This post by Michael Hogan, provides an example of how ‘Interactive
Management’ was used in consulting with Irish citizens and experts in the development of wellbeing measures and policies.
This blog is part of the Wikiprogress discussion on “Engaging citizens in well-being and progress statistics”.
Internationally,
there is increasing interest in, and analysis of, human wellbeing and the
economic, social, environmental, and psychological factors that contribute to
it. Current thinking suggests that to measure social progress and national
wellbeing we need something more than GDP, especially as the link between
economic growth and psychological and social wellbeing is not always positive
(Easterlin, 1974; Layard, 2005; Wilkinson
& Pickett, 2009). When the Commission on the Measurement of Economic
Performance and Social Progress (CMEPSP), chaired by Joseph Stiglitz, reported
in September 2009 they not only proposed a range of wellbeing domains that
should be the focus of national accounting, they also proposed a strategy for
the development of wellbeing measures. Specifically, the Stiglitz Commission proposes that “at the
national level, round-tables should be established, with the involvement of
stakeholders, to identify and prioritise those indicators that carry the
potential for a shared view of how social progress is happening and how it can
be sustained over time” (Stiglitz et al., 2009, p. 18).
Since the Stiglitz report was
published, different countries have taken a variety of different approaches to
the design of wellbeing measures. While a number of countries have adopted the
national round-table approach to deliberation and design, the range and scope
of stakeholder inputs has varied from country to country. For example, in the United States of America,
President Barack Obama signed the Key National Indicators Act in March 2010,
which provides for the creation of a Key National Indicator System (KNIS) that
will provide US citizens with both national and local information on wellbeing
across a range of dimensions. While this initiative is undertaken in the hope
of creating a more informed and accountable democracy, the Key National Indicators Commission is
composed of just eight academics. While
it is currently unclear what impact, if any, the absence of cross-party
political input will have on the future success of KNIS, a recent case study
analysis of the international wellbeing movement (Wallace & Schmueker, 2012) suggests that limited stakeholder engagement may prove problematic
for the United States moving forward. Notably, Wallace and Schmueker (2012) evaluated six
case studies with a view to identifying what needs to happen to ensure that
measuring wellbeing is made to matter in policymaking practice. The study found
that wellbeing measures are at their most effective when they are supported by
a combination of strong leadership, technocratic policy processes, and wide
buy-in from civil society, citizens, and the media. Ensuring buy-in from civil society and
consulting with citizens in the design of measures was argued as critical for
the sustained success of any national wellbeing agenda. However, the report did not specify how best
to approach citizen consultations nor how best to use consultation data in the
design of wellbeing measures and policies.
One
approach to this challenge is the use of a multi-level systems thinking
strategy, whereby the systems thinking derived from citizen consultations is
imported into the systems thinking of roundtable expert groups. For
example, in Well-being
2030, A new vision for ‘Social Europe’, Dhéret, Zuleeg, Chiorean-Sime, and Molino (2011)
note that:
Having a political debate on the development model Europe wants to promote is a precondition to revitalising the European social model and reconciling citizens with the European project. Key questions that have been central to the Well-being 2030 project are: What kind of societies do Europeans want to live in? What kind of growth do Europeans want and what are their perceptions of ‘social progress’? What price are they willing to pay to achieve societal progress? And what is the role of the European Union in all this? In the final analysis, these are not questions that can be answered by research or by experts; they are political questions which should be debated in our political processes, at local, regional, national and European level. But there is very little public debate on such topics. Policy-makers will have to find the answers to these questions if they want to meet people’s expectations, and the EU should take a leading role in fostering such a debate. This will need to be a politicised debate, including elected representatives at all levels. Only through developing Europe’s political priorities in the social policy field can well-being be enhanced in the long term. (p. 26)
Consistent with the recommendations of the Stiglitz
report, I believe that the roundtable is an essential part in the design of
wellbeing policies. However, the
roundtable is best considered as one part of a broader group design process,
the objective of which is to facilitate collective intelligence and collective
action. Broader group design processes can facilitate joint actions at every level (e.g., the
micro individual level, meso community level and macro policy levels), by a
variety of stakeholders. When working with groups to facilitate systems thinking it is important to have: (1) a facilitation team that
helps to structure group deliberations using (2) group methodologies, including software
support systems, that help with generating,
categorizing, structuring, and sequencing ideas and developing
action agendas in the context of
(3) a productive workshop space.
There are a variety of different methods that can
be used to facilitate systems thinking in this regard. In Ireland, we have used the
systems science methodology developed by John Warfield, Interactive Management (IM).
IM is a computer facilitated thought and action mapping technique that helps groups to develop outcomes that integrate
contributions from individuals with diverse views, backgrounds, and
perspectives. Established as a formal system
of facilitation in 1980 after a developmental phase that started in 1974, IM
was designed to assist groups in dealing with complex issues (see Ackoff,
1981; Argyris, 1982; Cleveland, 1973; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Kemeny, 1980;
Rittel & Webber, 1974; Simon, 1960). The
theoretical constructs that inform IM, developed over the course of more than two
decades of practice, draw from both behavioural and cognitive sciences, with a
strong basis in general systems thinking. The IM approach carefully delineates
content and process roles, assigning to participants responsibility for
contributing ideas and to the facilitator responsibility for choosing and
implementing selected methodologies for generating, clarifying, structuring,
interpreting, and amending ideas.
In a typical IM session, a group of participants who are
knowledgeable about a particular situation engage in: (a) developing an
understanding of the situation they face, (b) establishing a collective basis
for thinking about their future, and (c) producing a framework for effective
action. In the process of moving through these phases, group members can
develop a greater sense of teamwork and gain new communication and
information-processing skills. IM utilizes a carefully selected set
of methodologies, matched to the phase of group interaction and the
requirements of the situation. There were five steps involved in this process:
(1) generate and clarify ideas, (2) vote, rank order, and select elements for
structuring, (3) structure elements using IM software, (4) evaluate graphical
representation of group logic and amend if necessary, (5) transcribe group
discussion and evaluate discourse and reasoning to further understand the
nature of group thinking (see Figure 1).
 |
| Figure 1. Steps in IM Process (click on image to enlarge) |
Consulting with Irish Citizens and Wellbeing
Experts using Interactive Management
To
provide an example of an ongoing project employing the interactive management
methodology, Figure 2 illustrates a problematique generated by participants at
the Wellbeing in Ireland Conference (NUI, Galway, 2012) in response to the
trigger question, What are Barriers to
Wellbeing in Ireland? The problematique is to be read from left to right, with
paths in the model interpreted as ‘significantly aggravates’. Boxes with two or
more elements together indicate reciprocally inter-related elements. Tracing one path of negative influence
through the model, conference participants identified the absence of holistic
approaches to healthcare, lack of a space for dialogue on holistic views of
wellbeing, lack of understanding as regards the nature of wellbeing and how to
measure it, and no national measurement of wellbeing as critical barriers to
wellbeing in Ireland (Hogan & Broome, 2012).
 |
Figure 2. Influence Structure of Barriers to Wellbeing in Ireland (click on image to enlarge). |
We hosted a second Wellbeing in Ireland conference focused on wellbeing measurement and the design of a national wellbeing index for Ireland (Hogan & Broome, 2013). In advance of the conference, we asked participants to reflect on the broad issue of wellbeing in Ireland and generate a list of strategic objectives in response to the following question: In the context of developing a new national wellbeing index for Ireland, what are the strategic objectives that should guide our efforts to enhance the wellbeing of the people of Ireland over the coming decade? We analysed the survey responses and identified ten domains of strategic objectives. Conference participants then engaged in idea-writing and discussion to further develop strategic objectives within each domain. Strategic objectives were posted on display walls and participants were given time to study all of the objectives and provide clarification before voting to select their top objectives from the full list. Selected objectives across ten wellbeing domains are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Top Ranked Strategic Objectives
across Ten Wellbeing domains
 |
Conference participants next used the ISM
software to structure interdependencies among the highest ranked objectives
(see Figure 3). The figure is to be read
from left to right and arrows indicate ‘significantly enhances’. As can be seen from Figure 3, participants
argued that promoting leadership and governance with an emphasis on community
participation is a fundamental driver in the system and promoting this
objective is thus likely to increase our chances of achieving all other
objectives in the system of interdependent objectives. Members of the wellbeing
in Ireland conference group are now engaging with political leaders in Ireland,
specifically calling for a national consultation to extend the analysis of
wellbeing objectives in advance of designing a national wellbeing index.
Notably,
the work of the Health and Wellbeing Cluster on Collective Intelligence and
Wellbeing was published as part of a major Government Report on Citizen
Engagement with Local Government. The report of the working group on citizen
engagement with local government recommends that a People’s Participation
Network (PPN) be established in every Local Authority area in Ireland to ensure
extensive input by citizens into the decision-making process at local
government level. The Working Group, which was set up in September 2013 under
the chairmanship of Seán Healy, Director of Social Justice Ireland, sets out how
the PPN should operate to enable the community and voluntary and environmental
sectors to take an active formal role in the policy making and oversight
activities of the Local Authority. It proposes a framework for public
participation and formal engagement with the community and will be underpinned
by regulations and guidelines from the Department. Engagement of this nature
has been provided for under the Local Government Reform Act 2014 in Ireland.
The regulations and guidelines, while allowing for the set-up of the framework
for public participation across all Local Authorities, will also allow for more
diverse engagement of citizens through other mechanisms, including the use of
social media.
In
an effort to pilot the type of large-scale national consultation that will be
needed to fulfil the aims of the PPN and to foster a lifespan perspective in
relation to wellbeing goals (NESC, 2009), we recently ran eight separate IM
sessions with older adults (3 groups, total N = 26, Mean age = 69.84, 7 males, 19
females), younger adults (3 groups, total N = 21, Mean age = 31.6, 6 males, 15
females), and children (2 groups, total N = 14, Mean age = 14.7, 6 males, 8
females). Similar to our wellbeing
conference we asked participants to
generate and clarify strategic objectives that should guide our efforts to
enhance the wellbeing of the people of Ireland over the coming decade. A
total of 325 strategic objectives were identified by the eight groups and
categorised into 39 categories by four expert coders. Analysis of wellbeing
priorities according to hierarchies of category votes (Figures 3) indicated
that health infrastructure, health and wellbeing promotion, and physical activity were the highest
priority wellbeing goal categories amongst older adults; identity and perspective taking, equality of access to services, and health infrastructure were the top three goal categories for the
working age groups; and changing the
school curriculum to support greater wellbeing amongst schoolchildren, accepting and promoting diversity, and identity and perspective taking were top
priorities for adolescents.
A
number of highly rated strategic goals from different categories were selected
for structuring by each group (i.e., 10 – 12 elements were structured by each
group). Subsequently, it was possible to
calculate average influence scores for each wellbeing goal category based on
individual influence scores for each strategic goal structured by the groups
(see McMoreland, Hogan, and Walsh, 2014 for more details). While votes provide information as to the
relative importance of goals and goal categories, IM structuring provides
information as to the relative influence of goals and goal categories in a
system of interdependent goals. These
influence scores are calculated based on both their position in the structure
(i.e., with elements to the left receiving a higher score compared with
elements on the right) and the number antecedents and succedents they have in
the structure (i.e., elements with more succedents relative to antecedents have
a higher overall influence on other goals in the system). Influence scores
provide an indication of the relative influence of specific goals in a system
of interdependent goals and this information can be used at an aggregate level
to examine the average influence scores for different categories of goals. A
meta-analysis of categories based on thematic overlaps provides insight into
the level of influence of clusters of categories (see Figure 4). Meta-categories
with higher average influence scores are those which have the greatest
potential for supporting the accomplishment of the overall set of strategic goals.
Thus, achieving the strategic goals for those categories in level one will
significantly enhance the ability to accomplish strategic goals in the
subsequent levels. For example, drawing on the logic of participants, improving
public transport in rural areas (theme one) could help to ensure that elderly
people are better able to maintain their independence because of easier access
to local amenities (theme two). This would help to reduce loneliness and
isolation amongst this cohort (theme four), and potentially facilitate greater
inclusion and involvement of the elderly in their local community (theme five).
 |
Figure 4. Whole group influence model of
high-level category themes
|
 |
Figure 4. Whole group influence model of
high-level category themes
|
Overall,
the findings from our pilot national consultation
work further emphasise the need for new methods to be introduced in order to
measure a broader range of indicators of wellbeing, both for the population as
a whole and for different age cohorts, who may highlight contrasting goals and
hierarchies that may inform subsequent national wellbeing policy and
practice.
Embedding Systems Science in the International Wellbeing Movement
As
can be seen from the above example, consulting with citizens and wellbeing
experts can provide valuable input that can be used to advance the wellbeing
agenda. Consultations using interactive
management offer a number of benefits, including:
1) Providing
insight into the values, goals, and preferences of stakeholders;
2) Engaging
participants in a democratic, consensus building process that facilitates
buy-in and enhances the legitimacy of decision-making groups;
3) Facilitating
transparent understanding of the reasoning that informs the systems thinking of
groups;
4) Creating
opportunities to merge data across multiple groups and analyse group
differences and similarities using meta-analysis, given the standardized and
structured approach used;
5) Providing
an option to link qualitative structural models of system interdependencies to
quantitative modelling efforts by drawing upon data from national surveys and
other forms of national accounting;
6) Creating
the ability to establish feedback loops between multiple working groups and
multiple levels of analysis such that: (a) there is growing awareness amongst
stakeholders of a diversity of perspective, and (b) quantitative models are
evaluated in light of qualitative reasoning and qualitative models are
considered in light of rigorous quantitative analysis;
7) Developing
a multi-level approach that incorporates systems thinking across geographical
space and demographic groupings, which can be used to inform both a synthesis
and perspective at a macro-economic and societal perspective (i.e., for central
government policy), while also offering a synthesis, perspective and collective
input at local level that is needed to translate national wellbeing policies
into local government and community group projects and practices. In other words, well-designed national
consultations can facilitate better linkages between Micro- (local) and Macro-
(national) level wellbeing goals grounded in a systems thinking approach to
social progress.
 |
Figure 5. Well-Being in Ireland
Conference Strategic Objectives Structure
|
Importantly, in order to be truly effective
in practice, citizen consultations in relation to wellbeing measurement and
policy implies the need for a broader view in relation to collaboration,
cooperation, and social and scientific problem solving. Effective cooperative and collaborative
dynamics are fundamental to successful problem solving in science and society.
Research suggests that cooperative relationships are characterized by
reciprocity, discussion, mutual respect, perspective taking, and a coordination
of each individual’s views with those of others. When people have the
opportunity to share their views they are more likely to develop a stake in the
process and therefore become motivated to learn and work toward common goals
(Wells & Arauz, 2006). This
collective approach encourages dialogical interaction (Ballantyne & Varey,
2006); mutual framing, collaborative learning and extended active participation
between multiple groups within and across many levels, to scale
up new shared values for national wellbeing.
However, we also recognise that, in the
broader context of political engagement and policy change, there are many
barriers to the implementation of wellbeing policies. As one part of our wellbeing in Ireland
conference, we worked with a small group of four wellbeing experts,
specifically, directors of the UK and Scottish wellbeing projects, chair of the
Irish National Statistics Board, and a research director from the Carnegie-UK
trust. The expert group worked to
generate, clarify, and structure barriers
to implementing national and international wellbeing policies. The problematique generated by this expert group
(Figure 6) indicated that conceptual confusion, shortage of case studies, and
failure to recognise diversified needs across gender, class, disability, and
ethnicity were three primary driver barriers that significantly aggravated a
number of other barriers in the system.
Rather than attempting to define wellbeing directly, consistent with
Sen’s capability approach and the approach taken in Scotland, we suggest that
working with stakeholder groups to identify capabilities and goals needed to
enhance wellbeing provides a more pragmatic approach to developing
consensus-based wellbeing programme agenda that may overcome some of the
challenges associated with wellbeing measurement and conceptual confusion in
the area. In addition, a focus on goals
and goal pursuit parallels the approach adopted by governments in developing,
adopting, and implementing policies. Thus, a focus on wellbeing goals allows
for a shared language between citizens and politicians. A focus on strategic goals also allows for a
greater correspondence between the language of citizens, politicians, and
wellbeing scientists, particularly if wellbeing scientist can evaluate evidence
in relation to the impact of pursuing specific goals on wellbeing outcomes and
communicate the results of their work clearly to citizens and politicians.
 |
Figure 6: Problematique of barriers to implementing
national and international wellbeing policies
|
To
consult or not to consult, that is the question?
Since the Stiglitz report was published, different countries have
taken different approaches to the design of wellbeing measures and policies.
While some countries have worked diligently to consult with citizens in a
meaningful way in the deliberation and design process, other countries have not
engaged with citizens in any meaningful way, and no country has adopted a
collaborative, systems thinking approach to national consultations or wellbeing
policy design. While this is somewhat
surprising and disappointing given the broad goals of the international
wellbeing movement, it is only recently that case study analyses have highlighted how limited citizen
engagement may prove problematic for any national wellbeing agenda (Wallace & Schmueker, 2012). Consistent with Wallace and Schmueker (2012),
who concluded that wellbeing measures will be most effective when they are
supported by a combination of strong leadership, technocratic policy processes,
and wide buy-in from civil society, citizens, and the media, we proposed a
multi-level systems thinking approach be adopted to citizen and expert
roundtable consultations to inform national and local wellbeing policy and
practice. While some countries have worked to develop their wellbeing
measurement strategy by drawing upon expert round tables, other countries
including the Canada, United Kingdom, Italy, and Australia have also consulted
with citizens in the wellbeing measurement
design process. It has been suggested by
Kroll (2011) that these participatory approaches can
enhance collective intelligence and increase the sense of procedural justice and
perceived relevance of wellbeing indicators in the population, while also
increasing democratic legitimacy and amplifying the potential political
attention paid to progress indicators.
This may be the ideal
scenario but without such a vision we may end up repeating the mistakes of the
past.
Co-Leader of the Health and Wellbeing Theme at the Whitaker Institute for Innovation and Societal Change and School of Psychology, NUI, Ireland
Email: michael.hogan@nuigalway.ie
Twitter: @michaelhogannui
LinkedIn
Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of
management decisions. New York: Harper & Row.
References
Ackoff, R. L. (1981). Creating
the corporate future: Plan or be planned for. New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ballantyne,
D., & Varey, R. J. (2006). Creating value-in-use through marketing
interaction: the exchange logic of relating, communicating and knowing. Marketing
theory, 6(3), 335-348.
doi: 10.1177/1470593106066795
Cleveland, H. (1973). The decision makers. Center Magazine, 6(5), 9-18.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of
corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Dhéret, C., Zuleeg, F., Chiorean-Sime, S., & Molino, E.
(2011). Well-being 2030: A new vision for 'Social Europe'. EPC Issue Paper, 65(18).
Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the
human lot? Some empirical evidence. In R. David & M. Reder (Eds), Nations and households in economic growth:
Essays in honor of Moses Abramovitz. New York: Academic Press.
Hogan, M.J. &
Broome, B. (2012). Well-Being in Ireland: Overcoming Barriers to
Well-Being in Ireland, Collective Intelligence Conference Report, NUI, Galway.
Hogan, M.J. &
Broome, B. (2013). Wellbeing in Ireland – Designing Measures and
Implementing Policies, Collective Intelligence Conference Report, NUI, Galway.
Kemeny, J. (1980). Saving American democracy: The lesson of
Three Mile Island. Technology Review, 83(7),
64-75.
Kroll, C. (2011). Measuring progress and well-being:
Achievements and challenges of a New global movement. Berlin: Friedrich
Ebert Foundation.
Layard, R. (2005). Happiness:
Lessons from a new science. London: Penguin.
NESC. (2009). Well-being matters: A
social report for Ireland [NESC Report No. 119]. Dublin: NESC.
NUI
Galway. (2012) Overcoming barriers to
well-being in Ireland: Workshop Report. Retrieved from
www.nuigalway.ie/psy/documents/overcoming_barriers_report_thrusday31st_may.docx
[12 April 2013]
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1974). Dilemmas in a general theory of
planning. DMG-DRS Journal, 8, 31-39. Doi: 10.1007/BF01405730
Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of
management decisions. New York: Harper & Row.
Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P.
(2010). Report by the commission on the
measurement of economic performance and social progress. Paris: Commission
on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.
Retrieved
from www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/en/index.htm [10 April 2013].
Wallace, J., & Schmueker, K. (2012). Shifting the dial: From wellbeing measures to policy practice. Dunfermline:
Carnegie UK Trust.
Wells, G.,
& Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. The journal of the learning
sciences, 15(3),
379-428.
Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do better. London:
Allen Lane.
No comments:
Post a Comment