Describe and analyse a 'wicked problem' of either local, 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 reputable government or 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, 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 (15 marks)

• To what degree have you explored the problem and its underlying causes?
• To what degree have you explored the campaign, policy approach or intervention that has been launched to overcome this problem?
• To what degree have you been able to identify a likely or evidenced unintended consequence or consequences?

2. Evidence (10 marks)

• 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 (5 marks)

• 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 show your emerging understanding of the distinction between traditional and social innovation interventions to wicked problems and to hone your ability to work in a group and present good quality evidence in a public setting.

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 coordinator). 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 and delivery of the presentation and the documents uploaded to Moodle.  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 you will briefly describe, followed by a contrast between a traditional approach and a new, social innovation approach to countering the problem. The social innovation approach (unlike the traditional 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 (traditional and social innovation approach) and why one approach may be more appropriate than the other. 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.

Please consult with your on-campus lecturer to form groups by the end of week 4.  Note that presentations begin in week 6 and end in week 12.  If you have a preference for the week in which your group presents, please negotiate this early with your on-campus lecturer.

Analysis (16 marks)

• The ability to analyse wicked problems, and accurately and clearly distinguish between traditional and social innovation approaches to solutions.
• The ability to explain the strengths and weaknesses of the two approaches (traditional and social innovation approach).
• Clear explanation of why the traditional or social innovation approach may be a better way to address the wicked problem. 

Evidence (7 marks):

• Are the visual and verbal elements of the presentation backed up by good quality evidence?
• Have you demonstrated the ability to evaluate the quality of the evidence?

Presentation quality (7 marks): 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 from the materials provided in the (free) unit textbook and supplementary materials on the Moodle site. 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.

The portfolio should be not more than 2500 words in length.  Focus on the three topics that most affected you in this unit. You should use at least six good quality references (two per topic) beyond those supplied on the unit Moodle site. 

Reflection is when you think critically about an experience or a piece of reading material. This critical thinking allows you to gain an understanding of how theory as well as personal, social and cultural experiences relate to practice or professional knowledge.

By reflecting, you are able to:

1. Get to know your own strengths and weaknesses
2. Discover your own underlying assumptions – and challenge them
3. Make connections between your own experience and what you are learning
4. Learn from your mistakes – and thus become a better practitioner.

These four aspects of reflection should be demonstrated in the portfolio. 

Reflection (20 marks):

• Demonstration of an understanding of own strengths and weaknesses.
• Discovery of own underlying assumptions and how the material in this unit challenged them
• Demonstration of a connection between own experience and what has been learnt
• Understanding of how you have become a better practitioner by learning from your mistakes.

Critical thinking (5 marks):

• The portfolio demonstrates deeper reflection or thinking beyond the surface content of the material that has been read and referenced in the portfolio.

Theory (5 marks):

• Accurate understanding of the theories and concepts presented in this unit.

Evidence (5 marks):

• The reflections are supported by good quality evidence beyond that supplied on the unit Moodle site.
• At least six good quality references beyond those supplied on the unit Moodle site have been used.

Communication (5 marks): The material is:

• Clearly communicated, with evidence that the work has been proofed read.
• Properly referenced (in APA style).
• Organised in a logical, easy-to-understand manner.