 |
 |
OK I wonder if the accusation that those writing about wicked problems are putting out nonsense in fact applies to what is put out below. You should read RW's paper, before you speculate on what the claim that there is no definite formulation means. a wicked problem lacks a definitive formulation because of contested goals and values and ends. TO say that a wicked problem lacks definitive formation does not mean that, if x is a wicked problem, then it cannot be formulated definitively as a problem, and therefore is not a problem. Quite the contrary a wicked problem continues to exist as a problem, or better as a multitude of problems depending on the number of ways to problematise it. Indeed, because the problem is wicked and not tame, it is very hard to make it disappear, because if someone backs out on a problematisation, another possible way of problematizing it is available. If it were a tame problem, once it ceases to be problematized, then it is no more a problem cos if it is a tame problem there is only one frame or way of problematizing it, thanks to one clear goal. Social engineering and social policy is all about wicked problems, because there are so many parties with so many values and their importted interpretation of the "problem". The recognition that there are wicked problems is of utmost important. The danger is to treat reality as if it were a tame problem, defined by one set of values, so that say when you have solved the economics, say, there's nothing else to worry about, or be concerned about. It's not that wicked problems cannot be defined. Rather wicked problems are ill-defined, because given many contested definitions. Once there are a multitude of ways of definition the problem qua problem, you have in a sense a kind of wicked problem if the different problematizations are because of different values and goals. There is, as it were, a kind of under-determination. J ________________________________________ From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Mike Zender [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 10:38 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Wicked Problems Ken, Keith, Terry, et. al.: <snip> 1) There is no definitive formulation of [X]. <end snip> After observing this interesting thread I have this hypothesis: The wicked problem definition (in this thread) is a linguistic ploy, similar to the phrase: “It’s a non-existent entity.” Those word symbols “It’s a non-existent entity” individually carry meaning but what they convey together is meaningless: nonsense. It's like something from Lewis Carroll. As soon as the wicked problem is defined, it ceases to exist. So long as it's undefinable, it "is." Very clever! Now, if you could just prove, by some shred of evidence that the undefinable "is" but, there it goes, as soon as the evidence exists the wicked problem disappears. One can’t offer an example of a wicked problem because by definition it can’t be defined. 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------