Terry, I was doing my best to stay out of this lively discussion. I even
mentioned the controversies Don and Birger raised regarding design research
and action research methodologies in class today (Research Methods, core
course in Mdes Strategic Foresight and Innovation). Birger will be visiting
our good class in March, and as the discourse is so current, I considered it
an introduction to his ideas expressed in "Discussions and Movements in
Design Research" in the context of a methods discussion.

The Greek tradition extended the necessity for high quality observations and
special communicative forms to dialogue. Dialogue, as opposed to rhetoric,
is a language process that draws on multiple perspectives to co-construct a
meta-view that leads to informed design and civic action (in the Greeks case
and in democratic design). Structured Dialogic Design was developed by Greek
systems thinker Aleco Christakis, whose philosophy of design is based on the
collaborative construction of meaning and action as a foundation for
consensus in designing for complex social systems.  This mixed-reasoning,
mixed-method process was developed by Warfield and Christakis after the
original Club of Rome decided to run the World Model system dynamics
experiment with Jay Forrester and the Meadows', after declining the proposal
of Hasan Ozbekhan to invest stakeholders in what he called the global
problematique. SDD was developed soon after (at Battelle) as a dialogic
design method for complex social systemic problems, such as urban planning,
peace negotiation, species and resource management. Hundreds of cases are in
the peer-reviewed literature from the 1970's to today (some are listed at
http://globalagoras.org ), yet design schools and social sciences generally
no little of the process or its applications. We teach it at the other OCADU
course I teach, Systemic Design.

I depart from Terry in agreeing with the social systems school that wicked
problems are different by definition, have unpredictable patterns of
development, and are impossible to measure for intervention. The very notion
of "problem" is a mental model and not a phenomenon in the world, and
agreement on problem solving must be reached by people with investment and
stake in the actions to be resolved. Wicked problems are layered "problem
systems" that are defined by agreement and not observation.  Horst Rittel
described 10 properties of wicked problems, and most of them are
observations about the impossibility of conventional solutions (or
"design"). Social design processes that observe these principles can be
considered scientifically based but not positivistic or linear, they are
dialogic and socially constructed, in the group hermeneutic spirit of
Habermas' communicative action. The SDD process grew from Warfield's (and
Aleco Christakis') life's work to develop a science of design, an axiomatic
and quantifiable, even repeatable and measurable, instrumented dialogic
process that generates high quality observations and significantly better
planning than known alternatives. 
 
One of our methodological research projects at OCADU is developing a new
generation of dialogic design methods based on these foundations, extending
it beyond planning and systems design into new scenario and foresight
practices for long-horizon problems. These are problems that may be
supported by, but not solved by, OR-style modeling and simulation or
design-led prototyping and generative design.

Peter

Peter Jones, Ph.D. 
Associate Professor, Faculty of Design
Sr. Fellow, Strategic Innovation Lab (sLab)

OCAD University
205 Richmond Street West, Toronto, Canada  M5V 1V6 
http://designdialogues.com

<from terry>

A simplified picture of this view of science goes like this:

In the Greek political public decision-making process, it proved beneficial
to some to develop and refine powerful skills to persuade others to hold the
same opinions as oneself. This body of skills and knowledge became called
'rhetoric'.

Some key figures in Greek thinking identified that in many cases this did
not produce the best outcomes and often did not produce the outcomes that
people had been persuaded to believe via rhetoric.

Some of these key figures in Greek thinking identified that various issues
needed to be addressed to ensure that outcomes were as expected and to
develop approaches by which  the best outcomes could be predicted. This was
seen as an approach to develop 'knowledge that is of better quality and more
reliable'.

The issues that needed to be addressed included:

*   Ensuring that observations about the world were accurate and reliable
(and hence trustworthy). 

*   Ensuring that any reasoning was sound,  and free of personal bias and
manipulation. 

*   Ensuring that situations in which multiple possible explanations were
possible were identified. 

*   Developing a meta-level knowledge of the approaches and methods useful
to develop this 'knowledge that is of better quality and more reliable'.

*   Developing a special way of communicating that is better suited to
identifying, expressing and reasoning with this knowledge that is of better
quality and more reliable.  

The scope of this endeavour to develop knowledge that is of better quality
and more reliable is extensive as it covers the natural, 'philosophical',
social, political  and meta-physical realms.

This generic approach to develop knowledge that is of better quality and
more reliable is what became called 'science'.