Introduction
The articles in this issue of the journal could easily constitute the
entire reading list for a course in design theory or even a design
studio course—we observe that more and more studio courses in
schools around the world include a component of reading and dis-
cussion that sharpens the professionalism of the field of design.
Cependant, the articles also offer a guide to the practicing designer
in the new turns of contemporary design thinking. On one hand,
the articles cover a range of classic design issues as they are refor-
mulated in contemporary circumstances. The issues range from
form and function, materiality and objectivity, technologies, le
strategy and methods of design research, to the agency of design—
who is the designer and who participates in the activity of design-
ing. D'autre part, many of the articles directly or indirectly
address themes that have growing importance in design practice
in all of its professional branches. One is the social dimension
of design. The other is the relationship between the discipline of
design and the interdisciplinary connections that are now so much
a part of design practice: how do we bring diverse kinds of knowl-
edge drawn from many fields together in effective design work?
In the first article, “Reconsidering the Form and Function
Relationship in Artificial Objects,” Anthony Crabbe discusses one
of the often cited principles of twentieth-century design: the dictum
from Louis Sullivan that implies a direct causality between func-
tion and form—i.e., “form follows function.” His contribution to the
discussion of this theme is to elaborate the communicative functions
that products may fulfill and, particularly, how the reuse or repur-
posing of products may reveal functions not anticipated by the
designer. He offers interesting examples to show that the analogy
between natural and artificial forms may “mislead any analysis of
Sullivan’s ‘law’.” The argument and examples do not end debate
over the nature and relationship between form and function, mais
they do add new materials for discussion and thought. Dans un sens,
Crabbe’s work extends a discussion begun by Moholy-Nagy when
he wrote in “Design Potentialities” (1944): “function is not only the
work to be accomplished for a limited mechanical task, but must
also fulfill biological, psychophysical and sociological requirements
as well.”
In the next article, “Creative Practice and Critical Reflec-
tion: Productive Science in Design Research,” Kaja Tooming
Buchanan enters the discussion of the nature of “design science” by
est ce que je:10.1162/DESI_e_00225
© 2013 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Les problèmes de conception: Volume 29, Nombre 4 Autumn 2013
1
1
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
/
e
d
toi
d
e
s
je
/
je
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
F
/
/
/
/
/
2
9
4
1
1
7
1
5
2
5
0
d
e
s
_
e
_
0
0
2
2
5
p
d
.
je
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
distinguishing “productive science” from other theories of design
science that tend to be reductive and positivist. She points to the
long history of productive science—perhaps better known as “poet-
ics” from the Greek term for “making”—as a framework for under-
standing the creation of all human-made products. She argues that
productive science offers an important alternative for design
research and reflection that is well grounded in creative practice. Il
is the relationship between theory and practice that has been so
problematic for followers of Herbert Simon’s theory of design sci-
ence as they attempt to reduce practice to underlying cognitive pro-
cesses—the link is always promised but never fulfilled except in
rather abstract notions of “information processing in the brain.”
Buchanan discusses the key elements of productive science, shaped
around issues of form, matter, fonction, and agency—the multiple
and pluralistic causality that distinguishes this approach from
others. She then provides an interesting example of practical design
work that grounds theoretical reflection in immediate practice,
demonstrating how the elements of analysis and synthesis may
guide research as well as practice—recognizing the mysterious
place of creative synthesis.
The next article moves into the social in a different way
than either Crabbe or Buchanan. In “Opening Up Technologies to
the Social: Between Interdisciplinarity and Citizen Participation,»
Susana Nascimento and Alexandre Pólvora explore the relationship
between the field of design and the field of science and technology
études (STS). We have published other articles that represent
the juncture between design and STS, and this article continues a
theme that interests many readers, whether from the perspective of
co-design, participatory design, or social innovation. Cependant, il
is the theme of “interdisciplinarity”—a somewhat barbaric and
graceless term for which we have no other alternative at present—
that offers an interesting view of the central feature of the article.
As the authors write, “Interdisciplinary engagement isn’t a simple
disciplinary juxtaposing or shared teamwork, but in our view some-
thing that entails new modes of practical and conceptual collabora-
tion that are able to integrate material qualities, bâtiment
procedures, operation modes, esthetic features, technical orienta-
tion, etc., with cultural contexts, political consequences, ethical
scenarios, convivial uses, etc.” For designers who are now working
in the area of public sector design and social innovation, this is
certainly a useful article.
Participation is also the theme of the next article by Marie
Harder, Gemma Burford and Elona Hoover. In “What Is Participa-
tion? Design Leads the Way to a Cross-Disciplinary Framework,»
the authors present a way of thinking that they believe will be
useful in exploring the concept of participation across many disci-
plines. The way is an interdisciplinary approach to the plurality of
2
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
/
e
d
toi
d
e
s
je
/
je
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
F
/
/
/
/
/
2
9
4
1
1
7
1
5
2
5
0
d
e
s
_
e
_
0
0
2
2
5
p
d
.
je
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Les problèmes de conception: Volume 29, Nombre 4 Autumn 2013
meanings embedded in the concept of participation that are rep-
resented in different terms. En outre, they argue that design “is
the best field to lead on this, and show specific connections to
several other disciplines,” since participation and related concepts
such as “user-centered” and “co-design” are well established in the
central area of design work. They explore the concept of participa-
tion with care, offering examples of the different aspects of partic-
ipation that they characterize.
If the previous articles firmly place products and forms in
a social context, the next article turns in the opposite direction,
arguing that an emphasis on “objects” in Western industrialized
design hides the “energetic and material circulation” of our envi-
ronment. In “Designing Environmental Relations: From Opacity to
Textility,” Mike Anusas and Tim Ingold draw on the philosophy of
Vilém Flusser to argue that humanity is trapped “within a vicious
circle of increasing environmental alientation” because of a logic of
form that casts “the material world in the guise of objects.” Their pro-
posal is that designers should think of form as “textilic.” That is, nous
should recognize that the material world is comprised of energetic
lines, and that design is the practice of “enriching the weaves that
bind people and their environments.” The authors offer several neol-
ogisms to capture the meanings that they see in design and envi-
ronmental relationships, and they provide interesting examples of
how a new perspective on objects may lead to changes in social and
environmental relationships. The article concludes with a discus-
sion of “design anthropology,” in a sense returning the discipline
of design to the social dimension of the earlier articles.
With the importance of the social dimension in design
evidenced in the previous articles, it seems quite appropriate to
think about how designers gain knowledge of the human beings
they seek to serve. That is the central theme of the next article, “A
Support for Protocol Analysis for Design Research” by Prabir Sarker
and Amaresh Chakrabarti. They provide a clear, concise discussion
of the method of protocol analysis and its place in the context of
design research. As they point out, the method is particularly useful
for validating cognitive and information processing theories, giving
designers insight into the strengths and limitations of designs that
seek to communicate complicated information for decision-making
in a wide variety of situations. This is a qualitative research method,
revealing user behavior and understanding in considerable detail.
The method can be elaborated in detailed data capturing and inter-
pretative phases. This involves careful coding of behaviors, et le
authors present examples as well as a tool for transcribing protocol
sessions. Cependant, it is well to remember that protocol analysis can
yield useful insights even without elaborate coding. This article
helps to reinforce the value of user research in the design process.
3
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
/
e
d
toi
d
e
s
je
/
je
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
F
/
/
/
/
/
2
9
4
1
1
7
1
5
2
5
0
d
e
s
_
e
_
0
0
2
2
5
p
d
.
je
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Les problèmes de conception: Volume 29, Nombre 4 Autumn 2013
In our final article, “Engaging Complexity: Social Science
Approaches to Green Building Design,” Krishna Bharathi offers a
sophisticated discussion of the role of a social science perspective
in design activities. She acknowledges that when the social science
perspective arises in discussion, the tendency is to see a shift “from
a study of things to a study of people.” In contrast, she seeks to
show how a social science perspective can augment how the design
of the built environment is understood. Though this article uses
examples drawn from architecture and the engagement of complex-
ity in building design, the deeper theme of a social science perspec-
tive is relevant to all disciplines and branches of design practice. Comme
the author observes, “In an era where pluralistic concerns must be
balanced with ontological understanding, all designers should con-
sider how disciplinary framings can shape their solutions.” Similar
to earlier articles in this issue of the journal, this article also
explores the relationship between discipline and interdisciplinary
in a way that helps us understand why design has become a lead-
ing example of how interdisciplinary theory and practice are taking
shape at the beginning of the twenty-first century.
In addition to articles, there are also three book reviews on
works that are of considerable interest in the design community. Dans
the first review, Carma Gorman looks at Standards: Recipes for Real-
ity by Lawrence Busch. In the next review, David Stairs offers a con-
troversial view of Adversarial Design by Carl DiSalvo. And in the
final review, Fred Turner looks closely at The Idea Factory: Bell Labs
and the Great Age of American Innovation by Jon Gertner.
From the perspective of design theory, the articles in this
issue of the journal articulate many of the essential themes dis-
cussed in the contemporary design community, while also provid-
ing excellent examples of the products and practices that ground
theory in the activity of making and in the social implications of
conception. From the perspective of design practice, they offer the kind
of reflection in which many designers engage as they think about
the larger context and implications of their work.
Bruce Brown
Richard Buchanan
Carl DiSalvo
Dennis Doordan
Victor Margolin
4
je
D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d
F
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
je
r
e
c
t
.
m
je
t
.
/
e
d
toi
d
e
s
je
/
je
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d
F
/
/
/
/
/
2
9
4
1
1
7
1
5
2
5
0
d
e
s
_
e
_
0
0
2
2
5
p
d
.
je
F
b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Les problèmes de conception: Volume 29, Nombre 4 Autumn 2013
Télécharger le PDF