Dear ken,
Thank you for your message.
The term 'Art and Design' is used widely in the Design community at least in
the UK and Australia to refer to 40 or so Design disciplines whose work is
linked to the earlier 'Art and Design' colleges. I used it in that sense,
rather than 'Art' and 'Design' as separate fields.
I understand many people in many disciplines see the texts you listed as
being classics on 'wicked problems'.
My previous posts presented a clear argument, and I'm surprised it wasn't
obvious to you.
The argument I presented is simple contradiction via a 'black swan event'.
The exemplar: for many years it was widely believed swans were white (the
white swan theory). The discovery of black swans contradicted and collapsed
the 'white swan theory'.
Rittel and Weber (and the following literature) presented a theory of
'wicked problems' as not solvable (the 'wicked problem' theory - a white
swan theory).
I pointed out the existence of an extensive body of work that has
well-developed tools for solving 'wicked problems' and describes the solving
of 'wicked problems'. This is the equivalent of demonstrating the existence
of 'black swans', i.e. a 'black swan event'.
The argument is the 'black swan' literature demonstrating solutions to
wicked problems contradicts and collapses the 'white swan theory'
literature describing 'wicked problems' as unsolvable (including Rittel
and Weber's work ) .
This type of argument doesn't require deep explanation.
There may be a reason you believe the body of literature you referenced
and the last 50 years of 'belief' in 'wicked problems' should be regarded as
exempt from contradiction by evidence. If so, I'd love to hear it.
Best wishes,
Terry
==
Dr Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
PhD, B.A. (Hons) Eng, P.G.C.E
School of Design and Art, Curtin University, Western Australia
Psychology and Social Science, Edith Cowan University, Western Australia
Honorary Fellow, IEED, Management School, Lancaster University, UK
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks, Western Australia 6030
[log in to unmask] +61 (0)4 3497 5848
==
-----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: Wednesday, 12 December 2012 6:08 AM
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: Re: Wicked Problems
Hi, Terry,
Even though you've changed your earlier note to suggest that the titles I
offered on wicked problems are classics "seen from within Art and Design
fields," I still disagree. I've never come across this literature in
relation to art programs.
People in several design fields see these texts - and others - as classics
on the topic of wicked problems. These books and articles are used across a
wide range of fields, including HCI, computing, informatics, information
science, knowledge management, strategic planning, architecture, economics,
urban planning, regional planning, traffic management, medicine, public
health, environmental science, operations management, logistics, systems
planning, systems analysis, and more, along with disciplines linked to these
fields, including philosophy and sociology. These professions are design
fields as Herbert Simon defines them.
The texts are openings to inquiry on a difficult issue that is by nature
problematic. It's quite reasonable that one finds problematic issues in
generally useful contributions. That's the nature of conceptual growth and
theory development in every field. These nevertheless remain seminal texts
on wicked problems in every field that works with the issue.
Let's review the history of this conversation. It began with a request for
sources on designthinking in what is now another thread. One list member
posted the Rittel and Webber article on wicked problems. Rather than accept
it as one potentiallyuseful article among many, you challenged that specific
article, stating: "Theproblem is that Rittel and Weber's paper contains many
fundamental mistakes and false conclusions as I've documented elsewhere."
You linked your text. I read the text. In my view, at least, you did not
document "fundamental mistakes and false conclusions," but merely gave your
opinion on Rittel and Weber.
In the course of the conversation, I put forward a small, selected
bibliography on wicked problems by key authors from a dozen or so fields.
You believe that these texts are seen as classics in the art and design
fields, representing what you earlier labeled "the art and design
perspective." My view is that these texts are used and respected in most
fields that address these issues. As professions, these are design fields in
Herbert Simon's definition, but not "art and design fields." You've
described these texts and their impact inaccurately, and you haven't yet
documented your claims on Rittel and Webber.
Instead, you posted links that supposedly demonstrate a contradictory case
by example without explaining what these examples are or how you
specifically use these examples to contradict the view of wicked problems
you ascribe to the authors of the works posted here. None of the linked
texts seems to address wicked problems, nor do any seem to demonstrate that
"Rittel and Weber's paper contains many fundamental mistakes and false
conclusions." Since you claim that these offer contradiction by example, I'd
rather read your argument than read a dozen or linked articles to find they
don't add up. If you've an argument to make, please put it forward.
I'm proposing a subtle relationship to the issues of solution and
tractability in wicked problems. I stated that we can't "solve" wicked
problems. That is among the criteria that make a wicked problem "wicked."
Nevertheless, there are ways to address the class of problems known as
wicked problems, to "dissolve" them or to reduce them to partially tractable
problems. With respect to this range of problems, Rittel's articles and the
Rittel and Webber article remain quite useful.
The treatment of wicked problems across the literatures of the fields
concerned with wicked problems is sometimes problematic. Along with
problematic treatments, we see robust work. I'd argue that the texts in my
bibliography represent useful contributions and robust thinking.
It is also my view that you did not understand why the toy model I proposed
was a model, in the genuine sense of the word. It was a model because it
reflects Rittel's ten criteria on modest scale.
This thread suggests to me that it may be time to review the literature on
wicked problems and to write something from a contemporary perspective based
on current understandings. This won't be a post to the list, but a journal
article.
Your comments on Rittel and Webber startled me. So did your claim that
"Rittel and Weber's paper contains many fundamental mistakes and false
conclusions as I've documented elsewhere." When I read the document, I
decided to pose an alternate view.
At this point, an alternate view is as much as I can usefully put forward
here. I have notdocumented the validity or usefulness of Rittel and Webber,
or the texts in the bibliography. I did not intend to do so. What I have
documented is that these texts emerge from a dozen or so fields. While some
of the authors are in design fields, none are in "art and design" as
contrasted with the technical and scientific design fields. These texts have
impact in the authors' homes fields and in a wide variety of fields and
disciplines of design and the design sciences. I have not documented the
wide impact of these articles - that's too much to do in a short list
conversation, but a quick Google School search on Horst Rittel will quickly
demonstrate that this is the case - along with links to key Rittel papers in
PDF format.
If others wish to comment on wicked problems, I will read the notes with
interest. I'm going to withdraw from the thread on wicked problems at this
point.
Ken
Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia |
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Phone +61 3 9214
6102 | http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD
studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|