Folks,

And I opened my email just now to find a note from Clive that adds a
suggestion that I wanted to add to my own.  The link from chat and blog to a
working meeting to tangible publications.  Thanks, Clive.  The middle step
can be very useful in bringing forward a sustained conversation.  I strongly
agree with Clive that in the discussion so far there are some very
fundamental issues for the field in both theory and practice.

Why not find a grant from one of our governmental research agencies to
pursue the matter and add some resources for travel and housing?  The UK,
US, Germany, Mexico, Australia, or another country?  Use the Australian
situation as an opportunity to argue that a sound working meeting can lead
to tangible publications in design journals?  After all of the earlier
complaining about the new emphasis in some countries on tangible
publication, why not step up to the plate and meet the challenge with a
working conference that leads to high quality publications in one or more of
our journals?

Richard (aka Dick)

Richard Buchanan
Carnegie Mellon University


On 3/29/07 12:22 PM, "Clive Dilnot" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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