In light of the recent discussions where 'wicked problem' and 'thinking'
have (re)surfaced, I wonder if we might enrich the discussions by
referring to the following articles:
1 "Wicked Problems Revisited" by Richard Coyne 2005. Design Studies 26
(5-17).
ABSTRACT
I revisit Rittel and Weber’s essay on the ‘wicked problem,’ and relate
it to
more recent theories about rationality and professionalism. Perhaps the
most provocative challenge comes from Deleuze and Guattari’s difficult
commentary on ‘the rhizome,’ which has currency within much design
studio culture. I posit the controversial conclusion that ‘wickedness’
is not
aberrant. It is formulations of professionalism which pay homage to the
idea of formal rules, goal setting, and calculation as representing the
norm
of rationality, that present as deviations.
2 "The Bodily Disciplined: Rewriting Teaching Competence and the
Doctrine of Reflection" by Peter Erlandson 2005. Journal of Philosophy
of Education. 39:4.
Shortly after the publication of The Reflective Practitioner
(1983) and the sequel Educating the Reflective Practitioner
(1987) ‘reflection-in-action’ became a major concept in
teacher education. The concept has, however, been criticised
on ontological/epistemological as well as practice oriented
accounts (Van Manen, 1995; Newman, 1999; Erlandson,
1995). In this paper I argue that reflection-in-action is a
theoretical construction that snatches the interacting,
working, and producing bodies from their practices, and
consequently, matters of politics, of discipline, of institutional
interaction and of the workings of social categories are
reduced to matters of thinking. Turning to Foucault (1991)
I claim that the doctrine of reflection is interwoven in the
logic of discipline.
Rosan
|