Science and design revisited

Per Galle, Peter Kroes

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftLetterForskningpeer review

206 Downloads (Pure)

Resumé

In 2012, Robert Farrell and Cliff Hooker published a paper in Design Studies, arguing against the conventional science–design distinction. Finding their position highly controversial, we opposed it in a paper of our own, to which Farrell and Hooker have now responded with a defence of their view. On request from the Editors, we seek in this paper to round off the dispute. We see it not so much in terms of who was right or wrong about what, as in terms of where our opponents and we may have been talking past each other. We also sum up some insights that the dispute has brought forward, while acknowledging the disagreements that no doubt remain.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftDesign Studies
Antal sider6
ISSN0142-694X
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2015

Kunstnerisk udviklingsvirksomhed (KUV)

  • Nej

Citer dette

@article{3fc9e751e8e345138124eb55b0db06ce,
title = "Science and design revisited",
abstract = "In 2012, Robert Farrell and Cliff Hooker published a paper in Design Studies, arguing against the conventional science–design distinction. Finding their position highly controversial, we opposed it in a paper of our own, to which Farrell and Hooker have now responded with a defence of their view. On request from the Editors, we seek in this paper to round off the dispute. We see it not so much in terms of who was right or wrong about what, as in terms of where our opponents and we may have been talking past each other. We also sum up some insights that the dispute has brought forward, while acknowledging the disagreements that no doubt remain.",
keywords = "artefact, design methodology, design theory, epistemology, philosophy of design",
author = "Per Galle and Peter Kroes",
year = "2015",
doi = "http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.12.003",
language = "English",
journal = "Design Studies",
issn = "0142-694X",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Science and design revisited. / Galle, Per; Kroes, Peter.

I: Design Studies, 2015.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftLetterForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Science and design revisited

AU - Galle, Per

AU - Kroes, Peter

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - In 2012, Robert Farrell and Cliff Hooker published a paper in Design Studies, arguing against the conventional science–design distinction. Finding their position highly controversial, we opposed it in a paper of our own, to which Farrell and Hooker have now responded with a defence of their view. On request from the Editors, we seek in this paper to round off the dispute. We see it not so much in terms of who was right or wrong about what, as in terms of where our opponents and we may have been talking past each other. We also sum up some insights that the dispute has brought forward, while acknowledging the disagreements that no doubt remain.

AB - In 2012, Robert Farrell and Cliff Hooker published a paper in Design Studies, arguing against the conventional science–design distinction. Finding their position highly controversial, we opposed it in a paper of our own, to which Farrell and Hooker have now responded with a defence of their view. On request from the Editors, we seek in this paper to round off the dispute. We see it not so much in terms of who was right or wrong about what, as in terms of where our opponents and we may have been talking past each other. We also sum up some insights that the dispute has brought forward, while acknowledging the disagreements that no doubt remain.

KW - artefact

KW - design methodology

KW - design theory

KW - epistemology

KW - philosophy of design

U2 - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.12.003

DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.12.003

M3 - Letter

JO - Design Studies

JF - Design Studies

SN - 0142-694X

ER -