Wicked and less wicked problems: A typology and a contingency framework

This paper addresses three shortcomings in the scholarship to date about ‘wicked problems’, and suggests ways of tackling them. First, accounts of these problems are prone to ‘totalising’, that is to regarding them as... [ view full abstract ]

This paper addresses three shortcomings in the scholarship to date about ‘wicked problems’, and suggests ways of tackling them. First, accounts of these problems are prone to ‘totalising’, that is to 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 of complex problems, arguing that they vary in the extent of their wickedness, in dimensions such as their cognitive complexity or the diversity and irreconcilability of the actors or institutions involved. On this basis we propose a typology of different forms of wicked problems.
Second, partly as a corollary to their intractability, the favoured means of tackling wicked problems tend to ‘one best way’ approaches, most commonly collaboration with key stakeholders. Not only is this the typical default approach, but also 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. We put forward a contingency framework, based on our typology, that proposes which types of collaboration are suitable to which types of problem.
Finally, we argue for a more realistic but also more useful 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 solving them. We finish by spell out some aspects of ‘progress’ that may be both achievable and useful.