Advertisement

Try Again. Fail Again. Fail Better: The Cybernetics in Design and the Design in Cybernetics

  • Ranulph Glanville
Chapter
Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (DERF)

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the two subjects cybernetics and design, in order to establish and demonstrate a relationship between them. It is held that the two subjects can be considered complementary arms of each other.

Design/method/approach – The two subjects are each characterised so that the author’s interpretation is explicit and those who know one subject but not the other are briefed. Cybernetics is examined in terms of both classical (first order) cybernetics, and the more consistent second order cybernetics, which is the cybernetics used in this argument. The paper develops by a comparative analysis of the two subjects, and exploring analogies between the two at several levels.

Findings – A design approach is characterised and validated; and contrasted to a scientific approach. The analogies that are proposed are shown to hold. Cybernetics is presented as theory for design, design as cybernetics in practice. Consequent findings, for instance that both cybernetics and design imply the same ethical qualities, are presented. The criteria for the evaluation of cybernetic/design actions are derived and contrasted to those associated with a traditional, scientific approach.

Research limitations/implications – The research implications of the paper are that, where research involves design, the criteria against which it can be judged are far more Popperian than might be imagined. Such research will satisfy the condition of adequacy, rather than correctness. A secondary outcome concerning research is that, whereas science is concerned with what is (characterised through the development of knowledge of (what is)), design (and by implication other subjects primarily concerned with action) is concerned with knowledge for (acting).

Practical implications – The theoretical validity of second order cybernetics is used to justify and give proper place to design, as an activity. Thus, the approach designers use is validated as complementary to, and placed on an equal par with, other approaches. This brings design, as an approach, into the realm of the acceptable. The criteria for the assessment of design work are shown to be different to those appropriate in other, more traditionally acceptable, approaches.

Originality/value – For approximately 40 years, there have been claims that cybernetics and design share much in common. This was originally expressed through communication criteria, and by the use of classical cybernetic approaches as methods for use in designing. This paper argues a much closer relationship between cybernetics and design, through consideration of developments in cybernetics not available 40 years ago (second order cybernetics) and through examining the activity at the heart of the design act: whereas many earlier attempts have been concerned with research that is much more about assessment, prescription and proscription. The paper develops a base for other work interested in exploring any possible relationships between cybernetics and design, and thus provides background for this special issue.

Keywords

Analogy Circularity Conversation Cybernetics Design Novelty 

References

  1. 1.
    Ashby, W. R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. New York: St. Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashby, W. R. (1964). Introductory remarks at a panel discussion. In M. D. Mesarovic (Ed.), Views in general systems theory. Chichester: Wiley. Reprinted in G. Klir (Ed.). (1991). Facets of systems science (pp. 507–510). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beckett, S. (1984). Worstward ho. New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bremermann, H. J. (1977). Complexity and transcomputability. In R. Duncan & M. Weston-Smith (Ed.), The encyclopedia of ignorance (pp. 167–174). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boland, R. J., Collopy, F., & van Patter, G. K. (2005). Next design leadership institute. New York. Available via DIALOG. http://nextd.org. Accessed 14 Apr 2007.
  6. 6.
    Conway, F., & Siegelman, J. (2005). Dark hero of the information age. In search of Norbert Wiener the father of cybernetics. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    François, C. (2006). The observer reobserved. In R. Trappl (Ed.), Cybernetics and systems (pp. 87–90). Vienna: ÖSGK.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gedenryd, H. (1998). How designers work. Making sense of authentic cognitive activities. In Lund University cognitive studies, 75. Lund: Jabe Offset AB. Available via Web archive: https://archive.org/details/HowDesignersWork-MakingSenseOfAuthenticCognitiveActivity. Accessed 14 Apr 2007.
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    Glanville, R. (1994). Variety in design. Systems Research, 11(3), 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Glanville, R. (1997). Gordon pask. In: ISSS luminaries section. Available via ISSS at the Web archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20120308140245/http://isss.org/projects/gordon_pask. Accessed 11 Apr 2017.
  12. 12.
    Glanville, R. (1999). Researching design and designing research. Design Issues, 15(2), 80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Glanville, R. (1999). Acts between and between acts. In R. Ascott (Ed.), Reframing consciousness (pp. 11–16). Exeter: Intellect.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Glanville, R. (2000). The value of being unmanageable: Variety and creativity in CyberSpace. In H. Eichmann, J. Hochgerner, & F. Nahrada (Eds.), Netzwerke. Proceedings of Global Village ‘97 Conference (pp. 521–531). Vienna: Falter Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glanville, R. (2002). Why design research? In R. Jacques & J. A. Powell (Eds.), Design: Science: Method (pp. 86–94). Guildford: Westbury House.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Glanville, R. (2002). Gerard de Zeeuw—a Festschrift. Special Issue Systems Research and Behavioural Science, 19(2), 1–9.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Glanville, R. (2003). An irregular dodekahedron and a lemon yellow Citroën. In L. van Schaik (Ed.), The practice of practice (pp. 258–265). Melbourne: RMIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Glanville, R. (2004). Appropriate theory. In D. Durling, A. De Bono, & J. Redmond (Eds.), Proceedings of the Future Ground Conference 2004 (pp. 88–99). Melbourne: Monash University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Glanville, R. (2004). The purpose of second order cybernetics. Kybernetes, 33(9/10), 1379–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Glanville, R. (2004). Desirable ethics. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 11(2), 77–88.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Glanville, R. (2005). A (cybernetic) musing: Certain propositions concerning prepositions. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 12(3), 87–85.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Glanville, R. (2005). Lernen ist Interaktion: Gordon Pask’s ‘An approach to cybernetics’. In D. Baecker (Ed.), Schlüsselwerke der Systemtheorie (pp. 75–94). Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Republished in English as Glanville, R. (2007). An approach to cybernetics (Gordon Pask 1961). In R. Glanville & K. Müller (Eds.), Gordon Pask, philosopher mechanic: An introduction to the cybernetician’s cybernetician (pp. 13–27). Vienna: Edition Echoraum.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Glanville, R. (2005). Cybernetics. In C. Mitcham (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science, technology, and ethics (pp. 455–458). Woodbridge: Macmillan Reference USA.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Glanville, R. (2005). Knowledge and design in the era of second-order cybernetics. In Keynote Address at the Many Interpretations and Applications of Cybernetics, Annual Conference of the American Society for Cybernetics, Washington DC, 27–30 Oct 2005.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Glanville, R. (2006). Construction and design. Constructivist Foundations, 1(3), 103–110.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    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 14 Apr 2007.
  27. 27.
    Glanville, R. (2007). Design prepositions. In M. Belderbos & J. Verbeke (Eds.), The unthinkable doctorate (pp. 115–126). Brussels: Sint Lucas.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Glanville, R. (2007). Designing complexity. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(2), 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Glanville, R., & A. Riegler (Eds.). (2007). Ernst von Glasersfeld, a Festschrift. Constructivist Foundations, 2, (2/3). Available via the Web archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20170201050449/http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/2/2-3. Accessed 14 Apr 2007.
  30. 30.
    Jones, J. C. (1980). Design methods. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn. Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis.CrossRefGoogle 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.
    Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition (Boston studies in the philosophy of science, Vol. 42). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mead, M. (1968). The cybernetics of cybernetics. In H. von Foerster et al. (Eds.), Purposive systems (pp. 1–11). New York: Spartan Books.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Müller, K.-H. (2007). Heinz von Foerster’s biological computer laboratory: An unfinished revolution of an unfinished revolution. In A. Müller & K.-H. Müller (Eds.), An unfinished revolution? Heinz von Foerster and the Biological Computer Laboratory 1958–1976 (pp. 107–123). Vienna: Edition Echoraum.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pask, G. (1969). The architectural relevance of cybernetics. Architectural Design, 7(6), 494–496Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pask, G. (1975). Conversation, cognition and learning. A cybernetic theory and methodology. Amsterdam/New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Piaget, J. (1955). The child’s construction of reality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pias, K. (2003). Cybernetics – The Macy-conferences 1946–1953. Zürich-Berlin: Diaphanes.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Polanyi, M. (1976). The tacit dimension. Garden City: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Popper, K. (1969). Conjectures & refutations (3rd ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Reichardt, J. (1970). Cybernetic serendipity. London: Rapp & Carroll.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Reichardt, J. (Ed.). (1971). Cybernetics, art and ideas. London: Studio Vista.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1984). Planning problems are wicked problems. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp. 135–144). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rosenblueth, A., Wiener, N., & Bigelow, J. (1943). Behavior, purpose and teleology. Philosophy of Science, 10, 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Champaign-Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Simon, H. A. (1996). Sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press (originally published 1969).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Spencer-Brown, G. (1969). The laws of form. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Varela, F. J., Maturana, H. R., & Uribe, R. B. (1974). Autopoiesis. The organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. Biosystems, 5(4), 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). The construction of knowledge. Salinas: Intersystems Publications.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    von Foerster, H. (1950). Cybernetics: Circular causal and feedback mechanisms in biological and social systems. Transactions of the sixth conference. New York: Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    von Foerster, H. (1974). The cybernetics of cybernetics. Champaign-Urban: Biological Computer Laboratory, University of Illinois. Republished as von Foerster, H. (1995). Cybernetics of cybernetics or the control of control and the communication of communication (2nd ed.). Minneapolis: Future Systems.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    von Foerster, H. (1976). Objects: Tokens for (eigen-)behaviors. ASC Cybernetics Forum, 8(3/4), 91–96.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics; Or, control and communication in the animal and the machine. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wootton, H. (1968). The elements of architecture: A facsimile of the first edition. Charlottesville: Shakespeare Library by the University Press of Virginia (original work published 1624).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ranulph Glanville
    • 1
  1. 1.SuzhouChina

Personalised recommendations