6.1 Strategic Reasoning

Strategic reasoning plays a crucial role in understanding the intricate nature of social problems. This entails identifying their root causes, stakeholders, and potential consequences associated with different courses of action (Lau and Chan 2004-2024). The allocation of limited resources is often a necessity in addressing social problems, and strategic reasoning proves instrumental in prioritizing and efficiently utilizing these resources to tackle the most pressing issues.

Additionally, strategic reasoning extends to long-term planning and the anticipation of potential outcomes. To ensure that solutions do not unintentionally result in negative consequences or perpetuate injustices, ethical implications must be carefully considered. Engaging diverse stakeholders is a key aspect of strategic thinking, facilitating the development of effective solutions that encompass various perspectives.

Addressing social problems necessitates collaboration among various entities, including government agencies, nonprofits, and the public. The combination of strategic and ethical reasoning becomes essential in building public trust. This is achieved by demonstrating transparency, accountability, and a commitment to moral values, factors crucial for the successful implementation and acceptance of solutions.

Strategic reasoning also involves navigating legal complexities, where the balance between legal and moral considerations becomes pivotal for responsible and effective problem-solving. The incorporation of ethical perspectives in strategic planning contributes to the creation of more equitable and inclusive societies.

Recognizing the dynamic nature of social problems that may evolve over time, strategic reasoning emphasizes adaptability and responsiveness to changing circumstances. In essence, the synergy of strategic and ethical reasoning forms a comprehensive framework for addressing social problems, ensuring thoughtful planning, ethical implementation, and sustained positive impacts on society.

To utilize strategic reasoning skills effectively, it is essential to evaluate competence in general problem-solving skills, self-development, organizational strategies, and tactical thinking.

Table 13. Strategic reasoning competencies

_{Source: University of Minnesota Libraries. 2016. Social Problems: Continuity and Change. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing.}

Classifying Social Problems

Solving problems requires good critical and creative thinking skills (Lau and Chan 2004-2024). To effectively address a problem, we must first define it, analyze its nature, and devise effective solutions. A key starting point is identifying the problem. In both everyday life and work settings, it’s essential to accurately pinpoint and articulate the issue at hand. When defining a problem, several factors come into play:

1. The way we frame a problem can influence the solutions we pursue. It can be helpful to explore alternative problem formulations to determine the most effective approach. For instance, when faced with relationship issues, focusing solely on the other person’s faults may not yield the best outcome. Considering one’s own actions and potential areas for improvement could lead to a more constructive resolution. Similarly, in a business context, rather than fixating on competitor actions, it may be more beneficial to evaluate internal strategies for adapting to market changes.
2. When addressing goals or targets, clarity is essential. It’s important to specify desired outcomes to assess feasibility effectively. For example, if aiming to enhance a company’s profit, quantifying the desired increase enables a more realistic evaluation of the goal’s attainability.
3. Validating the existence of the problem is crucial. It’s essential to assess the availability of data confirming the issue’s reality. For instance, if a university suspects declining student standards, gathering evidence beyond subjective observations is necessary to substantiate the claim. Additionally, collecting more data aids in understanding the problem’s severity and identifying key factors for resolution.
4. To grasp how public policies originate, it’s crucial to consider a stage often overlooked in American government texts: problem identification. As highlighted by screenwriter Aaron Sorkin in The Newsroom, character Will McAvoy famously asserts, “The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one.” This initial phase of the policymaking process, wherein problems are acknowledged, holds significant importance for policymakers tasked with crafting effective strategies for resolution.

Once we’ve identified the problem, the next step is understanding its type. Generally, problems can be presented in the form of questions, which we categorize into three kinds:

1. Empirical questions: These questions concern factual information, specific events, or cause-and-effect processes in the world. Examples include:

• Who is the current president of the United States?
• Did Germany participate in the First World War?
• Can AIDS be transmitted through kissing?
• Is the universe expanding?

To address empirical questions, we rely on observations, experiments, or seek guidance from experts in relevant fields like physics, biology, psychology, economics, or history. Often, answers to these questions require more than just contemplation; they demand empirical evidence. For instance, the question of human evolution necessitates careful scientific inquiry rather than mere speculation.

2. Conceptual questions: These questions focus on logic and the meaning of words and concepts. Examples include:

• Is the rule of law sufficient for democracy?
• Can a woman sexually harass a man?
• Are there any married bachelors?
• Is 981567 divisible by 3?

To answer conceptual questions, we rely on reasoning and conceptual analysis rather than empirical evidence. For instance, determining if the rule of law guarantees democracy involves understanding the concepts involved and their logical implications.

3. Evaluative questions: These questions involve values and norms, prompting judgments about moral correctness or aesthetic values. Examples include:

• Is abortion immoral?
• Is Beethoven a more profound composer than Mozart?
• Should the amount of unemployment benefits be raised?

To address evaluative questions, we must grasp the distinction between intrinsic and instrumental values. Intrinsic value exists independently, while instrumental value depends on serving a further end. Answering these questions requires considering underlying values and their implications.

Conceptual questions are often seen as the most fundamental among the three types of questions. This is because factual and evaluative questions rely on understanding the concepts involved. For instance, without knowing what a black hole is, we can’t answer whether light can escape from it. Similarly, to determine the morality of abortion, we first need to understand what abortion entails.

Empirical questions are typically separate from evaluative questions. While answering empirical questions doesn’t require evaluating judgments, the reverse isn’t true. Many evaluative questions necessitate knowledge of empirical facts. For example, when assessing the morality of an action, we often consider its consequences or motives. Once we have these empirical facts, we can apply appropriate moral standards to make judgments. Consider the question of whether the U.S. was justified in dropping atomic bombs on Japan. To answer this, we need to examine empirical facts such as Japanese wartime actions, the effects of the atomic bombings, civilian casualties, and alternative ways to end the war. These empirical factors are crucial in forming our judgments.

Many disagreements arise due to flawed thinking, often stemming from a failure to grasp the nature and types of questions at hand. Understanding the distinction between these three question types is a fundamental aspect of problem-solving methodology, aiding in clearer thinking and more effective resolution of disputes and controversies.

Solving problems

Polya’s book “How to Solve It,” published in 1971, remains a timeless guide to problem-solving. According to Polya, most problem-solving approaches can be categorized into four key principles:

1. Understand the nature of the problem.
2. Develop a plan to solve the problem.
3. Implement the plan.
4. Evaluate the outcome of the plan.

Here are some essential considerations when applying these principles:

1. Understanding the nature of the problem.

• Is the problem clearly defined? Can it be broken down into smaller parts?
• What type of problem is it? (Refer to previous tutorials on problem classification.)
• What information can be gathered about the problem?
• Have others solved similar problems before? What lessons can be learned from their experiences?
• What constraints (time, money, resources, etc.) exist in solving the problem?

2. Develop a plan.

• Determine the required time and resources.
• Make necessary preparations, such as research or coordination.
• For complex problems, document the plan systematically.

3. Implement the plan.

• Monitor progress to ensure adherence to the plan.
• Document any errors or special considerations for future reference.

4. Evaluate the outcome of the plan.

• This step is often overlooked but critical for improvement.
• Reflect on past experiences to understand successes and failures.
• Review the entire process to identify areas for improvement in future endeavors.

Making effective decisions is essential for success in our endeavors. Many CEOs regard decision-making as the foremost management skill. However, what defines a good decision? Some believe it’s simply a decision with a positive outcome. Yet, relying solely on luck for favorable outcomes isn’t reliable in the long term. Therefore, it’s vital to focus on the decision-making process itself. Enhancing the quality of this process increases the likelihood of favorable outcomes over time.

What constitutes a reliable decision-making process? Some advocate for “trusting your gut” and making decisions without overthinking. Conversely, others argue for rational, emotion-free decision-making to avoid bias. Who is correct?

The reality is likely more nuanced. Different people, situations, and decisions call for varied approaches. Furthermore, reasoning and emotions often intertwine in complex ways. Consider the pros and cons method, where emotions influence how we perceive the benefits and drawbacks of a choice. Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio’s research revealed the crucial role of emotions in decision-making. Patients with damaged emotional processing areas struggled to make even simple decisions, despite intact reasoning abilities. This suggests emotions play a pivotal role in decision-making. However, this doesn’t mean blindly following gut instincts is wise. Acting impulsively can lead to regret, and gut feelings are often unreliable, except for experts with extensive experience in a specific domain.

Still, acknowledging our emotions is essential because our decisions often impact our emotional well-being. Deep-seated emotional responses may stem from immutable aspects of our personality. For instance, if we have an inexplicable aversion to someone’s voice, pursuing a romantic relationship with them might be unwise, as suggested by Blaise Pascal’s famous quote: “the heart has its reasons which reason does not know.” 

Policy problems

A policy problem arises when individuals or groups are dissatisfied with a situation and seek government intervention for a solution (Anderson 2015). Governments address a wide range of issues, from agricultural relief to nuclear disarmament, tax reform, and school bus safety. Identifying a problem, as described by Nelson (1984), involves recognizing an issue’s potential for government action. This can stem from various sources, such as deep-sea divers noticing excessive oceanic plastic, coastal residents experiencing oxygen depletion (red tide), incidents like college hazing fatalities, or rising numbers of babies born to drug-addicted mothers. These instances, among many others, form the basis for future public policy. Issue recognition entails identifying and describing the problem, often starting with questions like “What are the concerns, and what are their causes?” For example, learning that elementary school students face lunch withholding due to unpaid debts prompts outrage and recognition of the problem’s cause: students are denied lunch due to their parents’ unpaid debts.

The next questions to consider are: Can the situation be improved, and if so, by whom? If you are wealthy, you could donate a significant amount to the school district to clear the debt, provided they accept such donations. Alternatively, you could rally support from the community, but this might only provide a temporary fix as the debt could recur. Another approach is to express your concerns directly to the school district or attend a school board meeting. While contacting authorities can sometimes prompt action, your ultimate goal is to ensure that children never go without lunch again. You believe that governmental intervention to change public policy is the most effective solution to address this issue.

Ensuring practical solutions for public issues involves determining the appropriate level of government responsible for implementing specific policies. When uncertain, it’s advisable to start locally and escalate to state or federal levels, if needed. For instance, if car break-ins rise in a neighborhood, it’s ineffective to involve the U.S. President; instead, addressing local law enforcement is more suitable. Similarly, if facing challenges obtaining a fishing permit at a national park, the Secretary of the Interior isn’t the appropriate contact. Regarding school lunch debt, each government level holds different authority. Citizens can engage with their local school district, making meal debt policies public and advocating for change if needed, possibly through community campaigns. Successful local efforts may obviate the need for higher government involvement, although media coverage or public outcry might spur state or federal action, as seen in legislation addressing school lunch shaming.

Problem-solving through government action varies in complexity. Identifying underlying issues is crucial but often challenging. Policymakers may lack complete understanding of problems, such as failing schools, with factors like low test scores and teacher shortages. Deciphering root causes, like parental involvement or poverty, is essential for effective policy formulation.

Agendas and Agenda Setting

Once a public issue is recognized, policymakers must decide to address it before implementing a policy solution. How do policymakers become aware of a problem? Why do they focus on certain issues more than others? When you visit the website of any Congress member, you’ll find a list of priority “issues” known as their agenda. Every policymaker, implicitly or explicitly, maintains an agenda, which comprises topics under discussion in the media, by interest groups, constituents, and the public. According to John Kingdon (1985), the agenda represents the subjects or problems receiving serious attention from government officials at any given time.

Although the term “agenda” may suggest sinister intentions, it typically reflects plans of action or topics under consideration by the public and policymakers. Agendas can take various forms, from lists of proposed bills to guiding principles or values motivating citizens, organizations, and governments to act. Policymakers prioritize based on their personal interests and the needs of their constituents.

Table 14. Examples of congressional agendas

_{Original Work. Attribution: Kimberly Martin. License: CC BY-SA 4.0}

_{Source: University of Minnesota Libraries. 2016. Social Problems: Continuity and Change. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing.}