CQUniversity Unit Profile.

Describe and analyse a 'wicked problem' of either national or global relevance.  Canvass at least one campaign, policy approach or intervention that has been launched to overcome this problem, evidence the degree to which this succeeded, and identify and provide evidence of at least one unintended consequence of this attempt to address the problem.

The assignment should not exceed 2000 words, and should draw on credible written evidence, including scholarly books and articles, non-scholarly books and book chapters, and credible media sources (a minimum of 10 scholarly references are required).   This assignment requires you to show evidence that you understand the term 'wicked problem' and are able to relate that definition to a 'real world' wicked problem, using evidence you've gathered through your own readings of the scholarly or other science literature.   You can make use of reputable media sources as part of your case, but a preference should be given to either scholarly (peer-reviewed) papers, scientific reports (e.g. from United Nations bodies or the CSIRO), or government or reputable non-government reports.  Unintended consequences of policy solutions are not easy to find, therefore we encourage you to think through what MIGHT be an unintended (negative or positive) consequence to a campaign designed to tackle a wicked problem.   Once you have identified a likely candidate for an unintended consequence, then you should be able to find some plausible good quality evidence to show that such a consequence may have transpired.

The format of this assignment is a formal essay or report.  There is no 'right' structure, but the assessment item should be clearly and logically structured, and can be illustrated with graphs, figures or tables as required.  Using sub-headings to help organise your work is encouraged, but not required. 

1. Critical Insight (40%)

To what degree have you explored the problem and its underlying causes?  To what degree have you been able to identify a likely or evidenced unintended consequence or consequences?

2. Evidence (30%)

Is this insight linked to evidence drawn from quality sources (as defined in the task description?  Has a minimum of ten such quality sources been properly used (that is understood, discussed, and referenced).  Have you demonstrated the ability to evaluate the quality of the evidence?

3. Presentation and communication (30%)

Have you presented the wicked problem, responses and unintended consequences in a clear way? Have you checked your work and ensured it has minimal errors and is consistently and clearly formatted?  In cases where you have used additional materials (e.g. graphs), do these additional materials add value to your case?  Does your submission show appropriate and accurate (APA) referencing? 

This is a group assignment. The objective of this assignment is to hone your ability to work in a group and present good quality evidence in a public setting, and also to show your emerging understanding of the distinction between traditional and social innovation interventions to wicked problems.

For this assignment you'll be asked (along with a group of up to three fellow students) to give a ten-minute oral, in-class presentation (for online students this will be via a Zoom meeting organised by the unit co--ordinator). The presentation will be followed by questions from your lecturer and fellow students. You'll be expected to support your presentation with visual/written aids, preferably Powerpoint.  Each student in your group should contribute to the development of the presentation and as part of the group presentation uploaded, you will be expected to provide a clear overview of which team member contributed which element to the final presentation (not just the oral delivery).  In addition, the slides must be accompanied by evidence (for example in the Powerpoint Notes) to expand on the evidence in the slide itself.  Each slide note should indicate the identity of the team member who primarily contributed to that slide and the collection of evidence presented in that slide.

The topic will be your choice of a significant social problem, which students will briefly describe, followed by a contrast between a conventional approach and a new, social innovation approach to countering the problem. The social innovation approach (unlike the conventional approach) can be either a hypothetical solution, or one that has been tried. In either case, you'll be expected to explain the strengths and weaknesses of the two approaches (conventional and social innovation approach). You will be expected, as with Assessment 1, to present good quality evidence to back up the statements made on your slides and in your oral presentation. 

We recommend that you meet with your group early in the term, break up the tasks fairly between the group members, and then meet regularly to ensure that the final product is a seamless combination of the work you have done.  So presentations that show evidence of the team working together to produce a single, well structured 'line of thought' will be marked higher than disorganised and repetitive presentations.

Analysis (30%):   The ability to analyse wicked problems, and accurately and clearly distinguish between conventional and social innovation approaches to solutions.

Evidence (30%):  Are the visual and verbal elements of the presentation backed up by good quality evidence? 

Presentation quality (40%):  Presentation quality is assessed on the following factors:

• Clarity and persuasiveness of communication and presentation skills. 
• Quality, including clarity of slides. Please check your submission for errors before presenting and uploading.
  
• Lack of repetition and smooth sequence of argument. 
• Where required, are the arguments accompanied by appropriate referencing of sources?

The slides and accompanying notes should be submitted by the group leader through the link provided, with the first slide clearly identifying the group members (including student numbers).  Include a page with details on group member participation. 

You'll be expected to maintain a weekly reflection on what you have been reading and watching/listening to from the materials provided in the (free) unit textbook and supplementary materials from the Moodle . This portfolio asks you to both be a critical consumer of social innovation material, and to reflect honestly on your reaction to the material.  It asks you to both describe and summarise what you have been reading, and to accurately attribute your comments to their original sources.  You'll be asked to supplement the material from the text and Moodle materials with some additional independent reading (beyond merely the textbook) which further illuminates the points you have drawn from the Moodle/textbook materials.

Theory (25%):

Does your work accurately reflect the theories and concepts presented in this unit?

Communication (25%):

Is your material cleanly communicated (with evidence that you've proofed your work) and properly referenced (in APA style), and is your material organised in a logical, easy-to-understand manner? 

Evidence (25%):
Are your reflections backed by good quality evidence, and do you demonstrate that you've read and understood the evidence you are using to support your argument?

Critical thinking (25%):
To what degree does the portfolio demonstrates deeper reflection or thinking beyond the surface content of the material you have read and referenced in your portfolio.