Abstract
In Chaps. 3 and 4 we discussed problem handling in general. We indicated that for handling complex societal problems, knowledge of different disciplines is necessary. Therefore, complex societal problems should be handled cooperatively. By “handling a problem cooperatively” we mean handling a problem with a group of persons. The arrangement of the group depends on the problem. It can vary from a mono-disciplinary group consisting of people of the same level of expertise, to a multi-disciplinary group of different (high and low) levels of expertise, or a mixed group with content experts and organization experts managers. Another reason for handling complex societal problems cooperatively is that most complex societal problems have a great impact on society. In a democracy a group widens the basis for acceptance of interventions. As we have seen in Chap. 3 knowledge of problem handling is mostly derived from the way one person solves small domain-related problems. Handling these kinds of relatively simple problems differs, on some crucial points, from cooperative handling of complex societal problems. The results from research on handling small, domain-related problems can only be used to a certain extent in this field. In handling small domain-related problems, only domain-related problem solving techniques and domain-related methods of analysis are used. For handling complex societal problems, a special methodology is needed that takes into account the complexity, the interdisciplinarity, and the dynamic changes of the problem and its environment and that will support a cooperative way of problem handling.
As stated in Chap. 3, we assume that handling complex societal problems can be improved by improving the quality of the problem handling skills of people, which, in turn, can be improved by using a fruitful methodology combined with the suitable tools.
In this chapter we will discuss some aspects of a methodology for handling a complex societal problem. We focus especially on the support of the cooperative problem handling process and discuss some of the possibilities of computer tools to this process. This reflects expectation c:
for handling complex societal problems a methodology is needed that includes the basic concepts knowledge, power and emotion and supports cooperative problem handling
Which is operationalized to research question c (See Chap. 2):
what are the special aspects a methodology for supporting the process of handling complex societal problems should possess
We will begin by connecting the problem handling phases mentioned in Chap. 4 with examples of complex societal problems.
This chapter, Methodological demands for handling complex societal problems, is based on Chap. 7 of the dissertation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Only secondary prevention includes curing.
- 3.
Secondary and tertiary prevention was seen during the flooding of the river Meuse in The Netherlands between December 15th and 30th in 1993, because the primary prevention proved to be inadequate (NRC Handelsblad December 22, 1993; De Volkskrant, December 23, 1993). See for further discussion on floods, Chap. 13.
- 4.
See for instance the rules for kosher food preparation in the orthodox Jewish community.
- 5.
See for instance rules of behavior between people of a different caste in India.
- 6.
When the problem handling process focuses on tertiary prevention, there must also be attention given to primary and secondary prevention of the problem.
- 7.
An action or pressure group is a group of people who want to bring a problem under (political) attention. An action group is often an ad hoc group, that works at short notice. A pressure group, which often begins as an action group, is a more formal group, a more constant group which works towards long-term goals (see also Rosenthal 1984). A good description of a pressure group in the USA can be found in the book “And the band played on” (Shilts 1986).
- 8.
In the 1960s and 1970s there were many militant action groups such as the environmental activists, such as Greenpeace (see http://www.iisg.nl/archives/nl/files/g/ARCH03089full.php#N14761) and feminist action groups (see Firestone 1970; Boston Women Health Book Collective 1978; Ekelschot and Van Baalen 1982; Grimbergen et al. 1983; Bussemaker 1985; Faludi 1991).
- 9.
A financial interest group is for instance the car industry pressure group BOVAG in The Netherlands and the American Automobile Association, AAA.
- 10.
Defining a problem as a mono-disciplinary problem does not automatically mean that these problems should not be handled by a team of persons. Many complex mono-disciplinary problems can also be more fruitfully analyzed cooperatively than by one person alone. An example of this is analyzing the human genes, which is done by many researchers from many research institutes.
- 11.
See also the discussion about interdisciplinarity in Chap. 11, the chapter on climate change.
- 12.
The drugs problem in The Netherlands is an example of policymaking that has been successively identified as a legal problem, a medical problem, and lately as a spare-time problem (Cohen 1990). An example of a scientific approach to label a problem as domain specific, rather than interdisciplinary, is the opinion of many economists that technological development, as a result of economic development, can be described by only a few economic variables, like the costs of labor and capital (Leydesdorff and Van den Besselaar 1994). However, in our view, the drugs problem and the technological development process can only be analyzed and understood as a societal problem, thus an interdisciplinary problem, influenced by many phenomena and actors (DeTombe 1993f).
- 13.
Cooperative does not assume harmony.
- 14.
See Chap. 4.
- 15.
Most people are only educated in one field, at most in two.
- 16.
See early literature on women studies (Mies 1978).
- 17.
- 18.
Seven to fifteen experts for instance, see discussion about the amount of people in Chap. 8.
- 19.
People tend to value the information or the opinion of a person of a “higher” profession more than the information or opinion given by a person of a lower ranked profession.
- 20.
Conclusions are given such as “23 people have this opinion and 5 people have that opinion”.
- 21.
A facilitator is a person who guides the problem handling process. See further in this paragraph “The group must be guided”.
- 22.
Research on the issue of group-think derives mostly from the analysis of decision processes that had negative effects.
- 23.
- 24.
The psychological effect of the devil’s advocate can be contradictory or even worse than group think (Rosenthal 1984). Many powerful politicians cannot deal with negative messages, preferring to kill or dismiss the messenger. Many dictators like to surround themselves with good news messengers [see for instance Greek theater plays, and the actions of Mao Tse Tun (Chang 1991; Dikötter 2010), Stalin (Rybakov 1988) and Kim-il Sung (Steiner-Gashi and Gashi 2011)].
- 25.
Blind spots should not be confused with white spots, see Chap. 4.
- 26.
These are the same things that could serve to avoid “group think”.
- 27.
Verbalism is using words without exactly knowing the meanings of them.
- 28.
When the group meetings are frequent it can take about 2 or 3 days a week, including preparation time and writing reports of the process. These data come from experiences of the author at Delft University of Technology in The Netherlands in the period July 1993–May 1994.
- 29.
See for the concept of the problem owner Sect. 7.8.1. For handling a complex societal problem the problem owner is often the (local) government or a representative of a worldwide organization, for instance Greenpeace. Sometimes it is difficult to know who is the problem owner. See Chap. 11 the discussion of the problem owner of the climate change.
- 30.
For more details see Chap. 7.
- 31.
By the term “theoretical ideas” we indicate theories, hypotheses, assumptions, experiences, and intuition.
- 32.
See Chap. 7.
- 33.
A causal model can be made when it is possible to express the relation between the phenomena in causal dependencies.
- 34.
Although the method can be used for complex organizational problems as well.
- 35.
Outshoorn (1986) describes how to put something on the (political) agenda.
- 36.
See Sect. 4.4.
- 37.
See Chap. 7.
- 38.
See Group Decision Room (see Sect. 5.2).
- 39.
See Sect. 4.3.8.
- 40.
In order to avoid discussion over the distinction between data and information, we use data in situations where information can sometimes also be used.
- 41.
The numbers in brackets refer to points for avoiding group think given in Chap. 7.
References
Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Beauvoir, S. (1949/1978). De tweede sexe. Utrecht: Erven J. Bijleveld (Le Deuxième sexe. Paris: Edition Gallimard).
Boston Women Health Book Collective. (1978). Ourselves and our children. Boston, MA: Boston Women Health Book Collective.
Bussemaker, J. (Ed.). (1985). Zielig zijn we niet. Het politieke verzet van bijstandsvrouwen. Amsterdam: Van Gennep.
Chang, J. (1991). Wild swans: Three daughters of China. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Cohen, D. A. P. (1990). Drugs as a social construct. Utrecht: Elinkwijk.
Crombag, H. F. M. (1984). Slecht gedefinieerde problemen. Kennis, mens en computer/2. Intermedair, 20, 3.
Dalkey, N. C. (1972). Studies in the quality of life: Dephi and decision making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
De Volkskrant. (1993, December 23) Wateroverlast rivieren breid zich verder uit. De Volkskrant, p. 1.
DeTombe, D. (1976). De psycho-sociale begeleiding door het consultatie bureau voor zuigelingen en kleuters. Scriptie M.O.A. pedagogiek. Pedagogisch Seminarium aan de Vrije Universiteit. Published as D.J. de Wilde de Ligny – de Tombe.
DeTombe, D. J. (1993f). An interdisciplinary process of problem handling for policy making on environmental problems. In E. A. Stuhler & M. O’Súilleabháin (Eds.), Research on cases and theory: Vol. 2. Enhancing human capacity to solve ecological and socio-economic problems (pp. 30–46). (Published as Tombe de, D. J.). Munchen/Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag.
Dikötter, F. (2010). Mao’s great famine: The history of china’s most devastating catastrophe, 1958–62. London: Bloomsbury.
Ekelschot, M., & van Baalen, A. (Eds.). (1982). Zusterschap en daarna. Amsterdam: De Bonte Was.
Faludi, S. (1991). Backlash. London: Vintage.
Firestone, S. (1970). The dialectic of sex. New York, NY: William Morrow and Company.
Glasbergen, P. (1992). Agro-environmental policy: Trapped in an iron law? A comparative analysis of agricultural pollution control in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and France. SociologicaRuralis, XXXII(1), 30–48.
Greenpeace. http://www.iisg.nl/archives/nl/files/g/ARCH03089full.php#N14761.
Grimbergen, C., Huibers, R., & van der Peijl, D. (1983). Amelisweerd: de weg van de meeste weerstand. Rotterdam: Ordeman.
Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests. London: Heineman.
Halperin, M. (1974). Bureaucratic politics and foreign policy. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Hart, ‘t, P. (1990). Group think in Government: A study of small groups and policy failure. Leiden: Smets and Zeitlinger.
Hart, ‘t, H. (1991). Onderzoek en Praktijkfasen. Vakgroep Ontwikkeling en Socialisatie, Sektie Methoden, Utrecht. In J. van Dijk, M. de Goede, H. ‘t Hart, & J. Teunissen (Eds.), Onderzoeken en veranderen: Methoden van praktijkonderzoek. Leiden: Stenfert Kroese.
Hart, ‘t, P., de Jong, P., & Korsten, A. F. A. (1991). Groepsdenken in het openbaar bestuur. Cruciale beslissingen in kleine groepen. Alphen aan den Rijn: Samson H. D. Tjeenk Willink.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin (second and renewed edition of Victims of Groupthink).
Leydesdorff, L., & Van den Besselaar, P. (Eds.). (1994). Evolutionary economics and chaos theory. New directions in technology studies. London: Pinter Publishers.
Marx, K. (1890). Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Oekonomie. Hamburg: Otto Meissner.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mies, M. (1978). Methodischen postulaten zur Frauenforschung. Beispiel der Gewalt gegen Frauen. Nijmegen: Heksenkollege.
NRC Handelsblad. (1993, December 22). Overstromingen van de Maas (Dutch: FloodingriverMeuse). NRC Handelsblad.
Ormel, J. (1987). Primaire preventie van veel voorkomende psychische stoornissen: hoe mogelijk is het onmogelijke? Maanblad Geestelijke Volksgezondheid, 12, 1358–1367.
Ornstein, N. J., & Elder, S. (1978). Interest groups, lobbying and policy making. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Outshoorn, J. (1986). De politieke strijd rondom de abortuswetgeving in Nederland 1964-1984. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.
Pask, G. (1975). Conversation, cognition and learning; a cybernetic theory and methodology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Rosenthal, U. (1984). Rampen, rellen, gijzelingen. Amsterdam: De Bataafsche Leeuw.
Rybakov, A. (1988). Children of the Arbat. New York: Little Brown.
Schaap, D. (1983). Het laatste Deltawerk. Bussum: Moussault.
Shilts, R. (1986). And the band played on. Politics, people, and the AIDS epidemic. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Steiner-Gashi, I., & Gashi, D. (2011). In dienst van de dictator. Het leven en de vlucht van een Noord Koreaanse agent. Delft: Uitgeverij Elmar b.v. (Im Dienst des Diktators. Leben und Flucht eines nordkoreanischen Agenten).
Taylor, C. (2001). Sacrifice as terror: The Rwandan genocide of 1994. Oxford: Berg Publishers.
van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (1993). Delphi onderzoek. In Reader methoden van onderzoek: analyse van beleids- en veranderingsprocessen. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.
Vennix, J. A. M. (1990). Mental models and computer models. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.
Weber, M. (1922). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Tübingen: Mohr.
Wierda, F. W. (1991). Developing interorganizational information systems. Delft: Wierda.
Zelger, J. (1993). GABEK – V – Vom Begriffsnetz zur sprachlichen Gestalt, Projektberichte Philosophie und Verfahren kreativer Selbstorganisation, Universität Innsbruck, Institut für Philosophie, Innsbruck.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
DeTombe, D. (2015). Methodological Demands for Handling Complex Societal Problems. In: Handling Societal Complexity. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43917-3_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43917-3_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-43916-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-43917-3
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)