Dear Klaus,
Thank you for your thoughts. I’ve changed the header to “Wicked Problems.” My suspicion is that people may have more to say on this – and it’s a thread quite distinct from Erik’s request for articles and books useful to an expanded concept of design thinking. Since Terry decided to debate Stefanie’s contribution rather than accepting it as one position among many, there should be room for a thread on wicked problems.
Where it comes to wicked problems, you’re quite right – the toy problem in my post is real, but minor. It has larger parallels in the world of human experience. I used it to demonstrate possibilities because it had the useful properties of a model.
There is much more to be said, and I agree entirely with your views.
Yours,
Ken
Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Phone +61 3 9214 6102 | http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design
Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
—snip—
i want to reconsider your toy problem:
[Quote from KF post begins] A toy model of a wicked problem is a case in which three friends want to go to a movie. One wants an action film, one wants a weepie, and one wants a light comedy. If neither is willing to change preferences, this is a wickedproblem. If they agree to any kind of solution - two successive coin tosses, a trade-off for the next movie night, a decision to go to a sporting even instead - they dissolve the problem. [Quote from KF post ends]
as stated, this problem is not solvable at all. it might be dissolved when a designer can convince the three friends that some other criteria could be adopted that overrides the three positions, such as having fun together or what you are suggesting.
the wicked problem involves language.
your toy example could be quite real in the analogue case of the middle-east conflict. as long as the two parties claim ownership of land with the implication that only one can have it, the conflict continues. if they can come to see that control of land is secondary to trading work, resources, or education to get jobs, people may learn to live together. this, like the toy example, and rittel's wicked problems are based on conceptions, convictions, and conceptual frames (such as problem solving) which can hardly be put into dynamic equations.
—snip—
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|