The procedure used in preparing the Encyclopedia (Notes 3.3 and 3.4) was initiated in 1984 and has increasingly become a purely "administrative" matter, especially since the proportion of new strategies or new classes of strategies seems certain to diminish, as was the case with world problems. The ongoing concern is therefore much more with the conceptual processes whereby the "strategy" associated with any given number is clarified through the naming (descriptor allocation) process. This may involve grouping different strategies under one number or splitting one strategy into several different strategies. An important question is the clarification of relationships to more general and to more specific strategies (Notes 3.5 and 3.6).
There are two major constraints to be borne in mind in the following discussion:
- Logistical constraint: The logistical constraint of ensuring that any changes, whether inspired by information gathered or by the concept refinement process, should not jeopardize maintenance of documentary control over the range of strategies at this stage of the programme. This especially governs decisions on the degree of specificity explicitly permissable within any group of strategies --namely to what level of detail are numbers to be allocated to strategies. In other words, there is a need for appropriate cut-off points.
- Information quality constraint: The information gathered also imposes constraints on what degree of "concept refinement" is appropriate without distortion. This is a major issue given the differences in quality of information and the differences in interpretation of "facts" in different documents, even those supposedly of equivalent quality. Refining strategies is especially difficult when the original information is vague and defines the strategy using a loose terminology or when the terminology used is precise but applies to a more general or a more specific strategy. It is obviously also difficult in the absence of adequate information on a strategy whose existence is only suggested by the pattern of information in the database.
An overview of the concept refinement processes is presented in Note 3.9. It is important to understand that many of these processes occur in parallel or are undertaken simultaneously by editors working on the network of strategies from different computer work-stations. Some are discussed below.
1. Strategy identification
Once the bulk of the material has been filed by strategy (Note 3.3), the filed documents are then individually re-examined to locate descriptions of other strategies. This material is then transferred to appropriate existing files or made the subject of new files. This is an integral part of the process of identifying relationships between strategies.
Re-examining the material brings out possible variants on the name of the strategy, which have to be distinguished from names which are more appropriately associated with other strategies (which may need to be entered into the database). Variant names, even colloquialisms, may be vital as providing alternative means for locating the strategy through the index. Also to be distinguished are various kinds of non-strategy or provisional strategies. Such poorly-formed strategies are coded as low-priority items in the database, not to be included in the published volume unless there is later reason to change their status.
2. Strategy clustering
Because of the fuzziness of strategy names, some of which take the form of phrases of some length, detection of duplicates is a major concern (Note 3.5, "Detecting duplicates"). The challenge is thatsimilar names may have been associated with significantly different strategy descriptions. The question then becomes whether to merge the two strategies or to associate both names with one description and rename the other strategy to distinguish it appropriately. Another challenge is the question of whether variants or aspects of a root strategy should be distinguished as separate strategies or merely as alternative names of that root strategy. Here the decision may be strongly influenced by the amount of material available on a "variant", suggesting that it merits separate treatment. This tendency may be restrained to some degree by the process of systematization discussed below.
3. Strategy (re-)naming
A high proportion of the documentation on strategies makes use of loose terminology, especially in the case of the less tangible strategies. Strategies are often identified by non-action oriented terms more closely associated with the values attached to their solution or administrative perspectives. Implicit anthropocentric qualifiers may be omitted. An effort is therefore made to sharpen the action-oriented aspects of the name to give greater focus to it. Clearer descriptor phrases may be discovered in the literature. Colloquial descriptors are added when they facilitate access to the strategy. Different names may have been engendered by the need for politically correct euphemisms, eg "unethical" instead of "corrupt"; "insalubrious" instead of "dirty". The ability to add alternative names is also used as a way of grouping into one strategy the names of strategy variants when it does not (yet) seem appropriate to treat these as separate strategies, although it is useful to maintain an index trace on them. The significance of a collection of names attached to a strategy thus varies depending on whether it can be considered well-defined or simply as a loose cluster of concerns around an ill-defined "proto-strategy".
4. Adequacy of strategy names
In the case of complex strategies, the varying adequacy of sets of strategy names may be illustrated by Figure 1. In the figure, the strategy to which reference is being made, to which the number refers, and which the descriptive text is intended to encompass, is indicated by a circle. The names associated with that strategy are indicated by the lines, each line representing one name.
- Fig. 1A: In this ideal case the set of strategy names encompasses and contains the content, although each name is in itself inadequate.
- Fig. 1B: In this case the content implied is larger than that effectively encompassed by the set of names. The set does however share a common centre of reference with the content.
- Fig. 1C: In this case the set of names implies more than the content. The strategy is of lesser scope than the set of names implies. The names and content still share a common centre however.
- Fig. 1D: In this development of the ideal case (Fig. 1A), implications of two of the names, combined with a third, serve to delineate an additional strategy, distinct from the main strategy. This suggests the need to split off the subsidiary strategy, removing from the main strategy the name which contributes to its enclosure.
- Fig. 1E: In this case the set of names no longer shares a common centre with the content, and as such is no longer adequate. There are aspects of the strategy which are not captured by the names, and the names imply a strategy which does not exist.
- Fig. 1F: In this case the set of names is inadequate to the content, even less so than in the case of Fig. 1B.
Figure 1. Illustration of varying adequacy of sets of strategy names (lines) in relation to substantive content (circles)
Case of a circle without lines, which would indicate a strategy for which no names had been found (a "nameless strategy" see also Note 3.5);
Case of set of names without a circle, which would indicate names referring to a non-existent strategy ("strategy-less names").
Other possibilities include cases of single or parallel lines in various positions in relation to a circle. Of special interest is a line which extends much beyond the circle which it intersects.
This approach provides an interesting way of exploring patterns of strategies denoted by circles of different sizes, which may or may not overlap. Lines may intersect or be tangential to different circles, the whole forming a partially ordered pattern. Where several lines enclose an area, there is the possibility that a circle may be detectable.
There may be a case for using computer graphics to explore such patterning, with the object of determining whether there are ways of massaging the relationship between names and content into more ordered patterns. Of even more interest is the possibility of using a three-dimensional representation to extend the power of the geometric metaphor.
The geometrical convention may also be used to explore the ways in which underlying strategies are conceptually encompassed. It provides a visual illustration of how strategies may escape such comprehension. As such it might be used as a way of mapping "strategy-space" and the conceptual response to it.
5. Responding appropriately to source material
Much material available on strategies makes what can easily be treated as exaggerated claims for particular strategies whilst disparaging others. A careful balance must therefore be sought between sensitivity to unusual (even seemingly ridiculous) strategies and detachment from the seemingly evident importance of currently fashionable strategies (however eminent the legitimating authorities).This calls for openness to unforeseen perspectives and reservations concerning institutional and ideological hyperbole. Given the disproportionate amount of information on fashionable strategies, this balance must be sought so as to give useful amounts of information on strategies which may be of quite different significance.
6. Elaboration of logical context
Few, if any, strategies exist in isolation. Many strategies are defined as much by the context of other perceived strategies as by any particular textual description that can be given to them. Most strategies can be considered as "part of" some broader strategy. Many strategies therefore group together more specific strategies. These relationships form strategy hierarchies (Note 3.6). Because of the variety of ways in which strategies can be so grouped, any one strategy may be part of several different broader strategies. Effort must therefore be made to position a given strategy within a context of broader strategies, if necessary using it to group more specific strategies. The strategy needs to be named so as to distinguish it effectively from both the broader and the narrower strategies. The process of "tidying up" such relationships is a continuing one, which may be dependent on the availability of some new document clarifying the pattern. Difficulties may be created because of conflicting perspectives in the literature on how certain strategies should be grouped. At any particular point in time, there is always more that could be done which would take more time than resources permit. Some hierarchies must necessarily be left in a crude state. The logical framework around any strategy may be more or less subject to further change.
7. Strategy classification and section attribution
Because of the potential complexity of a strategy's logical context, any effort to classify strategies neatly by subject according to conventional principles has been resisted. An alternative approach has been developed which has been used annually to group problems and organizations in Volume 3 of the Yearbook of International Organizations in a pattern of some 2,000 categories. In large part this classification is done automatically on the basis of descriptorsin the strategy title and constitutes one of the online editorial tools for exploring the database.
The process of editing was further facilitated by attributing a section code to each strategy. This is a pragmatic effort to group strategies so as to distinguish those which tend to be higher in any logical hierarchy from those lower in the hierarchy (using the letter codes B through E). Other codes, notably F, are used for exceptional cases. During the editorial process the code attributed to a strategy may be modified to position it more usefully within this pragmatic system, as well as to give it a lower editorial priority. (The significance of these codes is explained in more detail in the previous note on Classification and section attribution).
8. Identification of functional relationships
Just as few strategies exist in logical isolation, so few are independent of each other. Most strategies constrain some others directly, and in their turn are constrained by others. Some strategies facilitate others, or are facilitated by them.
This information may be present in the source material for a strategy, thus enabling the relationship to be immediately inserted. On the other hand, it may be present in source material for the affected strategy, so that the relationship gets automatically inserted in the former (given the relational nature of the database), even when there is no confirming documentation there. Alternatively, no relationships may be indicated in any of the source materials, in which case it may be appropriate to insert those that are obvious.
Just as with the logical relationships, the documentation may suggest functional links to other strategies at a level which is too general or too specific because the database structure is already more finely articulated. Again it is a matter of editorial judgement how this is to be handled. This highlights a significant criterion in inserting functional relationships that of ensuring that they are made between the appropriate levels of strategy hierarchies which is an aspect of hierarchy and relationship "hygiene". Thus it is not useful to show all the narrower strategies of Strategy A as being constrained by Strategy B, when it suffices to show Strategy A as being constrained by B. However, dilemmas arise when information is inadequate to the task of precisely determining the level of relationship or when reliable hierarchies simply do not yet exist.
Whereas in some cases the logical and functional relationships between strategies are reasonably clear and distinct, in others this is far less so. Strategy A may both constrain B and be constrained by it. It may be far from clear of what strategy Strategy A is a part. These difficulties emerge particularly in the case of strategies allocated to Section SF, and may be one reason why they are so allocated.
9. Confrontation with new documents
Since so many strategies and relationships are now present in the database, an important process is that of challenging the existing database with new strategy-focused material. Each such document may raise questions as to whether it:
- can be directly associated with an existing strategy number and its set of descriptors;
- necessitates additions to the descriptors, namely does it suggest additional alternative names for the strategy, or a correction to the existing name, or revision of the names attached to a whole set of strategies;
- calls for the creation of a more general or a more specific strategy, possibly requiring that some existing strategy should have its scope and descriptors modified to make it more general or more specific;
- implies the existence of a whole new category of strategies previously unrepresented in the database.
Although the prime emphasis is on registering strategies detected in available documentation, as these build up in the database certain patterns are suggested: eg patterns of names which suggest grouping several strategies, but by so doing also reveals holes in the group. The question in this instance is whether to create newstrategies, without documentary evidence of their existence, for the sake of filling the gaps. The extent to which patterning can be allowed to influence the inclusion or exclusion of strategies is discussed in Notes 4.3 and 4.4.
The question becomes then to what extent the strategy names should be rationalized. Again these are matters for editorial judgement, where the editorial resources are available. Some tentative steps have been taken towards such rationalization, but much more is called for as the opportunities become clearer. This process is important in preparing sets of strategies to be checked from a particular perspective by external authorities.
11. Systematization of strategy relationships
As noted above, when entering strategy relationships into the database it is quite difficult to avoid redundancy. Computer programmes can be used to highlight certain redundancies, and even to eliminate some of them. But it is a matter of judgement as to how far this process can be allowed to go. For example, if 75 per cent of the narrower strategies of Strategy A are facilitated by Strategy B, can these explicit relationships be replaced by a single relationship between A and B ? If yes, what if the percentage indicating such facilitation is only 50 or 25 ?
12. "Massaging" the database
The point to be made is that editors are attempting to identify a pattern of significance in relation to each strategy number, but the question always remains as to whether that pattern is stable and well-formed or whether some portion of that significance should not be moved to a distinct number. This depends not only on editorial judgement but on whether some constituency believes that a strategy is distinct from the strategy where it would otherwise be filed.
It should be stressed again that the database is designed to reflect not "facts" but perceptions of facts, however questionable they may appear in the eyes of others. The editors do not attempt to determine what is the most "authoritative" view, but rather what views are representative of significant constituencies (which normally would include those that are widely considered as authoritative). Decisions as to what are representative views, even if conflicting, are assisted by the international context within which the information is obtained.
13. Constraining the anticipatory function
In the light of the above points (and the discussion of patterning in the following notes, to what extent should the database perform an anticipatory function ? It is clear that seemingly credible strategy names can easily be "generated" by appropriate combinations of descriptors from descriptor sets (in a manner reminiscent of Ramon Llull's category generator).
The availability of such descriptor sets encourages the recognition by the international community of strategies which may or may not exist. Just as there are "letterhead organizations", there may be descriptor-generated strategies (for which project funding may even by sought). Such strategies may emerge in the literature as a result of efforts by delegations or the media to appear innovative. Given the institutional resistance to the recognition of new strategies however, systematic explorations of such a procedure suggests an approach to identifying potential strategies rather than allowing them only to be registered in a haphazard manner as information is found on them.
Perhaps category generators could usefully be developed to draw attention to categories of strategy which may be neglected in conventional decision-making. It is as a means of ordering strategies at different levels of specificity, particularly in order to avoid isolated excessively-publicised entries (eg "Reducing aquatic pollution by organochlorines" where more general entries would be more appropriate (eg "Reducing aquatic pollution by pesticides/chlorine compounds/synthetic chemicals..." respectively).
The question remains, however, as to whether the distinctions between strategies, generated using different verbal "operators", correspond to valuable nuances with which people identify, or whether such distinctions are purely contrived in order to arouse emotive effects through their novelty.