Dewey and Design: A Pragmatist Perspective for Design Research

208 Pages·2020·2.487 MB·English

by  Brian S. Dixon

Design Research Foundations
Brian S. Dixon
Dewey and
Design
A Pragmatist Perspective for Design
Research
Design Research Foundations
Series Editors
Ilpo Koskinen, School of Design, University of New South Wales,
Sydney, NSW, Australia
Pieter E. Vermaas, Department of Philosophy, Delft University of Technology,
Delft, The Netherlands
Assistant Editor
Clementine Thurgood, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University
of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
The goal of the series is to provide a platform for publishing state of the art research
on foundational issues in design and its applications in industry and society. Suitable
topics range from methodological issues in design research to philosophical
reflections on the specificities of design rather than actual design work or empirical
cases only. The definition of design behind the series is inclusive. In terms of
disciplines, it ranges from engineering to architecture. In terms of design work, it
ranges from conceptual issues in design through design experiments and prototypes
to evaluative studies of design and its foundations.
Proposals should include:
A proposal form, as can be found on this page
A short synopsis of the work or the introduction chapter
The proposed Table of Contents
The CV of the lead author(s)
If available: one sample chapter
We aim to make a first decision within 1 month of submission. In case of a
positive first decision the work will be provisionally contracted: the final decision
about publication will depend upon the result of the anonymous peer review of the
complete manuscript. The series editors aim to have the complete work peer-
reviewed within 3 months of submission.
The series discourages the submission of manuscripts that contain reprints of
previous published material and/or manuscripts that are below 150 pages /
75,000 words.
For inquiries and submission of proposals authors can contact the series editors,
Pieter Vermaas via: [email protected] or Ilpo Koskinen via: ilpo.koskinen@
polyu.edu.hk
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13775
Brian S. Dixon
Dewey and Design
A Pragmatist Perspective
for Design Research
Brian S. Dixon
Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences
Ulster University, Belfast, UK
ISSN 2366-4622 ISSN 2366-4630 (electronic)
Design Research Foundations
ISBN 978-3-030-47470-6 ISBN 978-3-030-47471-3 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47471-3
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned,
specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting,
reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known
or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
I first encountered John Dewey’s pragmatism by chance at a difficult point in my
PhD. It was my second year. I had framed a context of inquiry centering around the
design of mobile maps and had begun to undertake my fieldwork. All was going
well but the thorny subject of methodological positioning was beginning to pose
challenges. As I was designing something—an interface—I had decided to label my
research as ‘practice-based’. The term appealed on an emotional basis but unfortu-
nately it didn’t appear to carry much intellectual weight. The available academic
resources were limited. I couldn’t seem to find any relevant methods texts or para-
digmatic overviews that followed the logic of design; it appeared that there was no
formal stance that allowed flights of the imagination to sit alongside data collection
and analysis.
I was beginning to suspect that the gap separating creative decision making and
formal knowledge production was unbridgeable. The problem, so far as I could tell,
lay with existing theories of knowledge or, to be more precise, epistemological posi-
tions. Of the theories/positions I had encountered, most focused on defining a means
of describing what was and had little or nothing to say about developing something
that wasn’t but could be.
Yet, despite this apparent gap, I continued to believe that it would be possible,
eventually, to find an argument or a theory or some philosophical device that would
allow me at last to link the practical and theoretical and (one day) successfully com-
plete my doctorate.
It was a colleague who first suggested a solution might be found in John Dewey’s
work. I gladly followed up the recommendation but was very disappointed by my
initial readings. I found his prose dense and, at times, impenetrable. His slow elabo-
rations and frequent digressions made it difficult to hold onto or, indeed, grasp the
underlying argument. Worse, try as I might, I failed to draw clear connections
between what he said and the principles of practice-based research.
It was only when I began reading authors such as John McCarthy and Peter
Wright, Peter Dalsgaard, Marc Steen and others, who were actively promoting
Dewey’s pragmatism in the context of design that I came to understand his rele-
vance. Through this literature, a striking figure and an equally striking body of work
v
vi Preface
began to emerge. There was his theory of inquiry; a clear, transparent and credible
account of how we, as live creatures, set about finding answers to problematic ques-
tions. There was his concept of ‘warranted assertability’, whereby the quality of
one’s conclusions become the measure of an inquiry’s validity. There was this the-
ory of experience, where he appeared to be suggesting that the first-hand qualities
of daily life need not be ignored or overlooked, but rather had a central role to play
in the elaboration of what it was to be, to believe and to know.
Over time, I was gradually able develop a viable understanding of these theories
and, further, found ways of enfolding them within my doctoral work. Yet, beyond
the doctoral work, I felt that more needed to be done. What I had uncovered in
Dewey’s work demanded closer attention and a much fuller expression. I had come
to the view that Dewey had far more to say than design theorists had yet realized.
However, now there was another problem: how to bring it all together, to give his
work a sense of coherence and form in the context of design.
The moment of revelation came through reading Ralph Sleeper’s The Necessity
of Pragmatism, a grand exposition of Dewey’s work. This text finally opened up the
connections that I was desperately seeking. He set out a clear and compelling
account of what Dewey was working towards, who he was battling against and how
close he came to achieving his goals. With these insights to hand, I was able to gain
an appreciation of Dewey’s logic and its association with epistemology, his theory
of communication and his metaphysics. From here, it became possible to forge
ahead and assimilate his theory of art and religious experience, as well as draw
wider connections to the broader outlay of twentieth-century philosophy. All of a
sudden, his work had coherence and form.
This personal inquiry, though mundane and unremarkable, has resulted in the
present book. It constitutes an attempt to ‘use’ Dewey’s philosophy to ground what,
I would argue, is already felt (if not articulated) in some areas of design research.
The essential argument is that he can be seen to form to what is unseen and over-
looked—to put into words to what is tacitly understood, at the same time as filling
in some blanks.
Ultimately, it is my belief that Dewey can speak directly to designer-researchers
who, in turn, want to speak to practice at the same time as locating their efforts
within a philosophic matrix. More especially, I also believe that he can speak to
designer-researchers who want to involve practice in their research. Indeed, I would
say that he offers a philosophy for design research involving practice. This is so
because many of the values that Dewey cherished are those that designers cherish.
As such, an alignment of Deweyan pragmatism and design research involving prac-
tice does not require any suppression of motivations, awkward reshapings of meth-
ods, or redirecting of interests. To encounter Dewey’s work as a designer-researcher
is to come home to what is already known.
Glasgow 2019 Brian Dixon
Acknowledgements
Though there are too many people to acknowledge in the small space available, I do
wish offer out a small number of very specific expressions of gratitude. The first
must go to Professor Janet McDonnell of Central Saint Martins College of Art and
Design. Though she would not likely see herself as being in anyway integral to the
production of this volume, on my view she most certainly is. It was Janet who, in
late 2017, first suggested to me that I should consider writing a book—as it turned
out, this was all the encouragement I needed to frame an initial proposal and seek
out a publisher. By early 2018, I was writing.
Beyond Janet, it is very important that I extend deep thanks and heartfelt thanks
to Ilpo Koskinen. Ilpo was kind enough to suggest that this series might provide a
suitable space in which to publish the present text and I was delighted to take the
opportunity. I am honored that he saw value in what was proposed and am very
grateful for his careful, thorough, and insightful guidance, as well as his jovial atti-
tude throughout.
I have learned an immense amount from him—no doubt, more than I have yet
registered—especially with regard to how to be a good editor. (From my initial
reflections, this seems to require that one be encouraging but also honest). In broad
and simple terms, this work is what it is because Ilpo put in the time. He didn’t have
to but he did and I am humbled by that. I can already see that, in the years ahead, his
example will stand out as one to emulate.
Beyond Ilpo, a very special thanks has to go to the incredible John McCarthy of
University College Cork, who selflessly labored over the initial draft manuscript
and several revisions to offer many, many exceptionally helpful comments and
points of note. If any coherence emerges in the final text it is, in large part, due to
his efforts.
Particular thanks must also go to my Glasgow School of Art colleagues, espe-
cially those in the Innovation School. I found Dewey while working at Glasgow, and
much of what is written was originally thrashed out in the course of extended dis-
cussion and debate. As I move on, I will miss those opportunities to test my thinking
and clarify my presentation.
vii
viii Acknowledgements
On a personal level, I would like to thank my parents, Regina and Gerard. In
many ways, they are true pragmatists and it is quite probable that my attachment to
Dewey’s philosophy comes from the philosophy of life that they imparted know-
ingly and unknowingly, through my early years and on into adulthood.
Finally, the greatest thanks goes to Ciara and Samúéil, my little (and still new)
family. In their own ways, they have helped and supported me in carrying the work
forward little by little, understanding that the process takes time and allowing me
that time to work. There would be no book without them. I hope that now and
increasingly in the years to come they will be able to see parts of themselves in the
pages, as we develop our own approach to life and the world together.
To Ciara, Samúéil and ?
Contents
1 Design, Pragmatism and Dewey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Picking up on Some Philosophic Threads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The New Design(er) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Design Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
In Focus Box 1.1, CODE: The Centre for CoDesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Design Research and Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Classical Pragmatism and John Dewey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
John Dewey’s Philosophic Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Comparing John Dewey and the Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
The Structure of this Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2 Experiencing as Doing and Undergoing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
The Problem of Experience in Philosophy
and Dewey’s Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Having an Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
User Experience and Experience as an Approach to Design(ing) . . . . . 40
In Focus Box 2.1, Katja Battarbee: Working with
the Pragmatists to Understand Co-Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Dewey’s Critical Theory of Existence: A Naturalistic
Metaphysics or Experience as Real . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
The Meaning of Dewey’s Metaphysics for Dewey
and for Design: Nature in Experience and the Experiencer
in Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
A Practical Case 2.0: Everyday Design Studio’s
Morse Things Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3 Knowing in Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
The Evolution of Design Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Design Inquiry: An Inquiry About and into Designing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Donald Schön’s Epistemology of Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
ix