Why Design Cybernetics?
- 180 Downloads
In this chapter I review the intimate relationship between cybernetics and design, drawing on the work of Ranulph Glanville and Gordon Pask. The significance of each of these fields for the other follows from the mutualism between them, such that cybernetics can be understood in terms of design as well as vice versa. The full value of this can be seen in the assistance they offer each other in building support from within. Design may serve as an example for how cybernetics can be practiced cybernetically, i.e. in accordance with its own insights and principles. In turn, cybernetics may help design understand itself in its own terms, in contrast to the way that it can become distorted by theories imported from elsewhere. Moreover, this mutualism connects design research to the vast array of topics with which cybernetics is concerned. Recalling its origins as a transdisciplinary project, cybernetics may help mediate diverse concerns within design, while also enabling cybernetic processes in other fields to be explored through the insights and methods of design research.
KeywordsDesign research Transdisciplinarity Cybernetics Conversation
- 3.Fantini van Ditmar, D. (2017). Deconstructing the smart home: AI vs. second-order cybernetics. In L. C. Werner (Ed.), Cybernetics: State of the art (pp. 166–173). Berlin: Universitätsverlag der Technischen Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
- 7.Glanville, R. (2006). Design and mentation: Piaget’s constant objects. The Radical Designist zero issue. Available at: http://asc-cybernetics.org/systems_papers/Design _and_Mentation.pdf. Accessed January 19, 2019.
- 8.Glanville, R. (2007). Cybernetics and design. Kybernetes, 36(9/10). Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/toc/k/36/%2F10. Accessed January 19, 2019.
- 11.Glanville, R. (2009). A (cybernetic) musing: Design and cybernetics. In The black boox, volume III: 39 steps (pp. 423–425). Vienna: edition echoraum. Reprinted from: Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 16(3/4), 175–186.Google Scholar
- 13.Glanville, R. (Ed.) (2012). Trojan horses: A rattle bag from the ‘Cybernetics: Art, design, mathematics—A meta-disciplinary conversation’ post-conference workshop. Vienna: edition echoraum.Google Scholar
- 14.Glanville, R. (2014). Design prepositions. In The black boox, volume II: Living in cybernetic circles (pp. 239–252). Vienna: edition echoraum. Reprinted from: Belderbos, M., & Verbeke, J. (Eds.). (2007). The unthinkable doctorate (pp. 115–126). Brussels: Sint Lucas.Google Scholar
- 15.Glanville, R. (2014). Why design research? In The black boox, volume II: Living in cybernetic circles (pp. 111–120). Vienna: edition echoraum. Reprinted from: Jacques, R., & Powell, J. A. (Eds.). (1981). Design, science, method: Proceedings of the 1980 Design Research Society conference (pp. 86–94). Guildford: Westbury House.Google Scholar
- 16.Glynn, R. (2008). Conversational environments revisited. In R. Trappl (Ed.), Cybernetics and systems 2008, proceedings of the 19th European meeting on cybernetics and systems research. Vienna, Austria: Austrian Society for Cybernetics Studies.Google Scholar
- 17.Goodbun, J. (2011). Gregory Bateson’s ecological aesthetics: An addendum to urban political ecology. Field, 4(1), 35–46.Google Scholar
- 19.Herr, C. M. (2014). Radical constructivist structural design education for large cohorts of Chinese learners. Constructivist Foundations, 9(3), 393–402.Google Scholar
- 21.Jelić, A. (2015). Designing “pre-reflective” architecture: Implications of neurophenomenology for architectural design and thinking. Ambiances. Available at: http://ambiances.revues.org/628. Accessed January 19, 2019.
- 25.Jones, P. H., & Kijima, K. (2018). Systemic design: Theory, methods, and practice. In Translational systems sciences. Tokyo: Springer Japan.Google Scholar
- 28.Mead, M. (1968). The cybernetics of cybernetics. In H. von Foerster, J. D. White, L. J. Peterson, & J. K. Russell (Eds.), Purposive systems (pp. 1–11). New York, NY: Spartan Books.Google Scholar
- 29.Müller, K. H., & Riegler, A. (2014). Second-order science: A vast and largely unexplored science frontier. Constructivist Foundations, 10(1), 7–15.Google Scholar
- 30.Pask, G. (1969). The architectural relevance of cybernetics. Architectural Design, 7(6), 494–496.Google Scholar
- 31.Pask, G. (1976). Conversation theory: Applications in education and epistemology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- 35.Rawes, P. (Ed.). (2013). Relational architectural ecologies: Architecture, nature and subjectivity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 36.Schön, D. A. (1991). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. Farnham: Arena.Google Scholar
- 37.Spiller, N. (2002). Cyber_reader: Critical writings for the digital era. London: Phaidon Press.Google Scholar
- 38.Sweeting, B. (2016). Design research as a variety of second-order cybernetic practice. Constructivist Foundations, 11(3), 572–579.Google Scholar
- 40.Sweeting, B. (2018). Wicked problems in design and ethics. In P. H. Jones & K. Kijima (Eds.), Systemic design: Theory, methods, and practice (Translational systems sciences series). Tokyo: Springer Japan.Google Scholar
- 41.Sweeting, B., & Hohl, M. (2015). Exploring alternatives to the traditional conference format: Introduction to the special issue on composing conferences. Constructivist Foundations, 11(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
- 42.Werner, L. C. (2017). Cybernetification I: Cybernetics feedback netgraft in architecture. In L. C. Werner (Ed.), Cybernetics: State of the art (pp. 58–73). Berlin: Universitätsverlag der Technischen Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
- 43.Westermann, C. (2010). Cybernetics: Art, design, mathematics—A meta-disciplinary conversation. Leonardo Reviews Quarterly, 1(02), 24–26.Google Scholar
- 44.Zambelli, A. (2016). Scandalous artefacts: Visual and analogical practice between architecture and archaeology. PhD Thesis, London: UCL.Google Scholar