Dear Terry,
You write, “The problem is that Rittel and Weber's paper contains many fundamental mistakes and false conclusions as I've documented elsewhere.” I followed the link to your comments. I’d disagree with the notion that you documented the fundamental mistakes and false conclusions. IMHO, you stated your opinion on wicked problems without demonstrating or documenting a way to address the multiple-loop problems you described, and without demonstrating that Rittel and Webber are mistaken in their description of a class of problems.
The notes preceding your comments and the later notes offer useful reading. Peter Jones and Harold Nelson’s notes were especially useful … Harold argued that the discussion of wicked problems is often problematic because one cannot “solve” wicked problems. Nevertheless, he noted that one can reduce wicked problems to tame problems, dissolving them through a design stance. Another way to solve some kinds of wicked problems is through negotiation – these involve cases where the wickedness of the problem rests on intractable differences of opinion. If one agrees to a compromise, one can gain traction.
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.
Making the claim that the Rittel and Webber paper is typified by “fundamental mistakes and false conclusions” is different to documenting your views. As many have noted, design researchers often misuse the notion of wicked problems – that’s not Rittel’s fault or Webber’s.
In my view, Rittel’s articles and the Rittel and Webber article remain quite useful, though the issue of wicked problems is often – in its own right – problematic. Rittel’s concept describes several classes of problems subject to the series of ten constraints and criteria that he describes. The fact thatsuch problems generate difficulties is quite different to the case that they may, indeed, constitute a class of problem.
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|