Weaknesses of wickedness: a critical perspective on wickedness theory

Abstract

It is attractive to frame societal challenges such as climate change, terrorism and migration as 'wicked issues'. Wickedness theory in its various guises has become popular as it connects the uncertain and political nature of issues with hopeful strategies for strengthening networks, trust and learning. In this paper we take a critical approach towards wickedness, advancing three criticisms: (1) the daily experiences of people and their practices are missing from the grand narratives about wickedness, (2) the potential of collaborations and learning to address these problems is romanticized, (3) the implications for managerial and professional perspectives are unclear. We argue that the wickedness literature can be strengthened by further emphasizing situated relations, routines and rituals, adopting the perspective of situated wickedness. This would link insight into grand wickedness to insights into daily ambiguity. We illustrate this argument with two specific cases, (counter)terrorism and forced migration/refugees.

A critical assessment of the wicked problem concept: relevance and usefulness for policy science and practice

“…Most papers in this special issue try to disentangle the concept and go beyond the dichotomous analytical framing of wicked versus tame problems, albeit in different ways. Noordegraaf et al (2019) argue that people and practices in the definitions of wicked problems are not included and aim to revise and enrich wickedness theory. Across the literatures, they argue, here is little emphasis on how people experience issues and whether they see and/or feel these as 'wicked'.…”

“…A second, but less pronounced tendency in the special issue papers is to point towards the importance of the links between problems, actors and efforts to address the problems. For Noordegraaf et al (2019), the way people experience problems is a key aspect of their wickedness, and Bannink and Trommel (2019) argue that it is because normative and factual judgements are linked at actor level, that problems become wicked. Turnbull and Hoppe (2019) go a step further and include the political distance between policy actors engaging with the problem as a defining characteristic of the problematicity of policy problems.…”

“…Others have made similar arguments, claiming that a combination or alternation of different governance capabilities (reflexivity, responsiveness, resilience, revitalization and rescaling) is required to tackle wicked problems, instead of sticking to one and the same approach (Termeer, Dewulf, Breeman, & Stiller, 2015;Termeer, Dewulf, Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, Vink, & Vliet, 2016). Noordegraaf et al (2019) add to this debate by criticizing the ease with which scholars relate wicked problems to ideas of networks, trust and learning. They argue that if wickedness is really taken seriously, it involves 'emotion, secrecy, divisions, competition, resistance and distrust, all of which inhibit learning and trust' .…”

“…Most of the contributions to this special issue concur that the nature of the policy problem and its associated wickedness or problematicity matter a great deal for how it can or ought to be tackled. Noordegraaf et al (2019) warn against relying on trust and learning as magic solutions for wicked problemstrust and learning are needed in wicked problem situations for the same reason that we can't have them. Perfect solutions do not exist, only clumsy solutions, or intelligently imperfect ones, as Bannink and Trommel (2019) argue.…”

“…Perfect solutions do not exist, only clumsy solutions, or intelligently imperfect ones, as Bannink and Trommel (2019) argue. A recurring argument (Bannink & Trommel, 2019;Noordegraaf et al, 2019;Turnbull & Hoppe, 2019;Termeer & Dewulf, 2019) is that partial solutions to wicked problems are the only feasible way forward. This goes against the moral principle proposed by Churchman (1967, p. B-141) that 'whoever attempts to tame a part of a wicked problem, but not the whole, is morally wrong'.…”