The Dance Between Analysis and Action

A Short Reflection

I enjoy reflecting on the different actors who shape our work. On the ground, where we meet citizens, an interesting dance plays out between two approaches.

The Analyst turns every question over and examines it from all sides. On one hand... on the other hand... They see the complexity, nuances, and all competing perspectives. In every opportunity, they spot risks; in every risk, they find possibilities. The analyst thrives in the landscape of doubt and contemplation – a terrain where answers are rarely simple and context always matters.

The Actor, however, makes decisions, raises their voice, and takes action. When problems are identified, they implement measures without getting stuck in the analysis phase. The actor is always driven by interests and some form of power – something not always visible, but always present in the background.

In my years as a manager in social services, I've seen this tension play out everywhere. Researchers who provide nuanced analyses without concrete recommendations for action. Politicians who demand action without acknowledging the underlying complexity. Social workers who must make decisions despite uncertainty and conflicting goals.

The strange thing is that we rarely discuss this tension openly. We're often expected to be either analysts or actors, depending on where we sit in the hierarchy. But in reality, we need to be both – regardless of where we are in the hourglass where knowledge must become action and vice versa.

I think about what Sager and Bolin write – that the fate of evidence-based practice lies in the details. It's precisely there – in the translation from theory to practice – that important values and priorities are established. That's where the real decisions are made about which knowledge counts and whose needs take precedence.

So how do we become better at being both? People who can see complexity but still dare to act? Who can recognize power dynamics without becoming paralyzed? Who find the balance between systematic approaches and human judgment?

Perhaps it starts with acknowledging that these aren't opposites but complementary capabilities. That we create space in our organizations for productive uncertainty – where it's okay to say I'm not sure, but I think we should... without it being seen as weakness.

And perhaps it ultimately comes down to developing what I would call courage in the in-between space – the courage to stand in the tension field between analysis and action, between doubt and determination. Because it's precisely in that space that the most valuable insights and the most thoughtful decisions emerge.

A reflection on the complexities of social work