Patterns - a Structured Link to the Conept of "Policy"

Reference Previous Post for Context: Patterns as Policies, and Pattern Languages as Policy Frameworks?

So I am seriously beside myself. Yes, I should be preparing for DIAC right now, but I was taking a break and reading over this book again, The Policy Process. The more I delve into it, the more I feel like I'm reading a book about a pattern language dedicated to the policy development process. It is actually frightening. Again, this is only furthering my own assumptions that patterns themselves can be conceptualized as policies themselves.

In fact if one were to "patternize" Clark's framework it is very possible one could decode a pattern language devoted to the process of community problem solving, perhaps even similar to the process designed by the London Knowledge Lab to uncover patterns in practice related to Learning and Teaching.

If this is true then the question then becomes, "what do patterns and pattern languages provide that might be missing from Clark's thesis?" Also, "what might Clark's insights tell us about ways to advance the concepts and theories associated with patterns and pattern languages?"

Now, just from this initial reading I can identify a few possible areas where patterns and pattern thinking might be able to accentuate Clark's description of the Policy Process Framework:

• 1.) Patterns possess a structure that explicitly requires one to codify a general context in which it is applied.


• 2.) Patterns are meant to be linked as a system, so they are holistic by design. In this way it’s not only the process that represents a dynamic system as stated by Clark, the system of policies or patterns themselves are dynamic and morphological.


• 3.) Patterns and Pattern Languages can be transferred across multiple domains, which might also be the case with Clark’s process.


• 4.) The structure of patterns lend themselves codification in a variety of environments, particularly within online environments where users can search/traverse lists of solutions associated with specific problems within specific contexts.

Now, there may be more ways in which patterns might accentuate Clark's vision, but these are the most obvious. So what things might Clark's discussion provide to the community of pattern adopters? Well, the most obvious is the need to understand the political and social dimensions of the process itself. So if one were to use patterns to construct a set of policies then Clark's assertion to recognize these troubling dimensions becomes critical to the development of any sort of holistic design solution.

Yet, even here patterns seem to address this. Civic Intelligence in particular comes to mind when looking at Clark's socio-political dimensions of complex problem solving. However, Clark's nuanced discussion about context, systemization, guides for conceptualizing issues, and so on speaks volumes to the possibility to merge patterns with current work related to policy development, codification and possible reuse.

In reiterating #2, Clark also emphasizes the dynamic nature of the policy development process. Now as I would assert even the policies themselves are dynamic and subject to feedback as insights emerge. While he hasn't explicitly stated this I would suggest that his overarching principles would be very much in line with such thinking and thereby intrinsically linked.

To give a better representation of Clark’s work I have added some rather long, but revealing excerpt from his book.

The policy process is abstracted in a framework consisting of a logically complete set of mapping categories that can help us understand and resolve any policy problem. It is a practical means of organizing our thinking, our knowledge, and our problem-solving efforts, thus allowing us to define a problem and understand its context.

Hmmm, sounds very familiar… Again, he says,

The framework is primarily an effort to systemize the major variables with which social scientists grapple in all political and policy inquiry. The founders of the policy sciences wanted to devise a theory whose interrelated concepts and categories would be “dependable, appropriately selective, creative and economic,” (Lasswell and McDougal 1992, 4; Brunner 1996a).

The framework does just that, serving as both a theory and a procedure for decision-making, for inquiry into the policy process, for orientating ourselves to problems in context, and for understanding our own roles and standpoints in all of these situations (Moore 1968).

This little block of text again reveals direct similarities in thinking with Alexander’s pattern language and perhaps more directly with Liberating Voices and the Conservation Economy pattern languages. Yet, one thing that is revealed that is somewhat lacking in these pattern languages is the necessity to understand our own roles and standpoints. Yet, this is not completely true, again, the Civic Intelligence model being developed by Doug Schuler attempts to address this shortcoming in the pattern language as it represents the central pattern in the pattern language itself. However, I would suggest that Clark’s synthesis of past work could prove both beneficial to socially oriented pattern languages and vice versa, particularly Schuler’s

Patterns as Policies, and Pattern Languages as Policy Frameworks?

I was having a discussion the other day with Ray (the Chair for my PhD committee) about what "patterns" are in the context of Alexander's vision and conception for his pattern language. Now, we have had numerous conversations on this topic as he is still attempting to grasp what it is we are talking about, but he has heard enough to engage with me on this topic.

Anyway, I proposed that in the context of pattern languages that address issues within some sort of social domain, the patterns themselves could be best understood as policies. Now, based upon our previous conversation Ray dismissed this analogy, and yet, as I have pondered this for a while I've begun to wonder if this is not so far from the truth. Adding some validity to this particular conception of what a pattern represents I was hit with a set of definitions that attempts to define a range of meanings associated with the word, policy.

In reading the book, The Policy Process: A Practical Guide for Natural Resource Professionals by Tim W. Clark, I came a across a definition that breaks the term up into 10 distinct units for understanding. According the Hogwood and Gunn (1986, 13-19) the term policy is commonly used to describe:

"(1) a field of study, such as wildlife policy, (2) an expression of general purpose or desired state of affairs, (3) a specific proposal, (4) a decision of government, (5) formal authorization, such as the Endangered Species Act, (6) a program, (7) output of what government delivers, (8) outcome of what is actually achieved, (9) a theory or model, such as "assumptions about cause and effect relationships" about a problem and how it should be solved, and (10) a process, as of complexities unfolding over time."

Following this set of meanings for the term I immediately recognize where the concept of patterns intersects with the term policy, the most obvious of which is #9. Certainly patterns represent a particular model, and as Alexander himself describes, "a patter is a perennial solution to a reoccurring problem." This sounds to me like both a model with a set of assumptions of how best to solve a specific problem. Likewise, #2 as more broad conception of the term policy relates to the overall nature of a pattern language itself, which is essentially a normative vision for solving a system of problems in ways that address underlying structures. And since we are talking about social systems and not architectural design we would think of these underlying structures as persistent problems of social inequity, environmental degradation, economic insecurity and marginalization. One could also assert that #10 represents an inherent principle within a pattern language itself, especially within dynamic social situations. In this way one could perceive patterns and the pattern language itself as an evolving and dynamic model, a process.

Now, I'm not going to sit here and argue that this is the right way to think about patterns, but it does show that my own conception is unclear. And I would invite a conversation into this, because if we can envision patterns as policies and pattern languages as a the framework in which these policies are embedded, then it is possible to perceive Alexander's construct as a highly transferable model to a range of social domains that seek to address policy problems.

This is also important when considering the inherent difficulty in attempting to explain what a pattern or pattern language is. All to often it seems that people have a difficult time in making the leap from past concept of patterns to the one defined by Alexander.

So the question goes can we think of patterns as policies, and if so, can we co-construct useful frameworks (pattern languages) to address systemic problems often encountered within complex social situations?

I would argue yes, and if one looks into the current practice of environmental conflict resolution one would find that the sets of solutions developed among some of these extremely contested processes, it is possible to see them as representative of specific patterns. Now, I know some would immediately jump on this and argue back citing the thinking that these patterns are meant to be perennial solutions, not failures, and so many of these resource management decisions generated out of local level negotiations are anything but solutions.

In response to such a hypothetical argument I would have to counter that the patterns defined in these process are not necessarily the right one for the situation, yet they are models that possess particular assumptions and that intend to solve specific problems. Unfortunately, these patterns are generated out of situations where competing visions and interests collide, and thus potentially more effective policies get pushed aside due to political constraints involved within the process.

Also, according to Tim W. Clark, many of these miscalculations are the result of misunderstandings or complete oversight of the contexts in which these policies are being developed. This is interesting as this shows how patterns depart from traditional notions of policy. For one, patterns have a specific structure that includes: problem statement, description, solution, examples of implementation, and of course, a context in which it can be applied. So right off the bat, patterns assert the need to understand the context or set of forces that are at work when constructing a system of solutions. To me this would suggest that patterns can not only be seen in terms of policy, but the structure that patterns represent fill in gaps left out in traditional problem solving ventures.

Anyway, these are some thoughts and I would really enjoy comments, clarifications based upon other people's conception of what a pattern really is and what a pattern language really is once the model is removed from its original domain.