66
S. Linow
Part of the generic toolkit discussed in depth in both courses is a life-cycle perspective which “considers the entire life cycle of a product, from raw material extraction
and acquisition, through energy and material production and manufacturing, to use
and end of life treatment and final disposal. Through such a systematic overview and
perspective, the shifting of a potential environmental burden between life cycle stages
or individual processes can be identified and possibly avoided” (ISO 14040). By
getting back to this perspective, both courses make disciplinary boundaries visible,
and stress the importance of contributions from many different views. In the ECDcourse, societal aspects as well as acceptance issues by potential users are more often
highlighted by the teacher. In the H:NE course, students tend to need more help with
technical aspects of complex products. Life-cycle perspective discussions in both
courses include aspects of potential user’s reluctance to accept relevant changes
to a product, possible incentives, and nudges or regulations needed for substantial
changes to product systems.
Other formats at Hochschule Darmstadt show that that grasp of scale is not a given,
but is a skill that needs to be learned in a dedicated environment. Public discourse in
terms of scale is much worse. Not only is scale regularly ignored, but scientists trying
to bring scale as part of the scientific consensus (IPCC reports) into the discourse
are either ignored or regularly attacked as being unreasonable or fear-mongers.
7 Conclusion—Whom to Teach About Scale
The core argument made here is that the competence of addressing problems includes
skills in grasping scale, thus all students and society gain from understanding scale in
wicked problems. Being able to address problems in a meaningful way would enable
politics, organisations and society to manage humanities urgent, large and wicked
problems. Assessing scale is an intricate part of analysing a problem as it helps to
get to a common understanding and is a necessary part of the assessment of possible
solutions in a meaningful way.
Neither a systematic generic approach to interdisciplinary problem solving, nor
assessing scale are part of all curricula; especially not at the Bachelor level. Engineers learn some basics with the technical design methodology (e.g. VDI 2221-1) and
they are able to act interdisciplinary within technical fields. For them, the full understanding of wicked problems based on the inclusion of non-technical (especially
human and societal aspects) is hard, as this tends to be offloaded into dedicated
courses or is actively discouraged by some as being “un-engineering behaviour”.
For social sciences, it is hard to overcome the barrier of scaling of technical aspects,
as this is not an explicit part of their studies. Therefore, all would benefit from a
dedicated teaching of scale in wicked problems This argument is supported by the
data which shows that all are able to understand the challenge and include it in their
work.
S. Linow
Part of the generic toolkit discussed in depth in both courses is a life-cycle perspective which “considers the entire life cycle of a product, from raw material extraction
and acquisition, through energy and material production and manufacturing, to use
and end of life treatment and final disposal. Through such a systematic overview and
perspective, the shifting of a potential environmental burden between life cycle stages
or individual processes can be identified and possibly avoided” (ISO 14040). By
getting back to this perspective, both courses make disciplinary boundaries visible,
and stress the importance of contributions from many different views. In the ECDcourse, societal aspects as well as acceptance issues by potential users are more often
highlighted by the teacher. In the H:NE course, students tend to need more help with
technical aspects of complex products. Life-cycle perspective discussions in both
courses include aspects of potential user’s reluctance to accept relevant changes
to a product, possible incentives, and nudges or regulations needed for substantial
changes to product systems.
Other formats at Hochschule Darmstadt show that that grasp of scale is not a given,
but is a skill that needs to be learned in a dedicated environment. Public discourse in
terms of scale is much worse. Not only is scale regularly ignored, but scientists trying
to bring scale as part of the scientific consensus (IPCC reports) into the discourse
are either ignored or regularly attacked as being unreasonable or fear-mongers.
7 Conclusion—Whom to Teach About Scale
The core argument made here is that the competence of addressing problems includes
skills in grasping scale, thus all students and society gain from understanding scale in
wicked problems. Being able to address problems in a meaningful way would enable
politics, organisations and society to manage humanities urgent, large and wicked
problems. Assessing scale is an intricate part of analysing a problem as it helps to
get to a common understanding and is a necessary part of the assessment of possible
solutions in a meaningful way.
Neither a systematic generic approach to interdisciplinary problem solving, nor
assessing scale are part of all curricula; especially not at the Bachelor level. Engineers learn some basics with the technical design methodology (e.g. VDI 2221-1) and
they are able to act interdisciplinary within technical fields. For them, the full understanding of wicked problems based on the inclusion of non-technical (especially
human and societal aspects) is hard, as this tends to be offloaded into dedicated
courses or is actively discouraged by some as being “un-engineering behaviour”.
For social sciences, it is hard to overcome the barrier of scaling of technical aspects,
as this is not an explicit part of their studies. Therefore, all would benefit from a
dedicated teaching of scale in wicked problems This argument is supported by the
data which shows that all are able to understand the challenge and include it in their
work.