Robert Levey: Could there be a single solution to societal woes?

I have been a freelance writer and journalist for nearly 20 years, and so when I was recently introduced to the concept of "solutions journalism," I was intrigued and, dare I say, somewhat chagrined.

Critically investigating and explaining how people try to solve widely shared problems, solutions journalism emphasizes the effectiveness of solutions and their broader context. Whereas journalists (and readers) tend to define news as “what has gone wrong,” solutions journalism expands that definition to include evidence-based, detailed coverage of responses to complex social issues, strategies, and their respective outcomes.

Isn’t this what journalism should be about? Why had I not heard about the term solutions journalism?

To some extent, this question is rhetorical, or is it? If I dig deeper into the rationale behind solutions journalism, I am forced to consider the deeper implications of what it means to be human and how we, as humans, make meaning.

In my doctoral studies, my investigations revealed a wealth of research and data that suggest human beings make meaning through story. In other words, every communication is either informed by — or unravels — a narrative thread. 

If a quantitative researcher, for instance, wants to communicate his/her findings, they would need to tell a story about it, which would include background, context, and future implications. We cannot, for instance, just throw out data points and statistics and expect them to move anyone’s proverbial needle. 

So how do we, as a society, move the needle on developing solutions to complex community problems? One response is to invite complexity into our various methodologies, which demands that we look at problems (and solutions) from a systems perspective. Because problems do not exist in silos, solutions must cross multiple sectors of society.

However, the traditional method of solving complex societal problems — community-based nonprofits — often lack adequate funding (and resources), which helps to partly explain the ubiquity of fundraising. Is raising more money the long-term solution?

What if nonprofits could enhance their ability to not only fundraise but also more effectively meet their mission? What if the media, for-profit, and nonprofit sectors reimagined their social responsibilities and worked together to foster a well-informed and engaged public and more effectively contribute to societal well-being and foster a well-informed and engaged public?

Asking ourselves and each other “what if” is not semantics. Rather, it represents a subtle shift from a constant focus on “what is” to an active effort to reimagine our future. 

As Rob Hopkins demonstrates in his book, "From What Is to What If: Unleashing the Power of Imagination to Create the Future We Want," individuals, communities and cultures can change, rapidly, dramatically, and unexpectedly. What if the solution was in how we narrate the world around us and our very lives?

If done well, solutions stories provide valuable insights that help communities with the difficult work of how to tackle problems like homelessness or climate change, escalating housing prices, or low voter turnout. Research also indicates that solution-oriented stories foster more constructive public discourse.

Is it possible that there exists a single solution to all our societal woes? Likely not, as history has taught us as a society that singular solutions to complex problems are not only short-sighted but often destructive.

One thing that is clear, however, is the current news paradigm is out of step with the kind of information (and stories) we collectively need to try and move together as a society. Research, in fact, indicates that diverse groups of people are interested in seeing more solutions-oriented journalism.

So what is the solution? It depends on how we narrate the story...

•••