Wicked and less wicked problems: a typology and a contingency framework. Issue 3 (3rd July 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Alford, John; Head, Brian W.
• Is Part Of: Policy & society. Volume 36:Issue 3(2017)
• Page Start: 397
• Page End: 413
• Publication Date: 2017-07-03
• Subjects: Wicked problems -- complex problems -- collaborative governance -- adaptive leadership -- types of wicked problems; Policy sciences -- Periodicals; Social policy -- Periodicals; Economic policy -- Periodicals; International relations -- Periodicals; Sciences de la politique -- Périodiques; Politique sociale -- Périodiques; Politique économique -- Périodiques; Relations internationales -- Périodiques; Australia -- Politics and government -- 1945- -- Periodicals; Australia -- Economic conditions -- 1945- -- Periodicals; Pacific Area -- Politics and government -- Periodicals; Pacific Area -- Economic conditions -- Periodicals; Australie -- Politique et gouvernement -- 1945- -- Périodiques; Australie -- Conditions économiques -- 1945- -- Périodiques; Pacifique, Région du -- Politique et gouvernement -- Périodiques; Pacifique, Région du -- Conditions économiques -- Périodiques; 320.605
• DOI: 10.1080/14494035.2017.1361634
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1449-4035

Abstract

Abstract: This paper addresses shortcomings in the scholarship about 'wicked problems', and suggests ways of tackling them. Firstly, accounts of these problems tend to 'totalise', regarding them as intractable masses of complexity, so conflict-prone and/or intractable that they defy definition and solution. By contrast, we put forward a more nuanced analysis, arguing that complex problems vary in the extent of their wickedness, via such dimensions as their cognitive complexity or the diversity and irreconcilability of the actors or institutions involved. We propose a typology of different forms of wicked problems. A second shortcoming, linked to intractability, is that the favoured means of tackling wicked problems has tended towards 'one best way' approaches, most commonly collaboration with key stakeholders. Moreover, particular forms of collaboration tend to be routinely applied in 'one-size-fits-all' fashion to a variety of situations – notably with a plethora of actors, and a focus on governance rather than implementation management. We put forward a contingency framework, based on our typology, proposing which types of collaboration are suitable for which types of problem. Finally, we argue for a more realistic standard of success in dealing with wicked problems, especially the most difficult ones. To call for the 'solving' of these problems is to set up a standard which is not only impossible but also perhaps unnecessary. We argue that we do not so much 'solve' wicked problems as make progress towards improvement or towards better managing them. We spell out a more realistic version of 'progress'.