Why bother about philosophy of design?The theme of the 2003 DATA International Research Conference is ‘Design Matters’. If there is one country in the world that has shown this to be true for design and technology education, it is the UK. Design has had a well established place in general technology education for many years. This is demonstrated in the names of this subject: ‘Craft, Design and Technology’, and more recently ‘Design and Technology’. The particular emphasis on design becomes even more evident if one realises that internationally the name Technology Education is more common. This, of course, does not necessarily mean that in what is called ‘Technology Education’ design is always underestimated, but the fact that the word ‘design’ is an explicit element in the subject’s name in UK practice is meaningful

De Vries, Dr Marc J.

English

Loughborough University Library: Open Journals

150RESEARCHThe Journal of Design and Technology Education Volume 8 Number 3Design Matters, and so does Philosophy of Design2003 John Eggleston Memorial LectureWhy bother about philosophy of design?The theme of the 2003 DATA InternationalResearch Conference is ‘Design Matters’. Ifthere is one country in the world that hasshown this to be true for design andtechnology education, it is the UK. Design hashad a well established place in generaltechnology education for many years. This isdemonstrated in the names of this subject:‘Craft, Design and Technology’, and morerecently ‘Design and Technology’. Theparticular emphasis on design becomes evenmore evident if one realises thatinternationally the name TechnologyEducation is more common. This, of course,does not necessarily mean that in what iscalled ‘Technology Education’ design isalways underestimated, but the fact that theword ‘design’ is an explicit element in thesubject’s name in UK practice is meaningful.Many countries still struggle with the identityof Technology Education. Several of thosecountries have studied UK practice to findanswers to questions about this identity. Theuptake of design as a serious component inthe Technology Education curriculum incountries such as the United States ofAmerica and the Netherlands, indisputablyfollows the example made by the UK. At thesame time those countries have experiencedthat the mere uptake of design certainly doesnot solve all identity problems. Findinganswers that appeal to both the public andpolicy makers is most certainly not easy. Inseveral countries the position of TechnologyEducation in the general school curriculum iscontested. In many cases these threats arerelated to a lack of clarity about the reasonswhy Technology Education should be adistinct part of the curriculum, and this has todo with a lack of clarity about the identity ofthe subject. It will no doubt be shocking forthe rest on the world to find out that even inthe UK the position of D&T is no longersacrosanct. In particular the position ofDesign and Technology in Key Stage 4 (uppersecondary education) seems to diminish.What then is to be expected for countries witha less sound tradition in TechnologyEducation. Some years ago in South Africathe position of Technology Education as acompulsory school subject was seriouslythreatened and more recently in theNetherlands a decision was made to integrateTechnology Education into Science Education,just to mention two examples.Such experiences illustrate the need to workon clarifying the identity of TechnologyEducation and D&T. This, though, is not aneasy matter as the situation is different fromthat of science, for example. Scienceeducators have the possibility to study whatgoes on in the academic world to see what thebasic principles of their subject area are. Fortechnology educators this is much less clear.Is it sufficient to go to the various engineeringdisciplines? But do those offer broad conceptsthat can be used for a basis of a generaleducation school subject? It seems not. Whatother options are there then? Here an answercan be: philosophy of technology. Philosophyparticularly deals with questions such as‘What do you mean when you use the word . ..’ (and ‘technology’ of course is the word thatis to be inserted in the case of philosophy oftechnology, but also words like ‘design’,‘technological knowledge’, ‘technologicalcompetencies’). Although the philosophy oftechnology is a fairly young discipline there isa lot to be gained from it in terms of elementsfor a conceptual basis of the school subjectTechnology and hence for the building of theidentity of that subject.Areas in the philosophy of technologyAn often quoted survey of the philosophy oftechnology by Carl Mitcham has shown thatroughly speaking all research in this field canbe described in terms of four areas, each ofwhich relates to a subdomain in philosophy(although Mitcham himself does not refer tothat relationship). Each of them can be linkedto the conference theme ‘Design matters’ asfollows:1. Design matters, sure, but to what? Toartefacts. They will be different thanks todesign. In philosophy of technology theontology of technological artefacts isstudied intensively. Ontology is thesubdomain of philosophy that deals with‘being’(what do we mean when we saythat something ‘is’?).2. Design matters, sure, but why? How doyou know? This brings us to the area ofknowledge. In philosophy we haveepistemology as a subdomain that dealswith issues related to the nature ofknowledge. In the philosophy oftechnology this is an area that getsincreasing attention.3. Design matters, sure, but for whatpurpose? Teleology is the subdomain inphilosophy that asks about the aims andpurposes of what we do and why we exist.Mitcham in his survey of the philosophyof technology refers to this area as that of‘volition’. Somehow human beings feelthe need to behave as a being that behavestechnologically and changes theenvironment according to his/her needs.Ethical issues are also addressed here.4. Design matters, sure, but how? How canbe design be practiced to make aDr. Marc J. deVriesEindhoven Universityof TechnologyNetherlands151RESEARCHThe Journal of Design and Technology Education Volume 8 Number 3difference. This brings us into the realmof methodology as a subdomain inphilosophy. A caveat should be made here.Methodology does not necessarily dealwith well defined methods. Literally‘methodology’ means ‘study of the waythrough which . . .’ something comesabout (design in this case).Each of these four areas will be described insome more detail now. The purpose of thisdescription is just to give a first impression ofwhat goes on currently in these subdomains ofthe philosophy of technology. This can help usto identify what issues needs to be addressedwhen we search for a clearer identity of ourschool subject Design and Technology,Technology Education or whatever it’s namemay be.The ontology of technological artefactsA recent way of reflecting on the nature oftechnological artefacts is by ascribing to thema dual nature. Artefacts have a physical nature(length, weight, colour, structure, geometry,etc.) and at the same time a functional nature(they are objects that allow us to use them fora specific purpose). In fact the purpose ofdesign can be described as finding a rightmatch between these two. In other words,designers seek for realising objects that have aphysical nature that fits with the intendedfunctional nature. But users in fact also dealwith the relationship between the physical andthe functional nature when they seek ways touse the artefact. For this reason in theontology of artefacts we distinguish betweenthe proper function (which is the one that thedesigner had in mind when designing theartefact) and accidental functions (other waysthat users find to use the artefact). For ascrewdriver the proper function is to turnscrews, but many people will use it to openlids of tin cans (that is an accidental function).Good designers will not only take intoaccount the proper function, but they will tryto anticipate in what other ways people mayuse the product, if only to prevent thataccidents may happen (this is a particularissue in the USA, where companies can belitigated for unexpected dangerous use ofproducts). The concept function and thedifference between proper and accidentalfunction is certainly basic enough to deserveattention in education about design. This issueoffers good opportunities for cross-curricularwork, as the concept of function can be foundalso in biology. In that discipline functions oforgans and limbs are used to explain the shapeand position of those organs and limbs inbodies. The issue of functions is one of theissues that can be used to make clear thattechnology is different from science (in thiscase biology): in biology intentions play norole (there are no designers or users that haveintentions from which desired functionemanate), and therefore a distinction betweenproper and accidental function as made intechnology is problematic.The nature of technological knowledgeTechnological knowledge is problematic intraditional epistemology. This is becausetraditional epistemology is mainly based onscientific knowledge. Here again we see animportant difference between technology andscience, which justifies a distinct place fortechnology in the school curriculum. Intraditional epistemology knowledge is definedas justified true belief. In order for us to saythat we ‘know’ that the moon turns around theearth, we will in the first place have to believethis (otherwise it makes no sense at all to saythat we ‘know’ it), we must have found somesort of justification for that belief (we acceptthe fact that so many others believe it too andthat ‘experts’ say and write it), andfurthermore it has to be true (if at two o’clockwe believe it is one o’clock and we foundjustification by taking a look at our watch thatruns an hour behind, other will not acceptwhen we say that we ‘know’ that it is oneo’clock since it is not true). Objections havebeen made against this definition by makingclear that the justification and truth of ourbeliefs may coincide only by accident. If wetake a look at our – idle – watch and read twoo’clock at two o’clock, it would not beappropriate to say that we ‘know’ that it is twoo’clock even though we have ‘justified andtrue’ belief here.But reflection on technological knowledgecreates even more problems for the ‘standard’definition of knowledge. Is truth always thedecisive criterion for technologicalknowledge? Or could it rather beeffectiveness. Civil engineers when designinga bridge realise that classical mechanics is notentirely appropriate for their bridge, but forpractical reasons they prefer to use this ratherthan quantum mechanics. Evidentlyeffectiveness prevails over truth. Furthermore,there is a normative component intechnological knowledge that is not found inscientific knowledge nor in the ‘standard’definition of knowledge. Technologicalknowledge comprises knowledge of functionsand the relationship between physical aspectsof an artefact (its physical nature) and thefunctions it should fulfil (the functionalnature). Both result in propositions such as: ‘Iknow that this is a good . . .’. In science suchpropositions cannot be made. Electrons arenot good or bad, or in other words suitable orunsuitable. They are as they are, and that is it.Knowledge of technical norms and standards,knowledge of good technical practice all haveDesign Matters, and so does Philosophy of Design2003 John Eggleston Memorial Lecture152RESEARCHThe Journal of Design and Technology Education Volume 8 Number 3this normative component that can not beassessed in terms of being true or nor true(norms can be effective or ineffective, but nottrue or untrue). So here we see that at leastpart of what we call technological knowledgeis fundamentally different from scientificknowledge. Again this justifies a place forteaching about design in the curriculum, thatis distinct from science. Finally we can make a difference betweenknowing-that and knowing-how. According toRyle, the key point that distinguishes thesetwo is that knowing-that can and knowing-how cannot be expressed in terms ofpropositions. I cannot express in propositionshow I ride my bike, even though I am quiteexperienced in doing it. This, no doubt, hasconsequences for teaching. Knowing-howcannot be expressed in propositions andtherefore can not always be taught in the sameway as knowing-that, in the teaching of whichwe often use the possibility to express thisknowledge in terms of propositions. Knowing-how probably needs to be learnt beexperience, by watching and doing.Actors and their valuesDesign is done for purposes. There can bequite varied purposes for designing,depending who are involved in the designing,making and using the artefact. Various actorsand actor groups can be identified each withtheir own interests. Designers will have totake into account a whole spectrum of suchactors and actor groups that can have aninfluence during different phases of theartefact’s lifecycle. This has led to the term‘lifecycle-orientated design’. When teachingabout design, this should be taken intoaccount. Pupils need to get some grasp of thecomplexity of design that is caused by thevariety of actors and actor groups that need tobe taken into account. In that respecteducation should follow industry. In theopening presentation of a conference ondesign methodology, Stephano Marzano, atthat time the head of the Philips Designdepartment, made a significant statement: ‘wedo not just sell products, we sell values’.Apparently values are highly valued inindustry. But what values are valued? Thatand similar questions belong to the ethics oftechnology and of design. Educationalistsoften shy back from taking up ethical issues intheir teaching, because they are afraid ofpossibly influencing the pupils. Yet, the factthat technological knowledge intrinsically hasto do with norms (see the previous section)shows that teaching about technology cannotproperly be done without paying attention tonorms and values. Taking that seriously doesnot at all force us to influence. There are goodopportunities to show to pupils the variousoptions for tackling ethical problems anddilemma’s, such as a utilitarian approach, inwhich cost/benefit thinking about theconsequences of decisions are used, a virtueapproach in which personal qualities such asresponsibility towards employers and theenvironment are used, and a deontic approachin which rules and norms are used (such as inprofessional ethical codes for engineers).Besides that the importance of properreasoning and logic for the consideration ofethical problems and dilemmas can be taughtand learnt.Design methodologyReflection on design practice in terms of the‘how to do it’ is already a fairly wellestablished discipline for which the namedesign methodology is commonly used. Oneof the important outcomes of designmethodological studies is that well definedmethods only play a limited part in designpractice. And when they are used, it should bekept well in mind that all those methods havein-built assumptions. In a situation in whichthese assumptions are not met, the use of themethod may well be problematic, although atfirst sight the method seems to yield anoutcome. Naïve use of that outcome has oftenled to frustrations, because it appeared to bewrong, and the method was then blamedalthough the user of the method was the maincause of the problems because (s)he did notrealise that the method was used improperly.Such naïve use of methods most certainly is aserious danger in educational practice. Tooeasily cookbook descriptions of methods aretaught as if they work regardless of what isdesigned and in what context it is designed.Here too philosophy of design/technology hasimportant lessons for education.Integration and co-operation inTechnology EducationWe have now seen the four main areas in thephilosophy of technology. These areas can beused as inputs for building up a conceptualbasis and an identity for TechnologyEducation. But philosophers will not be ableto do that on their own. We are dealing herewith a school subject, for which there is morethat matters than philosophy of design. Thepractice of teaching design in the context of aschool subject should also be used as an input,as well as the issues around shaping theconditions for this teaching. That means thatbuilding up a conceptual basis and identity forour school subject, a close co-operationbetween teachers, researchers and otherparties such as policy makers, teachereducators, industries, and of course parentsand pupils, is needed. Researchers, both inphilosophy and in education, need to presenttheir outcomes in such a way that is becomesDesign Matters, and so does Philosophy of Design2003 John Eggleston Memorial Lecture153RESEARCHThe Journal of Design and Technology Education Volume 8 Number 3available for the other parties involved.Academic journals, such as the InternationalJournal of Technology and Design Education,at the cradle of which John Eggleston stood,play a part in that. Such a journal also offersthis opportunity in an international mode. Asurvey of seven volumes of this journal hasindicated that conceptual issues, boththeoretically and from in the perception ofpupils and teachers, still have a modest placein the journal, but there is certainly somethingto be learnt from. Furthermore it has becomeevident that teachers are often not well servedby this medium because of the jargon that isoften found in research-based articles. Clearlythere is ample opportunity for improvementhere. At the same time it can be stated thatother journals, such as DATA’s Journal ofDesign and Technology Education. Modus,and Designing with their emphasis on schoolpractice, are more appropriate media toaddress teachers’ concerns, becauseresearchers will need a journal such as theInternational Journal of Technology andDesign Education anyway as an academicmedium. Clearly there is place for both typesof journals, each with their own audience. Butin the end it must all come together somehow.Finally I want to quote John Eggleston, towhose honour and memory this lecture waspresented (from his last book ‘Teaching andLearning Design and Technology, 2000, pagexxviii):‘Good teaching and good researching gohand in hand. The consequences arebeneficial to all concerned – specially thestudents’. And were they not the ones thatshould be our ultimate concern?ReferencesAudi, R. (1998), Epistemology. A contemporaryintroduction to the theory of knowledge. Londonand New York: Routledge.J. Eggleston (ed.) (2000), Teaching and LearningDesign and Technology. A Guide to RecentResearch and Its Applications. London and NewYork: Continuum.Kroes, P.A, and Meijers, A.W.M. (2000),‘Introduction: a discipline in search of its identity’,in: Kroes, P.A. and Meijers, A.W.M. (eds.), TheEmpirical Turn in the Philosophy of Technology.Oxford: Elsevier Science, pp xvii-xxxv.Meijers, A.W.M. (2000), ‘The relational ontology oftechnical artifacts’, in: Kroes, P.A. and Meijers,A.W.M. (eds.), The Empirical Turn in thePhilosophy of Technology. Oxford: ElsevierScience, pp 81-96.Mitcham, C. (1994), Thinking Through Technology.The Path Between Engineering and Philosophy.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Ryle, G. (1983), The concept of mind. London:Hutchinson.Schön, D. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner.How Professionals Think in Action. New York, NY:Basic Books.Vincenti, W.G. (1990), What Engineers Know andHow They Know It. Baltimore: Johns HopkinsPress.Vries, M.J. de and Tamir, A. (1997), ‘ShapingConcepts of Technology: What Concepts and Howto Shape Them’, in: Vries, M.J. de and Tamir. A.(eds.), Shaping Concepts of Technology: fromPhilosophical Perspectives to Mental Images.Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publ., 3-10.Vries, M.J. de (1997), ‘Science, Technology andSociety: A Methodological Perspective’, in: Vries,M.J. de and Tamir. A. (eds.), Shaping Concepts ofTechnology: from Philosophical Perspectives toMental Images. Dordrecht: Kluwer AcademicPubl., 21-32.Vries, M.J. de (2003), ‘The Nature ofTechnological Knowledge: PhilosophicalReflections and Educational Consequences’, in:Dakers, J. and Vries, M.J. de (eds.), PATT-13International Conference on Design andTechnology Educational Research 2003. Glasgow:University of Glasgow, pp. 83-86.Design Matters, and so does Philosophy of Design2003 John Eggleston Memorial Lecture

Design Matters, and so does Philosophy of Design 2003 John Eggleston Memorial Lecture

https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/JDTE/article/view/648/620

Design Matters, and so does Philosophy of Design 2003 John Eggleston Memorial Lecture

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Loughborough University Library: Open Journals