Top

Published in:

2020 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

2. Experiencing as Doing and Undergoing

Author : Brian S. Dixon

Published in: Dewey and Design

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

In this chapter I aim to draw some initial alignments between Dewey’s work and design research by focusing in on the theme of experience. To begin, I examine Dewey’s approach to experience in both its general and aesthetic forms. This then leads in to a consideration of how the theme of experience is currently approached within the field of design. Here, some existent points of Deweyan inspiration are identified in user experience and experience-centered design literature. Thereafter, I seek to extend the discussion further by offering an in-depth exploration of Dewey’s theoretical interlinking of experience and nature within his ‘naturalistic metaphysics’—an often-overlooked aspect of his philosophy. The chapter then concludes with a reflection on how, by drawing on Dewey’s work, a more expansive understanding of experience might be established within design.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter Design, Pragmatism and Dewey

next chapter Knowing in Making

A wide sample of these debates can be found in Morgenbesser (1977).

Though some would say he came close in Experience and Nature (LW 1).

This is not to say that experience acted as the point of origin for Dewey’s philosophy, but rather that understanding Dewey’s claims regarding experience allow us to better approach his wider body of work.

Further, it prevents us from imagining an ‘embodied mind’; that is, a mind which is relies on and develops through the body (see, for example, Varela et al. 1991).

In his last years, Merleau-Ponty’s line of philosophical inquiry would expand to include language and what Mead would have called ‘the generalized other’, i.e., an abstract understanding of others’ likely approach to action and thought. In France, this would eventually inform Foucault’s proposal regarding the ‘archeology of knowledge’, which suggests that rather than there being one definite, precise form of knowledge, there are instead forms of knowledge which can be understood to arise in relation to the discourse from they emerge (i.e., things said in a particular way within a particular dialogue). Beyond this, some related concepts that have found their way into the design literature include Derrida’s notion of “deconstruction”, and Deleuze’s idea of the “rhizome”.

James refers to this as the ‘stream of consciousness’, though he does also consider using the metaphor of a river (James 1981a/1890 p. 237).

In The Necessity of Pragmatism, Ralph Sleeper (1986) puts forward the convincing argument that James’s biologically orientated explorations of areas of psychology is the primary source of inspiration for Dewey’s logic,

It is important to note that the 1903 Studies in Logical Theory was dedicated to James, with his permission and James was especially praising of the vision it set out. Equally, as has been pointed out in Chap. 1, Studies may be seen to mark a key moment of development for Dewey where he begins to formally move away from idealism and towards experientialism.

Much is often made of the fact that right up until the end of his life Dewey was still working on revisions of the introductory chapter of one of his key texts Experience and Nature and, in this, still grappling with how to deal with the subject of experience (see e.g., Sleeper 1986, pp. 106–107; Campbell 1995, p. 68),

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this was a controversial text and, in the immediate period following publication, a number of forceful objections were issued. Dewey, however, was undeterred. In fact, it would appear that he was bolstered. Over the coming decade, he produced a further slew of articles, as well as a high–profile book (Essays in Experimental Logic). Through each he sought again and again to iterate, refine and reissue his vision of experience.

Experience and Nature focuses on experience in the introduction but there are in fact two introductions as the book was published in two editions. The first appeared in 1925 and the second in 1929. The first edition, while widely praised, drew a raft of criticism not dissimilar to that which followed the “The Postulate of Immediate Empiricism”. In an effort to address these objections (and misreadings), the second edition came with a new introductory chapter. Both are referenced here. For an excellent comparison of both chapters see Alexander (2017, pp. 54–71).

The use of these particular concepts—sensations, ideas, and images—points to the work of the British empiricists, most especially Hume and Locke.

This term comes from William James, whom Dewey cites.

Though not often represented in Deweyan scholarship, this notion of experience and culture being relatable was at least partly inspired by the work of Franz Boas, an anthropologist and colleague of Dewey’s at Columbia. Through Boas’s anthropology he gained his (somewhat unusual) interrelated or interfused understanding of culture and experience. This resulted in an understanding of cultural experience as something ‘collective, context–dependent, inclusive of individual thought and communication’ (Colόn and Hobbs 2015, p. 145). In many ways, this can be seen as a progression of the insights he had drawn from the psychologies of William James and George Herbert Mead (see above and Chap. 1). As will be noted later, Dewey would eventually go on to link this perspective to his understanding of nature in his metaphysics.

Despite Dewey’s reworking of Experience and Nature in 1929, the criticism of his peers persisted and, through his later career, he was still regularly required to clarify his position. In the late 1940s, he once again set out to rewrite the troublesome introductory chapter. This time, he envisaged a wider historical account, tracing the development of Western philosophy and, in doing so, highlighting how the term experience had come to hold its current (limited) associations. By now, Dewey had given up hope of ever reappropriating the word and all but acceded that the task was beyond him. As a replacement for experience, he came to the view that ‘culture’ would better convey his general orientation and the complex of meanings experience had come to hold (see e.g., West 1989, p. 95)

The book was developed from material first delivered at the inaugural William James lectures in Harvard three years previously.

The difference between experience and an experience in English has the following correspondences in other languages: erlebnis vs. erfahrung in German; upplevelse vs. erfarenhet in Swedish; elämys vs. kokemus in Finnish; esperienza vs. avventura in Italian.

It is not that no definitions exist but rather few that are shared. In a key interaction design textbook, Rodgers, Sharp and Preece (2011) describe the concept of user experience as ‘central’ to the discipline. It is defined as ‘how people feel about a product and their pleasure satisfaction when using it, looking at it, holding it, and opening or closing it’. It is also seen to include users’ ‘overall impression of how good it is to use, right down to the sensual effect small details might have’ (p. 13).

The criticism has arisen for different reasons. Winograd and Flores have been heavily criticized by Suchman (1993) for failing escape the rationalism they disavowed. Suchman was criticized by Vera and Simon (1993) for her apparent rejection of planning.

In recounting this shift, Rodgers (2012), for example, draws attention to the emergence of approaches such as activity theory, ecological psychology, ethnography, ethnomethodology, and distributed cognition.

Although Shedorff does not use conventional academic referencing, he does draw on the work of John Dewey in his initial discussion of experience as a concept (2001, pp. 4–5). However, it is regrettable that, given book’s subject matter, Dewey is represented only as a ‘a turn–of–the–Century educator’ and not a philosopher of experience and practice (p. 4).

They divided the then–current research landscape into three main strands: ‘beyond the instrumental’, examining the ways in which interactions can extend beyond defined task and incorporate aesthetic considerations such as beauty, surprise and intimacy; ‘the experimental’, focusing on the situation of use, its various components and their interrelationship; and ‘emotion and affect’, focusing on the facilitation of positive, rewarding interactions and outcomes.

These connections have a longer–term legacy in the field. For example, Richard Buchanan (2009) claims that Dewey’s Art as Experience—in particular the chapter ‘Having an Experience’—was picked up as a key resource at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center in the 1970s (pp. 418–419).

Petersen et al. (2004) focus in on Dewey’s theory of art more than his theory of aesthetic experience. For a full account of the former see Chap. 4.

It is worth briefly noting the distinction between these types of interactions as they point to likely types of experience. The fluent refers to our seamless negotiation of a straightforward task; the cognitive to those to activities which require focused attention; and the expressive to those interactions which allow the user to modify and adapt the object or interface that they encounter.

The concept of co–experience in the context of technological interaction was first proposed by Katja Battarbee through her doctoral study, undertaken at the University of Art and Design Helsinki. This theory relies on Blumer’s symbolic interactionism (e.g., Blumer 1969) which in turn links to the work of George Herbert Mead (e.g., Mead 1934). See, for example, and Battarbee (2004) and Battarbee and Koskinen (2005).

It is important to note that though Battarbee cites Dewey and other classical pragmatists throughout her dissertation and its associated papers (in relation to experience), co–experience relies almost entirely on the tenants of symbolic interactionism as developed by Herbert Blumer (see Blumer 1969; Mead 1934).

Though it may not be immediately apparent the title Technology as Experience is a nod to Dewey’s Art as Experience.

Wakkary’s precise terms are concreteness, multiplicity and entities–in–interaction.

Contemporary scholars almost completely ignore Woodbridge’s work. Given his emphasis on metaphysics this is perhaps unsurprising but, viewed from an historical perspective, it is rather regrettable—especially so given his prominence in the early twentieth century American philosophy and his strong connections to Dewey. Surveying the literature, William Frank Jones Nature and Natural Science: The Philosophy of Frederick J. E. Woodbridge (1983) is one of the few available books on his work. For an account of how his philosophy related to Aristotle see Anton’s American Naturalism and Greek Thought (2005).

It has often been claimed that Boas inspired Dewey but that Dewey did not inspire Boas. For example, Ernest Nagel, a former student of Dewey’s, noted that ‘Dewey got a good deal from Boas; but if one can judge from what from students of Boas repeat, Boas got very little from Dewey’ (Lamont 1959, p. 55).

For a useful overview of Boas’s work see George W. Stocking’s The Shaping of American Anthropology, 1883–1911: A Franz Boas Reader (Boas 1989).

Through his interactions with Woodbridge, Dewey too came to see the possibility and, indeed, value of a contemporary, naturalistic metaphysics framed along Aristotelian lines. There are many sources for this claim. Among the most compelling are offered by Woodbridge and Dewey’s students John Herbert Randall Jr. and Herbert Schneider. Randall’s “Epilogue: The Nature of Naturalism” (1944, p. 365) offers an insight here. Further, in his History of American Philosophy Schneider goes so far as to say that Woodbridge ‘encouraged Dewey to think naturalistically, to take metaphysics empirically, and to write Experience and Nature’ (1963, p. 474).

Colón and Hobbes (2015) offer a useful overview of Boas’s impact on Dewey at the same time as putting forward the unusual argument that Dewey had an important influence on American anthropology in the early twentieth century.

Ralph Sleeper makes the convincing claim that, as well as a logic of experience, Dewey’s Studies in Logical Theory also contains the germ of ‘a metaphysics of existence’ (1986).

Famously, Platonic metaphysics envisages a world of perfect forms, located beyond this world. These perfect forms are seen to act as the templates from which imperfect, empirical forms draw their reference. For a series of interpretations of this aspect of Plato’s philosophy see William Welton’s Plato’s Forms: Varieties of Interpretation (2002).

At this point, it should be noted that communication is central to Dewey’s overall philosophy. As we shall see later in later chapters, while fundamentally important in and of itself, it also underpins his approach to the dual issues of both knowledge and reality.

It is important to note that, for Dewey, all intellectual activity is to be viewed in natural terms. He would argue that thinking men and women do not add ideas to the world, as though drawing energy from an extra–natural source. Instead, ideas are a ‘doing of nature and a further complication of its own domain’ (LW 1, p. 315).

We will come to see in Chap. 4, that alongside consciousness and ideas, Dewey also focuses in on the imagination. He argues that if we are to properly understand the imagination it must be approached in objective rather than merely fanciful, subjective terms. To be imaginative is to engage in the ‘modification’ and ‘reconstitution’ of existence (LW 1, p. 171). As such, it may be seen as ‘a continuation of natural processes […] something man learned from the world’ (p. 315).

In due course, we will also see that—in the context of art, understood as intelligent practice—they can also be modified.

It is important to note that, in reference to art, Dewey does not draw any hierarchical distinctions between fine art and what he terms ‘useful’ art, that is, art–as–technical–production. Rather, he sees both as operating along a continuum. ‘The only distinction’, he writes, ‘is that between bad and good art, and this distinction between things that meet the requirements of art and those that do not, applies equally to things of use and if beauty’ (LW 1, p. 283). For a helpful, though brief, exploration of the problem of drawing a distinction between the fine and ‘useful’ arts, see LW 1 (pp. 281–284).

Through Experience and Nature, along with other texts such as The Quest for Certainty, Dewey traces the origin of contemporary philosophic concerns. One of his most common references is classical Greek culture’s separation of theory from practice and science from art. The elite were seen to focus their efforts on abstract contemplation, while a separate class of servile artists were required to engage in the uncreative production of necessary goods to meet society’s needs. See, for example, LW 1 (pp. 76–81). However, as Raymond Boisvert cautions, Dewey’s treatment of historical and, in particular Greek philosophy, cannot be taken as absolute. According to Boisvert, he often ‘lumps Greek thinkers together and attributes a single position to them all’ (1988, pp. 49–50).

To an extent, Richard Buchanan has already made this point in his discussion of Dewey’s work in the context of design thinking (see Buchanan 1992). However, Buchanan was focusing on design practice in particular and my focus lies with design research involving practice.

Richard Buchanan has drawn important connections between Dewey’s views on art and design thinking, see Buchanan (2009, pp. 6–8).

Dewey’s metaphysics, like his theory of experience before, was the subject of sustained criticism since the publication of Experience and Nature onwards. Indeed, this criticism has continued right up to the present, with several recent and contemporary scholars taking issue with the theory. As was noted in Chap. 1, the late Richard Rorty called the metaphysics a ‘mistake’. On his view, Dewey did not need to work out any special ‘redescription’ of experience or nature in order to redirect philosophy (1982, p. 85). Richard Gale, on the other hand, applauds the metaphysics as a standalone venture, but does not believe it should be positioned as a ‘grounding’ for Dewey’s broader system. Such support is, to his mind, unnecessary (Gale 2010, p. 16). As will gradually become clear, I do not align with such views but, rather, agree with commentators who hold that the metaphysics is as a valuable addition to the package forming the whole of the Deweyan philosophic project (e.g., Sleeper 1986; Alexander 1987; 2017; Hickman 2007).

This proposal holds come credibility. The metaphysics of Experience and Nature was the result of forty–three years of philosophical reflection. In this way, it can be seen as arising out of his other work on logic, ethics and education.

In offering this reference to Gale, it is important to highlight that he does not necessarily endorse such a view. Rather, he merely proposes that it is what Dewey is claiming that the metaphysics will enable.

To further extend the discussion, it is worth noting that Dewey did not see an environment merely as a physical location, containing things but rather as a life–sustaining process, forming and transforming through the evolving existences of organisms, held within a web of dependencies. Thus, for Dewey, organisms are seen to live by ‘means’ of the environment, not in it. See LW 10 (pp. 18–20) for a brief but helpful outline of this stance and for a broad examination of Dewey’s ecological views, see Hickman (2007, pp. 131–177).

Intriguingly, while Idhe’s initial references were to predominantly to Husserl (see e.g., Idhe 1990), he has more recently drawn links to Dewey (see e.g., Idhe 2009). As such, we can say that postphenomenology has a Deweyan reference point at least.

It should be highlighted, this was explicitly not the point of the Morse Things study. Rather the point was to consider things in their own right.

Alben, L. (1996). Defining the criteria for effective interaction design. Interactions, 3(3), 11–15.

Alexander, T. M. (1987). John Dewey’s Theory of Art, Experience & Nature: The Horizons of Feeling. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.

Alexander, T. M. (2017). The human Eros: Eco-ontology and the aesthetics of existence. New York: Fordham University Press.

Anton, J. P. (2005). American naturalism and Greek philosophy. Amherst: Prometheus.

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues 8(2), 5–21.

Bannon, L. (1991). From human factors to human actors: The role of psychology and human computer interaction studies in system design. In J. Greenbaum & M. Kyng (Eds.), Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems (pp. 25–44). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Battarbee, K. (2004). Co-experience: Understanding user-experience in interactive systems. PhD Dissertation. Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Battarbee, K., & Koskinen, I. (2005). Co-experience: User experience as interaction. CoDesign, 1(1), 5–18.

Bergson, H. (1910). Time and free will (trans: Pogson FL). London: George Allen.

Bergson, H. (1911). Creative evolution (trans: Mitchell a). New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice–Hall Inc.

Boas, F. (1989). In G. W. Stocking (Ed.), A Franz Boas reader: The shaping of American anthropology, 1883–1911. New York: Basic Books.

Boisvert, R. D. (1988). Dewey’s metaphysics. New York: Fordham University Press.

Buchanan, R. (2009). Thinking about design: An historical perspective. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (Vol. 9, pp. 409–453). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Buxton, B. (2007). Sketching user experiences: Getting the design right and the right design. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

Campbell, J. (1995). Understanding John Dewey: Nature and cooperative intelligence. Chicago: Open Court Publishing.

Colόn, G. A. T., & Hobbs, C. A. (2015). The intertwining of culture and nature: Franz Boas, John Dewey, and Deweyan strands of American anthropology. Journal of the History of Ideas, 76(1), 139–162.

Dalsgaard, P. (2009). Designing engaging interactive environments – A pragmatist perspective.. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University.

Dewey J (MW 1–15). J. A. Boydston (Ed.) John Dewey the middle works, 1899–1924. Carbondale: University of Southern Illinois Press.

Dewey J (LW 1–17). J. A. Boydston (Ed.) John Dewey the later works, 1925–1953. Carbondale IL: University of Southern Illinois Press.

Dourish, P. (2001). Where The Action Is. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Forlizzi, J., & Ford, S. (2000). The building blocks of experience: An early framework for interaction designers. In Proceedings of the 3rd conference on designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 419–423). New York: ACM.

Forlizzi, J., & Battarbee, K. (2004). Understanding experience in interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 5th conference on designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and Tsechniques (pp. 261–268). New York: ACM.

James, W. (1981a). [1890]). In F. H. Burkhardt, F. Bowers, & I. K. Skrupkelis (Eds.), The collected works of William James: The principles of psychology, volume 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

James, W. (1981b). [1890]). In F. H. Burkhardt, F. Bowers, & I. K. Skrupkelis (Eds.), The collected works of William James: The principles of psychology, Volume 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Jones, W. F. (1983). Nature and natural science: The philosophy of Frederick JE Woodbridge. New York: Prometheus Books.

Gale, R. (2010). John Dewey’s quest for Unity: The journey of a promethean Mystic. New York: Prometheus Books.

Hassenzahl, M. (2003). The thing and I: Understanding the relationship between user and product. In M. Blythe, K. Overbeeke, A. Monk, & P. Wright (Eds.), Funology: From usability to enjoyment (pp. 31–42). Dordercht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hassenzahl, M., Beu, A., & Burmester, M. (2001). Engineering joy. IEEE Software, 18(1), 70–76.

Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience–A research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(2), 91–97.

Heidegger, M. (2010). [1927] Being and time (trans: Stambaugh J). State University of New York Press, Albany.

Hickman, L. (2007). Pragmatism as post-postmodernism: Lessons from John Dewey. New York: Fordham University Press.

Idhe, D. (1990). Technology and the Lifeworld: From garden to earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Idhe, D. (2009). Postphenomenology and Technoscience: The Peking University lectures. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Kutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer-interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human computer interaction (pp. 16–44). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Lallemand, C., Gronier, G., & Koenig, V. (2015). User experience: A concept without consensus? exploring practitioners’ perspectives through an international survey. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 35–48.

Lamont, C. (Ed.), (1959). Dialogue on John Dewey. Horizon Press, New York

Merleau Ponty, M. (2012). [1945] The Phenomenology of perception (trans: Smith C). Routledge, Abingdon.

Mead, G. H. (1934). In C. W. Morris (Ed.), Mind self and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McCarthy, J., & Wright, P. (2004). Technology as experience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

McGranahan, L. (2017). Darwinism and pragmatism: William James on evolution and self transformation. Abingdon: Routledge.

Morgenbesser, S. (1977). Dewey and his critics: Essays from the journal of philosophy. Lancaster PA: Lancaster Press.

Norman, D. A., Miller, J., & Henderson, A. (1995). What you see, some of what’s in the future, and how we go about doing it: HI at Apple Computer. In Conference companion on human factors in computing systems (Vol. 155). New York: ACM.

Overbeeke, K. (2007). The Aesthetics of the Impossible. TU Eindhoven, Eindhoven. Available via research.tue.nl https://research.tue.nl/en/publications/the-aesthetics-of-the-impossible Accessed 11 Feb 2020.

Overbeeke, K., Djadjadiningrat, T., Hummels, C., & Wensveen, S. A. G. (2002). Beauty in usability: Forget about ease of use. In W. Green & P. Jordan (Eds.), Pleasure with products: Beyond usability (pp. 9–18). London: Taylor and Francis.

Petersen, M. G., Iversen, O. S., Krogh, P. G., & Ludvigsen, M. (2004). Aesthetic interaction: A pragmatist’s aesthetics of interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 5th conference on designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 269–276). New York: ACM.

Randall, J. H. (1944). Epilogue: The nature of naturalism. In Y. H. Krikorian (Ed.), Naturalism and the human Spirit (pp. 354–382). New York: Columbia University Press.

Rodgers, Y. (2012). HCI theory: Classical, modern, and contemporary. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 5(2), 1–129.

Rodgers, Y., Sharp, H., & Preece, J. (2011). Interaction design: Beyond human computer interaction (3rd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.

Rorty, R. (1982). The consequences of pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Santayana, G. (1925). Dewey’s naturalistic metaphysics. The Journal of Philosophy, 22(25), 673–688.

Shedroff, N. (2001). Experience Design. Indianapolis: New Riders.

Sleeper, R. W. (1986). The necessity of pragmatism: John Dewey’s conception of philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Suchman, L. A. (1993). Do categories have politics? The language/action perspective reconsidered. In Proceedings of the third European conference on computer-supported cooperative work, ECSCW’93. Milan, Italy, 13–17 Sept 1993. Springer, Dordrecht (pp. 1–14).

Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Vera, A. H., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Situated action: A symbolic interpretation. Cognitive Science, 17(1), 7–48.

Wakkary, R. (2009). Experiencing interaction design: A pragmatic theory. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Plymouth: University of Plymouth.

Wakkary, R., Oogjes, D., Hauser, S., Lin, H., Cao, C., Ma, L., & Duel, T. (2017). Morse things: A design inquiry into the gap between things and us. In Proceedings of the 2017 conference on designing interactive systems (pp. 503–514). New York: ACM.

Welton, W. A. (Ed.). (2002). Plato’s forms: A variety of interpretations. Oxford: Lexington Books.

West, C. (1989). The American evasion of philosophy: A genealogy of pragmatism. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Wiener, P. P. (1949). Evolution and founders of pragmatism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new Foundation for Design. Norwood: Albex Publishing.

Wright, P., & McCarthy, J. (2010). Experience-centered design: Designers, users, and communities in dialogue. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 3(1), 1–123.

Title: Experiencing as Doing and Undergoing
Author: Brian S. Dixon
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Book: Dewey and Design
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-47470-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-47471-3

Copyright Year: 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47471-3_2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"