Wicked Problems

[Rowan Emslie]

Originally posted on UpLook

Wicked problems have these features: It is hard to say what the problem is, to define it clearly or to tell where it stops and starts. There is no “right” way to view the problem, no definitive formulation. There are many stakeholders, all with their own frames, which they tend to see as exclusively correct. Ask what the problem is and you will get a different answer from each. Someone can always say that the problem is just a symptom of another problem and that someone will not be wrong. The problem is inter-connected to a lot of other problems; pulling them apart is almost impossible. In a word: it’s a mess.

Sound familiar?

This is an extract from a rather brilliant speech by Jay Rosen of NYU which is well worth reading in full. The speech isn't about development. It's about the difficulties that journalism has with coverage of wicked problems (of course this can be applied to development as well). But the above quote is as succinct description of the difficulties surrounding the development industry as I've seen.

The following extract is from a little later in the speech.

...it is characteristic of wicked problems that key stakeholders define the problem differently. That plurality of frames is inevitable. But what’s not inevitable is the stakeholders’ mutual ignorance of each other’s incompatible starting points. There is no kumbaya moment. You never get everyone on the same page. Consensus? You must be kidding. In dealing with wicked problems these are vain hopes, signs of the stupid. What’s possible is a world where different stakeholders “get” that the world looks different to people who hold different stakes.

It seems to me that many of the big names in development are pretty combative iconoclasts. You have the heavy hitting sceptics and the evangelizing aid-fanatics and the increasingly self-righteous corporatists who dismiss the entire debate as missing the point. There are many, many divisions, constantly highlighted: economists vs political scientists, local vs international stakeholders, Global North vs Global South, academia vs practitioners... The list goes on and on.

Personally, I find it a lot more difficult to think of a comparable list of alliances. In terms of rhetoric and dialogue it seems that development types are a lot better at fighting than they are at incubating more sympathetic opinions of the vast 'plurality of frames' that they find themselves amongst. I find that a little disturbing. So here's my question to all my many elders and betters:

Is the long list of divisions a reflection of my personal reading of the development scene or of a sectoral deficiency in dealing with all the wicked problems 'development' encompasses?

[Sarah Davitt]

Allow me to relate the story of the Pygmy Shrew, my favorite illustration of the wicked problem.

Now, if life imitates art, then the "development scene" can imitate the sectoral deficiencies. 

What is more interesting is that the scene (or any scene, really) forgets that it is its own subculture, which feeds off of conflict and discourse, insiders and outsiders, winners and losers, those who get the funding and those who resent those who did didn't get the funding. 

And we all believe, deeply, for all of our very own good reasons, that we are doing the right thing.   From Corporate Aid To Africa to the FU Anarchist Collective, every single one, believes that the good fight is the side they are standing on.

So there is a bias.  And the bias, goes global, and the wicked problem becomes us (too.)  And because we generally aren't dying via tragic or annoying circumstances and are saddled with the luxury and first world problem of rigorous critical discourse, the wicked problem of "us" is resolved last (if at all).

Of course the too simple reason is related to ego... how can you be "right"  when everyone is right?  And what is the right that you've been fighting for for all this time, is not right at all?  That sort of crisis of faith is harder to swallow if the right you are is connected to the personal life (family/status/operational stability) that you love?  And what would you do if you had to view others with distasteful habits (guns, germs, steel, ritual, language, attitude)  as compassionate, and trying to do what is right and good for them?  How can you do this without becoming rigid in the believing that its all fluffy bunnies and kumbaya moments?

And to answer the question with a question: how can we as a scene of development workers solve become comfortable in our own wicked problem-ness to survive the fluxus?  Can we enjoy the ride?  Can we enjoy each other (those with and without power) on the ride?