Hi Ken,
Thanks for your post and I can understand your frustration. We are not on
the same wavelength and I've been expressing myself badly.
I've realised that I'm sketching (clumsily I'll admit) one part of three of
an argument that design research and designers have a problem that has
crystallised around the way that we try to distinguish between 'wicked' and
'other' design situations.
Chuck has pointed to one of the other dimensions - that the issues relating
to wicked problems can be usefully conceptualised in other ways. In his post
he pointed to conceptualising the wicked/other problem discourse in terms of
internal human functioning and perceptions. He suggested that the
distinction disappears if you conceptualise it as he does.
Down the path I'm sketching in previous posts there are three typologies of
conceptualisation - A external (properties of objects, processes, etc); B
internal (Chuck's proposition is one of these); and C
epistemological/ontological frameworks (where you stand theoretically
speaking affects how you perceive the idea of problems).
As would be expected from a habitual focus on object properties, most
designers and design researchers see and define design and design problem
characteristics such as wicked-ness in the A dimension. More specifically,
they typically view it in a single topic of the range of potential
discourses in the A dimension - seeing wicked problems as an object with
properties. Commonly, the question asked is 'what are the differences
between a 'wicked' design problem and other forms of design problem?'
(similar to 'what are the differences in properties between an apple and an
orange?'). Another different pathway in the same A dimension of the external
is 'what are the properties of societies that define whether a design
problem is wicked or not?' Same focus on external properties except the
system boundary is drawn a little larger. Some of your explorations seem to
follow this pathway. Another different again focus in the A dimension is on
differences in design processes for 'wicked' and other problems.
Focusing on concerns of power and force and the control and ownership of
them (some of my posts) opens two other discourses. The first is in the A
external dimension. It breaks many of the cosier interpretations of whose
interests and which interests are included in design activity. An example of
the style and level of discourse and analysis that seems helpful to do this
are those of your namesake Dr. George Friedman at Stratfor (see the free
reports at www.stratfor.com) and Bruce Schneier's Cryptogram and essays
(http://www.schneier.com/essays.html). Phil Agre follows much the same path
as does Doris Lessing.
The second is it opens up a critical pathway into the C discourse of theory
foundations. It problematises the wicked discourse in theory terms and
asks,' Sure we've defined things in this way and are comfortable with them
to get some easy answers - but what if that picture is
naïve/false/wrong/inappropriate/ incomplete etc etc?'
The wicked problem discourse has been going in in the same style for 35
years. New paint (occasionally but rarely) on the same shutters. The wicked
/other categorisation may be a false distinction (as Chuck suggests). It may
be unhelpful to improving design. It may be that viewing it in a different
way offers new territories for exploration in design research. We don't
know. 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 feel we could do better. Perhaps it needs a creative designer
to think out a good alternative that is more useful?
Thoughts?
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken
Friedman
Sent: Sunday, 22 April 2007 7:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Legitimate Interests, Stakes, and Ethics -- Long Post
Dear Terry,
Come on, my friend. I understand the etymology and dictionary definition of
the word. I've said that in three posts now. I have also stated clearly that
I use the word in the same extended sense that such scholars and thinkers as
Etienne Wenger and Jean Lave do, and many more.
As I wrote in my last note, if you can find a better word, please do.
I have stated what I mean by the term: "any person with reasonable rights by
virtue of being a human being involved in a situation where he or she has a
stake."
Because the larger context of this conversation involves the issues of law
and ethics, my earlier referred to such legal scholars as Ruth Buchanan,
Rebecca Johnson, or Robert Cover.
If you've got something to say about the larger issues I raise, I'll welcome
the comment. If you goal is to state that the word "legitimate" has a
specific technical meaning and a specific etymology, I agree. You're right.
Some of us nevertheless use the word in an extended sense. That grandest of
all dictionaries, the Oxford English Dictionary, notes that several of the
earliest English usages do not derive from the usage in law. On this, the
OED states, "Etymologically, the word expresses a status which has been
conferred or ratified by some authority; = LEGITIMATED. In English, however,
it has taken the place of the older LEGITIME, and even in the earliest
examples shows no trace of the original participial sense."
I am using the word in a current usage that the OED defines as: "In extended
use: valid or acceptable; justifiable, reasonable."
If you want to use another word, feel free. I have been using the term
legitimate in its extended use. In the context of wicked problems, the idea
is the important issue.
Yours,
Ken
Terry Love wrote:
Legitimate is direct from 'legalis' L - law
Legitimation and law _always_ in the limit depends on force - the ability
for one constituency to _enforce_ its choice of laws on others. Ethics
provides a commentary.
('Priviledge - 'private law' - Agre's article on conservatism addresses
this well.)
--
Prof. Ken Friedman
Institute for Communication, Culture, and Language
Norwegian School of Management
Oslo
Center for Design Research
Denmark's Design School
Copenhagen
+47 46.41.06.76 Tlf NSM
+47 33.40.10.95 Tlf Privat
email: [log in to unmask]
|