Abstract This paper identifies a deep conceptual divide between the discourses of policy design and design for policy, rooted in their respective disciplinary origins in policy sciences and design studies. This lacuna persists even as efforts are underway to create a shared space for mutual fertilization. To fully grasp the integrative potential of a policy/design discourse, the paper revisits the contributions of two historical “boundary figures”—Horst Rittel and Donald Schön—whose work traversed the fields of policy analysis and design research. I outline a shared set of assumptions in their thinking about the nature of intractable policy problems, emphasizing their concern with the transition from descriptive analysis (“what is”) to normative action (“what ought to be”). Both scholars recognized that policy controversies are epistemically unstable terrains, where scientific expertise alone cannot settle normative questions. Both scholars identified design practice as a useful model for formulating new argumentative approaches towards resolving intractable policy problems. The paper concludes that revisiting the insights of these boundary figures can support the emergence of a new interdisciplinary foundation—policy design studies—that moves beyond the limitations of policy design and design for policy.
Anke Gruendel (Thu,) studied this question.