PANACEA
| Collection | International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics |
|---|---|
| Year | 2004 |
| Vol. (num.) | 2(2) |
| ID | ◀ 2460 ▶ |
| Object type | Human sciences, Methodology or model |
- “A simple-and simple minded-solution for a problem” (adapted from R.L. ACKOFF, 2001, p.9)
So-called “recipes”, “magic bullets ”or “quick fixes”are all panaceas.
Good examples of panaceas are:
- Political slogans and unsubstancial generalities about “problems ”in education , public health, security, development , etc., without any serious study of the obstacles, and of practical means to overcome them without creating side effects .
- Theories about management - as for example “re-engineering”. “outsourcing”, “downsizing”, organizational learning“- that could be useful only if applied thougthfully to really well-understood and significant issues and specific cases.
Generally much simplifying and out of context panaceas are of scant value for addressing practical cases. They could be useful only if applied in an adaptive and readaptive way to a well studied issue or situation and with the well organized help from all the stakeholders .
Even so, there is an absolute need for a cyclically reiterative consideration of results and revalidation of our general model as a good representation of the issue and of our ownunderstanding about what we are trying to achieve, and in which way.
On the contrary“panaceas are about doing things right, not doing the right things”(Ibid, p.9)
In fact, the “panacea” problem cannot be avoided until we make ourselves able to distinguish what are the “right things” to do. WARFIELD's generic design methodology offers practical ways for avoiding underconceptualization and misunderstanding (brought about for ex. by clanthink , groupthink, blindspots , etc.) LINSTONE and MITROFF's “unbounded systems thinking ”is also very useful, as well as CHECKLAND's soft systems methodology and the critical systems thinking offered by JACKSON, FLOOD and their Hull and Humberside colleagues.
In short, a naive belief in panaceas results from a lack of critical understanding, mainly of one's own implicit illusions. Ackoff's final comment is that the market for panaceas “the weak sisters of fundamentalism” is still very large“(Ibid)