Stage-1: Causal Explanation
What is Going On?
Faced with a situation inviting or potentially demanding change, the initial response is to seek clarification. We want an explanation of what is going on!
«Explanation» is associated with inquiry, knowing and theory formation elsewhere in THEE. More
But we do not want an inquiry. Even if there is no realistic possibility of systematic inquiry in emergent social situations, there is still this intrusive instinctive demand to "know" (or is it "understand"?) what is going on.
Somehow we imagine that knowing will tell us whether anything needs to be done and even what might be done. So, no matter how complex and unknowable a social situation is, we commonly come up with causes, often just one, but rarely more than two or three.
For example, on Monday the stock-market falls 1% and the papers say this was due to fears of recession; on Tuesday it recovers 1% and the papers say this was due to reassuring comments from the Central Bank; on Wednesday it goes nowhere and the papers say that everyone is waiting for the results of a forthcoming election in a distant country.More Examples:
A moment's reflection will surely tell you that such explanations are so superficial that they border on the meaningless or incredible. They avoid many relevant factors and may be contradictory from day to day. But such accounts are provided regularly nonetheless. They seem plausible and are often accepted at face value. Indeed it would often be regarded as rude, even unacceptable, to challenge them or criticize the speaker.
Nor are people willing to tolerate a response advising that causes of social events are typically not known and not knowable.
Values & Assumptions

Promoting Acceptability
Essence: Plausible Explanation
Desired Benefit: Reduced Confusion
Handling the Group
Participation: Align with Beliefs
Communication: Emphasize the Obvious
Individualization: Assert Expertness
Channeling Your Functioning:

Taxonomic frameworks commonly offer an explanation of particular dimensions of situations. We will follow one example taken from consultancy work through each Stage of the Spiral.
A governing board for health district services asked for help with their policy-making process. But why? On checking the situation it was evident that board members had widely varying views of what a policy was. Some said there was no policy-setting and others said there were too many policies.
A simple and satisfying explanation for the request for help was a lack of consensus on the nature of policy. Get consensus and the process would be straightforward. This finding was communicated.
Like many
, that might have sufficed, but in this case it did not.Limitations
The clarity provided by plausible explanations provided at
is rather limited, even if (by definition) many or most people find it acceptable or even attractive.The fact that you and others are satisfied does not carry much weight in itself. It can often be easy to show that the explanation is a rationalization: an imposition of reason on a messy situation for defensive purposes.
Such explanations appear simple and persuasive, when they are better described as simplistic and naive. Sometimes the explanation is presented as plausible but appears to be blatantly implausible. A politician explaining the latest government fiasco can and will say almost anything and, if it is a well-crafted explanation, the come-back remains muted.
Settling at this Stage
The qualifier of «
» indicates that it is quite possible for acceptance of an account of a situation to remain at this point.If the situation is transient or lacks significance for you, then you do not seek further clarification.
If the situation is enduring and significant, some may choose to use this simple explanation as the basis for designing a change or for deciding that no change is required. Given the widespread resistance to change, it is not surprising that politicians often settle here.
Transition
A plausible explanation, if you find it insufficient, looks like little more than an opinion. On minimal scrutiny, that causal explanation seems to oversimplify, to lack any depth or detail, and to produce multiple and often inconsistent implications. As soon as it is judged to be a poor guide to determining whether or not the situation calls for change, more clarification is required.
Provision of further causes and additional details is not sufficient or desirable because this just adds to the complexity and stokes unpleasant confusion: the opposite of clarification. Instead of more complexity, there is a need to step back from the details and simplify the situation so as to present it in a way that covers everything relevant, and reveals its distinctive nature.
This is possible by demanding an overview of the situation that offers clarity about its components and boundary. The
that naturally provides this is the .- More on satisfying and unsatisfying explanations
- Move to Stage-2: Structuring a model.
Originally posted: 30-Oct-2024. Last amended: 30-Apr-2025.