Advertisement

Conclusion: The Indiscipline of Design

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

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. Bourdieu, P. (1986). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste (1st ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Bremner, C., & Rodgers, P. (2013). Design without discipline. Design Issues, 29(3), 4–13.doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bucciarelli, L. L. (1996). Designing engineers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Caillois, R. (1992). Les Jeux et les hommes : Le masque et le vertige. Paris: Gallimard - Folio.Google Scholar
  6. Cetina, K. K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called Science? (3rd ed.). Hackett Publishing Co., Indianapolis.Google Scholar
  8. Coutellec, L. (2015). La science au pluriel : Essai d’épistémologie pour des sciences impliquées. Versailles: Quae éditions.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cross, N. (2006). Design as a discipline. Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (1st ed.). New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  12. Dubreuil, L. (2007). Défauts de savoirs. Labyrinthe, 27, 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eco, U. (2004). Mouse or rat: Translation as negotiation. London: Phoenix.Google Scholar
  15. Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as ‘epistemic objects’. Organization Studies, 30(1), 07–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Foucault, M. (1966). Les mots et les choses; une archéologie des sciences humaines. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Gentes, A. (2015b, mai). Arts et sciences du design: la place des sciences humaines. Sciences du design, no 1, PUF, 96–109.Google Scholar
  22. Gentes, A., & Jutant, C. (2012). Nouveaux médias aux musées. Le visiteur équipé. Culture et Musées., 19, 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gentes, A., & Selker, T. (2013). Beyond Rhetoric to Poetics in IT Invention. In Proceedings INTERACT 2013 (pp. 267–79).Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Guillory, J. (2010). Genesis of the media concept. Critical Inquiry, 36(2), 321–362.doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/648528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Habermas, J. (1985). The theory of communicative action, Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society (trans: McCarthy, T.). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Harris, R. (2000). Rethinking writing. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hatchuel, A., Weil, B., & Collectif. (2014). Les nouveaux régimes de la conception : Langages, théories, métiers. Paris: Editions Hermann.Google Scholar
  32. Higgins, D., & Higgins, H. (2001). Intermedia. Leonardo, 34(1), 49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Latour, B. (2005). La science en action : Introduction à la sociologie des sciences. Paris: Editions La Découverte.Google Scholar
  34. Legay, J.-M. (2004). L’interdisciplinarité vue et pratiquée par les chercheurs en Sciences de la vie. Natures, Sciences, Sociétés, 12, 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mackay, R. (Ed.). (2015). Simulation, exercise, operations. Falmouth: Urbanomic.Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (2001). The dual imperatives of action research. Information Technology & People, 14(1), 46–59.  https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840110384771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. McLuhan, M. (1965). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  42. Méadel, C., Musiani, F., & Collectif. (2015). Abécédaire des architectures distribuées. Paris: Presses de l’Ecole des mines.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Meijers, A. W. M., et al. (2009). Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (1st ed.). Amsterdam/Boston: North Holland: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  44. Moggridge, B. (2007). Designing interactions (1st ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Nieuwdorp, E. (2007). The Pervasive discourse: An analysis. Computers in Entertainment, 5(2), 13.doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1279540.1279553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Olohan, M. (Ed.). (2000). Intercultural faultlines: Research models in translation studies: Textual and cognitive aspects (Vol. 1). Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. Perec, G. (2008). Species of spaces and other pieces (New ed.). London: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  48. Rancière, J. (2006). Thinking between disciplines: An aesthetics of knowledge. Parrhesia, 1(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  49. Reiss, K., & Vermeer, H. J. (2013). Towards a general theory of translational action: Skopos theory explained (trans: Nord, C.). St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schmid, A.-F. (1998a). L’âge de l’épistémologie. Paris: Editions Kimé.Google Scholar
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. Schmid, A.-F., (2012b). SIG special interest group in design theory, January 2012, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  56. Schmid, A.-F. (2015). On contemporary objects. In R. Mackay (Ed.), Simulation, exercise, operations (pp. 63–68). Falmouth: Urbanomic.Google Scholar
  57. Schmid, A.-F., Mambrini-Doudet, M., & Hatchuel, A. (2011). Une nouvelle logique de l’interdisciplinarité. Nouvelles perspectives en sciences sociales, 7(1), 105–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. Simondon, G. (2001). Du mode d’existence des objets techniques. Paris: Aubier.Google Scholar
  61. 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
  62. Stein, Z. (2007). Modeling the demands of interdisciplinarity: Toward a framework for evaluating interdisciplinary endeavors. Integral Review, 4(1), 91–107.Google Scholar
  63. Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amersterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations