Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conclusion: The Indiscipline of Design

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover The In-Discipline of Design

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

  • 340 Accesses

Abstract

Chapter Seven concludes this book by reflecting on the “in-discipline” of design. Designers claim that their practices are transversal, multidisciplinary, and holistic. However, design is not a Leonardesque fantasy of mastering all the known disciplines, but rather the dynamic activity that launches concepts, facts, methods, between disciplines so that they can come up with new concepts and artifacts, or situations. Through design/practice, disciplines under-determine each other, leaving space for a radical unknown to emerge. The process of under-determination is considered here as the foundation of design epistemology.

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

Access this chapter

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 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Rodgers and Bremner (2013).

  2. 2.

    Bremner and Rodgers (2013).

  3. 3.

    Cross (2001).

  4. 4.

    Dykes et al. (2009).

  5. 5.

    Findeli et al. (2008).

  6. 6.

    Harfield S. (2008).

  7. 7.

    Mackay and Fayard (1997).

  8. 8.

    McKay and Marshall (2001).

  9. 9.

    Dubreuil (2007).

  10. 10.

    Latour (2005).

  11. 11.

    Meijers et al. (2009).

  12. 12.

    Schmid (1998a, b).

  13. 13.

    Findeli (2006).

  14. 14.

    Stein (2007).

  15. 15.

    Bucciarelli (1996).

  16. 16.

    Mackay & Fayard, HCI, Natural Science and Design: A Framework for Triangulation Across Disciplines.

  17. 17.

    Gentes and Jutant (2012).

  18. 18.

    Bremner and Rodgers (2013); Cross (2006); Dykes et al. (2009);

    Findeli et al. (2008);

    Gentes, Valentin, Brulé, (2015);

    Stein (2007).

  19. 19.

    Recherche et Innovation en Audiovisuel et Multimédia (Audiovisual and Multimedia Research and Development).

  20. 20.

    Réseau National de Recherche en Télécommunications.

  21. 21.

    Réseau National en Technologies Logicielles.

  22. 22.

    RIAM PLUG – document for the call.

  23. 23.

    Chalmers (1999).

  24. 24.

    Schmid (2001).

  25. 25.

    Schmid (2012);

    Schmid et al. (2011).

  26. 26.

    Legay and Schmid (2004);

    Legay (2004).

  27. 27.

    Mackay (2015).

  28. 28.

    A very close research is Cetina (1999).

  29. 29.

    Star (2010).

  30. 30.

    Ewenstein and Whyte (2009).

  31. 31.

    Simondon (2001).

  32. 32.

    Schmid (1998a, , b).

  33. 33.

    Schmid (2012).

  34. 34.

    Coutellec (2015).

  35. 35.

    Schmid (2015).

  36. 36.

    AF Schmid, Proposition d’un cadre théorique pour les objets contemporains in Ibid.

  37. 37.

    This is consistent with design theory called “CK theory” developed by Hatchuel, Weil and Lemasson. In CK theory, the creation of new expandable concepts is a necessary step to invent something new but it necessarily triggers a reorganization of knowledge or the creation of new knowledge. They call this process “K reordering”. Hatchuel, A., Weil, B., et alii, (2003) A new approach of innovative Design: an introduction to CK theory. », in Proceedings of ICED 03, the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm.https://www.designsociety.org/download-publication/24204/a_new_approach_of_innovative_design_an_introduction_to_c-k_theory

  38. 38.

    Guy (2015).

  39. 39.

    Schmid, L’âge de l’épistémologie.

  40. 40.

    Schmid (1998a,, b).

  41. 41.

    Gentes (2015a).

  42. 42.

    Gentes and Selker (2013).

  43. 43.

    Gentes (2015a).

  44. 44.

    Méadel et al. (2015).

  45. 45.

    2007–2009: Projet RIAM, « PLUG, Play Ubiquitous Games and Play more » (Jeux pervasifs).

  46. 46.

    For other related work on that topic, see Gentes (2015b).

  47. 47.

    Caillois (1992).

  48. 48.

    Csikszentmihalyi (1991).

  49. 49.

    Simatic, Astic, Aunis, Gentes, et alii (2009).

  50. 50.

    Nieuwdorp (2007).

  51. 51.

    Gaste and Gentes (2013).

  52. 52.

    Gentes and Mollon (2015).

  53. 53.

    RIAM PLUG – document for the call.

  54. 54.

    http://lucacardelli.name/indexExtra.html

  55. 55.

    Frederik Pohl, The Age of the Pussyfoot (Ballantine, 1969).

  56. 56.

    Harfield (2008).

  57. 57.

    Harris (2000).

  58. 58.

    RIAM PLUG Project document for the call.

  59. 59.

    RIAM PLUG Project document for the call.

  60. 60.

    Reiss and Vermeer (2013).

  61. 61.

    Eco (2004).

  62. 62.

    Olohan (2000).

  63. 63.

    Toury (1995).

  64. 64.

    Reiss et Vermeer, Towards a General Theory of Translational Action.

  65. 65.

    Simatic and Gentes (2009).

  66. 66.

    Souchier et al. (2003).

  67. 67.

    Foucault (1966).

  68. 68.

    Guillory (2010).

  69. 69.

    McLuhan (1965).

  70. 70.

    Guillory, « Genesis of the Media Concept ».

  71. 71.

    Except in all the creative industries.

  72. 72.

    Dation, 1997, Numéro d’inventaire: AM 1997–98 (1), translation is mine.

  73. 73.

    OULIPO Ouvroir de Littérature Potentielle, a literary movement that used strict unusual conceptive rules to invent new ways of writing.

  74. 74.

    Perec (2008).

  75. 75.

    Higgins and Higgins (2001).

  76. 76.

    Rancière (2006).

  77. 77.

    Bourdieu (1986).

  78. 78.

    Rancière, « Thinking between disciplines ».

  79. 79.

    Ibid.

  80. 80.

    In particular, Hatchuel et al. (2014).

  81. 81.

    Moggridge (2007).

  82. 82.

    Habermas (1985).

  83. 83.

    Agre (1997).

References

  • Agre, P. E. (1997). Toward a critical technical practice: Lessons learned in trying to reform AI. In G. Bowker, L. Gasser, L. Star & B. Turner, (Eds.), Bridging the great divide: Social science, technical systems, and cooperative work. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1986). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste (1st ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bremner, C., & Rodgers, P. (2013). Design without discipline. Design Issues, 29(3), 4–13.doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucciarelli, L. L. (1996). Designing engineers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caillois, R. (1992). Les Jeux et les hommes : Le masque et le vertige. Paris: Gallimard - Folio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cetina, K. K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called Science? (3rd ed.). Hackett Publishing Co., Indianapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coutellec, L. (2015). La science au pluriel : Essai d’épistémologie pour des sciences impliquées. Versailles: Quae éditions.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55. doi:https://doi.org/10.1162/074793601750357196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2006). Design as a discipline. Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (1st ed.). New York: Harper Perennial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubreuil, L. (2007). Défauts de savoirs. Labyrinthe, 27, 13–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dykes, T. H., Rodgers, P. A., & Smyth, M. (2009). Towards a new disciplinary framework for contemporary creative design practice. CoDesign, 5(2), 99–116.doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880902910417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eco, U. (2004). Mouse or rat: Translation as negotiation. London: Phoenix.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as ‘epistemic objects’. Organization Studies, 30(1), 07–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Findeli, A. (2006). Qu’appelle-t-on “théorie” en design ? Réflexions sur l’enseignement et la recherche en design. In B. Flamand (Ed.), Le design : Essais sur des théories et des pratiques (pp. 77–97). Paris: Editions du Regard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Findeli A., Brouillet D., et alii (2008). Research Through Design and Transdisciplinarity: A Tentative Contribution to the Methodology of Design Research, in Aebersold R. et al., « Focused » – Current Design Research Projects and Methods. Genève: Swiss Design Network Symposium. 67–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1966). Les mots et les choses; une archéologie des sciences humaines. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaste, Y., & Gentes, A. (2013). Place and non-place: A model for the strategic design of place-centered services. Bell Labs Technical Journal, 17(4), 21–36.doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/bltj.21572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentes, A. (2015a). Science fiction ? Scénarios narratifs et visuels dans les projets d’ingénierie des TIC. D. Dubuisson, S. Raux, & Collectif, A perte de vue : Les nouveaux paradigmes du visuel. Dijon: Les Presses du réel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentes, A. (2015b, mai). Arts et sciences du design: la place des sciences humaines. Sciences du design, no 1, PUF, 96–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentes, A., & Jutant, C. (2012). Nouveaux médias aux musées. Le visiteur équipé. Culture et Musées., 19, 67–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentes, A., & Mollon, M. (2015). Critical design: A delicate balance between the thrill of the uncanny and the interrogation of the unknown. In D. Bihanic (Ed.), Empowering users through design: Interdisciplinary studies and combined approaches for technological products and services (pp. 79–101). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gentes, A., & Selker, T. (2013). Beyond Rhetoric to Poetics in IT Invention. In Proceedings INTERACT 2013 (pp. 267–79).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentes, A., Valentin, F., & Brulé, E. (2015) Moodboards as the tool of the indiscipline of design. In Proceedings IASDR, Brisbane (pp. 755–771).

    Google Scholar 

  • Guillory, J. (2010). Genesis of the media concept. Critical Inquiry, 36(2), 321–362.doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/648528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guy, B. (2015). Confrontation des démarches épistémologique et éthique du point de vue des sciences de l’ingénieur. In Y.-C. Lequin, P. Lamard, & Collectif (Eds.), Eléments de démocratie technique. Belfort: Université de Technologies de Belfort-Montbéliard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1985). The theory of communicative action, Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society (trans: McCarthy, T.). Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harfield, S. (2008). On the roots of undiscipline. In Undisciplined! Design research society conference. Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK, 16–19 July 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, R. (2000). Rethinking writing. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatchuel, A., Weil, B., & Collectif. (2014). Les nouveaux régimes de la conception : Langages, théories, métiers. Paris: Editions Hermann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, D., & Higgins, H. (2001). Intermedia. Leonardo, 34(1), 49–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2005). La science en action : Introduction à la sociologie des sciences. Paris: Editions La Découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legay, J.-M. (2004). L’interdisciplinarité vue et pratiquée par les chercheurs en Sciences de la vie. Natures, Sciences, Sociétés, 12, 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legay, J.-M., & Schmid, A.-F. (2004). Philosophie de l’interdisciplinarité : Correspondance (1999–204) sur la recherche scientifique, la modélisation et les objets complexes. Paris: Editions Pétra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leigh Star, S. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617.doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910377624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackay, R. (Ed.). (2015). Simulation, exercise, operations. Falmouth: Urbanomic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackay, W., & Fayard, A.-L. (1997). HCI, natural science and design: A framework for triangulation across disciplines. In Proceedings of the 2nd conference on Designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 223–234).

    Google Scholar 

  • McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (2001). The dual imperatives of action research. Information Technology & People, 14(1), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840110384771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (2007). Science, design, and design science: Seeking clarity to move design science forward in information systems. In Proceedings of Australasian Conference on Information Systems (pp. 604–614).

    Google Scholar 

  • McLuhan, M. (1965). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Méadel, C., Musiani, F., & Collectif. (2015). Abécédaire des architectures distribuées. Paris: Presses de l’Ecole des mines.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Meijers, A. W. M., et al. (2009). Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (1st ed.). Amsterdam/Boston: North Holland: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moggridge, B. (2007). Designing interactions (1st ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieuwdorp, E. (2007). The Pervasive discourse: An analysis. Computers in Entertainment, 5(2), 13.doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1279540.1279553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olohan, M. (Ed.). (2000). Intercultural faultlines: Research models in translation studies: Textual and cognitive aspects (Vol. 1). Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perec, G. (2008). Species of spaces and other pieces (New ed.). London: Penguin Classics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rancière, J. (2006). Thinking between disciplines: An aesthetics of knowledge. Parrhesia, 1(1), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, K., & Vermeer, H. J. (2013). Towards a general theory of translational action: Skopos theory explained (trans: Nord, C.). St. Jerome Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers, P., & Bremner, C. (2013). Exhausting discipline: Undisciplined and irresponsible design. Architecture and Culture, 1(1), 142–161.doi: https://doi.org/10.2752/175145213X13756908698720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, A.-F. (1998a). L’âge de l’épistémologie. Paris: Editions Kimé.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, A.-F., (1998b). Une critique quasi-kantienne de l’épistémologie ou comment donner une positivité aux thèses de l’épistémologie », conférence, February 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, A.-F. (2001). Pour une épistémologie de la conception. In Collectif & J. Perrin (Eds.), Conception entre sciences et art: Regards multiples sur la conception (pp. 79–87). Lausanne: Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, A.-F., (2012a). Epistémologie générique et interdisciplines, in Séminaire d’été, Maison des Sciences de l’Homme d’Aquitaine, Vers unescience de l’Europe ? L’interdisciplinarité dans le contexte du dialogue philosophique entre la France et la Russie. Bordeaux, 3, 4 and 5 September 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, A.-F., (2012b). SIG special interest group in design theory, January 2012, Paris, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, A.-F. (2015). On contemporary objects. In R. Mackay (Ed.), Simulation, exercise, operations (pp. 63–68). Falmouth: Urbanomic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, A.-F., Mambrini-Doudet, M., & Hatchuel, A. (2011). Une nouvelle logique de l’interdisciplinarité. Nouvelles perspectives en sciences sociales, 7(1), 105–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simatic, M., & Gentes, A. (2010). RFID-based distributed shared memory for pervasive games. In S. Ystad et al. (Eds.), MobiCASE 2009, LNICST 35 (pp. 339–342).

    Google Scholar 

  • Simatic, M., Astic, I., Aunis, C., Gentes, A., Guyot-Mbodji, A., Jutant, C., & Zaza, E. (2009). Plug: Secrets of the Museum: A pervasive game taking place in a museum. In Proceedings of entertainment computing – ICEC 2009, Lecture notes in Computer Science (pp. 67–74). Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simondon, G. (2001). Du mode d’existence des objets techniques. Paris: Aubier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Souchier, E., Jeanneret, Y., & Le Marec, J. (2003). Lire, écrire, récrire : Objets, signes et pratiques des médias informatisés. Paris: Bibliothèque Publique d’Information.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, Z. (2007). Modeling the demands of interdisciplinarity: Toward a framework for evaluating interdisciplinary endeavors. Integral Review, 4(1), 91–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amersterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Codesign Lab, I3, Telecom ParisTech, Paris, France

    Annie Gentes

Authors
  1. Annie Gentes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gentes, A. (2017). Conclusion: The Indiscipline of Design. In: The In-Discipline of Design. Design Research Foundations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65984-8_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation