处理棘手问题:设计思维的规范范式

IF 1.8 2区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Nynke van Uffelen, Pieter Vermaas, Udo Pesch
{"title":"处理棘手问题:设计思维的规范范式","authors":"Nynke van Uffelen,&nbsp;Pieter Vermaas,&nbsp;Udo Pesch","doi":"10.1016/j.sheji.2024.11.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Wicked problems, such as climate change, poverty, and antibiotic resistance, are ethical problems, as moral plurality about the social good is one of their constituting factors. Although wicked problems cannot be fully solved, they are urgent and demand intervention. While design thinking was suggested in the 1990s to deal with wicked problems, it is still an open question how it can address moral plurality. In this article, we consider how design thinking can address moral plurality in wicked problems. We propose that designers using design thinking can adopt four normative paradigms toward moral plurality, namely moral agnosticism (design for solutions), moral pragmatism (design for aggregated preferences), moral unificationism (design for community-created values), and transcendental moralism (design for The Good). Then, we argue that designers can address moral pluralism and deal with wicked problems within the first three approaches to normativity, provided that designers acknowledge that their responses to wicked problems may fail over time and require new design responses. Ignoring that possibility fits within the paradigm of transcendental moralism, which does not give designers the means to deal with wicked problems.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37146,"journal":{"name":"She Ji-The Journal of Design Economics and Innovation","volume":"10 4","pages":"Pages 441-455"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dealing with Wicked Problems: Normative Paradigms for Design Thinking\",\"authors\":\"Nynke van Uffelen,&nbsp;Pieter Vermaas,&nbsp;Udo Pesch\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.sheji.2024.11.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Wicked problems, such as climate change, poverty, and antibiotic resistance, are ethical problems, as moral plurality about the social good is one of their constituting factors. Although wicked problems cannot be fully solved, they are urgent and demand intervention. While design thinking was suggested in the 1990s to deal with wicked problems, it is still an open question how it can address moral plurality. In this article, we consider how design thinking can address moral plurality in wicked problems. We propose that designers using design thinking can adopt four normative paradigms toward moral plurality, namely moral agnosticism (design for solutions), moral pragmatism (design for aggregated preferences), moral unificationism (design for community-created values), and transcendental moralism (design for The Good). Then, we argue that designers can address moral pluralism and deal with wicked problems within the first three approaches to normativity, provided that designers acknowledge that their responses to wicked problems may fail over time and require new design responses. Ignoring that possibility fits within the paradigm of transcendental moralism, which does not give designers the means to deal with wicked problems.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"She Ji-The Journal of Design Economics and Innovation\",\"volume\":\"10 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 441-455\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"She Ji-The Journal of Design Economics and Innovation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872624000972\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"She Ji-The Journal of Design Economics and Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872624000972","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

恶劣的问题,如气候变化、贫困和抗生素耐药性,都是伦理问题,因为关于社会利益的道德多元化是这些问题的构成因素之一。虽然邪恶的问题不能完全解决,但它们是紧迫的,需要干预。虽然设计思维在20世纪90年代被建议用来处理邪恶的问题,但它如何解决道德多元化仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。在本文中,我们考虑设计思维如何在邪恶问题中解决道德多元性。我们提出,使用设计思维的设计师可以采用四种规范范式来实现道德多元性,即道德不可知论(为解决方案而设计)、道德实用主义(为聚合偏好而设计)、道德一元论(为社区创造价值而设计)和先验道德主义(为善而设计)。然后,我们认为设计师可以在前三种规范方法中处理道德多元化和邪恶问题,前提是设计师承认他们对邪恶问题的反应可能会随着时间的推移而失败,并需要新的设计反应。忽视这种可能性符合先验道德主义的范例,这并没有给设计师提供处理邪恶问题的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dealing with Wicked Problems: Normative Paradigms for Design Thinking
Wicked problems, such as climate change, poverty, and antibiotic resistance, are ethical problems, as moral plurality about the social good is one of their constituting factors. Although wicked problems cannot be fully solved, they are urgent and demand intervention. While design thinking was suggested in the 1990s to deal with wicked problems, it is still an open question how it can address moral plurality. In this article, we consider how design thinking can address moral plurality in wicked problems. We propose that designers using design thinking can adopt four normative paradigms toward moral plurality, namely moral agnosticism (design for solutions), moral pragmatism (design for aggregated preferences), moral unificationism (design for community-created values), and transcendental moralism (design for The Good). Then, we argue that designers can address moral pluralism and deal with wicked problems within the first three approaches to normativity, provided that designers acknowledge that their responses to wicked problems may fail over time and require new design responses. Ignoring that possibility fits within the paradigm of transcendental moralism, which does not give designers the means to deal with wicked problems.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信