Solutions to Problems: The Three Fixes (Part II)
The three fixes (technological, cognitive, and structural) are discussed in Solutions to Problem: the three fixes Part I. As highlighted in the previous writing, despite the appeals of the three fixes, there are problems with their implementation. This piece takes a look at those problems.
Technological Fix
As you may recall, the technological fix bypasses the human element and directly modifies the physical environment. It does this by making simplistic assumptions about human behavior. This, however, doesn’t always reduce losses since human behavior may change unexpectedly. Technological fixes also fail to anticipate second-order (n-order) effects. As Heberlein illustrates, “Cloud seeding may create more rainfall in one area, but what are the downwind effects? Will it produce less rainfall somewhere else?” (Heberlein, 1974, p. 280).
Cognitive Fix
Among the three fixes, the cognitive fix is not the most effective. First, changes in behavior aren’t easily predictable, even after changing people’s belief (a very difficult task by all standards). Heberlein opines that public opinion about issues doesn’t necessarily equate acting on the said issue. It takes more than simply knowing about the problem for people to act on them, they should also have the resources to do so. Second, several social and psychological factors could also hamper action. Psychological factors may include ascribing responsibility of the problem to others. “It appears extremely difficult to engineer widespread cognitive change that effectively modifies behavior” (Heberlein, 1974, p. 285). What’s more, attitudinal changes are usually short-lived meaning fixes are not likely to be sustained. Cognitive fixes are likely to be effective if they transmit information to actors while helping their existing goals. By situating the motivation and role of the person in the problem space, we set them on a path to being part of the solution. But it’s not always successful, even when actors end up losing heavily through their actions or inactions. Heberlein employs the bounded-rationality model to explain this. We may be rational beings, but we have cognitive biases and limitations. Lastly, cognitive fixes tend to ignore social contexts by focusing on individual actions. This is problematic because social problems brew out of unique interactions in social systems. Put all these together, and it is easy to see why the cognitive fix is not the most effective fix.
Structural Fix
The structural fix has three problems with its implementation -institutional inertia, social issues (cost, time, reactivity, and ethical issues), and second-order effects. According to Heberlein, structural fixes have little institutional support, and it is also hampered by long institutional reviews which often must be agreed on by several actors, a problem technological fixes don’t have to deal with (talk about effectively bypassing the human element). Evaluation of structural fixes are not standard and widespread. Social programs are not seriously evaluated like technological fixes, which are subjected to thorough experimentation and impact analysis. Also, social experiments are costly to run, and are riddled with ethical issues which make research design difficult. Subjects in a study may also behave uniquely if they know they are being studied, a scenario which may reduce the usefulness of the study. Lastly, Heberlein lists second-order (n-order) effects as a problem of the structural fix since social models do not easily allow us to predict what the effects of solutions might be.
Lessons from the problems about the fixes
One theme that recurred in both tech and structural fixes is the notion of n-order effects. This is a very important concept in technology assessment, which should be employed for every solution. What are the possible unexpected effects of a given solution? Several frameworks exist to guide the use of this assessment. While we can’t possibly anticipate all the n-order effects of implementing a fix, we can explore the areas within the known unknown.
The problems with the cognitive fix have serious implications for many approaches to problem-solving today. How effective are social campaigns that preach against social cankers like child labor, bullying, and internet fraud? People may be rational, but they are also driven to action by their motivations and roles, not forgetting that there are also social and psychological factors at play in any given situation. Based purely on my own observation, and I speak for only myself, I have seen the tendency of “educated” people to advocate for the use of the cognitive fix. To us, the problem is all about our mindset. Is it really?
Rather than focus on problems, zooming in on fixes may be a better approach. After all, we want to solve our problems and not simply analyze them. This also means that we (institutions, firms, etc.) should also utilize appropriate fixes, drawing strength from each of the three to create a comprehensive strategy to solve problems.
Notes
Heberlein, T. (1974). The Three Fixes. WATER AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc.