Advertisement

Experiencing as Doing and Undergoing

  • Brian S. Dixon
Chapter
  • 8 Downloads
Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (DERF)

Abstract

In this chapter I aim to draw some initial alignments between Dewey’s work and design research by focusing in on the theme of experience. To begin, I examine Dewey’s approach to experience in both its general and aesthetic forms. This then leads in to a consideration of how the theme of experience is currently approached within the field of design. Here, some existent points of Deweyan inspiration are identified in user experience and experience-centered design literature. Thereafter, I seek to extend the discussion further by offering an in-depth exploration of Dewey’s theoretical interlinking of experience and nature within his ‘naturalistic metaphysics’—an often-overlooked aspect of his philosophy. The chapter then concludes with a reflection on how, by drawing on Dewey’s work, a more expansive understanding of experience might be established within design.

Keywords

Design research Design practice Interaction design User experience Experience-Centered design John Dewey 

References

  1. Alben, L. (1996). Defining the criteria for effective interaction design. Interactions, 3(3), 11–15.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, T. M. (1987). John Dewey’s Theory of Art, Experience & Nature: The Horizons of Feeling. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, T. M. (2017). The human Eros: Eco-ontology and the aesthetics of existence. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Anton, J. P. (2005). American naturalism and Greek philosophy. Amherst: Prometheus.Google Scholar
  5. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues 8(2), 5–21.Google Scholar
  6. Bannon, L. (1991). From human factors to human actors: The role of psychology and human computer interaction studies in system design. In J. Greenbaum & M. Kyng (Eds.), Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems (pp. 25–44). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Battarbee, K. (2004). Co-experience: Understanding user-experience in interactive systems. PhD Dissertation. Helsinki: University of Art and Design.Google Scholar
  8. Battarbee, K., & Koskinen, I. (2005). Co-experience: User experience as interaction. CoDesign, 1(1), 5–18.Google Scholar
  9. Bergson, H. (1910). Time and free will (trans: Pogson FL). London: George Allen.Google Scholar
  10. Bergson, H. (1911). Creative evolution (trans: Mitchell a). New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
  11. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice–Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Boas, F. (1989). In G. W. Stocking (Ed.), A Franz Boas reader: The shaping of American anthropology, 1883–1911. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  13. Boisvert, R. D. (1988). Dewey’s metaphysics. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Buchanan, R. (2009). Thinking about design: An historical perspective. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (Vol. 9, pp. 409–453). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  15. Buxton, B. (2007). Sketching user experiences: Getting the design right and the right design. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  16. Campbell, J. (1995). Understanding John Dewey: Nature and cooperative intelligence. Chicago: Open Court Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Colόn, G. A. T., & Hobbs, C. A. (2015). The intertwining of culture and nature: Franz Boas, John Dewey, and Deweyan strands of American anthropology. Journal of the History of Ideas, 76(1), 139–162.Google Scholar
  18. Dalsgaard, P. (2009). Designing engaging interactive environments – A pragmatist perspective.. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University.Google Scholar
  19. Dewey J (MW 1–15). J. A. Boydston (Ed.) John Dewey the middle works, 1899–1924. Carbondale: University of Southern Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  20. Dewey J (LW 1–17). J. A. Boydston (Ed.) John Dewey the later works, 1925–1953. Carbondale IL: University of Southern Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dourish, P. (2001). Where The Action Is. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Forlizzi, J., & Ford, S. (2000). The building blocks of experience: An early framework for interaction designers. In Proceedings of the 3rd conference on designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 419–423). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  23. Forlizzi, J., & Battarbee, K. (2004). Understanding experience in interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 5th conference on designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and Tsechniques (pp. 261–268). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  24. James, W. (1981a). [1890]). In F. H. Burkhardt, F. Bowers, & I. K. Skrupkelis (Eds.), The collected works of William James: The principles of psychology, volume 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. James, W. (1981b). [1890]). In F. H. Burkhardt, F. Bowers, & I. K. Skrupkelis (Eds.), The collected works of William James: The principles of psychology, Volume 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jones, W. F. (1983). Nature and natural science: The philosophy of Frederick JE Woodbridge. New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  27. Gale, R. (2010). John Dewey’s quest for Unity: The journey of a promethean Mystic. New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  28. Hassenzahl, M. (2003). The thing and I: Understanding the relationship between user and product. In M. Blythe, K. Overbeeke, A. Monk, & P. Wright (Eds.), Funology: From usability to enjoyment (pp. 31–42). Dordercht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Hassenzahl, M., Beu, A., & Burmester, M. (2001). Engineering joy. IEEE Software, 18(1), 70–76.Google Scholar
  30. Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience–A research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(2), 91–97.Google Scholar
  31. Heidegger, M. (2010). [1927] Being and time (trans: Stambaugh J). State University of New York Press, Albany.Google Scholar
  32. Hickman, L. (2007). Pragmatism as post-postmodernism: Lessons from John Dewey. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Idhe, D. (1990). Technology and the Lifeworld: From garden to earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Idhe, D. (2009). Postphenomenology and Technoscience: The Peking University lectures. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer-interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human computer interaction (pp. 16–44). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lallemand, C., Gronier, G., & Koenig, V. (2015). User experience: A concept without consensus? exploring practitioners’ perspectives through an international survey. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 35–48.Google Scholar
  37. Lamont, C. (Ed.), (1959). Dialogue on John Dewey. Horizon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Merleau Ponty, M. (2012). [1945] The Phenomenology of perception (trans: Smith C). Routledge, Abingdon.Google Scholar
  39. Mead, G. H. (1934). In C. W. Morris (Ed.), Mind self and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. McCarthy, J., & Wright, P. (2004). Technology as experience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. McGranahan, L. (2017). Darwinism and pragmatism: William James on evolution and self transformation. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Morgenbesser, S. (1977). Dewey and his critics: Essays from the journal of philosophy. Lancaster PA: Lancaster Press.Google Scholar
  43. Norman, D. A., Miller, J., & Henderson, A. (1995). What you see, some of what’s in the future, and how we go about doing it: HI at Apple Computer. In Conference companion on human factors in computing systems (Vol. 155). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  44. Overbeeke, K. (2007). The Aesthetics of the Impossible. TU Eindhoven, Eindhoven. Available via research.tue.nl https://research.tue.nl/en/publications/the-aesthetics-of-the-impossible Accessed 11 Feb 2020.
  45. Overbeeke, K., Djadjadiningrat, T., Hummels, C., & Wensveen, S. A. G. (2002). Beauty in usability: Forget about ease of use. In W. Green & P. Jordan (Eds.), Pleasure with products: Beyond usability (pp. 9–18). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  46. Petersen, M. G., Iversen, O. S., Krogh, P. G., & Ludvigsen, M. (2004). Aesthetic interaction: A pragmatist’s aesthetics of interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 5th conference on designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 269–276). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  47. Randall, J. H. (1944). Epilogue: The nature of naturalism. In Y. H. Krikorian (Ed.), Naturalism and the human Spirit (pp. 354–382). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Rodgers, Y. (2012). HCI theory: Classical, modern, and contemporary. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 5(2), 1–129.Google Scholar
  49. Rodgers, Y., Sharp, H., & Preece, J. (2011). Interaction design: Beyond human computer interaction (3rd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  50. Rorty, R. (1982). The consequences of pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  51. Santayana, G. (1925). Dewey’s naturalistic metaphysics. The Journal of Philosophy, 22(25), 673–688.Google Scholar
  52. Shedroff, N. (2001). Experience Design. Indianapolis: New Riders.Google Scholar
  53. Sleeper, R. W. (1986). The necessity of pragmatism: John Dewey’s conception of philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Suchman, L. A. (1993). Do categories have politics? The language/action perspective reconsidered. In Proceedings of the third European conference on computer-supported cooperative work, ECSCW’93. Milan, Italy, 13–17 Sept 1993. Springer, Dordrecht (pp. 1–14).Google Scholar
  56. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Vera, A. H., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Situated action: A symbolic interpretation. Cognitive Science, 17(1), 7–48.Google Scholar
  58. Wakkary, R. (2009). Experiencing interaction design: A pragmatic theory. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Plymouth: University of Plymouth.Google Scholar
  59. Wakkary, R., Oogjes, D., Hauser, S., Lin, H., Cao, C., Ma, L., & Duel, T. (2017). Morse things: A design inquiry into the gap between things and us. In Proceedings of the 2017 conference on designing interactive systems (pp. 503–514). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  60. Welton, W. A. (Ed.). (2002). Plato’s forms: A variety of interpretations. Oxford: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  61. West, C. (1989). The American evasion of philosophy: A genealogy of pragmatism. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  62. Wiener, P. P. (1949). Evolution and founders of pragmatism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new Foundation for Design. Norwood: Albex Publishing.Google Scholar
  64. Wright, P., & McCarthy, J. (2010). Experience-centered design: Designers, users, and communities in dialogue. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 3(1), 1–123.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian S. Dixon
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social SciencesUlster UniversityBelfastUK

Personalised recommendations