I have studied complex systems science from following teachers:
Yaneer Bar Yam of NECSI: Physical, Biological, and Social Systems
Scott Page of University of Michigan: Model Thinking: Complex Systems in Economics and Social/Political Sciences.
Melanie Mitchell of Santa Fe Institute: Introduction to Complex Systems
Michael Kearns of University of Pennsylvania: Networked Life: Science of Networks
Ravi Iyenger of Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine: Introduction to Systems Biology
Perry Mehrling of Columbia University/INET: Economics of Money and Banking
Key Terms
Complex Systems
Networks
Interaction
Agents
Bottom Up Modeling
Agent Based Modeling
Netlogo
NECSI
Santa Fe Institute
Yaneer Bar Yam
Scott Page
Melanie Mitchell
Network Science
Dynamical Systems
Cellular Automata
Artifical Life (A-Life)
Anti Fragility
Agility
Learning
Adaptability
Resilience
Synchronization
Mark Newman
Albert Laszlo Barabasi
John Sterman
Small World Networks
Scale Free Networks
Hierarchy
Boundaries
Stephen Wolfram
Stuart Kaufman
Increasing Retuns
Path Dependence
J Doyne Farmer
W. Brian Arthur
Duncan Watts
Eugene Stanley
Six Degrees of Separation
Emergence
Non Linear Dynamics
Competition and Cooperation
What are Complex Systems?
Source: A Brief History of Systems Science, Chaos and Complexity
Key Topics in Complex Systems
Sources: Complex Systems: A Survey
Lattices and Networks
Dynamical Systems
Discrete Systems and Cellular Automata
Scaling and Criticality
Adaptation and Game Theory
Information Theory
Computational Complexity
Agent based Modeling
Chaos and Fractals
Spontaneous Order and Synchronization
Complex Systems
The original journal devoted to the science, mathematics and engineering of systems with simple components but complex overall behavior; publishes high-quality articles that focus on, but are not limited to, the following areas:
Dynamic, topological and algebraic aspects of cellular automata and discrete dynamical systems
Complex systems and complexity theory
Algorithmic complexity and information theory
Emergent properties of dynamical systems
Formal languages, grammars and automata
Algorithmic information dynamics
Symbolic dynamics and connections to continuous systems
Tilings, rewriting and substitution systems
Computability theory
Synchronous versus asynchronous models
Applications of automata to areas such as machine and deep learning, physics, biology, social sciences and others
Source: A Brief History of Systems Science, Chaos and Complexity
History of Systems and Complex Systems
Source: A Brief History of Systems Science, Chaos and Complexity
Foundations of Complex-system Theories: In Economics, Evolutionary Biology …
By Sunny Y. Auyang
From simplistic to complex systems in economics
John Foster*
Cambridge Journal of Economics 2005, 29, 873–892
doi:10.1093/cje/bei083
Complex Systems: A Survey
M. E. J. Newman
Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 and Center for the Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Yang-YuLiu1,2 andAlbert-L ́aszl ́oBarab ́asi3,2,4,5 1Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School,
Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA 2Center for Cancer Systems Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 02115,
USA 3Center for Complex Network Research and Departments of Physics, Computer Science and Biology, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA 4Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA 5Center for Network Science, Central European University, Budapest 1052, Hungary
(Dated: March 15, 2016)
Physical approach to complex systems
Jarosław Kwapień a,∗, Stanisław Drożdż a,b
a Complex Systems Theory Department, Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, PL–31-342 Kraków, Poland b Institute of Computer Science, Faculty of Physics, Mathematics and Computer Science, Cracow University of Technology, PL–31-155 Kraków, Poland
Physics Reports 2011
Dynamics of Complex Systems (Studies in Nonlinearity)
Yaneer Bar-Yam,
Addison-Wesley, New York, 1997; ISBN 0-201-55748-7; 800 pp.,
SENDIL K. ETHIRAJ The Wharton School of Business 3620 Locust Walk, Suite 2000 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA 19104 Ph. 215-898 1231 Email: sethiraj@wharton.upenn.edu
Complex Systems—A New Paradigm for the Integrative Study of Management, Physical, and Technological Systems
Luis A. Nunes Amaral Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, McCormick School of Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, amaral@northwestern.edu
Brian Uzzi Department of Management and Organizations, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, uzzi@northwestern.edu
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
Vol. 53, No. 7, July 2007, pp. 1033–1035 issn 0025-1909 eissn 1526-5501 07 5307 1033
A complex systems approach to constructing better models for managing financial markets and the economy
J. Doyne Farmer1, M. Gallegati2, C. Hommes3, A. Kirman4, P. Ormerod5, S. Cincotti6, A. Sanchez7, and D. Helbing8
1 Santa Fe Institute, 1399 Hyde Park Road, Santa Fe, NM 87501, USA
2 DiSES, Universit Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
3 CeNDEF, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
4 GREQAM, Aix Marseille Universit ́e, EHESS, France
5 Volterra Partners, London and University of Durham, UK
6 DIME-DOGE.I, University of Genoa, Italy
7 GISC, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain
8 ETH, Zu ̈rich
Received 1 August 2012 / Received in final form 9 October 2012 Published online 5 December 2012
Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 214, 295–324 (2012)
THE ONTOLOGY OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS: Levels of Organization, Perspectives, and Causal Thickets*
(Canadian Journal of Philosophy, supp. vol #20, 1994, ed. Mohan Matthen and Robert Ware, University of Calgary Press, 207-274). by William C. Wimsatt Department of Philosophy University of Chicago January 4, 1994 wwim@midway.uchicago.edu
The Universal Key to the Stability of Networks and Complex Systems
P ́eter Csermely
February 25, 2009
Weak Links: Stabilizers of Complex Systems from Proteins to Social Networks,
by Peter Csermely.
2006 XX, 408 p. 37 illus. 3-540-31151-3. Berlin: Springer, 2006.
An Introduction to Agent-Based Modeling: Modeling Natural, Social, and Engineered Complex Systems with NETLogo
Wilensky, Uri and Rand, William MIT Press: London, 2015 ISBN 978-0262731898 (pb)
Dynamics of Complex Systems: Scaling Laws for the Period of Boolean Networks
Réka Albert and Albert-László Barabási*
Department of Physics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556
(Received 28 April 1999)
PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
VOLUME 84, NUMBER 24
12 JUNE 2000
Cities as Complex Systems: Scaling, Interactions, Networks, Dynamics and Urban Morphologies
ISSN 1467-1298
Michael Batty
Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 6BT, UK Email: m.batty@ucl.ac.uk, Web: www.casa.ucl.ac.uk
The Encyclopedia of Complexity & System Science, Springer, Berlin, DE, forthcoming 2008. Date of this paper: February 25, 2008.
Scale invariance and universality: organizing principles in complex systems
H.E. Stanleya;∗, L.A.N. Amarala , P. Gopikrishnana , P.Ch. Ivanova , T.H. Keittb , V. Pleroua
aCenter for Polymer Studies and Department of Physics, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA bNational Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, 735 State Street, Suite 300, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, USA
Physica A 281 (2000) 60–68
A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: From complex systems theory to reflexive science
Department of Philosophy, University of Bristol, U.K.
Karoline Wiesner
Department of Mathematics and Centre for Complexity Sciences, University of Bristol, U.K.
(Dated: March 8, 2012)
Modelling and prediction in a complex world
Michael Battya, Paul M. Torrensb,*
aCentre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London, 1 to 19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 6BT, UK bDepartment of Geography, University of Utah, 260 S. Central Campus Dr., Rm. 270, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-9155, USA
Available online 19 March 2005
Complex networks Augmenting the framework for the study of complex systems
THE EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL B
L.A.N. Amarala and J.M. Ottino Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA
Received 12 November 2003 Published online 14 May 2004
Eur. Phys. J. B 38, 147–162 (2004) DOI: 10.1140/epjb/e2004-00110-5
John D. Sterman Jay W. Forrester Professor of Management and Professor of Engineering Systems Sloan School of Management Massachusetts Institute of Technology 30 Wadsworth Street, E53-351 Cambridge MA 02142 617.253.1951 jsterman@mit.edu web.mit.edu/jsterman/www
R ́eka Albert, Hawoong Jeong, Albert-L ́aszl ́o Barab ́asi
Department of Physics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556
2000
The Kuramoto model in complex networks
Francisco A. Rodriguesa, Thomas K. DM. Peronb,c,∗, Peng Jic,d,∗, Jürgen Kurthsc,d,e,f
aDepartamento de Matemática Aplicada e Estatística, Instituto de Ciências Matemáticas e de Computação, Universidade de São Paulo, Caixa Postal 668, 13560-970 São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil bInstituto de Física de São Carlos, Universidade de São Paulo, Caixa Postal 369, 13560-970, São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil cPotsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), 14473 Potsdam, Germany dDepartment of Physics, Humboldt University, 12489 Berlin, Germany eInstitute for Complex Systems and Mathematical Biology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3UE, United Kingdom fDepartment of Control Theory, Nizhny Novgorod State University, Gagarin Avenue 23, Nizhny Novgorod 606950, Russia
2015
Uncovering the overlapping community structure of complex networks in nature and society
Gergely Palla†‡, Imre Dere ́nyi‡, Ille ́s Farkas†, and Tama ́s Vicsek†‡ †Biological Physics Research Group of HAS, Pa ́zma ́ny P. stny. 1A, H-1117 Budapest, Hungary,
‡Dept. of Biological Physics, Eo ̈tvo ̈s University, Pa ́zma ́ny P. stny. 1A, H-1117 Budapest, Hungary.
System Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World
John D. Sterman MIT Sloan School of Management Cambridge MA 02421
While plots may be “archetypal” when they exhibit certain forms, in this post we are concerned with character archetypes.
In modern storytelling, to consider them as archetypes might suggest a bit of a corset, perhaps even a straightjacket for the characters. For today’s author, to present a character as an archetype does not seem conducive to achieving psychological verisimilitude.
But an archetype is not the same as a stereotype. An advisor or mentor does not need to be a wise old man like Obi-Wan Kenobi. And an antagonist does not need to be a baddy.
Consider archetypes as powers within a story. Like planets in a solar system, they have gravity and they therefore exert force as they move.
Archetypes denote certain general roles or functions for characters within the system of the story. There is ample room for variation within each role or function. Boundaries between one archetype and another may be fuzzy. And it is possible for one character to stand for more than one archetype.
Archetypes Through The Ages
Certain archetypes are ancient and have been around as long as stories have been told. Others may have a Christian background. Some are modern interpretations of ancient archetypes seen in the light of dramaturgical principles.
We may distinguish between three sorts of archetypes.
Ancient – archetypes that we find in the very oldest stories, and in very modern ones
Classical – archetypes that we find in works of literature of the past two thousand years
Role-based – modern variants that consider the dramaturgical function of characters
This categorisation has overlaps. The ancient, original archetypes, such as the Mentor, are of course also classical. And certain role-based archetypes, such as the Protagonist, may correspond to ancient ones, such as the Prince.
The Protagonist is sometimes called the Hero, a word which in terms of ancient archetypes might refer to a number of archetypes, for instance Warrior (Achilles) or Trickster (Odysseus). In the modern sense of role-based archetypes, this is the person (or rabbit, or robot, or whatever) the story is primarily about, the one whose travails the recipient, the audience or reader, follows through to the end of the story.
The Protagonist’s opposing power is the antagonism, which may be personified in an individual Antagonist. It helps to remember that in terms of function within the story, an antagonist does not necessarily have to be a villain, but is a counterforce to the protagonist (for an ancient example, consider Agamemnon and Achilles in the Iliad).
The antagonistic force is sometimes referred to as the “Shadow”. This can be misleading, since really almost every archetype has its own shadow side. A Patriarch may be presented as benevolent or “light”, or as tyrannical and “dark”. Indeed, in one story the character (or characters) representing such an archetype might show signs of both.
Characters Wearing Hats
Several of the roles or functions that you find in all sorts of stories – such as the Mentor, the Ally, the Patriarch – do not always have to be riveted to one specific character. For instance, it is quite possible that one character may have the Mentor hat on at one point in the story, and the Ally hat at another.
The point is that such forces or functions tend to be present in stories, and characters express these forces through their role or function within the story at each point in the narrative.
There is even an archetype for a character that explicitly changes roles in the story, where it becomes part of that character’s function to jump role at one or more points along the story. That is a Shapechanger.
Some archetypes are gender specific. The Patriarch/Father/King stands for different values from the Matriarch/Mother/Queen. For other archetypes, whether the character is male or female is not the point. A Shapechanger or a Trickster is defined by what the character does in the story.
So archetypes are really little more than signposts. Assigning a character an archetype is not to pressure that character into behaving in a certain way. Calling a character an archetype is merely to give us a pointer to that character’s role and function in the story. Characters that can be labelled as several archetypes tend to be multi-facetted. Hamlet, for instance, fulfils the criteria for several archetypes. So thinking about characters in terms of which archetypal roles they may play is actually a way of making the characters richer, giving them more depth, making them appear psychologically real and ultimately human.
System archetypes are the pattern which are recurrent.
Key Terms
Systems
System Archetypes
Feedback
Causal Loops
Delays
Leveraged Networks
The Systems Thinker
Daniel H Kim
Peter Senge
Barry Richmond
STELLA
VENSIM
ITHINK
Ventana Systems
Isee Systems
WHAT IS A SYSTEMS ARCHETYPE?
Source: Systems Archetype Basics : From Story to Structure
Without having to climb beanstalks or push anyone into an oven, children learn lessons from fairy tales about how to hide from powerful, cruel beings, build solid dwellings, and be respectful of old people. Literary themes also show us the hero’s journey, the trials of hard work, the outcomes of faithful love and misguided passion, and the ennui of a materialistic life. In these examples from literature, the term archetype signifies a recurring, generic character, symbol, or storyline. In systems thinking, the term has a very similar meaning. It refers to recurring, generic systemic structures that are found in many kinds of organizations, under many circumstances, and at different levels or scales, from internal personal dynamics to global international relations.
Captured in the stories, structures, and behavior over time of the archetypes are similar teachings about competition, addiction, the perils of quick fixes, and the high flyer’s downfall. And as we do with stories and fairy tales, we can use the archetypes to explore generic problems and hone our awareness of the organizational dramas unfolding around us. We can even use archetypes to sharpen our ability to anticipate difficulties, communicate about them with our colleagues, and find ways to address them together.
The systems archetypes, as a group, make up one of the 10 current categories of systems thinking tools. (See Appendix B for a complete list of these tools.) Each archetype features a storyline with a distinctive theme, a particular pattern of behavior over time that can be graphed, and a unique systemic structure that can be depicted in a causal loop diagram. The value of archetypes is that we can study them apart from a specific story, problem, or organizational situation and take away generic, transferable learnings that we can then apply to many situations in our own lives.
WHERE DID ARCHETYPES COME FROM?
In the 1960s and 1970s, Jay Forrester, Dennis Meadows, Donella Meadows, and other pioneers of systems thinking observed several recurring systemic structures. In the 1980s, Michael Goodman, Charles Kiefer, Jenny Kemeny, and Peter Senge built on that work, in part with the help of notes developed by John Sterman, by describing, diagramming, and cataloguing these generic systemic structures as systems templates. When Peter Senge authored The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, he referred to those structures as systems archetypes. Since then, the notion of systems archetypes has become quite popularized, and systems thinking practitioners have continued to teach, apply, and write about these recurring generic structures as well as investigate and test the potential of identifying new ones.
List of Key System Archetypes
Drifting Goals
Escalation
Fixes that Fail
Growth and Underinvestment
Limits to Success
Shifting the Burden/Addiction
Success to the Successful
Tragedy of the Commons
Source: Systems Thinking Tools: A User’s Reference Guide
Source: SYSTEMS ARCHETYPES I
Source: Systems Thinking Tools: A User’s Reference Guide
Source: SYSTEMS ARCHETYPES I
System Archetypes and Their Storylines
Source: SYSTEMS ARCHETYPES AND THEIR APPLICATION
Archetypes and their Applications
Source: SYSTEMS ARCHETYPES AND THEIR APPLICATION
Source: Systems Archetype Basics : From Story to Structure
Source: Systems Archetype Basics : From Story to Structure
Source: Systems Archetype Basics : From Story to Structure
Source: Systems Archetype Basics : From Story to Structure
Growth Archetypes
Source: A theory of spatial system archetypes
➤ A Glossary of Systems Thinking Tools
Source: Systems Archetype Basics : From Story to Structure
Systems thinking can serve as a language for communicating about complexity and interdependencies. To be fully conversant in any language, you must gain some mastery of the vocabulary, especially the phrases and idioms unique to that language. This glossary lists many terms that may come in handy when you’re faced with a systems problem.
Accumulator
Anything that builds up or dwindles; for example, water in a bathtub, savings in a bank account, inventory in a warehouse. In modeling software, a stock is often used as a generic symbol for accumulators. Also known as Stock or Level.
Balancing Process/Loop
Combined with reinforcing loops, balancing processes form the building blocks of dynamic systems. Balancing processes seek equilibrium: They try to bring things to a desired state and keep them there. They also limit and constrain change generated by reinforcing processes. A balancing loop in a causal loop diagram depicts a balancing process.
Balancing Process with Delay
A commonly occurring structure. When a bal- ancing process has a long delay, the usual response is to overcorrect. Over- correction leads to wild swings in behavior. Example: real estate cycles.
Behavior Over Time (BOT) Graph
One of the 10 tools of systems thinking. BOT graphs capture the history or trend of one or more variables over time. By sketching several variables on one graph, you can gain an explicit understanding of how they interact over time. Also called Reference Mode.
Causal Loop Diagram (CLD)
One of the 10 tools of systems thinking. Causal loop diagrams capture how variables in a system are interrelated. A CLD takes the form of a closed loop that depicts cause-and-effect linkages.
Drifting Goals
A systems archetype. In a “Drifting Goals” scenario, a gradual downward slide in performance goals goes unnoticed, threatening the long- term future of the system or organization. Example: lengthening delivery delays.
Escalation
A systems archetype. In the “Escalation” archetype, two parties compete for superiority in an arena. As one party’s actions put it ahead, the other party “retaliates” by increasing its actions. The result is a continual ratcheting up of activity on both sides. Examples: price battles, the Cold War.
Feedback
The return of information about the status of a process. Example: annual performance reviews return information to an employee about the quality of his or her work.
Fixes That Fail
A systems archetype. In a “Fixes That Fail” situation, a fix is applied to a problem and has immediate positive results. However, the fix also has unforeseen long-term consequences that eventually worsen the problem. Also known as “Fixes That Backfire.”
Flow
The amount of change something undergoes during a particular unit of time. Example: the amount of water that flows out of a bathtub each minute, or the amount of interest earned in a savings account each month. Also called a Rate.
Generic Structures
Structures that can be generalized across many different settings because the underlying relationships are fundamentally the same. Systems archetypes are a class of generic structures.
Graphical Function Diagram (GFD)
One of the 10 tools of systems thinking. GFDs show how one variable, such as delivery delays, interacts with another, such as sales, by plotting the relationship between the two over the entire range of relevant values. The resulting diagram is a concise hypothesis of how the two variables interrelate. Also called Table Function.
Growth and Underinvestment
A systems archetype. In this situation, resource investments in a growing area are not made, owing to short-term pressures. As growth begins to stall because of lack of resources, there is less incentive for adding capacity, and growth slows even further.
Learning Laboratory
One of the 10 tools of systems thinking. A learning lab- oratory embeds a management flight simulator in a learning environment. Groups of managers use a combination of systems thinking tools to explore the dynamics of a particular system and inquire into their own understand- ing of that system. Learning labs serve as a manager’s practice field.
Level
See Accumulator.
Leverage Point
An area where small change can yield large improvements in a system.
Limits to Success
A systems archetype. In a “Limits to Success” scenario, a company or product line grows rapidly at first, but eventually begins to slow or even decline. The reason is that the system has hit some limit— capacity constraints, resource limits, market saturation, etc.—that is inhibiting further growth. Also called “Limits to Growth.”
Management Flight Simulator (MFS)
One of the 10 tools of systems thinking. Similar to a pilot’s flight simulator, an MFS allows managers to test the outcome of different policies and decisions without “crashing and burning” real companies. An MFS is based on a system dynamics computer model that has been changed into an interactive decision-making simulator through the use of a user interface.
Policy Structure Diagram
One of the 10 tools of systems thinking. Policy structure diagrams are used to create a conceptual “map” of the decision- making process that is embedded in an organization. It highlights the fac- tors that are weighed at each decision point.
Rate
See Flow.
Reference Mode
See Behavior Over Time Graph.
Reinforcing Process/Loop
Along with balancing loops, reinforcing loops form the building blocks of dynamic systems. Reinforcing processes com- pound change in one direction with even more change in that same direc- tion. As such, they generate both growth and collapse. A reinforcing loop in a causal loop diagram depicts a reinforcing process. Also known as vicious cycles or virtuous cycles.
Shifting the Burden
A systems archetype. In a “Shifting the Burden” situa- tion, a short-term solution is tried that successfully solves an ongoing prob- lem. As the solution is used over and over again, it takes attention away from more fundamental, enduring solutions. Over time, the ability to apply a fundamental solution may decrease, resulting in more and more reliance on the symptomatic solution. Examples: drug and alcohol dependency.
Shifting the Burden to the Intervener
A special case of the “Shifting the Burden” systems archetype that occurs when an intervener is brought in to help solve an ongoing problem. Over time, as the intervener successfully handles the problem, the people within the system become less capable of solving the problem themselves. They become even more dependent on the intervener. Example: ongoing use of outside consultants.
Simulation Model
One of the 10 tools of systems thinking. A computer model that lets you map the relationships that are important to a problem or an issue and then simulate the interaction of those variables over time.
Stock
See Accumulator.
Structural Diagram
Draws out the accumulators and flows in a system, giving an overview of the major structural elements that produce the system’s behavior. Also called flow diagram or accumulator/flow diagram.
Structure-Behavior Pair
One of the 10 tools of systems thinking. A structure- behavior pair consists of a structural representation of a business issue, using accumulators and flows, and the corresponding behavior over time (BOT) graph for the issue being studied.
Structure
The manner in which a system’s elements are organized or interre- lated. The structure of an organization, for example, could include not only the organizational chart but also incentive systems, information flows, and interpersonal interactions.
Success to the Successful
A systems archetype. In a “Success to the Success- ful” situation, two activities compete for a common but limited resource. The activity that is initially more successful is consistently given more resources, allowing it to succeed even more. At the same time, the activity that is initially less successful becomes starved for resources and eventually dies out. Example: the QWERTY layout of typewriter keyboards.
System Dynamics
A field of study that includes a methodology for constructing computer simulation models to achieve better understanding of social and corporate systems. It draws on organizational studies, behavioral decision theory, and engineering to provide a theoretical and empirical base for structuring the relationships in complex systems.
System
A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements form- ing a complex whole. Almost always defined with respect to a specific pur- pose within a larger system. Example: An R&D department is a system that has a purpose in the context of the larger organization.
Systems Archetypes
One of the 10 tools of systems thinking. Systems archetypes are the “classic stories” in systems thinking—common patterns and structures that occur repeatedly in different settings.
Systems Thinking
A school of thought that focuses on recognizing the inter- connections between the parts of a system and synthesizing them into a unified view of the whole.
Table Function
See Graphical Function Diagram.
Template
A tool used to identify systems archetypes. To use a template, you fill in the blank variables in causal loop diagrams.
Tragedy of the Commons
A systems archetype. In a “Tragedy of the Commons” scenario, a shared resource becomes overburdened as each person in the system uses more and more of the resource for individual gain. Eventually, the resource dwindles or is wiped out, resulting in lower gains for everyone involved. Example: the Greenhouse Effect.
The above glossary is a compilation of definitions from many sources, including:
Innovation Associates’ and GKA’s Introduction to Systems Thinking coursebooks
The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, by Peter Senge
High Performance Systems’ Academic User’s Guide to STELLA
The American Heritage Dictionary and The Random House Dictionary.
Systems Thinking Tools
Source: THE “THINKING” IN SYSTEMS THINKING: HOW CAN WE MAKE IT EASIER TO MASTER?
Source: Systems Thinking Tools: A User’s Reference Guide
Source: Systems Thinking Tools: A User’s Reference Guide
Systems Thinking: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis
Niamat Ullah Ibne Hossain , Vidanelage L. Dayarathna, Morteza Nagahi and Raed Jaradat *
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA; ni78@msstate.edu (N.U.I.H.); vld66@msstate.edu (V.L.D.); mn852@msstate.edu (M.N.) * Correspondence: jaradat@ise.msstate.edu
SYSTEMIC THINKING FOR POLICY MAKING – THE POTENTIAL OF SYSTEMS ANALYSIS FOR ADDRESSING GLOBAL POLICY CHALLENGES IN THE 21st CENTURY
OECD
17-18 September 2019, OECD Conference Centre
Edited by Gabriela Ramos, William Hynes, Jan-Marco Müller and Martin Lees
SYSTEMS THINKING
A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Using System Archetypes to Identify Failure Patterns in Acquisition
Diane Gibson Linda Levine, PhD William E. Novak May 2, 2006
An Approach for the Development of Complex Systems Archetypes
Walter Lee Akers Old Dominion University, akers.walt@gmail.com
(2015). Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Dissertation, Engineering Management & Systems Engineering, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/6xmx-r674 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/emse_etds/18
Use of System Archetypes to Accelerate, Advance, and Deepen Systems Thinking Skills of Nurses
Daniel J Pesut PhD RN FAAN Professor of Nursing Population Health and Systems Cooperative Unit Director of the Katharine Densford International Center for Nursing Leadership University of Minnesota School of Nursing 308 Harvard St. SE
MPLS MN 55455 USA
Judith Pechacek, DNP, RN, CENP University of Minnesota, School of Nursing
Clinical Associate Professor Director, Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) Program 308 Harvard St. SE
Single, Double, and Triple Loop Organizational Learning
Key Terms
Learning
Organizational Learning
Chris Argyris
David Schon
Peter Senge
Single Loop Learning
Double Loop Learning
Triple Loop Learning
Quadruple Loop Learning
Error Correction
Feedback Loop
Gregory Bateson
Action Learning
Cybernetic Loop
Reflexivity
Reflection and Learning
Systems Thinking
Cause and Effects
Organizational Adaptability
Organizational Culture
Theory In Use Models I and II
Action Science
Ed Schein
Levels of Learning
Planning as Learning
Cybernetics
Second Order Cybernetics
Third Order Cybernetics
Perceptual Flaws
Cognitive Learning
Hierarchical Planning
Management Control Systems
Management Planning and Control Systems
Planning and Control Systems
Manufacturing Planning and Control Systems
Advanced Planning Systems (APS)
Balanced Scorecards
Strategic Management
Social Learning
Learning to Plan, Planning to learn
Deutero Learning
Meta Learning
Explicit Knowledge
Tacit Knowledge
Single and Double Loop Learning
Source: Deradicalization through Double-Loop Learning? How the Egyptian Gamaa Islamiya Renounced Violence
Argyris and Schon thereby start with the assumption that “all deliberate action ha[s] a cognitive basis, that it reflect[s] norms, strategies, and assumptions or models of the world.”21 These mental models work as a “frame of reference” which determine expectations regarding cause and effect relationships between actions and outcomes.22 According to Argyris and Schon, organizational learning becomes necessary when there is an “error,” a mismatch between intended outcomes of strategies of action and actual results; consequently, they define learning as the “detection and correction of error.”23 This correction of errors happens through a continuous process of organizational inquiry of varying depth. Argyris and Schon distinguish two types of learning:24 In single-loop learning systems, the detection and correction of error connects the outcome in a single loop only to strategies of action whereas the governing variables remain unchanged. In double-loop learning systems, a double feedback loop “connects the detection of error not only to strategies and assumptions for effective performance, but to the very norms which define effective performance.”25 Hence, double-loop learning modifies the governing variables underlying objectives.
Single-loop learning to increase the effectiveness of actions is the dominant response to error and ingrained in routine procedures in any organization. Unfortunately, due to organizational inertia and a tendency to become defensive when confronted with failure, organizations have a tendency to produce learning systems that inhibit double-loop learning that would question their objectives and governing variables.26 Single-loop learning systems are characterized by attempts to increase effectiveness without questioning norms underlying objectives. When organizations initiate change to curb activities under existing norms, a conflict in the norms themselves can emerge. For example, requirements for change can come into conflict with the requirement of predictability.27 Argyris and Schon suggest that in order to double-loop learn, leaders must first recognize the conflict between conflicting requirements itself. They must become aware that they cannot correct the error by doing better what they already know how to do. They must engage in deep organizational inquiry: in this process the focus has to shift from learning concerned with improvement in the performance of organizational tasks to inquiry through which an organization explores and restructures the values and criteria through which it defines what it means by improved performance.28 This is often inherently conflictual. Double-loop learning can namely be inhibited when norms are undiscussable within organizations. That leaders may be unaware of the conflict between conflicting requirements may be one reason why norms become undiscussable within organizations, leading to a double-bind situation for individuals. If they expose an error, they question covert or unquestionable norms. If they do not expose an error, they perpetuate a process that inhibits organizational learning.29 Individuals thus face lose/lose
STUDIES IN CONFLICT & TERRORISM 5 situations in which the rules of the game are not open to discussion.30 Commonly,
organizational norms also make the double binds themselves undiscussable:
Such procedure means that the very information needed to detect and correct errors becomes undiscussable. If one wanted to design a strategy to inhibit double-loop learning and to encourage error, a better one could not be found.31
Argyris and Schon conclude that organizations have a tendency to produce learning systems that inhibit double-loop learning as it would question their objective and norms.32 Double binds indicate such single-loop learning systems. Does the lack of cognitive abilities, as well as perceptual flaws, explain why individuals become locked in double binds, and why learning in organizations becomes inhibited? According to Argyris and Schon, the problem lies with organizational defenses that lead to a lack of error perception, rendering errors uncorrectable. Defensive organizational routines come into play when threatening or embarrassing issues arise, preventing lessons from being learned.33 Defensive routines – such as sending mixed messages or being overly diplomatic – are frequently activated when they are most counterproductive. Defensive routines can create binds:
On the one hand, […] [p]articipants are not supposed to bypass errors. Moreover, the bypass is undiscussable […] On the other hand, if the errors, their undiscussability, and the cover-ups surface, the participants are subject to criticism … 34
Defensive routines therefore prevent members of organizations from discovering the root causes of the problem and lead to paradoxes because individuals design inconsistencies of meaning and camouflage them by producing mixed messages: “to be consistent, act inconsistently, and act as if that is not the case.”35 A second consequence is that people start creating attributions to make sense of other peoples’ actions – attributions which are frequently wrong but remain unquestioned. As a result, reactions lead to unintended consequences. So why do people create consequences that contradict their intentions?36 Argyris and Schon consider that people are responsible for their actions, and that individuals who deny responsibility usually put the blame on others.37
In contrast, in double-loop learning systems productive reasoning takes place, following a logic that is not self-referential, where people take responsibility, acknowledge when there is a mismatch between intention and outcome, share awareness of organizational dilemmas, engage such conflicts through inquiry, and decrease double binds.38 In this second learning loop, the focus shifts from learning how to better accomplish tasks within a given frame of reference to learning what to do by questioning the frame of reference itself.39 In other words, while single-loop learning focuses on improving what an organization already does, or “doing the things right,” double-loop learning is concerned with what organizations ought to do, or “doing the right things.”40 However, Argyris and Schon find only limited empirical evidence for double-loop learning systems and remark that it depicts an ideal type that can be approached, making it possible to speak of organizations learning in a more or less double-loop way.41 The dynamics described above explain how double-loop systems become inhibited and how people hide their responsibility by blaming the environment for their inability to double-loop learn. Argyris and Schon also address intervention strategies that help organizations approach double-loop learning. One tool is the drawing of a diagnostic map describing how the organization learns. Such a map, they suggest, can help with predictions if certain changes were to be implemented,42 and can be used to depict alternative scenarios and their consequences.
Single Loop Learning
Source: Wikipedia
Double Loop Learning
Source: Wikipedia
Single and Double Loop Learning
Triple Loops of Learning
Source: The origins and conceptualizations of ‘triple-loop’ learning: A critical review
Many scholars have considered the concept of organizational learning as a dichotomy. In its basic, primary form they have described it as action oriented, routine and incremental, occurring within existing (mental) frameworks, norms, policies and rules. In the face of profound change in organizational environments, these scholars argue that a qualitatively distinct, secondary form of learning is necessary. This aims to change the (mental) frameworks, norms, policies and routines underlying day-to-day actions and routines (Cope, 2003).
This dichotomy has been expressed in a variety of terms: single-loop and double-loop (e.g. Argyris and Schön, 1974); lower-level and higher-level (Fiol and Lyles, 1985); first-order and second-order (Arthur and Aiman-Smith, 2001); exploitation and exploration (Levinthal and March, 1993; March, 1991); incremental and radical (Miner and Mezias, 1996); and adaptive and generative learning (Senge, 1990). Although these dichotomous terms stem from different perspectives on organizational learning, a reasonable consensus seems to have been established that they refer to comparable learning processes and outcomes (Argyris, 1996; Arthur and Aiman-Smith, 2001; Miner and Mezias, 1996). Thus, as defined by Argyris (1999: 68), single-loop learning occurs ‘whenever an error is detected and corrected without questioning or altering the underlying values of the system’, and double-loop learning occurs ‘when mismatches are corrected by first examining and altering the governing variables and then the actions’.
A number of authors have conceived of a further type of organizational learning, for which the most prominent term is ‘triple-loop’ learning (Flood and Romm, 1996; Isaacs, 1993; Romme and Van Witteloostuijn, 1999; Snell and Chak, 1998; Swieringa and Wierdsma, 1992; Yuthas et al., 2004). Typically, this is described as additional to, and metaphorically at a ‘higher’ or ‘deeper’ level than, primary and secondary forms of learning, the metaphor implying that this level has greater significance and profundity. Yet, in spite of its perceived importance, conceptualizations of this form of learning do not always make clear how it differs from, or relates to, primary or secondary forms. Scholars of organizational learning might look first to Argyris and Schön; significantly, though, we have established that whilst triple-loop learning has been inspired by Argyris and Schön, the term does not appear explicitly in their published work.
Within this we explore the original work of Argyris and Schön, and of the anthropologist and cybernetician Gregory Bateson, the major influences cited by authors who propose these conceptualizations. This enables us to make a theoretical contribution through identifying three distinct conceptualizations of triple-loop learning. These are:
A. a level beyond, and considered by proponents to be superior to, Argyris and Schön’s single-loop and double-loop learning;
B. an equivalent to Argyris and Schön’s (1978, 1996) concept of ‘deutero-learning’;
C. a proposed third level inspired by Bateson’s (1973)1 framework of levels of learning (specifically ‘Learning III’).
We discuss why these conceptualizations should be regarded as distinct from each other, and highlight some implications for practice.
Source: The origins and conceptualizations of ‘triple-loop’ learning: A critical review
Source: Levels of learning: hither and whither
Source: Coping with Uncertainty in River Management: Challenges and Ways Forward
Source: TOOL | Single, Double and Triple Loop Learning
Quadruple Loops of Learning
Source: Policy learning and crisis policy-making: quadruple-loop learning and COVID-19 responses in South Korea
Levels of Learning
Source: The origins and conceptualizations of ‘triple-loop’ learning: A critical review
Org. Culture, Learning, Performance
Source:A Configuration Model of Organizational Culture
Source:A Configuration Model of Organizational Culture
Source:A Configuration Model of Organizational Culture
Source:A Configuration Model of Organizational Culture
Source:A Configuration Model of Organizational Culture
Source:A Configuration Model of Organizational Culture
Source:A Configuration Model of Organizational Culture
Source:A Configuration Model of Organizational Culture
Source: A GENERIC THEORY OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
Source: A GENERIC THEORY OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
Source: Approaches for Organizational Learning: A Literature Review
Management Planning and Control Systems
Source: Performance management: a framework for management control systems research
Hierarchical Production Planning and Control
Source: A bibliography of Hierarchical Production Planning
Production Planning and Control Systems
Source: Google Images
Strategic, Tactical, and Operational Decisions
Source: Hierarchical Production Planning / Bitran/Tirupati/1989
Author(s): Mark S. Reed, Anna C. Evely, Georgina Cundill, Ioan Fazey, Jayne Glass, Adele Laing, Jens Newig, Brad Parrish, Christina Prell, Chris Raymond and Lindsay C. Stringer
Source: Ecology and Society , Dec 2010, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Dec 2010) Published by: Resilience Alliance Inc.
“A systemic approach to processes of power in learning organizations: Part II – triple loop learning and a facilitative intervention in the “500 schools project””,
A Mighty Step: Critical Systemic Interpretation of the Learning Organization
Robert Louis Flood and Hanne Finnestrand
The Oxford Handbook of the Learning Organization Edited by Anders Ragnar Örtenblad
Print Publication Date: Dec 2019 Subject: Business and Management, Organizational Theory and Behaviour Online Publication Date: Jan 2020 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198832355.013.11
Single-Loop and Double-Loop Models in Research on Decision Making
Author(s): Chris Argyris
Source: Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Sep., 1976), pp. 363-375 Published by: Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2391848
A Primer on Organizational Learning
By Olivier Serrat
ADB
Modes ofOrganizationalLearning
by Soren Eilertsen, Ph.D., with Kellan London, M.A.
The origins and conceptualizations of ‘triple-loop’ learning: A critical review
Deradicalization through Double-Loop Learning? How the Egyptian Gamaa Islamiya Renounced Violence
Carolin Goerzig
To cite this article: Carolin Goerzig (2019): Deradicalization through Double-Loop Learning? How the Egyptian Gamaa Islamiya Renounced Violence, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, DOI: 10.1080/1057610X.2019.1680193
Triple-loop learning as foundation for profound change, individual cultivation, and radical innovation: Construction processes beyond scientific and rational knowledge.
A bibliography of Hierarchical Production Planning
HIERARCHIES
IN PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL: A SURVEY
Camille M. Libosvar
Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems
January 7. 1988
LIDS-P-1734
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge. Massachusetts
HIERARCHICAL PRODUCTION PLANNING SYSTEMS
by ARNOLDO C. MAX and JONATHAN J . GOLOVIN
August 1977
Technical Report No. 135 Work Performed Under Contract N00014—75—C—0556, Office of Naval Research Multilevel Logistics Organization Models NR 347—027 M.I.T. OSP 82491 Operations Research Center Massachusetts Institute of Technology cambridge , Massachusetts 02139
“Hierarchical Production Planning”
Gabriel R. Bitran*t Devanath Tirupati**
MIT Sloan School Working Paper #3017-89-MS
May 1989
*Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA 02139
**Department of Management, The University of Texas at Austin
tThis research has been partially supported by the Leaders for Manufacturing Program.
Glasersfeld E. von (1991) Knowing without metaphysics: Aspects of the radical constructivist position. In: Steier F. (ed.) Research and reflexivity. Sage Publications, London: 12–29. http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/132
Huysman M. & de Wit D. (2003) A critical evaluation of knowledge management practices. In: Ackerman M. S., Pipek V. & Wulf V. (eds.) Sharing expertise: Beyond knowledge management. MIT Press, Cambridge MA: 27–55. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kolb D. A. (1984) Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kosso P. (1992) Reading the book of nature. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kuhn T. S. (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions (Second edition). The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Maturana H. R. (1991) Science and daily life: the ontology of scientific explanations. In: Steier F. (ed.) Research and reflexivity. Sage Publishers, London, Newbury Parg CA: 30–52. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Nonaka I. & Konno N. (1998) The concept of “ba”: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review 40(3): 40–54. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Nonaka I. & Takeuchi H. (1995) The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies manage the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Nonaka I. & Toyama R. (2003) The knowledge-creating theory revisited: Knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research and Practice 1: 2–10. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Pask G. (1976) Conversation theory: Applications in education and epistemology. Elsevier, Amsterdam. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Peschl M. F. (2001) Constructivism, cognition, and science: An Investigation of its links and possible shortcomings. Foundations of Science 6: 125–161. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Peschl M. F. (2003) Structures and diversity in everyday knowledge: From reality to cognition and back. In: Gadner J., Buber R. & Richards L. (eds.) Organising knowledge: Methods and case studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire: 3–27. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Philippe M. D. (1991) Initiation à la philosophie d’Aristote. Editions Universitaires, Paris. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Pieper J. (2003) Was heißt Philosophieren? Johannes Verlag: Einsiedeln, Freiburg. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Popper K. R. (1962) Conjectures and refutations. The growth of scientific knowledge. Basic Books, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Rodgers C. (2002) Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record 104 (4): 842–866. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Rogers R. R. (2001) Reflection in higher education: A concept analysis. Innovative Higher Education 26(1): 37–57. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Scharmer C. O. (2000) Presencing: Learning from the future as it emerges. On the tacit dimension of leading revolutionary change.
Scharmer C. O. (2001) Self-transcending knowledge: Sensing and organizing around emerging opportunities. Journal of Knowledge Management 5(2): 137–150. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Schein E. H. (1993) On dialogue, culture and organizational learning. Organization Dynamics 22(2): 44–51. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Scott B. (2001) Gordon Pask’s Conversation Theory: A domain independent constructivist model of human knowing. Foundations of Science 6: 343–360. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Senge P. M. (1990) The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Senge P., C. O. Scharmer J. Jaworski, and B. S. Flowers (2004) Presence. Human purpose and the field of the future. Society for Organizational Learning, Cambridge MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Sharples M. (2006) Learning as conversation: Transforming education in the mobile age. In: Nyiri K. (ed.) Mobile understanding: The epistemology of ubiquitous communication. Passagen, Vienna: 111–119. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Argyris C. & Schön, D. A. (1996) Organizational learning II. Theory, method, and practice. Addison-Wesley: Redwood City CA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Aristoteles (1985) Nikomachische Ethik. Felix Meiner Verlag, Hamburg. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Bechtel W. & Abrahamsen A. (2002) Connectionism and the mind. Parallel processing, dynamics, and evolution in networks. Blackwell Publishers, Malden MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Boden M. A. (ed.) (1990) The philosophy of artificial intelligence. Oxford University Press, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
European Commission (2004) Innovation management and the knowledge-driven economy. European Commission, Directorate-general for Enterprise, Brussels. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Foerster H. von (1973) On constructing a reality. In: Preiser W. F. E. (ed.) Environmental design research. Hutchinson & Ross: Stroudsburg PA, ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Friedman T. L. (2006) The world is flat. A brief history of the twenty-first century, Ferrar. Straus and Giroux, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Glasersfeld E. von (1991) Knowing without metaphysics: Aspects of the radical constructivist position. In: Steier F. (ed.) Research and reflexivity. Sage Publications, London: 12–29. http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/132
Glasersfeld E. von (2000) Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit und des Begriffes der Objektivität. In: Foerster H. von, Glasersfeld E. von, Hejl P. M., Schmidt S. J. et al. (eds.) Einführung in den Konstruktivismus. 5th ed. Piper, Munich: 9–39. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hebb D. O. (1949) The organization of behavior; a neuropsychological theory. Wiley, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Holsapple C. W. (ed.) (2003) Handbook of knowledge management 1: Knowledge matters. Springer, Berlin, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Isaacs W. (1999) Dialogue and the art of thinking together: A pioneering approach to communicating in business and life. Doubleday Currency, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kolb D. A. (1984) Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Krogh G. von, Ichijo K. & Nonaka I. (2000) Enabling knowledge creation. How to unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. Oxford University Press, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Levi P. (1997) Collective intelligence: Mankind’s emerging world in cyberspace. Perseus Books, Cambridge MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Maturana H. R. (1970) Biology of cognition. In: Maturana H. R. & Varela F. J. (eds.) Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Reidel: Dordrecht, Boston: 2–60. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Nonaka I. & Takeuchi H. (1995) The knowledge creating company. How Japanese companies manage the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Nonaka I. & Toyama R. (2003) The knowledge-creating theory revisited: Knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research and Practice 1: 2–10. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Peschl M. F. (2001) Constructivism, cognition, and science. An Investigation of its links and possible shortcomings. Foundations of Science 6: 125–161. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Peschl M. F. (2003) Structures and diversity in everyday knowledge. From reality to cognition and back. In: Gadner J., Buber R. & Richards L. (eds.) Organising knowledge. Methods and case studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire: 3–27. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Peschl M. F. (2005) Acquiring basic cognitive and intellectual skills for informatics. Facilitating understanding and abstraction in a virtual cooperative learning environment. In: Micheuz P., Antonitsch P. & Mittermeir R. (eds.) Innovative concepts for teaching informatics. Ueberreuter, Vienna: 86–101. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Piaget J. (1992) Biologie und Erkenntnis. Über die Beziehung zwischen organischen Regulationen und kognitiven Prozessen. Fischer, Frankfurt/M. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Polanyi M. (1966) The tacit dimension. Doubleday, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Rumelhart D. E., Hinton G. E. & Williams R. J. (1986) Learning internal representations by error propagation. In: Rumelhart D. E. & McClelland J. L. (eds.) Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Foundations. MIT Press, Cambridge MA: 318–361. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Scharmer C. O. (2001) Self-transcending knowledge. Sensing and organizing around emerging opportunities. Journal of Knowledge Management 5: 137–150. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Scharmer C. O. (forthcoming) Theory U: A social technology for leading profound change. Published in 2009. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Schein E. H. (1993) On dialogue, culture and organizational learning. Organization Dynamics 22: 44–51. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Senge P. M. (1990) The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Senge P., Scharmer C. O., Jaworski J. & Flowers B. S. (2004) Presence. Human purpose and the field of the future. Society for Organizational Learning, Cambridge MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
UNESCO (2005) Towards knowledge societies. Paris, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO World Report). ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Scenarios: Frames of Possibilities and Plausibilities
Key Terms
Scenarios
Scenario Planning
Futures
Intuitive Logics method
Shell
GBN
Oxford Scenarios Program
Predetermined Elements
Critical Uncertainty
Weak Signals
SRI International (Stanford Research Institute)
RAND Corporation
Hudson Institute
DNI US MoD
UK MoD
Scenario Quadrant
Multiple Scenarios
Bounded Rationality
Cognitive Biases
Frames
Availability Bias
Overconfidence
Anchoring
Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous (VUCA)
Key Concepts
Source: UNDP FORESIGHT: THE MANUAL Page 11
Black swans
Rare and discontinuous events that are unprecedented, unexpected and have major effects. They are often inappropriately rationalised after the fact with the benefit of hindsight, but this tendency to see coherence can obscure future threats.
Cognitive bias
A pattern of deviation in judgment that influences the way information is received, processed, retained or called. Cognitive biases influence how inferences, judgements and predictions are drawn.
Cognitive dissonance
The mental stress or discomfort one experiences when confronted with new information or views that contradicts existing values or beliefs. Because humans strive for internal consistency, individuals tend to reduce cognitive dissonance by denying or devaluing new information and views, or rationalising their own values and beliefs.
Complexity
Complex systems are non-linear and diverse networks made up of multiple interconnected elements. Cause and effect relationships within the system are not easily discernable or predictable. Historical extrapolation is futile for predicting emergence (new patterns and behaviours) in complex systems.
Cross-‐cutting issues
Issues or challenges that affect more than a single interest area, institution or stakeholder, and that need to be addressed from all points of view. A Whole-of-Government or Networked approach is useful for addressing cross-cutting issues.
Design thinking
An end-user centred approach to problem-solving that places the final experience at the heart of developing solutions. Following an iterative approach, the rapid prototyping component of design thinking allows for quick adaptation in uncertain environments and continual improvement.
Experimentation and prototyping
Experimentation is a process that seeks to test and validate competing hypotheses. Prototyping refers to creating models or sketches to test ideas and spot problems. Experimentation and prototyping are effective ways to navigate and test hypotheses and ideas in complex or rapidly changing environments.
Interdependence
A relationship of mutual reliance between two or more factors within a system such that changes in one area affect the other(s).
Path dependency
Describes the inclination to stick to past practice despite the availability of newer, more efficient practices as a result of cognitive biases such as risk aversion, or concerns over sunk costs. Designing contingency plans with ample space for flexibility can reduce the constraints of path dependency.
Resilience
A system’s ability to cope with and recover from shocks or disruptions, either by returning to the status quo or by transforming itself to adapt to the new reality. Resilient systems view change as inevitable and failure as opportunities to learn from. Social cohesion, trust in government and national pride can be indicators of resilience.
Retrospective coherence
The act of assigning coherence in hindsight in order to make sense of what is happening. Practicing retrospective coherence presents the danger of making decisions for the future based on the lessons of history that may not apply in similar situations.
Signposts
Milestone markers between a given future and the present day that aid visualisation by breaking up the path to the future into manageable blocks of time. They can help to gauge the extent to which a particular scenario has materialised, and can be events, thresholds or trends and patterns.
Systems thinking
An analytical problem solving approach that looks at a system as a whole rather than in isolation, and that considers the interactions between various elements. The big-picture overview helps decision makers see linkages across different sections within the system and can foster collaboration and shared understanding within an organisation. Systems thinking also helps policymakers identify cause-effect relationships and how they might manifest in the larger system.
Unknown unknowns
Issues and situations in organisations that have yet to surface and which are blind spots for planners who are unaware that they do not know about them.
Whole-‐of-‐Government (WG)
A ‘joined-up’ or networked approach to governance that represents a shift from vertical to horizontal decision-making, and which is built on inter-agency collaboration and collective problem-solving. Whole-of-government involves a process of identifying, analysing and managing wide-ranging and cross-cutting issues.
Wicked problems
Large and intractable issues and challenges that have no immediate or obvious solutions and whose causes and influencing factors are not easily determined. Wicked problems are characterised by many agents interacting with each other in often mystifying ways, and involve multiple stakeholders operating with different perspectives and goals.
Purpose of Scenarios
Source: Does the intuitive logics method – and its recent enhancements – produce “effective” scenarios?
Van der Heijden [15] argues that there is a confusing assortment of reasons as to why one should engage in scenarios. He advocates the importance of clearly identifying the purpose of undertaking scenario work — in order to make the appropriate selection of scenario methodology. Van der Heijden argues that “purpose” can be divided along two dimensions; the first dimension is to establish the extent of the scenario work i.e. whether the scenario work is to be a one-off project, or part of on an on-going scenario-based planning process. The second dimension is that of the primary aim of the scenario work, this being either to raise questions, or to answer them — and thus aid decision making.
The combination of these two dimensions results in four purposes of scenario work, namely:
• Sense-making: a one-off ‘exploratory question-raising scenario project’; • Developing strategy: a one-off ‘decision-making scenario project’; • Anticipation: an ‘on-going exploratory scenario activity’; and • Action-based organizational learning: an ‘on-going decision-making activity’.
Van der Heijden continues by suggesting that these four purposes represent a hierarchy of interconnected aims serving the ultimate goal of “strategic success” in which organizational learning is the “overarching broad organisational skill” achieved when the scenario work is an on-going decision-making activity [15, page 162].
Benefits of Scenarios
Source: Does the intuitive logics method – and its recent enhancements – produce “effective” scenarios?
The (mainly practitioner-based) literature contains many testimonials as to the use and organizational benefits of scenarios, which we group under the following headings:
3.1. Enhanced perception
Scenario techniques reportedly enhance corporate and individual perception as they provide a framework for managers to understand and evaluate trends and events as they happen [16], and managers involved in scenario exercises supposedly become better observers of the business environment, more attuned to discerning changes [17]. Porter [18] suggests that scenarios help managers to make explicit their implicit assumptions about the future, and to think beyond the confines of conventional wisdom. This, combined with the fact that scenarios often challenge conventional wisdom and complacency by shifting the “perceptual anchors” from which people view the future, reduces the likelihood of managers and organizations making big mistakes in the future and/or of being caught unaware [19,20].
3.2. A structure for dealing with uncertainty
Scenarios provide a structure for thinking aimed at attacking complexity by allowing managers to deal more openly and explicitly with acknowledged uncertainty [21,16], to arrive at a deeper understanding of what is significant, and to identify what needs to be dealt with – and what is transient and can be ignored [11,22]. Bunn and Salo [23] suggest that, by emphasizing that there are a range of possible futures rather than a single-point future, scenarios reduce the bias for underestimating uncertainties. This is echoed by Docherty and McKiernan [24] who state that “the greatest contribution of scenario planning lies in its active engagement of actors in its process and its power to enable them to think about complexity and uncertainty in external contexts, and then how they might shape the external environment to their own strategic ends” (p. 10).
3.3. Integration of corporate planning functions
Scenario techniques provide a good middle ground between relying on informal and intuitive techniques, and being bound by the methodological constraints of more formal, quantitative techniques. As a result, a greater variety of information and wider company participation can be incorporated into the forecasting and planning process when scenario planning is used [16]. Other authors [25,26] add that scenarios are also able to combine topical intelligence and structure seemingly disparate environmental factors into a useful framework for decision making in a way that no other planning models can.
3.4. A communications tool
According to Allen [21], the communications qualities of scenarios are overwhelming as they provide a rational and non-threatening framework for discussion, even with those outside of the organization [27]. Durance and Godet [28] state that scenarios are also an effective means of rallying employees and communicating strategy across the organization. Bezhold [29] suggests that the scenarios can be used as a marketing and educational campaign throughout the organization. Ringland [25] adds that, by sharing its scenarios with the outside world, an organization can provide the context for dialog with its stakeholders — enabling it to influence its external environment. An added benefit [30] is that the collegiality which usually emerges in a scenario planning exercise does not evaporate once the scenario exercise is complete. Van der Heijden [15,31] reports that Royal Dutch Shell’s scenarios emerged as a powerful management tool by which senior management was able to influence decision-making at all levels throughout the organization, without becoming directly involved in the process or minutiae of the subsequent, scenario-based, evaluation of decisions. This was achieved by making the scenarios the context for key strategic decisions — thus uniting the geographically dispersed, disparate, and decentralized business units in developing a common strategy [28].
3.5. Organizational learning
Although scenario planning was initially understood as a tool for “thinking the unthinkable” [32], a body of literature has subsequently developed around the value of scenarios in terms of individual and organizational learning [11]. This is because scenario exercises ostensibly provide a politically-safe team learning environment and a rich learning process that stimulates creativity [11,15,33–37]. As models of future business environments, scenarios provide a vehicle for pseudo-experimentation in terms of formulating strategic options and then examining the consequences of these options in a range of future environments [15,30,31,38]. By having to articulate their assumptions in a scenario exercise, managers can identify inconsistencies in their own thinking and that of their colleagues in a non-threatening environment [25,37]. At the same time, the necessity in scenario work to undertake detailed analysis of environmental driving forces and their causal relationships, forces individuals to examine their perceptions, stretch their mental models and to develop a shared view of uncertainty [15,31]. All of the foregoing leads to an increased confidence in decision-making [16] and moves the organization towards becoming, what has been termed, a “learning organization” [15].
Based upon our consideration of the above purposes and benefits of the use of scenario methods, we distil from the literature three main objectives of the application of scenario approaches, as follows:
1) Enhancing understanding: of the causal processes, connections and logical sequences underlying events — thus uncovering how a future state of the world may unfold;
2) Challenging conventional thinking: to reframe perceptions and change the mindsets of those within organizations; and
3) Improving decision making: to inform strategy development.
Support for this conclusion also comes from the work of Varum and Melo who, after undertaking a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the literature on scenario planning, argued that there is a consensus in the literature on three benefits of using scenarios, namely an “improvement of the learning process, improvement of the decision-making process, and identification of new issues and problems” [2, page.362].
Our three objectives are interlinked in that: firstly, understanding the connections, causal processes and logical sequences which determine how events may unfold to create different futures, will challenge conventional thinking and will also prove of benefit in improving organizational decision making and strategy; secondly, challenging conventional thinking, reframing perceptions and changing mind-sets should result in collective organizational learning; and, thirdly, collective organization learning should enhance organizational decision making and strategy — which in turn should enhance collective organizational learning.
Types of Scenarios
Source: An uncertain future, deep uncertainty, scenarios, robustness and adaptation: How do they fit together?
Predictive
Trend
Whatif
Explorative
Framed
Unframed
Normative
Preserving
Transformational
Types of Uncertainty
Source: Nine lives of uncertainty in decision-making: strategies for dealing with uncertainty in environmental governance
Source: A Scenario-based Approach to Strategic Planning – Integrating Planning and Process Perspective of Strategy
Multiple Frames of Changes in Contextual Environment on the Transcational Environment
Source: Using Scenario Planning to Reshape Strategy
Source: Multiple Scenario Development: Its Conceptual and Behavioral Foundation
Source: Multiple Scenario Development: Its Conceptual and Behavioral Foundation
Source: Multiple Scenario Development: Its Conceptual and Behavioral Foundation
Institutions and Methods of Scenario Planning
Shell/GBN Intuitive Logics Method
Oxford Scenario Planning Approach
La Prospective / M Godet
Rand Corporation
SRI International
GBN/Monitor/Deloitte/Center for Long View/Market Sensing and Scenario Planning
Source: Plausibility and probability in scenario planning
Source: The current state of scenario development: an overview of techniques
Research Journals and Authors on Scenario Planning
Source: SCENARIOS IN BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT: THE CURRENT STOCK AND RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
Source: SCENARIOS IN BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT: THE CURRENT STOCK AND RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
Source: SCENARIOS IN BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT: THE CURRENT STOCK AND RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
Source: SCENARIOS IN BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT: THE CURRENT STOCK AND RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
More is not always better: Coping with ambiguity in natural resources management
M. Brugnach a, b, *, A. Dewulf c, H.J. Henriksen d, P. van der Keur d
a Faculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente, The Netherlands b Institute for Environmental Systems Research, University of Osnabrück, Germany c Public Administration and Policy Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands d Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Denmark
Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2010) 1e7
The Environmental Goffman: Toward an Environmental Sociology of Everyday Life
BRADLEY H. BREWSTER
Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
MICHAEL MAYERFELD BELL
Department of Community & Environmental Sociology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Society and Natural Resources, 23:45–57 Copyright # 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0894-1920 print=1521-0723 online DOI: 10.1080/08941920802653505
An uncertain future, deep uncertainty, scenarios, robustness and adaptation: How do they fit together?
H.R. Maier a, *, J.H.A. Guillaume b, H. van Delden a, c, G.A. Riddell a, M. Haasnoot d, e, J.H. Kwakkel e
a School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide SA 5005, Australia b Water & Development Research Group (WDRG), Aalto University, Tietotie 1E, Espoo 02150, Finland c Research Institute for Knowledge Systems, Hertogsingel 11B, 6211 NC Maastricht, The Netherlands d Deltares, Fresh Water Department, Delft, The Netherlands
e Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Technology Policy and Management, Delft, The Netherlands
The current state of scenario development: an overview of techniques
Peter Bishop, Andy Hines and Terry Collins
foresight, Vol. 9 Iss: 1 pp. 5 – 25 2007
Identification and classification of uncertainties in the application of environmental models
J.J. Warmink a, *, J.A.E.B. Janssen a, b, M.J. Booij a, M.S. Krol a
a Department of Water Engineering and Management, Faculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, the Netherlands b Waterboard Rijn and IJssel, P.O. Box 148, 7000 AC Doetinchem, the Netherlands
Coping with Complexity, Uncertainty and Ambiguity in Risk Governance: A Synthesis
Ortwin Renn, Andreas Klinke, Marjolein van Asselt
AMBIO (2011) 40:231–246 DOI 10.1007/s13280-010-0134-0
Risk frames and multiple ways of knowing: Coping with ambiguity in oil spill risk governance in the Norwegian Barents Sea
Tuuli Parviainena,⁎, Annukka Lehikoinenb, Sakari Kuikkaa, P.ivi Haapasaaria
a University of Helsinki, Finland, Ecosystems and Environment Research Programme, Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, P.O Box 65, Viikinkaari 1, FI-
00014 Helsinki Finland
b University of Helsinki, Finland, Ecosystems and Environment Research Programme, Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Kotka Maritime Research Center,
There’s no sense in denying it: interpreting weak signals into useful decision making takes time and focus. These three stages can help you see the periphery—and act on it—much more clearly.
Rather than trying to predict the future, organizations need to strengthen their abilities to cope with uncertainty. A new approach to scenario planning can help companies reframe their long-term strategies by developing several plausible scenarios.
Chapter 10 The Learning Dimension of Adaptive Capacity: Untangling the Multi-level Connections
Alan Diduck
Adaptive Capacity and Environmental Governance
Derek Armitage l Ryan Plummer Editors
Using Trends and Scenarios as Tools for Strategy Development
Shaping the Future of Your Enterprise
by Ulf Pillkahn
ISBN 978-3-89578-304-3
Risk frames and multiple ways of knowing: Coping with ambiguity in oil spill risk governance in the Norwegian Barents Sea
Tuuli Parviainena,⁎, Annukka Lehikoinenb, Sakari Kuikkaa, P.ivi Haapasaaria
a University of Helsinki, Finland, Ecosystems and Environment Research Programme, Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, P.O Box 65, Viikinkaari 1, FI-00014 Helsinki Finland
b University of Helsinki, Finland, Ecosystems and Environment Research Programme, Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Kotka Maritime Research Center, Keskuskatu 10, FI-48100 Kotka, Finland
Environmental Science and Policy 98 (2019) 95–111
How Issues Get Framed and Reframed When Different Communities Meet: A Multi-level Analysis of a Collaborative Soil Conservation Initiative in the Ecuadorian Andes
ART DEWULF1*, MARC CRAPS1 and GERD DERCON2
1Centre for Organizational and Personnel Psychology, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, Belgium
2International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibidan, Nigeria
Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology
J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 14: 177–192 (2004)
Defining Uncertainty
A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Support
W.E. WALKER1, P. HARREMO€EES2, J. ROTMANS3, J.P. VAN DER SLUIJS5, M.B.A. VAN ASSELT4, P. JANSSEN6 AND M.P. KRAYER VON KRAUSS2
1Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands,
2Environment & Resources DTU, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark,
3International Centre for Integrative Studies (ICIS), Maastricht University, The Netherlands,
4Faculty of Arts and Culture, Maastricht University, The Netherlands,
5Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovations, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, and
6Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), The Netherlands
Integrated Assessment
2003, Vol. 00, No. 0, pp. 000–000
1389-5176/03/0000-000
A Structured Approach to Strategic Decisions
Reducing errors in judgment requires a disciplined process.
Scenario development without probabilities — focusing on the most important scenario
Volker Grienitz & Michael Hausicke & André-Marcel Schmidt
Eur J Futures Res (2014) 15:27
DOI 10.1007/s40309-013-0027-0
Foundations of Scenario Planning: The Story of Pierre Wack
By Thomas J Chermack
2017
ROLE OF SCENARIO PLANNING AND PROBABILITIES IN ECONOMIC DECISION PROBLEMS – LITERATURE REVIEW AND NEW CONCLUSIONS
Helena GASPARS-WIELOCH *
Department of Operations Research, Faculty of Informatics and Electronic Economy, Poznan University of Economics and Business, Al. Niepodleglosci 10, 61-875, Poznań, Poland
1Harvard Forest, Harvard University, Petersham, Massachusetts, 2Harvard Forest, Harvard University and Science Policy Exchange, Petersham, Massachusetts, 3Michigan State University, Department of Forestry, East Lansing, Michigan, 4Climate and Global Warming Solutions, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Boston, Massachusetts, 5Consensus Building Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Interaction as a cause of frame production, reflection, learning and frame alignment.
Competing Frames
Differing perspectives on a current issue. Contesting and competing.
Frames of Possibilities
Farmes of possible future due to uncertainty. Scenarios of future states.
Media Frames and Audience frames
Dielectics between media frames and audience frames
Frames – Sociological and Psychological
Source: CONCEPTUAL ISSUES IN FRAMING THEORY: A Systematic Examination of a Decade’s Literature
Conceptually, framing can be said to have two broad foundations—sociological (Entman, 1991; Gamson & Modigliani, 1987; Gitlin, 1980; Goffman, 1974) and psychological (Domke, Shah, & Wackman, 1998; Iyengar, 1991; Kahneman & Tversky, 1984). Framing research that grew from sociological foundations refers to the ‘‘frames in communication’’ (Chong & Druckman, 2007b, p. 106). In general, this research tends to focus on the ‘‘words, images, phrases, and presentation styles’’ (Druckman, 2001, p. 227) that are used to construct news stories and the processes that shape this construction.
Goffman (1974) was one of the first scholars to have developed the general concept of framing. As such, frames help people organize what they see in everyday life. Goffman calls frames the ‘‘schemata of interpretation,’’ a framework that helps in making an otherwise meaningless succession of events into something meaningful (p. 21). Gitlin (1980) defines frames as devices that facilitate how journalists organize enormous amounts of information and package them effectively for their audiences. He sees frames as ‘‘persistent patterns of cognition, interpretation, and presentation, of selection, emphasis, and exclusion,’’ organizing the information for both the journalists and their audiences (p. 7). According to Entman (1993), framing involves selection and salience—‘‘to frame is to select some aspects of perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described’’ (p. 52). Framing could have significant connotations as frames highlight some aspects of reality while excluding other elements, which might lead individuals to interpret issues differently.
Besides examining media frames, researchers have most enthusiastically studied the processes involved in the formation of the audience frame. There is much research that demonstrates how news framing influences information processing and the subsequent decision-making processes. Kahneman and Tversky (1979, 1984) were the first to demonstrate how different presentations of essentially the same information can have an impact on people’s choices. They found that individuals were inclined to take risks when ‘‘losses’’ are highlighted. But when the same information is presented in terms of ‘‘gains,’’ individuals shy away from risks. This approach, called ‘‘equivalency’’ (Druckman, 2001, p. 228), examines the influence of different but logically equivalent messages. In this approach, all factual and stylistic elements are comparable so that the pure influence of the frame can be observed. The ‘‘equivalency’’ perspective draws extensively on the experiments of risk-gain research (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979, 1984).
The ‘‘emphasis’’ (Druckman, 2001, p. 230) approach to framing demonstrates that accentuating certain considerations in a message can influence individuals to focus on those particular considerations. Scholars (Domke et al., 1998; Iyengar, 1991; McLeod & Detenber, 1999; Nelson, Clawson, & Oxley, 1997; Valkenburg, Semetko, & de Vreese, 1999) aligned to this interpretation of framing maintain that it is not always possible to manipulate a frame without changing some of the facts. Druckman (2004) aptly points out that in many cases, especially with political issues, there is not always a way to present a situation in different but equivalent ways. Instead, emphasis framing effects refer to situations when, by ‘‘emphasizing a subset of potentially relevant considerations,’’ individuals are led to focus on these considerations in the decision-making process (Druckman, 2004, p. 672). Thus, for political issues the concept of framing usually refers to ‘‘characterizations’’ of a course of action where a central idea provides meaning to the event (Sniderman & Theriault, 2004, p. 136). It is within ‘‘emphasis’’ framing that scholars have again differentiated frames—episodic versus thematic (Iyengar, 1991); strategy versus issue (Cappella & Jamieson, 1997); in terms of values (Brewer & Gross, 2005; Shah et al., 1996) to name a few.
The dual nature of framing research—frames in the news versus frames in the individuals’ minds—is evident. Scholars have examined both areas of literature in the past decades.
Frame competition
Source: CONCEPTUAL ISSUES IN FRAMING THEORY: A Systematic Examination of a Decade’s Literature
Moreover, in previous experimental research, scholars have focused largely on how different frames can affect the audiences’ attitudes, their learning, or political behavior. These studies have mainly focused on the difference of framing effects in single frame conditions, for instance, strategic versus value framing, loss versus gain, or episodic versus thematic (Iyengar, 1987, 1991; Nelson, Clawson, et al., 1997; Shah et al., 1996). However, there has been little research on the effects of multiple frame conditions, where the same subjects get alternative frames of an issue (Shah, Kwak, Schmierbach, & Zubric, 2004; Sniderman & Theriault, 2004). In general ‘‘the role of multiple competing frames has gone largely unexplored’’ (Chong & Druckman, 2007a, p. 101).
To be able to capture what actually happens in politics, ‘‘it is necessary to have an additional condition in framing experiments, in which opposing frames are presented together’’ (Sniderman & Theriault, 2004, p. 146). The authors consider ‘‘ambivalence’’ as key for framing effects (p. 137). They argue that the very nature of politics requires choices to be made between competing values. So value conflict is critical to the link between issue framing and political judgment. As such, the present study examined the published literature for the presence of studies exploring mixed frames.
Frames, Frame Effects, and Multiple Frames in Interaction
Sources: Toward a Relational Concept of Uncertainty: about Knowing Too Little, Knowing Too Differently, and Accepting Not to Know
Framing research has important roots in the work on cognitive biases and decision heuristics (Tversky and Kahneman 1981, De Martino et al. 2006). From this perspective, frames are representations of the external world, but these heuristic representations are biased when compared with accurate, decision theoretical representations (cf. Tversky and Kahneman 1981). This view has been adopted in classical decision-making theory, and served as a basis to study inconsistencies underlying judgment and choice (e.g., Kahneman and Tversky’s (1996) work on judgmental heuristics and limitations of intuitive choice). In this context, “framing effects” represent a violation of the standard economic account of human rationality. Having different formulations of what decision theory considers to be the same problem (in terms of expected utility) elicits different preferences: risk aversion can be encouraged by framing the situation in terms of gains, whereas risk seeking is encouraged by framing the situation in terms of losses (Tversky and Kahneman 1981). Although we do not share the assumption of the decision-heuristic approach that there is always a unique and correct decision theoretical formulation of a decision problem, this research does demonstrate that formulating a problem in a different way may elicit distinct decision preferences (Tversky and Kahneman 1981), affecting the meaning of and the importance attributed to uncertain information, and pointing toward different actions.
We understand frames as sense-making devices (Weick 1995) that mediate the interpretation of reality by adding meaning to a situation. The same situation can thus be framed in multiple, equally valid ways. For example, a situation of water shortage can be framed as a problem of “insufficient water supply” by one actor and, one of “excessive water consumption” by another. When a problem is framed as insufficient water supply, the most relevant uncertainties will be those associated with the amount of water available, and technical solutions that help avoiding water shortage can be favored (e.g., adopt a more efficient irrigation technology, Koundouri et al. 2006). However, when the problem is framed as an excessive water consumption issue, other solutions can be considered, such as changing the way in which water is used and consumed (e.g., diversification of crops). In this case, uncertainties associated with how society will react to a change in land use, or policies that stimulate the change (e.g., Common Agricultural Policy) will be the most important. In this way, frames significantly affect how meaning is inferred and how a situation is understood, serving to define a problem relative to core values and assumptions and to determine how to respond to it (Nisbet and Mooney 2007).
There have been two main approaches to framing research, namely, a cognitive approach where frames are defined as “cognitive representations,” and an interactional approach where frames are defined as “interactional co-constructions” (an in-depth comparison of both approaches can be found in Dewulf et al. (2008)). The cognitive approach has focused on frames as knowledge structures. It is based on the idea that frames are memory structures that help us organize and interpret incoming perceptual information by fitting it into pre-existing categories about reality (Minsky 1975). In contrast, the interactional approach focuses on how parties negotiate frame alignments in interactions. It considers frames as communicative devices, that is interactional alignments or co-constructions that are negotiated and produced in the ongoing interaction through “metacommunication” that indicates how a situation should be understood. From this perspective, frames are co-constructions of the meaning of the external world. This view has been adopted in multiparty collaborations and is exemplified in Dewulf et al. (2004) and Putnam and Holmer (1992).
Here, we adopt an interactional approach, where framing is defined as the process through which the meaning of a situation is negotiated among different actors (Putnam and Holmer 1992, Gray 2003a, Dewulf et al. 2004). Thus, framing is thought to be an interactive process where actors are engaged in developing an understanding of problems and alternative solutions. It is through the joint activities of framing, and reframing, that the actors can arrive at a joint problem definition. From this social experience, a common language and a new sense of community can emerge, opening up possibilities for further creativity and developments, and fostering learning and change (Bouwen 2001).
In our definition of uncertainty, we incorporate the concept of multiple frames, in order to capture the difference among multiple forms of knowledge. We consider each frame to represent a potentially valid view of a situation, reflecting the viewpoint of a particular community of practice (Bouwen 2001). Under the rationale of an interactional approach to framing research, we acknowledge the social processing of uncertain information and capture the interactions among actors during deliberative processes of framing and reframing. However, during these processes, encountering multiple frames that are incompatible is unavoidable, and results in ambiguity about the meaning and importance attributed to uncertain information.
Next, we discuss and describe some of the implications of ambiguity in the conceptualization of uncertainty.
Source: Towards a relational concept of uncertainty: Incorporating the human dimension
Source: Towards a relational concept of uncertainty: Incorporating the human dimension
Source: More is not always better: Coping with ambiguity in natural resources management
Strategies for dealing with Multiple Knowledge Frames
Source: Towards a relational concept of uncertainty: Incorporating the human dimension
Multiple or conflicting views about how to understand the system often represent different kinds of knowledge that are difficult to reconcile or integrate. The incompatibility in frames may result from different scientific backgrounds, from differences between context-specific experiential knowledge and general expert knowledge, from different societal positions of ideological backgrounds, and so forth.
In relational terms, actor A has a certain knowledge relation to phenomenon X, and actor B has a different knowledge relation to the same phenomenon X. In these kind of situations, relevant strategies address the relation between A and B and have something to do with dealing with differences.
We draw on a Table (Table 2) from Bouwen, Dewulf & Craps (2006) to give an overview of relevant strategies to deal with multiple knowledge frames.
Action Principle
Accept. ofInterde- pendence
ProcessCharac- teristics
Possible Outcomes
ContextContingen- cies
Persuasive Communic ationApproach
Persuasion
Moderate
Exposure to persuasion
Adoption or imitation
Unequal involvement or competence
Dialogical LearningApproach
Mutual Interactive Learning
High
Joint discovery and exchange
Mutual understandi ng and synergy
Shared involvement
Negotiation Approach
Tit for that, deal making
High/ moderate
Negotiation tactical phases
Fair deal, settlement
Calculative involvement
Opposition al Modes ofAction
cold or hot conflict
Low or negation
Keeping distance or escalation
Freeze or dominance
Mutual negation or fight
Table 2. Strategies to deal with multiple frames
The first strategy can be called the persuasive communication approach. This consists of trying to convince others of your own frame of reference, not by imposing it but by presenting it as attractive and worthwhile. This strategy is successful if others can be convinced to adopt your own frame of reference.
The second strategy is the dialogical learning approach, where the aim is to understand each other’s frames better through open dialogue and encourage learning on all sides. The literature on participation, organizational learning and consensual group decision making documents extensively this approach (Argyris and Schön, 1978; Wenger, 1998). The emphasis is on the interactive nature and reciprocal quality of the communication. Actors engage with each other as equally valuable partners and inclusion of all actors is the overall goal.
The negotiation approach aims at reaching a mutually beneficial and integrative agreement which makes sense from multiple perspectives or frames. Theories of conflict in organizations deal extensively with these negotiation strategies. Actors engage in a mutual calculative information sharing and positioning strategy. They develop alternative packages for giving and taking to come to a balanced sharing of positives and negatives. The negotiation can have a dominantly ‘integrating’ quality when both actors develop in common some synergetic win-win outcomes. The negotiation can rather be ‘distributive’ when the actors take a win-loose position and they distribute equally profits and gains in an antagonistic way.
The fourth strategy is the oppositional mode. When parties have a history of rivalry for resources or they don’t have any history of collaboration, taking or holding distance is likely. In conflict theory the distinction is made between cold and hot conflict. Cold conflict means that there is no recognition of mutual interdependence and distancing from each other is a dominant mode of operating. Hot conflict refers to heated opposition as a result of an adversarial experience of the mutual interdependency. Parties try by force a strategy to change the power difference in the relationship. When it comes to some form of collaboration, parties will move their strategy in the direction of a negotiation approach.
1Institute for Environmental Systems Research, University of Osnabrück, 2Public Administration and Policy Group, Wageningen University, 3Center for Work, Organizational and Personnel Psychology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Ambiguity: the challenge of knowing and deciding together
M. Brugnach a,*, H. Ingram b,c
a Faculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente, The Netherlands b Southwest Center, University of Arizona, United States c School of Social Ecology, University of California Irvine, United States
environmental science & policy 15 (2012) 60–71
Agenda-Setting, Priming, and Framing Revisited: Another Look at Cognitive Effects of Political Communication
Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models
Dietram A. Scheufele1 & David Tewksbury2
1 Department of Life Sciences Communication and School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53706 2 Department of Speech Communication and Department of Political Science, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801
More is not always better: Coping with ambiguity in natural resources management
M. Brugnach a, b, *, A. Dewulf c, H.J. Henriksen d, P. van der Keur d
a Faculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente, The Netherlands b Institute for Environmental Systems Research, University of Osnabrück, Germany c Public Administration and Policy Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands d Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Denmark
Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2010) 1e7
Source: PROBLEM STRUCTURING IN PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS
Problem structuring methods provide a methodological complement to theories of policy design. Arguably, structuring a problem is a prerequisite of designing solutions for that problem.4 In this context, problem structuring methods are metamethods. They are “about” and “come before” processes of policy design and other forms of problem solving.
Source: Strategic Development: Methods and Models
Key Terms
PSM
Soft OR
Hard OR
Unstructured Problems
Systems
System Sciences
SODA Strategic Options Development and Analysis
SSM Soft Systems Methodology
SCA Strategic Choice Approach
Robustness Analysis
Drama Theory
Interactive Planning
Scenario Planning
Critical Systems Heuristics
SWOT
Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing
Viable Systems Model VSM
System Dynamics
Decision Conferencing
Multi-methodology
John Mingers
Jonathan Rosenhead
John Morecroft
MC Jackson
Operational Research
Problem Structuring Methods PSM
Stafford Beer
Robert Dyson
Jay Forrester
Russell Ackoff
Robert Flood
Peter Checkland
Group Model Building
Behaviour Operational Research
Community Operations Research
Ill-structured versus Well-structured Problems
Wicked Versus Tame Problems
Ill-Defined versus Well-Defined Problems
Nigel Howard
Metagames
Hypergames
Problem Structuring Methods
Source: Past, present and future of problem structuring methods
The problematic situations for which PSMs aim to provide analytic assistance are characterized by
Multiple actors,
Differing perspectives,
Partially conflicting interests,
Significant intangibles,
Perplexing uncertainties.
The relative salience of these factors will differ between situations (and different methods are selective in the emphasis given to them). However, in all cases there is a meta-characteristic, that of complexity, arising out of the need to comprehend a tangle of issues without being able to start from a presumed consensual formulation. For an introduction to PSMs, see Rosenhead and Mingers, 2001
Source: Problem structuring methods in action
Strategic options development and analysis (SODA) is a general problem identification method that uses cognitive mapping as a modelling device for eliciting and recording individuals’ views of a problem situation. The merged individual cognitive maps (or a joint map developed within a workshop session) provide the framework for group discussions, and a facilitator guides participants towards commitment to a portfolio of actions.
Soft systems methodology (SSM) is a general method for system redesign. Participants build ideal-type conceptual models (CMs), one for each relevant world view. They compare them with perceptions of the existing system in order to generate debate about what changes are culturally feasible and systemically desirable.
Strategic choice approach (SCA) is a planning approach centered on managing uncertainty in strategic situations. Facilitators assist participants to model the interconnectedness of decision areas. Interactive comparison of alternative decision schemes helps them to bring key uncertainties to the surface. On this basis the group identifies priority areas for partial commitment, and designs explorations and contingency plans.
Robustness analysis is an approach that focuses on maintaining useful flexibility under uncertainty. In an interactive process, participants and analysts assess both the compatibility of alternative initial commitments with possible future configurations of the system being planned for, and the performance of each configuration in feasible future environments. This enables them to compare the flexibility maintained by alternative initial commitments.
Drama theory draws on two earlier approaches, meta games and hyper games. It is an interactive method of analysing co-operation and conflict among multiple actors. A model is built from perceptions of the options available to the various actors, and how they are rated. Drama theory looks for the “dilemmas” presented to the actors within this model of the situation. Each dilemma is a change point, tending to cause an actor to feel specific emotions and to produce rational arguments by which the model itself is redefined. When and only when such successive redefinitions have eliminated all dilemmas is the actors’ joint problem fully resolved. Analysts commonly work with one of the parties, helping it to be more effective in the rational-emotional process of dramatic resolution. (Descriptions based substantially on Rosenhead, 1996.)
Given the ill-defined location of the PSM/non- PSM boundary, there are a number of other methods with some currency that have at least certain family resemblances. These include critical systems heuristics (CSH) (Ulrich, 2000), interactive planning (Ackoff, 1981), and strategic assumption surfacing and testing (Mason and Mitroff, 1981). Other related methods which feature in this special issue are SWOT (Weihrich, 1998), scenario planning (Schoemaker, 1998), and the socio-technical systems approach (Trist and Murray, 1993). Those which are particularly close to the spirit of PSMs in at least some of their modes of use, and therefore thought to merit inclusion in Rosenhead and Mingers (2001), are the following:
Viable systems model (VSM) is a generic model of a viable organization based on cybernetic principles. It specifies five notional systems that should exist within an organization in some form––operations, co-ordination, control, intelligence, and policy, together with the appropriate control and communicational relationships. Although it was developed with a prescriptive intent, it can also be used as part of a debate about problems of organizational design and redesign (Harnden, 1990).
System dynamics(SD) is a way of modelling peoples’ perceptions of real-world systems based especially on causal relationships and feedback. It was developed as a traditional simulation tool but can be used, especially in combination with influence diagrams (causal–loop diagrams), as a way of facilitating group discussion (Lane, 2000; Vennix, 1996).
Decision conferencing is a variant of the more widely known “decision analysis”. Like the latter, it builds models to support choice between decision alternatives in cases where the consequences may be multidimensional; and where there may be uncertainty about future events which affect those consequences. What distinguishes decision conferencing is that it operates in workshop mode, with one or more facilitators eliciting from the group of participants both the structure of the model, and the probabilities and utilities to be included in it. The aim is cast, not as the identification of an objectively best solution, but as the achievement of shared understanding, the development of a sense of common purpose, and the generation of a commitment to action (Phillips, 1989; Watson and Buede, 1987).
There are a number of texts which present a different selection of “softer” methods than do Rosenhead and Mingers. These include Flood and Jackson (1991), who concentrate on systems-based methods, Dyson and O’Brien (1998) who consider a range of hard and soft approaches in the area of strategy formulation; and Sorensen and Vidal (1999) who make a wide range of methods accessible to a Scandinavian readership. There is clearly an extensive repertoire of methods available. In fact it is common to combine together a number of PSMs, or PSMs together with more traditional methods, in a single intervention––a practice known as multimethodology (Mingers and Gill, 1997). So the range of methodological choice is wider even than a simple listing of methods might suggest.
Source: Are project managers ready for the 21th challenges? A review of problem structuring methods for decision support
Benefits of Problem Structuring Methods
Source: Are project managers ready for the 21th challenges? A review of problem structuring methods for decision support
Reassessing the scope of OR practice: the influences of problem structuring methods and the analytics movement
Ranyard, J.C., Fildes, R. and Hun, T-I (2014).
(LUMS Working Paper 2014:8).
Lancaster University: The Department of Management Science.
Reasoning maps for decision aid: an integrated approach for problem-structuring and multi-criteria evaluation
G Montibeller1∗, V Belton2, F Ackermann2 and L Ensslin3
1London School of Economics, London, UK; 2University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK; and 3Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Floriano ́polis, Brazil
Journal of the Operational Research Society (2008) 59, 575–589
Special issue on problem structuring research and practice
Fran Ackermann • L. Alberto Franco • Etie ̈nne Rouwette • Leroy White
EURO J Decis Process (2014) 2:165–172 DOI 10.1007/s40070-014-0037-6
Group Model Building: Problem Structuring, Policy Simulation and Decision Support
David F. Andersen, University at Albany Jac A.M. Vennix, Radboud University Nijmegen George P. Richardson, University at Albany Etiënne A.J.A. Rouwette, Radboud University Nijmegen
Reassessing the Scope of OR Practice: the Influences of Problem Structuring Methods and the Analytics Movement
J. C. Ranyard, R. Fildes* and Tun-I Hu
The Department of Management Science Lancaster University Management School Lancaster LA1 4YX UK
My previous post was on introducing frames, framing and reframing. I focused on use of frames in areas of
Media
Communication
Sociology and Social Movements
Political Science
International Relations
Frames and Framing are used in two other areas
Frame Effects in Decision Making /Kahneman and Tversky
Frame Analysis in Public Policy Making / David Schon and Martin Rein
This post is focused on Frame Analysis as used in public policy making.
Frames and Frame Analysis
Source: From Policy “Frames” to “Framing”: Theorizing a More Dynamic, Political Approach.
The concept of frames or framing, especially cast as “frame analysis,” has an established history in public policy studies, building largely on the work of Donald Schön and Martin Rein. It is an important analytic “tool” for those seeking to understand, for instance, issues in the mismatch between administrators’ implementation of legislated policies and policy intent. Originally coined elsewhere (Bateson, 1955/1972a), the concept had, by the 1990s, been taken up in a wide range of academic disciplines. These included, in addition to public policy analysis (e.g., Rein, 1983a, 1983b; Rein & Schön, 1977; Schön, 1979/1993; Schön & Rein 1994, 1996), artificial intelligence and psychology (e.g., Minsky, 1975; Schank & Abelson, 1977; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981), linguistics (e.g., Fillmore, 1982; Lakoff, 1987; Tannen, 1979; see Cienki, 2007), social movement studies (e.g., Gamson, 1992; Morris & Mueller, 1992; Snow & Benford, 1988; Snow, Rochford, Worden, & Benford, 1986; for an overview, see Benford & Snow, 2000), communication studies (e.g., D’Angelo, 2002; de Vreese, 2012; Entman, 1993; for a critical overview, see Vliegenthart & van Zoonen, 2011), dispute resolution (e.g., Dewulf et al., 2009; Putnam & Holmer, 1992), and even music (Cone, 1968). Yet as the Rein–Schön policy analytic approach to framing is, today, less well known than its version in the social movement literature, public policy and administration scholars might be more likely to turn to the latter than the former in seeking to explain frame-related issues. Given what we see as the greater suitability of their approach for analyzing policy processes, we think the ideas they developed worth revisiting and extending in ways that enhance their applicability to dynamic, power-sensitive policy and administrative issues.
Although Schön also explored the subject in his own scholarship on metaphors (1979/1993) and reflective practice (e.g., 1983, 1987)—each of which might be understood, at least in part, as engaging aspects of framing—its policy applications are most fully elaborated in his collaborative work with Rein. Where Rein used “frame-reflective analysis” interchangeably with “value- critical analysis” (on this point, see Schmidt, 2006/2013), together they began focusing on frame analysis as “a methodology for problem setting” (Rein & Schön, 1977, p. 237). Later, they added its utility for investigating the possible resolution of policy controversies (Rein & Schön, 1986, 1993), and in particular those they saw as “stubborn” (Rein & Schön, 1991) or “intractable” (Rein & Schön, 1996; see also Rein, 1983a, 1983b; Schön, 1963/2001): prolonged debates on issues marked by uncertainties and ambiguities that were “highly resistant to resolution by appeal to evidence, research, or reasoned argument” (Schön & Rein, 1994, p. xi).1 Their collaboration ultimately led to the co-authored Frame Reflection (Schön & Rein, 1994).
Schön and Rein’s approach to frame analysis has been generative for many policy scholars across a range of topics, from waste management to immigrant integration, civil aviation to bovine TB (see, for example, Dudley, 1999; Grant, 2009; Hajer & Laws 2006; Hisschemöller & Hoppe, 1996; Kaufman & Smith, 1999; Laws & Rein, 2003; Rasmussen, 2011; Schmidt, 2006/2013; Scholten & Van Nispen, 2008; Sørensen, 2006; van Eeten, 2001; Yanow, 2009). Still, for all its utility, their approach warrants further development to realize its policy analytic potential in the context of intractable policy controversies, in particular with respect to the promise it holds out of a dynamic, process-oriented engagement that is politically nuanced and power-sensitive. In this context, it would be particularly suitable for understanding interactions not only in formal political arenas but also in governance networks (Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004) and in the more mundane encounters between street-level bureaucrats and their clients (Lipsky, 1980; Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003; Vinzant & Crothers, 1996). In extending their approach, we draw on various ideas we find in Schön’s earlier solo work (1963/2001, 1971), and we join Schön and Rein’s treatment of policy frame analysis with ideas deriving from category and narrative analyses, two related analytic modes.
To make the potential contributions of this policy analytic focus on framing clearer, we differentiate it from approaches that focus on frames. In our reading of these approaches, social movement theorizing chief among them, “frames” are often treated as objects people possess in their heads and develop for explicitly strategic purposes. By contrast, the policy analytic approach we engage here shifts the focus to “framing,” the interactive, intersubjective processes through which frames are constructed (cf. Weick, 1979).2 This distinction is more significant than mere differences between parts of speech: “frame” signifies a more definitional, static, and potentially taxonomizing approach to the subject; “framing” offers a more dynamic and, in our view, potentially politically aware engagement. Although the two treatments are not necessarily mutually exclusive,3 each brings different features of the processes conceptualized as frames/framing to light. To be sure, Schön and Rein’s work has aspects of both: Their case studies (e.g., of home- lessness; 1994) trace policy developments over time, listing policy programs adopted in specific cases whose names are the equivalent of different frames on the policy problem, and the policy settings of those cases introduce some elements of political processes. Our argument develops the political character of policy processes more fully, thereby enabling a policy-focused frame theorizing and analysis that flesh out the more dynamic and politically sensitive aspects of their work. This also enables us to address some of the issues raised by social movement and dispute resolution studies’ treatments of frames (e.g., Benford, 1997; Dewulf et al., 2009).
Knowing something of the conceptual history out of which frame analysis emerged clarifies what is at stake in these different approaches. We begin there and with Schön’s and Rein’s basic ideas before turning to the further development of a policy analytic approach.
Key Terms
Frame Analysis
Frame Reflection
Frames
Framing
Reframing
Media Frames
Communication
Policy making
Action Learning
Learning in Action
Reflection in Action
Organizational Learning
Double Loop Learning
Gregory Bateson
Erving Goffman
Chris Argyris
Martin Rein
Donald Schon
Reflective Practitioner
Interpretative Frames
Cognitive Frames
Interactional Frames
Contextual Frames
Sensemaking
Sensegiving
Priming
Agenda-setting
Persuasion
Schemas
Scripts.
Levels of Analysis
Micro, Meso, Macro
Deep Frames
Issue Defining Frames
Surface Messages
Frame Alignment
Frame Consonance
Frame Discordance
Contested Frames
Categories of Frames: Policy Frames Codebook
Source: Identifying Media Frames and Frame Dynamics Within and Across Policy Issues
Our Policy Frames Codebook is intended to provide the best of both worlds: a general system for categorizing frames across policy issues designed so that it can also be specialized in issue-specific ways. The codebook contains 14 categories of frame “dimensions” (plus an “other” category) that are intended to be applicable to any policy issue (abortion, immigration, foreign aid, etc.) and in any communication context (news stories, Twitter, party manifestos, legislative debates, etc.). The dimensions are listed below.
Economic frames: The costs, benefits, or monetary/financial implications of the issue (to an individual, family, community or to the economy as a whole).
Capacity and resources frames: The lack of or availability of physical, geographical, spatial, human, and financial resources, or the capacity of existing systems and resources to implement or carry out policy goals.
Morality frames: Any perspective—or policy objective or action (including proposed action)— that is compelled by religious doctrine or interpretation, duty, honor, righteousness or any other sense of ethics or social responsibility.
Fairness and equality frames: Equality or inequality with which laws, punishment, rewards, and resources are applied or distributed among individuals or groups. Also the balance between the rights or interests of one individual or group compared to another individual or group.
Constitutionality and jurisprudence frames: The constraints imposed on or freedoms granted to individuals, government, and corporations via the Constitution, Bill of Rights and other amendments, or judicial interpretation. This deals specifically with the authority of government to regulate, and the authority of individuals/corporations to act independently of government.
Policy prescription and evaluation: Particular policies proposed for addressing an identified problem, and figuring out if certain policies will work, or if existing policies are effective.
Law and order, crime and justice frames: Specific policies in practice and their enforcement, incentives, and implications. Includes stories about enforcement and interpretation of laws by individuals and law enforcement, breaking laws, loopholes, fines, sentencing and punishment. Increases or reductions in crime.
Security and defense frames: Security, threats to security, and protection of one’s person, family, in-group, nation, etc. Generally an action or a call to action that can be taken to protect the welfare of a person, group, nation sometimes from a not yet manifested threat.
Health and safety frames: Healthcare access and effectiveness, illness, disease, sanitation, obesity, mental health effects, prevention of or perpetuation of gun violence, infrastructure and building safety.
Quality of life frames: The effects of a policy on individuals’ wealth, mobility, access to resources, happiness, social structures, ease of day-to-day routines, quality of community life, etc.
Cultural identity frames: The social norms, trends, values and customs constituting culture(s), as they relate to a specific policy issue
Public opinion frames: References to general social attitudes, polling and demographic information, as well as implied or actual consequences of diverging from or getting ahead of public opinion or polls.
Political frames: Any political considerations surrounding an issue. Issue actions or efforts or stances that are political, such as partisan filibusters, lobbyist involvement, bipartisan efforts, deal-making and vote trading, appealing to one’s base, mentions of political maneuvering. Explicit statements that a policy issue is good or bad for a particular political party.
External regulation and reputation frames: The United States’ external relations with another nation; the external relations of one state with another; or relations between groups. This includes trade agreements and outcomes, comparisons of policy outcomes or desired policy outcomes.
Other frames: Any frames that do not fit into the above categories.
Researchers may choose to employ only these categories as listed here, or they could also nest issue-specific frames (or arguments) within each category. For example, in the case of capital punishment, the “innocence” frame would be a frame specific to that issue but categorized under the dimension of “fairness and equality.” In this way, scholars can apply the Policy Frames Codebook to new content analysis projects or take existing datasets that employed issue-specific frames and categorize those frames into the dimensions provided here.
We developed these categories through a mix of inductive and deductive methods. We began by brainstorming—amongst our team and several colleagues—categories that we imagined would cross- cut most, if not all, policy issues while also examining a random sampling of newspaper stories and blog posts to see which frames appeared and how we might categorize them. Then we tried applying our preliminary list of frame categories to a random sample of front-page newspaper stories covering a wide range of issues, and revised our categorization scheme accordingly. Next, we shopped our list around, sending it to additional colleagues and presenting it at an international conference (the 20th International Conference of Europeanists), again revising our schema based on this feedback. Finally, we did another round of test coding. Throughout this testing process, we developed and revised not only our list of categories but also a codebook that defines and gives examples for each category.
Framing: a Fractured Paradigm
Source: Putting Framing in Perspective: A Review of Framing and Frame Analysis across the Management and Organizational Literature
Framing and frames form an important cornerstone of many areas of management and organizational research – even if, at times, the interest in related constructs (such as schemas or categories) has seemingly had the upper hand. In one sense, our paper has been an attempt to take stock of the current literature while further advancing and invigorating research into the role of framing across the micro, meso and macro levels of analysis in management and organization studies. In part, this motivation has been driven by a recognition of the analytical strength and versatility of the construct, as evidenced by the various research streams that it has spawned within management, and indeed across the social sciences. At the same time, this vast influence across areas of research has perhaps also come at a price. It has led to a “fractured paradigm” (Entman, 1993), with researchers typically adopting a singular and more narrow focus on the construct at a particular level of analysis.
A general consequence of bracketing the broader construct in this way is that it has deflected attention away from processes of framing as meaning construction to a focus on frames as stable symbols or thoughts, with many studies setting out to “name” frames and explore how they prime certain thoughts and behaviours (e.g., Benford, 1997; Schneiberg & Clemens, 2006). The focus, in other words, is on the effects of cognitive frames, once these are established, in structuring expectations and cueing behavioural responses. This is useful for explaining how default frames may impinge on actors, and may script their behaviour, but does not account for how such frames of reference emerge in the first place. The bracketing of the construct may thus have blinded researchers to the active struggles and negotiations over meaning that take place before a frame might emerge, and before the meaning of an organized group or indeed an entire institutional field might contract around a frame.
We point in the paper to specific research opportunities and methods that enable further research to progress beyond “naming frames”, and explore framing as dynamic processes of meaning construction within and across groups and organizations. To a large extent, these opportunities will also involve research designs and methods that make stronger connections across levels of analysis, and consider the reciprocal influence between language, cognition, and culture. The methods that we have highlighted, ranging from interaction analysis to semantic-network analysis, are adept at this and allow for richer and more processual analyses of framing. Indeed, we hope that these methods will benefit researchers in realizing the highlighted opportunities and in advancing research on framing across a variety of organizational and institutional contexts.
Framing – Cognitive and Interactional
Source: Framing mechanisms: the interpretive policy entrepreneur’s toolbox
The framing literature is divided into two streams – a cognitive and an interactional type. Cognitive framing entails the individual understanding of a (policy) situation by assigning meaning to elements and binding them together in a coherent story (Scholten and Van Nispen 2008; Stone 2002; Van Hulst and Yanow 2014; Hawkins and Holden 2013). The interactional framing literature engages with the interactive effects of frames. Part of that literature focuses on the instrumental use of framing for ‘the rhetorical functions of persuasion, justification and symbolic display’ (Schön and Rein 1994, 32, cf.; Entman 1993; Gallo-Cruz 2012). However, the interactional framing literature, we use here, revolves around the function of actors making meaning together in interaction with each other (Dewulf and Bouwen 2012; Dodge 2015). Specifically, we follow Dewulf and Bouwen (2012, 169), who define framing as ‘the dynamic enactment and alignment of meaning in ongoing interactions’. In this understanding, framing is finding a consensus among actors over the meaning of a (policy) situation instead of doing so individually. We understand the interactional framing mechanisms Dewulf and Bouwen (2012) propose as processes initiated by an actor for meaning-making, and may also be used consciously in an instrumental way.
Figure 2. Flow chart of Interpretive Policy Entrepreneur characteristics.
Figure 3. Framing interaction mechanisms (adapted from Dewulf and Bouwen 2012).
Frame Constructs by Level of Analysis
Source: PUTTING FRAMING IN PERSPECTIVE: A REVIEW OF FRAMING AND FRAME ANALYSIS ACROSS THE MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL LITERATURE
Source: PUTTING FRAMING IN PERSPECTIVE: A REVIEW OF FRAMING AND FRAME ANALYSIS ACROSS THE MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL LITERATURE
Source: Integrated Framing: A Micro to Macro Case for The Landscape
Narratives, Frames, and Settings
Source: Narrative Frames and Settings in Policy Narratives
A unique aspect of the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) is that it holds in the balance a social construction ontology with an objective epistemology. According to the NPF, policy realities are socially constructed through a particular perspective in a narrative, and our understanding of how these narratives operate in the policy space can be measured empirically through narrative elements and strategies (Shanahan, Jones, McBeth, and Radaelli, 2017). The NPF contends that empirically understanding the social construction of policy realities sheds light on enduring policy process questions such as why policy arenas remain intractable, how coalition learning and coordination occurs, and, ultimately, how and under what conditions policies change.
To address these broad research inquiries, much of the previous NPF research has focused on singular narrative elements such as characters (e.g., Weible, Olofsson, Costie, Katz, and Heikkila, 2016) and plot (e.g., Shanahan, Jones, McBeth, and Lane, 2013) as well as the narrative strategies of causal mechanism (e.g., Shanahan, Adams, Jones, and McBeth, 2014), distribution of costs and benefits (e.g., McBeth, Shanahan, Arnell, and Hathaway, 2007) and policy beliefs (Shanahan, Jones, and McBeth, 2011). Importantly, these elements and strategies have been generally studied as isolates; the next generation of NPF scholarship is beginning to explore how these narrative components array within the story, to proffer a particular policy perspective. What has not been studied or specified is the role of the narrative element settings in shaping the realities constructed in policy narratives, particularly with how characters array in different settings and how settings are situated within frames. By focusing on the nested nature of characters, settings, and frames, this study aims to reveal the dynamic workings of narratives in the policy terrain.
Why settings? Settings literally are the perspective given to an audience, whether a broad legalistic backdrop (e.g., a statute or Constitution), an aerial regional view (e.g., a map), or a ground-level geographic place (e.g., a landmark or house). Policy scholars (e.g., Weible 2014) often herald the import of context in understanding policy processes; we argue that a setting is the narrative interpretation of policy context. The policy context may include a particular geographic and/or political realm, but a narrative setting provides a particular viewpoint of this context. Such a backdrop delimits what the audience experiences of the narrative, whether the setting is micro (in a room) or macro (aerial view). In turn, settings come alive through the action of the characters. Thus, not only understanding and operationalizing settings, but also linking two narrative elements—characters and settings—are new steps in NPF research.
Why frames? How frames operate in or around narratives has been an issue over which NPF architects have puzzled. Functionally, frames and narratives have similar meaning-making cognitive processes (Jones and Song, 2014) and both shape people’s opinions about policy issues. Crow and Lawlor (2016) add that frames form the central organizing idea and turn facts into a story by selecting and emphasizing some attributes over others, as other framing and policy scholars note (e.g., Stone 2012; McCombs and Ghanem, 2001; Gamson and Madigliani, 1989; Druckman, 2001a). Thus, frames are important and shape the parameters in which narratives unfold. However, are there multiple narratives within one frame? Are divergent narratives housed within the same frame? Does one narrator use multiple frames? Answering these questions will help to shed light on the import of narratives in the context of frames.
Identifying Media Frames and Frame Dynamics Within and Across Policy Issues
Amber E. Boydstun, University of California, Davis Justin H. Gross, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Philip Resnik, University of Maryland, College Park Noah A. Smith, Carnegie Mellon University
September 16, 2013
Tracking the Development of Media Frames within and across Policy Issues
Amber E. Boydstun, University of California, Davis∗
Dallas Card, Carnegie Mellon University
Justin H. Gross, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Philip Resnik, University of Maryland, College Park
FRAMING CONTESTS: STRATEGY MAKING UNDER UNCERTAINTY
Sarah Kaplan University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School 3620 Locust Walk, Suite 2019 Philadelphia, PA 19104-6370 215-898-6377 slkaplan@wharton.upenn.edu
Frame Reflection: A Critical Review of US Military Approaches to Complex Situations
Ben Zweibelson, Major, US Army Grant Martin, Lieutenant Colonel, US Army Dr. Christopher Paparone, Colonel (retired), US Army
Identifying policy frames through semantic network analysis : an examination of nuclear energy policy across six countries
Critical Frame Analysis: A Comparative Methodology for the ‘Quality in Gender+ Equality Policies’ (QUING) project
Tamas Dombos
Integrated Framing: A Micro to Macro Case for The Landscape
*Filip Aggestam
Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Natural Resources and Life sciences, Austria
Submission: February 22, 2017; Published: March 21, 2017 *Corresponding author: Filip Aggestam, Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Natural Resources and Life sciences, Vienna,
Austria,
Volume 2 Issue 1 – March 2017 DOI: 10.19080/IJESNR.2017.02.555578
Framing Environmental Health Decision-Making: The Struggle over Cumulative Impacts Policy
by Devon C. Payne-Sturges 1,*,†, Thurka Sangaramoorthy 2,†OrcID and Helen Mittmann 2,3 1 Maryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, 2234 L SPH, 255 Valley Drive, College Park, MD 20742, USA 2 Department of Anthropology, University of Maryland, 1111 Woods Hall, 4302 Chapel Lane, College Park, MD 20742, USA 3 Department of Health Policy and Management, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, 950 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20052, USA
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(8), 3947; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18083947 Received: 14 March 2021 / Revised: 5 April 2021 / Accepted: 7 April 2021 / Published: 9 April 2021
1PhD candidate Public Administration and Policy Group, Wageningen University, 2Assistant professor Public Administration and Policy Group Wageningen University, 3Associate professor Communication Science Group Wageningen University, 4Professor Strategic Communication University of Amsterdam, 5Professor of Public Administration and Policy Wageningen University
Narrative Frames and Settings in Policy Narratives
Kate French (kfrench406@gmail.com) Elizabeth A. Shanahan (shanahan@montana.edu)* Eric D. Raile (eric.raile@monatan.edu) Jamie McEvoy (Jamie.mcevoy@montana.edu)
Montana State University
Heuristics for practitioners of policy design: Rules-of-thumb for structuring unstructured problems
Robert Hoppe
University of Twente, The Netherlands
Public Policy and Administration
0(0) 1–25 / 2017
Competitive Framing in Political Decision Making (2019)
∗Institute of Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Poznan ́, Poland ∗∗Institute for Sociology, Nicholas Copernicus University in Torun, Torun ́, Poland
Sources: Locating Frames in the Discursive Universe
Scholars from a range of disciplines use the term ‘frame’ to mean a variety of disjointed and incompatible concepts. This paper examines a range of framing literature, from the writings of authors including Erving Goffman, Tuen van Dijk, Serge Moscovici, George Lakoff, Alan Johnson, William Gamson, David Snow, Robert Benford and Paolo Donati. Then it develops the theoretical case for defining frames as semi-structured elements of discourse which people use to make sense of information they encounter. Additionally, this paper demonstrates the need to include social system frames, which provide patterns for understanding social relations, among the presently acknowledged frame types. Frames develop in parallel with language, vary across cultures, and shape, but are distinct from other extra-linguistic discourse forms, including myths and ideologies.
Sources: Frames and Their Consequences
The concept of framing has been used to capture these diverse processes by scholars of the media (Gitlin 1980; Carragee and Woefs 2004), international relations (Bernstein 2002; Berejekian 1997), decisionmaking (Kahneman and Tversky 1986), policymaking (Schon and Rein 1994), and social movements.
Key Terms
Mental Models
World Views
Perspectives
Narratives
Retrospective Narrative
Multi Valent Logic
AnteNarrative
Law of Requisite Variety
Problem Structuring Methods
Drama
Scenarios
Dialectics
Meta Theater
Lenses
System in Focus
Focal Point
Boundaries
Inclusion and Exclusion
Frames
Framing
Reframing
Frames Rejected
Frames Accepted
Multi Perspectivism
Multiple Frames
Arguments
Biases and Prejudices
Counterfactuals (for past events)
What Ifs
Ideology
Mindset
Script
Preferences
Selection
Self Interest
Agenda
Why, What and How of a Narrative
Frame the Domain
Point of View
Field of Vision
Histories and Plots
Frame the issue
David Boje’s Dramatic Septet
David Boje expanded Kenneth Burke’s dramatic pentad to include Rhythms and Frames.
What are Frames?
Source: Critical Dramaturgical Analysis of Enron Antenarratives and Metatheatre
Source: Critical Dramaturgical Analysis of Enron Antenarratives and Metatheatre
Frames are cognitive shortcuts that people use to help make sense of complex information. Frames help us to interpret the world around us and represent that world to others. They help us organize complex phenomena into coherent, understandable categories. When we label a phenomenon, we give meaning to some aspects of what is observed, while discounting other aspects because they appear irrelevant or counter-intuitive. Thus, frames provide meaning through selective simplification, by filtering people’s perceptions and providing them with a field of vision for a problem.
Frames can significantly affect the intractability of a conflict by creating mutually incompatible interpretations of events. Because frames are built upon underlying structures of beliefs, values, and experiences, disputants often construct frames that differ in significant ways. A simple example is attitudes towards abortion in the US. “Pro-life” advocates believe abortion is murder of an innocent, unborn child which has as much right to live as anyone else–thus they see the fetus as a person, and abortion as a willful act that murders a person. “Pro-choice” advocates, however, do not see the fetus as a “person” with human rights–not until it becomes “viable” outside the womb, at any rate. Before then, they focus on the rights of the mother, asserting that she should have ultimate control and “choice” about her medical decisions and what happens to her body.
Frames often exist prior to conscious processing of information for decision-making[1] and affect subsequent individual decisions.[2] Thus, disputants are separated not only by differences in interests, beliefs, and values, but also in how they perceive and understand the world, both at a conscious and pre-conscious level.[3]
Framing involves both the construction of interpretive frames and their representation to others. Disputants may use framing not only as an aid to interpreting events, but also to promote strategic advantage.[4] Framing can be useful for rationalizing self-interest, convincing a broader audience, building coalitions, or lending preferentiality to specific outcomes. As such, many factors affect how people frame a conflict, which, in turn, influences the direction the conflict takes.[5]
This essay explores the nature of frames and the framing process. It seeks to
clarify the basic concepts,
present an overview of what is known about frames and framing and their impact on conflict dynamics,
explore the forms of framing that are most significant to intractable conflicts,
examine the potential for reframing and frame changes as part of a process of reconciliation or conflict resolution, and
direct the reader to other web- and print-based resources that can provide more detail.
Definitions
Differing conceptual frames held by the parties involved in a dispute form the basis on which they act. Each party to a conflict has its own perception and understanding of their agenda, the relevance of various issues, their priorities, and the opportunities and risks involved with different choices. This assemblage of factors can be considered as a set of lenses, or filters, through which the various parties view the conflict, and is called the frame or conceptual frame.
In the English language, the word “frame” can be used both as a verb (to frame) or as a noun (a frame). As a noun, frame denotes the boundary within which the whole picture is displayed (similar to a frame placed around a picture or painting), and is used as a tool for interpreting and understanding the perceptions and underlying objectives of the various actors in the conflict. As a verb, framing refers to the creation of frames, either from a simple reading of the situation or through a deliberative, analytic, or strategic process.
The concept of frames has been developed as a tool for analysis in various fields, including psychology and sociology,[6] business management,[7] artificial intelligence,[8] decision-making,[9] negotiation,[10] and environmental conflict management.[11] Relevant to understanding intractable conflict are definitions given by such scholars as Minsky,[12] Tannen,[13] and Gray,[14] for whom frames are “cognitive structures held in memory and used to guide interpretation of new experience.” Furthermore, “parties rely on these mental structures to interpret or make sense of ongoing events.”[15] Frames are also defined as “collections of perceptions and thoughts that people use to define a situation, organize information, and determine what is important and what is not.”[16] We create frames to name a situation in which we find ourselves, to identify and interpret specific aspects that seem key to us in understanding the situation, and to communicate that interpretation to others.[17]
Why are Frames Important?
An essential element in conflict resolution is an understanding of how frames affect conflict development. In the context of a conflict, we create frames to help us understand why the conflict exists, what actions are important to the conflict, why the parties act as they do, and how we should act in response.[18] During the evolution of a conflict, frames act as sieves through which information is gathered and analyzed, positions are determined (including priorities, means, and solutions), and action plans developed. Depending on the context, frames may be used to conceptualize and interpret, or to manipulate and convince.
Putnam and Holmer[19] hold that framing and reframing are vital to the negotiationprocess and are tied to information processing, message patterns, linguistic cues, and socially constructed meanings. Knowing what types of frames are in use and how they are constructed allows one to draw conclusions about how they affect the development of a conflict, and can be used to influence it. Thus, analyzing the frames people use in a given conflict provides fresh insight and better understanding of the conflict dynamics and development. With such insight, and with the help of reframing, stakeholders may find new ways to reach agreements.
The Sources and Forms of Frames
Many factors influence frames and their formation. Intractable disputes are usually associated with a complex and reinforcing set of frames about oneself, the “others,” risks, what information should apply to the situation, and how decisions should be made. The frames of most importance to intractability usually include identity, characterization, power, conflict management/process, risk/information, and loss versus gain. Their forms and most common sources are as follows:
Identity frames: Disputants view themselves as having particular identities in the context of specific conflict situations.[20] These identities spring from the individuals’ self-conception and group affiliations. One might frame oneself as a Hutu or a Tutsi, a Muslim or a Christian, a man or a woman, or a Republican or Democrat. The more central the challenge to one’s sense of self, the more oppositional one is likely to act. Typical responses to threats to identity include ignoring information and perspectives that threaten the core identity, reinforcing affiliations with like-minded individuals and groups, and negatively characterizing outsiders.
Characterization frames: Disputants view others in the conflict as having particular characteristics. Closely related to stereotyping, characterization frames may be either positive or negative. Parties to intractable conflicts often construct characterization frames for others that significantly differ from how the other parties view themselves. Such characterizations often undermine the others’ legitimacy, cast doubt on their motivations, or exploit their sensitivity. For example, many Americans characterize Al Queda as “terrorists,” yet they most certainly do not see themselves that way. Rather, they see themselves as freedom-fighters, or jihadi warriors fighting for the protection of Islam. Characterization frames are also often linked to identity frames, serving to strengthen one’s own identity while justifying your actions toward the other (e.g., for me to be a liberator, my opponent must be an oppressor).
Power frames: Because intractable conflicts are often imbedded in struggles to alter existing institutions or decision-making procedures, disputants’ conceptions of power and social control play a significant role in conflict dynamics. Power frames help the disputant determine not only which forms of power are legitimate (e.g., governmental, legal, civil disobedience) but also the forms of power that are likely to advance one’s own position (e.g., authority, resources, expertise, coalition-building, threat, voice). For instance, some people may see money as the best way to “buy influence,” while other people might rely more on technical expertise or personal charisma to sway people’s views..
Conflict management or process frames: Conflict over how best to manage or resolve differences is central to many intractable disputes. Depending on disputants’ identity, characterization of other disputants, perceived power, and perception of the available options, conflict frames may impel parties to seek very different remedies in response to common problems. These remedies may range from actions as disparate as violence, civil disobedience, litigation, and negotiation. Because of the wide complexity of possible actions and the uncertainty of their consequences, groups with shared interests and values may draw significantly different conclusions as to the best course of action within a particular dispute..One side, for instance, may be willing to sit down with a mediator and negotiate, while the other, thinking that it has the upper hand, may refuse negotiation, preferring litigation or violent action.
Risk and information frames: Intractable disputes often involve expectations about future events, in which the events are risky and the likelihood of the events occurring is uncertain.[21] In such conditions, disputants often construct risk and information frames that yield highly variable assessments about the level and extent of a particular risk. Additionally, these frames indicate to the disputant which sources of information are reliable and which are not. Risk and information frames depend not just on the disputant’s interests, but also on the disputant’s training, expertise, level of exposure to the risk, familiarity with the risk, potential for catastrophic impacts associated with the risk, and degree to which the risk is dreaded. People who are used to working and traveling in war-torn areas, for example, have a far different assessment of the risks of such activities than people who don’t do that (who thus are more likely to see the risk of doing so to be unacceptably high). Likewise, engineers who understand the technical aspects of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) are likely to access the risks of that process differently than “ordinary” people who live near the wells who have read popular media stories about the dangers of fracking–but also differently from the people working on the wells who simply want a job, and are much less worried about the impacts of their work than on the money it puts in their pockets.
Loss versus gain frames: In intractable disputes, it is common for most parties to the conflict to focus on threats of potential loss rather than on opportunities for gains. People tend to react differently to a proposed action when its expected consequences are framed in terms of losses as opposed to gains, where preventing a perceived loss is often more salient and more highly valued than capturing a commensurate gain.[22] Going back to the fracking example mentioned above, psychology tells us that most people are more likely to focus on the dangers of fracking (the potential loss of safe drinking water, clean habitat, and quiet) to be more significant than the gains that can be obtained from fracking–reduced reliance on foreign oil, and improved economy, and more jobs.
Many other types of frames can be constructed, but these six categories stand out as particularly applicable to intractable disputes.
Reframing
Within processes of reconciliation, negotiation, or joint problem solving, the explicit management of frames, and the framing process may lead to important shifts in both the frames themselves and in their impact on the conflict dynamics. This purposive management of frames is called reframing. Use of frame analysis and reframing processes have the following goals:
to clarify or “refresh” the perception of the issues in dispute (in order to promote more productive information exchange and listening to ideas not previously considered, and to expand the framework of discussion and explore means of action or solutions not yet attempted);
to sharpen the parties’ understanding of their interests and how the modes of action they have chosen serve those interests (in order to examine potential processes for managing conflict more productively and to reconsider patterns of relationships among stakeholders);
to identify those subjects which the involved parties view differently, even when the basis for the divergent frames are more fully understood (in order to identify opportunities for trade-offs based on clearly understood differences); and
to identify differences which cannot be bridged (in order to more fully appreciate conflict dynamics and to evaluate the potential for conflict reduction processes that do not violate these intractable differences, to determine the degree of importance attributed to these intractable differences in frames, and to seek ways to address them).
Thus, reframing, stemming from stakeholders’ understanding of their own as well as others’ expressed frames, may pave ways for resolving, or at least better managing, a dispute.
Figure 1: Frames and their role in conflict development
Figure 1 illustrates the roles frames and framing play in the dynamics of conflict development. It demonstrates how a frame change (or reframing) may cause a shift in conflict development, towards conflict management and/or resolution. Types of frame categories are numerous and coined differently by researchers in various fields. The categories cited in this diagram are: substance (reframing that affects how one views the world today or potential future states of the world), process (reframing that affects how one interacts with others in the dispute), values (reframing that allows parties to clarify the relationship between values and interests for both themselves and for other parties), and phrasing (the language used by disputants to communicate with one other).
Frame Analysis and Reframing as Conflict Management Tools
Frame analysis can be used by both third party interveners and by individual stakeholders and conveners to better understand conflict dynamics. Frame analysis has been used both retrospectively (to understand past conflicts) and prospectively (as a tool for better managing an existing conflict). Retrospectively, it seeks to better understand conflict dynamics in order to glean lessons for the future. Prospectively, it advances consensus building in both the conflict assessments and intervention stages.
Analytic techniques for frame analysis include interviewing the various stakeholders to ascertain their perceptions and interpretations, feeding back to the parties the resulting analysis, and then exploring with the parties the meaning and impact of these frames on the conflict dynamics. Particularly within the framework of conflict assessments, [23] frame analysis and the resulting understanding of frames can help the stakeholders to better grasp the conflict, including the factors and contexts that can lead to changes within a frame or changes to the frames themselves. In this sense, framing becomes a formative analytic technique.
In intractable conflicts, frames are often quite stable over time, even when specific individuals move in and out of the conflict. This stability comes both because various frames held by an individual tend to be self reinforcing, and because frames are often shared within a community and therefore are socially reinforced through story-telling and shared perspectives. Yet research into intractable conflicts suggests that in at least some conflicts, frames can be altered over time through intentional interventions, and that the shift in frames helps to render disputes more tractable.[24]
At the same time, research shows that reframing is often not easy for parties. It requires taking on new perspectives, and often requires some degree of risk-taking on the part of the parties. As such, reframing works best when changes in the context of the dispute can be made, such that incentives to consider new perspectives increase, or in the context of careful and constructive dialogue, with a strong focus on improving communication and building trust.
A number of strategies and techniques exist in the use of dialogue to reframe intractable conflicts. These include:[25]
Reducing tension and promoting the de-escalation of hostility: by using techniques such as listening projects, study circles, and some forms of mediation which seek to reduce tension by creating forums that promote more effective communication around a set of limited objectives. The forums focus explicitly on improving communication and reducing escalatory cycles that are often associated with mutually-incompatible frames.
Perspective taking: techniques such as acknowledging critical identities, imaging of identities and characterizations, narrative forums, and listening circles allow disputants to understand the conflict and its dynamics from the perspective of other disputants. These approaches are particularly geared toward better understanding of identity and characterization frames, in order to see oneself more objectively and the other party in a more positive light. They seek to enable disputants to see the potential validity and credibility of other perspectives, and to examine the interplay between one’s own frames and those of other disputants.
Establishing a common ground as a basis for agreement: by using techniques such as visioning exercises and common-ground search processes which enable reframing around a smaller set of issues. Common ground processes are used in highly divisive issues (such as abortion and ethnic disputes) and seek to explore areas of agreement and possible joint action between parties who normally focus on their differences, in order to open up communication between the parties. Search processes seek to identify desired futures in order to shift the focus from a short-term perspective to a long-term one.
Enhancing the desirability of options and alternatives: Several approaches exist that may enhance the desirability of alternative options when presented to parties with divergent frames. For a disputant to examine options from the perspective of other parties, he or she must understand the other parties’ frames, and be able to view options from other perspectives. Third-party interveners are often helpful in this regard. In addition, seeking to reframe perceptions of losses as gains can enhance the openness and creativity of parties to a dispute.
Conclusion
Frames play a significant role in perpetuating intractable conflict. As lenses through which disputants interpret conflicts, frames limit the clarity of communication and the quality of information, as well as instigate escalatory processes. These frames, imbedded in personal, social, and institutional roles, are often quite stable over time, even through the ebb and flow of many dispute episodes. As such, they contribute to the intractability of the conflict. In addition, frames interact, often in ways that tend to reinforce the stability of other frames. Yet, in at least some intractable conflicts, changes in the context of the dispute or purposive interventions designed to alter frames have led to reframing that, in turn, has increased the tractability of the conflict. Strategies to accomplish this reframing include frame analysis and the construction of forums designed to enhance communication, understanding, and trust.
[1] Gray, B. and A. Donnellon, 1989. “An Interactive Theory of Reframing in Negotiation,” unpublished manuscript. Pennsylvania State University, College of Business Administration.
[2] Sheppard, B.H., K. Blumenfeld-Jones and J.W. Minton, 1987. “To control or not to control: Two models of conflict intervention,”unpublished manuscript sited in Pinkley, 1990).
[3] Elliott, M., Gray, B., & Lewicki, R., 2003. Lessons learned about the framing of intractable environmental conflicts. In R. Lewicki, B. Gray, & M. Elliott (Eds.), Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases (pp. 409-436), Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
[4] Kaufman, S. and J. Smith, 1999. “Framing and Reframing in Land Use Change Conflicts,” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol.16, no.2, Summer, pp. 164-180.
[5] Elliott, M., Kaufman, S., Gardner, R., and Burgess, G., 2002. “Teaching conflict Assessment and frame analysis through interactive web-based simulations ” The International Journal of Conflict Management, 13:4, pp. 320-340.
[6] e.g. Taylor , D.E., 2000. “The Rise of the Environmental Justice Paradigm. Injustice Framing and the Social Construction of Environmental Discourses,” American Behavioral Scientist. 43 (4), pp. 508-580; and Gonos, G., 1997. “Situation” versus “frame”: The “interactionist” and the “structualist” analyses of everyday life,” American Sociological Review, 42, pp. 854-867.
[7] Watzlawick, P., J. Weakland, and R. Fisch, 1974. Change, Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution, Norton & Company, Inc.; and Goldratt, E.M., 1990. What is this thing called Theory of Constraints and how should it be implemented?, Corton-on-Hudson, NY: North River Press, Inc.
[8] e.g., Minsky, M., 1975. “A Framework for Representing Knowledge,” in Winston, P.H.( Ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision, New York, NY: McGraw Hill, pp. 177-211.
[9] e.g., Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky, 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk, Econometrica 47, pp. 263-289.
[10] e.g., Neale, M.A. and M.H. Bazerman, 1985. “The Effects of Framing and Negotiator Overconfidence on Bargaining Behaviors and Outcomes,” Academyof ManagementJournal 28, pp. 34-49; Gray, B., 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publication; and Pinkley, R.L., 1990. “Dimensions of Conflict Frame: Disputant Interpretations of Conflict,” Journal of Applied Psychology 75, pp. 117-126.
[11] Lewicki, R., Gray, B., & Elliott, M., 2003. Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases, Washington, D.C.: Island Press; Kaufman and Smith, 1999, op cit.; and Vaughan, E. and M. Seifert, 1992. “Variability in the Framing of Risk Issues,” Journal of Social Issues 48 (4), pp. 119-135.
[12] Minsky, 1975, op cit.
[13] Tannen, D., 1979. “What’s in a Frame? Surface Evidence of Underlying Expectations,” In Freedle, R. (ed.), New Dimensions in Discourse Processes,Norwood, NJ: Albex, pp. 137-181.
[14] Gray, B., 1997. “Framing and Reframing of Intractable Environmental Disputes,” in Lewicki, R., R. Bies, and B. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 6, p. 171.
[17] Buechler, S., 2000. Social movements in advanced Capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
[18] Gray, B., 2003. Framing of environmental disputes. In R. Lewicki, B. Gray, & M. Elliott (Eds.), Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases (pp. 11-34), Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
[19] Putnam, L. and M. Holmer, 1992. “Framing, Reframing, and Issue Development”, in Putnam L. and Roloff, M.E. (Eds.), Communication and Negotiation, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, Vol. 20. pp.128-155.
[20] Rothman, J., 1997. Resolving Identity-Based Conflict in Nations, Organizations, and Communities, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
[21] Heimer, C.A., 1988. “Social Structures, Psychology and the Estimation of Risk,” Annual Review of Sociology 14, pp. 491-519.
[22] Kahneman & Tverski, 1979, op cit.; Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman, 1981. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,” Science 211, pp. 453-458; Schweitzer , M.E. and L.A. DeChurch, 2001. “Linking Frames in Negotiations: Gains, Losses and Conflict Frame Adoption.” International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 100-113.
[23] Shmueli, D. and M. Ben Gal, 2000. “Reframing of Protracted Environmental Disputes”, interim report to the Israeli Ministry of Environment, March (Hebrew); Shmueli, D. and M. Ben Gal, 2001. “Conflict Assessment to Promote Dialogue between the Stakeholders involved in the Dispute Surrounding the Treatment and Discharge of Industrial Wastes in the Lower Kishon Basin,” draft June, final November (Hebrew); and Shmueli, D. and M. Ben Gal, forthcoming. “The Potential of Framing in Managing and Resolving Environmental Conflict.” In E. Feitelson, G. de Roo and D. Miller (Eds.), Advancing Sustainability at the Sub-National Level, Ashgate Press.
[24] Elliott, M., Gray, B., & Lewicki, R., 2003. Lessons learned about the framing of intractable environmental conflicts. In R. Lewicki, B. Gray, & M. Elliott (Eds.), Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases (pp. 409–436), Washington, D.C.: Island Press at 420.
[25] ibid, at 425-434.
What is Framed?
Situations
Attributes
Choices
Actions
Issues
Responsibility
News
Source: Seven Models of Framing: Implications for Public Relations
Frame Development, Generation, and Elaboration
Source: FRAMING PROCESSES AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: An Overview and Assessment
Discursive Processes
Strategic Processes
Contested Processes
Strategic Processes
Source: FRAMING PROCESSES AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: An Overview and Assessment
Frame Bridging,
Frame Amplification,
Frame Extension,
Frame Transformation.
Contested Processes in Social Movements
Source: FRAMING PROCESSES AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: An Overview and Assessment
There is widespread agreement among movement framing researchers that the development, generation, and elaboration of collective action frames are contested processes. All actors within the collective action arena who engage in this reality construction work are embroiled in the politics of signification. This means that activists are not able to construct and impose on their intended targets any version of reality they would like; rather there are a variety of challenges confronting all those who engage in movement framing activities. Thus far the literature elaborates on three forms these challenges tend to take: counterframing by movement opponents, bystanders, and the media; frame disputes within movements; and the dialectic between frames and events.
A Critical Dramaturgy Analysis of Enron�s Quasi-Objects
David M. Boje, New Mexico State University
Paper presented at the Networks, Quasi-Objects, and Identity: Reintegrating Humans, Technology, and Nature session of Denver Academy of Management Meetings. Tuesday August 13, 2002. http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/ Revision Date: August 9 2002.
Although it might be argued that the social drama is a story in [Hayden] White’s sense, in that it has discernible inaugural, transitional, and terminal motifs, that is, a beginning, a middle, and an end, my observations convince me that it is, indeed, a spontaneous unit of social process and a fact of everyone’s experience in every human society. My hypothesis, based on repeated observations of such processual units in a range of sociocultural systems and in my reading in ethnography and history, is that social dramas, “dramas of living,” as Kenneth Burke calls them, can be aptly studied as having four phases. These I label breach, crisis, redress, and either reintegration or recognition of schism. Social dramas occur within groups of persons who share values and interests and who have a real or alleged common history. The main actors are persons for whom the group has a high value priority. Most of us have what I call our “star” group or groups to which we owe our deepest loyalty and whose fate is for us of the greatest personal concern. It is the one with which a person identifies most deeply and in which he finds fulfillment of his major social and personal desires. We are all members of many groups, formal or informal, from the family to the nation or some international religion or political institution. Each person makes his/her own subjective evaluation of the group’s respective worth: some are “dear” to one, others it is one’s “duty to defend,” and so on. Some tragic situations arise from conflicts of loyalty to different star groups.
Victor Turner is professor of anthropology and a member of the Center for Advanced Studies at the University of Virginia. His many publications include Schism and Continuity in an African Society, The Forest of Symbols, The Ritual Process, and, with Edith Turner, Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture
Social Dramas and Stories about Them Victor Turner Critical Inquiry 7 (1):141-168 (1980)
Key terms
Social Drama
Frames
Victor W Turner
David M Boje
Liminality
Meta theater
Meta Commentary
Conflict
Fragmentation
Spectcle
Carnival
Communitas
Anti structure
Mela
Tamasha
Circus
Khel
Natak
Nautanki
Leela
Communication
Reflexivity
Social Reflexivity
Public Reflexivity
Cybernetics
Higher Order Cybernetics
Processual
Performance processes
Interpretative Anthropology
Cultural Anthropology
Clifford Geertz
Below, I am reposting an article by David Boje on Victor Turner’s theory of social drama.
Victor Turner’s Postmodern Theory of Social Drama:
Implications for Organization Studies
David M. Boje, Ph.D., New Mexico State University
August 1, 2003
Abstract
I review Victor Turner’s more postmodern moves, such as process, indeterminacy, liminality, fragmentation, and metatheatre.
The contribution to organization theory of studying Turner’s social drama is in developing a postmodern theatrics that is more processual and dynamitic than dramaturgical theories advanced by Burke and Goffman. Turner acknowledges the influence of Burke and Goffman in his postmodern theatre concepts, but moves off to explore the indeterminacy, liminality, and fragmentation aspects (defined below). This postmodern dramaturgy allows us to explore how patterns emerged in the seeming chaos of successive situations.
Theatre Theory
Most reviews of theatre theory focus on contrasts of Burke and Goffman (Boje, Luhman, Cunliffe, 2003; Gusfield, 1989; K’rreman, 2001; Oswick, Keenoy & Grant, 2001), while hardly mentioning Victor Turner’s work (1969; 1974, 1982a, 1982b, 1985). Goffman (1959, 1974) is often criticized, in these reviews, for using theatre as metaphor and for being less sociological than Burke. Burke (1937, 1945, 1972), by contrast, is said to view theatre as part of everyday life and extend literary criticism to politics and sociology. Goffman is also criticized for engaging in “sociological reductionism” and for not being “particularly dramaturgical at all” (K’rreman, 2001: 96, 107).
Turner acknowledges roots to Burke (Turner, 1982a) and to Goffman (Turner, 1985: 181). Burke and Goffman have been applied to organization and public administration studies. Within organization studies, there is a growing body of research taking Goffman seriously. His approach fits neatly with Mintzberg’s (1973) managerial roles and more recent studies of charismatic leadership behavior as dramaturgic (Gardner & Alvolio, 1998; Harvey, 2001), emotional improvisation (Morgan & Krone, 2001) where the leader is the spokesperson and dramatist of organizational life. Work by Czarniawska-Joerges (1997), Mangham (1990), Mangham and Overington (1987), and Rosen (1985, 1987) also seeks to apply tools and devices from theatre to organizational realities and the dramaturgical perspective has become quite central to charismatic leadership studies (Conger, 1991; Gardner & Alvolio, 1998; Harvey, 2001; Howell & Frost, 1989; Jones & Pittman, 1982).
Theatre for Burke is not a metaphor used in some areas of organizational or social life; human action is dramatic (Gusfield, 1989; p. 36; K’rreman, 2001, p. 106). As Maital (1999) puts it, “organizing is not like theatre — it is theatre” (as cited in Oswick, Keenoy & Grant, 2001, p. 219). Burke’s dramatistic pentad has been used widely to analyze organizations as theatres of action (Czarniawska-Joerges & Wolff, 1991; Mangham & Overington, 1987; Pine & Gilmour, 1999). Pine and Gilmour (1999) use Burke’s dramatism to assert work is theatre and every business is a stage. Czarniawska (1997) explores how the identities of organizational actors are constituted theatrically through role-playing and image construction.
We see this critical postmodern integration in the writings of Guy Debord (1967) on “spectacle,” Mikhail Bakhtin (1984) on “carnivalesque,” and Augusto Boal (1972, 1992, 1995) on Theatre of the Oppressed.
Social drama, says Turner, is defined as aharmonic or disharmonic social process, arising in conflict situations (1974: 37; 1985: 180). Social drama is defined by Turner (1985: 196), as an eruption from the level surface of ongoing social life, with its interactions, transactions, reciprocities, its customs making for regular, orderly sequences of behavior. Turner’s social drama theory has four phases of public action:
Breach of norm-governed social relations that have liminal characteristics, a liminal between more or less stable social processes;
Crisis, during which there is a tendency for the breach to widen and in public forums, representatives of order are dared to grapple with it;
Redressive action, ranging from personal advice and informal mediation or arbitration to formal juridical and legal machinery, and to resolve certain kinds of crisis or legitimate other modes of resolution, to the performance of public ritual.
Reintegration of the disturbed social group, or of the social recognition and legitimation of irreparable schism between the contesting parties.
There is a sequence of processual acts and scenes across the four phases of social drama, with dynamic shifts in scripts, characterizations, rhetoric, and symbolism. The processes were more dynamic, rapid, and forceful during the crisis, and now there is a lull in the action. There are six key concepts which we can use to explore the dialectic of spectacle and carnival, as well as reactionary counter-carnival theatrics.
Conflict Conflict situations between patriotic nationalism and the peaceniks make us aware of the beaches in the societal fabric. Conflict seems to bring fundamental aspects of society, normally overlaid by the customs and habits of daily intercourse, into frightening prominence (Turner, 1974). People are divided, taking sides, using theatre to dramatize their differences. In the weeks leading up to the war, and during the war, a cleavage occurs between antagonistic groups. At the same time in crisis, there is the flash of imaginative fire, an inspirational force to be harnessed. The conflict escalates locally, as a reflections of the globally conflict in the Middle East. Some crises spread, and more and more people turn out for vigils, marches, parades, rallies, and teach-ins. For Turner, public crisis has a liminal quality, betwixt and between, more or less stable phases of the social process. Antagonists dare and taunt each other, to deal with liminal forces. For example, the majority accept U.S. occupation of Iraq, even though no weapons of mass destruction were found. On May 30th, members of the administration disclosed that there never had been proof of WMD, but saying they were there, served as a way to rally the nation to go to war.
Within the spectacles and carnivals there are factions. There were a series of social dramas in the U.S. that weakened the solidarity of the peace movement. Acts of repression under the U.S.A. PATRIOT act and Homeland Security were used to make peace people fearful of being blacklisted. They have a chilling effect on free speech. We resist being reintegrated back into that social fabric of the status quo; communitas is broken, and our freedoms are curtailed.
Performance Processes A society is defined by Turner (1985: 44, Paraphrasing) as a set of interactive processes that are punctuated by situations of conflict, with intervals between them. Turner’s theatrical approach, being processual and dynamic, is more appropriate than Burke or Goffman’s to explore the rise and fall of social movements. In his 1985 book, (On the Edge of the Bush: Anthropology as Experience), Turner develops a postmodern treatment of social drama. He explores the contingent, ad hoc, and emergent character of the phases of social drama (breach, crisis, redress, & reintegration), focusing on how conflicts run their course. The situations interact over time. One set of interactions influence the premises for the next (Turner, 1985: 48). During periods of intense global conflict, such as the outbreak of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, we became a dense network of social organizing. During the week leading up to March 19th war in Iraq, we had events, such as rallies, teach-ins, retreats, marches, and vigils happening daily. We joined the millions of people who tried to persuade the administration not to go to war. Once war happened we persisted with our vigils and marches, trying to bring a swift end to the conflict. After the administration declared an end to the war (though the fighting continued), our numbers dropped off, and many people reintegrated into more normal patterns of social life.
As the antagonist to disputation play out the conflict phases of social drama, there is resistance to acts of suppression and repression (Turner, 1985: 44). Contentious issues are kept in abeyance in ritual situations, but can surface again in public situations; some political situations threaten to turn violent, both in their protest and in their repression. Solidarity of a nation at war, for example, has a chilling effect on political rivalry, so as not to threaten the safety of troops deployed in battle theatres. The unresolved conflicts and rivalries carry over into subsequent ritual situations in ways that affect behavioral patterns. In this way as Pondy observed, conflict events are interdependent over time.
The performance events interact such that situations develop spontaneously out of quarrels with domestic and foreign policy which rapidly acquire formalized or structural character (Turner, 1985: 45). For example, contending factions draw apart, consolidate their ranks, and develop spokesmen who represent their cases in terms of a rhetoric that is culturally standardized (p. 45).
Liminality Key to Turner is the ‘betwixt and between’ features that have liminal qualities (Turner, 1985: 113). Liminality is defined by Turner (1974: 52), as being ‘between successive participations in social milieu.’ There is a grander ‘liminal transition’ in the peace movement, and seemingly no way to stop the growth of fascism that embeds American governance (Turner, 1974: 47). There is liminality in the transition from the conceptual system of democracy to another one, we in the movement call, fascism (Turner, 1974: 51). There is also liminal decay, a reluctant reincorporation into the charade and facade of polite society, into more stable social processes. The reentry is accompanied by rituals of humiliation for the peace movement heroes, such as Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore, Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn, and Noam Chomsky. For example, status degradation and social leveling are indicated by the distribution of playing cards depicting peace heroes as traitors, and most wanted. The tricksters have won the symbolism wars, and liminality is existentially untenable to those of us hanging in with the peace movement.
Each situation in the peace movement affects the premises of the next one. There is am emergent pattern to the inter-situational events. The successive events have liminal spaces between them. Liminal space is Turner’s concept of what is betwixt and between situated events. In the liminality between situations, a leader is without a situation to rally around. For example, as the Iraq invasion drew nearer, the number of local organizing events that I lead and facilitated was denser, and in the final weeks, there was an event every day. Now that the invasion has morphed into an occupation, local events are few and far between. This liminal space is a time for mourning our failure to get our President to stop the war; it is a time for rest and reflection, a time to plan for the next situation. For a few weeks in late April and early May, it looked like Syria would be the next campaign. But, that has subsided. The 2004 election is a bit far off to worry about.
I am neither what I have been nor what I will become. Similarly, peace consciousness is a liminal space, not yet what it will be. The peace movement refuses reintegration until the social order transforms to something more non-violent than what it is.
Summer vacations, the exodus of students from a university town, also decreased our numbers. Our rebellion is low-key, smoldering factionalism divides us. Members of PeaceAware slip back into anonymity of daily routine. Only a few die-hards persist with vigils or demonstrations outside Congressman Peace’s events.
Indeterminacy Indeterminacy is always present in the background of any ritualized performance, ready to intrude. Spectacles, even with expert choreography, scripting, and stage handling, fail to contain the embedded chaos. For example, the search for weapons of mass destruction slips into a sea of indeterminacy along with the war on terror. Each emplotment unravels. The exact meaning of a speaker’s utterance or performance is a contextualized exchange in which meaning is often indeterminate. Various stakeholders will apprehend different views of the performance. Aristotle’s poetic elements of theatre are in constant flux, with ever-shifting indeterminate plots, characters, themes, dialogs, rhythms, and spectacles. All the president’s men cannot bind chaos with the most advanced theatrics. The spectacle is always self-deconstructing. Yet, chaos can be used to confuse. There is a sequence of rhetoric switching in the justification and legitimation for war.
The rhetorical and speech styles have shifted since the war was a way to find weapons of mass destruction hidden from the UN inspectors, to war being way to protect the troops, to a way to support the president. On 30 May 2003, Paul Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair, they the administration did not believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; officials thought it was best way to get officials to go to war.[1] “For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,” says Wolfowitz. It was also a way to get the public on board. In this sense, the spectators cannot determine the cause for the war, and now that war is declared officially over, the original premises no loner matter.
Spectacle cannot fix the fluidity of context, nor bind the shifting context from infecting performance processes. The situational adjustments of President Bush’s handlers, betrays the flux and fluidity, and indeterminacy of everyday life. This indeterminacy, says Turner (1985: 185), ‘is towards postmodern ways of thinking’ about social life.
Fragmentation – Fragmentation is definable as a persistent dialectical ‘opposition of processes’ with many ‘levels of processes’ (Turner, 1985: 185). Postmodern theory spotlights moments when fragmentation takes center stage, revealing how social reality invades spectacle during moments of conflict. Spectacle role-playing is not able to cover the breakdowns between official perspectives and countless counter stories revealing fragmentation. For Turner ‘the truly ‘spontaneous’ unit of human social performance is not role-playing sequence in an institutionalized or ‘corporate group’ context; it is the social drama which results precisely form the suspension of normative role-playing, and in its passionate activity abolishes the usual distinction between flow and reflection, since in the social drama it becomes a matter of urgency to become reflexive about the cause and motive of action damaging to the social fabric (Turner, 1985: 196).
There are moments in institutionalized spectacle, where the social drama of conflict emerges, and Bush engages in reflection. In such moments the fragmentarity of the social fabric becomes temporarily visible, ‘as factors giving meaning to deeds that may seem at first sight meaningless’ (p. 196). These are moments of reflection when we can see an irreparable schism between war and peace factions.
The more the Bush handlers defragment, the more Bush’s performance processes reveal oppositions and layers. The thespian nature of his performance unmasks itself, resulting in a media that begins to reflect upon the fragmentation covered over by performance controls. The president is detected as a performing actor.
Metatheatre – Turner (1985: 181) invents the term ‘meta-theater.’ Where for Burke and Goffman, all the world is a theatre stage, for Turner, ‘meta-theatre’ is the communication about the communication process, spectators and actors reflect upon how the actors do what they do on stage, ‘the ability to communicate about the communication process itself’ (p. 181). In contrasting his own dramaturgy work with Goffman’s, Turner (1985; 181) says that for him ‘dramaturgical analysis begins when crises arise in the daily flow of social interaction.’ Turner continues, ‘Thus, if daily living is a kind of theater, social drama is a kind of meta-theater, that is, a dramaturgical language about the language of ordinary role-playing and status-maintenance which constitutes communication in the quotidian social process’ (p. 181). Metatheatre then is for Turner, reflexivity by everyday actors about the communication system, where they consciously show spectators what they are doing. Turner studies reflexivity in crisis phase of social interaction, but also within the redressive phase. Turner theorizes four phases, breech, crisis, redressive action, and reintegration in what he calls ‘social drama.’
Metacommentary, is a term Turner, 1982a: 104) borrows from Geertz, ‘a story a group tells itself about itself’ or ‘a play a society acts about itself.’ Metatheatre then builds upon the idea of metacommentary, ‘an interpretive reenactment of its experience’ (Turner, 1982a: 104). In the positive, metatheatre reenacts conflicts, giving them contextualization, so that with metacommentary, facets are illuminated and accessible for remedial action. Through multiple reflections, spectators are able to provoke transformations in everyday life. On the negative side, the metatheatre distorts event and context in ways that provoke conformity. For example, our weekly street theatre is a metacommentary on global, national, and local conflicts, a time for reflection and reflexivity. Our signs are commentary, and we resist conformity. We are opposed by metacommentary of our critics, what see our acts as traitorous, seditious, and rebellious. Both sides use drama to provoke and persuade.
Metatheatre is about the dialectic process of framing through theatre, in ways that appeal to the frame of mind of the spectator; resistance is about bringing counter-frames to bear on dominant frames.
In the next section I apply Turner’s constructs of conflict, performance processes, liminality, indeterminacy, fragmentation, and metatheatre to that antagonism of the war and peace movements.
References
Aristotle (written 350BCE). Citing in the (1954) translation Aristotle: Rhetoric and poetics. Introduction by F. Solmsen, Rhetoric. (W Rhys Roberts, Tran.); Poetics (I. Bywater, Tran.). New York, NY: The Modern Library (Random House). Poetics was written 350 BCE. Custom is to cite part and verse (i.e. Aristotle, 1450: 5, p. 23) refers to part 1450, verse 5, on p. 23 of the Solmsen (1954) book. There is also an on line version translated by S. H. Butcher http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.html or http://eserver.org/philosophy/aristotle/poetics.txt
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (Caryl Emerson, Michael Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. (1973). Rabelais and His World. Translated by H’ l’ ne Iswolsky. 1st ed. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Best, Steve & Douglas Kellner (1991) Postmodern Theory. NY: Guilford Press.
Best, Steve & Douglas Kellner (1997) Postmodern Turn. NY: Guilford Press.
Best, Steve & Douglas Kellner (2001) Postmodern Adventure. NY: Guilford Press.
Boal, A. (1992). Games for actors and non-actors. (A. Jackson, Trans). A conflation of two books, Stop C’est Magique (Paris: Hachette, 1980) and Jeuz pour acteurs et non-acteurs (Paris: La D’couverte, 1989) with additions by Boal. London, UK: Routledge.
Boje, David M. (2001). Carnivalesque resistance to global spectacle: A critical postmodern theory of public administration, Administrative Theory & Praxis, 23(3): 431-458.
Boje, David M. (2003). Theatres of Capitalism. NJ: Hampton Press. In press.
Boje, David M. John T. Luhman, & Ann L. Cunliffe (2003). A Dialectic Perspective on the Organization Theatre Metaphor American Communication Journal. Volume 6 (2): 1-16.
Burke, K. (1937). Attitudes toward history. Las Altos, CA: Hermes Publications.
Burke, K. (1945). A grammar of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Burke, K. (1972). Dramatism and development. Barre, MA: Clark University Press with Barre Publishers.
Carr, Adrian (1996) Putative Problematic Agency in a Postmodern World: Is It Implicit in the Text–Can It Be Explicit in Organization Analysis? Vol 18 (1): 79-.
Debord Guy (1967). Society of the Spectacle. La Soci’t’ du Spectacle was first published in 1967 by Editions, Buchet-Chastel (Paris); it was reprinted in 1971 by Champ Libre (Paris). The full text is available in English at http://www.nothingness.org/SI/debord/index.html It is customary to refer to paragraph numbers in citing this work.
Fox, Charles J. and Miller Hugh T. (1996) Modern/Postmodern Public Administration: A Discourse About What is Real. Vol 18 (1): 41-.
Fox, Charles J. and High T. Miller. (1995a). Postmodern Public Administration: A short treatise on self-referential epihenomena. Administrative Theory & Praxis 15(2): 52-70.
Fox, Charles J. and High T. Miller. (1995b). Postmodern Public Administration: Toward Discourse. Thousand Oaks :Sage Publications, Inc.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York, NY: Harper Books.
Gusfield, J. R. (1989). The bridge over separated lands: Kenneth Burke’s significance for the study of social action. In H. Simmons & T. Melia (Eds.), The legacy of Kenneth Burke, pp. 28-54. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
K’rreman, D. (2001). The Scripted Organization: Dramaturgy from Burke to Baudrillard. Pp. 95-111 In R. Westwood and S. Linstead (Eds.) The language of organization. London: Sage Publications.
Kristeva, Julia (1980a) Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Edited by L’on Roudiez. Translated by Alice Jardine, Thomas Gora and L’on Roudiez. New York, Columbia University Press, London, Basil Blackwell
Kristeva, Julia (1980b) “Word, Dialogue, and Novel.” Desire and Language. Ed. Leon S. Roudiez. Trans. Thomas Gora et al. New York: Columbia UP, pp. 64-91.
Kristeva, Julia (1986). Word, dialogue, and the novel. In T. Moi (Ed.), The Kristeva reader. (pp. 35-61). New York: Columbia University Press.
Oswick, C., Keenoy, T. & Grant, D. (2001). Dramatizing and organizing: Acting and being. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 14 (3), 218-224.
Swartz, Marc J., Victor W. Turner, & Arthur Tuden (1966) Political Anthropology. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.
Turner, Victor (1967) Carnival, Ritual, and play in Rio de Janeiro. pp. 74- 92. In Alessandro Falassi (Ed.) Time Out of Time: Essays on the Festival. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
Turner, Victor (1974). Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.
Turner, Victor (1982a). From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play. NY: PAJ Publications (Division of Performing Arts Journal, Inc.).
Turner, Victor (1982b, Editor). Celebration: Studies in Festivity and Ritual. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Turner, Victor (1985). On the Edge of the Bush: Anthropology as Experience. Edith L. B. Turner (Ed). Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press.
Zanetti, Lisa A. (1997) Advancing praxis: Connecting critical theory with practice in public administration. 27(2): 145-167.
Zanetti, Lisa A. and Carr, Adrian (1999) Exaggerating the Dialectic: Postmodernism’s ‘New Individualism’ and the Detrimental Effects on Citizenship. AT&P Vol 21 (2) 205-.
Zanetti, Lisa A. & Carr, Adrian (1997). Putting critical theory to work: Giving the public administrator the critical edge. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 19(2): 208-224
‘Themes in the Symbolism of Ndemdu Hunting Ritual,
Turner, Victor (1962)
Anthropological Quarterly 35, pp. 37-57 reprinted in Myth and Cosmos: Readings in Methodology and Symbolism, edited by John Middleton, 1967, New York: Natural History Press, pp. 249-69.
“Betwixt and Between: The Liminal Period in Rites de Passage.”
Turner, V.W. (1967)
The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual pp. 93-111. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure
Turner, V.W. (1969)
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Dramas, Fields and Metaphors
Turner, V.W. (1974)
Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press
The Anthropology of Performance
Turner, V.W. (1988)
New York: PAJ Publications.
From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play
Karl Dodd1, 
*
