A Framework for  Integrative Thinking about Complex Problems

Assignment 2: Reflective Analysis

Kimberley A. Ilott

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Athabasca University

MAIS601: Making Sense of Theory in the Humanities and Social Sciences

Prof. Lisa Micheelsen

May 22, 2022

​

Reflective Analysis

The most thought provoking assigned reading thus far was the group four assigned reading, Paul Hirsch’s (2012) A Framework for Integrative Thinking about Complex Problems.  Group four, which I am a member of, collaborated on a critical analysis of Hirsch’s (2012) article; overall, the tone of the group’s analysis was critical of Hirsch’s (2012) article, and I was surprised that our response had a negative tone, as I found Hirsch’s (2012) concepts to be interesting, applicable, and relatable.

​

When initially reading Hirsch’s (2012) article, I was immediately struck with how applicable his concepts were with the culture, structure, and power dynamics of the organization I work in. Hirsch (2012) states “if one foregoes the urge to synthesize multiple partial perspectives into an integrated whole, but rather pursues the more modest goal of making space for multiple partial perspectives, and paying attention both to areas of overlap and areas of dissonance, then there can be a path – or, more accurately, paths – through the complexity and towards meaningful and adaptive actions”, this statement resonated with me as I regularly find myself identifying outputs that appease varying end users while attempting to adhere to or appreciate colleagues requirements/viewpoints.

​

Yes, time is a challenge (as group four’s criticism of Hirsch (2012) hinged on) when attempting to lay out a framework for solving complex problems but, in my opinion, time constraints could be a logical and easy fallback reason for not attempting any type of betterment or change in an organization.  Organizations can fall into this ‘we have no time’ rut, and yet, when a few folks challenge the norm, organizational efficiencies and betterment are often the outcomes.  As Hirsch (2012) himself mentions “making room for both parallel exploration of different ways of thinking AND for remaining open-minded in the face of the tensions that emerge can help to transform unproductive multi-perspective discussions into productive ones.  Ideally, the result will be better problem definitions that open the way to generating and communicating better decisions, and formulating and organizing better research”. 

​

Hirsch’s (2012) framework had intrigued me enough that I have been thinking of ways to test out his framework in my career.  As a Manager of Analytic Products and a Product Owner of a Health database wiki with the BC Ministry of Health, the use of an integrative thinking framework may enable me to better define stakeholder problems by cutting through the ‘noise’ and whittling down to the true improvements needed for my end user population. As a member of group four, consensus of a deliverable lead me to sign off on a final submission that I personally didn’t agree with but would ultimately fulfil the assignment requirements. It is not lost on me that my situation in group four is no different than finding multiple perspectives in an organization when attempting to identify the best solution, which sounds rather close to the reasoning for Hirsch’s (2012) proposed framework in the first place. All in all, I found Hirsch’s (2012) concepts to be useful and easily applicable; since reading about his framework, I have been contemplating how it could be applied, and tested, in my career.

​

References

Hirsch, Paul D. 2012. A Framework for Integrative Thinking about Complex Problems. The Program for the Advancement of Research on Conflict and Collaboration (PARCC). Maxwell School of Syracuse University.