Design in Mind
Design in Mind
复制标题
设计理念
DOI：
10.1162/desi.2009.25.1.94
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Bianchin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Heylighen;H. Cavallin;M. Bianchin
关于设计和知识创造之间关系的研究是一个相对较新的现象。例如，在建筑领域，就在不久前，设计师还倾向于以蔑视的态度看待知识，将其视为不受约束的创造力的障碍或“冻干偏见”的封装。1然而，最近，美国建筑师协会(AIA)2004年12月刊的AIA期刊完全以知识为主题，这强烈表明时代正在改变。越来越多地，设计行为被认为是某种知识生产或涉及某种知识生产。2这直接源于设计所依赖的基于实践和默示的知识类型，3(即嵌入到设计行为中)。4另一方面，有可能--至少以一种粗略和现成的方式--认识到产生知识的目的或意图与其他目标之间的区别，5例如设计一个物体或建筑物。更直截了当地说，客户通常会聘请建筑师来设计建筑，而不是创造知识。那么，为什么在设计和学术研究之间划清界限会如此困难呢？关于两者之间的关系的问题远非新鲜事。根据奈杰尔·克罗斯的说法，它们大约每隔40年6次出现一次，以前许多作家都写过。早在1973年，Horst Rittel和Melvin Webber就指出了设计师和规划师处理的问题与科学家处理的问题之间的区别。7最近，Johannes Eekels和Norbert Roozenburg对设计和工程研究的结构进行了方法论比较，得出结论：两者紧密交织和相互依赖，但从根本上是不同的。8虽然现在似乎应该从设计和研究之间进行各种比较，但本文试图从概念和心理学的角度更多地阐明这个问题。为此，它呼唤心灵哲学，而不是通常情况下的科学哲学，更准确地说，是意向性的概念。与将设计视为知识创造和应用的混合体不同，这个过程被分解成不同的但相互作用的心理行为，设计师在其中建立与世界(对象)的关系。对这种关系的详细分析构成了与进行细微但基本的比较的基础
Research on the relationship between design and the creation of knowledge is a relatively recent phenomenon. In architecture, for instance, it was not so long ago that designers tended to view knowledge with disdain, as a hindrance to unfettered creativity or an encapsulation of “freeze-dried prejudices.”1 Recently, however, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) devoted the December 2004 issue of its AIA Journal entirely to the theme of knowledge, which strongly suggests that times are changing. Increasingly, the act of designing is considered to be or involve some kind of knowledge production.2 This directly follows from the type of knowledge designing relies on, which is practicebased and tacit,3 (i.e., embedded within the very act of designing).4 On the other hand, it is possible—at least in a rough and ready way—to appreciate the distinction between the aim, or intention, of producing knowledge and other aims,5 such as designing an object or a building. To state it a bit more bluntly, a client typically hires an architect to design a building, not to produce knowledge. Why then is it so difficult to set clear boundaries between design and scholarly research? Questions about the relationship between both are far from new. According to Nigel Cross, they reappear about every forty years,6 and have been written about by many authors before. Already in 1973, Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber pointed out the difference between the kind of problems designers and planners deal with and those that scientists handle.7 More recently, Johannes Eekels and Norbert Roozenburg made a methodological comparison of the structures of design and research in engineering, and concluded that both are strongly interwoven and mutually dependent, yet fundamentally different.8 Although it seems time to move on from making all sorts of comparisons between design and research, this paper tries to shed more light on the issue from a conceptual and psychological point of view. To this end, it calls in the philosophy of mind—rather than the philosophy of science, as is usually the case9 —and more precisely the notion of intentionality. Instead of considering design as a mix of knowledge creation and application, the process is decomposed into distinct yet interacting mental acts, in which designers establish relationships with (objects in) the world. A detailed analysis of this relationship forms the basis for a nuanced, yet fundamental, comparison with