D E S I G N , C I V I C E N G A G E M E N T & THE CHALLENGE OF WICKED PROBLEMS

SYMPOSIUM REPORT

K E T T E R I N GF O U N D AT I O N

hosted by in collaboration with

JUNE 2, 2014

WW

what is distinctive about civic engagement for the

design disciplines?

what civic engagement practices are most promising for increasing the capacity of citizens (including our students) to make decisions & act

together over that issues that affect their lives?

why does engagement

matter?

are we asking the right questions?

what do we do in design schools that doesn’t

happen other places?

how do you deploy your students on the ground?

why do you think the design profession can

raise the university’s bar in engagement?

1

WW

how do the design fields encounter wicked

problems?

how do the design disciplines clarify,

amplify, or challenge how higher education

institutions engage with community challenges?

what naively am I missing to be anxious

about?

what intuitively do you think design has in particular to take us to the next level?

where is this groundswell

coming from?

how can you engage with communities & work toward

tenure?

2

what are we teaching

students about community

change?what

is civic capacity?

PARTICIPANTS

Suzanne Morse Moomaw, co-convener John Dedrick, co-convenerAssociate Professor, Urban & Environmental PlanningDirector, Community Design Reseach CenterUniversity of Virginia School of Architectureswm2x@virginia.edu

Vice-President & Program DirectorCharles F. Kettering Foundationjrdedrick@kettering.org

Derek S. Hyra Judith E. InnisAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Public Administration & PolicySchool of Public AffairsAmerican Universityhyra@american.edu

Professor Emerita, City & Regional PlanningCollege of Environmental DesignUniversity of California Berkeleyjinnes@berkeley.edu

Harriett Jameson Michael RiosLecturer & Program DirectorCommunity Design Reseach CenterUniversity of Virginia School of Architectureharriettjameson@virginia.edu

Associate ProfessorLandscape Architecture & Environmental DesignChair, Community Development Graduate GroupDepartment of Human EcologyUniversity of California - Davismxrios@ucdavis.edu

William H. Sherman Rusty SmithProfessor of ArchitectureAssociate Vice President for ResearchUniversity of Virginia School of Architecturewhs2b@virginia.edu

Associate Chair, Program of ArchitectureAssociate Director, Rural StudioSchool of Architecture, Planning, & Landscape Arch.Auburn Universityrustysmith@auburn.edu

Roy Strickland Deborah Witte Professor of ArchitectureDirector, Master of Urban Design ProgramTaubman College of Architecture & Urban PlanningUniversity of Michigan granite@umich.edu

Program OfficerCharles F. Kettering Foundationdwitte@kettering.org

3

The only difference between a problem & a solution is that people understand the solution.

-Charles F. Kettering

4

The Kettering Foundation is rooted in the idea that truly collaborative research is the only method

that will catalyze the innovation needed to address today’s wicked problems. Likewise, the Community

Design Research Center at the University of Virginia is committed to addressing these issues through

collaborative research around place. By pushing the boundaries of design & planning, the center

pioneers innovative collaboration, design thinking, & tactical solutions.

Together, in June 2014, the Kettering Foundation & the Community Design Research Center at the

University of Virginia convened a group of urban design, planning & architecture researchers that engage

directly with their communities to explore the role of design thinking as a civic engagement strategy.

Held in Washington, DC, the symposium was entitled “Design Civic Engagement & the Challenge of

Wicked Problems.” The invitation read as follows:

We think the time is ripe for a fresh exploration of the role the design fields can play in

strengthening the connections between university campuses & the larger communities in which

they are located. In brief, while community engagement programs are now well established on

many campuses, the potential for the kind of engagement that is mutually beneficial to both

communities & campuses has not yet been fully developed. As Kettering Foundation’s President

David Mathews has argued, universities & communities are often “ships passing in the night.”

We hypothesize that professionals in the design fields are well positioned to advance the theory

& practice of democratic engagement, which is essential to advancing the core responsibilities

5

INTRODUCTION

of teaching, research, & service.

The two-day conversation sparked many debates around discipline, pedagogy, & systemic issues, & raised

questions about the ways university design schools can most effectively engage in a community. Among the

topics under discussion, for example:

How do the design disciplines challenge & inform how universities engage with communities?

What conditions have created a desire for public interest design?

How do design schools address wicked problems through teaching, research, & practice?

This report synthesizes the key themes, issues, challenges, & opportunities that were explored during this two-day

symposium. While the conversations raised as many questions as they answered, they succeeded in providing a

framework for situating university design schools within their communities as agents of collaborative democracy &

change.

6

INTRODUCTION

THE DESIGN EDUCATION & CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IMPERATIVE

ISSUES & CHALLENGES If the second millennium was defined by

dichotomies—urban/rural, first world/third

world, industrialized/non-industrialized,

shrinking/expanding, North/South—the

third millennium will be characterized by

morphologies. Shifts in climate, population,

natural resources, infrastructures, territories,

& economies will yield unprecedented urban

& environmental challenges. These transitions

generate wicked problems—issues difficult to

recognize & to solve because of ever-changing

conditions—for our communities.

“Doctors have an ethical & professional responsibility to act when they see a crisis. Architects need to be the same way. Institutions like the Rural Studio exist because the profession is not fulfilling the need.”

-Rusty Smith, Auburn University

The responsibility of higher education

institutions for shaping & preparing future

architects, landscape architects, & urban

designers & environmental planners to meet the

ever-growing, complex, & shifting challenges

of the 21st century has never been greater.

There is a need for current programs in the

built environment to respond—to be more

innovative, integrative, responsive, & relevant—

both to professional practice & the needs of our

communities. Curriculum & education delivery

must respond by thinking & acting outside the

box.

The question of how these disciplines should

adapt remains a matter of debate. Several

tensions arise. First, academic programs are

required to develop both theoretical & skill-

based competencies related to socio-spatial

issues, open-minded inquiry & research, &

problem solving skills via either critical analysis

(planners) or an iterative design process

(designers). Secondly, professionals/employers

expect these programs to provide students with

a tool-box of basic skills—such as GIS analysis,

3D modeling, & graphic representation—

needed in the professional setting. Lastly,

community organizations, activists, & citizens

want their universities (especially public higher

education institutions) to engage disadvantaged

citizens, advocate for community needs, &

contribute to issues of environmental & social

injustice.

Beyond this plethora of expectations for what

programs should be doing, there are also

questions of when these expectations must

be met. Academic institutions operate on a

very different time-scale than do communities.

Course work & student involvement rely on

a semester or quarter cycle. The academic

calendar usually spans nine months, with a four-

week break for the holidays. Often, grants must

be completed & outcomes delivered within one

fiscal year. Tenure-track faculty members must

complete a project that is meaningful, impactful,

& relevant in a designated timeframe.

At the community level, change happens much

more slowly. It can take five, seven, or ten years

for a community to successfully execute a new

comprehensive plan or realize a newly designed

public space. Communities are subject to the

fluctuating tides brought about by elections,

budget appropriation changes, & shifting

priorities, making cultural change difficult. And,

while a citizen may live in a community where he

or she can be affected by a design proposal for

7

an entire lifetime, a student is in & out within a

course & a faculty researcher may be associated

with a project only within the limited duration of

a grant cycle.

Finally, there is a lack of clarity among higher

education institutions, faculty, students, &

community members regarding what role

the academy should play in trying to institute

change in their communities. Town and

university relationships continue to be tenuous.

Design & planning students are idealists &

dreamers—itching to get out into the world &

save it. However, while they think they know

what the world should be, or could be, their

education must teach them how to make that

happen. Without that knowledge & experience,

students cannot be seen as community

consultants. Furthermore, most of them are not

community members in the places where they

are attending school. So what is their role in

assisting in community projects?

A similar question arises regarding the

appropriate role of design & planning faculty

in the process of community design & change.

It is easy for academics—pushing for research

publications & tenure—to see community

issues as an opportunity to apply a particular

theoretical solution or disciplinary fad to a

site-based challenge. Educators offer the

solution—be it transit-oriented development,

mixed-income housing, green streets, or

sustainability—before the problem is framed by

the community.

Understandably, academics & community

organizations can have different objectives &

visions of success, a state of affairs that may

ultimately produce unsatisfactory results for both

parties. Terms like sustainable, engagement,

8

These opportunities coalesced around

three strategies: disciplinary, temporal, and

pedagogical.

DISCIPLINARY STRATEGIESFirst, the academy must reframe conventional

disciplinary boundaries & spheres of influence.

9

“One of the things I am interested in is the power of these disciplines to actually act as a convener. The way to get beyond the architect-planner division is to find a common language.”

-William Sherman, University of Virginia

Wicked problems are both interdisciplinary &

transdisciplinary. Therefore, conventional boundary

lines (and inherent animosities) between the realms

of architecture, landscape architecture, design, &

planning must be transcended.

These can be overcome by focusing on the

complexity of a wicked problem, rather than

prioritizing a solution, often grounded in

disciplinary theory or objectives. We need to ask

the right questions. Asking the right questions will

require that architects & planners speak a common

language. Language barriers are often the result of

conceptual barriers—how we see ourselves, how

we define our roles, & how we measure success. In

order to develop this common language, architects

& planners must meet at the table & cultivate

universal objectives.

Second, professionals in the built environment

need to adjust their priorities & their professional

responsibilities in order to encourage relevance

& agency in the academy. Wicked problems are

creating global environmental & cultural crises.

Just as doctors or firefighters are expected to

respond to crises whether or not they will be paid,

designers & planners have a professional & ethical

responsibility to act on a crisis at hand. & this ethic

& mixed-use are so commonly used in such a

diverse array of circumstances & situations that

their meanings have become muddled. Citizens

tire of participation that produces jargon &

highly theoretical proposals that seem to offer

little benefit or tangible outcome. The power of

the design solution is lost.

OPPORTUNITIESDuring the discussion, three arenas for adapta-

tion & innovation were identified to make design

& planning education more responsive, effec-

tive, & relevant to the needs of communities

Finally, there is an imperative for design

professionals to reclaim the role of “design

thinking,” which offers potential for solving

wicked problems in several ways:

• Design thinking generates the ability

to make lateral connections & tie ideas

together .

• It encourages transcendence over artificial

constraints & disciplinary boundaries—

encouraging hybrid planner-architects &

landscape-planners.

• It embraces constraints & complexity.

• It convenes stakeholders & facilitate a

common language.

TEMPORAL STRATEGIESIn order to successfully collaborate in a

community context, educators in the built

environment must find a way to work within

the timeframe in which communities operate.

Initiatives that span several years while

maintaining continuity in terms of personnel

& objectives will offer more opportunities

for success & more effective change in the

community. Smith argued: “We rub up against a

lot of other community engagement programs

that aren’t in it for the long haul, that aren’t

place based. They come in. They come out.

10

must be inculcated in every graduating class of

new students.

“Why are we designing buildings today the way we are designing them when we know what the environment will be like in 50 years? Climate change is inevitable. We should be looking forward & imagining what the world might be like 50 years & 100 years from now; instead of trying to solve today’s problems.”

-Roy Strickland, University of Michigan

One example of this ethical shift is the

imperative to design for climate change. We

know that climate change will force colossal

changes in the ways our built environment,

infrastructure, & ecological systems function.

However, most design professionals are focused

on solving today’s problems rather than looking

at the problems of the next century. As noted

designer Charles Eames said, “Design isn’t

a problem solving discipline. It is a purpose

serving discipline.” Its power lies in its ability to

be predictive—understanding scenarios before

they happen, & describing or illustrating them to

constituents.

The impacts are all about what they can take

away from the community...Can you imagine

working with a group that just goes away?”

Secondly, educators and community members

should focus collaboration on the prevention of

issues, rather than fixing systemic problems.

“When Ernest Boyer wrote, ‘architecture education and practice must be tied to both public and private ends,’ he challenged the schools and disciplines of design to prepare students to take on the challenges of our common world, to use their unique skill set to find solutions, but most importantly, to engage communities in the prevention of problems.”

-Suzanne Morse Moomaw

PEDAGOGICAL STRATEGIESFinally, this conversation led to a rethinking of

the goals & objectives for built environment

education & the way that curricula is being

developed & taught. Michael Rios, UC Davis

elaborated: “In my studios, we may focus in an

area, but then it is different scales of questions;

different scales of intervention... design in the

broadest sense, that it is not just the material,

the location, the context. We are linking those

things to ideas, the imagination, but ultimately

action.”

In essence, design courses & programs should

be approached with the same design thinking

process students are taught to use for sites

& cities. We should embrace complexity &

breaking away from conventional restraints.

Rusy Smith, Universiity of Auburn, argued

“When students approach us with an idea,

instead of responding “No, but...” (deny &

propose), we should response “Yes, and...”

(affirm & extend). This response supports &

conveys collaboration, versus improvisation. We

should teach students innovative tactics as well

as top-down strategies.

Most importantly, design schools should

continue to get students out in the field,

every day. By immersing students in the real-

world environment, engaging them with all

levels of stakeholders, & introducing them to

problems of every magnitude, educators can

best prepare them for the challenges of their

futures. Solutions are not designed in studios,

classrooms, or lecture halls. They are found on

the streets.

11

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SUGGESTED READING LIST

Anderson, Nadia.“Public Interest Design as Praxis” Journal of Architectural Education. 68:1. 14 March 2014. Online.

Agid, Shana.“Worldmaking: Working through Theory/Practice in Design” Design & Culture. 4:1. March 2012.

Morse, Suzanne W. Smart Communities: How Citizens & Local Leaders Can Use Strate-gic Thinking to Build a Brighter Future. Jossey-Bass. 2nd edition. 2014.

Rios, Michael. “Toward a Social Ecology of Scale: Collective Action, Design for Health, & Landscape Praxis”. Landscape Journal. 2011.

Innes, Judith E. & David E. Booher. Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Col-laborative Rationality for Public Policy. Routledge. 2010.

Hyra, Derek S. “Conceptualizing the New Urban Renewal Comparing the Past to the Present” Urban Affairs Review. 2012.

Strickland, Roy. Place-Making as an Expression of Teaching & Learning: The Hilltop, Washington, DC” published in Places in 2005.

Sherman, William E. “Complex Systems, Interdisciplinary Collaboration, & Institutional Renewal” in Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning in 2011.

12