Core Concepts

Wicked problems

The concept of wicked problems and their characteristics is one of the fundamental keys to understanding why tackling social problems are typically fraught with frustrations and lack of progress. Taking a strictly scientific view of the hard sciences of physics and chemistry with the aid of mathematics and logic fail miserably to make any head way in finding solutions to issues such as climate change, terrorism or drug abuse.

To clarify this dilemma an extreme example of a wicked problem was during World War II and the Manhattan Project to research and develop the atom bomb.  The technical and logistical difficulties in this project were enormous and extremely challenging. Some of the world’s greatest scientific minds worked on this project to successfully complete the development of the atom bomb. This aspect is termed the tame problem. The other side of the coin is termed the wicked problem asking questions such as should the project have gone ahead; should the bomb have been used on Japan; what should have happened to this type of research and its findings after the war?

In simplistic terms the tame aspect of the problem can be addressed through scientific methodology and logical reasoning. It does not infer that it is easy or straightforward. The wicked aspect of the problem is anything to do with human perceptions, biases, preferences, beliefs, ethics etc. To try to remove the human aspect from a wicked problem is a futile attempt to tame the wicked problem. This is happening with climate change where environmentalists and scientists are attempting to tame the wicked problem by repeating, multiplying and shouting out more scientific facts in a loader voice. The result…. frustrations, failures and blaming.

More detail is given in the INDEPTH section regarding the example and the characteristics and history of wicked problems.

Framing

What is framing and why do I need to know about it? There is no single universal interpretation of framing or the subtle ways it can and is used. Some definitions of framing are:

Framing—as a concept and an area of research—spans several social science disciplines. Frames are interpretive storylines that set a specific train of thought in motion, communicating why an issue might be a problem, who or what might be responsible for it, and what should be done about it. Framing is an unavoidable reality of the communication process, especially as applied to public affairs and policy. There is no such thing as unframed information, and most successful communicators are adept at framing, whether using frames intentionally or intuitively. (7)

Frames are mental structures that shape the way we see the world. As a result, they shape the goals we seek, the plans we make, the way we act, and what counts as a good or bad outcome of our actions. In politics our frames shape our social policies and the institutions we form to carry out policies. (8)

As stated above there is no such thing as unframed information means you will either inherit someone else’s frame which may be problematic, or you create your own frame. We are surrounded everyday by news feeds, advertising, expert opinions and public relations which are all framed to suit the motivations and goals of the person or organization.

Also as stated above frames are mental structure that shape the way we see the world. One frame widely used for climate change is that the world faces dramatic and impending catastrophe if we do not get off our high carbon diet and switch to renewable energy. This frame sends a message of immense danger and how to avert or lessen its impact with behavioural changes and policies. The experts have spoken based on sound scientific knowledge and the world needs to take heed now. The experts in this case are attempting to tame the wicked problem.

George Lakoff highlights why the world has not taken heed as expected by frustrated academics and scientists, whose responses to date has been to shower us in more information under the heading of scientific facts.

The myths began with the Enlightenment, and the first one goes like this.
The truth will set us free. If we just tell people the facts, since people are basically rational beings, they’ll all reach the right conclusions.
But we know from cognitive science that people do not think like that. People think in frames. (8)

Consider a simplistic example of a patient with heart disease who is considering potentially lethal surgery. A surgeon could frame the chances of recovery in two ways: five years after surgery the patient has (i) 90% chance of still being alive (survival frame) or, (ii) 10% chance of being dead (mortality frame). People are inclined to consider surgery when the survival frame is used even though both are logically equivalent. (9)

This website will reframe the issue in a way that focuses on inspiring and realistic visions with multiple benefits. Using the above example as an analogy, it will be reframed from a mortality frame to a survival frame. Though it will be a lot more involved than the example illustrates which only gives a hint of what a frame is.

References

7. Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement. Nisbet, Matthew C. 2, 2009, Environment: Science and Policy For Sustainable Development, Vol. 51, pp. 12-23.
8. Lakoff, George. Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know your values and frame the debate. 2014.
9. Should patients listen to how doctors frame messages? Gigerenzer, Gerd. London : s.n., 27 Nov 2014, British Medical Journal, Vol. 349.