Naturalising the Design Process : Autonomy and Interaction as Core Features

1 Abstract/Introduction This paper attempts to provide a naturalized description of the complex design process. The design process may be abstractly conceived as a future creating activity that goes beyond " facticity " and creates visions of a desirable future among groups of agents. It requires the engagement of individual or groups of cognitive systems in purposeful and intentional (meaning-based) interactions with their environment and consequently with each other. It is argued in this paper that a design process should be interactive, future-anticipatory and open-ended. Furthermore, a framework to explain and support the design process should have in turn its basis in a framework of cognition. It is suggested that the design process should primarily be examined within an interactive framework of agency based on 2nd order cybernetic epistemology. Future-oriented anticipation requires functionality which can be thought of as future-directed activity; indeed all but the simplest functionalities require anticipation in order to be effective. Based on the fundamental notions of closure, self-reference and self-organisation, a cybernetically-inspired systems-theoretic notion of autonomy is proposed. This conception of autonomy is immediately related to the anticipative functionality of the cognitive system, which constructs emergent representations while it interactively participates in a design process. Consequently, the design process is seen as an interaction between two or more self-organising autonomous systems thereby constructing

[1]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[2]  Argyris Arnellos,et al.  Emergence and Downward Causation in Contemporary Artificial Agents: Implications for their Autonomy and Some Design Guidelines , 2008, Cybern. Hum. Knowing.

[3]  Ranulph Glanville,et al.  Try again. Fail again. Fail better: the cybernetics in design and the design in cybernetics , 2007, Kybernetes.

[4]  Xabier E. Barandiaran,et al.  A Naturalizd Account of the Inside-Outside Dichotomy , 2004 .

[5]  H. Foerster Understanding Understanding , 2002, Springer New York.

[6]  Ken Friedman,et al.  Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods , 2003 .

[7]  J. Darzentas,et al.  Towards the naturalization of agency based on an interactivist account of autonomy , 2010 .

[8]  Ranulph Glanville A (cybernetic) musing: constructing my cybernetic world , 2001, Cybern. Hum. Knowing.

[9]  W. Aprile,et al.  Research through design : reflection through representation , 2009 .

[10]  Mark H. Bickhard,et al.  Representational content in humans and machines , 1993, J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell..

[11]  Bela H. Banathy,et al.  Designing social systems in a changing world , 1996 .

[12]  Mark H. Bickhard,et al.  Function, anticipation, representation , 2001 .

[13]  H. Von Foerster,et al.  On Self-Organizing Systems and Their Environments , 2003 .

[14]  John Collier,et al.  What is Autonomy , 2002 .

[15]  Cliff Hooker,et al.  Complexly Organised Dynamical Systems , 1999 .

[16]  Wolfgang Jonas A Scenario for Design , 2010 .

[17]  John Collier,et al.  Simulating autonomous anticipation: The importance of Dubois' conjecture , 2008, Biosyst..

[18]  Simon A. Austin,et al.  Development and verification of a generic framework for conceptual design , 2001 .

[19]  Argyris Arnellos,et al.  Cybernetic embodiment and the role of autonomy in the design process , 2007, Kybernetes.

[20]  Nathalie Bonnardel,et al.  Towards understanding and supporting creativity in design: analogies in a constrained cognitive environment , 2000, Knowl. Based Syst..

[21]  Argyris Arnellos,et al.  Exploring Creativity in the Design Process: A Systems-Semiotic Perspective , 2007, Cybern. Hum. Knowing.

[22]  Daniel M. Dubois,et al.  Autonomy in Anticipatory Systems : Significance for Functionality , Intentionality and Meaning , 1998 .

[23]  Elzbieta T. Kazmierczak Design as Meaning Making: From Making Things to the Design of Thinking , 2003, Design Issues.

[24]  Jaegwon Kim,et al.  What is "naturalized epistemology?" , 1988 .

[25]  W. Christensen,et al.  Self-directed Agents , 2001 .

[26]  J. Collier,et al.  Autonomy and Process Closure as the Basis for Functionality , 2000, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[27]  Wolfgang Jonas,et al.  Research through DESIGN through research: A cybernetic model of designing design foundations , 2007, Kybernetes.

[28]  Jesper Hoffmeyer,et al.  Surfaces inside surfaces. On the origin of agency and life , 1998, Cybern. Hum. Knowing.

[29]  Donald A. and Wigging Glenn Schon,et al.  Kinds of Seeing and Their Functions in Designing , 1988 .

[30]  John S. Gero,et al.  The Situated Function - Behaviour - Structure Framework , 2002, AID.

[31]  John Chris Jones,et al.  Design Methods: Seeds of Human Futures , 1981 .

[32]  H. Meserve Understanding understanding , 2005, Journal of Religion and Health.