Advertisement

„Das Rad neu erfinden“. Forschung zu zukunftsfähiger Mobilität am Institut für Transportation Design Braunschweig

  • Wolfgang Jonas
  • Stephan Rammler
Part of the Zukunft und Forschung book series (ZUFORSCH, volume 3)

Zusammenfassung

Das Institut für Transportation Design (ITD) an der Hochschule für Bildende Künste Braunschweig (HBK) betreibt in langfristig angelegten, öffentlich geförderten Projekten einerseits sowie in vielfältigen Projekten für unterschiedlichste Industriepartner andererseits sowohl ganz praktische Gestaltungsarbeit als auch ein forschungsbasiertes, konzeptionelles und zukunftsorientiertes Systemdesign zur Entwicklung und Vermittlung einer nachhaltigen, das heißt vor allem „postfossilen“ Mobilitätskultur.

Literatur

  1. Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Archer, B. (1979). Design as a Disciplin. Design Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, 17–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer, B. (1981). A View of the Nature of Design Research. In R. Jacques, & Powell, J (Eds.), Design:Science:Method. Guildford: Westbury House. Bannasch, H.-G., Hartmann, W. D., & Kny, R. (2011). Maritimes Clean Tech Kompendium. Wie nachhaltiges Wachstum international erfolgreich macht. Neuenhagen/ Berlin: ifi – Institut für Innovationsmanagement.Google Scholar
  4. Blöcker, A., & Lompe, K. (2000). Mobilität und neue Beschäftigungsfelder. Marburg: Schüren.Google Scholar
  5. Boland, R. J., & Collopy, F (Eds.) (2004). Managing as Designing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, V. A., Harris, J. A., & Russell, J. Y. (2010). Tackling Wicked Problems Through the Transdisciplinary Imagination. London/Washington, DC: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  8. Chow, R., & Jonas, W. (2008). Beyond Dualisms in Methodology – an Integrative Design Research Medium („MAPS”) and some reflections. DRS conference Undisciplined!, Sheffield, 7/2008.Google Scholar
  9. Chow, R., & Jonas, W. (2010). Far Beyond Dualisms in Methodology – an Integrative Design Research Medium „MAPS”. DRS conference Design & Complexity, Montréal, 7/2010.Google Scholar
  10. Cross, N. (2001). Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline Versus Design Science. Design Issues, Vol. 17, No. 3, Summer 2001, 49–55.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, W. H. (1972). Peirce’s Epistemology. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  12. Dewey, J. (1986). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Fallman, D. (2008). The Interaction Design Research Triangle of Design Practice, Design Studies, and Design Exploration. Design Issues, 24(3), 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Findeli, A. (2008). Searching for Design Research Questions. Keynote at Questions & Hypotheses Conference, Berlin, 24.-26.10.2008.Google Scholar
  15. Findeli, A. (2010). Searching for Design Research Questions: Some Conceptual Clarifications. In R. Chow, W. Jonas and G. Joost (Eds.), Questions, Hypotheses & Conjectures. Xlibris Corp., 286-299.Google Scholar
  16. Frayling, C. (1993). Research in Art and Design. Royal College of Art Research Papers, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1–5.Google Scholar
  17. Fuller, R. B. (1998). Betriebsanleitung für das Raumschiff Erde und andere Schriften. Dresden, 54 (Original: Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth, 1969).Google Scholar
  18. Grand, S., & Jonas, W. (2012). Mapping Design Research. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  19. Heider, F. (1926). Ding und Medium. Nachdruck Berlin: Kulturverlag Kadmos, 2005.Google Scholar
  20. Ison, R. (2010). Systems Practice: How to Act in a Climate-Change World. London/ Dordrecht/Heidelberg/New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jonas, W. (2007a). Design Research and its Meaning to the Methodological Development of the Discipline. In R. Michel (Hrsg.), Design Research Now – Essays and Selected Projects. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  22. Jonas, W. (2007b). Research Through DESIGN Through Research – a Cybernetic Model of Designing Design Foundations. Kybernetes, Vol. 36, No. 9/10, Special Issue on Cybernetics and Design.Google Scholar
  23. Jonas, W., & Meyer-Veden, J. (2004). Mind the gap! On Knowing and Not-Knowing in Design. Bremen: Hauschildt.Google Scholar
  24. Jonas, W., Chow, R., & Verhaag, N. (2005). Design – System – Evolution. Proceedings of the 6th conference of the European Academy of Design, University of the Arts Bremen, 29.-31.3.2005. http://ead.verhaag.net/conference/. Abgerufen am 2.6.2012.
  25. Jones, J. C. (1970). Design Methods: Seeds of Human Futures. New York and Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  26. Lawson, B. (1980). How Designers Think. The Design Process Demystified. Oxford: Architectural Press, Third Edition 1997.Google Scholar
  27. Lompe, K. (1994). Verkehrspolitik als Gesellschaftspolitik. Düsseldorf: Hans-Böckler- Stiftung.Google Scholar
  28. Michl, J. (2002). On Seeing Design as Redesign. An Exploration of a Neglected Problem in Design Education. Dept. of Industrial Design, Oslo School of Architecture, Norway.Google Scholar
  29. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The Design Way. Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Nicolescu, B. (2002). Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  31. Nicolescu, B. (2008). Transdisciplinarity: Theory and Practice. New York: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  32. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-Thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in the Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  33. Nowotny, H. (2006). The Potential of Transdisciplinarity. Interdisciplines, May 2006.Google Scholar
  34. Pye, D. (1978). The Nature and Aesthetics of Design. Bethel, CT: Cambium Press.Google Scholar
  35. Rittel, H.W.J. (1972). Second-generation Design Methods. In N. Cross (Ed.) (1984), Developments in Design Methodology. Chichester: John Wiley, 317–327 (Original 1972).Google Scholar
  36. Rittel, H.W.J. (1987). Das Erbe der HfG? In H. Lindinger (Hrsg.), Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm. Die Moral der Gegenstände. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn, 118–119.Google Scholar
  37. Schwartz, P. (1991). The Art of the Long View. New York: Currency Doubleday.Google Scholar
  38. Simon, H. A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Third Ed. 1996. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Verganti, R. (2009). Design-Driven Innovation: Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating What Things Mean. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  40. Vester, F. (2002). Die Kunst, vernetzt zu denken. Ideen und Werkzeuge für einen neuen Umgang mit Komplexität. Der neue Bericht an den Club of Rome. München: dtv.Google Scholar
  41. Weick, K. (1969). Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Jonas
  • Stephan Rammler

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations