Constructing Cybernetic Thinking, Design, and Education

  • Christiane M. HerrEmail author
Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (DERF)


Radical constructivism can be described as the epistemological twin of second-order cybernetics. This chapter presents a close look at radical constructivism, at its implications for design, and at the interrelatedness of epistemology and design in their theoretical as well as in their applied manifestations. The chapter discusses connections between three aspects of design cybernetics: design as a domain of action, cybernetics as its theoretical complement and radical constructivism as an epistemological basis for both. It further outlines implications of radical constructivist thinking for design research and design education.


Radical constructivism ⋅ Epistemology ⋅ Design cybernetics ⋅ Design research ⋅ Design education ⋅ Design process ⋅ Design conversation 


  1. 1.
    Ashby, W. R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bayazit, N. (2004). Investigating design: A review of forty years of design research. Design Issues, 20(1), 16–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Lewes: Falmer.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cross, N. (Ed.). (1984). Developements in design methodology. Chichester/New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cross, N. (2007). From a design science to a design discipline: Understanding designerly ways of knowing and thinking. In R. Michel (Ed.), Design research now: Essays and selected projects (pp. 41–54). Basel: Birkhäuser.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Downton, P. (2003). Design research. Melbourne: RMIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Findeli, A. (1999). Introduction. Design Issues, 15(2), 1–3.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fischer, T. (2011). When is Analog? When is Digital? Kybernetes, 40(7/8), 1004–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    Frayling, C. (1993). Research in art and design. Royal College of Art Research Papers, 1(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Glanville, R. (1999). Researching design and designing research. Design Issues, 15(2), 80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Glanville, R. (1999). Listen! In G. de Zeeuw, M. Vahl, & E. Mennuti (Eds.), Problems of participation and connection (pp. 425–432). Lincoln: Lincoln Research Centre.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Glanville, R. (2006). Construction and design. Constructivist Foundations, 1(3), 103–110.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glanville, R. (2007). Grounding difference. In A. Müller & K.-H. Müller (Eds.), An unfinished revolution? Heinz von Foerster and the biological computer laboratory 1958–1976 (pp. 361–406). Vienna: Edition Echoraum.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Glanville, R. (2012). Radical constructivism = second-order cybernetics. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 19(4), 27–47.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Glanville, R. (2014). Acting to understand and understanding to act. Kybernetes, 43(9/10), 1293–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Glanville, R. (2014). How design and cybernetics reflect each other. Keynote Address given at Relating Systems Thinking and Design RSD3 2014 Symposium: Relating Systems Thinking and Design 3. Available at: Accessed 19 Jan 2019.
  19. 19.
    Glanville, R., & Sweeting, B. (Eds.). (2011). Cybernetics: Art, design, mathematics – A meta-disciplinary conversation: Papers from the 2010 conference of the American Society for Cybernetics. Kybernetes, 40(7/8).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Herr, C. M. (2013). Design education between poetry and prose. Kybernetes, 42(9/10), 1404–1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Herr, C. M. (2013). Qualitative structural design education in large cohorts of undergraduate architecture students. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 15(2), 96–102.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Herr, C. M. (2014). Radical constructivist structural design education for large cohorts of Chinese learners. Constructivist Foundations, 9(3), 393–402.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Herr, C. M. (2015). The big picture: Relating design, second order cybernetics and radical constructivism. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 22(2/3), 107–114.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Herr, C. M. (2016). What can cybernetics learn from design? Constructivist Foundations, 11(3), 583–585.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Järvinen, P. (2007). Action research is similar to design science. Quality and Quantity, 41, 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jonas, W. (2007). Research through design through research: A cybernetic model of designing design foundations. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1362–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jonas, W. (Ed.). (2007). Design research now: Essays and selected projects. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jonas, W. (2015). Research through design is more than just a new form of disseminating design outcomes. Constructivist Foundations, 11(1), 32–36.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redström, J., & Wensveen, S. (2011). Design research through practice. From the lab, field, and showroom. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    McNiff, J. (2013). Action research: Principles and practice. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Michel, R. (2007). Introduction. In R. Michel (Ed.), Design research now: Essays and selected projects (pp. 15–17). Basel: Birkhäuser.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Müller, A., & Müller, K. (Eds.). (2007). An unfinished revolution? Heinz von Foerster and the biological computer laboratory | BCL 1958–1976. Vienna: Edition Echoraum.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Murray, J. (2006). Cybernetic circularity in teaching and learning. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(3), 215–221.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Piaget, J. (1937). La construction du reel chez l’enfant. Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestle.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pias, C. (2003). Cybernetics: The Macy conferences 1946–1953. The complete transactions. Zürich: Diaphanes Verlag.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City: Doubleday & Company.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Richards, J., & von Glasersfeld, E. (1979). The control of perception and the construction of reality. Dialectica, 33(1), 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Riegler, A. (2005). Constructive memory. Kybernetes, 34(1/2), 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Riegler, A., & Steffe, L. P. (2014). What is the teacher trying to teach students if they are all busy constructing their own private worlds? Introduction to the special issue. Constructivist Foundations, 9(3), 297–301. Special Issue: Forty Years of Radical Constructivism in Educational Research.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schön, D. A. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. London: RIBA Publications.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schön, D. A. (1988). Toward a marriage of artistry and applied science in the architectural design studio. Journal of Architectural Education, 41(4), 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schön, D. A. (1988). Designing: Rules, types, and worlds. Design Studies, 9(3), 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action design research. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sternberg, R. J. (2011). Cognitive psychology (6th ed.). Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Suwa, M. (2003). Constructive perception: Coordinating perception and conception toward acts of problem-finding in a creative experience. Japanese Psychological Research, 45(4), 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Swann, C. (2002). Action research and the practice of design. Design Issues, 18(2), 46–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sweeting, B. (2015). Cybernetics of practice. Kybernetes, 44(8/9), 1397–1405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sweeting, B. (2016). Design research as a variety of second-order cybernetic practice. Constructivist Foundations, 11(3), 572–579.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    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
  53. 53.
    von Foerster, H. (1973). On constructing a reality. In W. F. E. Preiser (Ed.), Environmental design research (Vol. 2, pp. 35–46). Stroudberg: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. Reprinted in: Heinz von Foerster. (2003). Understanding understanding (pp. 211–227). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    von Foerster, H. (1974). The cybernetics of cybernetics. Champaign-Urban: Biological Computer Laboratory, University of Illinois. Republished as Heinz von Foerster. 1995. Cybernetics of cybernetics or the control of control and the communication of communication (2nd ed.). Minneapolis: Future Systems Inc.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    von Glasersfeld, E. (1974). Piaget and the radical constructivist epistemology. In C. D. Smock & E. von Glasersfeld (Eds.), Epistemology and education (pp. 1–24). Athens: Follow Through Publications.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthesis, 80(1), 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    von Glasersfeld, E. (1991). An exposition of radical constructivism: Why some like it radical. In G. J. Klir (Ed.), Facets of systems science (pp. 229–238). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    von Glasersfeld, E. (2007). Aspects of constructivism. Vico, Berkeley, Piaget. In E. von Glasersfeld (Ed.), Key works in radical constructivism (pp. 91–99). Sense: Rotterdam.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations