Introducing the Socio-Economic Sustainability Scientific Method
The 400-year-old Scientific Method is not dead, rather it has given birth to the Socio-Economic Sustainability Scientific Method (S-ES SM)
The roots of the S-ES SM go back to 1973, when Rittel and Weber introduced wicked problems as socially embedded complex issues. How to resolve them was on their mind.
I was introduced to wicked problems four decades later in 2012 when they were running amok. Some even called them super wicked problems by then. I formulated the S-ES SM in early 2023.
Collaboration is not Enough
“Working Together” is essential to resolving wicked problems as they contain many facets of the gamut of social, political, scientific, and economic issues. But just working together is not enough. If ten organizations with a hierarchy governance structure decide to work together, something better may happen, but it will not be resolution of a wicked problem.
Working Together and the Governance Paradox
We are starting to work together… but that has led to the governance paradox
Never before in the history of humanity has so many diverse organizations converged around societal issues to achieve common objectives.
The governance paradox states that when convergence occurs, new issues of governance emerge revealing another layer of wicked problems. Disparate governance frameworks among corporate, governance, NGO, and society at-large often conflict, especially as entities work together on a common goal. They often agree to “what” , but not the “how”. Governance is all about “how things get done” (think organization culture and policy), and the government gets things done a lot different than corporations and NGOs, and vice versa. A trilemma emerges.
Transcending Interdisciplinary Efforts
The Scientific Method brought us scientific disciplines; a helpful reductionistic view of our world. They also created institutional silos. When this was recognized as an impediment, we moved toward multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary thinking.
This academic collaboration has created new arenas of thought, but much of it has remained isolated from the “real world”, where the wicked problems reside.
Transdisciplinary approaches incorporate practitioners into the process rather than academics delivering a solution to the real world (the disciplinary approach of the Scientific Method).
Practitioners will (have to) Inherit the Earth
To resolve wicked problems, practitioners, not policymakers will have to inherit the Earth — well, at least inherit the S-ES SM. There is no other good option. Wicked problems emerge from the social actors. And so, solutions must emerge from the social actors — the practitioners particularly. Society is far too complex for social directors to orchestrate [wicked] solutions.
Shared Governance In Situ
Wicked solutions must be applied by practitioners in situ to resolve socially embedded wicked problems via shared governance. Governments, corporations, and NGOs have had the luxury of adopting their preferred style of governance to resolve tame problems (technical, scientific, and political).
Wicked problems are immune to those simpler forms of governance and over time, society and its institutions have adopted new styles of governance as society has become more complex.
Shared Governance’s Point of Service
Shared governance is unique among the other three styles of governance in that its focus is not on an entity, but on a “point of service”.
A point of service is defined as where partnerships, ownership, equity, and accountability can occur to achieve a desired outcome.
In every complex system, there lies a point of service that represents an irreducible unit of value and/or function to enable the system to emerge.
Socio-Economic Sustainability Scientific Method
The S-ES Scientific Method enables the practitioner to lead the shared governance model at the system’s point of service. Since wicked problems are never solved like tame problems can be solved, the S-ES SM cycle continues into the future with in situ iterations as knowledge and values change.
A well-designed S-ES SM model continues to add attributes to the “point of service” unit. For example, the first S-ES SM iteration may contain datasets relative to the value of a PoS Unit. The second or third iteration may include a cryptocurrency based on the units of value. S-ES SM solutions are emergent and self-organizing.
The provided steps outline a Socioeconomic Sustainability Scientific Method. Let’s evaluate each step:
1. Describe the system “As It Is”
This step involves objectively describing the current state of the socioeconomic system under consideration. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the existing social, economic, and governance structures, including their strengths, weaknesses, and interrelationships. Describing the system “as it is” helps establish a baseline for further analysis and comparison.
2. Describe the system “As It Ought to Be”
In this step, a vision or ideal state of the system is described. It involves envisioning a sustainable socioeconomic system that aligns with desired social, economic, and environmental goals. Describing the system “as it ought to be” sets the framework for evaluating and measuring progress towards sustainability objectives.
3. Identify or Create a “Point of Service”
This step focuses on identifying or creating a specific “point of service” (PoS) within the socioeconomic system. A PoS can be understood as a unit or entity within the system that interacts with stakeholders and provides goods, services, or value. Identifying a PoS helps narrow down the scope of analysis and allows for targeted interventions to enhance sustainability.
4. Develop “Point of Service” Unit Accounting System
Once the PoS is identified, this step involves developing an accounting system specific to the PoS unit. The accounting system aims to capture and track relevant socioeconomic and sustainability indicators, such as resource management, waste generation, social impact, or economic performance. Essential the benefits and liabilities of the management system. The accounting system provides a structured framework for data collection, measurement, and analysis within the PoS.
5. Provide Entities Access to PoS Accounting System
In this step, entities or stakeholders within the socioeconomic system are granted access to the PoS Accounting System. This could include businesses, organizations, or individuals associated with the specific PoS unit. Providing access allows them to contribute data, monitor their own performance, and make informed decisions regarding sustainability practices.
6. Practitioners Connect to Entities and Transact PoS values
This step emphasizes the importance of practitioners within the PoS unit connecting and engaging in transactions based on the values captured by the PoS Accounting System. It encourages stakeholders to align their actions and decisions with sustainability goals and facilitates the exchange of sustainable practices, resources, and knowledge within the system.
7. Evaluate if the System is Operating “As It Ought To”
The final step involves evaluating whether the socioeconomic system, particularly the targeted PoS unit, is operating in alignment with the vision described in step 2. This evaluation assesses the extent to which the system’s practices, outcomes, and impacts reflect the desired state of sustainability. It enables ongoing monitoring and feedback loops to inform decision-making and adjustments to enhance system performance.
Summary
Overall, the Socio-Economic Sustainability Scientific Method provides a structured approach to understanding, envisioning, and evaluating sustainable socioeconomic systems. It emphasizes the importance of shared governance lead by practitioners, data-driven analysis, stakeholder engagement, and continuous evaluation to foster sustainable practices and guide progress towards the envisioned “ought to be” state.
As a generic model, the S-ES SM is applicable to all wicked problems that emerge from the three principle causes (Gieseke, 2016) identified as:
1) Systemic outputs and outcomes that vary in type, scope, scale, and time.
2) Stakeholders applying different measurement schemes and values relative to the systemic outputs and outcomes that vary in type, scope, scale, and time.
3) Organizations adopting and applying disparate and often conflicting governance styles to develop and apply their different measurement schemes and values relative to the systemic outputs and outcomes vary in type, scope, scale, and time.
With these three layers of socio-economic and system complexities, wicked problems will emerge at the “point of service” whether or not they are recognized.
Author
Tim Gieseke conceived of the Socio-Economic Sustainability Scientific Method during the course of his four decade career of managing natural capital within the context of learning about and understanding and capturing economic and ecological values.
He is the author of three books that outline the environmental, socio-economics, and governance of instituting a natural capital accounting system and employing EcoCommerce, a planetary-based economic system. EcoCommerce is one example of the application of the S-ES SM.
Collaborative Environmental Governance Frameworks: A Practical Guide (2019)
Shared Governance for Sustainable Working Landscapes (2016)
EcoCommerce 101: Adding an ecological dimension to the economy (2011)
