Hi Jude,
You are most likely correct and I have not quite grasped the notion of a wicked problem. I suspect the world is full of things I have not quite grasped. I was simply looking at the surface grammar and logic of the statement.
> framing or identifying the problem is itself the problem
It's either meaningless or a playful and arresting use of language to make a rhetorical point. Similarly at the surface level, the term 'wicked' is connected to evil by common usage. Its only when it is opposed to 'tame'a special rather than common usagethat it takes on the special meaning given to it by Rittel. For a reader not to associate with the common usage of the term they would have had to have read Rittel or one of the many articles about it. In my experience, albeit limited, many readers (including phd students) do not always check original sources and in such circumstances they are likely to fall back on the common usage.
We live in a wicked world, man!
David
--
blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
web: http://www.communication.org.au
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
CEO Communication Research Institute
helping people communicate with people
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640
Skype: davidsless
60 Park Street Fitzroy North Melbourne Australia 3068
On 04/02/2011, at 3:17 AM, CHUA Soo Meng Jude (PLS) wrote:
> Sorry I meant Rittel and Webber, not Rittel and Horst!
> J
> ________________________________________
> From: CHUA Soo Meng Jude (PLS)
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:02 PM
> To: David Sless; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: generalizability of research through/by design
>
> Dear David
>
> If you disagree with this, I would argue that you haven't quite grasped the very notion of a wicked problem according to Rittel and Horst. I doubt he was being ironical in the Policy Piece when he said this
> Also your piece on climate change as a wicked problem is interesting but I have never seen anyone representing a wicked problem as an evil problem.
>
> respectfully
> Jude
> ________________________________________
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Sless [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 1:30 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: generalizability of research through/by design
>
> On 03/02/2011, at 2:14 PM, CHUA Soo Meng Jude (PLS) wrote:
>
>> framing or identifying the problem is itself the problem
>
> If Rittel did say this, he's gone down a notch in my estimation, unless he said it ironically, in which case he goes up three notches.
>
> Thank you Lubomir and Keith for agreeing, and spotting the oblique reference to dialectical materialism and also to Dewey. I like the notion of perplexity, so long as we don't think of the end point as 'understanding'. I tend to think of perplexity as the norm and understanding as a temporary suspension of perplexity.
>
> Warm Regards,
>
> From a mercifully dry Melbourne
>
> David
>
> blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
> web: http://www.communication.org.au
>
> Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
> CEO Communication Research Institute
> helping people communicate with people
>
> Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
> Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640
> Skype: davidsless
>
> 60 Park Street Fitzroy North Melbourne Australia 3068
>
>>
> National Institute of Education (Singapore) http://www.nie.edu.sg
>
> DISCLAIMER : The information contained in this email, including any attachments, may contain confidential information.
> This email is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) listed above. Unauthorised sight, dissemination or any other
> use of the information contained in this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email by fault, please
> notify the sender and delete it immediately.
|