Changing how a problem is framed can describe who can contribute and what success would look like

The way a problem is described often reveals the kind of expertise required to solve it. It can also indicate whose issue it is and which resources are presumed to be needed. Experts might describe problems in ways that are hard for most people to understand, creating a sense of alienation or distance from issues that could be crucial for individuals to tackle. Many important problems, such as climate change, water insecurity, or human trafficking, are presented in ways that disempower ordinary citizens.

Why is it important to frame or reframe a situation?

As process facilitators, we must intervene to assist ecosystems and interest groups in framing the problem. This enables them to act, contribute what they can, and exercise their agency in the situation. Without this intervention, ecosystems and citizens are simply beneficiaries or passive spectators.

Donald Schön, a prominent thinker in process consulting, characterised framing as “the way practitioners define and interpret a situation, influencing their understanding of the problem, the relevant factors, and the potential solutions.”

Framing a problem is not only about making it more likely that novel solutions are generated because more people understand the problem. The process of reframing a problem also forces people to confront the problem and how it permeates or persists in their context or surroundings. It nurtures a deeper understanding of how an everyday problem affects others in our communities, and thus reframing enables collective action, joint learning and the strengthening of trust.

How we frame a problem significantly influences who can contribute to solving it and what success might look like.

Finally, when we can reframe a problem in a more open way, everyone who engages in understanding the problem or in contributing potential solutions becomes a co-innovator. Contributing to solving problems boosts confidence and hope by restoring a sense of agency and strengthening social connections across various communities.

What is wrong with how problems are usually framed?

Before discussing how to reframe a problem or a situation, I want to explain why the way we describe problems can sometimes be problematic.

• A frequent challenge in problem framing is that descriptions tend to be too broad. People might recognize symptoms but often miss how underlying causes or structural factors interact within a specific context. For instance, while the impacts of unemployment are easy to see, the root causes and possible solutions can differ significantly based on the situation.

• Problem descriptions frequently implicitly favour a certain action or place blame on a specific actor. This tendency occurs often when the problem is overly simplified or when the underlying causes are presumed to be more direct or straightforward than they actually are.

• It can also serve as a method to transfer responsibility to another person.

How can we reframe a problem or a situation?

Now, let's return to how we can alter the problem's framing.

If important issues remain unresolved despite stakeholder action, or earlier efforts haven't yielded results, it may indicate the problem isn't effectively framed within the current context. The way the problem is presented might also be unappealing, discouraging individuals from engaging or contributing to a solution. It might also sound like someone else’s issue or a problem that requires specific expertise to fix.

Sometimes, we become so accustomed to problems that we see them as simply part of the environment we move through. We avoid confronting the issue and instead find workarounds that often come at a high cost or cause great inconvenience. The reality is that those with fewer alternatives tend to expend more effort and resources on workarounds, while those with more resources could perhaps switch to substitute solutions.

When people become familiar with long-standing problems, it may seem as if they need approval to challenge the status quo, because the common framings do not invite their input or interest. This is especially likely when problems become the rallying cry of politicians who promise to get somebody to solve them on behalf of citizens.

What is framing?

Framing goes beyond simply rephrasing the problem. It requires time to thoroughly understand the problem space and the underlying structures that sustain patterns, even when they cause pain and inconvenience. Furthermore, framing is seldom a solo activity; it typically requires a group with varied experiences of the problem to collaborate and develop a shared understanding of the issue, its impacts, and frameworks.

Steve Jobs quoted in Newsweek, 2006

Marvin Minsky, an early AI pioneer, emphasised that understanding involves viewing the problem from multiple perspectives, allowing different permutations or representations to be detailed as fully as possible. Essentially, this means forming a multidimensional understanding of the problem and its structure. With this deeper insight, identifying potential solutions in a particular context becomes easier. Moreover, involving more people in understanding the problem, its causes, and effects enables better contributions to solving it.

Einstein argued that “The formulation of a problem is often more essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill”.

I often cite a quote attributed to Albert Einstein: “If I had an hour to solve a problem, I would spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about solutions.”

How to reframe

Here are suggestions on how a problem, situation or opportunity can be better framed:

• Gather a small, diverse group of stakeholders representing different perspectives or interests to help describe the problem from multiple viewpoints. Ask “How do different people experience this problem?” or “Why do different people see this as an issue?” Revise the framing to include these varied perspectives and the consequences of failing to resolve the problem.

• Describe the problem in a way that clearly shows it is a shared issue that matters in our context, and that we (as a group, not just the experts or those directly affected) collectively take responsibility for it within our sphere of influence.

• If the group doubts their ability to reframe or resolve the problem, challenge them to describe the issue, explain why it persists, and identify who it affects in at least three different ways. If they struggle to do this, it may suggest inviting perspectives or experiences from diverse backgrounds to join the effort. This way, the original group might also learn from the perspectives of the newly invited contributors.

• Identify whether there are people in the system who have already framed the situation to their own advantage. When individuals benefit from a problem, they might not be eager to see it resolved. When actors benefit from a problem, you must consider their influence in undermining any solutions that could affect their interests. Is there any way we can frame the problem so that it also benefits those who are benefiting from the current situation, to ensure they support the solutions?

• When describing the situation, avoid placing blame or favouring certain solutions. Instead, keep the options open so that more people feel they can contribute in their own way.

• If you sense the problem is complex or messy, formulate a description of the problem that allows multiple safe-to-fail probes to be tried. These attempts should be carefully observed to see whether they had a positive or negative effect on the situation. These small efforts are not so much about solving the problem as about seeing whether we have any influence on the situation. Complex problems are not solved through analysis, but by taking careful action and seeing whether we have any influence on the patterns in the system.

• Treat any explanations of possible causes or solutions as “first-cut” understandings or hypotheses. Encourage participants to develop “low-cost tests” to minimise testing costs and reduce the risk of making things worse.

• Lastly, agree on what success would look like. If success is hard to measure, or if those affected by the problem cannot see the difference, the interventions might be successfully implemented, but the problem may remain. Or worse, the original problem might be replaced by several new problems that require new solutions.

I leave the final word to Donald Schön, who argues that “Framing is not a static process but rather a dynamic one, involving continuous reframing as the situation unfolds and new information emerges.”

If you use this blog to reframe a problem in your ecosystem or network and get stuck, reach out to the weaver community or to us. Sometimes, stepping back from the problem situation may make it easier to ask the naïve questions that may be needed.

This article was written with inputs from Bronwyn James from PNC and Nikolaos Archontis.