, 38:69 | Cite as

An Epistemology of Presence and Reconceptualisation in Design Education



In this paper, the idea of coming into presence and an epistemology that recognises the agency of the learner in the construction of knowledge is developed as an organising framework for reconceptualising design education. Design is typically taught as a problem solving exercise based on a representational epistemology. A critique of the representational epistemology is presented. The idea of design as coming into presence is introduced and exemplified though considerations of implicate order, context, and closure. It is suggested that an epistemology of presence provides a better alignment between how people experience the world through design and the ways in which they engage with it both intellectually and practically.


Epistemology coming into presence design education design object implicate order context closure 


  1. Atkinson T., Claxton G. (2000). The Intuitive Practitioner. Buckingham, Open University PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Augé M. (1995). Non-places: An introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity. London, VersoGoogle Scholar
  3. Benjamin, A. (2000). Time, question, fold. Retrieved July, 2000 from Scholar
  4. Biesta G.J.J., Osberg D. (2007). Updating the epistemology of schooling: Presence, representation and beyond. Interchange 38(1): 13-29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohm D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. London, Routledge & Kegan PaulGoogle Scholar
  6. Bohm D. (1987). Hidden variables and the implicate order. In: Hiley B.J., Peat F.D. (eds) Quantum implications: Essays in honour of David Bohm. London, Routledge & Kegan PaulGoogle Scholar
  7. Bohm D. (1998). On creativity. London, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Cross N. (eds) (1984). Developments in design methodology. Chichester, John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  9. Darke J. (1984). The primary generator and the design process. In: Cross N. (eds) Developments in design methodology. Chichester, John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis B., Sumara D. (2007). A pedagogy of invention. Interchange 38(1): 53-67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deleuze G. (1997). Le Pli: Leibniz et le Baroque (T. Conley, Tran., as The fold: Leibniz and the baroque). Minneapolis, University of Minnesota PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Department of Education and Science & Welsh Office. (1990). Design and technology in the national curriculum. London, HMSO.Google Scholar
  13. Dillon P.J. (1993). Technological education and the environment. International Journal of Science Education 15: 575-589Google Scholar
  14. Dillon P., Howe T. (2003). Design as narrative: Objects, stories and negotiated meaning. International Journal of Art and Design Education 22(3): 291-298Google Scholar
  15. Dillon P., Prosser D., Howe T. (2004). Design transactions in educational multimedia. The Design Journal 7(2): 54-63Google Scholar
  16. Doel, M.A. (2000). Un-glunking geography: Spatial science after Dr. Seuss and Gilles Deleuze. In M. Crang & N. Thrift (Eds.), Thinking Space London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Hansen K.L. (1997). Science and technology as social relation Towards a philosophy of technology for liberal education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 7: 49-63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrison, G. (1970). The pattern of technology. School Technology Bulletin, 14, 3.Google Scholar
  19. Howe T., Dillon P. (2001). Cultural niche and the contexts of craft, design and fine art. The Design Journal 4(3): 50-57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnsey R. (1995). The design process – Does it exist?. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 5: 199-217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kimbell R. (1991). The Assessment of Performance in Design and Technology. London, School Examination and Assessment CouncilGoogle Scholar
  22. Lawson H. (2001a). Closure. A story of everything. London, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Lawson, H. (2001b, November). Stephen Hawking is wrong. Prospect.Google Scholar
  24. Mawson B. (2003). Beyond ‘the design process’: An alternative pedagogy for technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 13(2): 117-128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mayo S. (1993). Myths in design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 3(1): 41-52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mead, G.H. (1932). The philosophy of the present. La Salle, Il: Open Court.Google Scholar
  27. Oers B. van. (1998). From context to contextualizing. Learning and Instruction 8(6): 473-488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Osberg D., Biesta G.J.J. (2007). Complexity, knowledge and the incalculable: The epistemological implications of ‘strong’ emergence. Interchange 38(1): 31-51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prigogine I. (1997). The end of certainty: Time, chaos and the new laws of nature. London, The Free PressGoogle Scholar
  30. Restany P. (2001). Hundertwasser. The painter-king with the five skins. Cologne, TaschenGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith P. (2001). Cultural theory. An introduction. Oxford, BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  32. Vargish T., Mook D.E. (1999). Inside modernism. Relativity theory, cubism and narrative. New Haven, Yale University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Education and Lifelong LearningUniversity of ExeterExeterUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations