Abstract
In this chapter I set out to cohere the book’s broader argument by exploring how a synthesis of Dewey’s key theories relating to knowing, reality, communication and value might be drawn to together to enrich our understanding of knowledge production in design research. In doing so, I turn first to the work of Dewey scholar Ralph Sleeper who has proposed that Dewey’s approach to knowledge emerges through the linking of the theory of inquiry to his metaphysics via his theory of communication. By grouping these aspects together, it is possible to argue that Dewey sees inquiry—or, more particularly, the identification and resolution of problems—as a transformational act which reconfigures the world. Having set out this ‘Deweyan perspective’ on inquiry, I move on to consider the question of value in research by considering his theories of value and of valuation, i.e., how, from his point of view, we might approach the subject of values (qualitative form in situations) and valuation (how we attach value to things). The chapter closes with a discussion of how design research involving practice can be seen to operate similarly, with the ‘making’ of products, services, and experiences ‘remaking’ our reality and, equally, our understanding of ‘the possible’ and ‘the valuable’.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
It will be recalled that in Chap. 4 it was stated that Dewey sees communication as being both instrumental and consummatory. The existential angle put forward by Sleeper extends beyond these roles.
- 2.
- 3.
These examples come directly from the work of Wittgenstein and Austin respectively.
- 4.
Through the above, we are brought back to the metaphysics and Dewey’s claim that thought is a natural (as opposed to an extra-natural) process (see Chap. 2). Writing in The Quest for Certainty (LW 4), he gives us a sense of just how deep he believes this understanding of the relationship between thought and nature goes and what it means for knowing. Here we see him intersect directly with Sleeper’s argument and make direct reference to the ‘object of knowledge’.
The organs, instrumentalities and operations of knowing are inside nature, not outside. Hence they are changes in what previously existed: the object of knowledge is a constructed, existentially produced, object. The shock to the traditional notion that knowledge is perfect in the degree to which it grasps or beholds without change some thing previously complete in itself is tremendous. But in effect it only makes us aware of what we have always done, as far as we have ever actually succeeded in knowing: it clears away superfluous and irrelevant accompaniments and it concentrates attention upon the agencies which are actually effective in obtaining knowledge, eliminating waste and making actual knowing more controllable. It installs man, thinking man, in nature. (LW 4, p. 168, italics in original)
- 5.
It is often overlooked that Simon goes on to note that the ‘intellectual activity that produces material artifacts is no different fundamentally from the one that prescribes remedies for a sick patient or the one that devises new a sales plan for a company or a welfare policy for a state.’ (Simon 1996/1969, p. 111)
- 6.
Our familiarity with this definition, may distract us from the fact that Simon is positioning design as a practice which aims to simultaneously bring about change and create value; preferred suggests better, at least for someone.
- 7.
Neoteric disciplines can be understood to refer to new or modern disciplines.
- 8.
It might be possible to also use the word disciplines, but in this instance the term feels too restricted. Also, questions, have been asked regarding the extent to which design can be considered a discipline or ‘disciplined’ on the basis that its practitioners may be understood to operate without any clearly codified system of rules or methods (see e.g., Rodgers and Bremner 2013; Krippendorff 2006).
References
Alexander, T. M. (1987). John Dewey’s theory of art, experience & nature. Albany: The Horizons of Feeling. State University of New York Press.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bang, A. L., Krogh, P., Ludvigsen, M., & Markussen, T. (2012). The Role of Hypothesis in Constructive Design Research. Paper presented at the 4th The Art of Research: Making, Reflecting and Understanding. Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Helsinki, Finland, 28–29 Nov 2012.
Bernstein, R. J. (1966). John Dewey. New York: Washington Square Press.
Binder, T., & Redström, J. (2006). Exemplary Design Research. Paper presented at the Design Research Society Wonderground Conference, Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal, 1–4 Nov 2006.
Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P. A. (2012). Design things and design thinking: Contemporary participatory design challenges. Design Issues, 28(3), 101–116.
Brandt, E., & Binder, T. (2007). Experimental design research: Genealogy, intervention, argument. Paper presented at international association of societies of design research conference. Hong Kong, China, 12–15 Sept 2007.
Buchanan, R. (2001). Design research and the new learning. Design Issues, 17(4), 3–23.
Campbell, J. (1995). Understanding John Dewey: Nature and cooperative intelligence. Chicago: Open Court Publishing.
Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Basel: Birkhäuser.
Dewey J (LW 1–17). J. A. Boydston (Ed.) John Dewey the later works, 1925–1953. Carbondale: University of Southern Illinois Press.
Dewey J (MW 1–15). J. A. Boydston (Ed.) John Dewey the middle works, 1899–1924. Carbondale: University of Southern Illinois Press.
Dorst, K. (2011). The Core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532.
Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative everything. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Gale, R. (2010). John Dewey’s quest for unity: The journey of a promethean mystic. New York: Prometheus Books.
Hauser, S., Oogjes, D., Wakkary, R., & Verbeek, P. P. (2018). An annotated portfolio on doing postphenomenology through research products. In Proceedings of the 2018 designing interactive systems conference (pp. 459–471). New York: ACM.
Hickman, L. (1990). Philosophical tools for technological culture: Putting pragmatism to work. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hickman, L. (2007). Pragmatism as post-postmodernism: Lessons from John Dewey. New York: Fordham University Press.
Hook, S. (1939). John Dewey, an intellectual portrait. New York: John Day.
Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redstrom, J., & Wensveen, S. (2011). Design research through practice: From the lab, field, and showroom. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton FL: Taylor and Francis CRC Press.
Manzini, E. (2015). Design when everyone designs. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
McDermott, J. (1981). [1973] the philosophy of John Dewey. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Patrickson, B., Livesey, J., & Gilman, C. (2019). Scotland’s Digital Design Futures. In: Rodgers, P. (ed.) Design Research for Change. Arts and Humanities Research Council, London.
Patrickson, B. (2018). Digital Design Futures in Scotland. Scottish Graduate School for Arts and Humanities, Glasgow.
Rodgers, P., & Bremner, C. (2013). Design without discipline. Design Issues, 29(3), 4–13.
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rorty, R. (1982). The consequences of pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Rorty, R. (1999). Philosophy and social Hope. London: Penguin.
Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-Design, 4(1), 5–18.
Shook, J. R. (2000). Dewey’s empirical theory of knowledge and reality. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Simon, H. (1996). [1969]). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Sleeper, R. W. (1986). The necessity of pragmatism: John Dewey’s conception of philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Steen, M. (2011). Tensions in human-centred design. CoDesign, 7(1), 45–60.
Steen, M. (2013). Co-design as a process of joint inquiry and imagination. Design Issues, 29(2), 16–28.
Wakkary, R., Oogjes, D., Hauser, S., Lin, H., Cao, C., Ma, L., & Duel, T. (2017). Morse things: A design inquiry into the gap between things and us. In Proceedings of the 2017 conference on designing interactive systems (pp. 503–514). New York: ACM.
Walker, S. (2010). Wrapped attention: Designing products for evolving permanence and enduring meaning. Design Issues, 26(4), 94–108.
Zimmerman, J., & Forlizzi, J. (2008). The role of design artifacts in design theory construction. Art, 2(1), 41–45.
Zimmerman, J., Stolterman, E., & Forlizzi, J. (2010). An analysis and critique of research through design: Towards a formalization of a research approach. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on designing interactive systems (DIS ‘10). New York: ACM.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dixon, B.S. (2020). Making as Valuation. In: Dewey and Design. Design Research Foundations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47471-3_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47471-3_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-47470-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-47471-3
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)