Mode-2: Coherent Frameworks

ClosedReminder of the clarification process so far:

  • Mode-1: Produce a satisfying explanation of the situation. [Causal]

The mode of realizing refers to the set of values to be incorporated from a depiction method. Once incorporated, there is a new Stage of clarification that cumulates the values of all previous modes.

Develop a Structural Model

The requirement for a satisfying explanation is the foundation for all modes of clarification that are progressively called into play. Situations vary in their relevance and our preoccupation with them varies according to many factors. So a person can be satisfied with the plausible explanation that emerges in the Stage-1 Causal mode-μ1.

However, progress to obtain greater clarity will be driven by limitations in that explanations, which might be variously described as its superficiality, conventionality, simplicity, naivety, implausibility, artificiality, partiality.

More details with more factors do not help. Greater clarity comes from stepping back and seeing the bigger picture of which the situation is a part or an example. This requires setting bounds and seeking an overview within those bounds. It becomes necessary to look beyond salient factors and model an underlying system within which they manifest.

Taken together, these requirements can naturally be met by values from the structural paradigm (L'6).

Values & Assumptions

Stage-2-structural to provide an overview of the situation.

Promoting Acceptability

ClosedEssence: Holistic Model

A holistic model is an organized structure intrinsic to the situation. It sets out the relevant components and shows how they function and connect with each other. There is an assumed boundary with everything else regarded as part of the context or environment, or part of some other system which is not currently the focus.

Such an overview is emotionally soothing because it reduces complexity, protects us from getting lost in details, prevents tunnel vision, and reduces risks of hasty judgement driven by salience and superficial plausibility.

ClosedBenefit: Stable Framework

The well-developed model is a stable structure that remains even as the situation evolves and some factors vary. So it provides a framework for considering a response or making an intervention.

Models provide a sense of coherence based on a solid internal logic of the components and their functioning and relationships. Because the model is bounded and designed to be complete, it provides the desired overview and removes the worry that an essential factor has been forgotten or omitted in the explanation.

ClosedMeans: Abstract Categories

Particularities of the problematic situation are liable to change. In order to develop a robust model, it is necessary to abstract from actual phenomena. Even if the label appears to identify a particular group (e.g. the military) or event (e.g. death rate), the factor needs abstraction to become more general and more powerfully explanatory.

Each category needs to be explained in terms of its primary function, its properties and its relations to other categories in the model. Principles and guidelines for understanding and deciding can be built from such well-defined categories.

Handling the Group

ClosedParticipation: Affirm Validity

All in the group need to be persuaded of the validity of the model and sense that it clarifies the situation. That is most likely if they have been consulted or have actively participated in the model-building process. When that is impossible, then their own common-sense should be backed by affirmation from respected authorities or by long-standing use of the model.

Affirmation of validity does not mean the model is adequate.
ClosedExampleMontesquieu's"separation of powers" model for governing .

ClosedCommunication: Explain the Framework

The goal in clarification is to develop a useful tool for collaboration or to get permission for particular initiatives. So any schema needs to be explained clearly for others to appreciate its applicability. The schematic reduction may need to be supported with relevant data and statistical analyses (from Causal-μ1 values) to deepen acceptance. Properly understood, the schema then supports a creative response to the situation.

ClosedIndividualization: Identify Implications

Framework thinking is not natural for most people, but it is fostered when a model that clarifies issues is provided. By indicating obvious desired or feared implications, the model is shown to have impact. The model with its data can then serve as a framework for identifying hidden risks or opportunities. By contrast, implications of a situation can be easily missed in Stage-1 which only focuses on specific salient features.

Channeling Your Functioning:

ClosedGain Support: Expertise

In order to develop a model, preoccupation with an aura of expertness (from mode-1) is not enough. It must be enhanced by becoming an actual expert, which may involve dedicated study or extensive lived experience. Expertise legitimises your contribution and ensures that you will speak out with clarity and authority. It helps you win support for your framework and overview.



Limitations

The additional clarification provided by a well-formulated coherent framework at Stage-2 represents a step-change in clarity.

However, models that simply order categories are liable to be lifeless abstractions. Frameworks lack the disputes, differences, give-and-take and diverse agendas that characterize real-world situations.

Examples Closed

When the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines in the Baltic Sea were sabotaged in September 2022, the discussion focused on the perpetrator: who caused the event? was it Russia, Ukraine, USA, or another country? This model of international relations is epitomized in the UN with its voting system. Little attention is given to the reality that no country is a unitary actor. There are multiple divergent organized elements in any country that are often in conflict and potentially act independently: the government executive, the parliament, the military, the intelligence services, other government agencies, business entities, pressure groups.

Governments are frequently satisfied by a structuralist account. Jaques's management framework was used in a re-structure the NHS in 1972. A group chaired by the then Permanent Secretary, Sir Phillip Rogers, produced the Management arrangements for the reorganised National Health Service report, which became known as 'The Grey Book'. It was intensely criticized as "bureaucratic" because the focus on roles and authority relationship inevitably omitted much of what insiders knew was the reality of management.

Settling at this Stage

A satisfying explanation, perhaps with statistical backing, in the context of a coherent framework greatly increases its plausibility. If this account of the situation provides sufficient clarity, then there will be no felt need to seek further clarification.

Transition

However, if a sense of mystery persists and there is dissatisfaction with the degree of clarification, then the situation requires further attention.

As evidenced in the examples above, frameworks are constructed out of abstract categories and have no life. A key quality of human situations is that they are filled with emotions, that ambiguities are prevalent, that people within them disagree, and that tensions and stresses exist.

That means all situations are subject to social energies and ethical pressures. The natural next step in clarification is therefore to clarify these phenomena.

Tensions based on human biases, frailties and idiosyncrasies generate requirements for handling. The position of groups representing these infuse any model and operate as a backdrop for functioning within the framework. With a coherent holistic framework in place, it becomes possible to identify tensions affecting the situation.

The initial Stage-1 causal explanation looked inwards to a desire to remove confusion and could be subjectively generated without excessive concern for the realities.

The present structural model developed in Stage-2 must be objectively developed in order to cover a class of real-world situations.

So, it might be expected that Stage-3 would again be subjectively generated. Identifying these tensions requires empathy with the individuals and groups in the situation.

The mode of realizing that naturally provides for tension is the dualistic-μ3 (from L'4).

ClosedRuling Out Alternative Moves

Movement directly to a mode based on Dynamic depiction (L'1) is not possible because clarification of underlying tensions and enduring polarization is a prerequisite for appreciating interactions and feedback effects. Moving to modes based on outer circle methods (Atomistic-L'2, Unitary-L7, Unified-L'5) still seem to require a more substantial and properly developed explanation.


Originally posted: 30-Oct-2024. Last amended: 30-Aug-2025.