Design Imaginaries. Knowledge transformation and innovation in experimental architecture (original) (raw)

Abstract

This article tracks the work of a group of architectural researchers and treats their experimental practices as vantages for anlayzing the social production and transformation of architectural knowledge. This requires first examining the role of so called design imaginaries or modes of prototyping and analysis, which these researchers draw on to explore wider theoretical questions as well as test varying theories and hypotheses. It also includes examining how seemingly contradictory design concepts figure into their creative work, which we argue hold theoretical resonance with Gregory Bateson’s ideas on Learning III and Yrjö Engeström’s notion of expansive learning.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (40)

  1. Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  2. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves. An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court.
  3. Cruz, T. (2013). Returning Duchamp's urinal to the bathroom on the reconnection between artistic experimentation, social responsibility, and institutional transforma- tion In M. Fraser (Ed.), Design research in architecture, an overview (pp. 205-216). Surrey: Ashgate.
  4. Dehs, J., & Pedersen, C. P. (2013). Introduction. In J. Dehs, M. W. Esbensen, & C. P. Pedersen (Eds.), When architects and designers write draw build? (pp. 7-15). Aarhus, Denmark: Arkitektskolens Forlag.
  5. Deluze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Min- neapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  6. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmen- tal research. Helsinki: Orienta-konsultit.
  7. Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams. Analyzing cycles of knowl- edge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377-404). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work. Toward an activity theoretical recon- ceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
  9. Engeström, Y. (2007). Enriching the theory of expansive learning: Lessons from journeys toward coconfiguration. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(1-2), 23-39. doi:10.1080/10749030701307689
  10. Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory and Psychology, 21(5), 598-628. doi:10.1177/0959354311419252
  11. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in or- ganizational change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 368-387. doi:10.1108/09534811111132758
  12. Francis, D., & Hester, S. (2004). An invitation to Ethnomethodology. Language, society, and interaction. London: Sage.
  13. Fry, T. (2009). Design futuring sustainability, ethics and new practice. Oxford and New York: Berg.
  14. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  15. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1986). On formal structures of practical action. In H. Gar- finkel (Ed.), Ethnomethodological studies of work (Vol. 160-193). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  16. Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2013). Does design equal research? Architectural research methods (pp. 21-61). New York: Wiley.
  17. Hill, J. (2013). Centuries of design research. In J. Dehs, M. W. Esbensen, & C. P. Peders- en (Eds.), When architects and designers write draw build? (pp. 16-33). Aarhus, Denmark: Arkitektskolens Forlag.
  18. Jiménez, A. C. (2013). The prototype: more than many and less than one. Journal of Cultural Economy, 7(4), 381-398. doi:10.1080/17530350.2013.858059
  19. Kurokawa, K. (1977). Capsule declaration. Metabolism in architecture (pp. 75-85). London: Studio Vista.
  20. Lehtinen, E., Hakkarainen, K., & Palonen, T. (2014). Understanding learning for the professions: How theories of learning explain coping with rapid change. In S. Bil- lett, C. Harteis, & H. Gruber (Eds.), International handbook of research in professional and practice-based learning (pp. 199-224). Dordrecht: Springer.
  21. Livingston, E. (1987). Making sense of ethnomethodology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  22. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  23. Murphy, K. M. (2004). Imagination as joint activity: the case of architectural interac- tion.
  24. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(4), 267-278.
  25. Murphy, K. M. (2011). Building stories: The embodied narration of what might come to pass. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, & C. LeBaron (Eds.), Embodied interaction: Lan- guage, and body in the material world (pp. 243-253). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  26. Ngai, S. (2008). Merely interesting. Critical Inquiry, 34(4).
  27. Nilsson, F. (2013). Knowledge in the making. On production and communication of knowledge in the material practices of architecture. FORMakademisk, 6(2), 1-13.
  28. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. How Japanese compa- nies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
  29. Pallasmaa, J. (2009). The thinking hand. Existential and embodied wisdom in architecture. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
  30. Parisi, L. (2013). Contagious architecture: computation, aesthetics, and space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  31. Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge. An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  32. Rendell, J. (2013). A way with words: Writing architectural design research. In M. Fraser (Ed.), Design research in architecture, an overview (pp. 117-216). Surrey: Ashgate.
  33. Rubbo, A. (2010). Towards equality, social inclusion, and human development in design education: The case of Global Studio 2005-2008. Architectural Theory Review, 15(1), 61-87.
  34. Sakamoto, T., & Ferré, A. (Eds.). (2008). From control to design: Parametric/Algorithmic architecture. New York: ACTAR.
  35. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.
  36. Snyder, B. R. (1970). The hidden curriculum. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  37. Søberg, M. (2013). Relating images and texts in design-based architectural research. In J. Dehs, M. W. Esbensen, & C. P. Pedersen (Eds.), When architects and designers write draw build? Aarhus, Denmark: Arkitektskolens Forlag.
  38. Turner, C. (2011). The deliberate accident in art. Tate etc, 21. Retrieved from http:// www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/articles/deliberate-accident-art
  39. van de Weijer, M., van Cleempoel, K., & Heynen, H. (2014). Positioning research and design in academia and practice. A contribution to a continuing debate. Design Is- sues, 30(2), 17-29.
  40. Yaneva, A. (2009). Made by the office for metropolitan architecture. An ethnography of design. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.