By Gabriele Bammer.
Why is an appreciation of imperfection and its inevitability important for those seeking to understand and act on complex societal and environmental problems? Which traps can imperfection lead to and what are the most effective ways of dealing with it?
The inevitability of imperfection
Imperfection is inevitable both in attempting to develop a comprehensive understanding of complex societal and environmental problems and in acting on them. The multiple underpinning reasons include:
● Complex problems are systems problems, and all systems views are partial, so that the whole system cannot be taken into account. Even then, boundaries need to be set to effectively deploy available resources and these artificial boundaries further constrain understanding of the whole system. In addition, any systems view encompasses multiple interacting cause-and-effect relationships, which can be nonlinear and at different scales and therefore hard to grasp.
● All problems occur in a particular context, which has historical, political, geographical, cultural, economic and other dimensions. It is not possible to fully understand all of these circumstances.
● Unknowns are unlimited, with new unknowns continuing to arise through changing circumstances and as a result of research. Further we don’t know what we don’t know (unknown unknowns), methods have not yet been developed to investigate some unknowns and some things are simply unknowable.
● Change is multifaceted, dynamic and unpredictable, often making problems hard to pin down so that they can be examined and making the impact of actions hard to control in what is often a roiling environment.
● Understanding of problems and desirable actions is affected by the worldviews, values and interests of those involved. These can differ widely within and across groups of researchers, those affected by the problem and those charged with acting on the problem. Put simply, a good outcome for one group may be anathema to another.
● Resources will always be limited. Even leaving aside the causes of imperfection outlined above, there will never be enough time, money or person-power to fully understand a problem or take all the actions required.
Actions to avoid
It can be hard to acknowledge that no amount of time or money to produce more fine-grained research findings will be adequate and that there are no perfect ways forward. One action to avoid, then, is over-confidence that perfect understanding or an answer exist. Instead, it’s important to focus on the best that can be done in the circumstances. In addition, the inevitability of imperfection should not be an excuse for:
- hopelessness or nihilism, in other words thinking that nothing is worth any effort.
- incompetence or anything goes, where research and actions are done sloppily, where the best methods are not used and where no judgment is exercised in deciding what to do and how.
- corruption, where no effort is made to avoid conflicts of interest or self-serving actions, such as casting unwarranted doubt to delay or influence specific actions.
- hindsight bias, where reviews of actions taken use information that was not available at the time to provide undeserved criticism.
Effectively dealing with imperfection
As well as knowing what to avoid, it is also useful to know what to aim for, which includes:
- Aiming for best possible outcomes. This relies on the judgment and expertise of those involved, including in deciding how to approach the system; which aspects of context are most likely to be critical; how best to deal with unknowns; what actions are mostly likely to have an impact; inviting a diversity of views and inputs, as well as accommodating them respectfully and as comprehensively as possible; and using time, money and human resources effectively and judiciously.
- Communicating clearly that “solutions” are always time-limited and imperfect.
- Building in the ability to detect adverse unexpected consequences and nasty surprises, as well as having processes in place to deal with or recover from them. Closely related is adaptive management, which involves constant review and tweaking to stay within pre-determined ‘safe’ limits (Stafford Smith, 2015).
- Using models to explore potential impacts, while maintaining an awareness of model limitations and avoiding poor assumptions, making models overly complex, biases, a false sense of certainty and excessive precision as discussed by Andrea Saltelli in his i2Inisghts contribution Five lessons to improve how models serve society.
- Being upfront about and documenting the decisions and judgment calls made, as well as mistakes and limitations, so that any evaluation can follow the logic of what was done and fairly assess its merits and weaknesses.
Conclusion
There is still much to do to appreciate the importance of imperfection, and especially to deal with it effectively. Do you have any relevant experience to share? What explanations for the inevitability of imperfection have you found compelling? Have you identified other traps to avoid? Most importantly, are you familiar with other effective ways to deal with imperfection?
Reference:
Stafford Smith, M. (2015) “Responding to global environmental change.” In Bammer, G. (ed) Change! Combining analytic approaches with street wisdom. The Australian National University, Canberra: ANU Press, 29-42. Online, open access: https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p319221/pdf/ch032.pdf
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Generative artificial intelligence was not used in the development of this i2Insights contribution. (For i2Insights policy on generative artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)
Biography: Gabriele Bammer PhD is Professor of Integration and Implementation Sciences (i2S) at the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at The Australian National University in Canberra. i2S provides theory and methods for tackling complex societal and environmental problems, especially for developing a more comprehensive understanding in order to generate fresh insights and ideas for action, supporting improved policy and practice responses by government, business and civil society, and effective interactions between disciplinary and stakeholder experts. She is the inaugural President of the Global Alliance for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity (2023-25).
Hi Gabriele – thank you for this article and great points. I have a few other thoughts to add:
1. Increase systems thinking: Enhance capacity to understand complex relationships between systems. This helps assess causes, influences, interactions, and identify barriers and opportunities for change. Collaboration is essential for addressing complex problems effectively.
2. Embrace humility: Recognize that our knowledge is provisional and incomplete. This leads to better understanding and solutions open to new information and perspectives.
3. Tolerate ambiguity: Complex problems require tolerance of ambiguity and willingness to embrace imperfection. Think in terms of probabilities/ranges rather than certainties and be comfortable with evolving knowledge.
4. Challenge certainty: Challenge solutions that imply certainty. Bring implicit assumptions to the surface, test them, and assess alternatives more effectively and rigorously.
5. Make small moves: When uncertainty is high, making small moves or acquiring more information can help identify solution options. Approach from a risk management perspective to inform choices. Not everything needs to be transformational; apply the right size of change to the context.
Editor: Copied from LinkedIn
All great points – thanks!
Dear Gabriele
An important thought, well and succinctly expressed – I find the solution of speaking of the best possible both ingenious and simple – an antidote on the one hand to excessive, powerless complexity. On the other hand, it is also an antidote to the simulation (sic) of perfection that we encounter all too often. I’m talking here more about the social science side of transdisciplinary research, in which significance is still calculated (although we don’t even have randomized experiments, as is often possible in the natural sciences), or the recycling of “proven” item scales that don’t fit the respective context at all, or the citing of dozens of sources on the first page of a paper, many of which are just opinions …..
As a non-English speaker, “best practice” comes to mind, also generally the simulation of perfection.
See: Patton, Michael Q. (2001): “Evaluation, knowledge management, best practices, and high quality. Lessons learned”. In: American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 329-336
Many thanks for your comment, for differentiating “best practice” from “best possible” and for the link to Michael Quinn Patton’s important work. it’s always good to get your perspective on evaluation, where dealing with imperfection poses particular challenges.
So important! And yet not easy for funders to fund given need for quality assurance up front and deliverables.
Ah, yes, thanks for adding the funding angle. It’s an important dimension.
Thank you Gabriele for such a compelling article about imperfection. In my local government experience, imperfection was something of a taboo subject. For example, in gathering evidence for an external inspection (Comprehensive Performance Assessment) relating to transport, economy, environment and housing to answer ‘Key Lines of Enquiry’, I designed a one-page template to gather data which included a small section about ‘what went wrong, and what did we learn from it?’ This section created some consternation and upset at the time. Yet working in this way was realistically what everybody experienced – some people just didn’t want to come out into the open about it, wishing to frame instead a glorified view via a window-dressing approach, keeping the real (I would say skillful) back-room work distinctly separate. I had adopted this stance because I had been involved in previous assessment and inspection processes. Whatever one’s view about these processes, I had found that the opportunity for self-assessment was an invaluable part of this work, giving people an opportunity to step aside from the everyday and be reflective about progress, which helps some people to develop worthwhile, practical ideas for improvement. So being more open about imperfection is a constructive talent to possess, not purely a reason for shame about our inadequacies.
Regarding the interesting comments about viewing our knowledge expanding as an island, with an increasing circumference of ignorance, so that our ignorance increases with the circumference of our knowledge, this is perhaps something which can be developed further now in the context of i2S? Firstly, the land of what we believe to be ‘knowledge’ may itself not be such solid ground, and a belief that it only grows may be questionable – Geoff Mulgan has written an interesting piece about knowledge atrophy (see link below). Secondly, is this difficult prospect of ever-increasing ignorance something we are just ‘stuck’ with, and have to somehow reconcile awkwardly (not a good selling point), or could we take this example and see it differently? Perhaps if we see disciplinary knowledge as individual shore-changing islands (expanding and contracting) with their own inevitable shorelines of ignorance, we are wishing to make progress within the connected real world by cultivating connectivity across those choppy waters of darkness or ignorance. That in effect makes us explorers who have embraced complexity, uncertainty and imperfection as authentic positives, with a willingness to learn from that. Not seeing things in this way could perhaps now be obstructing the horizons of values-based, co-created knowledge? Those considering a more collaborative form of messy improvisation and self-learning could be the ones who are actually beginning to pioneer more solid ground to suit the times? Knowledge achieved through separation and analysis remains an important component of the knowledge demanded for the challenges of our time. This form of knowledge, however, needs to be complemented by a different knowledge architecture of connection and synthesis (in both theory and practice) that embraces complexity, uncertainty and imperfection as positive and fruitful gateways for further exploration, rather than something to be apologetic about, bump against or bury.
I remain optimistic about the infinite nature of human resource (rather than always perceiving human resource as limited). That is because we are the ones who impose those limits through our restrictive financial accounting procedures. How to release those fetters of largely self-imposed human resource and time limits to more effectively address the big questions of our time is one of the reasons why this community blog is so important!
https://www.geoffmulgan.com/blog/blog-post-title-one-bntl8
Many thanks for this most thought-provoking reply. My hope is that if we see imperfection as inevitable, we might become more comfortable in embracing it, opening the door for more reflection and learning from failure, mistakes and things that didn’t go quite as planned. You sum this up beautifully in “So being more open about imperfection is a constructive talent to possess, not purely a reason for shame about our inadequacies.”
Thanks also for pointing us all to Geoff Mulgan’s important recent blog post. If I understand it correctly, one of the foundations of the field of information science is to help us find “what we don’t know we know.” Lots to do here! I enjoyed how you expanded the island of knowledge metaphor. There’s been some work on interdisciplinarity as an archipelago – but ironically I can’t easily find a reference to where I first heard about it (a conference presentation by Britt Holbrook I think).
I am intrigued by your optimistic ending – there’s a lot to explore on “the infinite nature of human resource.”
Thanks again!
Dear colleagues,
For many years, I have been watching how Gabriele Bammer periodically writes “provocative” (in a positive and constructive sense) messages. Such messages make us think about the current state of science and technology. This often leads to unexpected intellectual results.
For example, one well-known economist argued: “There are no complex problems and imperfections in their solution. There is a lack of a good business plan and the means to implement it!”
Let’s try to rephrase this statement: “There is no imperfection in attempts to comprehensively understand complex social and environmental problems, and in actions on them. There is a lack of expected success in the development of the theory and methodology of the transdisciplinary and systemic movement!”.
Maybe we need to move in this direction in order to overcome imperfections?
Vladimir Mokiy
Thanks for the comment and for being provocative!
Gabriele
Thank you very much – that’s a very useful summary. It very much reminds me also of Einstein’s saying (in paraphrasing him) that “our ignorance increases with the circumference of our knowledge” and of Heinz von Foerster’s “fundamental human ignorance,” which he emphasized in his oeuvre. I think Einstein used the word ‘darkness” instead of ‘ignorance.’ These I see as key implications of an observer-dependent view of reality and truth. — Sorry for having so little time, but if interested you can find more about my thinking on my website freeDPerception.com. — All the best – Horst (Mountain View, CA – USA)
Thanks for those thoughts and the link to your work. In relation to your comment paraphrasing Einstein: a useful metaphor is to consider what we know as an island in an infinite sea of ignorance, with the shoreline being what we know we don’t know. As the island of knowledge grows, its circumference -the shoreline – increases and inevitably what we know we don’t know also increases ie “our ignorance increases with the circumference of our knowledge.”
So true. Seems like one of the big reasons complex challenges are neglected. The deeper nature of the challenge and the solutions become clear only as you address them. Arrrgh. Advice offered to leaders facing down complex entanglements: Elevate Purpose Over Perfection: Don’t get bogged down in finding the perfect problem statement or outcomes upfront. The starting proposition needs to be clear and compelling enough to rally support, but allow for flexibility and adaptation as you learn and progress. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Thanks – that’s a useful suggestion. It also emphasises the importance of judgment, eg determining what is “clear and compelling” enough. Does Liberating Structures – or other work you have done – offer help on improving people’s ability to exercise judgment?
Great question. The proof is in the pudding. Often, there are multiple trials involved in refining a purpose (in the form of an invitation to participate) that clicks with different stakeholders.
Here is general advice and a definition of sorts: “Crafting Irresistible Invitations: We Invest significant time composing LS (Liberating Structures) invitations. Think of the invitation as a ticket to ride, to explore. It is a question or prompt linked to the subject matter or challenge to be addressed. A clear and compelling invitation is the key to sparking curiosity and engagement. Pretest a draft with at least one other person.
Key elements of a great invitation include:
Relevance: Make it feel important and relevant to everyone’s interests, with a clear tie to the purpose of your session.
Open-Ended: Pose questions that don’t have predetermined answers. Not yes or no.
Intriguing, Ambitious: Spark curiosity and a desire to participate in something larger than yourself.
Precise Ambiguity: Clearly define the topic while leaving room for diverse perspectives, interpretations and local answers.
Thanks. Will also be interesting to see what others come up with.