Hi Ken,
Thanks for a good post. Can you expand a bit on how you see
'legitimacy'/'legitimate' and the processes of legitimating. For example, do
you see it specific to the legal institutions that can insist on
legitimation by force, or negotiated agreement based on mutual benefits
independent of force.
Cheers,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken
Friedman
Sent: Friday, 20 April 2007 2:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Interests
Friends,
Three common issues run through this excellent thread.
One is the idea that problems involve legitimate problem owners, that is,
stakeholders. Stakeholders have greater or lesser stakes in any problem. One
reason that wicked problems become wicked is the fact that different
stakeholders see the problem in different ways.
Different positions and interests will constrain the possible solutions that
any stakeholder or stakeholder group will accept.
The second issue arises from the legitimacy of stakeholder interests.
Human beings reasonably understand and respect the legitimacy of their own
interests and the interests of their allies. They often fail to understand
or respect the legitimacy of stakeholder interests among groups that fall
outside the group they would consider peers, equals, or allies. (This is a
poor shorthand description of a lengthy analytical argument. It involves the
issue of how individuals and groups attribute standing, status, and
legitimacy to other individuals and groups.)
Problems become difficult to solve when legitimate stakeholders say "we own
that problem" without recognizing the equally legitimate claims of other
stakeholders. Many problems are essentially political [see definition,
below] in the largest sense of the term that includes the governance of
organizations or communities. Generating political solutions to problems
involves the application of power. If stakeholder groups disagree on the
legitimacy of the political process, they will not agree that the problem
has been solved.
The third issue involves the question of resolving such problems.
Klaus and others captured the issue beautifully in discussion the
distinctions between "solution" and "resolution." The solution space to many
problems opens when we resolve political priorities or shape agreements
between and among stakeholders.
Those of us who have attended Anders Skoe's strategic problem solving
workshops at La Clusaz and elsewhere have seen the rich array of techniques
available for identifying and understanding a wide variety of stakeholder
interests, representing these to all participating stakeholders, and
reaching a negotiated agreement at different stages of problem
identification and solution choice. Skoe's method is especially interesting
because it often explicitly asks stakeholders to recognize that a problem
identification or solution choice is not their preferred choice while
accepting it as legitimate given the legitimacy of the process and the
understanding that it will be possible to review the results at a later
time.
One of the most interesting writers on the entanglement of interest and
policy at the macro-economic level is Albert O. Hirschman. The title of his
1977 study summarizes the issue nicely: The Passions and the Interests. Some
of the new work on complexity studies in organization theory and economics
addresses the difficulty of understanding the process, while suggesting slow
steps toward better ways of working.
In design research, Dori Tunstall is working on some of these issues in her
work on design and governmentality.
I look forward to the continuing thread.
Ken
--
Merriam-Webster's (1993: 901) defines politics as:
1 a: the art or science of government b: the art or science concerned with
guiding or influencing governmental policy c: the art or science concerned
with winning and holding control over a government. 2:
political actions, practices, or policies. 3 a: political affairs or
business; especially: competition between competing interest groups or
individuals for power and leadership (as in a government) b :
political life especially as a principal activity or profession c :
political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices
4: the political opinions or sympathies of a person 5 a:
the total complex of relations between people living in society b :
relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen
or dealt with from a political point of view <office politics>.
--
References
Hirschman, Albert O. 1977. The Passions and the Interests. Political
Arguments for Capitalism before Its Triumph. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Merriam-Webster, Inc. 1993. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.
Tenth edition. Springfield, Massachusetts.
--
Prof. Ken Friedman
Institute for Communication, Culture, and Language Norwegian School of
Management Oslo
Center for Design Research
Denmark's Design School
Copenhagen
+47 46.41.06.76 Tlf NSM
+47 33.40.10.95 Tlf Privat
email: [log in to unmask]
|