavioral environment”. According to TOPSIS requirements, a questionnaire has been developed, including 71 pair comparisons in terms of two 9-degree spectra for determining the modeling and ranking meaning determinants. Findings:The statistical population of the study consisted of all faculty members and post-graduate students of Shiraz universities. In this research, a questionnaire was used for data collection. A questionnaire was distributed among the 340 members of the available statistical population through a computer or face-to-face visit to eliminate the risk of sampling errors and increase the research validity. Data were analyzed from 203 returned questionnaires via TOPSIS technique and Shannon entropy method. The results showed that the factors of “identity and personality” (Ci= 1.00, Di+= 0.00, Di-= 0.20) in personality sub-criteria and “the type of human relationship with the environment” (Ci= 1.00, Di+= 0.00, Di-= 0.26) in behavioral environment sub-criteria ranked first. There is no significant difference between personal and environmental criteria in the formation of meaning, indicating that they are not given priority in terms of the meaning formation, and they have the same effect. According to the information, attitudes of males and females (Sig= 0.283, H0 result=Not reject), academic rank (Sig= 0.501, H0 result=Not reject), and type of university (Sig= 0.953, H0 result=Not reject) are almost identical, and they have the same viewpoint in identifying various factors.Finally, a systematic and comprehensive model of the factors influencing the creation of meaning was developed using Vensim software. Conclusion:The 28 effective factors on the formation of meaning, which are comprised of 20 “personal factors” in the three sub-criteria of “social and fate”, “personality” and “Acquisition”, and 8 “environmental factors” in two sub-criteria of “physical environment” and “behavioral environment”. By forming an interconnected structure of factors, the cause and effect model indicates how the relationships and factors interact with each other, depending on their priority. According to the model, each factor influences several factors. The two factors of “Identity and character” and “Type of human relationship with the environment” are centrality in the loop of influencing factors. It is evidence of their power of influence among the determinants because they, directly and indirectly, form meaning in mind. On the other hand, the influence of factors such as “Depth of human presence”, “Experiences and skills,” “Family,” “Job,” “culture,” and “sense of place,” which are influential in other priorities, are well known.By analyzing these relationships, we conclude that everything that humans encounter during their lives, both consciously and unconsciously, is the source of meaning. Therefore, designers can increase the quality of architectural space and effectively communicate with the audience by considering and targeting each of these factors. According to the discussion above, architecture separated from its functional aspects conveys meaning; it acts as a mediator for determining the meaning. It can affect their perceptions and behaviors as space users form an individual’s environmental behavior.
خلاصه ماشینی:
اولویتبندی عوامل معناساز در فرآیند ادراک محیط با استفاده از تکنیک تاپسیس جهت تدوین مدل علت و معلولی معنا* Ranking Meaning Determining Factors in the Process of Environmental Perceptions via TOPSIS Technique for Developing the Meaning Cause and Effect Model مرجان محسنزاده1 (نویسنده مسئول)، محمد علیآبادی2، جاوید قنبری3 سید محمد حسین ذاکری4 تاریخ ارسال: 29/02/1398 تاریخ بازنگری: 24/09/1398 تاریخ پذیرش: 22/10/1398 تاریخ انتشار آنلاین: 01/10/1399 چکیده برای ادراک محیط انسان نیازمند ایجاد نوعی تطابق میان حالات روانی خود و نیروهای محیطی ناشی از پدیده است، بنابراین فضای احاطهکننده مخاطب از طریق سازمان عناصر، بر احساس ما از محیط تأثیر میگذارد.
(به تصوير صفحه مراجعه شود) Fig. 2 Comparison of the ranking meaning determinants related to personal and environmental criteria from the gender perspective با توجه به تصویر شماره 3 در معیار شخصی، زیر معیار اجتماعی و جبری، دو نمودار از هم فاصله گرفته که نشان میدهد دانشجویان قدرت تأثیر این عوامل را کمتر از اساتید میدانند.
(به تصوير صفحه مراجعه شود) Fig. 3 Comparison of the ranking meaning determinants related to personal and environmental criteria from the academic rank perspective با توجه به تصویـر شماره 4 در معیار شخصی، زیر معیار اجتماعی و جبـری، دو نمودار دانشـگاههای آزاد و غیرانتفاعی بسیار به هم شبـاهت دارند حال آنکه نمودار دانشـگاه دولتی نشان دهنده قدرت تأثیر بیشتر این عوامل است.
(به تصوير صفحه مراجعه شود) Fig. 4 Comparison of the ranking meaning determinants related to personal and environmental criteria from the type of university perspective فرضیه دیگر پژوهش به بررسی وجود اختلاف معنادار بین گروههای مختلف پاسخدهنده، میپردازد.