Abstract
The concept of wicked problems has been increasingly recognized in policy studies over the last decade. However, 40 years after the concept was introduced, the bulk of the available research still seems to follow the same approach: Issues are identified as being wicked problems, and rather similar models are theorized to address them. We argue that the research on wicked problems would benefit from a stronger empirical slant; the current research adopts just such an empirical approach in focusing on the role of citizens in tackling wicked policy issues. More specifically, the mechanisms of deliberative democracy are analyzed. This is important because wicked policy issues are commonly associated with fragmentation and incoherence. Deliberative mechanisms are then thought to lead toward public judgment, a form of shared understanding where citizens strive to understand the complexity of the issue and, working together in deliberation, seek the best ways to address it. Drawing on the outcomes of four deliberative forums on euthanasia conducted in Finland in November 2013, the current research analyzes whether the deliberation process helped the participants to progress on the public’s learning curve and whether it was ultimately likely to foster authentic public judgment on a particular wicked policy issue.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Ackoff, R. L. (1974). Redesigning the future. New York: Wiley.
Alink, F., Boin, A., & T’Hart, P. (2011). Institutional crises and reforms in policy sectors: The case of asylum policy in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(2), 286–306.
APS. (2007). Tackling wicked problems: A public policy perspective. Australian Public Service Commission Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.apsc.gov.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0005/6386/wickedproblems.pdf. Accessed February 9, 2015.
Atlee, T. (2004). Critiquing America speaks’ process and alternative approaches as paths to “collective intelligence”. Group Facilitation: A Research & Applications Journal, 6(Spring), 93–101.
Bächtiger, A., Niemeyer, S., Neblo, M., Steenbergen, M. R., & Steiner, J. (2010). Symposium: Toward more realistic models of deliberative democracy. Disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy: Competing theories, their blind spots and complementarities. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 32–63.
Balassiano, K. (2011). Tackling “wicked problems” in planning studio courses. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(4), 449–460.
Batie, S. S. (2008). Wicked problems and applied economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(5), 1176–1191.
Blackman, T., Greene, A., Hunter, D. J., McKee, L., Elliott, E., Harrington, B., et al. (2006). Performance assessment and wicked problems: The case of health inequalities. Public Policy and Administration, 21(2), 66–80.
Boudreau, J. D., & Somerville, M. A. (2014). Euthanasia and assisted suicide: A physician’s and ethicist’s perspectives. Medicolegal and Bioethics, 4, 1–12.
Carcasson, M. (2013). Tackling wicked problems through deliberative engagement. Colorado Municipalities. October, 9–13.
Carson, L. (2011). Dilemmas, disasters and deliberative democracy: Getting the public back into policy. Griffith Review, 32(winter), 25–32.
Carson, L., & Blakely, B. (2013). What can Oregon teach Australia about dying? Journal of Politics and Law, 6(2), 30–47.
Carson, L., & Hart, P. (2005). What randomness and deliberation can do for community engagement. Paper presented at International Conference on Engaging Communities, Brisbane, Australia. http://www.activedemocracy.net/articles/engag-comm.pdf. Accessed February 9, 2015.
Carson, L., & Hartz-Karp, J. (2005). Adapting and combining deliberative designs. In J. Gastil & P. Levine (Eds.), The deliberative democracy handbook (pp. 120–138). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6(1), 307–326.
Clarke, M., & Stewart, J. (2000). Handling the wicked issues. In C. Davies, L. Finlay, & A. Bullman (Eds.), Changing practice in health and social care (pp. 377–386). London: Sage.
Conklin, J. (2005). Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. New York: Wiley.
Coutaz, M. (2014). Too old, too expensive? The impact of health costs on senior citizens in Switzerland. European Geriatric Medicine, 5(1), 39–42.
Cox, A. M., Pinfield, S., & Smith, J. (2014). Moving a brick building: UK libraries coping with research data management as a ‘wicked’ problem. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. doi:10.1177/0961000614533717.
Coyne, R. (2005). Wicked problems revisited. Design Studies, 26(1), 5–17.
Crosby, N., & Nethercut, D. (2005). Citizens juries: Creating a trustworthy voice of the people. In J. Gastil & P. Levine (Eds.), The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century (pp. 111–119). San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Devaney, J., & Spratt, T. (2009). Child abuse as a complex and wicked problem: Reflecting on policy developments in the United Kingdom in working with children and families with multiple problems. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(6), 635–641.
Dryzek, J. S. (2010). Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dryzek, J., & Niemeyer, S. (2006). Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 634–649.
Ellis, D. G. (2010). Argument and ethnopolitical conflict. Communication and Measures, 4(1), 98–113.
Elstub, S. (2010). The third generation of deliberative democracy. Political Studies Review, 8(3), 291–307.
Esterling, K., Fung, A., & Lee, T. (2010). The difference that deliberation makes: Evaluating the “our budget, our economy” public deliberation. Chicago: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
Fishkin, J. S., He, B., Luskin, R. C., & Siu, A. (2010). Deliberative democracy in an unlikely place: Deliberative polling in China. British Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 435–448.
Fleck, L. M. (2012). Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine: Wicked problems, ragged edges and ethical precipices. New Biotechnology, 29(6), 757–768.
Fung, A. (2003). Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design choices and their consequences. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(3), 338–367.
Gastil, J., & Richards, R. (2013). Making direct democracy deliberative through random assemblies. Politics & Society, 41(2), 253–281.
Grint, K. (2005). Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of leadership. Human Relations, 58(11), 1467–1493.
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why deliberative democracy?. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Habermas, J. (1999). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hänninen, J. (2012). Eutanasia—Hyvä kuolema [Euthansia—A good death]. Helsinki: Duodecim.
Hattori, K., McCubbin, M. A., & Ishida, D. N. (2006). Concept analysis of good death in the Japanese community. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 38(2), 165–170.
Head, B. (2008). Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy, 3(2), 101–118.
Heimer, C. A. (2013). ‘Wicked’ ethics: Compliance work and the practice of ethics in HIV research. Social Science and Medicine, 98, 371–378.
Hendriks, C. M. (2006). Integrated deliberation: Reconciling civil society’s dual role in deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 54(3), 486–508.
Herne, K., & Setälä, M. (2005). Deliberatiivisen demokratian ihanteet ja kokeilut [Ideals and experiments of deliberative democracy]. Politiikka, 47(3), 175–188.
Holm, S. (2010). Euthanasia: Agreeing to disagree. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 13(4), 399–402.
Horn, R. E., & Weber, R. P. (2007). New tools for resolving wicked problems: Mess mapping and resolution mapping processes. http://stanford.edu/%7erhorn/a/recent/Clmrgy.pdf. February 9, 2015.
Jentoft, S., & Chuenpagdee, R. (2009). Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem. Marine Policy, 33(4), 553–560.
Jylhänkangas, L., Smets, T., Cohen, J., Utriainen, T., & Deliens, L. (2014). Descriptions of euthanasia as social representations: Comparing the views of Finnish physicians and religious professionals. Sociology of Health & Illness, 36(3), 354–368.
Kreuter, M. W., De Rosa, C., Howze, E. H., & Baldwin, G. T. (2004). Understanding wicked problems: A key to advancing environmental health promotion. Health Education & Behavior, 31(4), 441–454.
Lee, G. L., Woo, I. M. H., & Goh, C. (2013). Understanding the concept of “good death” among bereaved family caregivers of cancer patients in Singapore. Palliative and Supportive Care, 11(1), 37–46.
Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, A., & 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.
Ludwig, D. (2001). The era of management is over. Ecosystem, 4(8), 758–764.
Lukensmeyer, C. (2005). A town meeting for the twenty-first century. In J. Gastil & P. Levine (Eds.), The deliberative democracy handbook (pp. 154–163). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Malone, E. F., & Malone, M. J. (2013). The “wicked problem” of cybersecurity policy: Analysis of United States and Canadian policy response. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 19(2), 158–177.
Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Christiano, T., Fung, A., Parkinson, J., et al. (2012). A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In J. Parkinson & J. Mansbridge (Eds.), Deliberative systems (pp. 1–26). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Estlund, D., Føllesdal, A., Fung, A., et al. (2010). The place of self-interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 64–100.
Marcous, I., Mishara, B. L., & Durant, C. (2007). Confusion between euthanasia and other end-of-life decisions. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 98(3), 235–238.
Miller, D. S., & Gonzalez, M. (2013). When death is the destination: The business of death tourism—Despite legal and social implications. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7(3), 293–306.
Morrell, M. E. (2010). Empathy and democracy: Feeling, thinking, and deliberation. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Nie, M. (2003). Drivers of natural resource-based political conflict. Policy Sciences, 36(3–4), 307–341.
Norton, B. G. (2012). The ways of wickedness: Analyzing messiness with messy tools. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(4), 447–465.
Offe, C. (2011). Crisis and innovation of liberal democracy: Can deliberation be institutionalised? Czech Sociological Review, 47(3), 447–472.
Paul, C., Nicholls, R., Priest, P., & McGee, R. (2008). Making policy decisions about populations screening for breast cancer: The role of citizens’ deliberation. Health Policy, 85(3), 314–320.
Prasser, S. (2012). Euthanasia: Tackling a ‘wicked’ policy problem. Health Matter, 62(Winter), 20–22.
Raisio, H. (2010). The public as policy expert: Deliberative democracy in the context of Finnish health care reforms and policies. Journal of Public Deliberation, 6(2), 1–34.
Raisio, H., Ollila, S., & Vartiainen, P. (2012). Do youth juries enhance youth political and societal participation? Lessons from the Vaasa experiment. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 15(3), 41–59.
Reed, P. M., & Kasprzyk, J. (2009). Water resources management: The myth, the wicked, and the future. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 135(6), 411–413.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
Roberts, N. (2000). Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. International Public Management Review, 1(1), 1–19.
Rurup, M. L., Smets, T., Cohen, J., Bilsen, J., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., & Deliens, L. (2011). The first five years of euthanasia legislation in Belgium and the Netherlands: Description and comparison of cases. Palliative Medicine, 26(1), 23–49.
Scarre, G. (2012). Can there be a good death? Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 18(5), 1082–1086.
Signal, L. N., Walton, M. D., Mhurchu, C. N., Maddison, R., Bowers, S. G., Carter, K. N., et al. (2013). Tackling ‘wicked’ health promotion problems: A New Zealand case study. Health Promotion International, 28(1), 84–94.
Silvoniemi, M., Vasankari, T., Vahlberg, T., Clemens, K. E., & Salminen, E. (2010). Physicians’ attitudes towards euthanasia in Finland: Would training in palliative care make a difference? Palliative Medicine, 24(7), 744–746.
Smith, L. E. D., & Porter, K. S. (2010). Management of catchments for the protection of water resources: Drawing on the New York City watershed experience. Regional Environmental Change, 10(4), 311–326.
Southgate, E., Reynolds, R., & Howley, P. (2013). Professional experience as a wicked problem in initial teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 31(1), 13–22.
Steinberg, A. (2012). What is a “good death”? Notfall Rettungsmed, 15(8), 658–660.
Steiner, J. (2012). Learning to deliberate. In G. M. Carney & C. Harris (Eds.), Citizens’ voices: Experiments in democratic renewal and reform (pp. 3–7). Galway: ICSG.
Stoppelenburh, A., & Vermaak, H. (2009). Defixation as an intervention perspective: Understanding wicked problems at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(1), 40–54.
Thompson, D. F. (2008). Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 497–520.
Trankle, S. A. (2014). Is a good death possible in Australian critical and acute settings? Physician experiences with end-of-life care. BMC Palliative Care, 13, 41.
van Brussel, L., & Carpentier, N. (2012). The discursive construction of the good death and the dying person. Journal of Language and Politics, 11(4), 479–499.
van Bueren, E. M., Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2003). Dealing with wicked problems in networks: Analyzing an environmental debate from a network perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(2), 193–212.
Verbakel, E., & Jaspers, E. (2010). A comparative study on permissiveness toward euthanasia. Religiosity, slippery slope, autonomy and death with dignity. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(1), 109–139.
Walters, G. (2004). Is there such a thing as a good death? Palliative Medicine, 18(5), 404–408.
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.
Xiang, W.-N. (2013). Working with wicked problems in socio-ecological systems: Awareness, acceptance, and adaptation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 110(1), 1–4.
Yankelovich, D. (1991). Coming to public judgment: Making democracy work in a complex world. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Yankelovich, D. (1995). The debate that wasn’t: The public and the Clinton plan. Health Affairs, 14(1), 7–23.
Yankelovich, D. (2011). How to achieve sounder public judgment. In D. Yankelovich & W. Friedman (Eds.), Toward wiser public judgment (pp. 11–32). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Yankelovich, D. (2015). Wicked problems workable solutions: Lessons from a public life. London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Kone Foundation for funding this research and Lyn Carson, Maija Setälä, Salla Kyrönlahti, and Tomi Niemi for their valuable assistance during the project. We are also grateful to three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Raisio, H., Vartiainen, P. Accelerating the public’s learning curve on wicked policy issues: results from deliberative forums on euthanasia. Policy Sci 48, 339–361 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9221-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9221-1