Ranulph Glanville

Researching Design and Designing Research

When Design Research began, say in the 1960s, the eventual success of science was assumed. Already, at the notorious 1956 Oxford Conference, architectural education in the UK (and its sphere of influence) accepted architecture was a second class subject: ie not properly scientific. Science (in actuality, technology) was seen as so successful that everything should be scientific: the philosopher’s stone! Architects (a significant subdivision of designers) were determined to become scientific. The syllabus was changed and design science was invented. Even the Architectural Association School gave over a third of undergraduate time to design science. Prime Minister Wilson and his Government declared the “White Heat of the Technological Revolution.”

Try again. Fail again. Fail better: the cybernetics in design and the design in cybernetics

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the two subjects, cybernetics and design, in order to establish and demonstrate a relationship between them. It is held that the two subjects can be considered complementary arms of each other.Design/methodology/approach – The two subjects are each characterised so that the authors interpretation is explicit and those who know one subject but not the other are briefed. Cybernetics is examined in terms of both classical (first‐order) cybernetics, and the more consistent second‐order cybernetics, which is the cybernetics used in this argument. The paper develops by a comparative analysis of the two subjects, and exploring analogies between the two at several levels.Findings – A design approach is characterised and validated, and contrasted with a scientific approach. The analogies that are proposed are shown to hold. Cybernetics is presented as theory for design, design as cybernetics in practice. Consequent findings, for instance that both cybernetics and ...

The purpose of second-order cybernetics

In this paper, the origins of second‐order Cybernetics are sketched, and are particularly identified with circularity: a quality that was at the basis of the studies that lead to the creation of the field of Cybernetics. The implications of the new analysis that second‐order Cybernetics (Cybernetics treated cybernetically: that is, Cybernetics when circularity is taken seriously) gives rise to are considered in terms of the two qualities that Wiener gave to Cybernetics in his eponymous book – control and communication. Finally, the analysis is applied to that other proto‐cybernetic concept, purpose. It is shown that (and in consequence how) the notion of goal and purpose must be radically reconsidered in second‐order Cybernetic systems.

The question of cybernetics

The recently developed notions of second-order cybernetics bring into focus a number of traditional concerns (e.g., self-reference). Here, a simple derivation of some of these notions is made from a brief characterization of the initial cybernetics ideas developed by N. Wiener and others. Matters of concern and consequence are then stated, and are summarized as facets of what should be the major area of research in the field: the question of cybernetics.

Introduction: a conference doing the cybernetics of cybernetics

Purpose – This paper introduces the other papers in this issue, describing and arguing for the context in which they were written – a conference that was, unusually, based in conversation rather than reporting through the presentation of papers: and a refereeing process that continued after the initial presentation (at the conference) of the work reported, thus allowing responses to critical comments. Many of our authors do not come from scientific backgrounds, and writing papers such as we are used to is a novel experience to, and discipline for, them.Design/methodology/approach – The organisation and structure of the conference and the processes of refereeing involved are described; and the argument is made that the particularities of each are more cybernetic than the more familiar arrangements.Findings – The conference processes were greatly valued by the authors. This is evident in the papers presented in this volume, although the convention of presenting only the final form of the paper may mean it i...

An Intelligent Architecture

a property possessed by human beings. We claim some have it to a greater and others to a lesser degree. We test for how much of it we each have, and even have a club for those with lots of it. We have, traditionally, talked of some animals as having it, with an astonishment akin to that of colonial adventurers discovering that native human animals may have it. More recently, we have talked of intelligence in computers: in principle and in practice. Now that computing is spilling out of the grey box and into our clothing, we talk of smart clothes, meaning we want also to think of them as being, in some way, intelligent. We talk a lot of intelligence.

And he was magic

Pask’s great contribution to cybernetics is to take seriously the notion of interaction in the circular processes that lie at the heart of the subject. From his earliest days he worked with interactive systems. His master work, conversation theory, epitomises the interactive system, which he then extended and generalised into the interaction of actors theory. In this paper, the requirements that conversation places on our understanding of participants is presented in the form of a specification. In particular, the ways of behaving and the assumptions under which we have to behave if we are to be able to converse with success are expounded. These are in great contrast to neo‐Darwinian assumptions. The difference between communication by code and communication by conversation is explored, and the primacy of conversational communication is argued. Finally, it is claimed that the ways of behaving and the assumptions that are the requirements for a conversation to take place are presented as personal qualities that were particularly apparent in Pask himself.

An Observing Science

In this paper I make the arguments that I seesupporting a view of how we can come to knowthe world we live in.I start from a position in second ordercybernetics which turns out to be a RadicalConstructivist position. This position isessentially epistemological, and much of thispaper is concerned with the act of knowing,crucial when we try to develop an understandingof what we mean when we discuss a field ofknowing (knowledge), which is at the root ofscience. The argument follows a path in which I discussthe essential role of the observer inobserving, the creation of constancies betweendifferent observings and their exteriorisationas objects which are then represented and usedin communication with and between otherobservers, each unique (and therefore eachobserving in its own way). This leads to theassertion that the qualities we associate withthe objects of our universes are attributes,rather than properties inherent in the objectsthemselves. At each step in the argument I exploreconsequences for how we understand the world,in particular through science. I showlimitations, new insights and understandings,and re-evaluate what we can expect to gain fromscience. One change is the shift from noun toverb in the consideration of processses – forinstance, the study of living rather than life.In this way, I intend to show not only thatRadical Constructivism is sensible, but that itdoes not preclude us having a science. Incontrast, it can enrich science by taking onboard the sensible.In the process, which science is seen to be themore basic is challenged.

Acting to understand and understanding to act

Purpose – To establish the essential centrality of a circular relationship between acting and understanding, and a role learning plays in this circularity, with special reference to Aristotles phronesis and sophia. The purpose of this paper is to establish a position. Design/methodology/approach – The argument is made through critical, cybernetic analysis and argument. Findings – The argument reconceptualises key relationships in the approach to understanding the world, and in education. Research limitations/implications – Research implications are not explored: the argument attempts to lay groundwork for other and later work. Originality/value – The argument establishes a cybernetic circular causality to replace the currently preferred linear causality.

The model's dimensions: a form for argument

This paper explores the formal relationship between two descriptions of Objects, so related that one is a model of the other. These models are shown to have a dimension with two directions, and to be of two types—iso- and homo-morphic. The dimensions of models, made analogous to the dimensions of physics, are examined when a string of modelling processes is executed. Means of compressing such strings, using references to model type and dimension, are shown, and the essential difference between iso- and homo-morphic models is discussed, highlighting the non-model characteristics of isomorphism. Finally, the analysis is applied to the form of arguments, allowing the checking of (for instance) analogies, and the proper level for the response in an argument is revealed.