Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Design Cybernetics pp 185–194Cite as

Why Design Cybernetics?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Design Research Foundations ((DERF))

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The same period has seen a similar deepening of connections between design and the field of systems, which is closely related to cybernetics [24, 25].

  2. 2.

    In so doing, Glanville anticipates recent discussions regarding second-order science. See e.g. [29, 38].

  3. 3.

    Zambelli [44, pp. 107–110] has speculated about a possible root of this tension in the foundation of the RIBA and in eighteenth and nineteenth century disciplinary specialisation more generally.

References

  1. Cabral Filho, J. S. (2013). The ethical implications of automated computation in design. Kybernetes, 42(9/10), 1354–1360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dubberly, H., & Pangaro, P. (2007). Cybernetics and service-craft: Language for behavior-focused design. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1301–1317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 

  4. Fantini van Ditmar, D. (2018). Design research: The idiot’s role in the ‘smart’ home. Diseña, 11, 122–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Glanville, R. (1993). Pask: A slight primer. Systems Research, 10(3), 213–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Glanville, R. (1999). Researching design and designing research. Design Issues, 15(2), 80–91.

    Article  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.

  9. Glanville, R. (2007). Introduction: Special double issue of Kybernetes on cybernetics and design. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1153–1157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Glanville, R. (2007). Try again. Fail again. Fail better: The cybernetics in design and the design in cybernetics. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1173–1206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 

  12. Glanville, R. (2011). Introduction: A conference doing the cybernetics of cybernetics. Kybernetes, 40(7/8), 952–963.

    Article  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 

  18. Herr, C. M. (2013). Architectural design education between poetry and prose. Kybernetes, 42(9/10), 1404–1412.

    Article  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 

  20. Hohl, M. (2015). Living in cybernetics: Polynesian voyaging and ecological literacy as models for design education. Kybernetes, 44(8/9), 1262–1273.

    Article  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.

  22. Jelić, A., Tieri, G., De Matteis, F., Babiloni, F., & Vecchiato, G. (2016). The enactive approach to architectural experience: A neurophysiological perspective on embodiment, motivation, and affordances. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jonas, W. (2007). Research through DESIGN through research: A cybernetic model of designing design foundations. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1362–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jonas, W. (2014). The strengths/limits of systems thinking denote the strengths/limits of practice-based design research. FORMakademisk, 7(4), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jones, P. H., & Kijima, K. (2018). Systemic design: Theory, methods, and practice. In Translational systems sciences. Tokyo: Springer Japan.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Krippendorff, K. (2007). The cybernetics of design and the design of cybernetics. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1381–1392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Krueger, T. (2007). Design and prosthetic perception. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1393–1405.

    Article  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 

  32. Pickering, A. (2010). The cybernetic brain: Sketches of another future. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Pratschke, A. (2007). Architecture as a verb: Cybernetics and design processes for the social divide. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1458–1470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ramsgard Thomsen, M. (2007). Drawing a live section: Explorations into robotic membranes. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1471–1485.

    Article  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 

  39. Sweeting, B. (2019). Applying ethics to itself: Recursive ethical questioning in architecture and second-order cybernetics. Kybernetes, 48(4), 805–815.

    Article  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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Architecture and Design, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK

    Ben Sweeting

Authors
  1. Ben Sweeting
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ben Sweeting .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Architecture, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China

    Thomas Fischer

  2. Department of Architecture, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China

    Christiane M. Herr

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sweeting, B. (2019). Why Design Cybernetics?. In: Fischer, T., Herr, C. (eds) Design Cybernetics. Design Research Foundations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18557-2_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation