Opinion A new orientation for research on problem solving and competencies in any domain Andreas Fischer1 1Research Institute for Vocational Education and Training (f-bb), Germany. Research on complex problem solving (CPS) has reached a stage where certain standards have been achieved, whereas the future development is quite ambiguous. In this situation, the editors of the Journal of Dynamic Deci- sion Making asked a number of representative authors to share their point of view with respect to seven questions about the relevance of (complex) problem solving as a research area, about the contribution of laboratory-based CPS research to solving real life problems, about the roles of knowledge, strategies, and intuition in CPS, and about the existence of expertise in CPS. Why should there continue to be problem solving research (in addition to research on memory, decision-making, motivation etc.)? Problem solving - as well as the disposition to solve tasksand problems in a given domain (i.e., “competence”, see Fischer & Neubert, 2015) - is more than the sum of its parts and interesting in its own right. In particular, build- ing and testing theories on problem solving may contribute to • understanding where and why people fall short from optimum when confronted with complex and dynamic problems, • deriving and teaching/training useful strategies to help people in need to become better problem solvers (Kretzschmar & Süß, 2015), • providing assistance to people in charge (e.g., by par- tially automating the process of modelling or solving complex problems). What are the connections between current CPS research practice and real problems? Where do you see potential for development towards stronger relations? Current CPS research has a focus on interactive toy prob- lems that can be solved by systematically applying sim- ple strategies such as “Varying One Thing At a Time” Table 1. Exemplary components of competency, varying in domain-specificity (cf. Fischer & Neubert, 2015) knowledge skills abilities other domain general world knowledge problem solving skills general intelligence frustration tolerance domain specific domain expertise psychomotor skills numerical reasoning certificates (VOTAT). This kind of research is interesting and valu- able in many regards, but needs to be put in perspective (for an overview, see Fischer, 2015; Funke, Fischer & Holt, 2018). To establish stronger relations of CPS research to real prob- lems, the heterogeneity inherent in some of the current CPS paradigms (e.g., MicroFIN) could be exploited. Addition- ally, new paradigms based on fundamental problems and dilemmata of real life may well be worth a try (e.g., Gross- mann & Kross, 2014; Grossmann, Kung & Santos, 2018) Given the artificiality of the laboratory situation, do participants really adopt the presented problems? What insights can be gained despite this artificiality and which cannot? The artificiality of the laboratory situation is perfectly suited for (and may have contributed to a focus on) re- search on toy problems. This is not necessarily a bad thing: CPS research of the last decade has shown that this kind of research can be fruitful indeed. Presenting more complex and/or realistic problems in the laboratory in an immersive manner is more challenging but it may be worth the effort (see Schoppek & Fischer, 2017; Grossmann & Kross, 2014). What evidence exists for the influence of other kinds of knowledge besides structural knowledge on the results of CPS? Which of these kinds of knowledge should be examined in future research? There is a lot of research on the influence of strate- gic knowledge, implicit knowledge, instance-based learn- ing and the potential of case-based reasoning (see Fischer, Greiff & Funke, 2012). Future research should elaborate on the interplay among these kinds of knowledge as well as on non-cognitive factors and circumstances this interplay (or its effectiveness) depends upon (cf. Fischer & Neubert, 2015). 10.11588/jddm.2019.1.69298 JDDM | 2019 | Volume 5 | Article 9 | 1 https://doi.org/10.11588/jddm.2019.1.69298 Fischer: A new orientation What evidence is available for the impact of strategies (except VOTAT) on the results of CPS? Which of these strategies should be examined more closely? Problem solving research has elaborated on a variety of heuristics and strategies (see Fischer, Greiff and Funke, 2017), and all of these huristics and strategies can be ap- plied to problems of varying complexity. One question that research on CPS should elaborate on in more detail is when to apply (or abandon) which strategy. Is there intuitive CPS? This depends on the definitions of intuition and of CPS, but I tend to agree: On the one hand a person may not be likely to have a problem when intuition can provide a solution. On the other hand – and highly characteristic for CPS situations – an expert may well be able to in- tuitively provide a solution to another person’s problem (commonly referred to as “wisdom”, cf. Fischer, 2015b; Fischer & Funke, 2016). In fact people even tend to reason more wisely when it comes to other peoples’ problems - a phenomenon known as “Solomon’s paradox” (Grossmann & Kross, 2014). What distinguishes experts in CPS from laypersons? Wisdom - i.e., knowledge and deep understanding of the fundamental pragmatics of life (Fischer 2015b; Baltes & Staudinger, 2000) - may be one of the most distinguishing attributes of an expert in CPS, but as the disposition to solve complex problems (i.e., “competence”) in any domain is based on a wide range of domain-general and domain- specific kinds of knowlede, skills, abilities and other com- ponents (as explained in more detail in the KSAO-model by Fischer & Neubert, 2015) differences are to be expected in each component of the KSAO-model (see Table 1 for examples). Declaration of conflicting interests: The author de- clares he has no conflict of interests. Author contributions: The author is completely re- sponsible for the content of this manuscript. The ab- stract was added by the editors. Handling editor: Andreas Fischer and Wolfgang Schoppek Copyright: This work is licensed under a Creative Com- mons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 In- ternational License. Citation: Fischer, A. (2019). A new orientation for research on problem solving and competencies in any do- main. Journal of Dynamic Decision Making, 5, 9. doi: 10.11588/jddm.2019.1.69298 Published: 31 Dec 2019 References Baltes, P. B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Wisdom: A metaheuris- tic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American psychologist, 55(1), 122-136. doi: 10.1037//0003- 066x.55.1.122 Fischer, A. (2015). Assessment of problem solving skills by means of multiple complex systems–Validity of finite automata and lin- ear dynamic systems (Doctoral dissertation). doi: 10.11588/hei- dok.00019689 Fischer, A. (2015b). Wisdom-The answer to all the questions really worth asking. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 5(9), 73-83. doi: 10.11588/heidok.00019786 Fischer, A., & Funke, J. (2016). Entscheiden und Entscheidungen: die Sicht der Psychologie. Interdiszipliniratität in Den Rechtswis- senschaften. Ein Interdisziplinärer und Internationaler Dialog, 217-229. Fischer, A., Greiff, S., & Funke, J. (2012). The process of solving complex problems. Journal of Problem Solving, 4(1), 19-42. doi: 10.7771/1932-6246.1118 Fischer, A., Greiff, S., & Funke, J. (2017). The history of com- plex problem solving. In Benő Csapó and Joachim Funke (eds.), The Nature of Problem Solving: Using Research to Inspire 21st Century Learning (pp. 107-121). OECD Publishing, Paris. doi: 10.1787/9789264273955-9-en Fischer, A. & Neubert, J.C. (2015). The multiple faces of complex problems: A model of problem solving competency and its impli- cations for training and assessment. Journal of Dynamic Decision Making,1, 6. doi: 10.11588/jddm.2015.1.23945 Funke, J., Fischer, A., & Holt, D. V. (2018). Competencies for complexity: problem solving in the twenty-first century. In Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 41-53). Springer, Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-65368-6_3 Grossmann, I., Kung, F. Y., & Santos, H. C. (2018). Wisdom as state vs. trait. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Glück (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Wisdom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781108568272.013 Grossmann, I., & Kross, E. (2014). Exploring Solomon’s paradox: Self-distancing eliminates the self-other asymmetry in wise reasoning about close relationships in younger and older adults. Psychological science, 25(8), 1571-1580. doi: 10.1177/0956797614535400 Kretzschmar, A. & Süß, H.-M. (2015). A study on the training of complex problem solving competence. Journal of Dynamic Decision Making, 1, 4. doi: 10.11588/jddm.2015.1.15455 Schoppek, W., & Fischer, A. (2017). Common process demands of two complex dynamic control tasks: Transfer is mediated by comprehensive strategies. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 2145. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02145 Corresponding author: Andreas Fischer, Forschungsinstitut Betriebliche Bil- dung (f-bb) gGmbH, Rollnerstraße 14, 90408 Nuremberg, Germany. E- mail: andreas.fischer@f-bb.de 10.11588/jddm.2019.1.69298 JDDM | 2019 | Volume 5 | Article 9 | 2 https://doi.org/10.11588/jddm.2019.1.69298 https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.122 https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.122 http://doi.org/10.11588/heidok.00019689 http://doi.org/10.11588/heidok.00019689 http://doi.org/10.11588/heidok.00019786 https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1118 https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1118 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264273955-9-en http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264273955-9-en http://dx.doi.org/10.11588/jddm.2015.1.23945 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65368-6_3 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108568272.013 https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535400 https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535400 http://dx.doi.org/10.11588/jddm.2015.1.15455 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02145 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02145 mailto: https://doi.org/10.11588/jddm.2019.1.69298