All,

I open my e-mail this morning to find an e-mail by Dick very similar to the one I was going to write. There is no point repeating these points but I would like to very strongly endorse the call Dick makes in his closing paragraphs.  



These matters require more than chat and blogs.  They require some careful

writing and publishing--because they require careful, sustained

argumentation.



If people are committed to this topic, is it time to carry the commitment

forward in well-developed articles?  Isn't it time to begin designing the

arguments that will make this early discussion significant?



Shouldn't we demonstrate to the ostensive audience of this list--Ph.D.

students--how to carry preliminary ideas forward into substantive work that

can be read, assessed, and critiqued in public discourse?  It would be a

contribution to the field at a time when we need such contributions very

badly.



I believe many people would be interested in seeing a productive outcome

from this discussion and not a stalemate.

 



 This thread has touched on a number of issues crucial to how we define the field and to the intellectual and operational issues which characterize design research, philosophy and thinking. 



Might one way of meeting Dick's "targets"  be through a symposium devoted to this problem (symposium, not conference) in which developed papers are circulated in advance with a view towards publication (electronic if not tangible)? 



Clive Dilnot

Parsons, New School University

Clive Dilnot

Professor of Design Studies

Parsons School of Design,

New School University,

66 Fifth Avenue,

New York, NY 10011





>>> Richard Buchanan <[log in to unmask]> 03/29/07 8:58 AM >>>



Colleagues,



After following the discussion of "wicked problem" for a while, it seems

pretty clear that a "wicked problem" is, itself, a wicked problem.  The

discussion illustrates its own subject.  That is, "wicked problem" is an

issue of debate involving different perspectives, values, and philosophic

assumptions among those interested in the discussion.  It cannot be resolved

by appeal to any situational facts--even in the texts that offer substantive

discussions of the subject (i.e. Rittel's text or others, which offer only

perspectives on the matter).  And it has no stopping rules, unless weariness

of the participants eventually stops the discussion.



In design, stopping because of weariness is a failure of design.  Success

comes not from selecting one or another perspective as true and dismissing

other perspectives as irrelevant.  Instead, design success comes from

finding (discovering--read "inventing") a way forward that does not require

people to abandon their perspectives yet allows a line of work on which all

may agree to further effort.



In the case of "wicked problems" as a wicked problem in design theory and

design practice, the way forward is not to "part company," as Terry

proposes, but to agree that there are philosophic issues requiring further

careful investigation--without the prejudice of selecting one over another.

In short, the discussion has arrived at the door of genuine philosophic

discussion, requiring more sustained discussion than is possible in a chat

space or blog.  



What is there in the nature of design and design "problems"--whatever one

may means by "problem"--that allows different perspectives?  What do

different formulations of a "design problem" signify for theory as well as

practice?  What are the differences among "wicked problems," "ill-structured

problems," "ill-defined problems," "contradictions," "issues," and other

characterizations of the subject?







These matters require more than chat and blogs.  They require some careful

writing and publishing--because they require careful, sustained

argumentation.



If people are committed to this topic, is it time to carry the commitment

forward in well-developed articles?  Isn't it time to begin designing the

arguments that will make this early discussion significant?



Shouldn't we demonstrate to the ostensive audience of this list--Ph.D.

students--how to carry preliminary ideas forward into substantive work that

can be read, assessed, and critiqued in public discourse?  It would be a

contribution to the field at a time when we need such contributions very

badly.



I believe many people would be interested in seeing a productive outcome

from this discussion and not a stalemate.



Richard



Richard Buchanan

Carnegie Mellon University