Notes from Class (1/21/16): Mapping & Visualizing Wicked Problems

Class discussion leaders: Ahmed Ansari and Julia Petrich

Reading for this class:

1. Meadows, Donella. 2009. Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. Solutions Journal. Available online: http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/419.
2. Coyne, Richard. 2005. Wicked Problems Revisited. Design Studies 26: 5–17
3. Farrell, Katharine. 2011. Snow White and the Wicked Problems of the West: A Look at the Lines between Empirical Description and Normative Prescription. In Science, Technology and Human Values, 36: 334–363

Supplemental Reading:

1. Conklin, Jeff. Wicked Problems and Social Complexity. CogNexus Institute. pp 1–25. Available online:http://cognexus.org/wpf/wickedproblems.pdf

Notes:

We began with a conversation on social constructivism. Social constructivism is a theory that posits that knowledge is made by people who create it, rather than simply discovered or learned. This making of knowledge is how we understand some disciplines, especially those in the humanities or the softer sciences. However, we tend to view harder sciences as objective and based on a scientific method that discerns a singular truth.

Here we have two models of truth, one where truth is accepted as factual or real and another where it is constructed. The first model falls apart when we acknowledge that assumptions and biases (or even more simply — where the money goes) which are a part of every information search.

This brought us to Rittel and the idea of the wicked problem. When we look at the history of design studies, it begins with Herbert Simon who attempted to frame design and design methods as a science. Rittel, on the other hand, claims that the wicked problems of the world can’t be solved with discrete steps, as any scientific method would lay out. Alternatively, design can find points at which to intervene and determine how to go about intervening in the existing system. Further, however, design is an argument; it has a rhetorical function in convincing others of the validity of the proposed interventions.

While science has been established as a field that thinks of itself as truth-seeking, political and social interests always come into play. These interests are wrapped up in many competing narratives and narrative questions. This tends to lead to policy based on single or few data points. These loops reinforce themselves. We search based on our point of view which is shaped by our social and political interests, and the “truth” that we find then reinforces these interests and the specific worldview that we have.

Value is always going to play a part here; we can’t get away from that. So…what do we do? It seems that the only thing we can do for now is to simply acknowledge this. The first step is being aware and knowing how, when, and where value plays a role in the knowledge that we make.

We ended by asked a few questions: (1) When conversations are all about quantities, how do we as designers fit in the qualities? and (2) Understanding that value goes into all knowledge, what role should the designer play in shaping the value and the knowledge?