4.4 Organisational analysis
4.4.3 Blann and Light’s ‘root metaphor’ framework The history of metaphor revolves around the literal/figurative debate, which
addresses the core questions, ‘How central is metaphor to language? (is it necessary for linguistic expression?)’ and ‘How central is metaphor to cogni- tion? (is it necessary for thought?)’ respectively (Ross, 1993). Those that adopt the literal viewpoint propose that metaphor is a rhetorical, linguistic phenomenon rather than an issue of conceptual representation (world knowl- edge). Thus, metaphor affects how we talk about the world, but not how we see the world. Alternatively, those that adopt the figurative viewpoint believe that metaphors are derived from our role as ‘situated agents’ in the real world, and reflect sensory experience of reality. In this sense, metaphor bridges the divide between the sensory and the symbolic. More significantly, metaphor has the power to alter our conceptual systems and change the ways in which we see the world, and is at the root of our creative powers, serving an important function in the way weunderstand things that is irreducible and irreplaceable. It is now clear from a review of the recent literature on complex systems that the use of metaphor is deliberately being employed in the figu- rative sense (also adopted in this book) in areas of science investigating
‘messy’ or ‘wicked’ problems, when people’s values can ‘cloud’ the issues under discussion (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1990; Krugman, 1996; Lissack, 1997; Blann and Light, 2000a; Gunderson and Holling, 2002). Therefore, cognition of a problem is improved through the use of conceptual figurative metaphor, which is particularly important for gaining understanding of prob- lems and processes of change in complex systems, and is further developed in Chapter 5.
It is possible to have two dichotomous conceptions about models and metaphors that represent reality. The first conception is based on the assumptions of normal science, that scientific methods can predict the future and control it. The second alternative conception embraces uncertainty and possible alternative ways of understanding in an interpretive approach and dialectical style. A dialectical style assumes that there are many different interpretations based on different scientific paradigms, experiences and value systems that cannot easily be reconciled (Guba, 1990). No one interpretation
may be complete, and as a result many realities are possible. Therefore, change almost always involves both harmony and conflict, attraction and repulsion and change cannot occur in an entirely harmonious group. If this second conception is acknowledged and accepted, there can be no single truth or goal (Ravetz, 2002). Although an interpretive approach is very different from the normal science approach to knowledge acquisition, it is proving useful in helping scientists adapt to some new functions in understanding uncertainty and complexity in integrated natural resource management (Ausubel, 1993; Attwater, 2000; Gundersonet al., 2002a).
In a static dichotomous framework composed of two value sets, Blann and Light (2000a) showed the types of problems best addressed by normal science (Figure 4.4). They are deterministic, short-term problems normally of small scale and with a focus on a single objective. The appropriate method tends to be composed of controlled replicated experiments that search for direct cause and effect. The two circles show that unintended consequences may result when this approach is applied to complex problems that are extracted
Subjective integrative
Reductionist objective Deterministic
short-term, small scale, single objectives
Controlled replicated experiment.
Search for direct cause and effect
Problem identified Fix applied
Unintended consequences
Stochastic
Fig. 4.4. Consequence of applying the normal science paradigm to complex problems. Normal science is located in the bottom left-hand quadrant.Source:
redrawn from Blann and Light (2000a)
Integrative
Dispersive Deterministic
short-term, small scale, single objectives
Adaptive management Myth/metaphor Heuristics Expert systems
Simulation gaming Ecological modelling
Long-term, large scale multiple objectives Stochastic
Expert systems Decision-based modelling
Analytic Synthetic
Deductive science Formism
Mechanism
Stories Value orientations
Cognitive maps Belief systems
Fig. 4.5. Blann and Light’s framework for analysing alternative worldviews.
Source:redrawn from Blann and Light (2000a)
from their context and fixes are applied exogenously; that is, the method is inappropriate for the type of problem. Blann and Light (2000a) recognised the need for multiple modes of enquiry in the process of adaptive management for natural resources and consequently they developed a three-dimensional frame- work characterising the ‘decision problem-world’ that combined metaphors, knowledge, tool and methods (Figure 4.5). In this framework the ‘decision problem-world’ can be organised into varying matrices characterised by the type and complexity of the problem. This framework incorporates axes that recognise the need for multiple modes of enquiry and illustrates how the way one chooses to conceptualise a problem stems from one’s worldview or ‘root metaphors’, and in turn influences the choice and selection of tools appro- priate for understanding the world and/or finding answers to ‘the problem’
either in an ontological or epistemological sense.
In the comprehensive framework of Blann and Light (2000b) there are three dichotomies: (1) integrative:dispersive, (2) analytic:synthetic, and (3) deter- ministic:stochastic. The adaptive management approach to natural resource management has been placed in the top right-hand model of the framework.
This position acknowledges the integrative nature of adaptive management (on the first axis), the need for synthesis (on the second axis) and the need for long-term, large-scale studies with multiple objectives (on the third axis). The
arrows encircling the crossing point of all three axes and all four quadrants represent the requirement for a dialectical approach. A dialectical approach, which may involve participation with a wide range of stakeholders (and therefore potentially opposing perspectives) is used as a tool for challenging assumptions, forcing learning and building constituencies and advocacy for the process. Also, the circling arrows demonstrate that values play a part in the application of all knowledge tools and methods from all dichoto- mous viewpoints represented in the framework. By adopting multiple methods characterised in this framework, Blann and Light (2000b) suggested that it may lead to surprisingly sophisticated depictions of causal relationships and interpretations of the existence of alternative explanations. This position is consistent with the use of triangulation as a method proposed for policy analysis in situations of complexity and uncertainty (Roe, 1998).
In appraising these static spatial frameworks, one of the major objec- tions and enduring debates surrounds the apparent incommensurability of the competing paradigms in the framework of Burrell and Morgan (1979), which has arisen because the concepts are placed at opposite poles of the spatial model in a type of oxymoron or a combination of seemingly contradictory concepts. The competing values in the framework of Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) and the competing ‘root metaphors’ in the framework of Blann and Light (2000b) provide a more effective means to examine in a systematic way the various social models. Modern social theories seek to dissolve the barriers between the dichotomies such that they are not mutually exclusive, but rather are all required to produce effective organisations. The models within the frameworks are described as simultaneous complementary opposites, and all models are required to produce the ‘end’, whether the ‘ends’ are effectiveness of organisations or resilience of social-ecological systems.