The Big Five - clustering complexity

Please note; this is an open draft of a new section attempting to unveil, and to open to questions, the thinking behind the 'Big Five' themes or clusters of the PIEs 2.0 framework. 

For the moment, there may be some duplication of material from elsewhere; and probably some broken links. Bear with us. It's a lot to cover......

 

A pragmatic model of practice

The PIEs model suggests that we can identify the key features in a PIE under fifteen or so key areas of working practice; and that these can be clustered, for convenience, under five main themes - the 'Big Five'.

In more technical language, this is known as a 'heuristic' - an account that means 'some pardonable over-simplification, where that helps to get the main points across fairly clearly'.

The great Dolly Parton once quipped: "You would not believe how much it costs, to look this cheap". So it is with the PIEs 2 framework, and likewise the PIE Abacus: you would not believe how difficult it was, to make it this simple.

 

'Themes' and 'elements'

For most practical purposes, the account of the Big Five themes and the fifteen 'practice elements' given in 'PIEs 2.0 - the basics' (HERE),  will be enough to go on. Combined with a brief browse over some of the examples in the 'Case studies and practice examples' (HERE) this should at least begin to spark the discussions within a team over what improvements you might make, which is their real purpose.

These are therefore the broad categories - note that since they do not aim or claim to be watertight, we use the term 'themes' in preference to 'categories' - used for the PIEs Services Assessment and Self Development framework, the Pizazz (HERE); and for the software version, the PIE Abacus (HERE).

For those that do want to dig a little deeper into the PIEs framework with the Pizazz, those fifteen key practice elements are used in the 'Pizazz-on-paper' summary sheets; spelled out in the Handbook; and also in the 'long form' of the PIE Abacus.

 

Looking more closely

In the section called 'A single framework' (HERE), we have already attempted to suggest some of the compromises and trade offs necessary to produce one framework for all complex needs: and in another the mixture of 'ambition and modesty' (sic) that underlay this attempt (HERE).

In the discussion area, though, we propose to look a little more closely at the thinking behind suggesting these themes, for the benefit of all those that have concerns over how best to interpret these terms in practice; or for those - such as perhaps researchers? - who might want to ask more searching questions about where these terms and ideas came from, and how clear the boundaries between them are, and so on.

So in the pages in that sub-section, reserved (very loosely) for members, we will be looking frankly at how we came to settle on these clusters; and how successful the compromises have been, to achieve the great breadth, with the relative simplicity and relative clarity of the PIEs 2 framework.

NB: You may - or may not - find it helpful to have this quite transparent admission of imperfection in mind, when getting involved in discussions (HERE and HERE) over how to produce a version of the framework that aims to work with the perspective and language of service users.

 

Further background reading/listening/viewing

Digging deeper still : HERE

The 'Big Five' : HERE

  • Psychological awareness in action : HERE
  • What training? and what support? : HERE
  • Learning through enquiry : HERE
  • Making space : HERE
  • The Three Rs : HERE

PIEs sceptics : HERE

Reasons to be careful, Pt 3. : HERE

'A little bit PIE'd' ? : HERE

 

PIElink pages on PIEs overall

  • PIEs in principle : HERE
  • PIEs 2 : HERE 
  • PIEs 1, 2 - and 3? : HERE
  • PIE assessment : HERE