Context: Conversation theory and second order cybernetics both imply that conversation does not entail a transfer of meaning, but a construction of meaning by both of the conversation partners. Problem: This evokes the question of the conditions that may support or enable this construction of understanding. Method: Through recounting a conversation with Ernst von Glasersfeld I identify generosity and flexibility as a basic condition and format of conversational exchanges. I employ linguistic communication across language barriers as well as making music together as illustrative examples. Results: Generosity seems a key ingredient for enabling conversations as well as a personal skill or talent. Bridging the gaps in communication that result from differences in personal experiential worlds is only possible through goodwill enacted in the listener’s direction of his own imagination. This paper extends and connects radical constructivist notions of constraints and experience, as introduced by von Glasersfeld, with Glanville’s description of the role of generosity in conversation and Wittgenstein’s notion of the “Vorstellungsklavier.” Implications: Generosity can be characterized as the ability to move from communicating to appreciating and accommodating the other in conversations. The implications I draw are limited to the scope of my personal reflections and experiences.

Key words: listening, generosity, conversation, experience, constraints, Vorstellungsklavier

Upshot: Responding to and further developing the points raised by the open peer commentaries, I discuss a range of themes, including possible roles of lecture-based teaching in a radical constructivist approach to education, approaches to the teaching of large cohorts in a radical constructivist manner, the role of assessment in students’ learning experiences, the distinction of “models of” student learning, contrasted with “models for” student learning, the distinction of literal conversation from an atmosphere conducive to conversation, and the use of design-based tasks to support and encourage students’ individual conceptual constructing.

Context: Structural design education in architecture is typically conceived as a scientific subject taught in a lecture format and based on a transactional view of learning. This approach misses opportunities to contribute to and integrate with design-studio-based architectural education. Problem: How can radical constructivism inform a design-based pedagogy of structural design in the context of large cohorts of Chinese learners? Method: The paper outlines how radical constructivist and second order cybernetic perspectives are reflected in an alternative educational approach to structural design. This approach encourages students’ individual learning while negotiating constraints deriving from large cohorts as well as the educational expectations of Chinese learners. Results: Teaching outcomes as well as students’ comments show successes in engaging students in adopting a more personal and active attitude in their learning. Students appreciate and praise learning grounded in experience as well as collaborative, peer-led learning. Challenges remain in establishing a more dialogical learning situation and in supporting individual students’ learning in large student cohorts. Implications: Limitations arise from the constraints imposed by large cohorts, limited manpower and an institutional preference for teaching towards written examinations. The research and teaching development presented are ongoing. This paper may inform educators in the fields of architecture and engineering as well as, more generally, educators who seek to develop their teaching based on a radical constructivist epistemology in the context of large cohorts. Constructivist content: The teaching approach presented links a radical constructivist perspective based on Ernst von Glasersfeld’s work with second-order cybernetics in the context of design-based education. The paper discusses challenges and opportunities for this approach in the context of large cohorts of Chinese learners.

Key words: Experiential learning, Ernst von Glasersfeld, learning through design, feedback, Chinese learners.

Open peer commentary on the article “Designing Academic Conferences in the Light of Second-Order Cybernetics” by Laurence D. Richards. Upshot: Richards’s article presents a well-argued discussion of conversational conferences, with a particular focus on the design of such conferences. Richards bases his discussion on many years of personal experience with conversational conferences, primarily those organized by and for the American Society for Cybernetics. I particularly appreciate that Richards writes not only on cybernetics, but also in a cybernetic manner. As I find the article comprehensive and thorough, I mainly add further depth and discussion to some aspects of Richards’s article in the following sections, such as Richards’s distinction between conventional academic conferences and conversational conferences, conversation theory in relation to design, and the question of how conversational conferences can be designed.

This paper discusses the close relationships between design, second order cybernetics and radical constructivism that Ranulph Glanville has identified in his writings over the past decade. In linking these three fields, Glanville has established an overarching picture that shows how action, ethics and epistemology are related in a mutually complementing manner. While Glanville does not explicitly link all three fields in one dedicated paper, he elucidates one of these relationships each in three of his writings. In ‘Radical Constructivism = Second-order Cybernetics’ (2012) Glanville asserts that second-order cybernetics and radical constructivism are ‘opposite sides of the same coin. ’ Glanville lists seven core concepts of radical constructivism as stated by Ernst von Glasersfeld, and relates them to second-order cybernetic concepts. ‘Construction and Design’ (2006) shows how design is a necessarily constructivist activity-both in terms of the design of concepts and the design of objects and processes. In ‘Try Again. Fail Again. Fail Better: The Cybernetics in Design and the Design in Cybernetics’ (2007), Glanville presents second-order cybernetics as a theory for design, and characterizes design as cybernetics in practice. Drawing primarily upon these three papers, I construct a condensed version of Glanville’s big picture. The value of the connections made lies in showing the role of each field in relation to the others, which both informs and affects each of the three fields thus connected.

Key words: Ranulph Glanville, design, radical constructivism, second-order cybernetics

Open peer commentary on the article “Design Research as a Variety of Second-Order Cybernetic Practice” by Ben Sweeting. Upshot: Based on Sweeting’s central question of what design can bring to cybernetics, this commentary extends and adds further depth to the target article. Aspects discussed include the nature of practice in relation to design, the introduction of designerly ways of acting and thinking through acting to cybernetics, and the re-introduction of material experimentation typical of early cybernetics.

Open peer commentary on the article “Heterarchical Reflexive Conversational Teaching and Learning as a Vehicle for Ethical Engineering Curriculum Design” by Philip Baron. Upshot: I question the scope of curriculum design as proposed by the target article in relation to radical constructivist learning theory and terminology. In addition, I provide contextualization and clarification regarding the relationships between learning, teaching and design.

This paper introduces a teaching approach that applies the circular and conversational nature of design to itself. To this end we have developed workshops that, within the time frame of usually five days over three weekends, allow students to abandon and renegotiate preconceived terms of engagement and goals in design conversations and to develop appreciation for, and readiness to adopt, unforeseen events with unexpected qualities. We show how avoiding goal-driven linear processes, and embracing circular causality, can provide a fertile environment for students to develop new ideas not only in applied designing but also in design management.

Over the course of the past 70 years, the objectives of CA (cellular automata) research shifted from speculative and illustrative purposes without immediate goals outside of given implementations to the more utilitarian scientific and engineering objectives of simulating, controlling and predicting other phenomena. Looking back at our own 10-year history of CA related work, however, we recognize a generally inverse tendency from utilitarian objectives to finding more illustrative and speculative value. In this paper, we present a reflection on our own body of CA work, and we discuss the qualities of the various outcomes and insights we gained from a second-order cybernetic perspective. We argue that much of our own CA work may best be understood as creating machines for showing and for repurposing that allow their observers to gain new (second-order cybernetic) ways of seeing from interacting with them.

Key words: Cellular automata, design, circular causality, science, cybernetics, predictability, showing, repurposing.