Thanks Cindy,

That was something good.

Lubomir

At 03:58 PM 4/25/2004 +0100, Cindy Jackson wrote:
>Dear All,
>
>Here is the compilation of responses to my research request on philsophy and
>design. So far, I have received 25 contributions. All are included here in
>the order
>that I received them.
>
>Contributors
>
>(1) Design Research News
>(2) Cameron Tonkinwise
>(3) Heleen Gierveld
>(4) Design Philosophy Papers
>(5) Can Ozcan
>(6) Artemis Yagou
>(7) Geoff Matthews
>(8) Bernhard E. Buerdek
>(9) German Society for Design Theory and Research
>(10) Tiiu Poldma
>(11) Eduardo Corte-Real
>(12) John Feland
>(13) Kari-Hans Kommonen
>(14) Per Galle
>(15) Susan Stewart
>(16) Jared Donovan
>(17) Alec Robertson
>(18) Ken Friedman
>(19) David M. Cannon
>(20) Erik Stolterman
>(21) Tiiu Poldma
>(22) Harold Nelson
>(23) Tim Martin
>(24) Tim Martin
>(25) Lars Albinsson
>
>I have made some minor changes to ensure good formatting.
>
>I will welcome additional notes and material. I will collect added material on
>philosophy and design this week and post it to the list at the weekend.
>
>I have been having some interface trouble working from Hotmail, so I am
>trying to
>send this via the JISCMAIL web site interface. I will apparently have to
>break it into
>parts to send it. Hope it works!
>
>Thank you all for your help. I have enjoyed readinbg your notes and I will be
>interested in following these fine leads.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Cindy Jackson
>
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
>(1)
>
> From DRS News. Suggested by Ken Friedman.
>
>|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>
>DRS_NEWS ::
>The digital newsletter :::::: :: ::: ::::
>of the :: :: ::: ::
>Design Research Society :: :: :: :::
>:: :: :: ::
>Volume 5, Number 10, October 2000 :::::: :: :::::
>
>|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>
>CALL FOR PAPERS:
>SPECIAL ISSUE OF DESIGN STUDIES, ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF DESIGN
>
>Deadline: March 15th, 2001.
>
>Original papers on the philosophy of design are solicited for review and
>possible
>publication in a special issue of Design Studies.
>
>The subject
>
>During the two decades in which Design Studies has been published, only a
>handful
>of papers have appeared in the journal explicitly and primarily addressing
>philosophical issues of design [refs. 1-14 below]. (Subsuming 'the logic
>of design'
>[ref. 15] under this heading, another handful may be added [16-21].) Yet
>presumably
>philosophical analysis is just as important a source of insight into the
>nature of
>design as other kinds of inquiry more frequently employed. It is hoped
>that a special
>issue on the philosophy of design will draw enough attention to the subject to
>establish it more firmly as a field of research: a fruitful common ground
>to be
>cultivated by design researchers and philosophers alike.
>
>No prolonged search is needed to find philosophical literature on such
>topics as the
>philosophy of science and the philosophy of technology. In recent years, a few
>philosophers have taken an interest in the nature of artefacts (in their
>own right [22-
>25], or considered in broader contexts [26, 27]), but for no evident
>reason the
>philosophy of design has been largely ignored as a subject of focused study.
>Exceptions do exist, to be sure, also outside the pages of Design Studies
>[28-39], but
>interesting discussions of design-related issues are often intertwined
>with other lines
>of philosophical thought [40-43]. It is encouraging, however, that outside
>established
>philosophical circles an awareness of philosophical aspects of design has
>begun to
>emerge quite recently [44].
>
>Though no doubt the list of publications referred to above is incomplete,
>it is obvious
>that philosophical literature on design is extremely rare and scattered.
>Whatever the
>reason may be, it cannot be a lack of exposure to the effects of design.
>We see
>design reflected in countless artefacts with which we furnish and sustain our
>environment and even our bodies; no doubt design shapes our lives just as
>much as
>science and technology - or even more so. Design may be seen, presumably, as
>significantly depending on technological and scientific knowledge, but can
>hardly be
>fully understood in terms of science and technology alone. Developing a
>satisfactory
>understanding of the nature and workings of design itself clearly calls
>for serious
>philosophical work.
>
>Problems which might be addressed by contributors to our special issue
>include but
>are not limited to the following examples:
>
>1. What distinguishes design (architectural, engineering, software, etc.)
>from other
>intellectual endeavours, such as science or technology?
>
>2. How are the concepts of design and artefact related? For example, are they
>definable in terms of each other? Is it a necessary, a sufficient, or
>necessary and
>sufficient, condition for something to be an artefact that it was
>designed; can there be
>artefacts without design?
>
>3. Whatever the answer to the latter question may be, it seems clear that
>there is
>always design without artefacts, for at the time a given artefact was
>designed, it had
>not yet been constructed. Yet designers talk about what they design as if
>there were
>artefacts for them to talk about. How is that to be explained? Are
>statements of
>design discourse true, false, or even meaningful? If so, what makes them
>so? If not,
>what purpose could design discourse possibly serve?
>
>4. What ontological and epistemological assumptions should be made to
>explain the
>apparent fact that designers can know or predict the properties of an
>artefact which
>is not there to have properties?
>
>5. Taking universals to be whatever can be predicated of things, design
>might be
>viewed as the selection (or creation?) of one or more universals to be
>predicated of
>some future artefact. Taking this as an initial step towards theorising
>about design, it
>must be expected that the traditional distinction between nominalist,
>conceptualist,
>and realist theories of universals carries over to theories of design.
>What would
>design theories of the three types be like, and what would be their
>relative strengths
>and weaknesses?
>
>6. What are the relations between philosophy of design and philosophy at
>large? For
>example, considering the central problems of the philosophy of design
>(whatever
>they may be, apart perhaps from defining 'design'), are they special cases
>of familiar
>philosophical problems, or are they new? No doubt the philosophy of design can
>draw on insights from other fields of philosophy. Can it also offer them
>new insights?
>
>7. Can results from the philosophy of design be put to use in design
>practice - for
>example, by leading us towards better artefacts, better design methods,
>better ways
>of utilising computers in design?
>
>
>The journal, its readers and style
>
>Design Studies is a cross-disciplinary scholarly journal for design
>research in
>engineering, architecture, products and systems. The journal is peer
>reviewed, and
>is published by Elsevier in co-operation with the Design Research Society.
>Submissions should follow the instructions given at the end of each issue
>('Notes for
>authors'). The length of papers normally range from 3000 to 6000 words, plus
>illustrations. Contributors to the special issue on the philosophy of
>design are kindly
>requested to take the following guidelines into account, too.
>
>Readers of Design Studies must be expected to represent a variety of academic
>disciplines of research and teaching, as well as professional design
>practice, but all
>of them can be assumed to share an interest in serious research and
>theory-building
>about design. Ideally, any published paper on the philosophy of design
>should be
>worth reading for professional philosophers, yet be accessible to
>motivated non-
>philosophers. Unexplained reference to the numerous philosophical '-isms'
>should
>therefore be kept to a minimum, and 'technical' notation or style of
>exposition should
>be used only to the extent necessitated by the subject matter. Care should
>be taken
>to make the meaning of special terminology clear from context, or from brief
>explanatory notes.
>
>An adequate degree of precision must be maintained, but the occasional use of
>illustrative examples is encouraged to ease an otherwise overwhelming
>weight of
>abstraction. Familiarity with the work of distinguished philosophers cannot be
>assumed to the same degree as in papers for purely philosophical journals. For
>example, adjectives like 'Fregean' and 'Quinean' may be used, but
>preferably with
>explicit reference to the relevant works by Frege and Quine, or to the
>relevant ideas
>originating from them. Likewise, vague implicit references like 'many
>philosophers'
>or 'most contemporary physicalists' should be avoided or supplemented by
>(representative) references.
>
>
>Submission
>
>Manuscripts intended for the special issue should be submitted no later
>than March
>15th, 2001. No electronic submission is requested until a paper has been
>accepted
>and possibly revised. For the initial submission, please send four copies
>on paper to
>the editor of the special issue:
>
>Per Galle Department of Planning, Technical University of Denmark,
>Building 116,
>DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark e-mail:
>
>[log in to unmask]
>
>http://ifp.dtu.dk/~it/pergalle/
>
>References
>
>[1] Broadbent, G 'Architectural objects and their design
>as a subject for semiotic studies' Design Studies Vol 1 (1980)
>pp 207-216
>
>[2] Protzen, J -P and Alexander, C 'Value in design: a dialogue' Design
>Studies Vol
>1, No. 5 (1980) pp 291-298
>
>[3] Cross, N, Naughton, J and Walker, D 'Design method and
>scientific method' Design Studies Vol 2, No. 4 (1981) pp 195-201
>
>[4] Cathain, C S O 'Why is design logically impossible?' Design
>Studies Vol 3, No. 3 (1982) pp 123-125
>
>[5] Daley, J 'Design creativity and the understanding of
>objects' Design Studies Vol 3, No. 3 (1982) pp 133-137.
>Reprinted in Cross, N. (Ed.), Developments in Design
>Methodology, Wiley, Chichester 1984, pp 291-302
>
>[6] Coyne, R and Snodgrass, A 'Is designing mysterious?
>Challenging the dual knowledge thesis' Design Studies Vol 12,
>No. 3 (1991) pp 124-131
>
>[7] Hertz, K 'A coherent description of the precess of design'
>Design Studies Vol 13 (1992) pp 393-410
>
>[8] Coyne, R and Snodgrass, A 'Rescuing CAD from rationalism'
>Design Studies Vol 14, No. 2 (1993) pp 100-123
>
>[9] Liddament, T 'The metamorphosis of the design vocabulary'
>Design Studies Vol 17, No. 3 (1996) pp 303-318
>
>[10] Janlert, L and Stolterman, E 'The character of things'
>Design Studies Vol 18, No. 3 (1997) pp 297-314
>
>[11] Galle, P 'Design as intentional action: a conceptual
>analysis' Design Studies Vol 20 No. 1 (1999) pp 57-81
>
>[12] Liddament, T 'The computationalist paradigm in design
>research' Design Studies Vol 20, No. 1 (1999) pp 41-56
>
>[13] Handa, R 'Against arbitrariness: architectural
>signification in the age of globalization' Design Studies Vol
>20, No. 4 (1999) pp 363-380
>
>[14] Love, T 'Philosophy of design: a meta-theoretical structure
>for design theory' Design Studies Vol 21, No 3 (2000) pp 293-313
>
>[15] March, L 'The logic of design and the question of value' in
>L March (ed), The Architecture of Form, Cambridge University
>Press, Cambridge (1976) pp 1-40. An abridged version entitled
>'The logic of Design' was reprinted in Cross, N (Ed)
>,Developments in Design Methodology, John Wiley & Sons,
>Chichester (1984) pp 265-276
>
>[16] Goel, V 'Complicating the 'logic of design'' Design Studies
>Vol 9 (1988) pp 229-234
>
>[17] Zeng, Y and Cheng, G D 'On the logic of design' Design
>Studies Vol 12 (1991) pp 137-141
>
>[18] Roozenburg, N F M 'On the pattern of reasoning in
>innovative design' Design Studies Vol 14, No 1 (1993) pp 4-18
>
>[19] Galle, P 'Design rationalization and the logic of design: a
>case study' Design Studies Vol 17 (1996) pp 253-275
>
>[20] Galle, P 'Towards a formal logic of design rationalization'
>Design Studies Vol 18 (1997) pp 195-219
>
>[21] Baljon, C J 'Viewpoint: Design justification as an instance
>of modal logic, or of rhetoric' Design Studies Vol 18, No. 1
>(1987) pp 125-126
>
>[22] Hilpinen, R 'On artifacts and works of art' Theoria Vol 58
>(1992) pp 58-82
>
>[23] Hilpinen, R 'Authors and artifacts' Proceedings of the
>Aristotelian Society Vol 93 (New Series) (1993) pp 155-178
>
>[24] Dipert, R R, Artifacts, Art Works, and Agency, Temple
>University Press, Philadelphia (1993)
>
>[25] Hilpinen, R 'Artifacts' in Stanford Encyclopedia of
>Philosophy
>http://cd1.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/artifact/,
>(1999)
>
>[26] Inwagen, P van, Material Beings, Cornell University Press,
>Ithacha and London (1990)
>
>[27] Denkel, A Object and Property, Cambridge University Press,
>Cambridge (1996)
>
>[28] Alexander, C, Ishikawa, S, Silverstein, M, Jacobsen, M,
>Fiksdahl-King, I and Angel, S, A Pattern Language, Oxford
>University Press, New York (1977)
>
>[29] Alexander, C, The Timeless Way of Building, Oxford
>University Press, New York (1979)
>
>[30] Baljon, C J 'Formal logic in planning' Design Methods and
>Theories Vol 16 (1982) pp 177-194
>
>[31] Hillier, B, Musgrove, J and O'Sullivan, P 'Knowledge and
>design' in N Cross (ed), Developments in Design Methodology,
>Wiley, Chichester (1984) pp 245-264. Originally published in
>Mitchell, W. J. (Ed.), Environmental Design: Research and
>Practice, University of California, Los Angeles 1972
>
>[32] Broadbent, J 'Design and theory building' in N Cross (ed),
>Developments in Design Methodology Wiley, Chichester (1984) pp
>277-290. Originally published in Design Methods and Theories
>Vol. 13 (1979), No. 3/4, pp 103-107
>
>[33] Bamford, G 'Design, science, and conceptual analysis' in
>Architectural Science and Design in Harmony. Joint ANZAScA/ADTRA
>Conference, Sydney, 10-12th July, 1990 (1990) pp 229-238
>
>[34] Coyne, R D 'Objectivity and the design process' Environment
>and Planning B: Planning and Design Vol 18 (1991) pp 361-371
>
>[35] Coyne, R D and Snodgrass, A 'Cooperation and individualism
>in design' Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design Vol
>20, No. 2 (1993) pp 163-174
>
>[36] Oksala, T 'Cognitive paradigms for design: knowledge, will,
>feeling and skill' in M R Behesti and K Zreik (eds), Advanced
>Technologies. Architecture. Planning. Civil Engineering. Fourth
>EuropIA International Conference, Delft. Elsevier, Amsterdam
>(1993) pp 279-284
>
>[37] O'Hear, A 'Historicism and architectural knowledge'
>Philosophy Vol 68 (1993) pp 127-144
>
>[38] Ekholm, A 'A conceptual framework for clsssification of
>construction works' ITcon Vol 1 (1996), http://itcon.org/1996/2
>
>[39] Tondl, L 'Is it justified to consider the semiotics of
>technological artefacts?' Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of
>the Sciences and the Humanities Vol 62 (1998) pp 375-395
>
>[40] Castaoeda, H -N 'Objects, existence, and reference. A
>prolegomenon to guise theory' Grazer Philosophische Studien Vol
>25 / 26 (1986) pp 3-59
>
>[41] Sargent, P 'Design science or nonscience' Design Studies
>Vol 15, No. 4 (1994) pp 389-402
>
>[42] Roozenburg, N F M and Eekels, J Product Design:
>Fundamentals and Methods John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1995).
>Translated and revised version of 'Produktontwerpen: Strucktuur
>en Methoden' (in Dutch), Uitgeverij Lemma B.V., Utrecht (1991)
>
>[43] Rosenman, M A and Gero, J S 'Purpose and function in
>design: from the socio-cultural to the techno-physical' Design
>Studies Vol 19, No. 2 (1998) pp 161-186
>
>[44] Durling, D and Friedman, K (Eds ), Doctoral Education in
>Design: Foundations for the Future, Staffordshire University
>Press, Stroke-on-Trent (2000). Proc. of conference held 8-12
>July 2000, in La Clusaz, France. ISBN 1-897898-64-9