Advertisement

Why Design Cybernetics?

  • Ben SweetingEmail author
Chapter
  • 180 Downloads
Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (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.

Keywords

Design research Transdisciplinarity Cybernetics Conversation 

References

  1. 1.
    Cabral Filho, J. S. (2013). The ethical implications of automated computation in design. Kybernetes, 42(9/10), 1354–1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dubberly, H., & Pangaro, P. (2007). Cybernetics and service-craft: Language for behavior-focused design. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1301–1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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. 4.
    Fantini van Ditmar, D. (2018). Design research: The idiot’s role in the ‘smart’ home. Diseña, 11, 122–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Glanville, R. (1993). Pask: A slight primer. Systems Research, 10(3), 213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Glanville, R. (1999). Researching design and designing research. Design Issues, 15(2), 80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. 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. 9.
    Glanville, R. (2007). Introduction: Special double issue of Kybernetes on cybernetics and design. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1153–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. 12.
    Glanville, R. (2011). Introduction: A conference doing the cybernetics of cybernetics. Kybernetes, 40(7/8), 952–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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. 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. 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. 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. 17.
    Goodbun, J. (2011). Gregory Bateson’s ecological aesthetics: An addendum to urban political ecology. Field, 4(1), 35–46.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Herr, C. M. (2013). Architectural design education between poetry and prose. Kybernetes, 42(9/10), 1404–1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. 20.
    Hohl, M. (2015). Living in cybernetics: Polynesian voyaging and ecological literacy as models for design education. Kybernetes, 44(8/9), 1262–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jonas, W. (2007). Research through DESIGN through research: A cybernetic model of designing design foundations. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1362–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jonas, W. (2014). The strengths/limits of systems thinking denote the strengths/limits of practice-based design research. FORMakademisk, 7(4), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jones, P. H., & Kijima, K. (2018). Systemic design: Theory, methods, and practice. In Translational systems sciences. Tokyo: Springer Japan.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Krippendorff, K. (2007). The cybernetics of design and the design of cybernetics. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1381–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krueger, T. (2007). Design and prosthetic perception. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1393–1405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. 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. 30.
    Pask, G. (1969). The architectural relevance of cybernetics. Architectural Design, 7(6), 494–496.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pask, G. (1976). Conversation theory: Applications in education and epistemology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pickering, A. (2010). The cybernetic brain: Sketches of another future. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pratschke, A. (2007). Architecture as a verb: Cybernetics and design processes for the social divide. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1458–1470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ramsgard Thomsen, M. (2007). Drawing a live section: Explorations into robotic membranes. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1471–1485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rawes, P. (Ed.). (2013). Relational architectural ecologies: Architecture, nature and subjectivity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schön, D. A. (1991). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. Farnham: Arena.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Spiller, N. (2002). Cyber_reader: Critical writings for the digital era. London: Phaidon Press.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sweeting, B. (2016). Design research as a variety of second-order cybernetic practice. Constructivist Foundations, 11(3), 572–579.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sweeting, B. (2019). Applying ethics to itself: Recursive ethical questioning in architecture and second-order cybernetics. Kybernetes, 48(4), 805–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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. 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. 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. 43.
    Westermann, C. (2010). Cybernetics: Art, design, mathematics—A meta-disciplinary conversation. Leonardo Reviews Quarterly, 1(02), 24–26.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zambelli, A. (2016). Scandalous artefacts: Visual and analogical practice between architecture and archaeology. PhD Thesis, London: UCL.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Architecture and DesignUniversity of BrightonBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations