Advertisement

Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 127–145 | Cite as

On the imaginative constructivist nature of design: a theoretical approach

  • Akın O. KazakçıEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Most empirical accounts of design suggest that designing is an activity where objects and representations are progressively constructed. Despite this fact, whether design is a constructive process or not is not a question directly addressed in the current design research. By contrast, in other fields such as Mathematics or Psychology, the notion of constructivism is seen as a foundational issue. The present paper defends the point of view that forms of constructivism in design need to be identified and integrated as a foundational element in design research as well. In fact, a look at the literature reveals at least two types of constructive processes that are well embedded in design research: first, an interactive constructivism, where a designer engages a conversation with media, that allows changing the course of the activity as a result of this interaction; second, a social constructivism, where designers need to handle communication and negotiation aspects, that allows integrating individuals’ expertise into the global design process. A key feature lacking these well-established paradigms is the explicit consideration of creativity as a central issue of design. To explore how creative and constructivist aspects of design can be taken into account conjointly, the present paper pursues a theoretical approach. We consider the roots of constructivism in mathematics, namely the Intuitionist Mathematics, in order to shed light on the original insights that led to the development of a notion of constructivism. Intuitionists describe mathematics as the process of mental mathematical constructions realized by a creative subject over time. One of the most original features of intuitionist constructivism is the introduction of incomplete objects into the heart of mathematics by means of lawless sequences and free choices. This allows the possibility to formulate undecided propositions and the consideration of creative acts within a formal constructive process. We provide an in-depth analysis of intuitionism from a design standpoint showing that the original notion is more than a pure constructivism where new objects are a mere bottom-up combination of already known objects. Rather, intuitionism describes an imaginative constructivist process that allows combining bottom-up and top-down processes and the expansion of both propositions and objects with free choices of a creative subject. We suggest that this new form of constructivism we identify is also relevant in interpreting conventional design processes and discuss its status with respect to other forms of constructivism in design.

Keywords

Design Mathematics Brouwer Intuitionism Imaginative constructivism 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Joop Niekus, Mark van Atten, Anne-Françoise Schmid, Thomas Gillier, Armand Hatchuel and the anonymous referees for helpful comments on earlier versions.

References

  1. Anderson ML (2003) Embodied cognition: a field guide. Artif Intell 149(1):91–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benacerraf P (1965) What Numbers Could Not Be. Philos Rev 74:47–73MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benacerraf P, Putnam H (eds) (1983) Philosophy of mathematics: selected readings. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Bethe HA (1982) Comments on the history of the H-bomb. Los Alamos Sci 3(3):47Google Scholar
  5. Bishop E (1967) Foundations of constructive analysis. Academic Press, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Braha D, Reich Y (2003) Topological structures for modelling engineering design processes. Res Eng Des 14:185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brouwer LEJ (1907) Over de Grondslagen der Wiskunde [On the foundations of mathematics], p 183Google Scholar
  8. Brouwer LEJ (1908) De Onbetrouwbaarheid der logische principes. Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte 2:152–158Google Scholar
  9. Brouwer LEJ (1948) Consciousness, philosophy and mathematics. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Philosophy, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  10. Brouwer LEJ (1952) Historical background, principles and methods of intuitionism. South Afr J Sci 49:139–146MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Bucciarelli L (1988) An ethnographic perspective on engineering design. Des Stud 9(3):159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bucciarelli L (1994) Designing the engineers. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Bucciarelli L (2002) Between thought and object in engineering design. Des Stud 23(3):219–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burgess JP, Rosen G (1997) A subject with no object: strategies for nominalistic interpretation of mathematics. Clarendon Press, OxfordzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Chihara C (1990) Constructibility and mathematical existence. Oxford University Press, OxfordzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Clancey WJ (1997) Situated cognition: on human knowledge and computer representations. Cambridge University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  17. Cohen JP (1963) The independance of the continuum hypothesis I. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, vol 50, pp 1143–1148Google Scholar
  18. Cohen JP (1964) The independence of the continuum hypothesis II. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol 51, pp 105–110Google Scholar
  19. Davis JG, Subrahmanian E, Konda SL, Granger H, Dutoit A, Collins M, Westerberg AW (2001) Creating shared information spaces to support collaborative design work. Inf Syst Frontiers 3(3):377–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dougherty D (1992) Interpretative barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organ Sci 3(2):179–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dummett M (1977) Elements of intuitionism. Clarendon Press, OxfordzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Edelman JA (2012) Understanding radikal breaks through media. Phd thesis, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  23. Edmonds EA, Candy L (1999) Computation, interaction and imagination: into virtual space and back to reality. In: Proceedings of the 4th international roundtable conference on computational models of creative designGoogle Scholar
  24. Eris O (2004) Effective inquiry for innovative engineering design. Kluwer, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eris O (2006) Insisting on truth at the expense of conceptualization: can engineering portfolios help? Int J Eng Educ 22(3):551–559Google Scholar
  26. Evbuomwan NF, Sivaloganathan S, Jebb A (1996) A survey of design philosophies, models, methods and systems. J Eng Manuf 210:301–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fauconnier G, Turner M (2002) The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Field H (1980) Science without numbers: a defence of nominalism. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  29. Fraser Z (2006) The law of the subject: Alain Badiou, Luitzen Brouwer and the Kripkean analyses of forcing and the Heyting calculus. Cosmos Hist J Nat Soc Philos 2(1–2):94–133Google Scholar
  30. Frege G (1983) The concept of number. In: Benacerraf P, Putnam H (eds) Philosophy of mathematics: selected readings. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Freudenthal H (ed) (1976) Collected works 2. Geometry, analysis, topology and mechanics. North Holland Publishing, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  32. Gero JS (1998) Conceptual designing as a sequence of situated acts. In: Smith I (ed) Artificial intelligence in structural engineering, information technology for design, collaboration, maintenance, and monitoring. Springer, Berlin, pp 165–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gero J, Kulinski J (2000) A situated approach to analogy in designing. In: Tang BK, Tan M, Wong Y-C (eds) CAADRIA2000. CASA, Singapore, pp 225–234Google Scholar
  34. Groves L (1962) Now it can be told: the story of the Manhattan project. Harper, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Hatchuel A (2002) Towards design theory and expandable rationality: the unfinished program of Herbert Simon. J Manag Gov 5(3):260–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hatchuel A (2008) Mathématiques et conception, par Armand HATCHUEL. In: Hatchuel A, Weil B (eds) Les nouveaux régimes de la conception: Langages, théories, métiers. Edition Vuibert, ParisGoogle Scholar
  37. Hatchuel A, Weil B (1999) Pour une théorie unifiée de la conception, Axiomatiques et processus collectifs. CGS Ecole des Mines, GIS cognition-CNRSGoogle Scholar
  38. Hatchuel A, Weil B (2002) La théorie C–K: Fondaments et usages d’une théorie unifiée de la conception. Colloque Sciences de la Conception, LyonGoogle Scholar
  39. Hatchuel A, Weil B (2003) A new approach of innovative design: an introduction to C–K design theory. In: ICED’03, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  40. Hatchuel A, Weil B (2007) Design as forcing: deepening the foundations of CK theory. In: Proceedings of 16th international conference on engineering design—ICED 2007, knowledge, innovation and sustainability, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  41. Hatchuel A, Weil B (2009) C–K design theory: an advanced formulation. Res Eng Des 19(4):181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hendriks L (2010) Imagining future knowledge, logic and interactive rationality seminar. The Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  43. Hendriks L, Kazakci A (2010) A formal account of the dual expansion of concepts and knowledge in C–K theory. In: International design conference—Design 2010, Dubrovnik, CroatiaGoogle Scholar
  44. Hendriks L, Kazakci A (2011) Design as imagining future knowledge, a formal account. LIRA seminarGoogle Scholar
  45. Heyting A (ed) (1975) L.E.J Brouwer: collected works 1. Philosophy and foundations of mathematics. North Holland, AmsterdamzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. Heyting A (1983a) Disputation. In: Benacerraf P, Putnam H (eds) Philosophy of mathematics: selected readings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 66–76Google Scholar
  47. Heyting A (1983b) The intuitionist foundations of mathematics. In: Benacerraf P, Putnam H (eds) Philosophy of mathematics: selected readings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 52–61Google Scholar
  48. Hilbert D (1927) The foundations of mathematics. In: Ewald WB (ed) From Kant to Hilbert: a source book in the foundations of mathematics, 2 vols. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  49. Kazakci A (2009) A formalisation of CK design theory based on intuitionist logic. In: Chakrabarti (ed) International conference on research into design. ICORD09. Research Publishing Services, Bangalore, India, pp 499–507Google Scholar
  50. Kazakci A (2010) Imaginative constructivism in design. Mission report on visit to CDR at Stanford University. TMCI, CGS, Mines ParisTech, ParisGoogle Scholar
  51. Kazakci A, Hatchuel A (2009) Is “creative subject” of Brouwer a designer? An analysis of intuitionist mathematics from the viewpoint of C–K design theory. In: Proceedings of the international conference on engineering design, ICED’09, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  52. Kazakci A, Hatchuel A, Le Masson P, Weil B (2010) Simulation of design reasoning based on C–K theory: a model and an example application. In: Proceedings of the international design conference—Design 2010. Dubrovnik, CroatiaGoogle Scholar
  53. Kreisel G (1967) Informal rigour and completeness proofs. In: Lakatos I (ed) Problems in the philosophy of mathematics. Humanities Press, New York, pp 138–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kripke S (1965) Semantical analysis of intuitionistic logic I. In: Dummett M, Crossley JN (eds) Formal systems and recursive functions. North-Holland Publishing, Amsterdam, pp 92–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lakoff G, Nunez RE (2000) Where mathematics comes from: how the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. Basic Books, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. Largeault J (1993) Intuition et Intuitionisme. Vrin, PariszbMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. Le Masson P, Weil B, Hatchuel A (2010) Strategic management of design and innovation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  58. Lenfle S (2008) Proceeding in the dark. Innovation, project management and the making of the atomic bomb. Centre de Recherche en Gestion, ParisGoogle Scholar
  59. Lenfle S (2011) The strategy of parallel approaches in projects with unforeseeable uncertainty: the Manhattan case in retrospect. Int J Proj Manag 24(9):359–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Maimon O, Braha D (1996) A mathematical theory of design. Int J Gen Syst 27(4–5):275–318Google Scholar
  61. Martin-Löf P (1984) Intuitionistic type theory. Notes by Giovanni Sambin of a series of lectures given in Padua, June 1980, Bibliopolis, NapoliGoogle Scholar
  62. Meitner F, Frisch OR (1938) Lise Meitner and disintegration of uranium by neutrons: a new type of nuclear reaction. Nature 143(3615):239–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Myhill J (1968) Formal systems of intuitionistic analysis I. In: van Rootselaer B, Staal J (eds) Logic, methodology and philosophy of science, vol III. North Holland Publishing Company, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  64. Niekus J (2010) Brouwer’s incomplete objects. Hist Philos Logic 31:31–46MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Qiang J (1996) The scientists making the atomic bomb. In: Cohen SP, Cloud K (eds) Pathological states, the origins, detection, and treatment of dysfunctional societies: collected papers of the ford foundation interdisciplinary research seminar on pathological states. ACDIS//ACDIS FFIRS:3Google Scholar
  66. Reich Y, Shai O, Subrahmanian E, Hatchuel A, LeMasson P (2008) The interplay between design and mathematics: introduction to bootstrapping effects. In: Proceedings of the 9th Biennial ASME conference on engineering systems design and analysis ESDA2008. Haifa, IsraelGoogle Scholar
  67. Roozenburg NFM, Dorst CH (1998) Describing design as a reflective practice: observations on Schön’s theory of practice. In: Frankenberger E, Badke-Schaub P, Birkhofer H (eds) Designers: the key to successful product development. Springer, London, pp 29–41Google Scholar
  68. Russell B (1903) The principles of mathematics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  69. Russell B, Whitehead AN (1910) Principia Mathematica, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  70. Schön DA (1983) The reflective practitioner. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  71. Schön DA, Wiggins G (1992) Kind of seeing and their functions in designing. Des Stud 13(2):135–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Smyth HD (1945) Atomic energy for military purposes; the official report on the development of the atomic bomb under the auspices of the United States Government, 1940–1945. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  73. Subrahmanian E, Konda SL, Levy SN, Reich Y, Westerberg AW, Monarch IA (1993) Equations aren’t enough: informal modeling in design. AI Eng Des Manuf 7(4):257–274Google Scholar
  74. Suchman LA (1987) Plans and situated actions: the problem of human–machine communication. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  75. Suwa M, Tversky B (2003) Constructive perception: a metacognitive skill for coordinating perception and conception. In: Cognitive Science Society proceedings, pp 1140–1144Google Scholar
  76. Suwa M, Gero J, Purcell T (2000) Unexpected discoveries and S-invention of design requirements: important vehicles for a design process. Des Stud 21(6):539–567Google Scholar
  77. Troelstra AS (1969) Principles of intuitionism. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  78. van Dalen D (ed) (1981) Brouwer’s Cambridge lectures on intuitionism. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  79. van Dalen D (1999) The role of language and logic in Brouwer’s work. In: Orlovska E (ed) Logic in action. Springer, Vienna, pp 3–14Google Scholar
  80. van Dalen D (2005) How the Mathematical objects determine the mathematical principles. J Univers Comput Sci 11(12):2132–2141zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  81. Weinberg AM (1961) Impact of large-scale science on the United States. Science 134(3473):161–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Weinberg AM (1963) Science, government, and information: the responsibilities of the technical community and the government in the transfer of information. The President’s Scientific Advisory Committee, White House, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  83. Yoshikawa H (ed) (1981) General design theory and a CAD system. Man–machine communication in CAD/CAM. North Holland Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre de Gestion Scientifique, Design ChairMines ParisTechParis Cedex 06France

Personalised recommendations