Great post!
Sincerely,
Ali
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 16:50 David Sless <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > On 29 Feb 2020, at 5:58 am, Richard Herriott <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > Most "problems" as in things to be done are straightforward and are
> labelled routine or work but are the tip of the iceberg of tasks.
> > Only a few merit special attention and that´s the kind we might deal
> with. Of them most are still tame problems. And then there is a small
> transition between tame problems and truly wicked problems. Designers do
> these ones. Because they not-quite clearly routine or intractable they get
> missed because people don´t know to do a bit of scoping.
>
> Once again, I beg to differ, but I think we are in many areas in
> agreement. There are no ‘problems’ in the world or the universe. Black
> holes, entropy and evolution are not ‘problems’; they just are. Only people
> describes things as ‘problems’. This way in which we describe things as
> ‘problems’ is, as far as we know, human. At the margins there are
> organisms, like my dog Max, who have problems with such things as my
> behaviour, which he is constantly trying to fix. From his point of view,
> all his problems with me are extremely wicked.
>
> Ali’s comments on social science’s recent doubts about wicked/tame
> problems are to be welcomed and I agree with him when he says:
> > I don’t think [the] tame vs wicked dichotomy is that useful anymore.
> I wrote a blog on that subject a few years ago.
>
> https://communication.org.au/there-are-no-wicked-problems/ <
> https://communication.org.au/there-are-no-wicked-problems/>
>
>
> My suspicion has always been that ‘wicked’ as in ’naughty’ has attracted
> people to a false distinction which tends to deflate when it’s opposed by
> ’tame’, neither of which seem to fit the distinction people are after.
>
> But to return to ordinary, routine, and prosaic in Design. I suggest that
> even in the most ordinary, the opportunities for uniquely creative and
> original insights are present. As a matter of routine, we invite potential
> users of our designs to participate in what we call diagnostic testing of
> our designs. We regard these diagnostic testing sessions (really just
> conversations with people as they struggle to make sense of our designs) as
> one of the most valuable opportunities for creative insights in our work.
> But that is another discussion for another day. See:
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872618300194 <
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872618300194>
>
>
> Particularly the section called
> > But What about Design Thinking and Creativity?
> >
> Enjoy a problem free weekend,
>
> David
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|