As Maslow wrote in 1966: “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.”
Indeed, it’s easy for those of us trained in a particular disciplinary or professional way of thinking about things to favor certain interpretations of the world. This extends to how we understand sustainable development problems as well as their possible solutions.
As I’ve mused elsewhere: real-world problems are not conveniently carved up into the specific domains that happen to be familiar to us. There are as many different solutions as there are metaphorical lenses through which a given problem can be viewed.
We all have a tendency to interpret the world according to the concepts, terms, and issues with which we are familiar. Specialists excel at this. That is their strength—and that is their Achilles’ heel.
Same “problem,” myriad interpretations
Let’s explore a hypothetical example to see how this might play out in the real world.
Suppose there is a reverse osmosis (RO) plant that has been installed in a rural village as part of a government program to improve water security. Suppose also that this RO plant has not been in operation for several months. What has gone wrong—and what should be done about it?
Now, let’s imagine we have pulled together a collection of professional specialists who each take a stab at answering these questions.
In the figure below (Discussion Infographic: Different people, different lenses), I included some possible—albeit simplified/simplistic and perhaps somewhat caricatured—responses of various specialists.
This perspective-taking exercise illustrates the point that different kinds of expertise may lead to different interpretations of a problem and its possible solutions. We are all able to “see” any of these possible interpretations, at least once they are pointed out to us.
Multidisciplinary critical reflection
However, to get the most out of this kind of exercise—as the educationist and philosopher, John Dewey, might have reminded us—we need to engage in further reflection. I have indicated this in the discussion infographic by including a set of questions at the bottom of it:
- Which — if any — of these specialists is “correct”?
- Are their interpretations mutually exclusive?
- Whose voice is not included above but should be?
- What might an economist, policy maker, healthcare worker, or community member think?
- What should be done and by whom?
- What additional information would be helpful?
To begin to explore some of these questions, we can consider the following four general points.
First, each specialist responded differently to the situation and in ways that could be (mis)understood as the “right answer.”
For a decision maker needing to take action to address the problem, this presents a practical difficulty. How do you know which is the best approach to solving the problem? Are they different but all equally useful?
The lack of clarity about what an “evidence-based” or “expert-informed” decision-making outcome would be can lead elected officials to follow the perspective of their own vantage point, which could mean doing whatever action will make their re-election more likely. In some situations, this might result in positive outcomes for the villagers, but as we all know, that is by no means guaranteed.
So what can be done about that?
For one thing, specialists who care about meaningful sustainable development should be sensitive to how their expertise can be used instrumentally by politicians to rationalize self-interested decisions. Be sensitive but not silent: specialists should not hide their genuine assessments of issues. Rather, they should encourage a more inclusive problem-solving process that involves more than just their own privileged perspective or expert group.
Second, without further contextual information, we can’t know which response is most appropriate.
It may be that previous studies done elsewhere have found that, in general, certain factors are more likely than others to be important in determining an RO plant’s operational status. However, to address a particular, place-based problem successfully, we may need to take a more tailored approach.
That means taking the time to understand contextual aspects of the problem, including not only its proximate causes but also its more fundamental causes (sometimes called “root causes”—although this term is associated with specific methodologies that come with their own challenges, as discussed here). For example, perhaps the assumption that the RO plant was built to improve water security is wrong. Perhaps it was built for political showcasing rather than service delivery.
Third, these perspectives are not mutually exclusive.
It’s possible that the specialists would all recognize the same immediate, proximate cause (e.g., the RO plant’s membrane needs replacement)—but would identify different additional contributing factors or root causes. These might include a delayed release of funds by the government, a lack of trained technicians available for operations and maintenance, transportation costs needed to acquire parts, etc.
Because problems and their solutions often require a holistic understanding, having an intentionally multidisciplinary approach is important to develop a systems perspective, which in turn helps to define the problem (as illustrated here).
Fourth, there are ethical considerations about whose perspective should be included in problem-solving processes.
One of the discussion questions above asks about whose voice should be included. A more in-depth treatment of ethical sustainable development would need to consider much more, including how social power is distributed across groups and individuals—and how it should be.
In particular, the assumption that outside specialists have relevant expertise—but local community members do not—needs to be challenged. Insiders and outsiders may have different kinds of expertise, but as this post argues, problem-solving benefits from perspective diversity. Local stakeholders provide essential insights about the specific problem, its context, and feasible solutions. And don’t just take my word for it:
“Our research shows that there are real-world pay-offs for being inclusive in problem-solving because people hold diverse knowledge and approach problems from different perspectives.”
Steven Gray, quoted in Sorenson, Aminpour, and Gray (2021); see here for PNAS article
Aside from the practical benefits of diverse perspectives for systems analysis and social innovation, people have the right to make decisions about matters that affect their lives. That includes “helpful” development projects like our hypothetical village RO plant scenario.
From “hypothetical scenario” to the real world
If you thought the above exercise was cute but not relevant to the real world, think again.
The hypothetical scenario was actually inspired by a very real example from Sindh, Pakistan. As Hafeez Tunio reported in this article (May 2020), many of the ~2,222 RO plants installed across districts of Sindh were closed down (e.g., out of 600 installed RO plants in the district of Thar, 60 percent were not in operation). Moreover, different actors highlighted different explanations. Workers complained that the plants were substandard and their salaries had not been paid. A public health engineer noted that there was a shortage of membranes. A company official claimed that they were waiting for funds from the government. A committee of experts was convened and made recommendations that had not been made publicly available…
Having spent considerable time in Sindh, I know these problems are not just hypothetical, nor are they just technical. But they are not insoluble.
Acknowledgement: Thanks to Muhammad Arfan for providing helpful feedback on the discussion infographic.
Photo Credit: Maurício Mascaro from Pexels
