Editing Wicked problem (section)

== Strategies to tackle wicked problems ==
Wicked problems cannot be tackled by the traditional approach in which problems are defined, analysed and solved in sequential steps. The main reason for this is that there is no clear problem definition of wicked problems. Ultimately, the solution to ‘Wicked’ problems requires additional research to understand the gaps in information pertaining these issues. Governments must invest in more evidence-informed science to address the full scope of these problems.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Head |first1=Brian |title=Wicked Problems: Implications for Public Policy and Management |journal=Administration & Society |date=2015 |volume=47 |issue=6 |pages=711–739 |doi=10.1177/0095399713481601}}</ref> Broader thinking into the appropriate options will allow for more innovation within this process. 

In a paper published in 2000, Nancy Roberts identified the following strategies to cope with wicked problems:{{sfn|Roberts|2000}}

;Authoritative
:These strategies seek to tame wicked problems by vesting the responsibility for solving the problems in the hands of a few people. The reduction in the number of stakeholders reduces problem complexity, as many competing points of view are eliminated at the start. The disadvantage is that authorities and experts charged with solving the problem may not have an appreciation of all the perspectives needed to tackle the problem.
;Competitive
:These strategies attempt to solve wicked problems by pitting opposing points of view against each other, requiring parties that hold these views to come up with their preferred solutions. The advantage of this approach is that different solutions can be weighed up against each other and the best one chosen. The disadvantage is that this adversarial approach creates a confrontational environment in which knowledge sharing is discouraged. Consequently, the parties involved may not have an incentive to come up with their best possible solution.
;Collaborative
:These strategies aim to engage all stakeholders in order to find the best possible solution for all stakeholders. Typically these approaches involve meetings in which issues and ideas are discussed and a common, agreed approach is formulated. A significant advantage of this approach is the creation of a strong information sharing environment. The main problem is the risk that certain ideas, while integral to finding a possible solution, may be too controversial to accept by other involved parties. By enhancing the collaborative processes between researchers, this allows for wider coordination of roles within this research. With the inclusion of diverse perspectives into this process, it enhances the potential options and figures considered. The commitment to collaboration in addressing a Wicked problem will likely result in further understanding of the underlying factors and could enhance the means of addressing it. 

In his 1972 paper,{{sfn|Rittel|1972}} Rittel hints at a collaborative approach; one which attempts "to make those people who are being affected into participants of the planning process. They are not merely asked but actively involved in the planning process." A disadvantage of this approach is that achieving a shared understanding and commitment to solving a wicked problem is a time-consuming process. Another difficulty is that, in some matters, at least one group of people may hold an absolute belief that necessarily contradicts other absolute beliefs held by other groups. Collaboration then becomes impossible until one set of beliefs is relativized or abandoned entirely.

Research over the last two decades has shown the value of computer-assisted argumentation techniques in improving the effectiveness of cross-stakeholder communication.{{sfn|Shum|2003}} The technique of [[dialogue mapping]] has been used in tackling wicked problems in organizations using a collaborative approach.{{sfn|Conklin|2003}} More recently, in a four-year study of interorganizational collaboration across public, private, and voluntary sectors, steering by government was found to perversely undermine a successful collaboration, producing an organizational crisis which led to the collapse of a national initiative.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Fischer|first=Michael D.|title=Organizational Turbulence, Trouble and Trauma: Theorizing the Collapse of a Mental Health Setting|journal=[[Organization Studies (journal)|Organization Studies]]|date=28 September 2012|volume=33|issue=9|pages=1153–1173|doi=10.1177/0170840612448155|s2cid=52219788}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Fischer|first1=Michael Daniel|last2=Ferlie|first2=Ewan|title=Resisting hybridisation between modes of clinical risk management: Contradiction, contest, and the production of intractable conflict|journal=[[Accounting, Organizations and Society]]|date=1 January 2013|volume=38|issue=1|pages=30–49|doi=10.1016/j.aos.2012.11.002|s2cid=44146410|url=http://eureka.sbs.ox.ac.uk/4368/1/Fischer_M_D__Ferlie_E_%28authors%27_post-print_version%29_Accounting_Organizations_and_Society.pdf|access-date=17 September 2019|archive-date=5 July 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190705140612/http://eureka.sbs.ox.ac.uk/4368/1/Fischer_M_D__Ferlie_E_%28authors%27_post-print_version%29_Accounting_Organizations_and_Society.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>

In "Wholesome Design for Wicked Problems", Robert Knapp stated that there are ways forward in dealing with wicked problems: {{Blockquote|The first is to shift the goal of action on significant problems from "solution" to "intervention." Instead of seeking the answer that totally eliminates a problem, one should recognize that actions occur in an ongoing process, and further actions will always be needed.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Knapp|first1=Robert|title=Wholesome Design for Wicked Problems|url=http://publicsphereproject.org/content/wholesome-design-wicked-problems|website=Public Sphere Project|access-date=8 November 2015|date=2008}}</ref>}}

Examining networks designed to tackle wicked problems in health care, such as caring for older people or reducing [[sexually transmitted infections]], Ferlie and colleagues suggest that managed networks may be the "least bad" way of "making wicked problems governable".<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Ferlie| first1=E.|last2=Fitzgerald|first2=L.|last3=McGivern|first3=G.|last4=Dopson|first4=S.| last5=Bennett|first5=C. |year=2013| url= https://books.google.com/books?id=OHZpAgAAQBAJ&q=%22Making+Wicked+Problems+Governable%3F%3A+The+Case+of+Managed+Networks+in+Health+Care%22&pg=PP1|title= Making Wicked Problems Governable?: The Case of Managed Networks in Health Care|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]| isbn=978-0-19-164142-8}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Ferlie|first1= E.|last2= McGivern|first2= G.|last3= Fitzgerald|first3= L.|year=2012|title=A New Mode of Organising in Health Care? UK Cancer Services & Governmentality|journal= [[Social Science & Medicine]]|volume= 74|issue= 3|pages= 340–7|doi= 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.03.021|pmid= 21501913}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Ferlie|first1= E.|last2= McGivern|first2= G.|last3= Fitzgerald|first3= L.|last4= Dopson|first4= S.|last5= Bennett|first5= C. |year=2011|title=Public Policy Networks & 'Wicked Problems': A Nascent Solution?|journal= [[Public Administration (journal)|Public Administration]]|volume=89|issue=2|pages=307–324|doi= 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01896.x}}</ref>