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 what kind of expertise is required to solve it. It can also indicate whose issue it is and what 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, like 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 need to intervene and help interested or affected ecosystems or interest groups frame the problem in a way that enables them to take action, contribute what they can, and exercise their individual or collective agency in the situation. Otherwise, ecosystems and interested citizens are reduced to beneficiaries or mere 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 a 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 entail.

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 problem-solving builds confidence and gives hope, as it restores agency and builds social ties across social spheres.

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 are often too general. While individuals can identify symptoms, they frequently miss how the underlying causes or structural factors interact in a particular context. For example, although the effects of unemployment are straightforward to recognise, the underlying causes and potential solutions vary greatly depending on the situation.

• Problem descriptions often implicitly favour a specific action or blame a particular actor. This is common when the problem is overly simplified or when the underlying causes are assumed to be more direct or straightforward than they 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 urgent issues stay unresolved by stakeholders or earlier efforts haven't yielded results, it could mean 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 demands 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 to happen when problems become the rallying cry of politicians who promise that they will get somebody to solve these problems on behalf of citizens.

What is framing?

Framing extends beyond simply rephrasing the problem. It involves dedicating 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, developing 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 this problem within our sphere of influence.

• If the group doubts their ability to reframe or resolve the problem, challenge them to describe the issue, why it persists, and who it impacts in at least three different ways. If they struggle to do this, it may suggest that perspectives or experiences from diverse backgrounds should be invited 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 in a way that might also benefit 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 for solutions open so that more people feel like they can contribute in their own way.

• If you sense that the problem is complex or messy, then formulate a description of the problem that allows for multiple safe-to-fail probes to be tried. These attempts should be carefully observed to see whether any had a positive or perhaps 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.

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

• Lastly, agree on what success would look like. If success is hard to measure, or if the people affected by the problem cannot see the difference, then 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, some distance 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.