(cid:48)(cid:68)(cid:83)(cid:83)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:73)(cid:192)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:29) (cid:89)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:88)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:93)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:70)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:74)(cid:75)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:69)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81) THÈSE NO 8242 (2018) PRÉSENTÉE LE 26 JANVIER 2018 AU COLLÈGE DES HUMANITÉS ET À LA FACULTÉ DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT NATUREL, ARCHITECTURAL ET CONSTRUIT LABORATOIRE D'HUMANITÉS DIGITALES ET LABORATOIRE CHÔROS ÉCOLE POLYTECHNIQUE FÉDÉRALE DE LAUSANNE POUR L'OBTENTION DU GRADE DE DOCTEUR ÈS SCIENCES PAR Dario RODIGHIERO acceptée sur proposition du jury: Prof. M. Andersen, présidente du jury Prof. F. Kaplan, Prof. B. Beaude, directeurs de thèse Prof. K. Fendt, rapporteur Prof. M. Martino, rapporteur Prof. J. Huang, rapporteur Suisse 2018 To my family III Acknowledgments I wish to express my sincerest gratitude to my thesis directors, Professor Frédéric Kaplan and Professor Boris Beaude, for the freedom they gave me in my choices. The same gratitude goes to the members of the thesis committee, Kurt Fendt (MIT), Mauro Martino (IBM), Jeffrey Huang (EPFL). I am grateful for the generous funding provided by the ENAC, in particular, the dean Professor Marilyne Andersen. I sincerely thank the research team with whom I spent many working days, Marie-Christine Buluschek and Antoine Gillemin for the accu- rate management, Pierpaolo Follia and Ogier Maitre for the enriching collaboration in software development. My thanks also to the deanship members that contributed to the project, Consuelo Antille, Samuel Bancal, Jean-Daniel Bonjour, Nicolas Dubois, Melany Gilis, Alexandre Gonzalez and his communication team, Claudio Leonardi, and Cristina Perez. A special thank for their contributions to Laurent Bolli for visual design, Vincent Buntinx for spatial computation, Claude Claude Lecommandeur for data supply, and Orlin Topalov for database design. I thank Professor Bruno Latour for the help with the doctoral candidature and the médialab of Science Po, especially Nicolas Baya-Laffite, Daniele Guido, Donato Ricci, and Tommaso Venturini. I thank Carlo Ferigato from European Commission and Professor Giorgio de Michelis from the University of Milano-Bicocca for their long-time supervision. I thank everyone at the DHLAB, namely Alicia, Andrea, Bastian, Benoît, Carlotta, Cath- arina, Ciprian, Cyril, Dana, Emina, Federica, Fouad, François, Gael, Giovanni, Irene, Isabella, Katerina, Kevin, Laurent, Lia, Loup, Matteo, Maud, Melanie, Nils, Olivier, Orlin, Pierpaolo, Pierre, Serena, Sofia, Vincent, Vincent, and Yannick. I thank Professor Jacques Lévy and all the CHÔROS laboratory: André, Ana, Barbara, Boris, Ceyda, Carole, Dominique, Jean-Nicolas, Jade, Lei, Luana, Luc, Lucas, Marcela, Monique, Mirza, Patrick, Shin, Thibault, and Véronique. I thank Professor Thomas David and the College of Humanities, especially Isabelle Voneche-Cardia and Professor Hans-Peter Hertig. I also thank Professor Sabine Süsstrunk and the Digital Humanities Institute, in particular, Chiara Livia Bernardi, Dominique Boullier, Kathleen Collins Marton, and Aurélie Nicoulaz. I thank Sandra Botta, Professor Vincent Kaufmann, the teachers and the doctoral as- sistants of the Doctoral Program in Architecture & Sciences of the City, in particular, Farzaneh Bahrami and Alexandre Rigal for their friendship. I express gratitude towards Nicola Braghieri, Luca Ortelli, Beatrice Lampariello, Fa- bio Reinhart, Ton Quik, Cyril Veillon, the Archizoom, the Bonnefanten Museum, and the GAMeC for the collaboration in the exhibition Aldo Rossi: The window of the poet. V I also wish to thank Béatrix Boillat, Simone Mariotto, Isabella di Lenardo, Valé- rie Kaltenrieder, Vincent Jaccoud, Vincent Kappeler, Diego Ettore Simonetto, the Cultural and Art Affairs of EPFL, and the Bilumen for the collaboration in the exhibi- tion Retro-projection: four years of DHLAB. Finally, I thank Luc Meier and Magali Goby from the ArtLab, and the EPFL library. Special thanks are also addressed to the ENAC collective that encouraged the develop- ment of the Affinity Map with useful comments and remarks. I wish to thank Nadine for wonderfully helping me with the writing, and Ciprian for reading the entire work before the submission. Finally, I thank all my friends from Lausanne, Milano, Paris, and South Tyrol. And I wish to thank my priceless family Luisa, Claudio, Gabriella, and Franco VI Abstract Academic affinities are one of the most fundamental hidden dynamics that drive sci- entific development. Some affinities are actual, and consequently can be measured through classical academic metrics such as co-authoring. Other affinities are poten- tial, and therefore do not have visible traces in information systems; for instance, some peers may share scientific interests without actually knowing it. This thesis illustrates the development of a map of affinities for scientific collectives, which is intended to be relevant to three audiences: the management, the scholars themselves, and the external public. Our case study involves the School of Architec- ture, Civil and Environmental Engineering of EPFL, which consists of three institutes, seventy laboratories, and around one thousand employees. The actual affinities are modeled using the data available from the academic systems reporting publications, teaching, and advising, whereas the potential affinities are addressed through text mining of the documents registered in the information system. The major challenge for designing such a map is to represent the multi-dimension and multi-scale nature of the information. The affinities are not limited to the computa- tion of heterogeneous sources of information, they also apply at different scales as individuals, laboratories, etc. Therefore, the map shows local affinities inside a given laboratory, as well as global affinities among laboratories. The thesis presents a graphical grammar for affinities. This graphical system is actu- alized in several embodiments, among which a large-scale carpet of 250 square me- ters and an interactive online system in which the map can be parameterized. In both cases, we discuss how the actualization influences the representation of data, in par- ticular the way key questions could be appropriately addressed considering the three target audiences: the insights gained by the management and the relative decisions, the understanding of the researchers’ own positioning in the academic collective that might reveal opportunities for new synergies, and eventually the interpretation of the structure from an external standpoint that suggests the relevance of the map for com- munication. KEYWORDS Academic metrics, academic practices, actualization, affinity, cartography, design, digital traces, interaction, mapping, network visualization, potentiality, scientomet- rics, visualization. VII Résumé Les affinités académiques sont l’une des dynamiques cachées parmi les plus fonda- mentales qui animent le développement scientifique. Certaines affinités sont actuelles et, par conséquent, peuvent être mesurées à l’aide de métriques universitaires clas- siques telles que la coproduction. D’autres affinités sont potentielles et n’ont donc pas de traces visibles dans les systèmes d’information(cid:4); par exemple, certains pairs peu- vent partager des intérêts scientifiques sans le savoir a priori. Cette thèse illustre le développement d’une carte des affinités pour les collectifs scientifiques, destinée à trois publics : le management, les chercheurs eux-mêmes et le public externe. Notre étude de cas porte sur la Faculté de l’Environnement Naturel, Architectural et Construit de l’EPFL, composée de trois instituts, soixante-dix labora- toires et un millier d’employés. Les affinités actuelles sont modélisées à l’aide des données issues des systèmes académiques qui rendent compte des publications, en- seignements et supervisions, tandis que les affinités potentielles sont traitées par la fouille de textes appliquée aux documents enregistrés dans le système d’information. Le défi majeur pour concevoir une telle carte est de représenter la nature multidimen- sionnelle et multi échelle de l’information. Les affinités ne se limitent pas au calcul de sources d’informations hétérogènes, elles s’appliquent également à différentes échelles. Par conséquent, la carte montre les affinités locales au niveau d’un labora- toire donné, ainsi que les affinités globales entre les laboratoires. La thèse présente une grammaire graphique permettant de représenter les affinités. Ce système graphique est actualisé selon plusieurs modes de réalisation, parmi les- quels un tapis à grande échelle de 250 mètres carrés et un système interactif en ligne dans lequel la carte peut être paramétrée. Dans les deux cas, nous discutons de la façon dont l’actualisation influe sur la représentation des données, notamment la ma- nière dont les questions clés pourraient être abordées de manière appropriée en fonc- tion des trois publics cibles : les informations acquises par le management et leurs décisions, la compréhension de la position des chercheurs dans le collectif acadé- mique qui pourrait révéler des opportunités de création de nouvelles synergies et éventuellement l’interprétation de la structure d’un point de vue externe suggérant la pertinence de l’outil de communication. MOTS-CLES Actualisation, affinités, cartographie, design, interaction, métrique académique, po- tentialité, pratiques académiques, scientométrie, topologie, traces numériques, vi- sualisation, visualisation de réseaux. IX Contents IIntroduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1(cid:1) State of the Art ................................................................................................................................ 3(cid:1) Measuring Affinities .................................................................................................................... 4(cid:1) Academic Practice .................................................................................................................. 4(cid:1) Measuring Practice ................................................................................................................. 5(cid:1) Bibliometrics ........................................................................................................................... 7(cid:1) Literature Assessment ............................................................................................................ 8(cid:1) Affinities as a Metric .............................................................................................................. 10(cid:1) Visualizing Affinities ................................................................................................................. 12(cid:1) Organizing Individuals ........................................................................................................... 12(cid:1) Impoverishment of Visual Language ..................................................................................... 14(cid:1) Social Ties as Networks ........................................................................................................ 18(cid:1) Affinities in Academic Literature ......................................................................................... 20(cid:1) Arranging Individuals by Similarity .................................................................................... 22(cid:1) Aesthetic of Organizations ................................................................................................... 24(cid:1) Variety of Academic Practice ............................................................................................... 26(cid:1) Scientific Practice is Going Public ........................................................................................ 28(cid:1) Map Principles .......................................................................................................................... 30(cid:1) Correspondence .................................................................................................................... 30(cid:1) Distances of Spaces .............................................................................................................. 32(cid:1) Situation and Localization .................................................................................................... 33(cid:1) Interspatiality ....................................................................................................................... 34(cid:1) ENAC Case Study ....................................................................................................................... 36(cid:1) The EPFL Institution .............................................................................................................. 36(cid:1) The ENAC Direction ............................................................................................................... 37(cid:1) Mapping the School ............................................................................................................... 38(cid:1) The School from the Inside ................................................................................................... 40(cid:1) Opening Academia to the Public ........................................................................................... 42(cid:1) Design ............................................................................................................................................ 43(cid:1) The Process of Design ............................................................................................................... 44(cid:1) Collaborative Design ............................................................................................................. 44(cid:1) Preliminary Interviews ......................................................................................................... 45(cid:1) Early Sketches ...................................................................................................................... 47(cid:1) Visualizing Affinities ............................................................................................................. 50(cid:1) Inquiring into Individuals ..................................................................................................... 57(cid:1) Technical and Moral Constraints ..............................................................................................6 1(cid:1) Sources of Information .......................................................................................................... 61(cid:1) Visibility, Validation, and Creation of Data ......................................................................... 63(cid:1) Database of Affinities ............................................................................................................ 65(cid:1) Threshold of Information Privacy ........................................................................................ 66(cid:1) Ethic of Design ...................................................................................................................... 67(cid:1) X