‽istis
seeks to avoid ‘Then a Miracle Occurs’… (weekending
May 23rd 2020)
Seeking to avoid ‘Then a Miracle
Occurs’[i] and
definitely not envying the politicians, advisers and experts who have to
find a way to steer through these most treacherous of waters where many, many lives
and the sea-worthiness of the ship of state may be at risk…
‽istis ponders ways to ensure ‘the maximum possible
transparency’[ii]
in decision-making – perhaps especially in the pandemic-relevant worlds of
health, public health, social care, education and economics where risk
assessments, serious case reviews and critical incident analyses are used
routinely to help understand processes and outcomes good or poor or tragic, and
to help learn lessons to improve future practice and theory…
‽istis wonders:
‽
how perhaps a
balance can be found between what might be necessary - v - desirable - v -
possible - v - practical when deciding what to do
‽
how you can weigh
up lives against livelihoods
‽
what models and
processes are used to come to reasoned, reasonable, defendable and transparent
decisions when there may be only just so much you can know or control, and
Rumsfeld’s ‘unknown unknowns’[iii]
lurk inevitably out of sight
‽
how you
differentiate between ‘reasonable grounds’, ‘the balance of probabilities’ and
‘beyond reasonable doubt’
‽
how you can show
your working out and ‘be more explicit here in step two’ avoiding replication
of that old cartoon[iv]
depicting a complex equation on a chalkboard – with the beginning lines and the
last ‘QED’ lines - but with a large space in the middle: ‘then a miracle
occurs!’
‽istis, considers the potential influence of different
approaches: intuitive/naturalistic (recognising the power of overt or hidden heuristics[v]);
structured and guided thinking; or rigorous application of formal, actuarial
models, etc. These may yet be revealed in notes, minutes, slides, recorded
virtual meetings or formally presented advice - either published willingly, required
by official inquiry or leaked…
Perhaps there will be evidence of SWOT
analyses (or variations: PEST, STEEP, STEEPLE[vi],
NOISE[vii] and
all undertaken possibly wearing de Bono’s six thinking hats[viii]);
the systematic, holistic consideration of vulnerabilities and resiliences; the
careful identification of ‘dangers/harm’; of ‘hazards’ (those factors that may
make dangers more likely to occur); and of ‘strengths’ (those factors that may
make dangers less likely to occur)[ix]?
And perhaps, possibly, maybe there
might even be a flip-chart lurking or photographed for the record and for distribution
depicting something like a ‘decision-tree’[x] - populated
with copious notes and perhaps indicating careful consideration of steps and
issues such as these:
1) Absolute clarity of what decision is required
and this being made at any and every point in time e.g: where will the finite
testing capacity be focussed? what state-provided financial ‘package’ will best
support employees and protect businesses and secure employment longer term? can
children and young people return to school?
2) The potential influences on the decision –
identified and considered with openness and honesty:
·
‘the science’ –
medical and behavioural (the range of relevant evidence available; methodology
tested; reliability and validity rated; the messages from the research – clear,
ambivalent, tentative, speculative etc.)
·
resource, economic
and financial considerations (national, regional, community, individual) with
modelling transparent and extrapolation into reality explained
·
legislation
(international and national)
·
values and
ideology: personal and professional
·
the views of
stakeholders
·
political
influences
·
etc, etc…
3)
Holistic, creative consideration of the range of ‘options’ available
4)
Systematic thinking; following through the ‘reasonably anticipatable outcomes’
of each option, one by one
5)
Careful and compassionate consideration of the ‘desirability’ of each individual
‘reasonably anticipatable outcome’, should it occur – including desirability
for whom
6)
The calculation of ‘likelihood’ of each individual ‘reasonably anticipatable
outcome’ actually occurring - and just what is meant by relative judgement words
that may have been used such as: possible, probable, definitely, definitely
not, unlikely, maybe…
7)
A ‘narrative’ summary – the rationale – the reasoned, reasonable and defendable
workings out replacing the cartoon space where ‘then a miracle occurs’…
Whatever the method or approach, ‽istis
recognises that perhaps only in theory does the practice always work (but not
necessarily vice versa), but ‽istis has now been led to expect - and desperately
hopes - that the decisions are indeed being made ‘with the maximum possible
transparency’ and that, ‘all our working, our thinking, my thinking’ will indeed
be shared with us, ‘the British people.’ (see
endnote 1, below)
© Pistis
[i]
S.Harris – see endnote iv)
[v] E.g:
‘Clinical Judgement and Decision-Making in Children’s Social Work: An analysis
of the ‘front door’ system’ by the Behavioural Insights Team and published by
the Department for Education (2014) https://www.bi.team/publications/clinical-judgement-and-decision-making-in-childrens-social-work-an-analysis-of-the-front-door-system/
[ix] After
C.P Brearley: ‘Risk and Social Work’ 1982
