Advertisement

A Theory of (and for) Enquiry

  • Thomas FischerEmail author
Chapter
First Online:
  • 175 Downloads
Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (DERF)

Abstract

At the heart of much academic design research lies a paradox: An appreciation of designing requires, systemically speaking, an inside perspective, while scientific research requires robustness under scrutiny by outside criteria. This chapter develops a theory of (and for) enquiry from previously unrelated cybernetic models, showing how “comfortable marriages” of design and research may be achieved by concatenating and nesting multiple kinds of enquiry within the same body of work. The purpose of this theory is to describe such concatenations and nestings and to inform postgraduate and PhD-level design research and supervision, especially where they face scrutiny by scientific standards.

Keywords

Epistemology ⋅ Cybernetics ⋅ Design PhD research ⋅ Science ⋅ Design 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Archer, B. (1979). Design as a discipline. Design Studies, 1(1), 17–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bröcker, M. (2004). The part-of-the-world position of Heinz von Foerster. Brief Strategic and Systemic Therapy European Review, 1, 19–26.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cross, N. (1977). The automated architect. London: Pion.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cross, N. (2007). Forty years of design research. Design Studies, 28(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Downton, P. (2003). Design research. Melbourne: RMIT University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Farrell, R., & Hooker, C. (2012). The Simon–Kroes model of technical artifacts and the distinction between science and design. Design Studies, 33(5), 480–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Findeli, A. (1999). Introduction. Design Issues, 15(2), 1–3.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fischer, T. (2008). Obstructed magic. On the myths of observing designing and of sharing design observations. In W. Nakapan et al. (Eds.), CAADRIA 2008 Proceedings (pp. 278–284). Chiang Mai: Pimniyom Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fischer, T. (2008). Designing (tools (for designing (tools (for …)))). PhD Thesis. Melbourne: RMIT University. Available at: https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:9761/Fischer.pdf. Accessed January 19, 2019.
  13. 13.
    Fischer, T. (2011). One-behind-the-many metaphysics and the myriad things. In C. M. Herr et al. (Eds.), CAADRIA 2011 Proceedings (pp. 623–632). Newcastle: School of Architecture and Built Environment, The University of Newcastle.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fischer, T. (2015). Wiener’s prefiguring of a cybernetic design theory. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 34(3), 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fischer, T. (2017). A cybernetic perspective on determinability and design research. Kybernetes, 46(9), 1588–1596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fischer, T. (2019). Transcomputability, (Glanville’s corollary of) Ashby’s law of requisite variety, and epistemic processes. Kybernetes, 48(4), 793–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fischer, T., & Herr, C. M. (2007). The designer as toolbreaker? Probing tool use in applied generative design. In G. Yu et al. (Eds.), CAADRIA 2007 Proceedings (pp. 367–375). Nanjing: Southeast University Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fischer, T., & Richards, L. D. (2017). From goal-oriented to constraint-oriented design: The cybernetic intersection of design theory and systems theory. Leonardo, 50(1), 36–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frayling, C. (1993/1994). Research in art and design. Royal College of Art Research Papers, 1(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Galle, P., & Kroes, P. (2014). Science and design: Identical twins? Design Studies, 35(3), 201–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Glanville, R. (1975). A cybernetic development of theories of epistemology and observation, with reference to space and time, as seen in architecture, also known as: The object of objects, the point of points – or something about things. PhD Thesis (unpublished). London: Brunel University.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Glanville, R. (1997). A ship without a rudder. In R. Glanville & G. de Zeeuw (Eds.), Problems of excavating cybernetics and systems (pp. 131–142). Southsea: BKS+. Available at: https://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/papers/glanville/glanville95-ship.pdf. Accessed January 19, 2019.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Glanville, R. (1999). Researching design and designing research. Design Issues, 15(2), 80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    Glanville, R. (2014). How design and cybernetics reflect each other (transcript of keynote presentation). RSD3 Relating Systems Thinking and Design 2014. http://systemic-design.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Ranulph_Glanville.pdf. Accessed January 19, 2019.
  26. 26.
    Glanville, R. (2014). Acting to understand and understanding to act. Kybernetes, 43(9/10), 1293–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Glanville, R. (2014). The sometimes uncomfortable marriages of design and research. In P. A. Rodgers & J. Yee (Eds.), The Routledge companion to design research (pp. 9–22). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ison, R. L., Collins, K. B., & Wallis, P. J. (2015). Institutionalising social learning: Towards systemic and adaptive governance. Environmental Science & Policy, 53(Part B), 105–117.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ito, J. (2016). Design and science. Can design advance science, and can science advance design? Journal of Design and Science, 1. Available at: https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/designandscience. Accessed January 19, 2019.
  30. 30.
    Chow, R., & Jonas, W. (2009). Beyond dualisms in methodology: An integrative design research medium “MAPS” and some reflections. In D. Durling, C. Rust, L.-L. Chen, P. Ashton, & K. Friedman (Eds.), Undisciplined! Proceedings of the Design Research Society Conference 2008 (pp. 047/1–047/21). Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jones, J. C. (Ed.). (1992). Design methods. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Krippendorff, K. (2007). The cybernetics of design and the design of cybernetics. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1381–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Krippendorff, K. (2007). Design research, an oxymoron? In (Ed.), Design research now. Essays and selected papers (pp. 67–79). Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think (4th ed.). Amsterdam: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition. The realization of the living. Dordrecht: D. Riedel Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A. (1989). The meaning of meaning. Orlando, FL: Harvest/HBJ. Originally published 1923.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pask, G. (1971). A comment, a case history and a plan. In J. Reichardt (Ed.), Cybernetics, art and ideas (pp. 76–99). London: Studio Vista.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pask, G. (1975). The cybernetics of human learning and performance. A guide to theory and research. London: Hutchinson Educational.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pickering, A. (2010). The cybernetic brain. Sketches of another future. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pörksen, B. (2004). The certainty of uncertainty. Exeter: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Popper, K. (1978). Three worlds. The Tanner Lecture on Human Values – Delivered at The University of Michigan on 07 Apr 1978. Available at: https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/p/popper80.pdf. Accessed January 19, 2019.
  43. 43.
    Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rosen, R. (1999). Essays on life itself. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schön, D. (1985). The design studio. An exploration of its traditions and potentials. London: RIBA Publications.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Segal, L. (2001). The dream of reality. Heinz von Foerster’s constructivism (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Simon, H. A. (1996). Sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Originally published 1969.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Umpleby, S. (2007). Unifying epistemologies by combining world, description and observer. Presented at the ASC Conference. Champaign-Urbana, IL, March 29–April 01, 2007. https://www.academia.edu/35684564/Unifying_Epistemologies_by_Combining_World_Des cription_and_Observer. Accessed January 19, 2019.
  49. 49.
    Wang, D. (2002). Design in relation to research. In L. Groat & D. Wang (Eds.), Architectural research methods (pp. 99–131). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wiener, N. (1993). Invention: The care and feeding of ideas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    von Foerster, H. (1971). Computing in the semantic domain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 184, 239–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    von Foerster, H. (2003). Understanding understanding. Essays on cybernetics and cognition. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ArchitectureXi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool UniversitySuzhouChina

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options