@article{Wenzel2016,
  author    = {Wenzel, Bertolt},
  title     = {Organizing coordination in a public marine research and management advice organization: The case of the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research},
  series = {Marine policy},
  volume    = {64},
  journal   = {Marine policy},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0308-597X},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.marpol.2015.11.017},
  pages     = {159 -- 167},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Public organizations involved in marine management are increasingly confronted with coordination challenges in marine governance. This study examines why and how the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research (IMR) reorganized its formal coordination structures between the areas of fisheries management and marine environmental management The findings indicate that organizing efficient and, at the same time, legitimate coordination structures between different areas of marine governance is a "wicked" organizational problem with no ultimate and single optimal solution. In contrast to the assumptions of classical organization and management theory, the study finds that the reorganization of formal coordination structures is not necessarily driven for reasons of efficiency and perceived coordination problems. Instead, public marine management organizations also change their organizational structures to live up to external expectations to adopt modern management concepts, such as the Ecosystem Approach to Management (EAM). However, the study indicates that the adoption of the EAM has stimulated coordination and integration efforts in the research and advisory activities of the IMR. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}
@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}
}
@misc{Daviter2017,
  author    = {Daviter, Falk},
  title     = {Coping, taming or solving},
  series = {Policy Studies},
  journal   = {Policy Studies},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-412684},
  pages     = {19},
  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}
}