Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

Brian W. Head, Institute for Social Science Research, University of Queensland

[Link]
Published online: 24 May 2017

Summary
In the early 1970s, Rittel and Webber asserted that conventional approaches to scientific analysis and rational
planning were inadequate for guiding practitioners and researchers who were tackling complex and contested
social problems—which they termed “wicked” problems. The full implications of this challenging critique of rational
policy planning were not elaborated at that time, but the underlying issues have attracted increasing attention and
debate in later decades. Policy analysts, academic researchers, and planning practitioners have continued to
grapple with the claim that conventional scientific-technical approaches might be insufficient and even misleading
as a basis for understanding and responding to complex social issues. This is paradoxical in the modern era, which
has been attracted to notions of evidence-based policymaking, policy evaluation, and performance-based public
management.

Scholarly discussion has continued to evolve concerning methods for addressing highly contested arenas of policy
and planning. One key proposition is that citizens and key stakeholders tend to have conflicting perceptions about
the nature of particular social “problems” and will thus have different views about appropriate responses or
“solutions.” A related proposition is that these disputes are anchored in differing values and perceptions, which are
not able to be adjudicated and settled by empirical science, but require inclusive processes of argumentation and
conflict resolution among stakeholders. Hence, several kinds of knowledge—lay and expert, civic and professional—
need to be brought together in order to develop transdisciplinary “usable knowledge.”

As the research literature produces a richer array of comparative case analyses, it may become feasible to construct
a more nuanced understanding of the conditions underlying various kinds of wicked problems in social policy and
planning. In the meantime, generalized and indiscriminate use of the term wicked problems is not helpful for
delineating the nature of the challenges faced and appropriate remedial actions.

Keywords: wicked problems, problem definition, complex problems, new public management, collaborative problem
solving, risk management, information uncertainty

Subjects: Policy, Administration, and Bureaucracy

Introduction

The public policy process in a democratic political system is always focused on the “problems”
that should compel attention and debate. Defining the nature of the problems that warrant a
public policy response is central to policy debate and program management (Dery, 1984). In every
country, some types of problems are seen as more important than others, and many key issues
are placed on the policy agenda for further debate and consideration (see Marier, 2016).

Page 1 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Australian National University; date: 06 March 2024
Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

Importantly, some problems are regarded as more straightforward than others. Straightforward
problems are generally able to be defined and understood with reasonable clarity, and are able to
be resolved with a reasonable level of agreement. In a sense, they cease to become “problems” by
becoming settled and institutionalized. By contrast, other problems are seen as more complex,
more intractable, and more likely to defy resolution. Examples might include the persistence of
poverty and inequality, family violence, criminal behavior, and environmental degradation.
These problems typically provoke divergent views about the very nature of the problem and its
relative importance. The disagreements arise because key stakeholders’ viewpoints are shaped by
different assumptions, values, and interests. The differences have major consequences, since the
way in which a problem is scoped and perceived tends to correspond with specific remedial
actions to address the identified problem.

The Original Formulation

In their foundational article, Rittel and Webber used the term wicked to describe intractable and
contested social problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973; see also Churchman, 1967; Skaburskis, 2008).
They suggested that such problems could not be tamed or domesticated through standard
managerial approaches that rely on rational-analytic models of planning and decision making. In
drawing attention to the intractable and contentious aspects of wicked problems, Rittel and
Webber suggested that most policy responses are partial or even counterproductive, and that
even the best available solutions are highly provisional rather than enduring. They implied that
inclusive discussion, involving a wide range of stakeholders, would be needed to deal with the
most challenging issues. The challenges, according to Rittel and Webber, applied not only in their
own field of urban design and architecture but also in wider fields of social and environmental
planning and policymaking. However, their 1973 article was primarily directed toward critiquing
and problematizing the rational planning approaches of their era, rather than offering detailed
advice on preferred processes and methods for managing complex and wicked issues into the
future.

Rittel and Webber distinguished between, on the one hand, “tame” or “benign” problems
(typified by engineering, operations research, and computational sciences), which are amenable
to being “solved” through technical expertise, and, on the other hand, wicked social problems
that cannot be controlled in the same way through technical expertise. The difference arises
essentially from the social complexity and political pluralism of the stakeholders; in other words,
both the nature of the problems and the acceptability of the policy responses are politically
contested.

Rittel and Webber elaborated ten features of wicked problems, crafted as counterpoints to the
prevailing orthodoxies of scientific planning and operations research:

There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem.

Wicked problems have no “stopping rule” (i.e., no definitive solution).

Solutions to wicked problems are not true or false; instead, they are good or bad.

There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.

Page 2 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Australian National University; date: 06 March 2024
Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

Every [attempted] solution to a wicked problem is a “one-shot operation”; there is no

opportunity to learn by trial and error.

Wicked problems do not have an enumerable set of potential [correct] solutions that may be
incorporated into the plan.

Every wicked problem is essentially unique.

Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.

The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous

ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution.

The planner has no right to be wrong (i.e., there is no public tolerance for experiments that
fail).

(Rittel & Webber, 1973, pp. 161–167; for a slightly different list, see Rittel, 2010)

The intent of this framework was not to establish a new paradigm for policy analysis and for
social science explanation, but rather to provide grounds for skepticism about the prevalent
assumption that scientific planning and associated policy panaceas could actually resolve
complex social and environmental issues. By drawing attention to the inherently political and
conflictual dimensions of how problems are defined and scoped, Rittel and Webber drew
attention to the limits of scientific expertise (as well as the limits of partisan ideological
solutions), in shaping appropriate policy responses to ongoing and contested social issues.

The contrast between technocratic problems and socially complex problems was nicely illustrated
by Nelson (1974, 1977) in his reflections on the “moon-ghetto metaphor.” Nelson noted there
was a stark difference between the ambitious NASA program of the 1960s designed to land a
manned spacecraft on the moon and the same government’s ambitious “war on poverty” in
racially divided U.S. cities during the same period. The first (technical) challenge was successfully
solved, through massive investments in specialized science and engineering, supported by strong
political leadership and bipartisan legitimization. On the other hand, science and technology
could not solve the second (social) challenge—because urban poverty and social dysfunction
involve a mix of difficult and linked issues spanning racial discrimination, unemployment,
education, housing, and criminal behavior, etc. This is a classic case of a wicked problem—
persistent, multilayered, with many interactive causal relationships, and with many conflicting
perspectives about values, priorities, and methods for improvement.

In the late 1960s and 1970s, a period of social and political upheaval in western democracies, a
major debate raged between two camps in the social sciences. On the one hand, the proponents of
a conventional (positivist) approach argued that rigorous social research could establish a
scientific understanding of causal relationships among social factors, thereby allowing better
selection of policy and regulatory instruments to achieve desired social goals. By contrast, various
versions of hermeneutic social science and critical social theory (e.g., Adorno, 1976; Flyvbjerg,
2001; Rein, 1976) argued that understanding sociopolitical processes requires an emphasis on
lived experience, concern about inequalities in power, and respect for the authenticity of citizens’
own expressed perspectives about their values and interests.

Page 3 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Australian National University; date: 06 March 2024
Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

Whereas positivist social scientists tended to analyze small and discrete slices of more complex
phenomena, other scholars sought to pursue more integrated approaches. Those influenced by
systems thinking pointed to the importance of taking into account more complex and
interconnected layers of analysis (Churchman, 1968; Mason & Mitroff, 1981). Ackoff (1974)
claimed that social and economic problems cannot be understood and addressed in isolation:

Every problem interacts with other problems and is therefore part of a system of
interrelated problems, a system of problems . . . I choose to call such a system a mess . . . The
solution to a mess can seldom be obtained by independently solving each of the problems
of which it is composed . . . Efforts to deal separately with such aspects of urban life as
transportation, health, crime, and education seem to aggravate the total situation.

(Ackoff, 1974, p. 21)

In terms of managing or resolving complex and controversial problems, a large number of

strategies and policy instruments could, at least in principle, be available for the consideration of
decision makers. Roberts (2000) suggested that these essentially centered on three main choices:
authoritative, competitive, and collaborative forms of strategic response. The first seeks to
impose a solution and centralize control through empowering expert authority (whether
scientific-technical, legal-regulatory, or military). The second strategy relies on markets—
including the contest of economic and political ideas—to produce innovation, but only the
winners are likely to be rewarded and others may suffer losses. The third involves building
partnerships, alliances, and networks to find areas of mutual benefit and to tackle issues that
cannot be solved by any particular organization.

In these circumstances, where a government feels compelled to take action, one possible
approach would be to impose a singular authoritative “solution” on the complex and contested
realities. Three brief examples might illustrate this point. First, to combat the “drug problem,” a
government might declare a “war on drugs” by making all involved in the supply and distribution
of illicit drugs guilty of a capital offense and subject to execution. Second, to combat the “crime
problem,” a government might declare it would increase penalties and build many new prisons to
separate offenders from society. Third, to tackle the “immigration problem” and to improve
social harmony, a government might declare that it would drastically cut immigration numbers
and favor groups with the best history of social assimilation. In each of these cases, the policy
responses might be popular with large sections of society, but the populist “solutions” might be
tackling only some of the symptoms without tackling the underlying causal factors governing the
evolution of the difficult and intractable problems.

Developing the Legacy

Discussion of the wicked problems framework in the modern context needs to be linked to later
developments in the literature about policymaking. Three important sets of intellectual issues
and themes, highlighted but not developed during the 1970s discussions, have attracted enduring
interest and generated further conceptual development and detailed comparative case analyses.
One theme relates to the most appropriate focus of policy analysis itself, the second theme relates
Page 4 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Australian National University; date: 06 March 2024
Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

to improving the knowledge base for policymaking in complex policy areas, and the third theme
relates to exploring the most effective methods of deliberation for addressing wicked problems in
the future.

Problem Framing in Policy Analysis and Politics

The first legacy theme, the key focus of policy analysis, has served to reinforce the importance of
problem definition and agenda setting in policy debates. This is the phase of the policy process
where the nature and scope of problems are initially formulated and debated (Dery, 1984). Some
problems (“tame” in Rittel and Webber’s terminology) are relatively well defined and well
structured, with agreed technical parameters and a relatively solid knowledge base. Much of the
literature of the early 1970s took computational logic (underlying the early development of
information processing and operations research) as a yardstick for determining whether
problems, and the rules for problem solving (as in a game of chess), were well specified (Simon,
1973, 1983). Some problems were seen as less structured or simply “ill structured.” Other authors
rejected this logic-based approach to problem structuring in order to focus on the intrinsic
qualities of entangled and ambiguous problems, whose boundaries and connections were
described as “messy” (Ackoff, 1974; Dunn, 1988; Horn & Weber, 2007; Mason & Mitroff, 1981).
These messy problems included the complex and contested issues that displayed many of the
features typical of wicked (intractable) problems.

Framing is a crucial dimension of how the debates about problems, contexts, and responses are
shaped and represented. Schön and Rein considered framing “a way of selecting, organizing,
interpreting and making sense of a complex reality to provide guideposts for knowing, analyzing,
persuading and acting” (Schön & Rein, 1994, p. 146). The dynamics of problem framing and
problem definition are important for many reasons, including the widely accepted observation
that the way a problem is defined (or structured) is closely tied to the type of solution that is
proposed (Bacchi, 2009; Peters, 2005). For example, if poverty is seen as an individual-centered
problem, generated largely by deficits in personal skill and motivation, the solutions proposed
will be oriented toward encouraging individuals to develop their skills and work orientation. By
contrast, if poverty is largely seen as an enduring structural feature of society, generated by
economic elites and impersonal market forces, the solutions proposed are likely to be oriented
toward social security, employment programs, and income safety nets.

In the decades since the 1970s, the public policy literature has also increasingly focused on the
situations or contexts in which problem framing occurs. Through empirical case studies and more
systematic comparative analyses, policy studies have come to recognize the crucial importance of
examining closely the nature and evolution of different types of policy problems. Thus, there has
been more nuanced attention to: problems arising in specific policy domains (such as social,
educational, economic, or environmental); demonstrating how problems are linked with
different sets of stakeholders, decision makers, and network configurations; differentiating the
problems at different geospatial scales (local, regional, national, global); and identifying

Page 5 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Australian National University; date: 06 March 2024
Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

problems that have spillovers and ramifications across policy sectors and across organizational
sectors (for example, issues centered on sustainable development, socioeconomic well-being, or
social justice).

These more nuanced typologies and approaches have become the basis for reconsidering policy
design. Since the 1970s this term has been used to emphasize the creativity, innovation, and
learning dimensions of the search for policy alternatives—themes that fitted nicely with Rittel
and Webber’s academic base in the urban planning and architecture disciplines. For Linder and
Peters (1984), a design perspective would need to build systematically on three dimensions of
policy knowledge: understanding causation, the evaluation of alternatives, and understanding
how interventions operate. It would be necessary to deepen policy thinking around the
characteristics of problems (scale, collectiveness, certainty, predictability, independence), the
nature of stated goals (value-laden, operational, process of goal setting), and the nature and
suitability of various instruments. Policy design, according to Howlett (2011, 2014), represents an
integrated approach that brings together identifying and scoping the problem, debating the
choice of instruments and procedures, and evaluating implementation processes, including
longer-term outcomes. The analysis of complex issues requires special care, however, because
such problems are likely to be politically contentious, marked by “framing contests” that
oversimplify the problems and recast them in more emotional and value-laden terms. Complex
issues are also likely to display knowledge gaps and diversity among stakeholder perspectives and
interests, both of which create higher levels of uncertainty and ambiguity, as noted below.

Knowledge and the Reliability of Science

The second legacy theme relates to the role of knowledge in better understanding and addressing
wicked problems. The rational-technical approach assumes that complex and contested social
problems can be addressed and mitigated through the application of better information
(Seidman, 1983). What kinds of knowledge are most valuable for developing better decisions?
Does more knowledge improve the level of certainty, not only about the nature of problems but
also about the most effective programs of action to achieve improved outcomes?

The rationalist optimism of technocratic planning and mega-projects (for critiques, see Webber,
1978; Sieber, 1981; Hall, 1982) attests to the strength of this belief in the power and efficacy of
expertise—not only within the research sector but also among various governmental agencies
(Rivlin, 1971) and practitioner organizations. The “evidence-based” policy movement (Davies,
2004; Maynard, 2006; Nutley, Walter, & Davies, 2007) demonstrates the ongoing vitality of
progressive social science. The cognitive dimension of social understanding (i.e., how to generate
and validate rigorous knowledge) is of vital importance for policy analysis. Reliable knowledge is
essential for better understanding the multidimensional aspects of a problem in context, and for
evaluating the likely effects of possible interventions (Haskins & Margolis, 2014; Head, 2016).

However, the processes of policy decision making are not science-driven, owing to the political
realities of power, competition, pragmatism, and partisan communication. Many kinds of
knowledge and experience are important, including the perspectives of stakeholders, citizen-
clients, program managers, regulators, and service providers. In practice, the more complex the

Page 6 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Australian National University; date: 06 March 2024
Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

problem under consideration, the less likely that science alone can provide an answer that is
acceptable to all. In many policy areas, different policy options will have differential impacts on
various groups. In other words, there are inherent issues of equity, fairness, and ethical conduct
in the choice and implementation of policies to deal with wicked problems (Wexler, 2009), and
policy actors have a serious moral responsibility to understand the reliability of the knowledge
base for decisions as well as the equity impacts of choices.

Processes for Better Managing Dissonance and Political Uncertainty

Given the complexities arising from various forms of stakeholder conflict and knowledge
uncertainty, the third important legacy theme has been concerned with identifying policy
processes for dealing with the messy, ambiguous, controversial, or unstructured nature of wicked
problems. Fortunately, there are many problems that have already been debated and processed,
including relatively simple or “tame” issues with agreed solutions. These often become settled
into routine patterns of administration, in which incremental adjustment and performance
monitoring are accepted as the dominant modes of governance. The political theatre of public
debate then tends to focus on the more controversial, uncertain, and emergent policy problems—
which tend to require “nonroutine” processes to help identify long-term policy responses that
will be seen as feasible and legitimate.

The wicked problems perspective emphasizes the role of stakeholder perceptions, values, and
interests in explaining how issues are scoped, priorities are set, and possible solutions
considered. Pluralism is seen as an inherent feature of modern societies, and as a positive feature
to be celebrated (Webber, 1978), rather than as an inconvenience to be suppressed through
technocracy and scientistic decision making. Public policy, from this viewpoint, is not so much
about establishing truths but more about legitimatizing feasible and acceptable next steps.
Communication and negotiation must have a key role. Rather than a reliance on expert-driven
science and data analysis, the central focus is on mediating the values and interests that are
articulated by citizens, consumers, business lobbies, and community and environmental groups.

Uncertainties arising from knowledge gaps or conflicts, from value differences, and from
organizational or regulatory complexities are likely to exacerbate tensions inherent in addressing
wicked problems, according to Koppenjan and Klijn (2004). To address these tensions and
uncertainties, a new literature has emerged on the theory and practice of inclusive forms of
deliberation for policy and planning, such as stakeholder forums and citizen juries (Fischer, 1993;
Fischer & Gottweis, 2012; Hajer & Wagenaar, 2003; Innes, 1995; Innes & Booher, 2010). If the
purpose of the process is to reach broad agreement on a feasible and legitimate policy stance,
while avoiding the negativity of partisan posturing, some of the processes for airing grievances
and reconciling differences will need to be behind closed doors (Campbell, 2003). In order to
allow innovative ideas to emerge, policy actors may need to be protected from politicization
(Hoppe, 2010, p. 140). Deliberative spaces or forums for reasoned debate and discussion allow
actors to be shielded temporarily from the fierce glare of everyday scrutiny and partisan politics.
These collaborative processes are designed to facilitate the emergence of new thinking and
greater consensus (Ansell & Torfing, 2014; Weber & Khademian, 2008).

Page 7 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Australian National University; date: 06 March 2024
Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

Identifying Core Features and Core Strategies

Rittel and Webber (1973) proposed a list of ten characteristic features of wicked problems, but
they provided only incidental commentary on how the features operate individually or
collectively in practice. Given the overlap between some of the elements, it is reasonable to regard
the list as suggestive, rather than as constituting a definitional scorecard (i.e., all wicked
problems must have all ten features, other problems have none or only a few). Because their list is
quite cumbersome, and because it reflects the terminology of a 1970s debate with the sciences of
information processing and operations research, later writers have tried to simplify and
reformulate the essential features in more accessible language. Indeed, there are potential
advantages in providing a more cohesive and simple account that can help analysts to focus
research and practice on the nature of the diverse problems and appropriate methods for
addressing different kinds of problems.

First, in a review of scholarly usages of the term wicked problem, Danken and colleagues (2016)
found a concentration of three themes or clusters concerning the nature of such problems:

(1) wicked problems resist a clear solution, and they tend to become chronic; (2) the
management of wicked problems involves a multitude of stakeholders with typically
diverging values and interests; and, finally, (3) wicked problems defy full understanding
and definition of their nature and implications.

(Danken, Dribbisch, & Lange, 2016, p. 18)

Xiang (2013) argued there are five core features of wicked problems:

1. indeterminacy in problem formulation

2. nondefinitiveness in problem solution

3. nonsolubility

4. irreversible consequentiality

5. individual uniqueness.

Head (2008) argued that there are three essential dimensions of wicked problems that are
cumulative and mutually reinforcing: complexity (in relation to elements, subsystems, and
interdependencies), uncertainty (in relation to risks, consequences, and future changes), and
divergence (in relation to values, viewpoints, and strategies).

Second, in relation to methods for addressing wicked problems, Danken and colleagues identified
two main approaches in the scholarly literature. The first was collaboration: “the involvement of
external stakeholders in public policymaking, inter-organizational collaboration among
governmental bodies, and networked forms of governance.” The second method required
enhanced public leadership, especially new skills and understandings by public managers for
dealing with collaboration and mediation among stakeholders (Danken et al., 2016, p. 18). The

Page 8 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Australian National University; date: 06 March 2024
Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

two methods are consistent with much of the recent research that points to the need for
addressing the significant implications of cross-boundary issues and multilevel governance.
Balint and colleagues (2011) additionally argued for “learning networks” as a method for dealing
with knowledge uncertainty, values differences, and lack of agreement on solutions. Head and
Alford (2015) argued that the “problem complexity” and “stakeholder divergence” aspects of
wicked problems can be addressed through new approaches to systems thinking, collaboration,
and coordination, and the adaptive leadership roles of public leaders and managers. Termeer et al.
(2015) argued that four broad sets of governance capabilities are needed: (a) reflexivity, or the
capability to deal with multiple frames; (b) resilience, or the capability to adjust actions to
uncertain changes; (c) responsiveness, or the capability to respond to changing agendas and
expectations; and (d) revitalization, or the capability to unblock stagnations. Xiang (2013) argued
that the collective or “social” nature of working with wicked problems and adaptation strategies
requires a “holistic and process-oriented approach” that is “adaptive, participatory, and
transdisciplinary.” Working through an “open and heuristic process of collective learning,
exploration, and experimentation,” this approach promises to be “efficacious in fostering
collaborative behavior, reducing conflicts, building trust among all stakeholders and
communities involved, and ultimately producing better and more satisfying results” (Xiang,
2013, p. 2).

In confronting the difficulties and intractability of wicked problems, Rittel and Webber did not
despair. They did not counsel fatalism, passivity, or inaction in the face of the knowledge
uncertainties and conflict mitigation challenges. Nor did they endorse simplistic or ideological
panaceas, such as the “small” government agenda whereby the public sector abandons any
ambition to resolve tough issues, or offloads responsibility for problem solving to those directly
affected. Rather, the wicked problems perspective in public policy is a call for governments to
embrace stakeholder pluralism, acknowledge the limits of current knowledge, and develop
procedural reforms to make policy processes more open and transparent (Head, 2014; Hoppe,
2010).

“Fixing” the Problem? Or “Tackling” the Challenges?

Much of the public policy literature has maintained a pragmatic skepticism about human
capacities to solve major problems. Wildavsky, for example, recognized the difficulty of tackling
broad and persistent social problems: “problems are not so much solved as alleviated,
superseded, transformed, and otherwise dropped from view” (Wildavsky, 1979, p. 386). Problems
are reinvented and refurbished, just as solutions are refreshed and recycled. In order to avoid
overgeneralization, policy analysts have distinguished a spectrum of policymaking contexts with
different levels of risk and challenge. At one end of the spectrum, the challenges for
understanding and decision are relatively routine in nature, and are handled administratively
with little discussion; in more challenging or novel situations, adaptive management leads to
incremental change but with little requirement for debate and conflict about underlying

Page 9 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Australian National University; date: 06 March 2024
Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

assumptions. At the other end of the spectrum, large and complex issues may emerge that
generate fundamental questioning of current problem framing and policy approaches and major
debates about new paradigms for future action:

routine decision regimes focus on matching and adapting existing programs and
repertoires to emerging conditions, but involve little debate on its logic and design, which
is built into the programs and repertoires; incremental decision-making deals with
selective issues as they emerge, but does not deal comprehensively with all constituent
issues associated with the policy domain; and fundamental decisions are relatively
infrequent opportunities to re-think approaches to policy domains, whether as result of
crisis, new governments, or policy spillovers. Where fundamental decisions are
concerned, it is important to note that they are anticipated and followed by incremental
or routine regimes.

(Lindquist, 2001, p. 19)

The assumption that big problems eventually tend to become transformed or institutionalized
into settled programs is best seen as an empirical question, for ongoing research. The structural
and dynamic aspects of problem agendas and policy development are shaped by many factors,
ranging from the contest of ideas (Béland & Cox, 2011) to the political and institutional forces in
play.

The extent of agreement on values and knowledge, among both decision makers and
stakeholders, is of critical importance. It affects not only how the problem is perceived but also
how adequate policy responses are best generated. Drawing on the management and leadership
literature, Heifetz (1994, p. 76) distinguished among three situations: first, where there is clarity
about both the nature of the problem and the likely solution; second, where the nature of the
problem is seen to be clear, but the solutions are not—typically leading to further investigation
and discussion; and third, situations where both the problem definition and the solution are
unclear, requiring extensive discussion and debate over time. Drawing on the public policy
literature, Hoppe (2010) in a similar fashion distinguished between “unstructured” problems
(which are low on knowledge certainty and low on alignment of values and norms) and
“structured” problems, where there is higher knowledge certainty and higher agreement on
norms and values (Hoppe, 2010, pp. 72–77).

These reflections point toward a need for a more nuanced approach to categorizing policy
problems. Rather than binary either–or thinking (wicked or nonwicked), it would be useful to
consider a spectrum of problem types, which vary according to the intensity of their potentially
wicked features, such as stakeholder conflict and knowledge uncertainty (Alford & Head, 2015).

Drawing on the environmental and resource-management literature, Balint and colleagues (2011)
distinguished a range of situations faced by decision makers, dependent on whether stakeholder
values are aligned and whether the knowledge base is robust. This leads to four scenarios (Table
1), ranging from relatively tame situations (type 1) through to relatively wicked problems (type
4).

Page 10 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Australian National University; date: 06 March 2024
Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

Table 1. The Intersection of Knowledge and Value Dissonance

High agreement on values Low agreement on values

State of knowledge: 1. Relatively easy decisions; periodic expert 2. Focus on dialogue among stakeholders
Well developed review and adjustment to resolve differences

State of knowledge: 3. Knowledge gaps need to be tackled by 4. Wicked problems requiring repeated
Tentative and experts, with periodic stakeholder dialogue among experts and
disputed engagement stakeholders

Source: Simplified from Balint et al. (2011, p. 10).

In relation to health policy reform, Glouberman and Zimmerman (2002, pp. 1–10) have argued
that policy challenges can be classified as simple, complicated, or complex. In healthcare, the
simple issues are managed through standard formulae and accepted practices. However, there are
many complicated issues that require substantial expertise, technical innovation, financial
investment, and coordination to manage the issue within accepted boundaries, as in the evolving
treatment of transmissible diseases. Complex or wicked problems, which are marked by
disagreement on values and approaches, tend to become intractable and entrenched. Escaping
from a policy gridlock requires fresh thinking and collaborative leadership, according to
Glouberman and Zimmerman, but these are difficult to generate.

The assertion that such problems can be “solved” is perhaps a rhetorical gesture, commonly
indulged by politicians and leaders seeking electoral support. Recent scholars have endorsed the
view that the language of “solving” or “fixing” a problem should in most cases be replaced by the
language of tackling, managing, coping with, and addressing wicked problems (Head & Xiang,
2016). Wicked problems cannot be “tamed” or “fixed” by dissolving them into multiple elements
that are then re-assembled. The political attempt to convert messy unstructured problems into
“well-structured” problems begs the question of whether it is possible to resolve issues through
converting them into “technically controllable” issues (Hoppe, 2010, p. 88). As Conklin noted,
because there are no clear and definitive solutions: “You don’t so much ‘solve’ a wicked problem
as you help stakeholders negotiate shared understanding and shared meaning about the problem
and its possible solutions. The objective of the work is coherent action, not final
solution” (Conklin, 2006, p. 5). This accords with Rittel and Webber’s argument that there is no
“best solution” to a wicked problem, but only provisional responses that are negotiable among
relevant stakeholders. Moreover, as Grint pointed out, from a constructivist viewpoint, leaders
are very actively involved in shaping perceptions of the problem itself, the “context” in which
decisions need to be made, and the preferred responses. These persuasive efforts may legitimize a
particular form of action already preferred by the decision maker. In effect, the problem-context
is reconstructed as a “political arena,” in which leaders use persuasive mechanisms “to render
situations more tractable and compliant to their own preferred form of authority” (Grint, 2005, p.
1492).

Page 11 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Australian National University; date: 06 March 2024
Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

Diffusion and Generalization of Concepts

Questions have arisen about whether the wide diffusion of the concept of wicked problems has
made it more powerful—wicked problems are being noted across a vast range of disciplines and
policy domains (business, cybernetics, ecology, urban design, energy, transportation, health,
socioeconomic sciences, and political-administrative sciences). For example, the extensive
literature on business strategy, which has been focused for many years on how to navigate risk
and uncertainty (Mintzberg, 1994; Raynor, 2007; Stacey, 1992), has been rediscovering wicked
problems as a way of making sense of chaotic economic behavior under conditions of risk and
uncertainty (Camillus, 2008). The alternative view is that the widespread diffusion and
generalization of the concept has undermined its analytical value, and that more precise
conceptual distinctions are needed.

The geospatial scale of analysis has also become stretched, ranging from the local to the global. At
a local level, there are many case studies examining a single policy challenge in a specific
institutional setting—such as aged care (Burns, Hyde, & Killett, 2013) or mental health
(Hannigan & Coffey, 2011). In the middle, there are studies of significant policy challenges (e.g.,
anti-terrorism strategy; see Christensen, Lægreid, & Rykkja, 2016; Fischbacher-Smith, 2016)
pursued at a national level but with significant linkages to regional and global circumstances
(e.g., ecological protection; Davies et al., 2015). At the other end of the spectrum, there are studies
of macro and even global issues of sustainable development and social justice. For example, Levin
et al. (2012) characterized climate change as a “super wicked” problem with four features:

Time is running out; those who cause the problem also seek to provide a solution; the
central authority needed to address it is weak or non-existent; and, partly as a result,
policy responses discount the future irrationally. These four features combine to create a
policy-making “tragedy” where traditional analytical techniques are ill equipped to
identify solutions, even when it is well recognized that actions must take place soon to
avoid catastrophic future impacts.

In similar fashion, Lazarus (2009) claimed that, in relation to policy responses to address the
super wicked problem of climate change, environmental reforms are generally difficult to
achieve, and that legislated measures are often weakened by under-resourcing and weak
implementation in later years. The science of climate change points to the need for robust actions
to achieve medium- and long-term goals and targets, and the science also demonstrates that the
cost of remedial action will increase even more rapidly unless early preventative measures are
taken. However, it has been widely observed that there are few incentives for taking substantive
immediate actions, while there are strong political pressures not to impose large costs on current
actors for the sake of future generations.

Much effort has been expended on examining whether controversial and large-scale problems
are usefully described as wicked, as super-wicked, or simply as an interconnected series of
complex multilevel problems. Some analysts are happy to abandon the terminology of wicked
problems because the core meaning has been weakened in the process of diffusion and

Page 12 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Australian National University; date: 06 March 2024
Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

indiscriminate usage. Others insist that the insights about diversity and contestation in
perceptions, knowledge, and preferred action are fundamental for the social sciences. In
particular, they argue that understanding wicked problems requires a transdisciplinary approach
(Brown, Harris, & Russell, 2010; Huutoniemi & Tapio, 2014). The definitional and epistemological
disputes are unlikely to be resolved by scholars. However, there is considerable energy among
practitioners to make progress in refining new approaches to tackling complex pressing issues.

Addressing Wicked Problems—The Practitioner Turn

The scholarly study of problems can easily become preoccupied with knowledge questions. Much
of the recent literature attempts to move the focus of attention toward exploring a range of
facilitation processes that could be appropriate for managing diversity and uncertainty, and thus
enhancing well-considered approaches for collective action in a local community (Conklin, 2006;
Horn & Weber, 2007). A government report on wicked or intractable problems (Australian Public
Service Commission, 2007) suggested that government agencies should aim to achieve
“sustained behavioral change” through “collaboration” as a response to “social complexity.”
The report outlined a range of new thinking and new processes or techniques that might be useful
for dealing with wicked problems, in turn requiring an expansion in the repertoire of strategic
skills used by senior public officials and political leaders:

Holistic thinking that captures the big picture and the interrelationship of policy problems,
not partial or linear thinking.

A comprehensive focus and/or strategy—because wicked problems have multiple causes,

they require sustained effort and resources.

Innovative and flexible approaches—the need for a systematic approach to social

innovation.

The ability to work across agency boundaries—wicked problems do not conform to

organizational boundaries.

Increasing understanding and debate on appropriate accountabilities, because existing

accountability frameworks may constrain strategies for addressing wicked problems.

Effectively engaging stakeholders and citizens in understanding the problem and in

identifying possible solutions.

Acquisition of additional, needed core skills—develop new skills in communication, big

picture thinking, influencing skills, and the ability to work cooperatively.

Tolerating uncertainty and accepting the need for a long-term focus—solutions to wicked
problems are provisional and uncertain, there are no quick fixes, and solutions may need
further policy change or adjustment. (Australian Public Service Commission, 2007, pp. 35–
36)

Given the inadequate development of governance arrangements for dealing with large and
compound problems like climate change or sustainable development, at both national and global
levels, some analysts have argued for a pluralist and incremental approach (rather than a

Page 13 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Australian National University; date: 06 March 2024
Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

comprehensive architecture for rational policy planning). The quest for rational and elegant
solutions, derived from science and logic, has been strongly rejected by the proponents of cultural
theory (Thompson, Ellis, & Wildavsky, 1990), by the advocates of “post-normal
science” (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993, 2003; Turnpenny, 2012), and by the champions of “clumsy
solutions” theory (Verweij & Thompson, 2006). Dialogue-based solutions acknowledge diverse
perspectives and contributions. Several prospective approaches have been identified by scholars
and practitioners concerned about developing such strategies (Davies et al., 2015; Ney & Verweij,
2015). Social problem-solving strategies need to be flexible, according to this pluralist approach,
and could therefore be misjudged as being inexact, “clumsy,” or messy when judged by the
artificially high yardstick of pure science. However, if human societies are inherently pluralistic
in their thinking, and if societies are now facing rapid change and high uncertainty, it is sensible
to deploy multiple strategies rather than to seek a “one best” solution. From a related
perspective, Ostrom (2007) argued that polycentric forums, building on the knowledge of local
stakeholders, provide a sound pathway for resolving many problems in resource management.
Taking account of specific interests and contingent situations is important for avoiding the false
allure of ideological solutions and dangerous panaceas.

Linking Wicked Problems to the Broader Policy Literature

In order to sharpen the explanatory capacity and generative power of wicked problems
conceptualization, there are large benefits in drawing upon cutting-edge developments in
contemporary policy sciences. There is extensive literature for both researchers and practitioners
that will aid in understanding problems arising from complex sociopolitical and socioecological
processes, and with a view to improving policy and planning outcomes. For example, the policy
sciences literature is exploring important new themes concerning the theory and practice of
policy design, policy reform, effective implementation, policy evaluation, and the determinants
of policy success and failure. These are all relevant for better understanding and management of
wicked problems. In addition, there is a recognition of the need for making better use of case
studies, including a special role for comparative case analysis for testing and refining conceptual
understanding (Dodds, 2013; Ney, 2009; Turnpenny, Lorenzoni, & Jones, 2009). Some examples
are noted below in relation to four policy themes—crisis, complex systems, collaboration, and
experimentation—that could further contribute to developing a deeper understanding of wicked
problems.

The literature on policy response to crisis can make useful contributions to understanding some
types of wicked problems. Crisis generally involves the experience (or the high risk) of major
harm to populations, to organizations, to leadership reputation, or to the environment. Wicked
challenges might be embedded in crises, especially those aspects generated by human behavior
(rather than by natural disasters). Political, social, and economic crises highlight the importance
of good leadership and effective management in identifying risks, undertaking contingency
planning, and coordinating a range of organizations that can address the challenge (Drennan,
McConnell, & Stark, 2015; Keen, 2008). Crisis management generally calls for rapid response by
leaders and managers, rather than lengthy consultations among stakeholders.

Page 14 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Australian National University; date: 06 March 2024
Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

But some wicked problems are slow to develop and slow to be recognized as requiring urgent
attention (e.g., global climate change or global population growth). They can be seen as latent or
creeping crises. The underlying causal conditions can manifest in specific local symptoms (such
as famine and crop failures during cycles of drought, or flood devastation in large river-delta
cities). Short-term local responses will depend on financial and technical resources, including
logistics support and managerial coordination capacity; but long-term preventative measures are
very difficult to generate, owing to a combination of political factors (the framing of competing
priorities, political risks for leaders) and critical constraints on financial investment. Moreover,
leaders and policy advocates have to contend with the widespread “discounting” of future risks
and rewards against the current array of entrenched benefits and expectations (Giddens, 2011;
Kahneman, 2011).

Policy responses to other crisis-linked wicked problems, such as responding to a spike in

refugees or a surge in terrorist incidents, require a high level of coordination between
government agencies. Better coordination is widely seen as a necessary element in responding
effectively to many kinds of wicked problems, but the political and managerial challenges of
effective coordination can be immense (Christensen, Lægreid, & Rykkja, 2013, 2016; Peters, 2015).

The policy literature on complex systems is growing rapidly, and many scholars see a connection
between the discussion of wicked problems and complex systems (Byrne & Callaghan, 2014;
Geyer & Cairney, 2015; Geyer & Rihani, 2010). Complexity theory, originally developed in the
biophysical sciences, draws attention to the multiple interconnections, feedback loops, and
surprising side effects that often undermine leaders’ aspirations to “control” their sociopolitical
systems. More concretely, the governance of societies through public institutions is inherently
challenging, and is full of tensions and paradoxes (e.g., reconciling stability and change,
effectiveness and legitimacy). Managing complex public governance systems is clearly fraught
with difficulties and uncertainties, and the simplifications of managerialism are viewed with
suspicion by complexity thinkers (Kiel, 1994; Tiesman et al., 2009). Most writers emphasize the
need for capacity building, to facilitate rapid adaptation to emerging events or trends, and
endorse the valuable adaptive nature of networks in spanning across the sectors of stakeholders
and organizations.

There is an even larger literature on collaborative governance and the benefits of organizations’
working across sectoral boundaries (O’Leary & Bingham, 2009; Weber & Khademian, 2008). But
joined-up interagency coordination within government is only one part of the challenge; the
broader challenge is to establish effective arrangements to cross the vast divide between public
sector agencies and the various nongovernment spheres represented by business and community
and research organizations (Torfing, Peters, Pierre, & Sørensen, 2012). In terms of wicked
problems, the argument is that the “new public management” emphasis on efficiency and
simplicity in the 1980s and 1990s generated fragmentation within government, thus
undermining the capacity to address complex wicked issues; therefore, it has been necessary to
establish new processes to bring these sectors together both for discussing the nature of the
problems and for considering the range of possible policy responses (O’Flynn, Blackman, &
Halligan, 2014).

Page 15 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Australian National University; date: 06 March 2024
Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

This ties in closely with the final theme, namely the need for innovation and experimental policy
design. Sanderson (2009) argued that policy learning should be a paramount objective in
designing innovative approaches to complex and intractable issues. Incremental and adaptive
approaches, including pilot programs and rapid-cycle evaluations, could allow new ideas to be
tested with only a low risk of negative impacts elsewhere in the system. Placing a high priority on
policy learning and the continuous refinement of options also allows for adaptation to the
evolving circumstances that are typical in complex systems. However, the political culture of risk
aversion may be hostile to acceptance of the provisional nature of solutions and the need for
continual adjustment. In other words, innovation to deal with wicked problems requires a more
flexible mindset, not only on the part of public managers but also on the part of their ministers.

Ansell and Torfing (2014) outlined approaches for the co-design of innovative solutions, arguing
that collaboration can foster innovation through the synergies, commitment, and learning
processes. An increased interest in co-design of policy has also led to a desire for better
understanding of behavioral change, both at the individual level and at the organizational and
interagency levels. Traditional tools and instruments by which governments seek to influence
citizens’ behavior (e.g., legislation, regulation, taxes, subsidies, and information) remain central,
but new mixes of policy interventions are increasingly seen to be necessary (Howlett, 2011, 2014;
Zito, 2016). Among the innovative approaches, increased attention is being directed toward using
improved communications tools to encourage behavioral change (such as water and energy
conservation practices) to achieve collective purposes.

Conclusions

Rittel, Webber, and Churchman asserted that conventional scientific approaches are not only
inadequate, but could even also be misleading, for researchers and practitioners dealing with
wicked problems. The implications of these insights were not fully elaborated. Later analysts and
practitioners have attempted to spell out in more detail the situations in which the conventional
scientific-technical assumptions and processes are inadequate and misleading, and what the
alternatives may be for theory and practice. This does not mean that wicked problems cannot be
tackled, it means that linear thinking and top-down solutions cannot pin down and solve the
problems in a definitive and long-lasting way. In effect, public policy is a turbulent stream in
which the parameters change rapidly. As Wildavsky remarked, “Past solutions create future
problems faster than present troubles can be left behind” (Wildavsky, 1979, p. 70). And as Selman
noted in relation to environment policymaking:

In practice, despite enormous amounts of dedication and inspiration, environmental

planning only ever achieves partial success. This is due to the ‘wickedness’ of
environmental issues, deriving not only from their technical complexity, but also from
the multiple arenas where they are contested and debated. As capacities are built to
overcome one barrier, another one arises; as progress is made toward sustainability, so
the finishing line recedes.

(Selman, 1999, pp. 168–169)

Page 16 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Australian National University; date: 06 March 2024
Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

The wicked problems framework resonates more positively with some public policy approaches
than others. On the one hand, rationalist approaches to public policy and administration,
influenced by economics and public choice, have tended to adopt linear analytic methods and
standardized solutions. They prefer to ignore or downplay the politics of disruptive controversies,
instead emphasizing the potential role of scientific models and data analytics for improving
decision making. On the other hand, constructivist approaches to policy studies generally tend to
emphasize the diversity and primacy of stakeholder and practitioner perspectives. In cases where
entrenched differences among stakeholders and decision makers are impeding progress,
constructivists emphasize the role of dialogue and conflict resolution as methods that facilitate
negotiation of a pathway toward managing the policy challenges. There are traps and blind spots
in all policy analysis and decision-making processes, including the incremental search for
lowest-common-denominator agreement. The fundamental challenge arising from the wicked
problems framework is for the policy analyst to focus carefully and reflexively on the nature of
the policy problem, its evolution and interaction, the experience and knowledge of relevant
stakeholders, and the prospects for effective action.

References
Ackoff, R. L. (1974). Redesigning the future. New York: Wiley.

Adorno, T. W. (Ed.). (1976). The positivist dispute in German sociology (G. Adey & D. Frisby, Trans.). New York: Harper &
Row.

Alford, J., & Head, B. W. (2015). Wicked and less wicked problems: A typology and a contingency framework.
Presentation to International Conference on Public Policy, Milan, Italy, July 1–4.

Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (Eds.). (2014). Public innovation through collaboration and design. New York: Routledge.

Australian Public Service Commission. (2007). Tackling wicked problems: A public policy perspective. Discussion paper.
Canberra: Australian Public Service Commission.

Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Sydney: Pearson Education.

Balint, P. J., Stewart, R. E., Desai, A., & Walters, L. C. (2011). Wicked environmental problems: Managing uncertainty and
conflict. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Béland, D., & Cox, R. H. (Eds.). (2011). Ideas and politics in social science research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bernstein, M. (2005). Identity politics. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 47–74.

Brown, V. A., Harris, J. A., & Russell, J. Y. (Eds.). (2010). Tackling wicked problems: Through the transdisciplinary
imagination. Abingdon, U.K.: Earthscan.

Burns, D., Hyde, P., & Killett, A. (2013). Wicked problems or wicked people: Reconceptualising institutional abuse.
Sociology of Health & Illness, 35(4), 514–528.

Byrne, D. & Callaghan, Gill. (2014). Complexity theory and the social sciences: The state of the art. New York: Routledge.

Page 17 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Australian National University; date: 06 March 2024
Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

Campbell, M. C. (2003). Intractability in environmental disputes: Exploring a complex construct. Journal of Planning
Literature, 17(3), 360–371.

Camillus, J. C. (2008). Strategy as a wicked problem. Harvard Business Review, 86(5), 99–106.

Churchman, C. W. (1967). Free for all. Management Science, 14(4), B141–B142.

Churchman, C. W. (1968). The systems approach. New York: Dell Publishing.

Conklin, J. (2006). Wicked problems and social complexity. In Conklin, Dialogue mapping: Building shared
understanding of wicked problems. Chichester: John Wiley.

Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2007). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public
Administration Review, 67(6), 1059–1066.

Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., & Rykkja, L. (2013). After a terrorist attack: Challenges for political and administrative
leadership in Norway. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 21(3), 167–177.

Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., & Rykkja, L. (2016). Ambiguities of accountability and attention: Analysing the failure of a
preventive security project. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 20(1), 21–44.

Danken, T., Dribbisch, K., & Lange, A. (2016). Studying wicked problems forty years on: Towards a synthesis of a
fragmented debate. Der Moderne Staat, 9(1), 15–33.

Davies, K. K., Fisher, K., Dickson, M., Thrush, S., & Le Heron, R. (2015). Improving ecosystem service frameworks to
address wicked problems. Ecology and Society, 20(2), 37.

Davies, P. (2004). Is evidence-based policy possible? The Jerry Lee Lecture, February 19, Campbell Collaboration
Colloquium, Washington, DC. Available at [Link]
KTC%20Module%201%20-%202.3b%20-%20Davies%[Link] <[Link]
KTC_Module_1_files/KTC%20Module%201%20-%202.3b%20-%20Davies%[Link]>.

Dodds, A. (2013). Comparative public policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Dery, D. (1984). Problem definition in policy analysis. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Drennan, L., McConnell, A., & Stark, A. (2015). Risk and crisis management in the public sector (2d ed.). London:
Routledge.

Dunn, W. N. (1988). Methods of the second type: Coping with the wilderness of conventional policy analysis. Policy
Studies Review, 7(4), 720–737.

Dunn, W. N. (Ed.). (1998). The experimenting society: Essays in honor of Donald T. Campbell. New Brunswick:
Transaction Books.

Eisenhardt, K., & Graebnor, M. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of
Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.

Fischbacher-Smith, D. (2016). Framing the UK’s counter-terrorism policy within the context of a wicked problem.
Public Money & Management, 36(6), 399–408.
Page 18 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Australian National University; date: 06 March 2024
Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

Fischer, F. (1993). Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to
practical cases. Policy Sciences, 26(1), 163–187.

Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H. (Eds.). (2012). The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25, 735–755.

Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. R. (2003). Post-normal science. Internet encyclopaedia of ecological economics. Available at
[Link] <[Link]

Geyer, R., & Cairney, P. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook on complexity and public policy. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.

Geyer, R., & Rihani, S. (2010). Complexity and public policy. London: Routledge.

Giddens, A. (2011). The politics of climate change (2d ed.). Cambridge, U.K.: Polity.

Glouberman, S., & Zimmerman, B. (2002). Complicated and complex systems: What would successful reform of
Medicare look like? Discussion Paper No 8, Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada.

Grint, K. (2005). Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of “leadership.” Human Relations, 58(11),
1467–1494.

Hajer, M., & Wagenaar, H. (Eds.). (2003). Deliberative policy analysis. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Hall, P. (1982). Great planning disasters (2d ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hannigan, B., & Coffey, M. (2011). Where the wicked problems are: The case of mental health. Health Policy, 101(3),
220–227.

Haskins, R., & Margolis, G. (2014) Show me the evidence: Obama’s fight for rigor and results in social policy. Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Head, B. W. (2008). Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy, 3(2), 101–118.

Head, B. W. (2014). Evidence, uncertainty, and wicked problems in climate change decision making in Australia.
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(4), 663–679.

Head, B. W. (2016). Toward more “evidence-informed” policy-making? Public Administration Review, 76(3), 472–484.

Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration and
Society, 47(6), 711–739.

Head, B. W., & Xiang, W.-N. (2016). Why is an APT approach to wicked problems important? Landscape & Urban
Planning, 154, 4–7.

Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Page 19 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Australian National University; date: 06 March 2024
Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

Hoppe, R. (2010). The governance of problems: Puzzling, powering and participation. Bristol: Policy Press.

Horn, R. E., & Weber, R. P. (2007). New tools for resolving wicked problems: Mess mapping and resolution mapping
processes. MacroVU and Strategy Kinetics.

Howlett, M. (2011). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments. New York: Routledge.

Howlett, M. (2014). From the “old” to the “new” policy design. Policy Sciences, 47(3), 187–207.

Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Wu, X. (2015). Understanding the persistence of policy failures: The role of politics,
governance and uncertainty. Public Policy and Administration, 30(3–4), 209–220.

Huutoniemi, K., & Tapio, P. (Eds.). (2014). Transdisciplinary sustainability studies. London: Routledge.

Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of
Planning Education and Research, 14, 183–189.

Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public
policy. New York: Routledge.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kiel, L. D. (1994). Managing chaos and complexity in government. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Keen, D. (2008). Complex emergencies. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.

Koppenjan, J., & Klijn, E.-H. (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks. London: Routledge.

Lazarus, R. J. (2009). Super wicked problems and climate change: Restraining the present to liberate the future.
Cornell Law Review, 94(5), 1153–1233.

Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: Constraining
our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences, 45(2), 123–152.

Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (1984). From social theory to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 4(3), 237–259.

Lindquist, E. A. (2001). Discerning policy influence: Framework for a strategic evaluation of IDRC-supported research.
Vancouver: International Development Research Council.

Marier, P. (2016). Policy problems. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. [Link]

acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-101 <[Link]
acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-101>

Mason, R. & Mitroff, I. (1981). Challenging strategic planning assumptions: Theory, cases and techniques. New York:
Wiley.

Maynard, R. A. (2006). Evidence-based decision making: What will it take for the decision makers to care? Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, 25(2), 249–266.

Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York: Free Press.

Page 20 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Australian National University; date: 06 March 2024
Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

Nelson, R. R. (1974). Intellectualizing about the moon-ghetto metaphor: A study of the current malaise of rational
analysis of social problems. Policy Sciences, 5(4), 375–414.

Nelson, R. R. (1977). The moon and the ghetto: An essay on public policy analysis. New York: W. W. Norton.

Ney, S. (2009). Resolving messy policy problems. London: Earthscan.

Ney, S., & Verweij, M. (2015). Messy institutions for wicked problems: How to generate clumsy solutions? Environment
and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(6), 1679–1696.

Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Bristol: Policy
Press.

O’Flynn, J., Blackman, D., & Halligan, J. (Eds.). (2014). Crossing boundaries in public management and policy: The
international experience. London: Routledge.

O’Leary, R., & Bingham, R. (Eds.). (2009). The collaborative public manager. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press.

Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science,
104(39), 15181–15187.

Peters, B. G. (2005). The problem of policy problems. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 7(4), 349–370.

Peters, B. G. (2015). Pursuing horizontal management: The politics of public sector coordination. Lawrence: University
Press of Kansas.

Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2005). Governing complex societies: Trajectories and scenarios. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Pollitt, C. (2003). Joined-up government: A survey. Political Studies Review, 1(1), 34–49.

Raynor, M. E. (2007). The strategy paradox. New York: Doubleday.

Rein, M. (1976). Social science and public policy. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Rittel, H. W. J. (2010). On the planning crisis [first published in German, 1972]. In J. P. Protzen & D. J. Harris (Eds. and
Trans.), The universe of design: Horst Rittel’s theories of design and planning (pp. 151–165). New York: Routledge.

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.

Rivlin, A. M. (1971). Systematic thinking for social action. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Roberts, N. C. (2000). Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. International Public Management
Review, 1(1), 1–19.

Sanderson, I. (2009). Intelligent policy making for a complex world: Pragmatism, evidence and learning. Political
Studies, 57(4), 699–719.

Page 21 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Australian National University; date: 06 March 2024
Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York:
Basic Books.

Seidman, E. (Ed.). (1983). Handbook of social intervention. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Selman, P. (1999). Three decades of environmental planning: What have we really learned? In M. Kenny & J.
Meadowcroft (Eds.), Planning sustainability (pp. 148–174). London: Routledge.

Sieber, S. D. (1981). Fatal remedies: The ironies of social intervention. New York: Plenum Press.

Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 181–201.

Simon, H. A. (1983). Reason in human affairs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Skaburskis, A. (2008). The origin of “wicked problems.” Planning Theory & Practice, 9(2), 277–280.

Stacey, R. (1992). Managing the unknowable. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Termeer, C. J. A. M., Dewulf, A., Breeman, G., & Stiller, S. (2015). Governance capabilities for dealing wisely with wicked
problems. Administration and Society, 47(6), 680–710.

Tiesman, G. R., van Buuren, A., & Gerrits, L. (Eds.). (2009). Managing complex governance systems. London: Routledge.

Thompson, M., Ellis, R., & Wildavsky, A. B. (1990). Cultural theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Torfing, J., Peters, B. G., Pierre, J., & Sørensen, E. (2012). Interactive governance: Advancing the paradigm. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Turnpenny, J. R. (2012). Lessons from post-normal science for climate science-sceptic debates. Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews Climate Change, 3(5), 397–407.

Turnpenny, J. R., Lorenzoni, I., & Jones, M. (2009). Noisy and definitely not normal: Responding to wicked issues in the
environment, energy and health. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(3), 347–358.

Verweij, M., & Thompson, M. (Eds.). (2006). Clumsy solutions for a complex world: Governance, politics and plural
perceptions. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Weber, E. P., & Khademian, A. M. (2008). Wicked problems, knowledge challenges and collaborative capacity builders
in network settings. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 334–349.

Webber, M. M. (1978). A difference paradigm for planning. In R. Burchell & G. Sternlieb (Eds.), Planning theory in the
1980s (pp. 151–162). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Center for Urban Policy Research.

Wexler, M. N. (2009). Exploring the moral dimension of wicked problems. International Journal of Sociology and Social
Policy, 29(9–10), 531–542.

Wildavsky, A. B. (1979). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. Boston: Little, Brown.

Xiang, W-N. (2013). Working with wicked problems in socio-ecological systems: Awareness, acceptance, and
adaptation. Landscape & Urban Planning, 110, 1–4.

Page 22 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Australian National University; date: 06 March 2024
Problem Definition and the Policy Process: Wicked Problems

Zito, A. (2016). New policy instruments. Politics: Oxford research encyclopedias. [Link]
10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-101 <[Link]
10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-101>.

Related Articles
New Policy Instruments

Policy Problems

Policy Success and Failure

Food Safety Policy: Transnational, Hybrid, Wicked

Page 23 of 23

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a
single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Australian National University; date: 06 March 2024