DPGE1002 Chap.2 Wicked Problems and Source Checking
Wicked Problems and Source Checking
Wicked problems contain connected causes, changing conditions and competing stakeholder interests. This chapter turns brainstorming into academic analysis by labelling relationships, separating generated ideas from verified claims and matching each claim to an appropriate source type. It also shows why credibility, relevance and scope must be checked separately before evidence enters a discussion or argument.
Begin by mapping relationships rather than collecting isolated topic words. Each line should express a claim such as increases, depends on, shifts costs to or prevents access for. The verb makes the proposed mechanism visible and therefore researchable. A dense map is not automatically a strong map: remove a branch when it does not change a stakeholder's decision, a causal explanation or a feasible response.
Treat every initial connection as provisional. Generated suggestions can widen the search, but they do not establish that a relationship is true. Convert a useful suggestion into a research question, locate a suitable source and compare the source's population, place, time and method with the claim you want to make. Credibility and relevance answer different questions.
A reputable national report may be credible but poorly matched to a small campus setting; a local survey may be relevant but too narrow to support a causal conclusion. Scope controls the wording that survives this check. Replace absolute claims with language that matches the evidence, identify important uncertainty and attribute contested readings.
When sources disagree, examine definitions, samples, methods and conditions before choosing a position. The disagreement may reveal that stakeholders are describing different outcomes or time horizons. A transparent evidence map keeps supported, disputed and unknown relationships separate so the later proposal can respond to what is known without pretending the wicked problem has one final solution.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Cause and effect relationships
- 02
Stakeholders and affected groups
- 03
AI ideas as unverified leads
- 04
Source authority, purpose and method
- 05
Claim scope and corroboration
Worked example · free
Repair an unsupported claim about library access
- +1Flag the absolute wording and identify the causal claim.
- +1Find suitable university or research evidence about access and outcomes.
- +1Compare the population, setting and method with the planned claim.
- +1Rewrite the statement with accurate scope and uncertainty.
Key terms
- Wicked problem
- A connected and changing issue with contested definitions and no single final solution.
- Source scope
- The population, place, period and conditions actually covered by evidence.
- Corroboration
- Support created when suitable independent sources point toward the same conclusion.
- Evidence gap
- A relationship or claim that remains plausible but insufficiently supported.
Wicked Problems and Source Checking FAQ
What makes a problem wicked?
Its causes and effects interact, stakeholders define the issue differently and interventions can create new consequences. The goal is not a perfect final answer but a transparent comparison of evidence, interests and feasible actions. A strong map therefore records uncertainty and trade-offs instead of presenting one stakeholder's definition as the complete problem.
Can an AI suggestion be used as evidence?
Treat it as a lead that requires verification. Locate suitable academic, government or reputable organisational evidence, check whether the source supports the exact wording and discard or narrow any unsupported idea. Record the verified source and its scope beside the revised claim so a plausible suggestion cannot quietly become unsupported evidence.
What should I do when reliable sources disagree?
Attribute both readings and compare their assumptions, methods and scope. The disagreement may reveal the real decision boundary. Do not silently select the more convenient number or claim. When the difference remains unresolved, show how each reading would change the stakeholder decision and what further evidence would distinguish them.
Exam move
Practise with a blank problem map. Label important lines with verbs such as increases, depends on, excludes or shifts responsibility. Mark each branch as supported, uncertain or disputed. For every supported claim, record the source type and scope. Convert uncertain branches into research questions and delete details that do not change any stakeholder decision. Use a three-pass source check.
First, ask whether the author or organisation is positioned to know the point. Second, test whether the evidence actually covers your population, setting and period. Third, compare the strength of your wording with the method. Highlight causal verbs, universal terms and precise numbers because they usually need the closest support.
Keep a short rejection log that records why a promising source or generated claim was narrowed, disputed or removed. That log makes later drafting faster because you will not accidentally restore an unsupported statement. Finish by asking which missing relationship would most change the preferred action. Research that gap before adding more background facts that leave the decision unchanged.