Design as Meaning and Form Making: An Introduction

  • Annie Gentes
Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (DERF)


This chapter presents the scope and ambition of the research: to produce a model of design that accounts for the practices of designers, artists, and researchers in engineering. The goal is to reveal what connects these practices while respecting their respective contributions to the challenge of invention. The main question is what does it take to produce an original work of science, art, or design? According to the author, the answer lies in the humanities, in particular the use of semiotics and media studies that help to understand and produce the autonomous poetic space of design.


  1. Aarseth, E. J. (1997). Cybertext: Perspectives on ergodic literature. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Agre, P. (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. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Akrich, M. (1990). De la sociologie des techniques à une sociologie des usages. Techniques & Culture, 16, 83–110.Google Scholar
  4. Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In W. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society. Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Benjamin, W. (1935–2010). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. Createspace independent publishing platform.Google Scholar
  6. Buchanan, R. (2001). Design research and the new learning. Design Issues, 17(4), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Button, G. (2000). The ethnographic tradition and design. Design Studies, 21(4), 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chow, R., & Jonas, W. (2010). Case transfer: A design approach by artifacts and projection. Design Issues, 26(4), 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clément, J. (2000–2001) Hypertextes et mondes fictionnels (ou l’avenir de la narration dans le cyberespace). Ecarts, 2.Google Scholar
  10. Coyne, R. (1995). Designing information technology in the postmodern age: From method to metaphor. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Crilly, N., et al. (2008). Design as communication: Exploring the validity and utility of relating intention to interpretation. Design Studies, 29(5), 425–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Oxford/New York: Bloomsbury Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davallon, J. (2004). Objet concret, objet scientifique, objet de recherche, Hermès (Paris. 1988), 2004, 38, fascicule thématique Les sciences de l’information et de la communication: savoirs et pouvoirs,
  14. Dow, S., Wendy, J., & Mackay, W. (2013). Projection, place, and point-of-view in research through design. InThe sage handbook of digital technology research (pp. 266–285). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  15. Fallman, D. (2008). The interaction design research triangle of design practice, design studies, and design exploration. Design Issues, 24(3), 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Findeli, A., & Coste, A. (2007). De la recherche-création à la recherche-projet : un cadre théorique et méthodologique pour la recherché architecturale. Nantes: Lieux communs. Les cahiers du LAUA, 10, 139–161.Google Scholar
  17. Foucault, M. (1966–1994). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences (reissueth ed.). New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  18. Garfinkel, H. (1991). Studies in ethnomethodology (1st ed.). Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gaver, W. (2012). What should we expect from research through design? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 937–946,
  20. Gentes, A. (1996). La communication publique : de la mise en scène à la stratégie, de la norme à la démocratie. PhD thesis under the supervision of Professor Bernard Miège, Université Grenoble 3. (not published).Google Scholar
  21. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life (1st ed.). New York: Anchor.Google Scholar
  22. Hatchuel, A., Weil, B., & Masson, P. (2012). Towards an ontology of design: lessons from C–K design theory and Forcing. Research in Engineering Design, 24(2), 147–163.
  23. Jutant, C., Gentes, A., Béjean, M., & Mivielle, C. (2013, August). Design, meaning making and constructive fixation Conceptualizing semiotic conditions to the process of designing (pp. 3509–3519). Tokyo: IASDR.Google Scholar
  24. Koskinen, I. K., et al. (2011). Design research through practice: From the lab, field, and showroom. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers In.Google Scholar
  25. Kroes, P. (2002). Design methodology and the nature of technical artefacts. Design Studies, 23(3), 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  27. Leroi-Gourhan, A., & White, R. (1993). In A. B. Berger (Ed.), Gesture and speech. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Manovich, L. (2002). The language of new media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT.Google Scholar
  29. Mitchell, W. J. T. (2002). Showing seeing: A critique of visual culture. Journal of Visual Culture, 1(2), 165–181. Scholar
  30. Moggridge, B. (2007). Designing interactions (1st ed.p. 81). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2002). The design way (p. 327). Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Norman, D. A. (2002). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  34. Petitmengin, C. (2003). L’expérience intuitive. Paris: Editions L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  35. Shank, G. (2001). It’s logic in practice, my dear Watson: An imaginary memoir from beyond the grave, Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2, 1.
  36. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Simondon, G., & Hart, J. (2001). Du mode d’existence des objets techniques. Aubier.Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annie Gentes
    • 1
  1. 1.Codesign Lab, I3Telecom ParisTechParisFrance

Personalised recommendations