Problematizing ‘wickedness’: a critique of the wicked problems concept, from philosophy to practice

Abstract

The concept of 'wicked problems' is a major current in the fields of policy analysis and planning. However, the basis of the concept has been insufficiently examined. This re-examination of its conceptual basis explains the origins of the limitations and flaws in the wicked problems concept. This paper analyses and rejects the notion of 'wicked problems' on philosophical and practical grounds. We argue instead that the policy sciences already had better conceptualizations of public problems before Rittel and Webber's flawed formulation. We return to this literature, and build upon it by reframing 'wickedness' in terms of higher and lower levels of problematicity in problem structuring efforts. In doing so, we offer an alternative, novel combination of the philosophy of questioning and the policy work approach to policy practice. 'Wickedness' is re-conceptualized as problematicity, conceived as the distance between those who question or inquire into a policy problem. This is primarily a political distance, articulated in terms of ideas, interests, institutions and practices. High problematicity arises only when wide political distances are explicitly maintained, such that partial answers cannot be reached. Practitioners deal with problematicity by a dual practical strategy of balancing closing-down and opening-up sub-questions to the problem in order to structure them such that they become amenable to action through partial answers. This simultaneously incorporates a politics of negotiating political distance via partisan adjustment and serial strategic analysis. The argument constitutes a theoretically and practically superior alternative to the 'wicked problems' perspective.

What's the Problem? Multilevel Governance and Problem‐Solving

“…Turnbull and Hoppe () point out that wickedness was initially introduced in order to (falsely) distinguish all social problems from science problems—thus, by definition, all policy problems are wicked (see also Newman & Head, ; Peters, ). Hisschemöller and Hoppe () reiterated in Turnbull and Hoppe () argue instead that problems differ in the degree to which they are well defined or structured . Ill‐structured problems are difficult to manage effectively and defy the development of simple policy designs (Peters, ).…”

“…Given that Rittel and Webber (1973) propose no less than ten criteria for wicked problems, the concept is too vague to be meaningfully confined to certain problems only, and difficult to operationalize empirically (Alford & Head, 2017;Peters, 2017). The answers to the question of what wicked problems are and how they should be tackled vary widely (Turnbull & Hoppe, 2018) although a recent review identifies increasing agreement between authors (Danken, Dribbisch & Lange, 2016). Turnbull and Hoppe (2018) point out that wickedness was initially introduced in order to (falsely) distinguish all social problems from science problems-thus, by definition, all policy problems are wicked (see also Newman & Head, 2017;Peters, 2017).…”

“…The answers to the question of what wicked problems are and how they should be tackled vary widely (Turnbull & Hoppe, 2018) although a recent review identifies increasing agreement between authors (Danken, Dribbisch & Lange, 2016). Turnbull and Hoppe (2018) point out that wickedness was initially introduced in order to (falsely) distinguish all social problems from science problems-thus, by definition, all policy problems are wicked (see also Newman & Head, 2017;Peters, 2017). Hisschem€ oller and Hoppe (1995) reiterated in Turnbull and Hoppe (2018) argue instead that problems differ in the degree to which they are well defined or structured.…”

The Multilevel Regulation of Complex Policy Problems: Uncertainty and the Swine Flu Pandemic

“…However, as Newman and Head (, 423) point out, evidence can never be a cure for wicked problems as there is never an objective solution for such problems; something that we see highlighted in the understanding of complex policy problems as uncertain risks as well. The last couple of years the wicked problems literature has been criticized for its wicked/tame dichotomy, arguing that most policy problems inherently show some wicked elements – “almost any problem is difficult to solve” (Peters, , 386) – and we should better understand complex policy problems as an index of degrees of problematicity or structuredness (Turnbull & Hoppe, , 12).…”

Can Brexit Improve Our Understanding of “Wicked Problems”? Reflections on Policy and Political Order

“…There are those that dismiss the concept of wicked problems. Turnbull and Hoppe (2018) argue that the wicked problem concept is flawed and should be replaced with a new terminology (which they term the questioning-distance framework).…”