In problem structuring methods, facilitators often ask of themselves questions such as: what makes a ‘good’ problem structuring group (PSG) and indeed what does ‘good’ mean? How can group dynamics be improved and does it matter in terms of the quality of the problem structuring that that group engages in? On the surface these questions seem to be straightforward. Indeed, those who have helped facilitate many participatory workshops will think they intuitively know the answers to these questions; they can, from their professional practice, ‘feel’ which PSGs are doing well and producing novel insights and those which are functioning less well and perhaps generating something that is less imaginative and more routine as a consequence. The intuitive, practice-learned insight will depend upon a rich array of visual signals that become more obvious with experience. This paper asks whether there is value in being much more open and analytical about these questions and answers. If so, then how can we make the unwritten processes and outcomes of PSGs written? Indeed, open to whom? Finally, how much of any insights learned by facilitators should be shared with those engaged in workshops?

This paper describes some of the insights gained by the authors in the development of an approach for systemic sustainability analysis to arrive at sustainability indicators (SIs) for development. The paper describes the problems of perspective and mindset which such research involves, and the necessity to rethink both the purpose and content of SIs as well as taking into account the perspective of the researcher. The result represents a new perspective on the classification of SIs that serves to highlight one of the central difficulties encountered so far with these tools, namely their limited use in management and the setting of policy. We argue that this is due in large part to the nature of the SI frameworks created to date, even if carried out in a 'participative' mode. The framework itself is representative of a mindset or paradigm of understanding which, when applied as the sole device, we find less than adequate in achieving useful SIs. SIs arising from this mindset tend to be quantitative and explicit (clearly stated and with a defined methodology), while in practice most people's and institutions' use of SIs tends to be more qualitative and implicit ('understood' to apply in vaguer terms, with no defined methodology). These two paradigms or mindsets are represented here as the reductionist and the conversational : the first is characterised by quantitative and explicit indicators (or QNE* indicators); and the second is characterised by qualitative and implicit indicators (QLI* indicators). We suggest that what is required is far more research on the evolution and use of QLI* SIs (and the mindset which is necessary to develop them), in order to best appreciate how they can be hybridised with the QNE* group. The result may be termed 'multiple perspective' SIs. Este documento describe algunas de las ideas obtenidas por los autores en el desarrollo de un acercamiento por análisis de sostenimiento sistemático para llegar a los indicadores de sostenimiento (SIs) por desarrollo. El documento describe los problemas de perspectiva y patrones que dicha investigación involucra, y la necesidad de repensar tanto en el propósito como en el contenido de los SIs así como tambien toma en cuenta la perspectiva del investigador. El resultado representa una nueva perspectiva en la clasificación del los SIs la cual sirve para resaltar una de las dificultades centrales encontradas hasta ahora con estas herramientas; especificamente su limitado uso en el manejo y establecimiento de políticas. Nosotros argumentamos que ésto se debe en gran parte a la naturaleza de las estructuras de los SIs creadas hasta la fecha, incluso si se lleva a cabo en un modo 'participativo'. La estructura por si misma es representativa de un patron o paradigma de entendimiento el cual cuando es aplicado al esquema único encontramos menos adecuado alcanzar SIs útiles. Los SIs que surgen de este patrón tienden a ser cuantitativos y explícitos (claramente señalados y con una metodología definida), mientras que en la practica el uso de los SIs por parte de la mayoria de la personas e instituciones tiende a ser mas cualitativo e implicito ('entendido' a aplicar en terminos mas vagos, con metodología mas definida). Estos dos paradigmas o patrones son representados aquí como el reduccionista y el coloquial — uno es caracterizado por indicadores cuantitativos y explícitos (o indicadores QNE*), el otro por indicadores cualitativos e implícitos (QLI*) respectivamente. Nosotros sugerimos que lo que se requiere es mucha mas investigación en la evolución y uso de SIs de QLI* (y el patrón que es necesario para desarollarlo), para apreciar mejor como ellos pueden ser mezclados con el grupo de QNE*. El resultado puede ser denominado indicadores de sostenimiento de perspectiva multiple.

This paper discusses the current state of thought amongst the Sustainability Indicator (SI) community, what has been achieved and where we are succeeding and failing. Recent years have witnessed the rise of “alternative facts” and “fake news” and this paper discusses how SIs fit into this maelstrom, especially as they are themselves designed to encapsulate complexity into condensed signals and it has long been known that SIs can be selectively used to support polarized sides of a debate. This paper draws from chapters in a new edited volume, the “Routledge Handbook of Sustainability Indicators and Indices”, edited by the authors. The book has 34 chapters written by a total of 59 SI experts from a wide range of backgrounds, and attempts to provide a picture of the past and present, strengths and weaknesses of SI development today. This paper is an “analysis of those analyses”—a mindful reflection on reflection, and an assessment of the malign and benign forces at work in 2018 within the SI arena. Finally, we seek to identify where SIs may be going over the coming, unpredictable years.