Terry said:
> At the moment the main purpose of discussing wicked problems seems to
> be to hammer in fence posts for disciplines that appear nervous of their
> territory.
I suspect you mean me Terry. One reason I pursue the issue is the flip
side of what you say - I see too many people asserting that they are
designing when they are only operating rules, whether those rules are
numerical or aesthetic or something else. At a time when disciplinary
boundaries are in flux we need to be able to distinguish between
designing and not designing. Unlike you I find the wicked problem idea
very useful for that purpose.
The other value of the wicked problem is that it is a transmissible
idea. We have had quite a few people pointing out that similar or
equally valid thinking has been developed by others but we have a
responsibility to our field/s of study and practice to provide clear
formulations, even while more advanced or more complex thinking is
developing. Rittel's big contribution was to come up with a very clear
and specific prescription, I'll go on using it in teaching and policy
discussions until somebody gives me a better lever. It has had an effect
on the thinking of quite a few people that I work with who needed a way
of understanding what designers are for (they had their own rather
simplistic ideas which were damaging).
best wishes
Chris
|