Reflections on the epistemology of design: a Simondonian analysis

References

• Bardin, A. (2015). Epistemology and political philosophy in Gilbert Simondon Individuation, Technics, Social Systems (Philosophy of Engineering and Technology). London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, N. (2000). Art and ethical criticism: An overview of recent directions of research. Ethics, 110(2), 350–387.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chia, R. (1999). A ‘rhizomic’ model of organizational change and transformation: Perspective from a metaphysics of change. British Journal of Management, 10(3), 209–227.
   Google Scholar
• Colomina, B., & Wigley, M. (2016). Are we human? The archeology of design. Zürich: Lars Muller Publisher.
   Google Scholar
• Cossentino, J. (2010). Importing artistry: Further lessons from the design studio. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 3(1), 39–52.
   Google Scholar
• De Boever, A., Murray, A., Roffe, J., & Woodward, A. (eds). (2012). Gilbert Simondon, being and technology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. Art as experience. New York: Minton, Balch and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. (1987). Art as experience. New York: Pengee Books.
   Google Scholar
• Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fry, T. (2010). Design as politics. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Hales, D. (2015). Re-designing the objective. In B. Marenko & J. Brassett (Eds.), Deleuze and design (pp. 139–172). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hatleskog, E. K. (2014). Reflection, participation and production of ideas through architectural design practice. Reflective Practice, 15(2), 144–159.
   Google Scholar
• Heskett, J. (1980). Industrial design. University of Minnesota. Minnesota: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heskett, J. (2002). Toothpicks and logos: Design in everyday life. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heskett, J. (2005). Design : A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (2008). A cautious prometheus? A few steps toward a philosophy of design (with special attention to Peter Sloterdijk. In Proceedings of the 2008 annual international conference of the Design History Society, Universal Publishers (pp. 2–10). Falmouth: University College.
   Google Scholar
• Le Masson, P., Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2011). The interplay between creativity issues and design theories: A new perspective for design management studies? Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(4), 217–237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Masson, P., Weil, B., & Hatchuel, A. (2017). Design theory: Methods and organization for innovation. London: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Malafouris, L. (2008). At the Potter’s wheel: An argument for material agency. In K. Carl & M. Lambros (Eds.), Material agency: Towards a non-anthropocentric approach (pp. 16–36). Vienna: Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Marenko, B. (2015). Digital materiality, morphogenensis and the intellence of the technodigital object. In B. Marenko & J. Brassett (Eds.), Deleuze and design (pp. 106–138). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marenko, B., & Breassett, J. (eds). (2015). Deleuze and design. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Papanek, V. (1995). Design for the real world. London: Thames and Hudson.
   Google Scholar
• Parson, G. (2015). The philosophy of design. Chicago: Politely.
   Google Scholar
• Rosner, D. K. (2018). Critical fabulations reworking the methods and margins of design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, England: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simondon, G. (1958). On the mode of existence of technical objects. Minneapolis: Univocal Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Simondon, G. (2015). Culture and technics (1965). Radical Philosophy, 189(1965), 17–23.
   Google Scholar
• Verganti, R. (2011). Designing breakthrough products. Harvard Business Review, 89(10), 114–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weick, K. (2004). Designing for thrownness. In F. Collopy & R. Bolland (Eds.), Managing as designing (pp. 74–78). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zalasiewicz, J., Waters, C., Williams, M., & Summerhayes, C. (2019). The anthropocene as geological time unit: A guide to the scientific evidence and current debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar