6 Wicked problems

The concept of ‘wicked problems’ was first proposed by planning engineers Horst Rittell and Melville Webber in 1973 to contrast the difference between ‘tame’ problems – which could be resolved using standard scientific techniques – and complex, policy-based problems – which were neither simply nor completely resolvable. They said because wicked problems exist within pluralistic societies there was no way of knowing what was an “undisputable public good” and there was no clear picture of what “equity” meant when making decisions (1973, p. 155).

Wicked problems may have emerged from urban policy planning, but they are now used to describe social, political, environmental and economic problems more broadly. These problems are typically surrounded by disagreement, inadequate or conflicting information, large numbers of stakeholders and webs of interconnected interests. The Australian Government defines a wicked problem as a problem which is “highly resistant to resolution” (2018).

While not everyone agrees with the somewhat simplistic distinction between ‘wicked’ and ‘tame’, the concept does give us a way of categorizing and thinking about complex problems. Moreover, it proposes that we use a problematization approach which calls for consideration from many viewpoints while constantly reflecting during the process of problem-solving. Much of the thinking that has continued about wicked problems has elements in common with public interest problems, with problematization at the centre, and, correspondingly, the need for effective and multi-faceted public interest communication.

Here is a useful explanation:

Here are the ten reasons Horst and Webber gave to describe wicked problems.

1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem.
2. Wicked problems are often ongoing.
3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true or false, good or bad.
4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
5. All attempts to find solutions have effects that may not be reversable.
6. Wicked problems do not have a set of solutions.
7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.
9. There are many explanations for wicked problems.
10. There are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers. (see Johnston & Glenny, 2021 for this summary; adapted from Rittell & Webber, 1973)

As such, wicked problems do not have complete, technical solutions because they involve competing underlying values and interests which often present paradoxes that require tough choices between opposing ideas. Listen to the following podcast for an overview of how different groups and individuals make these tough choices regarding homelessness.

Not solving wicked problems

However, just because wicked problems cannot be categorically or fully resolved, they still need to be managed. We don’t throw our arms up in the air and say: ‘forget climate change because it’s too hard’ or ‘terrorism will always be around so why bother trying to mitigate it?’. And it is the management of these complex problems, that includes effective communication at many levels, and with many publics, that is important.

How we communicate about wicked problems can make a difference. Different voices need to be heard, but adversarial tactics which rely on ‘good-versus-bad’ or ‘us-versus-them’ approaches can create misunderstandings and undue polarization (Turnbull & Hoppe, 2019). This can also avoid the reality of tough choices that are needed to address wicked problems. Climate change is an excellent example – like paying more for fuel if that’s what it takes to help the environment, or giving up using disposable commodities including fast fashion and plastic water bottles, and generally changing priorities or re-evaluating our values. Citizens can therefore help deal with the wicked problems around them, just as governments can. Let’s take a look at the wicked problem of smoking: still a wicked problem but one that has been addressed over decades of strategic management and communication.

Communication and wicked problems

In recent thinking from communication scholars, two dominant models of managing wicked problems have been identified: these are 1. external expertise and 2. advocacy. However, while experts and advocates are critical resources for problem-solving, they are not sufficient for wicked problems. Carcasson therefore adds a third option: deliberative democracy (2016). Such a perspective envisions democracy as an ongoing collaborative process of constant communication and negotiation focused on solving common problems, rather than an adversarial zero-sum exercise between stable, competing interests, or a technocratic world of experts searching for the best solutions.

These perspectives, which include expert-led, advocate-led, and community-led approaches, share common ground with the work of early leading democracy scholars Walter Lippmann and John Dewey (see Chapter 1) who saw public interest achieved via different routes.  Lippmann chose the expert-led route; while Dewey saw deliberation, driven by the public, as the best way to achieve desired public interest outcomes (Johnston & Pieczka, 2018).

However, as Carcasson and Sprain suggest: “Rather than attempting to solve wicked problems, communities need better processes for discovering, understanding, and managing the tensions and paradoxes inherent within systemic, value-laden problems” (2016, p. 41).

Communication and working with the existing tensions, rather than against them, thus provides strategies for dealing with wicked problems.

These may include:

• Collective action – involving a range of actors and groups, which share common values or goals, to bring about change.
• Adaptive change – requiring new ways of thinking and learning, and preparedness to consider different solutions.
• Deliberative engagement – bringing together citizens or those affected in a community with the decision makers or officials.
• Taking a ‘glocal’ approach – understanding that many wicked problems are global but need to be managed at a local level.
• Breaking down the problem – creating categories, sub-categories and an incremental approach to a problem is not so overwhelming.
• Developing ongoing aims and objectives – in breaking down the problem consider SMART objectives to provide something to aim toward, keeping in mind that wicked problems will probably defy some of these.

The United Nation Sustainable Development Goals

In 2015, the United Nations adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs, or Global Goals) which centre on protecting the planet, ending poverty, hunger and discrimination, and tackling injustice and inequality, by the year 2030.

These are the goals:

With the exception of Goal 17, these are also wicked problems: none can be solved in a simple, linear, quick, or uniform way. What’s more, the problems embedded within the goals are interlinked, which makes them all the more complicated and difficult to resolve. Nearly 200 countries which have signed up to these goals will undertake advancing them in different, culturally sensitive ways that can be applied at local levels.

The declaration of the goals, including the vision, principles, and how the partnership is envisaged (see Goal 17) is explained here:  https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda