Judgment in architectural competitions as communicative deliberative practice

The judgment process in architectural competitions has long been considered as one of the most complex and controversial practices. This, on one hand, is because of architecture itself and the multi-faceted nature of the architectural design, and on the other, for the complexion of the judgment process and the diversity of stakeholders involved in the decision process. Framing the judgment process as a democratic practice, this paper aims to explore the nature of the judgment process in architectural competitions, utilizing deliberative democracy as a frame of reference, through comparative critical analysis approach to the existing body of knowledge. The communicative action theory is used as a model by which negotiations or communications leading to the decision in judgment process of an architectural competition can be integrated in the process and understood from a new angle. Laying foundation for future research, this paper argues that, in order to reach a rational mutual decision, dialogic and instrumental deliberation are both essential to a successful judgment process in architectural competitions. In addition, conducting an effective communication between all the stakeholders involved in the decision process to promote transparency, is vital to reach a common understanding that allows for sharing a common ground to reach consensus.