Advertisement

Branded Spaces pp 261-277 | Cite as

Branding as Enabling Knowledge Creation: The Role of Space and Cognition in Branding Processes

  • Markus F. Peschl
  • Thomas Fundneider
Chapter
Part of the Management – Culture – Interpretation book series (MCI)

Abstract

This paper introduces the concept of enabling, as opposed to managing or controlling, as a key characteristic and attitude for designing spaces which are supposed to have a ‘branding effect’. In our case we will focus on a very specific notion of branding or branded spaces; namely, spaces that are branded for creating (new) knowledge. It can be seen easily that this is a very generic understanding of brand that can be applied to many domains. In other words, we see a brand not primarily as a product, but as a state of knowledge.

Keywords

Knowledge Creation Knowledge Process Design Thinking Epistemic Virtue Epistemic Practice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S. and Silverstein, M. (1977): A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, T.J. and Henn, G.W. (2007): The organization of architecture and innovation: Managing the flow of technology. Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heinemann Elsevier.Google Scholar
  3. Amabile, T. (1996): Creativity in context. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bohm, D. (1996): On dialogue. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Brook, A. and Stainton, R.J. (2000): Knowledge and mind: A philosophical introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, T. (2008): Design thinking. In: Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84-93.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, T. (2009): Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York, NY: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, A. (2001): Mindware: An introduction to the philosophy of cognitive science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, A. (2008): Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cole, M. and Derry, J. (2005): We have met technology and it is us. In: Sternberg, R.J. and Preiss, D. (eds.): Intelligence and technology: The impact of tools on the nature and development of human abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 209-227.Google Scholar
  11. Dorst, K. (2003): The problem of design problems. In: Cross, N. and Edmonds, E. (eds.): Expertise in design. Sydney: Creativity and Cognition Studio Press, 135-147.Google Scholar
  12. Dorst, K. (2006): Design problems and design paradoxes. In: Design Issues, 22(3), 4-17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eigenbrode, S.D., O’Rourke, M., Wulfhorst, J.D., Althoff, D.M., Goldberg, C.S., Merrill, K., Morse, W., Nielsen-Pincus, M., Stephens, J., Winowiecki, L. and Bosque-Pérez, N.A. (2007): Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. In: Bioscience, 57(1), 55-64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fagerberg, J. and Verspagen, B. (2009): Innovation studies: The emerging structure of a new scientific field. In: Research Policy, 38, 218-233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Friedenberg, J. and Silverman, G. (2006): Cognitive science: An introduction to the study of the mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Gedenryd, H. (1998): How designers work. Lund, Sweden: Lund University Cognitive Studies.Google Scholar
  17. Glanville, R. (1998): Re-searching design and designing research. In: Design Issues, 15(2), 88-91.Google Scholar
  18. Glanville, R. (2007): Try again. Fail again. Fail better: The cybernetics in design and the design in cybernetics. In: Kybernetes: The International Journal of Systems and Cybernetics, 36(9/10), 1173-1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glasersfeld, E. v. (1984): An introduction to radical constructivism. In: Watzlawick, P. (ed.): The invented reality. New York: Norton, 17-40.Google Scholar
  20. Glasersfeld, E. v. (1991): Knowing without metaphysics: Aspects of the radical constructivist position. In: Steier, F. (ed.): Research and reflexivity. London: SAGE Publishers, 12-29.Google Scholar
  21. Goldstein, E.B. (2002): Sensation and perception. Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  22. House, N.A. Van (2003): Science and technology studies and information studies. In: Cronin, B. (ed.): Annual review of information science and technology, 38, 3-86.Google Scholar
  23. Isaacs, W.N. (1999): Dialogue and the art of thinking together: A pioneering approach to communicating in business and life. New York: Doubleday Currency.Google Scholar
  24. Kelley, T. (2004): The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO, America’s leading design firm. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
  25. Krippendorff, K. (1989): On the essential contexts of artifacts or on the proposition that ‘design is making sense (of things)’. In: Design Issues, 5(2), 9-39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krippendorff, K. (2006): The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis CRC Press.Google Scholar
  27. Krippendorff, K. (2011): Principles of design and a trajectory of artificiality. In: Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(3), 411-418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krippendorff, K. and Butter, R. (2007): Semantics: Meanings and contexts of artifacts. In: Schifferstein, H.N.J. and Hekkert, P. (eds.): Product experience. New York: Elsevier, 1-25.Google Scholar
  29. Krogh, G. v., Ichijo, K. and Nonaka, I. (2000): Enabling knowledge creation: How to unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Latour, B. (1987): Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Maturana, H.R. (1970): Biology of cognition. In: Maturana, H.R. and Varela, F.J. (eds.): Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht, Boston: Reidel Publishing, 2-60.Google Scholar
  32. Menary, R. (2010) (ed.): The extended mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Hirata, T. (2008): Managing flow: A process theory of the knowledge based firm. Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. Norman, D.A. (1991): Cognitive artifacts. In: Carroll, J.M. (ed.): Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 17-38.Google Scholar
  35. Onarheim, B. (2012): Creativity from constraints in engineering design: Lessons learned at Coloplast. In: Journal of Engineering Design, 23(4), 323-336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peschl, M.F. (1997): The representational relation between environmental structures and neural systems: Autonomy and environmental dependency in neural knowledge representation. In: Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences (NDPSFS), 1(2), 99-121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peschl, M.F. (2001): Constructivism, cognition, and science: An investigation of its links and possible shortcomings. In: Foundations of Science, 6(1), 125-161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peschl, M.F. (2007): Enabling spaces: Epistemologische Grundlagen der Ermöglichung von Innovation und knowledge creation. In: Gronau, N. (ed.): Professionelles Wissensmanagement: Erfahrungen und Visionen. Berlin: GITO, 362-372.Google Scholar
  39. Peschl, M.F. (2009): Innovation as a socio-epistemological technology. In: Hornung- Prähauser, V. and Luckmann, M. (eds.): Creativity and innovation competencies on the Web: How does the ‘new’ emerge with support of Web technologies? Salzburg: Salzburg Research, 46-56.Google Scholar
  40. Peschl, M.F. and Fundneider, T. (2008): Emergent innovation and sustainable knowledge co-creation: A socio epistemological approach to ‘innovation from within’. In: Lytras, M.D., Carroll, J.M. and Damiani, E. (eds.): The open knowledge society: A computer science and information systems manifesto. New York: Springer, 101-108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peschl, M.F. and Fundneider, T. (2012): Spaces enabling game-changing and sustaining innovations: Why space matters for knowledge creation and innovation. In: Journal of Organisational Transformation and Social Change (OTSC), 9(1), 41-61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Popper, K.R. (1962): Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  43. Popper, K.R. (1959): The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  44. Roth, G. (2009): Aus der Sicht des Gehrins. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  45. Sanders, E.B.-N. and Stappers, P.J. (2008): Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. In: CoDesign, 4(1), 5-18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Scharmer, C.O. (2001): Self-transcending knowledge: Sensing and organizing around emerging opportunities. In: Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), 137-150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scharmer, C.O. (2007): Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges: The social technology of presencing. Cambridge, MA: Society for Organizational Learning.Google Scholar
  48. Shneiderman, B. (2007): Creativity support tools: Accelerating discovery and innovation. In: Communications of the ACM, 50, 20-32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sternberg, R.J. (2005): Creativity or creativities? In: International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, 63(4/5), 370-382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stokes, P.D. (2007): Using constraints to generate and sustain novelty. In: Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 107-113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tsoukas, H. (2005): Complex knowledge: Studies in organizational epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Varela, F.J., Thompson, E. and Rosch, E. (1991): The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ViennaViennaGermany
  2. 2.ViennaGermany

Personalised recommendations