Facilitating Global Change

IntellectualShaman
Aug 31, 2018 · 13 min read

Introduction

Climate Change, Terrorism, Global Health Systems and Financial Crises are only a few of our global wicked problems that we are facing at the dawn of the 21st Century. And it seems that we are not well prepared. According to the 2010 CEO IBM study, global leaders in public and private cooperation’s are experiencing a “complexity gap”, meaning they are not prepared to handle the complexity of issues they are currently facing, and that are actually expected to even accelerate.[1] New conflicts in Syria, Iraq and the Ukraine, the difficult relationship with Russia and the rise of China seem to be only some examples connected to the acceleration of complexity that has taken place since 2010. A “global systemic shift”[2] seems to be moving with accelerating speed through social fields such as technology, culture, business, politics, religion and demography and a seventh dimension to integrate and understand the change as a whole is emerging, according to Roland Benedikter. Within this paper I want to outline how this global systemic shift cannot be addressed by conventional science and how a broader, trans-disciplinary perspective in higher education is fundamental to handling the new levels of complexity in relation to societal change. In addition, I will build on the analysis drawn from Steve Wadell´s research on Global Action Networks, where practitioners work with complex issues such as climate change or corruption. In the first part of the paper, I will introduce the concept of wicked problems as defined by Rittel and Weber. Moreover Roland Benedikter’s seven dimensions within his System Action Theory are introduced and I will explore how they relate to social change and trans-disciplinary research. An initial definition of wicked problems will be given. Furthermore the idea of a seventh meta-integrative dimension will be discussed in relation to trans-disciplinary research and its possible integration within a Global Action Network approach.

Wicked Problems Revisited

Wicked problems could also be defined as constant challenges within uncertain contexts that do not allow clear discernment as to whether the problem(s) are really solved, and therefore describe to some extent what we are facing within the Global Systemic Shift as a whole. The Financial time lexicon describes wicked problems as problems “for which there is no clear stopping rule — you cannot say for sure that you are done with the problem.[3] According to Rittle and Webber this is only one of several principles inherent to wicked problems. Their nature is different to more regular problems because you cannot arrive at a “complete” or “fully correct”solution. You simply don`t have objective criteria for it.[4] Already, in the initial attempt to define a wicked problem you run into these difficulties since “there is no definite formulation” for them. All depends on the multiple perspectives taken into account to understand and to describe them. If we look at higher education the establishment of trans-disciplinary research for example can be considered a wicked problem as Sue L.T. McGregor articulates in her article “4/1 — The Trans-disciplinary Meme”.[5] A professor might have a very different point of view as a student or as a business man even if they dealing with the same issue. Moreover it depends on the stakeholders within policy making, universities and funding institutions like businesses for example to judge if a solution is simply “better or worse” because depending on the perspectives involved this can change significantly. While businesses might consider the specialization on technology and hard science as better, a professor of art and literature might consider it as worse. This is the reason why criteria for judging the validity of a “solution” to a wicked problem are strongly stakeholder dependent and the judgments of different stakeholders “(…) are likely to differ widely to accord with their group or personal interests, their special value-sets, and their ideological predilections”. Glean A. Jones describes similar challenges in his paper “Governing Quality: Positioning Student Learning as a Core Objective of Institutional and System-Level Governance” in relation to university governance:

“Government, university administrators, professors, students, and industry leaders may have very different ways of defining both the “problem” and “solution” of university governance. There is no “right” answer, in fact every solution usually leads to new kinds of problems that are, of course, framed quite differently by different stakeholders, and this means that the process of defining and redefining both the problem and the solution is ongoing.”

To make things even more complicated, another characteristic is that “every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another [wicked] problem”[6] The outcome of how we govern universities and learning, if one focuses on specialization or a more trans-disciplinary approach, will have a direct affect in the future on how graduates in their jobs will handle climate change or global security. Will there be an emphasis on technological solution or will we understand the necessity of including multiple perspectives, rationalities and discourse logics to respond to those challenges? Those questions should not be taken lightly since, “Every solution is a “one-shot operation”; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, “every attempt counts significantly.”[7] Implementing solutions will have a deep and lasting impact and we might run out of time if the realization comes too late that, for example, we missed the chance to teach a whole generation adequately how to address the complexity that is emerging on the horizon.

Disruptive Times Ahead — How To Handle Accelerating Complexity

Climate change might not give the human species a second chance. Certainly the dinosaurs did not have one, so why should we, given the fact that we are even creating the problem? Our societies are undergoing massive change related to several interconnected wicked problems. This requires us to challenge the “hegemony of disciplinarily and normal, positivistic science” and to “embrace an approach couched in quantum physics, chaos theory and living systems theory.”[8] The Global CEO study in 2010 by IBM clearly points in that direction:

“The world’s private and public sector leaders believe that a rapid escalation of “complexity” is the biggest challenge confronting them. They expect it to continue, indeed to accelerate, in the coming years. They are equally clear that their enterprises today are not equipped to cope effectively with this complexity in the global environment. Finally, they identify “creativity” as the single most important leadership competency for enterprises seeking a path through this complexity.”[9]

The escalation of complexity itself could be seen as a wicked problem. What seems significant to me is the fact that with wicked problems “the planner has no right to be wrong.” This characteristic is of particular interest since within the “hard sciences” finding the “truth” is usually done by testing a hypothesis critically and consistently until we might discover that the hypothesis was wrong. This is what “good hard science” is all about. In the field of wicked problems we cannot hunt for the truth to discover that we are wrong. Rather, we need “to improve some characteristic of the world where people live.”[10] In the light of wicked problems like climate change, threats to global security and failing financial systems, universities are confronted with the challenge to provide an education that enables the future generation of leaders to improve those global conditions rather than to find perfect solutions, since these are virtually nonexistent. Alessio Cavicchi, Chiara Rinaldi and Michele Corsi point out in their paper how higher education institutions became managers of wicked problems in relation to place branding in rural areas in Italy. Their case study shows “how the involvement of a university, as a trainer, partner and facilitator, can help” to find better solutions for wicked problems.[11] In their view universities can be boundary organizations “that successfully link knowledge with action, tend to bridge both the barriers that separate disciplines and those that separate knowledge production and application.”[12] Nicolescua takes even a step further and differentiates trans-disciplinarity into “a theoretical trans-disciplinarity, a phenomenological transdisciplinarity, and an experimental transdisciplinarity.” All together enable a theoretical general definition, a “well-defined methodology” to connect “the theoretical principles with the already observed experimental data” and to “perform experiments allowing any researcher to get the same results when performing the same experiments”.[13] This might allow us to build those bridges even more percisely.

In the next chapter I want to elaborate how such a bridge could be built for disciplines through System Action Theory and for knowledge production via a Global Action Network.

Bridging The Gap Between Disciplines

Benedikter’s System Action Theory is designed to allow an integrative, seven-dimensional analysis of the current global change by combining system and action research tools.”[14] He includes a phenomenological as well as systemic approach similar like Nicolescua. What leaders are describing as an acceleration process of complexity is defined in his words as a “global systemic shift”. Since the fall of the Berlin wall, the collapse of communism and 9/11, more and more traditional factors and forces such as politics and economics are becoming less dominant. In Benedikter’s perspective global change “depends on more systemic dimensions and fields of action than we used to consider previously”.[15] Global developments are still heavily influenced by politics and economics, yet also culture and religion are distinct forces and dimensions that co-shape our current and future global reality. Moreover, the dimensions of technology and demography are also gaining “rising systemic influences”. As they are less controllable and they are “to a certain extent ‘meta-societal’ forces of transformation.” Solving wicked problems in times of a global systemic shift means for him the understanding that “all these six developments are increasingly acting on each other and influencing the process as a whole.”[16] Furthermore, he considers a seventh dimension emerging out of those six forces that “is more than the sum of its parts given that it adds its own laws and mechanisms to the process.”[17] While this paper is too short to outline all the seven dimensions in detail, I want to suggest them as a starting point for a possible framework to integrate different perspectives on wicked problems within universities.[18]To support future leaders in understanding the rationalities and discourse logic behind all the six mentioned dimensions, a transformation within the universities would be needed. This might be possible through a Global Action Network. While R. Benedikter’s work qualifies for a trans-disciplinary approach because it entails what Nicolescu called an “integrated combination of (a) disciplinary work, (b) scholarship between (multidisciplinarity) and among disciplines (interdisciplinarity)” since it bridges political science, economics, cultural studies, the study of world religion and progressive spirituality research with the dimensions of demography and technology, another factor in accordance with Nicolesucu could need more attention: For Nicolesucu a trans-disciplinary approach includes © “knowledge generation beyond academic disciplines and across sectors external to the university, at the interface between the academy and civil society”.[19] To examine how to include external sectors within a trans-disciplinary framework I will introduce the concept of Global Action Networks (GANs) and how they grow through four stages.

Bridging the gap between knowledge production and application

GANs are a new type of global organization that function differently than traditional international organizations since they are usually “networks of local nodes and a global, more interdependent one that form a coherent whole.” They “aim for a holistic paradigm that brings all the parts together in their particular issue arena.” Their size and the resources are modest, yet through their partner organizations they are able to “leverage many uncounted resources” and achieve remarkable success. In accordance to Waddell, GANs share five distinct characteristics with each other: They are a “global framework for action”, serve “a public good imperative”, have “a systemic boundary-crossing action strategy”, incorporate a “change maker role” and are built on an “interoganizational network structure.” They focus on complex global problems and a specific cause and are able to bridge the gap “between policy makers (usually governments and international NGOs), techno-experts (scientists, business people, and engineers), funders (foundations and donor agencies), and communities (local activists and community members).” 17 of the 19 analyzed GANs in the USAID study are engaged “in global system organizing”. This means they are “creating activities such as meetings, information networks, and shared tasks that bring diverse organizations into increasing contact.” One of the main results they achieve are “growing coordination and synergies” in regards to solutions around a global cause like mircofinance, transparency, youth employment or sustainable forest conservation. Often they are dealing with complex, some even with wicked problems. While they are not against “organizational structures that result from the traditional scientific paradigm” they are rather addressing the need to “create perspectives of the whole” in order “(…) to address the sustainable development challenge.”[20] In my opinion, to address the particular challenge of transforming higher education institutions into managers of wicked problems, a system action theory approach could be introduced and advocated through a specific GAN. To establish such a GAN, a four stage process would be necessary.

A Four Step Process to Establish Transdiciplinary International

In order to establish a GAN that I will call “Trans-disciplinary International”, “two to three years of consultation” with various stakeholders” to grasp the common vision and to identify leadership stakeholders would be needed in the first stage. These dialogues would include pioneering education initiatives like the Ubiquity University, professors that are working within the field of trans-disciplinary studies like Roland Benedikter, as well as organizational umbrellas like td-net[21] or the Center for Inter- and Trans-disciplinary Research and Studies[22], in order to build a committed core team with a common and inspiring vision.

Stage Two — Problem/Solution Definition

Only in stage two the definition for the problem and solution would be discussed and developed in a joint effort since GAN’s addressing complex global problems the “individual founders think they understand the problem, but initial discussions invariably disclose an unsuspected breadth of perspectives. The stakeholders forming the GAN must have a shared understanding of the problem. Developing this shared understanding among a small core group of diverse founders is a key developmental step”[23] of the second stage. This would include the challenges and opportunities in relation to trans-disciplinary research as well as the interest of different stakeholders and the power structures and politics that prevent the emergence of more trans-disciplinary discourse within traditional education systems. Similar to the characteristics of a wicked problem “Trans-disciplinary International” would not search for an ultimate solution but identify key challenges to “move an issue system in a particular direction through strategically selected activities.”[24] This might include building strategic partnerships with organizations like the “International Association of Universities” which is closely linked to UNESCO and state institutions.[25] After an initial problem definition the need for project pilots would be necessary. This could include research projects, a bachelor/master degree program, an international conference, a strategy to asses “trans-disciplinarity“ and to rate universities and institutions.

Stage Three — Developing And Upscaling Of A Infrastructure

In the next stage, the lessons learned in pilot programs and through engagement and dialogue with multiple stakeholders, a “broader change infrastructure” would need to be developed in order to upscale the success. One example would be that the trans-disciplinarily quality label, developed in stage two and tested, is up scaled and extended to gain more influence within the international university system. Also, strategic partnerships with accredited institutions and rating organizations, as well as with business leaders who see the need for trans-disciplinary studies, might be helpful to broaden the level of influence needed to grow into the fourth stage.[26]

Stage 4 — Unfolding The Full Potential

Since GAN’s are a very young phenomenon, only a few of them are entering the fourth stage of development. Ideally, they are becoming “a global membrane that will attract organizations around the world that are working on a particular issue. Reluctant participants will be caught up and find themselves working within systems structured by GANs.” The need to understand the seventh dimension, the interplay and underlying force of the global systemic shift as Benedikter describes it, might be of high importance to build such organizational structures. GANs could then become a convener and supporter in partnerships with trans-disciplinary universities to handle wicked problems in particular fields of action. Transdisciplinarity International by then would be an organizational body and a global system to create global and local norms in higher education and to support though inter-GAN-dialogue other initiatives. Transdisciplinary International would offer expertise in methodologies and analysis for the solution of wicked problems. Together on a global level GANs, according to the UNAID study, “could well be the critical mechanisms for addressing global governance gaps of participation, ethics, communications, and implementation.“[27] The support of a global GAN specialized in advocating and developing global norms for trans-disciplinary research to tackle global wicked problems could therefore be a step into the right direction for global societal change.”

[1] IBM Institute for Business Value (2010). Capitalizing on Complexity –Global Chief Executive Officer Study, IBM Global Business Services, Somers, NY

[2] Benedikter, Roland (2013). Global Systemic Shift: A Multidimensional Approach to Understand the Present Phase of Globalization, DE GRUYTER, doi, New Global Studies

[3] http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=wicked-problem

[4] Ritchey, Tom (2013). Wicked Problems Modeling Social Messes with Morphological Analysis, Acta Morphologica Generalis, Swedish Morphological Society

[5] McGregor, L.T. Sue (2014). 4/1 — The Transdisciplinary Meme, Integral Leadership, Integral Publishers

[6] Ritchey, Tom (2013). Wicked Problems Modeling Social Messes with Morphological Analysis, Acta Morphologica Generalis, Swedish Morphological Society

[7] Ibid.

[8] McGregor, L.T. Sue (2014). 4/1 — The Transdisciplinary Meme, Integral Leadership, Integral Publishers

[9] Palmisano, Samuel J. (2010) Capitalizing on Complexity — Insights from the Global Chief Executive Officer Study, IBM Institute for Business Value, P. 3

[10] Ritchey, Tom (2013). Wicked Problems Modeling Social Messes with Morphological Analysis, Acta Morphologica Generalis, Swedish Morphological Society

[11] Cavicchi, Alessio etc. (2014) Higher Education Institutions as Managers of Wicked Problems Place _Branding_and_Rural_Development_in_Marche_Region Italy, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review Volume 16, Special Issue A

[12] Clark, W. and L. Holliday. 2006. Linking Knowledge with Action for Sustainable Development: The Role of Program Management. Workshop Summary, Roundtable on Science and Technology for Sustainability Policy and Global Affairs. National Research Council of the National Academies. Washington DC: National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11652&page=70. P. 8

[13] Nicolescua, Basarab, Methodology of Transdisciplinarity a International Center for Transdisciplinary

Research, Paris, France. Published online: 15 Aug 2014, P. 189

[14] Benedikter, Roland (2013). Global Systemic Shift: A Multidimensional Approach to Understand the Present Phase of Globalization, DE GRUYTER, doi, New Global Studies

[15] Ibid. P. 2

[16] Benedikter, Roland (2013). Global Systemic Shift: A Multidimensional Approach to Understand the Present Phase of Globalization, DE GRUYTER, doi, New Global Studies, P. 3

[17] Ibid. P. 2

[18] Benedikter, B. Wagner, A. (2012) Wiederbegegnung mit Humboldt Die Zukunft der Erziehung: Mehrdimensionalität und Multidisziplinarität, Forum Wissenschaft, S. 48–52

[19] McGregor, L.T. Sue (2014). 4/1 — The Transdisciplinary Meme, Integral Leadership, Integral Publishers

[20] Waddell, Steve (2006). The Future of Global Action Networks:

The Challenges and Potential, USAID — GDA Report. P. 3–15

[21] http://www.transdisciplinarity.ch/d/index.php

[22] CV of Basrab Nicolescu http://basarab-nicolescu.fr/cv.php

[23] Waddell, Steve (2006). The Future of Global Action Networks:

The Challenges and Potential, USAID — GDA Report. P. 31

[24] Ibid.

[25] http://www.iau-aiu.net/

[26] Waddell, Steve (2006). The Future of Global Action Networks:

The Challenges and Potential, USAID — GDA Report.P. 27

[27] Ibid.

paragraph text here