Combining Approaches

Any of the approaches can affect a societal institutions. However impact depends on both focus and influence. Taking an approach from each of the diagonals reveals recognizable social processes.

The usual combinations share a common concern for consensus or a common requirement for detailed knowledge. That means in the diagram, they are vertical and horizontal lines respectively as in the thumbnail.

Common Concern for Consensus

When highighted statistics and perspectives under challengeare combined, the result is the production of explanations i.e. representatives of a particular perspective focus on the statistic being highlighted to explain what it means. Shocking statistics are selected to be a challenge to the various factional camps, powerful interests and government. These explanations then circulate in society, however there is a very low expectation of consensus.

When a focused analysis and imagined remedies are combined, the result is the production of investigations i.e. analysis permits proper scrutiny of suggested remedies while clarifying the underlying issue. There is usually some consensus on the value of investigations.

When the promotion of interests gets associated with the construction of narratives , then the result is propaganda, or public relations (PR) in the business world i.e. narratives are commonly constructed to promote particular vested interests. Propaganda is designed to generate significant consensus although independent thinkers are likely to be immune.

Demanding transparency in order to serve the public interest are about providing oversight. The usual form is legislative because the legislature is expected to hold the government to account and committees are typically set up to operate in this way. However, any reform-oriented organisation could attempt this. There is a high degree of consensus in regard to such oversight.

Common Requirement for Knowledge

Highlighted statistics are considered from the viewpoint of the public interest by regulation. There are a variety of formal regulators and regulatory processes within institutions. However, informal regulation can also be organised by the media or specific social bodies. A minimum of knowledge is required to know that a particular performance indicator is sub-standard.

Promotion by vested interests naturally generates or takes up particular remedies and imagined remedies invariably support particular interests. The result is advocacy which is intensified by campaigns and crusades. In both cases, some knowledge is essential.

Analyses of issues are used when constructing narratives to provide a valid interpretation of some aspect of the institution. Bringing analyses and the construction of narratives together requires significant knowledge.

When the challenging of perspectives is combined with demanding transparency, the stage is set for potential reform of the institution. The demands are based on wanting significant change and the challenges attempt to expose the factional camps and get the public behind the possibility of improvement. So the highest degree of knowledge is required.

Now that the nature of institutions and work within institutions has been briefly explored, we can focus on how pressure can be developed to improve them.

Originally posted: 18-Nov-2022. Last updated 30-Jun-2023.