process of building, comprising both human and mechanical factors: Who and what
influenced the technological solutions and systems of Paimio Sanatorium, in what way
did these players influence the process and how did the process affect them? This research
attempted to bring out the interplay, especially between the architect, the client, the engi-
neers, the builders and the material world.
The study started with the notion that the architectural solutions implementing new
ideas of organisation, constructional techniques or other techniques in Paimio Sanato-
rium, such as the reinforced concrete skeleton or heating systems, developed remarkably
from the competition entry in 1929 to the finalised building. Something kept happening
between the drawing desk and the assembly.^47 It is quite natural, however, that architec-
tural design, especially the detailing, develops through the design process. Special atten-
tion was paid to the architect’s role, whose aim was to convince all the other stakeholders
of the superiority of his solutions: How did he express his ideas, justify his views and
act to reach his goals? The working hypothesis was that the architectural solutions were
influenced by the process of materialising the building. The focus of this study was on the
process of design and building rather than on the end product.
I approached the relationship between the architecture and technology of Paimio
Sanatorium through the perspective of the French sociologist Bruno Latour’s actor-
network theory. I have discussed the design and the construction of the building as an
innovation process. According to Latour, a new hybrid, which in the present study was
represented by a building, acquires its shape simultaneously as a social, subjective and
material entity. According to Latour, the success of architecture, or any other techno-
logical hybrid, depends on how strongly interlinked the network of actors representing
different ontological categories is, in this case that of designers, builders and material
outcome. Below, I have applied Latour’s theory in a critical discussion of the delimitation
of the research object and the nature of the groups affecting decision-making.^48 My aim
was to reveal the interrelations within the technological systems at Paimio Sanatorium.
Based on information available on the portal compiled and maintained by Bruno
Latour himself^49 and on the portal of the Lancaster University, Action Network Theory
Resource: Thematic List^50 , the present dissertation is among the few studies in the
field of architectural history to have used the actor-network theory as the theoretical
framework. Bruno Latour and Albena Yaneva, Professor in Architectural Theory at the
Manchester University, have published an article dealing with actor-network theory’s
view on architecture, which proved highly relevant to my own work.^51
47 Latour has also drawn focus on the unpredictability of technological processes. See e.g. Latour and Yaneva 2008.
48 In his work Reassembling the Social, Latour argues that, instead of preconceived theories and methods,
researchers ought to pay attention to oppositions and uncertainties, the five most salient of which accord-
ing to Latour are the nature of groups, action, objects, knowledge and sociological research. Latour 2007
[2005], passim and especially pp. 21–22.
49 Bruno Latour’s home page related to his scientific work http://www.bruno-latour.fr. Latour 2011.
50 Unfortunately, the useful resource has not been updated since 2000. Lancaster University 2000.
51 Latour and Yaneva 2008.