Amongst many other things wicked problems have been regarded as complex and intractable (Rittel & Webber, 1973; and more recently Conklin et. al 2007). Regarding a phenomenon or situation as complex typically implies an unpredictable level of interconnectedness among its constituent parts. Inherent in this view is the notion that the results of interactions within the phenomenon will be “emergent” in some way, and thus difficult or impossible to fully control. As governments and institutions have responded to wicked problems with a “complexity” mindset they have, by and large, done so by attending to these interactions and seeking to work on their emergent nature, in some instances by opening them up, in others by creating forums or “containers” for them and in others by asserting different forms of control. Most of these approaches have, however, worked from the “atomistic” assumption that part of the challenge is to identify the constituent parts so that the interactions can be better understood and subsequently facilitated, managed or controlled.
This paper explores wicked problems, and our approaches to dealing with them, from a different perspective, reading the issues and some current responses through Karen Barad’s (2007) notion of “intra-action” and the complementary thinking of John Shotter (2013), who contrasts “about-ness” thinking with his own notion of “with-ness” thinking, and the work of Ralph Stacey (2001) and his colleagues who propose “complex responsive processes” as an alternative to “complex adaptive systems” when seeking to understand and work within human and social systems. Each of these, albeit in very different ways, steps outside the atomistic assumption and in doing so suggests ways of thinking and practical approaches that might better enable policy makers and researchers to realistically work from within a wicked problem area, mindful of the influence and impact of the “agential cuts” (Barad, 2007) they make in framing the problem and potential solutions.
These ideas are explored in order to test the notion that dealing with wicked problems might be better understood in practice in terms of taking action “from within” circumstances in which both understanding and proposed actions, frames and boundaries are in a constant process of construction and therefore essentially unfinalisable.
References
Barad, K.M., 2007, Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning, Duke University Press Books.
Conklin, J., Basadur, M. & VanPatter, G.K., 2007, Rethinking wicked problems: Unpacking paradigms, bridging universes, NextDesign Leadership Institute Journal, 10(1)
Rittel, H.W. & Webber, M.M., 1973, Dilemmas in a general theory of planning, Policy sciences, 4(2), pp. 155-69
Shotter, J., 2013, Reflections on Sociomateriality and Dialogicality in Organization Studies: From “Inter-“ to “Intra- thinking” … in Performing Practices, How matter matters, Oxford University Press. pp. 32-57
Stacey, R.D., 2001, Complex responsive processes in organizations: learning and knowledge creation, Routledge, London ; New York.
