Wicked Solutions for Wicked Problems

Natasha Steinhall, Rebecca McPettit, James Bond, Michelle Parks, Mahwish Khan, Daniel Sharfarz, Laura Cabrera, Derek Cabrera
{"title":"Wicked Solutions for Wicked Problems","authors":"Natasha Steinhall, Rebecca McPettit, James Bond, Michelle Parks, Mahwish Khan, Daniel Sharfarz, Laura Cabrera, Derek Cabrera","doi":"10.54120/jost.000053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"“Wicked problems” are often thought of as a situation that should not exist or an inescapable consequence of complex systems. This paper argues for a paradigm shift in instead understanding wicked problems as feedback from the system (i.e., the real world), resulting from a misalignment between our mental model of the system and the system itself, rather than inevitable outcomes of complex systems. Through a systems literature review (SLR) on effective policy and two surveys sampling the US population in order to understand how people are thinking about today’s biggest crises, this paper explores the prevalence of this traditional approach to problem solving. Essentially, wicked problems are the real-world system informing us that our mental model is flawed. When confronted with wicked problems involving webs of causality (as all wicked problems do), people often fail to recognize the needed solutions as a corollary web of actions, instead emphasizing linear causal relationships, or “root causes.” This problem-solving approach has significant consequences, as it overlooks the symmetry between the web of causality generating the problems and the web of solutions that would remedy them. This oversight leads to the implementation of partial solutions divorced from the dynamacy of interaction effects, which in turn leads policy and decision makers to conclude that critical parts of a web of solutions have been ineffective, and thus excluding them from future interventions. This is especially relevant for influential policy makers, planners, and decision makers. However, changing this mindset is in itself a wicked problem. The traditional approach to problems and systems is ineffective, necessitating a more systemic approach to policy. Our statistically significant findings confirm the prevalence of the traditional approach, prompting the recommendation for a more holistic education in critical analysis and systems thinking to address the web of causes that produce “wicked problems.” This is particularly critical for individuals being trained for careers in policy and planning.","PeriodicalId":351054,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Systems Thinking","volume":"36 23","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Systems Thinking","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54120/jost.000053","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

“Wicked problems” are often thought of as a situation that should not exist or an inescapable consequence of complex systems. This paper argues for a paradigm shift in instead understanding wicked problems as feedback from the system (i.e., the real world), resulting from a misalignment between our mental model of the system and the system itself, rather than inevitable outcomes of complex systems. Through a systems literature review (SLR) on effective policy and two surveys sampling the US population in order to understand how people are thinking about today’s biggest crises, this paper explores the prevalence of this traditional approach to problem solving. Essentially, wicked problems are the real-world system informing us that our mental model is flawed. When confronted with wicked problems involving webs of causality (as all wicked problems do), people often fail to recognize the needed solutions as a corollary web of actions, instead emphasizing linear causal relationships, or “root causes.” This problem-solving approach has significant consequences, as it overlooks the symmetry between the web of causality generating the problems and the web of solutions that would remedy them. This oversight leads to the implementation of partial solutions divorced from the dynamacy of interaction effects, which in turn leads policy and decision makers to conclude that critical parts of a web of solutions have been ineffective, and thus excluding them from future interventions. This is especially relevant for influential policy makers, planners, and decision makers. However, changing this mindset is in itself a wicked problem. The traditional approach to problems and systems is ineffective, necessitating a more systemic approach to policy. Our statistically significant findings confirm the prevalence of the traditional approach, prompting the recommendation for a more holistic education in critical analysis and systems thinking to address the web of causes that produce “wicked problems.” This is particularly critical for individuals being trained for careers in policy and planning.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
邪恶问题的邪恶解决方案
人们通常认为 "邪恶问题 "是不应该存在的情况,或者是复杂系统不可避免的后果。本文认为,应该转变范式,将恶性问题理解为来自系统(即现实世界)的反馈,是由于我们对系统的心智模型与系统本身之间的错位造成的,而不是复杂系统的必然结果。本文通过对有效政策的系统文献综述(SLR)和两项美国人口抽样调查,以了解人们是如何思考当今最大的危机的,从而探讨了这种传统的问题解决方法的普遍性。从本质上讲,邪恶问题是现实世界的系统告诉我们,我们的心智模式存在缺陷。在面对涉及因果关系网的邪恶问题时(所有邪恶问题都是如此),人们往往无法将所需的解决方案视为必然的行动网,而是强调线性因果关系或 "根本原因"。这种解决问题的方法会产生严重后果,因为它忽视了产生问题的因果关系网与能够解决问题的解决方案网之间的对称性。这种疏忽导致实施的部分解决方案脱离了互动效应的动态性,进而导致政策和决策者得出结论,认为解决方案之网的关键部分无效,从而将其排除在未来的干预措施之外。这一点对于有影响力的政策制定者、规划者和决策者尤为重要。然而,改变这种思维模式本身就是一个棘手的问题。处理问题和系统的传统方法是无效的,因此有必要采取更加系统的政策方法。我们具有统计学意义的研究结果证实了传统方法的普遍性,从而建议开展更全面的批判性分析和系统思考教育,以解决产生 "邪恶问题 "的各种原因。这对于接受政策和规划职业培训的人员尤为重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Mathematical Theory of Organization Wicked Solutions for Wicked Problems What is the first documented use of the term, "Systems Thinking"? Systems Thinking for Sustainability Human-Centric Functional Modeling and the Unification of Systems Thinking Approaches
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1