Mouserat

Changing frames to find solutions

For this class, we started our exploration of systems with the analog of blind men reaching erroneous conclusions about an elephant, by only experiencing and understanding one part of the larger system. Now, we have moved on to the messier idea of “soft systems thinking” which characterizes the world as “a complex and confusing entity” where there is “no consensus among stakeholders, even for what the actual problem is” (Deetz, 5).   

The articles by Patitsas, and Cleland and Wyborn both present ideas for how to reflect on systems where you can’t even assume you are framing the problem correctly. Patitsas presents a seven-step methodology on mapping your system from multiple frames and identifying possible system modifications. I think this methodology would be a good entry point for a researcher working on a complex system problem. I particularly like the idea of framing the problem as a situation, which in itself reveals some of the biases you may bring to the research. This methodology seems useful for helping the researcher recognize their own frame of reference and see the situation from multiple perspectives.

Cleland and Wyborn take this framing exercise one step further by gathering information from stakeholders though rich picturing and interactive game exercises. These methods take the abstract concept of system mapping and apply it to tangible concepts, such as imagining what a specific place might look like 50 years from now or understanding complex problems through a board game. I thought these methodologies would be a good next step for researchers to understand how non-system thinkers are framing the situation, which may lead the researcher to discover frames of reference they had not thought of on their own.

Question: Can you think of a situation in which soft systems analysis would have helped you consider or discover a new solution to a “wicked problem”?

Building a System of Massive, Grass-roots, Environmental Activism: An Interpretive Approach?

I'm grateful for Professor Goldstein's  guidance that these readings "are directly from the research rock.face and not processed for introductory-level classes, and so framed in ways that may not always be intelligible for the non-specialist." I appreciate the invitation to accept and  even enjoy incomplete comprehension, and I'm right there.

Gravitating to readings 2 and 5, I found  clear examples and accessible content. Patitsas¹  seven-step primer on soft systems methodology attracts me for its clarity and simplicity.  While studying in Toronto (with Steve Easterbrook of the Paris shower leverage points), Patitsas employs a New England dialect I love, "wicked" as in "wicked cool" or "wicked problem."

The first step: identify my domain of interest.  With Scott Pruitt as the new head of the EPA, my domain is protecting the environmental and supporting a vast resurgence in environmental activism.  Matching this to Patitsas's schema:

1. The problem is not understood until after the formulation of a solution.  Yes, we won't know all the obstacles and challenges to building this movement until it has been built.
2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule. A stopping rule specifies how large the test statistic will be allowed to be before the trial is stopped.  Building a grassroots environmental movement capable of shifting minds and hearts to the view that environmental protection is needed and benefits everyone, including business -- the size of this test group is unlimited, and the end of the trial is undetermined.
3. Solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong.  Yes, solutions  will fit, or not; be effective, or not: right and wrong are limiting paradigms  irrelevant to this question of movement, passion, gestalt, and action.
4. Every wicked problem is essentially novel and unique. Yes, this is an unique moment, a novel challenge, an as-yet-unmet opportunity.
5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a 'one shot operation.' There is one (unknown) path to a renaissance of environmental resistance.
6. Wicked problems have no given alternative solutions. Yes, maintaining our legal and regulatory system, to protect our commons from the perverse and unintended outcomes of consumptive capitalism, that's a single solution.

Step 2: Express the Problem Situation, in neutral language:  The system of environmental protection established in the United States since 1970, through legislation, regulation, and administration, is likely to be significantly reduced in the next few years.  I think there are people, including Mr. Pruitt, who would see this statement as not a problem.

Step 3: Identify Different Problem Frames.  Easterbrook's article on Genetically Modified Foods explores the various frames surrounding the problem.^₂  While tackling that here, I recognize the importance of posing the problem in a variety of ways, with different lenses and filters, because different information is revealed.

The next few steps seem self-evident:

Step 4: Study the problem frames and pick one

Step 5: Arena of Action

Step 6: Theorize/model the relevant system

Step 7: Identify possible/feasible changes to the situation, and take action.  My favorite.  This whole approach, which seems fundamentally sounds, is reminiscent of Paolo Freire's³ work.

 

 The question:  From the perspective we've explored this week, how can the most effective and system-shaking forms of environmental activism be identified?

1.Patitsas' seven-step-primer-on-soft-systems

2. Easterbrook on thinking-and-genetically-modified-food

3. freire_pedagogy of the oppresed

Related articles

Pruitt becomes chief of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency despite objections over his links to industry and denials of climate change

It's clear Pruitt isn't qualified for EPA post

GOP-backed measures seek to rein in science used at EPA

EPA ranks feel threatened, stage rally against Trump's fossil fuel-friendly pick Pruitt

New Castle Residents Aren't Satan, They're Just Poor

Today, while visiting my family in Pennsylvania, I found myself in the middle of a guided tour of New Castle, Pennsylvania being given by my aunt. Usually when I visit we stay close to my aunt and uncle's home, which is situated on some lush farm land in a picturesque part of the state. Ignorantly I assumed this was essentially what all of Pennsylvania looked like. Today I discovered that very close to their home is this town (New Castle) that is becoming increasingly run down while the community dives deeper into poverty. Crime rates are increasing at an appaling rate, abandoned buildings speckle every street, and homes are dirt cheap. New Castle used to be a thriving coal mining town, but when the local coal plant shut down the town began deteriorating quickly.

After driving through the town I instantly understood much better just how complex some environmental problems are. Sitting in Boulder studying the environment makes the choice to not open new coal plants seem so obvious. Driving through this deteriorating town though made it clear to me why people want to bring coal back. It is not necessarily because they are Satan and want to laugh while polar bears die, but instead want to provide for their family and see the revival of their community.

From the diverse mesh-mash of readings this week I think that something like CATWOE from the soft systems methodology is what we need to begin practicing in our daily life to do our best work in the future. Something like CATWOE which analyzes customers, actors, transformation, worldview, owners, and environmental constrains is necessary in finding solutions for things like the coal mining example. It allows us to step out of our Boulder bubble and make more informed and less biased decisions.

Question: After we graduate should we move to and work in communities like New Castle in order to make a bigger impact as opposed to living in already thriving and green communities? Could you do that?

 

Delayed Response

In Chapter 6, Meadows presents 12 leverage points, which are placed in order, based on their effectiveness of their ability to change a system. Meadows explains that complex systems may often surprise us and utilizing these leverage points in the “wrong” way can produce unwanted behavior. The leverage point that I found to be most intriguing (although not very effective, according to Meadows) were delays. Delays are the reason why we do not see the results we expect right away, and instead of waiting patiently, we continue to add (or take away) from the system. This in turn causes the system to oscillate in response to our actions. This is a very simple concept, that in theory should be easy to grasp but it is the nature of our current society to attain what we want at the precise moment when we desire it.

This one leverage point led me to start thinking about the many different industries that benefit off of our desire to see results right away instead of waiting for the delay in the system to run its course. Extreme dieting promising absurd amounts of weight loss in an abbreviated time period is just one of these examples.

Something else that came to mind when reading about delays was the perception that some have about greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Without hard and tangible evidence of global climate change, some find it hard to believe its existence—“seeing is believing.” However, there is somewhat of a delay in our actions that produce increased GHGs and the physical manifestation of climate change. This makes it more difficult to convince even the most stubborn that it is indeed happening right in front of us.

Question: I thought that Meadows framed delays in a way that makes them seem undesirable in a system. Can you think of a delay in a system that would be beneficial and perhaps necessary for it to function?

Leverage Points and Systems Thinking

        Chapter six of Meadow’s Thinking in Systems; A Primer discusses twelve leverage points within a system.  These leverage points can be used to create changes in a systems behavior, however, Meadows points out that often times exploiting these leverage points can create unwanted behavior, or even the opposite behavior compared to what was expected.  One interesting example of this in current events (depending on where you stand) is the Trump administration.  The 2016 election was a leverage point in the system of American politics, and Trump entering office exploited it and truly changed the systems behavior.  However, due to the concept of delay in a system, we have yet to see how the systems behavior will change in a substantial manner.  That will take time to see.

Question: What are more real world examples of an exploited leverage point having unexpected effects on system behavior?

        When discussing these twelve leverage points, Meadows orders/ranks these from twelve to one.  She begins at twelve, discussing lower level leverage points such as individual parts and physical elements within a system.  She then moves into higher level leverage points that seem more abstract, such as goals and self-organization.  Her top two leverage points, “Paradigms – The mind-set out of which the system – its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters – arises” and “Transcending Paradigms”, involve monumental shifts that allow for large changes in a systems behavior.  An example of this is the change in management of fires within the Forest Service.  The paradigm shift that changed the management of fires in the USFS occurred when the Forest Service began to focus on forest health instead of timber as a resource.

Question: How are paradigm shifts created?  Do they happen naturally over time?

we see only what we can talk about

I want to start by mentioning some things that struck me from this chapter. Firstly, Meadows’s augmentation to the Ten Commandments, “Thou shalt not distort, delay, or withhold information.” No, I don’t mention this out of some desire to “fact check” one’s ability to alter the Ten commandments. In fact, I encourage cranking things to 11. The reason this is an important thought is that we live in the information age. A fact that I remembered today when I asked Siri where the phrase, “Sh*t, Shower, Shave,” originated. However, to my dismay, she responded with: “Samuel! Watch your language!”

Information is easy to spread and to access; likewise, information is incredibly easy to falsify. I learned this in my days as a mad scientist. Whether we were out in the field, or in the lab, every data entry was vetted by another member of the team. Always. Our methods were carefully choreographed and executed, and our eyes were shielded from the data until all the analyses could be run. Because no matter who you are, you will search for data that points in favor of proving your hypothesis.

This brings me to the second quote that I found especially interesting in this week’s reading: “we don’t talk about what we see; we see only what we can talk about.” Meadows’s quoted an excerpt from a journal article written by Fred Kofman. I wanted so badly to have my data support what I had been talking about, and hypothesizing. Alas, data doesn’t lie. I had been measuring the inner chamber volumes of fruit fly galls, the corresponding hosts’s femur lengths, and the number of eggs the females held in their abdomen (fecundity), for the better part of three weeks. If the flies were bigger, it wouldn’t be worth mentioning, however, the flies were so small that it required peering through a dissecting microscope for hours on end. The process was slow, and tedious. Worst of all, it required that I drink no coffee in the morning in an effort to reduce the amount my hands shook while taking measurements.

After my data was gathered, I began the preliminary analysis on Xcel before moving my data into R. The initial results were extremely positive, with one R^2 of .86. I was sure that my hypothesis that the length of the fly femur length was in direct correlation with the gall’s inner chamber volume. I immediately began working feverishly on, what could have been, a publishable paper. However, a few months later (after my first draft was near completion) my statistics professor asked for me to run the analysis in R. The request on its own was expected, however, she added the variable of gender to be run in my analysis.

Before I continue, I should mention that like nearly all animal species, these flies had a level of sexual dimorphism. Which in this case meant that the females were significantly larger than the males. So, after running the further analysis, I found that those large R^2 values were not caused by a correlation of femur length to gall chamber volume, but were instead due to the sexual dimorphic nature of the fly.

In English: I proved that female flies are in fact bigger than males. D’oh!

Leverage points: how sticky are the levers?

            In Chapter 6, Meadows introduces a list of leverage points, ordered from the least effective to most effective places to seek change. Easterbrook then applies these leverage points to the climate and financial systems, in order to demonstrate how the solutions we typically pursue to societal problems often target the least effective leverage points. Meadows list makes intuitive sense, in terms of how effective each lever is compared to the others. However, I think we need to go a step further, and consider which levers we can actually move.

            Meadows notes that numbers are the one of the most difficult places to change a system, and yet they are also where we focus most of our time. There is an adage that I’ve often heard in the context of sustainability: “What isn’t measured, doesn’t get managed.” I’ve found that quantifying non-numeric benefits is a great source of consternation for environmentalists, as they are often forced to justify their interventions using cost-benefit tests. For example, when utilities run energy efficiency programs, they have to submit cost-benefit tests to regulators every couple of years, which prove that the programs they proposed are cost-effective (i.e. the programs deliver more benefits than costs). Yet, there are many benefits to energy efficiency that elude easy quantification, including greenhouse gas reductions and improved health and safety of homes. Instead of acknowledging that cost-benefit tests are an imperfect tool for decision making and adopting a more multi-faceted approach, researchers spend time trying to quantify these “squishy” benefits, so that they are considered in the decision-making process. Is this really the most effective way for researchers to spend their time?

            What I found really interesting about this (and the examples presented by Easterbrook and Meadows) is that there are clearly more effective places for us to intervene. However, I also wonder how feasible it is to intervene at these more effective leverage points. Using my example above, is it more feasible for researchers to accept that cost-benefit analysis is the norm, and work within that system to drive better decision making? Or should they try to adjust the Information Flow of the system, by convincing policy makers to use a broader set of tools to make decisions? Alternatively, they could pursue an even more radical approach and try to convince policy makers that the utility’s responsibility is to deliver energy that is affordable, reliable and sustainably produced to customers, which would be a paradigm shift. As Meadows and Easterbrook both point out, it’s difficult to amend how we address economic and climate systems, when our policy-making process isn’t fully functional. I think that it’s safe to say that the same principles apply to our energy system. Different parties within the energy industry are working at all of these leverage points, so perhaps time will tell what the most effective strategy is.  

Question: How much should we weigh effectiveness vs. feasibility when deciding which leverage point to use to try to change a system?

Inertia is a Property of Matter

    Besides being one of the most complex attempts to explain and model our universe, string-theory entertains some interesting systems ideas. When explaining string theory, most people tend to get hung up on the universe being comprised of infinitely small 10-dimensional strings. Similar to systems thinking, focusing on the details can make you lose sight of the larger picture. Ignoring the strings... all that needs to be known to understand the essence of string theory is that of all the potential universes that could have ever existed, they exist. If it could happen, then it has and will. String theory proposes that our universe is just one of these infinitely possible universes, and that ours happens to be one that had its leverage points perfectly balanced for consciousness to arise. Had the leverage point of gravity been a dash weaker or stronger, instead of stars clumping together they could have either never condensed or created black holes. Any of an infinite number of coefficients or physical aspects between particles in our universe could have been slightly different (and are in another universes), string-theory asserts we are just playing out our lives in one of the universes where everything was "right."

    Although string theory is arguably our best attempt to explain the universe thus far, it is still just a model. Meadows argues "We can't keep track of everything. We can't find a proper, sustainable relationship to nature, each other, or the institutions we create, if we try to do it from the role of omniscient conqueror" (Meadows, 168). I find it interesting that our reductionist view of the world will always fall short and leave us with surprises no matter how complete our knowledge of quantum physics or fast our computers get. This problem arises out of a theme throughout Meadows ideas on systems thinking that our brains actually the combination of two very different consciousness.

    Although our left brains love to think that systems will change by tweaking the numbers or finding the right quantities, Meadows shows that systems thinking is incomplete without the use of morality, empathy, and subjectivity. At the intersection of where our left brains, wanting to incessantly linearize and quantify our world, and our right brains, wanting to take it in all at once through emotions and values, is where we find the right balance of systems thinking. When we treat systems as strictly numbers, it helps for discussion but erases the aspect of reality and humanity involved.  When talking about this balance in transcending paradigms Meadows says, "it seems that mastery has less to do with pushing leverage points than it does with strategically, profoundly, madly, letting go and dancing with the system" (Meadows, 164). 

Question: Are we human? Or are we dancer?

Sister, can you pare a dime?

My paradigms are rocking at their roots these days.  As a lifelong environmentalist, here's the biggest enviro-root being rocked:  environmental protection is a good idea.  

I have drunk that Koolaid.  I fully embrace the paradigm that earth stewardship is in everyone's best interest.  Analysis shows it's even good for business. According to The Economist,  “an increase in stringency of environmental policies does not harm productivity growth.”

But on January 31st, 2017, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) proposed legislation in the US Congress that would “completely abolish” the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the end of 2018.²

Words fail me.  

But not completely.

When I was eight years old, then-President Nixon (Republican, resigned in 1973, after his Watergate tapes were leaked to the press...) signed the National Environmental Protection Act, rapidly followed by the Clean Water Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Clean Air Act.  Much needed, witness the Manhattan skyline circa 1970.

Throughout the 1970's, more laws mitigated the painful, visible damage from our perverse systems. The Toxic Substances Control Act. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, for hazardous waste.  In the 80's, the Superfund, to clean up  toxic messes on land with no identifiable or indemnifiable owner.

The Endangered Species Act.  

Although I grew up with the sweet cloying stench of DDT fogged through our windows from the mosquito truck, I also grew up with a kind of fresh breath and hope, with the rising anti-nuclear and pro-solar movements pushing for deeply systemic environmental gains.  

So many people working to install delays into the system, to increase the strength of negative feedback loops, to slow the growth of reinforcing loops.

And my career, my life's work:  enforcing, encouraging, expanding, educating on EPA and OSHA regulations.

But somebody's been messing with this scene, shifting the lighting, tearing the stage apart, moving the theater.  

Heading out to teach about EPA's worker protection rules, I'm suddenly groundless.  

Rolling our beautiful country back to the bad old days really rocks my roots.

    (not so far back, say the residents of Flint Michigan³).

How did the enormous environmental gains of the 70's and 80's lead to this pathetic tea-party hack fist-bumping Paul Ryan over their plan to decimate our Purple Mountain Majesties and Amber Waves of Grain?  

Easterbrook⁴ says  for the past 30 years, this new paradigm's been under construction: "Blind faith in the free market to fix everything, along with accumulation of wealth and material assets as a virtue."

This perverse paradigm started with Reagonomics.  The harm is upon us.

My question to you:

Meadows and Easterbrook describe paradigm-shifting thinking, e.g., in an ancient hotel, shower running from scalding to freezing water: Is cleanliness over-rated? Do I really need that shower? Why stay in these antiquated hotels anyway?

What new thought can we hatch, that will break this Blind paradigm?  

How can we launch our new healing paradigm?

 

Notes:

1. http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21637411-environmental-regulations-may-not-cost-much-governments-and-businesses

2. http://www.businessinsider.com/gop-abolish-epa-bill-2017-2

3.https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/26/headlines/lawmakers_close_probe_of_flint_water_crisis_as_water_is_still_unsafe_to_drink

4. http://planet3.org/2011/10/18/the-power-to-change-systems/

Meadows and Easterbrook: Broaden the Conversation

In both readings this week we were introduced to loose guidelines that push us, when trying to change a system, to focus more on fundamental changes as opposed to superficial changes. Quick fixes only, as the name suggests, fix something for a short amount of time. As newly emerging systems thinkers we need to instead "broaden the conversation" and move beyond what we generally hear those around us talking about (Easterbrook, 2011).

Below I am going to outline the leverage points (in order from least to most effective) a household could attempt to use in order to become more sustainable and environmentally friendly. Let's pretend that none of them are in environmental jobs, and that they have no prior experience with this.

1. Change in Constants: use lighting and appliances less often, turn the thermostat down or up a few degrees (depending on season) and incorporate some recycling and composting, but don't change actual buying habits.
2. Change Size of Buffers Relative to Flows: have everyone shower and use electronics around the same time in order to reduce sustained energy use throughout the day, carpool in order to reduce emissions per person
3. Change the Structure of Material and Stock Flows: get heating system checked for leaks, upgrade to more efficient appliances, switch light bulbs, make sure everything is recycled or composted.
4. Change the Length of Delays: delay turning up the heat by putting on a blanket, or turning cooling on by taking some clothing off, reuse products, don't shower until you're actually really dirty, and only go grocery shopping when all food has been consumed.
5. Increase Strength of Negative Feedback: create a cost jar for household members driving too often that will go towards utilities, and keep track of heating and cooling bills very closely.
6. Reduce Gain Around Positive Feedback Loops: switch heating/cooling/lighting over to something like a Nest system that allows for finer control.
7. Change Structure of Information Flow: put energy use/bill on fridge or in common area, put timers in the shower and on lights, educate the household on sustainable/environmentally friendly consumerism.
8. Change the Rules: Only allow 5 minute showers, force the home to be vegan or meatless.
9. Nurture the Power to Change the System: start planting your own food, become accustomed to lower temps, create a car share program in your neighborhood.
10. Change the Goal of the System: Are we actually trying to ave money? become more connected to the Earth? Reduce our waste as a whole? Become closer as a family?
11. Change the Paradigm of Which System Arises: Do we really need to be living in this big of a house? Why do we buy all of this stuff? What has brought us to this point?
12. Transcend Paradigms: How are other people living? Should I switch careers or where I am living? What are alternative ways to doing the things we do?

Question: have these readings pushed you to think bigger about your capstone project, especially if your project is aimed at solving a specific problem. Can you in any way steer that towards thinking more generally and getting at solving fundamental problems?