1. Introduction
Design is found in several distinct fields. These include: engineering sciences related to industrial design, such as computer science and mechanics; social sciences concerning design management and social innovation, such as business, pedagogy, advertising and anthropology; as well as humanities and art linked to critical design. Therefore, design is difficult to clearly position in the various fields because each has core knowledge systems indicating their disciplinary independence. This leads to the meta-questions of the design discipline: How does design research organize and connect various aspects to make design an independent discipline? Is it possible to recognize design as an independent discipline? Attempts to solve these problems, especially research about design, have been ongoing for decades. In the 1960s, Simon put forward “design science” (Reference SimonSimon, 1969). In the 1970s, methodological research was introduced (Reference Rittel and WebberRittel & Webber, 1973). The 1980s saw a new approach, “design as a discipline” (Reference ArcherArcher, 1979). Despite the evolution of knowledge, methods, and tools in design research, establishing a relatively stable paradigm system remains a crucial issue for research scholars.
This paper argues that the appropriate response to these problems is to identify design research approaches. Differing from genealogy or pedigree with requirements of the strict relationship between tutors and students, research approaches refer to a dynamic path division stemming from relevant scholars’ disciplinary understandings. Research approaches also differ from the static relationship implied by the term genre, which suggests a lack of dynamic evolution and growth. Scholars have made efforts both to establish a relatively stable paradigm for design research and to arrive at a system conducive to understanding disciplinary knowledge (Reference CashGalle, 2002; Galle, Reference Galle2008; Love, Reference Love2002; Cash, Reference Galle2020). A synthetic approach can be established for design research from elements of philosophy, methodology, and element composition. We find that such perspectives, including “phenomenological study of design”, “function and structure of artefacts”, “human and object interactions” and “design artefact”, to varying degrees touch on the science of the artificial, the origin of design science. From this, we can reflect that the science of the artificial could be a helpful entry to find the relevant research approaches.
Outside the design discipline, the artefact itself is an essential technological theme. Looking at design via technology is a critical perspective in the contemporary era, given the rapid development of science and technology. Humans learned to create artefacts by hand before the industrial revolution; more recently, people have acquired increasingly high-tech means, which significantly changes both the natural environment and human society. In the modern era, technology has replaced the once-sacred position of religion, becoming the main frame of reference for the achievements of industrialized society (Reference RappRapp, 2012). From this, we can see that human history, from primitive manual creation to industrial manufacturing, has interwoven technology and design to make progress. Over time, the concept of “technological design” emerged. Mitcham, a philosopher of technology, considers technological design to reflect the shift from making to thinking(Reference Mitcham and HolbrookMitcham & Holbrook, 2006).
“Technological design connotes consciousness, intention, in making, using, or acting. However, making remains fundamental.… …These two definitions of technological design have engendered two quite different literature on design. With regard to industrial- or graphic-design literature… …. With regard to engineering-design literature… …” (p. 110).
Technological design is regarded as a process whereby technical and social considerations converge to produce concrete devices that fit specific contexts (Reference Feng and FeenbergFeng & Feenberg, 2008). Consequently, it seems reasonable to view design research from the philosophy of technology; and the two fields are further connected by the core concept of artificial objects and their designing activities. Reflections on technological design in the philosophy of technology provides theoretical reference for design research, and brings alternative values into the design process.
To sum up, the paper focuses on the investigation into design research approaches from the perspective of the philosophy of technology. Specifically, it seeks to investigate the development of the contemporary philosophy of technology, clarify relevant design research approaches and explain their evolution.
2. Artefact as the logical entry of technological design
As mentioned above, as a core concept, artefact connects underlying relationships between the philosophy of technology and design research. In preparation for the research in this paper, some related concepts, such as artificial nature, technical artefact, and design artefact, need to be identified.
When people use the principle of practical experience to develop technology, technical concepts help create artefacts in the real world to form humanized nature. Related research can be traced back to Plato’s The Republic (1943), and on this basis, Aristotle (1970) divided things into natural beings and non-natural beings. The existence of water, soil, fire, animals, and plants are driven by nature’s inherent factors, while non-natural beings are the product of human activities. In addition, Marx pointed out nature’s social and humanized characters in Theses on Feuerbach (1845) and German Ideology and proposed the concept of humanized nature in Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1884.
Along with the rapid development of science and technology, technical artefacts became widely substituted for humanized nature, becoming the focus of discussion. This concept originated with Randall Dipert Reference Dipert(1993) and was further developed by philosophers of the Dutch School. Core scholars, such as Peter Kroes and Anthonie Meijers (2002), proposed a research programme: dual nature of technical artefacts. This sought to clarify the relationship between technical function and physical structure, as well as links between technical function, designers and users’ intentionality. They pointed out that there is a logical gap between technical artefacts’ structure and function, that is, they cannot deduce each other. Realization of function is determined by the designers’ perceived intention and depends among other things on the user’s intention and social situations. The ontological hard problem of technical artefacts thus emerges, which is also the key issue that design research needs to face, namely the potential discrepancy between the designer’s intention and the end user’s understanding in the context of design.
Artefact is a variant concept of technological artefact in the philosophy of technology, the second natural object of which humans, with their own will, knowledge, ability and values, seek to apply both technology and technical means in production. The aim is to remould either nature or humanized nature and thus satisfy human and social needs. In the context of design, almost all design outputs are artefacts and elements of humanized nature. In other words, the philosophy of technology and design research has consistent research objects. They not only focuses on the functions, structures, and social impacts of technology but also explores how humans create artifacts through technology and assign them functions and meanings.
Furthermore, these two fields have similarities in the classification of research schools. The concept, design, which originated from Bauhaus, focused until the industrial revolution on artistic styles and compositions. After the revolution, design could not be separated from engineering and manufacture due to technological breakthroughs. Consequently, engineering-oriented design became an important concept in contemporary industrial and social production. Likewise, the opposition, integration, and turn of the humanistic and engineering schools were significant nodes in the history of the philosophy of technology. The two traditions are generally divided into the philosophy of engineering technology and the philosophy of humanities technology. In the process of clarifying the meaning of design, distinctions between the two schools, humanities, and engineering, correspond to the two traditional distinctions of philosophy of technology.
From the philosophy of technology, the rationality of design research approaches lies in a shared concern with the core topic of artefacts and the underlying logical connections of such research. To explore the nature of artefacts, Buchanan Reference Buchanan and Meijers(2009), Gero Reference Gero and Kannengiesser(2004) and other scholars delve into the philosophy of technology from the perspective of design ontology and epistemology. This kind of design research and discussion from the perspective of philosophy can augment knowledge, addressing defects found in more shallow perspectives. As a result, it seems both reasonable and advantageous to understand the basis of division and generation logic of different routes from the philosophy of technology.
3. Design research approaches examined from the perspective of the philosophy of technology
Models pertinent to design research can be divided into two categories. The first is the overall view model based on different research paradigms, as the widely accepted Design Research Categories (Reference Frankel and RacineFrankel & Racine, 2010), including Research about Design, Research for Design and Research through Design. The second is the subfield view model based on joint research categories. For example, the Simon-Kroes model (Reference Farrell and HookerFarrell & Hooker, 2012) of technical artefacts explored the essence of technical artefact, a core concept of design research. The former clearly defines the core of design research and the categories of paradigms. The latter defines the logical framework of significant theoretical cores. The Design Research Approaches Model established in this paper combines the advantages of these two models, while also reflecting classical paradigms of design research from the philosophy of technology related to the subfield view model. This section of the paper examines the main categories in the philosophy of technology and lays a foundation for later exploration of influences suggested by different research topics of philosophy of technology on design research.
As an initial essential branch of the philosophy of science, the philosophy of technology has developed into a mature research field. Its evolution can be illustrated by teasing out its theoretical venation, as shown in the figure 1.
Figure 1. The evolution of the philosophy of technology
Although technology was neglected due to lack of internality, ideas about the philosophy of technology can also be traced back to ancient Greece. Metaphysics laid the foundations of technology, while raising fundamental philosophical questions about humans and artefacts. Among the sages of ancient Greece, Socrates was the earliest philosopher who probed deeply into matters of technology and criticized it. Plato discussed more directly problems of technology evaluation, technology anthropology, and technology ontology. Aristotle put forward the four causes to explain every entities.
Bacon and Descartes were the originators of thinking about modern technology. Bacon, the father of modern materialism, highlighted the importance of experiments. He advocated pursuing the most common principles through experiments and then arrived at axioms and laws via his inductive method. Compared to Bacon, Descartes paid more attention to rational reasoning, proposing: “I think, therefore I am”. In addition, he developed mind-body dualism and intuitively integrated experience with deduction. This view on mind-body dualism, rationality, and experience are significant grounds for distinguishing various approaches in the following section. In Hegel’s view, technology is an instumental, teleological action of man. His dialectics theory are introduced to analyze these artifact-mediated actions, and he pointed the dialectics of technical artefacts form body to tool, and then to machine(Reference JuchniewiczJuchniewicz, 2018). After Hegel, philosophy temporarily departed from grand systematic frameworks and entered an era of “philosophy of xx” (Reference IhdeIhde, 1993). Philosophy began to be employed into systematic reflections on specific domains.
Classical philosophy of technology emerged in 1877 (Reference MitchamMitcham, 1994). Ernst Kapp, the Neo-Hegelian philosopher, proposed the theory of organ projection, regarding technology tools as projections and exteriorization of human organs, even the extension and augmentation of human capacities. The publication of Dessauer’s Philosophie der Technik in 1927 indicated the growing maturity of the systematic philosophy of technology. Different from engineering philosophers of technology, Heidegger, Ellul, Mumford and other humanities philosophers of technology appreciated technology as a socio-cultural phenomenon. They witnessed the social problems brought about by the rise of modern industrial society, aiming to revise the optimistic imagination of technology during the Enlightenment period and establish a reflective and critical theory of technology (Reference BreyBery, 2010). Heidegger revealed the essence of modern technology from existentialism’s perspective, arguing that Gestell forced humans to view the world as the calculable, usable repository without meaning and value. Mumford proposed megamachine, the social-technical system driven by mass production to control humans, to disclose the underlying links between technology and social power. Ellul further emphasized that technology possessed an inherent self-evolutionary logic that was not directly constrained by social, moral, or political factors and ultimately shape social structures. Canguihem, influenced by Henri Bergson’s creative evolution, positioned technology as an evolving, adaptable system deeply interwined with human life (Reference Loeve, Guchet and Bensaude VincentLoeve et al., 2018). His biological philosophy of technology laid the foundation for Simondon’s theory of technical individuation. Simondon proposed that technical evolution follows principles analogous to biological evolution.
In 1980s and 1990s, pessimistic attitudes toward technology in classical philosophy of technology, along with abstract reseach methods of viewing technology as a unified whole, make it difficult to provide constructive guidance for the future of technology. Therefore, philosophers sought for new possibility and explanations by the empirical turn in two distinct directions, which means they tried to break the black box of technology, analyze the concrete technology phenomenons and their impacts on society. One way, typified by Ihde and Verbeek, inherited traditional topics and combined pragmatism with phenomenology, aiming to developing more descriptive, less evaluative theory and paying more attention to the technological mediation between human and their environment. The phenomenology of technology explains the human perception of the essence of things, as well as the epistemological relationships between humans, technology, and the world. Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Ihde, Dreyfus, Borgmann and Verbeek are included in this school of thought. From their perspective, body and technology do not have objective existence in a dualistic and oppositional relationship but influence each other mutually. As for pragmatism, incorporating it into the evolution of the philosophy of technology might be controversial since mainstream viewpoints usually ignore the role that pragmatism plays. However, American classical pragmatism did make substantial contributions. As mentioned in Hickman Larry’s Reference Hickman(1990) book, John Dewey’s Pragmatic Technology, Dewey’s discourse on education, aesthetics, social and political philosophy, logic, and natural philosophy are all important contributions to the cultural critique of technology. About twenty years before the publication of Heidegger’s works, Dewey was writing on topics now considered core concerns of the philosophy of technology. He emphasized technology as active menas of human engagement with the world rather than a deterministic force, and he asserted technology was inherently social and value-laden. The other way settled down to establish an internal philosophy of technology through the analytic philosophy methods, represented by the work of Peter Kores, Anthonie Meijers, Carl Mitcham, and Joseph C. Pitt. They focused on the sound descriptions of technology itself and its inner workings rather than external consequences, such as the nature of technical artefacts, the processes of technological design or enginnering activities.
The above analysis of the historical evolution of the philosophy of technology, excluding critical theory, three main schools emerge after the empirical turn. These three schools collectively form our design research approaches model. In terms of human and artefact relations and mind-body dualism, analytic philosophy develops objective laws and knowledge while pragmatism emphasizes subjective experiences. Phenomenology is aimed at simultaneous epoché regarding the external objective world and the subjective world in conscious activities. In the following section, the three schools are mapped onto research approaches to identify the taxonomy of design research in accordance with the philosophy of technology and to sort out crucial theories’ development and mutual influences.
4. Analysis of three design research approaches
4.1. Analytic philosophy approach
As Simon Reference Simon(1991) and other scholars (Reference CapshewHortal, 2017; Reference HortalCapshew, 2006) point out, Professor Rudolph Carnap significantly influenced Simon during his education at the University of Chicago. Carnap is perhaps the leading American analytic philosopher of the 20th century, studying empiricism and logical positivism, originally taught by Gottlob Frege, the pioneer of this field. Further, from the basis of analytic philosophy, positivism researchers represented by Simon advocated approaching the scientific research paradigm by constructing a design knowledge system. According to Simon Reference Simon(1969), design science supplements natural science. Based on logical positivism, design science aims to enhance the “scientific” status of design research and develop an independent knowledge system through logical deduction. A third kind of knowledge system, beyond science and humanities (Archer, Reference Archer1979), is the “Science of Design”. This studies artefacts as opposed to natural things and focuses on how things “should” be (Reference SimonSimon, 1969). According to Simon Reference Simon(1969), the transformation of design from “art” to “science” requires “an explicit, abstract, and intellectual synthesis and design process, which is the same way that the laws of chemistry, physiology and economics are analyzed and taught”.
In this paradigm, design is regarded as rational problem-solving progress in search of alternative and satisfactory solutions. (Reference SimonSimon, 1969). Even in the face of “ill-structured” design problems, sub-problems can be obtained through hierarchical decomposition. Numerous design theories employ both systematic and quantitative methods, including Gero’s FBS model of designing. This theory is based on Simon’s artificial intelligence information processing model (Reference SimonSimon, 1969). It indicates that the design prototype can clarify the framework of the design problem. The external world, the interpreted world, and the expected world are grouped together to describe design activities by function, behaviour, and structure (Reference Gero and KannengiesserGero, 2004).
A more profound connection between design science and analytic philosophy is suggested via further discussions on function and structure. Kroes, a scholar of analytic philosophy, provides analysis of technical artefacts which links to that of Simon (Reference Farrell and HookerFarrell & Hooker, 2012). The concept “function”, proposed by Kroes, replaces “the purpose or goal” of Simon, placing human action in a more prominent and explicit position when analyzing the nature of technical artefacts (Reference KroesKroes, 2002). In addition, it clarifies the dual nature of technical artefacts: technical artefacts cannot be understood without considering their physical structure, and it makes no sense to speak about technical functions without reference to a context of human action (Reference KroesKroes, 2002). Further, the hard problem of the logical gap between the two descriptions emerges: there appears to be a fault in the mutual derivation between structure and function. On the one hand, artefacts are physical objects that may be used to perform a specific function. On the other hand, they are intentional objects, and their function has meaning only within a context of intentional human action (Reference KroesKroes, 2002).
In this approach, computers and computer programs are introduced as design simulation tools. As Simon Reference Simon(1969) argues, computer techniques and artificial intelligence laid a foundation of design science that is both analytical and formalized. In the design process, use of computers enhances the precision and accuracy of design theory. Alexander Reference Alexander, Ishikawa and Silverstein(1977) created the “pattern language” in architectural design, examined it by practice, and expounded an operational architecture system, namely the generative grammar. It provides organic and coherent design methods for design practice and considerably impacts on the “design pattern” movement in computer science, for example, “extreme programming”.
4.2. Pragmatism approach
Compared with the analytic philosophy approach emphasizing rational practice, pragmatism focuses more on experience and reflective practice (Reference HickmanHickman, 1990). The intersection of technological philosophy and the ideas of the American John Dewey, a well-known scholar of the pragmatism approach, is instrumentalism. Dewey regarded technology as the inquiry of tools and skills, and tools were not only physical but also ideological and methodological. As a response to technophobia, this implies that technology is not inherently “evil”, but the “wrong” inquiry. Consequently, correct inquiry is always a tool to solve problems. The power of thinking emerged, which promoted correct inquiry, rather than the objective impetus of technology. Thinking reflects the relationship between people as organisms and their environment. Furthermore, the dualism of body and mind, knowledge and action in traditional philosophy is not appropriate, and there is no dualism between scientific facts and value.
Dewey’s Reference Dewey(1958) key concept is “experience”. It concerns interactions of people and their changeable “environing conditions”. Both are dynamic, as are mind and knowledge. Thinking arises from problematic situations and is closely related to action. Thinking and active inquiry are regarded as important elements of empirical knowledge, distinguished from rational logical derivation. In Logic: The Theory of Inquiry (Reference DeweyDewey, 1938) and Art as Experience (Reference DeweyDewey, 1934), Dewey proposed profound insights into the deep structure of the implied method and laid a philosophical foundation for design thinking and design inquiry in the last decade of the 20th century (Reference Buchanan and MeijersBuchanan, 2009).
Explicit knowledge is structured knowledge that can be illustrated with written words, diagrams, and mathematical formulas. Opposed to explicit knowledge, ineffable tacit knowledge is valued more highly in this approach. Tacit knowledge, expressed by action not language and deriving from both experience and process, requires the recognized integration of various clues, details, and parts into a whole (Reference PolanyiPolanyi, 1966). Pragmatism holds that truth and knowledge are demonstrated and tested by practical results. Philosophers seek to help people seek appropriate tools and techniques via the construction of ideas. As a result, Dewey sought to explain that wisdom, thoughts, and ideas are all tools to improve individual and social life and promote progress.
Schön Reference Schön(1983) is a representative scholar of the pragmatism approach. Crucial aspects of his work seek to apply principles of pragmatism to design research, particularly concerning mutual relations between reflection and action. Schön’s key view is that design practice is reflective of a conversation with situations. The designer frames the situation first, and then the situation responds to him or her. The context is subsequently reframed when she or he reflects-in-action on the problem construction, action strategies, and phenomenon model. When defining the design problem, the solution and the goal are interdependent. This inquiry process is a kind of situated interaction, emphasizing the designers’ reflection, mapping between personal ideas and behaviours, not a one-way extraction and application of knowledge.
At odds with technical rationality, Schön holds that positivism epistemology, in pursuit of standardization and certainty, has penetrated all aspects of social life and professional work. However, due to both complexity and uncertainty, the problem of professional practice cannot be easily resolved in relation to medicine, architecture, education, or law (Reference Argyris and SchönArgyris & Schön, 1974). In practice, design problems are both complex and open-ended. They cannot be directly constructed by means of rationality and need to be gradually resolved by designers. In the design process, problems, situations, and solutions are intertwined. Reflecting the designer’s initial conversations, subjective interpretation, feedback from the situation, and further discussions, enable design tasks to proceed step by step until arriving at a suitable solution.
Such insights are a continuation of Dewey’s experiential learning theory. Dewey’s theory discloses the philosophical nature of scientific practice, while Schön’s related research is embodied in his later writings. According to Dewey’s (1997) reflective thinking, Schön proposed that all educators should act as “reflective practitioners”. Schön’s ideas are highly regarded by many in the design field, and, as a result, the value of designers’ subjective thinking is affirmed.
Characteristics of this approach are reflected in research on the design process, participatory design, user-centred design, and other design research theories which affect art design theory. In design process research, pragmatism frames the designer’s inquiry as an experimental process in which the designer utilizes all resources to develop his or her understanding. Schön believes that design is a process of “making”. That is, rules, types, and worlds construct the supportive environment of design knowledge, and the designer suggests a framing to create a dialogue space of the design process. On the other hand, the influence of the pragmatism approach to art design is also reflected in experience. Dewey Reference Dewey(1934) believes that the best artwork or design is a rich experience, whose conceptualization enhances both artefacts’ interactive properties and ability to be perceived and understood. Pragmatic aesthetics inspire many creativities and much innovation in relation to experience and interaction in user experience, interactive products and services.
4.3. Phenomenology approach
Edmund Husserl, the pioneer of phenomenology, proposes a method of recognizing things: Put yourself into specific situations and return to things themselves. Husserl’s method investigates the appearance of things in mind by bracketing all assumptions about the existence of an external world. In modern design methodologies, the commonly used procedure of reduction is often grounded in the phenomenological approach. This method reduces design proposition to design functions or situations. According to Burdek (2005), the phenomenological method is an attempt “ to understand the lifeworld of man directly and as a whole, taking everyday life and its environment into account”. Thus, compared to considering the properties of things themselves, it is more important to provide a deep insight into “what it means to users and how it is perceived by the surrounding world”.
The concept of lifeworld derives from Husserl’s Reference Husserl(1970) criticism of natural science. The scientific approach tends to formalize thinking universally, while meaning is diminished owing to presupposed theories or formulas. Instead, returning to the lifeworld is the only way of returning to true science. Since Galileo, natural science has been dominant, indicating the entrenched mind-body dualism and ignoring body perceptions in the lifeworld. From the perspective of phenomenology, design research on body and perception cannot rely on simple deductions inherent in natural science. Consequently, the scientific orientation of the design process harms design’s development in terms of value creation and meaning making.
Initial discussions about being and things triggered a subsequent focus on “embodiment”. Husserl’s (1962) phenomenology is more akin to “epistemological phenomenology”. To promote the ontological shift of phenomenology, Heidegger Reference Heidegger(1962) further inquired into the existence of subject and consciousness. His notable example of the hammer is often referred to in order to explain an object’s readiness-to-hand, and points out that it is not the hammer itself, which is most important, but the act of hammering in the context of its use. In a sense, this seems to be an extension of Kapp’s organ projection theory and approximate to its embodiment. “A woman may, without any calculation, keep a safe distance between the feather in her hat and things which might break it off. She feels where the feather is just as we feel where our hand is.” (p. 144). Merleau-Ponty Reference Merleau-Ponty(2012) developed a phenomenology of perception as captured the preceding quotation, which strengthens connections in the motor system between the body and the perceived world. Don Ihde Reference Ihde(1990), an American philosopher, believes that Merleau-Ponty’s example of the feather complements Heidegger’s thought of withdrawal, thus obtaining a partial perception of the world through this withdrawal. “Embodiment” as a holistic concept transcends dualistic concepts such as body-world and intrinsic-extrinsic, and integrates them and expresses both behaviour and perception.
Ihde employs an empirical concrete method to expound human-technology relations. People in the technological world cannot be as naked as Adam and Eve, whose perceptions haven’t been mediated by artefacts. For example, when people look at the stars through a telescope, they do not care about the telescope itself, which is the mediator between a person and the world. In this example, the human-technology relation, embodiment, can be formalized as (I-glasses)-world, and the parentheses imply that the lens in the telescope is withdrawn at this moment. Ihde Reference Ihde(1993) regards the above relation as an embodiment relation and summarizes three other relational categories: hermeneutic (e.g., dials), alterity (e.g., robots), and background (e.g., streetlights). This post-phenomenology method is also applied to design practice. For example, Secomandi (2014) among others interprets these four relations from the perspective of service design.
Affordance, as proposed by Gibson Reference Gibson(1979), is a well-known concept in this approach. In terms of the philosophy of technology, affordance has many intrinsic relationships with phenomenological concepts containing “intentionality”, “presence at hand” and “embodiment”. Together, they signify the body-scale measurement of the environment. Like phenomenological scholars, Gibson focuses on the relationship between perception and action and tries to overcome subject-object dualism Reference Sanders(Sanders,1993). Norman Reference Norman(1988) later introduced this into design, putting forward perceived affordance to describe enlightenment and guidance provided by-products when people interact with them.
In addition, “experience” and “ethics” are critical themes related to design in this approach. Things in ancient technology are considered, such as the gathering of the four elements – heaven, earth, God and man – with natural form and with abundant meanings. When humans interact with things, a natural intimacy spontaneously arises in specific situations. The essence of modern technology is regarded as “gestell”, which challenges nature and human beings, while concealing the original meaning of objects and human beings (Reference HeideggerHeidegger, 1954). Emotion, morality, ethics, and other aspects of design practice are given importance in phenomenological intuition. Drawing on these concepts, Borgmann Reference Borgmann(1987) proposes focal things and devices. In focal things, body, mind, and the world are inseparable, while they are divided in devices. Borgmann advances this vision, that is: we can restore lifeworld to diversity and enrichment by refocusing on focal practice instead of being controlled by devices.
5. Discussion and conclusions
Figure 2 gives a snapshot about our understanding of this process. The three research approaches have evolved from different philosophical schools and manifest various modern research theories into design research.
Figure 2. The developing design research approaches
From the origin and generation of our three design research approaches, Dewey’s Pragmatism and Husserl’s phenomenology emerged simultaneously. Kant’s ethical theory and moral practice influenced the former, and the epistemology of Descartes and Kant affected the latter.
As to the content of our three design research approaches, the analytic philosophy route emphasizes that artefact is the “interface” between internal and external environments. The internal environment refers to the “the substance and organization of the artefact itself” and the external environment refers to artefacts’ operating environment. The task of design is to build internal configurations to adapt to the external environment, while deducing analytically and logically an appropriate related design process. The pragmatic approach views design as a situated conversation. The design problem is reflected in interacting with the situation, which depends on a complex mapping of a designer’s ideas and behaviors. Problem solutions and design objectives interact; this is not a simple process of knowledge extraction and application. The phenomenological approach seeks to explain human cognition and human interaction with technology and the world from the perspective of epistemology. The existence of artefacts is understood as satisfying people’s survival and living needs. Based on embodied epistemology, the body is the basis of perception, and the relationship between artefact and subject in the situation is revealed in action.
In terms of methods, the analytic philosophy approach prefers a third-person viewpoint. Focusing on physics and function, conceptual analysis, logical demonstration, and thought experiments are employed to investigate in cognitive science primary hypotheses and normative conditions. There is also concern with internal logic and evidence’s causal connections. In contrast, Pragmatism adopts a second-person perspective, emphasizing context and interaction more, while seeking and obtaining insights via dialogue and reflection. Phenomenology in the first person pertains to psychology research. Phenomenology advocates an understanding of perception through subjective experience, bracketing the external physical world, which is different from understandings of perception via physical activity at the atomic level of the brain.
To some extent, the three approaches overlap. Ihde believes that early phenomenology was characterized by subjectivism and idealism and was misconceived as “anti-science” and “solipsism”. American Pragmatism, as represented by John Dewey, emphasized the philosophical view of tools to avoid such a misunderstanding. Phenomenology was modified into post-phenomenology by absorbing Pragmatism. Both Pragmatism and phenomenology, starting from the analysis of human experience, embody a so-called intrinsic relationship ontology. The human experience is related to both environment and the world, and both parties are transformed as a result of this correlation. Following the insights of embodied cognition, there was a continuous evolutionary path: beginning with Kant’s a Priori Category leading to Gestalt psychology, and incorporating Dewey’s functional psychology from William James’ principles of psychology to include Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of perception. From a historical perspective, in an early stage analytic philosophy and phenomenology derived from a unified philosophical source, until the appearance of logical positivism.
Following the development of artificial intelligence, researchers pay increasing attention to the “body” of artificial intelligence, not just the “mind” in design specifications. Based on Heidegger’s phenomenology and Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of perception, Dreyfus criticizes the metaphysical and epistemological presupposition in the development of artificial intelligence. He argues that computers cannot have pre-reflective and embodied cognitive experiences without bodies, and therefore cannot achieve human-like cognitive abilities. Thus, the emphasis on body and embodied cognition is a significant feature in the evolution of related areas. It is likely that in some future design research fields, for example, intelligent interaction design, theories derived from the three approaches will be simultaneously drawn upon and thus need to be collectively studied.
The significance of this paper is to identify and examine three design research approaches and expound their internal logic through technical artefacts. As a result, the paper established a frame of reference from the perspective of the philosophy of technology. In this process, the knowledge structure of design research and its underlying philosophical logic were investigated. The paper explained that the rationality of the three design research approaches from the philosophy of technology lies in their common concern with artefacts and their logical correlations. Finally, it is hoped that what is identified in the paper will provide a relevant viewpoint for future design research.
Open access
