“设计研究”系列访谈——访Wolfgang Jonas教授

编者按：为了介绍“设计研究”（Design Research）的学术动态，促进风景园林学设计理论的发展，“风景园林新青年”联合《风景园林》学刊对“设计研究”领域的国际知名专家学者进行了邮件 访谈，在访谈中针对“设计研究”的一些基本概念和问题，根据各位专家各自的学术特长进行了针对性的交流。希望通过这些访谈的成果，我们能够向读者介绍“设 计研究”的概念，并逐渐推动“设计研究”尤其是“通过设计的研究”（Research through Design）在风景园林学领域内的发展。

本文系“风景园林新青年”与《风景园林》杂志联合刊出

Wolfgang Jonas 沃福冈•尤纳斯，生于1953年，1971年-1976年就读于柏林工大造船工程专业。1983年获博士学位，研究课题为流线外形的计算机辅助优化。1984年-1987年任多家汽车工业公司和德国标准化研究所计算机辅助设计领域顾问工程师。自1988年起于柏林艺术大学和乌帕塔尔大学从事设计实践、教学（CAD，工业设计和展览）和研究（系统理论和设计理论）工作。1994年获设计理论方向教授授课资格。

• 1994—2001，哈勒艺术与设计大学“过程设计”教授。
• 2001—2005，不来梅艺术大学“设计理论”教授。
• 2005—2010，卡塞尔大学艺术与设计学院“系统设计”教授。
• 2010年至今，布伦瑞克艺术大学交通设计学院“设计科学”教授。

Prof. Wolfgang Jonas

美国匹兹堡卡耐基梅隆大学、加拿大蒙特利尔大学、韩国大邱启明大学，丹麦奥尔堡大学客座教授。

研究关注焦点：作为元理论的设计理论，系统化视角下的设计理论和设计方法，系统思维，预景规划，通过设计作研究。

在设计理论和设计实践方面有众多文章发表，如《设计-系统-理论：对设计理论的系统理论化模型的思考》（1994），《留心空档！——关于设计中的知与未知》（2004），《设计科学的立场》（2010），另有关于 北弗里斯兰造船学历史（1990）和现代舰船美学（1991）的相关文章发表。

如何定义“通过设计做研究”

设计是一种规范性的努力，致力于改善现有的状态（Simon 1969）。这与致力于解释现象的科学研究不同。设计行为的规范性与价值导向意味着需要设计师/观察者的参与。

此外，设计所应对的不是受控实验条件下区分明确的对象，而是一个几乎总是处于现实生活条件下的系统性整体。我们认为该系统化客体有两个基础特性：由于其不可完全掌控的复杂性而无法被控制的问题，和由于社会文化发展的演化特征而很难被预测的问题。

因而，设计研究，由于人、过程和产品的相互关联，必须面对一种目的与主题内容无法分离的混合现象。这在Archer的定义中变得十分明显：

“设计研究……是一种成体系的求知，它的目标是内在于或有关于人造事物和系统中 配置，组成，结构，目的，价值和意义之体现的知识。”

Findeli(2008)近期的定义非常相似：

“设计研究是一种从’设计师式思维方法’（即项目导向）的观点考虑，对与一般人类生态相关联的知识进行的体系化探寻和获取。”

设计研究的模型必须包含以下这些特点：

“通过设计做研究”（RTD）承认设计中具体而多样的主题内容要求特别的研究途径才能取得成功。

RTD将设计过程，目前也被叫做“设计思维”，作为研究过程的主导范式。科学性贡献作为必要内容被包含其中。

RTD意味着对观察中研究人员/观察者的设计进行的认识论层面的考虑。这是一种二阶控制论的情况。

RTD严肃地针对人类能力的全部范围。Nelson和Stolterman（2003）提出设计发生在关于“真实”、“理想”和“现实”的知识领域之内。用更加过程主义的态度，我们称为“分析”（情况看起来如何？）“推断”（可能的未来看起来会怎样？）和“综合”（如何实现这样的未来）。

“通过设计做研究”是设计领域进行研究的合理方法论，这是普遍的共识吗？为什么？

在科学中，研究的目的是在各自领域内的知识创造，因此其主要的区别不是关于目的而是关于学科内容。而设计研究的相关学科内容如前所述是非常模糊的。因此设计研究不得不更加关注它的目的。

一种关于学科内容与目的粗略分类可能包括“理解人工制品”（美学）、“设计过程”（逻辑）、“人类经验”（伦理）以及“改进设计过程”，从而使需求得到更好地匹配。对人工制品的理解可能与“关于设计的研究”更相关，改进过程则属于“为了设计做研究”。通过设计改善人类条件的问题最起码是隐含在这里的。这说明一个最重要的立场认为设计是一个认识其自身的过程：通过设计咨询的方法创造有用的知识。“通过设计做研究”需要特殊的关注；这一分类的弹性理论模型是需要的。设计过程中研究人员的介入和其立场的永久性反馈似乎在一方面是至关重要的。

当然，并不存在纯粹的关于设计的研究、为了设计的研究以及通过设计作研究的形式。RTD总是包含从关于设计的研究或为了设计的研究而来的知识贡献。因此我们主张RTD是通过这些不同视角的反思性行为。

有广泛共识认为RTD（包括相似的概念，如“以实践为主导的研究”或者“基于项目的研究”）是其他途径中较为合理的一个方法论。认为RTD是最为重要的设计师式的研究途径则没有普遍共识。

设计研究的基础仍存争议。存在“科学的”路径和创造知识的“设计师式”理论途径。一种关于RTD的态度将设计和设计研究之间的区别看作一种渐变的关系。一股强劲的分裂势力因而质疑RTD趋于僵化，并且退向了科学性的方法，声称RTD在最近数年中没有表现出任何的进步。

这里当然出现了问题：衡量设计研究进步的标准是什么？与结果相关吗？还是方法论的严谨性？在“科学性”的阵营里有什么进步吗？

通过设计作研究的方法论最近有什么最新进展吗？

设计师式的方法的大量积累得到了发展。塑造RTD过程的尝试和改进设计研究过程中关键推断阶段的尝试正在进行中。系统导向的设计方法正在再一次获得意义。

在其他领域中出现了越来越多的对设计思维的重视：管理，组织研究，教育学等（ Boland and Collopy 2004）。将RTD与科技研究（STS）关联的尝试，特别是“模式2科学”的概念（ Nowotny et.al. 2001）预示一种科学求知的新理解以及从非生产性的非黑即白观点的转向（ Latour 1991）。这里必须提到跨学科研究。或许最激进的建议便是向跨学科方向扩展我们的知识概念。Nowotny指出跨学科是“模式2科学”的核心特征。

跨学科性关注的是那些目前位于学科之间，跨越不同学科以及超越单个学科的东西。它的目标是理解──正如模式2科学──并改变现今世界，知识的总体整合正是其必要条件之一。当对某问题本性的认识遭遇分歧，跨学科性可以帮助决定最相关和所涉及的研究问题。第一类问题考虑的是现有问题的成因和他们将来的发展（系统知识，如前文之“分析”）。另一类问题考虑哪些价值和规范可以用来形成方案解决过程的目标（目标知识，如前文之“推断”）。第三类问题关于如何将问题形势转变并改善（转变知识，如上文所述之“综合”）。跨学科性要求对问题的复杂性与其认知的多样性进行充分说明，要求联系抽象的和有关具体案例的知识，要求通过实践改善共同利益。

正如包括服务设计，社会事业设计，社会设计等新方法途径的拓展所揭示的，对相关普通设计行为的不断强调支持了设计研究的发展。

推荐书目：

• Boland, Richard J.; Collopy, Fred (2004) Managing as Designing, Stanford, California, Stanford University Press
  非常有趣的短文集合，其内容关于正在产生的设计思维与管理交叉学科。
• Churchman, C. West (1968) Challenge to Reason, New York, McGraw-Hill
  Churchman因运筹学，系统分析学和伦理学方面开创性的工作而国际知名。这本文集展现了他向科学植入伦理纬度的渴望。
• Latour, Bruno (1991). Nous n´avons jamais été modernes. Essai d´anthropologie symétrique. Paris, Éditions la Découverte
  社会与自然的或文化和技术的现代本质主义的二分法在世上不复存在，活跃的事件和不断发展的社会形成了新的混合网络。
• Nelson, Harold G. and Stolterman, Erik (2003). The Design Way. Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
  设计思维原理和哲学的基础之作。设计是一种为人类服务的学科，在本质上不同的知识领域内发挥作用。
• Nowotny, Helga; Scott, Peter; Gibbons, Michael (2001). Re-Thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in the Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
  一本关于当今科学知识创造的分析，科学知识的创造跨学科性、项目导向性和承担社会责任的特点越来越强。
• Simon, Herbert A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (3rd ed. 1996).
  一部经典文献，介绍了与科学和人文不同的，真正意义上的设计师式的知识创造的概念。
• Vester, Frederic (2007). The Art of Interconnected Thinking. Tools and Concepts for a new Approach to Tackling Complexity. München: MCB Verlag (German Original 1997)
  Vester曾经是罗马俱乐部的成员，他从系统思维的角度提出了一种有效的思维方法并为设计师提供了工具。

Wolfgang Jonas, born 1953, study of naval architecture 1971-76 at the Technical University of Berlin, research on the computer-aided optimisation of streamlined shapes, PhD in 1983. 1984-87 consulting engineer in the area of Computer Aided Design for companies of the automobile industry and the German standardisation institute DIN. Since 1988 design practice, teaching (CAD, industrial design, exhibitions) and research (system theory and design theory) at the University of the Arts Berlin and at the University of Wuppertal. 1994 lecturing qualification (Habilitation) in design theory.

• 1994 – 2001 professor for “process design”, University of Art and Design Halle.
• 2001 – 2005 professor for “design theory”, University of the Arts Bremen.
• 2005 – 2010 professor for “system design”, School of Art and Design, University of Kassel.
• Since 2010 professor for “Designwissenschaft”, Braunschweig University of Art, Institute for Transportation Design.

Visiting professor at the Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA, Université de Montréal, Canada, Keimyung University, Daegu, Korea, Aalborg University, Denmark.

Focus of interest: design theory as meta theory, design theory and design methods in a systemic perspective, systems thinking, scenario planning, research through design.

Numerous publications on theoretical and practical aspects of designing, for example “Design – System – Theorie: Überlegungen zu einem systemtheoretischen Modell von Designtheorie” (1994), “Mind the gap! – on knowing and not-knowing in Design” (2004), “Positionen zur Designwissenschaft” (2010), also publications on the history of naval architecture in Nordfriesland (1990) and on the aesthetics of modern ships (1991).

How to define “research through design”?

Design is a normative endeavour, aiming at changing existing situations into preferred ones (Simon 1969). This makes a difference to scientific research, which aims at explaining what is. The normativity and value-orientation of design activities implies the involvement of the designer / observer.

Furthermore, design is not dealing with well-separated subjects under neatly controlled laboratory conditions but with systemic wholes, mostly in real-life conditions. We have two fundamental characteristics of systemic subjects: the problem of control, because of never totally accessible complexity, and the problem of prognosis, because of the evolutionary character of socio-cultural developments.

In consequence, design research, due to the relevance of people, process and products, has to deal with an inseparable mix of purposes and subject matters. This becomes obvious in Archer´s (1981) definition :

“Design Research … is systematic enquiry whose goal is knowledge of, or in, the embodiment of configuration, composition, structure, purpose, value and meaning in man – made things and systems.”

Findeli´s (2008) recent definition is very similar :

“Design research is a systematic search for and acquisition of knowledge related to general human ecology considered from a ‘designerly way of thinking’ (i.e. project-oriented) perspective.”

Models of Design Research have to take all these peculiarities into account:

Research Through Design (RTD) acknowledges that the specific and at the same time very diverse subject matters of design require a special approach in order to be fruitful.

RTD takes the design process, currently also labelled as “design thinking”, as the guiding paradigm for the research process. Scientific contributions are included as necessary.

RTD means the epistemological consideration of the researcher´s / observer´s involvement in the observed. This is a situation of 2nd order cybernetics.

RTD is taking seriously the complete range of human competencies. Nelson and Stolterman (2003) argue that designing takes place in the knowledge domains of “the true”, “the ideal” and “the real”. In a more processual manner we speak of Analysis (how does the situation look like?), Projection (how should possible futures look like?) and Synthesis (how to make these futures real?).

Is it a general consensus that “research through design” is a proper methodology for researches in the field of design? And why?

In the sciences the purpose of research is knowledge generation in the respective field. So the primary distinction is not by purpose but by subject matter. Relevant subject matters of design research are fuzzy, as mentioned above. Therefore, design research has to look closer at its purposes.

A rough categorization of subject matters and purposes might be understanding artefacts (aesthetics) / the design process (logic) / the human experience (ethics) and improving the design process so that needs are better matched. Understanding might be related to ´research ABOUT design´, improving the process to ´research FOR design´. The issue of improving the human condition through design is at least implicit here. This most advanced position implies that design is an epistemological process of its own: creating useful knowledge by means of design inquiry. ´Research THROUGH design´ demands special attention; resilient theory models of this categorization are required. A permanent reflection of researchers´ involvement and position in the design process seems to be crucial in this respect.

Of course, research about / for / through design does not exist in pure form. RTD always includes knowledge contributions taken from research about or for design. Therefore we would argue that RTD is the reflective play with these different perspectives.

There is wide consensus that RTD (including similar concepts like ´practice-led research´ or project-based research´ ) is a proper methodology among other approaches. There is no consensus about RTD being the most important designerly approach to research.

Design research foundations are still controversial. There is the ´scientific´ path and the approach of a ´designerly´ theory of knowledge production. The attitude of RTD considers the difference between design and design research as gradual. A strong fraction therefore questions the rigidity of RTD and retreats to scientific approaches, claiming that RTD has not shown any progress within the last couple of years.

Here, of course, the question arises: what are the criteria for progress in design research? Relevance in the outcomes? Or rigour in the methodology? Is there any progress in the “scientific” camp?

Is there any latest development on the methodology of research through design?

Extensive collections of designerly methods are developped. Attempts at structuring the RTD process and at better understanding the crucial Projection phase in the design research process are undertaken. Systems-oriented design approaches are gaining significance again (Churchman 1968, Vester 2007).

There is increasing appreciation of design thinking from other fields: management, organization studies, pedagogy, etc. (Boland and Collopy 2004). Attempts at relating RTD and Science and Technology Studies (STS), especially the notion of “Mode-2-Science” (Nowotny et.al. 2001), indicate a new understanding of scientific inquiry and the retreat from unproductive black&white perspectives (Latour 1991). Transdisciplinarity studies have to be mentioned here. The suggestion, probably the most radical one, is to extend our notion of knowledge towards transdisciplinarity. Nowotny states transdisciplinarity as a central feature of Mode-2-Science.

Transdisciplinarity concerns that which is at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines, and beyond each individual discipline. Its goal is the understanding and – as in Mode-2-Science – the changing of the present world, of which one of the imperatives is the overarching unity of knowledge. When the very nature of a problem is under dispute, transdisciplinarity can help determine the most relevant problems and research questions involved. A first type of question concerns the cause of the present problems and their future development (system knowledge, see Analysis above). Another concerns which values and norms can be used to form goals of the problem-solving process (target knowledge, see Projection above). A third relates to how a problematic situation can be transformed and improved (transformation knowledge, see Synthesis above). Transdisciplinarity requires adequate addressing of the complexity of problems and the diversity of perceptions of them, that abstract and case-specific knowledge are linked, and that practices promote the common good.

An increasing emphasis on the relevance of design activities in general, indicated by expanding new approaches such as service design, design for social business, social design, etc. supports this development.