Also I believe when they wrote that piece in 73 they we having a stab at Herbert Simon, who before the 3rd edition of his Sciences of the Artificial basically thought of design and policy deliberation as problem solving, ie figuring the means (even if satisficing) to a fixed goal, whereas theorists like Schon had already noted that designers sometimes are faced with having to engage new goals that emerge, etc. Simon did not revise this until much later, talking about design w/o final goals but possibly going too far (for me anyway) when he went into endorsing intuition in his latest Administrative Behavior. In fact sometimes in his late journal engineering educational pieces he backpaddles on this--i feel.
________________________________________
From: CHUA Soo Meng Jude (PLS)
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 12:17 AM
To: David Sless; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: generalizability of research through/by design
Sorry I meant Rittel and Webber, not Rittel and Horst!
J
________________________________________
From: CHUA Soo Meng Jude (PLS)
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:02 PM
To: David Sless; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: generalizability of research through/by design
Dear David
If you disagree with this, I would argue that you haven't quite grasped the very notion of a wicked problem according to Rittel and Horst. I doubt he was being ironical in the Policy Piece when he said this
Also your piece on climate change as a wicked problem is interesting but I have never seen anyone representing a wicked problem as an evil problem.
respectfully
Jude
________________________________________
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Sless [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 1:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: generalizability of research through/by design
On 03/02/2011, at 2:14 PM, CHUA Soo Meng Jude (PLS) wrote:
> framing or identifying the problem is itself the problem
If Rittel did say this, he's gone down a notch in my estimation, unless he said it ironically, in which case he goes up three notches.
Thank you Lubomir and Keith for agreeing, and spotting the oblique reference to dialectical materialism and also to Dewey. I like the notion of perplexity, so long as we don't think of the end point as 'understanding'. I tend to think of perplexity as the norm and understanding as a temporary suspension of perplexity.
Warm Regards,
From a mercifully dry Melbourne
David
blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
web: http://www.communication.org.au
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
CEO • Communication Research Institute •
• helping people communicate with people •
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640
Skype: davidsless
60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
>
National Institute of Education (Singapore) http://www.nie.edu.sg
DISCLAIMER : The information contained in this email, including any attachments, may contain confidential information.
This email is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) listed above. Unauthorised sight, dissemination or any other
use of the information contained in this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email by fault, please
notify the sender and delete it immediately.
|