@article{Daviter2017,
  author    = {Daviter, Falk},
  title     = {Coping, taming or solving},
  series = {Policy studies},
  volume    = {38},
  journal   = {Policy studies},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {0144-2872},
  doi       = {10.1080/01442872.2017.1384543},
  pages     = {571 -- 588},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {One of the truisms of policy analysis is that policy problems are rarely solved. As an ever-increasing number of policy issues are identified as an inherently ill-structured and intractable type of wicked problem, the question of what policy analysis sets out to accomplish has emerged as more central than ever. If solving wicked problems is beyond reach, research on wicked problems needs to provide a clearer understanding of the alternatives. The article identifies and explicates three distinguishable strategies of problem governance: coping, taming and solving. It shows that their intellectual premises and practical implications clearly contrast in core respects. The article argues that none of the identified strategies of problem governance is invariably more suitable for dealing with wicked problems. Rather than advocate for some universally applicable approach to the governance of wicked problems, the article asks under what conditions different ways of governing wicked problems are analytically reasonable and normatively justified. It concludes that a more systematic assessment of alternative approaches of problem governance requires a reorientation of the debate away from the conception of wicked problems as a singular type toward the more focused analysis of different dimensions of problem wickedness.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Daviter2017,
  author    = {Daviter, Falk},
  title     = {Policy analysis in the face of complexity},
  series = {Public policy and administration},
  volume    = {34},
  journal   = {Public policy and administration},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Sage Publ.},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {0952-0767},
  doi       = {10.1177/0952076717733325},
  pages     = {21},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {An ever-increasing number of policy problems have come to be interpreted as representing a particular type of intractable, ill-structured or wicked policy problem. Much of this debate is concerned with the challenges wicked problems pose for program management rather than policy analysis. This article, in contrast, argues that the key challenge in addressing this type of policy problems is in fact analytical. Wicked policy problems are difficult to identify and interpret. The knowledge base for analysing wicked policy problem is typically fragmented and contested. Available evidence is incomplete, inconclusive and incommensurable. In this situation, the evidentiary and the interpretative elements of policy analysis become increasingly indistinguishable and inseparably intertwined. The article reveals the problems this poses for policy analysis and explores the extent to which the consolidation, consensualization and contestation of evidence in policy analysis offer alternative procedural paths to resolve these problems.},
  language  = {en}
}