At its core, the most difficult challenge facing individuals who, and organizations that, want to address hazing is thinking through the causes and contours of hazing. Solving, or at least adequately addressing, a problem almost necessitates understanding that problem. While there’s the possibility of a serendipitous solution to any problem, that probability depends on the nature and complexity of the problem. In the context of hazing, if we assume the root causes cannot be distilled to just a handful, then serendipity, hoping, wishing, praying, or guessing probably isn’t the solution. Rather, figuring-out, with some nuance and complexity, what lies at the heart of hazing’s existence and persistence seems to be a more fruitful. One such approach would me sensemaking.
Sensemaking emerged in the 1970s from the work of organizational theorist Karl Weick. It entails processes by which people or organizations seek to understand ambiguous or confusing issues. It requires the structuring the unknown, as well as putting stimuli into frameworks to attribute, comprehend, explain, extrapolate, understand, and predict. Sensemaking is separate from interpretation, as the latter suggests that what’s to be discovered is already out there. In contrast, sensemaking requires some degree of invention and the generation of what’s interpreted.
Sensemaking entails seven components. First, sensemaking starts with a sensemaker. Who people see themselves as, in a particular context, shapes how they interpret events and what they ultimately enact. Second, people and organizations can only, truly know what they are doing only after they have done it, taking retrospective account of where they’ve been vis-à-vis the problem. Third, there must be an awareness that people and organizations often produce part of the environment that they face. Fourth, sensemaking isn’t a solitary activity. Rather, sensemaking—particularly in the context of organizations—entails group activity. Fifth, sensemaking is an ongoing endeavor. Sixth, sensemaking not only entails noticing and extracting cues about the nature of the problem but also an embellishment on, and refining of, those cues. Seventh, for there to be plausible reasoning, one must go beyond the consensual information to form ideas and understandings that provide enough certainty.
One of my general observations about how people and organizations attempt to make sense of hazing is to throw ideas against the wall and hope something sticks. On the other hand, even where people or organizations’ observations are data-driven, they too often may be piecemeal or reflect sufficing. A better approach would be a thoughtful, systematic, and collaborative process to make sense of the nature and contours of hazing.
Gregory S. Parks is currently working on a book about hazing in African American fraternities and sororities, tentatively titled Death March.