Transcript Problem Types - Sites at Penn State

Problem Types
INTRODUCTION TO DELIBERATION
Type 1 Problems

Usually “how to” questions, technical in nature, solved by technical fixes

High level of agreement on definition of the problem and possible solutions

Tends not to require much consideration of values and beliefs

Experts can solve the problem, so may not require a high level of public
participation or involvement
Examples of Type 1 Problems

How to find the fastest driving route to Pittsburgh

How to solve differential equations

How to fix a broken arm

How to best get a stain out of a rug

How to create a more efficient light bulb
Type 2 Problems

Thought of as “value problems” in that solutions are less clear because
value dimensions are present

General agreement on definition of the problem, but little agreement as
to possible solutions

Not solved by just experts because information alone isn’t sufficient for
decision making

Must be solved by people who will implement the solution or live with the
outcomes

Evoke the emotions and stubborn responses associated with worldviews,
ideologies, and belief systems
Examples of Type 2 Problems

Artic Countries Agree on Perils of Climate Change, But Not Solutions.
New York Times, November 25, 2004
The United States and seven other countries with Artic territory jointly expressed
concern yesterday about profound changes in the Artic climate and said they
would consider new scientific findings concluding that heat-trapping emissions
were the main cause. But they did not agree on a common strategy for curbing
such emissions, to the disappointment of environmental groups and Artic
indigenous groups.

Penn State’s General Education Reforms

Reducing Teen Pregnancy

Reducing Sexual Assault on Penn State’s Campus
Confusions and Challenges

Many problems are both technical and value driven. (Example: a
planned 140-mile offshore gas pipeline designed to carry gas to southern
Thailand from the Malaysia-Thailand Joint Development Area.)

People tend to dismiss, underplay, or not recognize value problems
because they are harder or more difficult to deal with. (Example:
Producing AIDS drugs more cheaply is more technical. Determining who
should have access is values-based.)

People often prefer to treat an issue technically because then they don’t
have to own the problem or the solution. (Example: Combatting drug use.
People like the idea of an enforcement agency, as it makes the problem
appear “out there” rather than in families, neighborhoods, and schools.
Someone else will take care of it.)
Type 3 Problems

Often referred to as “wicked” or intractable because of multiple
stakeholders with differing perspectives, overlapping jurisdictions, powerful
moral dimensions, and deep histories.

No agreement on what “the problem” actually is. (People come up with
solutions instead of defining the problem.)

No one has the power over the whole situation. No one party is capable
of defining the problem so that everyone agrees on the problem and a
solution.
Examples of Type 3 Problems

Poverty

Climate Change

Abortion

Gun Policy
Three Problem Types Simplified
Type 1
Technical Problems
Type 2
Value Problems
Type 3
Wicked or
Intractable Problems
Agreement on
definition of the
problem
Yes
Yes
No
Agreement on
possible solutions
Yes
No
No
Points to Ponder

Intractable problems are very rarely “solved.” Technical remedies alone
are insufficient. Rather, they’re slowly “tamed” as recognize the issues and
begin to work out solutions.

Type 2 and Type 3 problems may involve contested technical information
and scientific uncertainty, mostly linked to divergent values.

Large public issues may involve aspects of Type 1, 2, AND 3.

Public problems don’t respect conventional boundaries. No one sector –
governmental, industrial, or civic – can “own” them or have the full
jurisdiction to solve them.

No one discipline can fully explain them.