Advertisement

Towards a Philosophy of Design

  • Pieter E. Vermaas
  • Stéphane Vial
Chapter
Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (DERF)

Abstract

With this volume we present 24 contributions to the philosophy of design. Design is an emerging topic in philosophy and not yet one on which work is shaped by a common set of questions or by an academically entrenched discipline of philosophy of design. We therefore consider it an effort in itself that we can present 24 contributions. Throughout the years we have approached in our careers design from our separate disciplinary perspectives and probed whether design was becoming a more general topic of philosophical reflection. One of us (Pieter) is working in a philosophy department and analyzed design as part of a larger project within the philosophy of technology. This has led to a predecessor volume on the philosophy of design (Vermaas et al. 2008), to analyses of design (Houkes and Vermaas 2010), to joint work with design researchers on the structure of design (e.g., Vermaas and Dorst 2007), and to the creation of the Design Research Foundations book series, in which this volume has appeared. The second of us (Stéphane) has worked first as a ‘philosophy applied to design’ teacher (Vial 2015c) and now is working in a design department and in a design research center. He analyzed design from a phenomenological perspective and contributed to developing the knowledge of design in France. These efforts led to a monograph about how to design affects, structures, and frames experience (Vial 2010) and to the founding of the French-speaking journal Sciences du Design edited by Stéphane (Vial 2017).

Keywords

Philosophy of design Design Design research Interdisciplinarity Design for values Social design 

References

  1. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Dorst, K. (2008). Design research: A revolution-waiting-to-happen. Design Studies, 29(1), 4–11.Google Scholar
  3. Findeli, A. (1998). Will design ever become a science? In P. Strandman (Ed.), No guru, no method: Discussion on art and design (pp. 63–69). Helsinki: UIAH.Google Scholar
  4. Findeli, A. (2010). Searching for design research questions: Some conceptual clarifications. In R. Chow, G. Joost, & W. Jonas (Eds.), Questions, hypotheses & conjectures: Discussions on projects by early stage and senior design researchers (pp. 286–303). Bloomington: iUniverse.Google Scholar
  5. Frayling, C. (1993). Research in art and design. Royal College of Art Research Papers, 1(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
  6. Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., Jr., & Borning, A. (2006). Value sensitive design and information systems. In P. Zhang & D. Galletta (Eds.), Human-computer interaction in management information systems: Foundations (pp. 348–372). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  7. Houkes, W., & Vermaas, P. E. (2010). Technical functions: On the use and design of artefacts. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Ihde, D. (2008). The designer fallacy and technological imagination. In P. E. Vermaas, P. Kroes, A. Light, & S. A. Moore (Eds.), Philosophy and design: From engineering to architecture (pp. 51–60). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kroes, P. A., & Meijers, A. W. M. (2006). The dual nature of technical artefacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Petroski, H. (1992). To engineer is human: The role of failure in successful design (2nd ed.). New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  12. Ritchey, T. (2013). Wicked problems. Acta Morphologica Generalis, 2(1).Google Scholar
  13. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Seepersad, C. C., Pedersen, K., Emblemsvåg, J., Bailey, R., Allen, J. K., & Mistree, F. (2006). The validation square: How does one verify and validate a design method? In K. E. Lewis, W. Chen, & L. C. Schmidt (Eds.), Decision making in engineering Design (pp. 303–314). ASME.Google Scholar
  15. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Uexküll Von, J. (1934). Mondes animaux et monde humain. Paris: Denoël.Google Scholar
  17. Van de Poel, I. (2013). Why new technologies should be conceived as social experiments. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 16(3), 352–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P. E., & van de Poel, I. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of ethics, values and technological design. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Van der Hoeven, F. (2011). Mind the evaluation gap: Reviewing the assessment of architectural research in the Netherlands. Architectural Research Quarterly, 15, 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Verbeek, P.-P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. Penn State: Penn State. University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Vermaas, P. E. (1999). A philosopher’s understanding of quantum mechanics: Possibilities and impossibilities of a modal interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Vermaas, P. E. (2016). A logical critique of the expert position in design research: Beyond expert justification of design methods and towards empirical validation. Design Science, 2, e7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vermaas, P. E., & Dorst, K. (2007). On the conceptual framework of John Gero’s FBS-model and the prescriptive aims of design methodology. Design Studies, 28, 133–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vermaas, P. E., Kroes, P., Light, A., & Moore, S. A. (Eds.). (2008). Philosophy and design: From engineering to architecture. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Vial, S. (2010). Court traité du design. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vial, S. (2012). The structure of the digital revolution. PhD in Philosophy thesis defended on November 21, 2012. Paris: Paris Descartes University.Google Scholar
  27. Vial, S. (2013). L’être et l’écran: Comment le numérique change la perception. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Second revised edition 2017.Google Scholar
  28. Vial, S. (2015a). The effect of design: A phenomenological contribution to the quiddity of design presented in geometrical order. Artifact, III(4), 4.1–4.6. Online: https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/artifact/article/view/5137/25631.Google Scholar
  29. Vial, S. (2015). Le design. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Online: https://www.cairn.info/le-design--9782130620433.htm. Second revised edition 2017.
  30. Vial, S. (2015c). Philosophy applied to design: A design research teaching method. Design Studies, 37, 59–66. Online: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X15000022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vial, S. (2017). A Look at design research in France through design journals: Building a design discipline. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 3(2), 146–156: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872616300478
  32. Volti, R. (1992). Society and technological change (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  33. Weinberg, A. M. (1966). Can technology replace social engineering? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 22(10), 4–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Whitehead, A. N. (1978). Process and reality: An essay in cosmology. New York: The Free Press. (first original ed. 1929).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.PROJEKT Design LabUniversity of NîmesNîmesFrance

Personalised recommendations