Social Diagnosis, Forecasting, and Design

The Essence of Social Diagnosis

An essential condition for realizing the praxeological potential of social and philosophical knowledge is subject activity, which manifests as a unity of interconnected forms of mastering social reality. Among these, social diagnosis, forecasting, and design play crucial roles. Together, they ensure the unity of theory and practice, the individual, the particular, and the general, shaping the processes of objectification of socio-philosophical and scientific-theoretical ideas, infusing them with specific content in accordance with the requirements of a particular time and space within the field of activity of subjects. We shall dedicate the following section to their exploration.

Investigating the essence of social diagnosis necessitates the elucidation of several points: first, the etymological content of the term "social diagnosis"; second, the clarification of the subject and generic characteristics of "diagnosis" in general and its specific definitions, such as "political diagnosis," "social diagnosis" (in a narrow sense), "psychodiagnosis," and "managerial diagnosis"; third, the specification of the substantive content or categorical range of "social diagnosis" and its "equivalent" concepts; and fourth, the definition of the semantic content of essential meaningful and paradigmatic metaphors that reflect the development of "social diagnosis" and delineate the approaches, methods, and methodologies for investigating "social diagnosis," as they remain at the forefront of the interaction between theory and practice. We align with L.S. Vygotsky's assertion that the terminological problem occupies a lion's share in methodological research.

The concepts of "diagnosis" and "diagnostics" emerged in Ancient Greece, primarily utilized in medicine to study external manifestations in order to ascertain the internal state of the organism. Today, definitions provided in the "Dictionary of Foreign Words" allow for an initial consideration of the semantic load these concepts carry.

Diagnosis [< Greek diagnōsis meaning recognition, definition] - 1) the determination of the essence of a disease and the condition of a patient based on comprehensive medical examination; 2) in botany and zoology, a scientific description of the main features characterizing a systematic group (species, genus, etc.) of plants or animals.

Diagnostics [< Greek diagnōstikos meaning capable of recognizing] - 1) a branch of medicine studying the signs of diseases, methods of examining patients, and principles of establishing a diagnosis; 2) the identification and study of signs characterizing the state of machines, instruments, and technical systems to predict possible deviations and prevent disruptions in their normal operation; 3) in physics, plasma diagnostics refers to a set of methods for studying processes in plasma and measuring its characteristics (density, temperature, etc.).

From this, a diagnosis represents, on one hand, a determination of the state of an entity identified as ill, whose signs have surpassed the boundaries of normality, and on the other hand, the identification of a process characterizing this deviation from the norm. This diagnostic procedure possesses the nature of a comprehensive investigation. This observation is necessary for further analysis, as a diagnosis is viewed as the foundation for treatment, encapsulating the essence of the illness in the state of the subject under investigation. Furthermore, the investigation of pathology, illness, and deviation (deviation) will become significant in the evolution of the diagnostic approach. Additionally, deviant identification is crucial for the diagnostic approach, as it is sometimes reduced solely to this aspect. Equally important will be the search for axiological, evaluative, and value-based approaches to diagnostics, which define its instrumental, applied, and measurable significance.

A diagnosis, by definition, is a collection of characteristics of an object as reflected by the subject, while diagnostics is the subject's ability to reflect these characteristics using a set of methods. In this context, the diagnosis emphasizes such essential, defining aspects of meaning:

1. The presence of a disease or the high relevance of recognizing a condition whose development may lead to destruction or even death. However, for diagnostics, the study of pathology is not the whole picture, as diagnostics is conducted with the aim of monitoring normal states, functional modes, or the execution of activities. In any case, relevant objective processes and states are examined, which are vital and possess a problematic character. The ontological aspect of development in social existence manifests in the necessity for action, participation, and the activity of the social subject within social reality.
2. As a method and procedure, diagnostics is characterized by the process of indirect mediated research through certain signs and, therefore, the presence of some model of signs that to some extent replaces the system (organism, mechanism, machine, etc.), meaning that diagnostics operates as a unity of ontological and epistemological, a unity of the reflected and the reflecting, the epistemological and the axiological, the known (modeled) and the evaluated (meaningful and measurable). The epistemological and axiological unity is reflected in the measure of life of the society and the subject that comprehends and evaluates, as well as in the measure of the realization of the objective process.

As a means of measuring a particular process, associating its direction or the object under investigation with a class, diagnostics often cannot be determined by several criteria, thus necessitating classification according to already known criteria. This is only feasible if the criteria for evaluation and identification are substantial in nature and capable of reflecting the objective mechanisms of the process's realization. 3. The ability to identify possible states and prevent disruptions in the functioning mode. This reveals characteristics of subjectivity, possibilities, and capabilities to control one's life and activities, in the cognition and transformation of reality, within the praxeology of the subject.

In diagnostics, somewhat different essential aspects are emphasized. Firstly, it is a branch of science, in the proposed definition of medicine, that deals with studying the characteristics of diseases (significant deviations in the state of systems that possess either an adaptive or destructive nature), methods for investigating the signs of diseases, and knowledge of the essential laws governing the existence and functioning of systems that define the principles of the subject's cognition and activity. Diagnostics is characterized as a system of knowledge or a certain level of understanding of the system or object that not only allows modeling the studied object through a collection of characteristics and signs but also signifies mastery of the methods for researching them, serving as an epistemological toolkit.

Secondly, the methods of investigation or epistemological tools are considered in their totality and wholeness, which is a significant feature indicative of the presence of an epistemological system. This, therefore, necessitates from the subject not only systematic, holistic thinking but also mastery in the application of epistemological (in our case, diagnostic) tools.

In the etymological characterization found in the "Great Encyclopedic Dictionary," diagnosis is seen as 1) the study of the methods and principles for recognizing diseases and establishing diagnoses; 2) the very process of establishing a diagnosis. In this context, a diagnosis is defined as "the determination of the essence and characteristics of diseases based on a comprehensive examination of the patient." This definition distinguishes between the study and the process, as well as the epistemology and praxeology of diagnosis in the recognition of illness and the establishment of a diagnosis. The emphasis is placed on the study of pathology and the exploration of disease.

From a narrow definition of the research subject, social diagnosis is understood as "the procedure for determining and recognizing the object of social research," "the alignment with social characterization and typology," or as "a form of human activity... aimed at determining the actual state of a social object for the purposes of further corrective influence on it and altering its condition or mode of operation." In these definitions, the subject of diagnosis is the object of social research, its state and mode, and the goal-oriented nature of diagnostic research is emphasized. Indeed, social diagnosis is a form of human activity aimed at understanding the object; however, the narrow definition of the subject of social diagnosis is insufficient, as it overlooks the aim-setting, which is not only a direction but a crucial component of diagnosis, its foundation.

As subjects of diagnosis, Yu.P. Surmin and M.V. Tulenko identify states, problems, situations, and processes. Diagnosis of states is focused on the stationary characteristics of the object (which provides an assessment of the stability of the state of the social object); diagnosis of situations contemplates a certain aggregation of events (assessing the degree of danger of particular social situations and their potential directions for further development); diagnosis of problems concentrates on contradictions and their solutions (focusing on the assessment of the scale, depth, and danger of social issues); while the diagnosis of processes, or process-oriented diagnosis, centers on understanding and evaluating the patterns and dynamics of social processes (assessing the degree of balance and effectiveness of these processes).

In this definition and classification of the "subjects" of the socio-diagnostic approach, there is an inconsistency between the general, singular, and particular, as the subject is defined through singular fragments, not coordinated within an overarching wholeness. Another methodological issue in defining the subject of diagnosis is its reduction to the process of evaluation. Thus framed, the evaluative concept of diagnosis manifests in the definition of essential characteristics of social diagnosis. As a result, the fragmentary nature of the research subject and its evaluative character lead to the conclusion that diagnosis is exclusively a reproductive procedure for assessment and classification.

Yet, the "fragments of the subject" of diagnosis possess vast fields of semantic intersection and interconnectedness. For instance, a situation is regarded as a position, state, or aggregation of events, but it is always grasped at a moment in time or within certain temporal bounds, characterized by the sequence and essential stability of the relational space and interconnections. Furthermore, the dynamics of the process are explored as changes in situations. In turn, a position is characterized by its spatial delineation from other objects in the system, its external spatial definiteness. The internal definiteness of a situation is viewed as a state. However, while a situation reflects primarily the objective spatial-temporal characteristics of the process or the "node" of interconnected processes, a problem reflects not only the actual state but also the desired state as envisioned by the subject—one that aligns with social norms, values, and requirements.

In the realms of science and philosophy of science, a common distinction is made between a problem and a problematic situation. A problem is viewed in a theoretical sense as "a form of theoretical knowledge whose content comprises what remains unknown to humanity, yet needs to be known... a process that encompasses two main moments (stages of cognition)—its formulation and resolution." Practically, a problem is considered a problematic situation. In scientific knowledge, this is the identification of contradictions between old and new knowledge, wherein the old knowledge cannot function on its previous foundation, necessitating detail and replacement. The new, yet unknown, knowledge in a problem is reflected in the desired. A problem in scientific inquiry can be seen as a problematic situation within the process of knowledge growth in a specific research area.

In the philosophy of science, two types of problems are distinguished: epistemological (cognitive), associated with transforming ignorance into knowledge, developing new tools, and expanding the boundaries of cognition; and substantive (organizational, social), defined by discrepancies and contradictions between the desired and the actual, between what exists and what ought to be, necessitating societal efforts for resolution.

In this definition, a problem in its epistemological sense represents a problematic situation in science, an avenue of present and future understanding for the researcher. Simultaneously, diagnostic activity constitutes an inquiry centered around pressing problems, often specific and unique.

In philosophy, the category of "problem" captures: a) the development of contradictions between the demands of the ideal and the existing conditions for its realization; b) the intensification of the inadequacy of existing means for achieving the desired; c) the escalating inevitability of disorganizing processes within the system when relying solely on existing means to achieve the desired; d) the necessity of seeking and creating new means and methods to overcome the indicated contradiction, revealing and implementing new possibilities for solving the posed task.

The social problem has been actively researched within sociology. The utilization of this concept in sociology entails the specification of the gap between the desired and the actual; examining social contradictions that give rise to problematic situations; assessing their perception by societal consciousness and the readiness of society to resolve emerging contradictions; typifying problems and determining appropriate forms and methods for social influence. However, in sociology, the term "problem" is often employed solely in its epistemological sense, that is, as an indicator of the topic or direction of scientific research.

The problem or problematic situation serves as the subject of social diagnostics, from which its definitional essence is derived; this process is present at all stages of examining the state of affairs, their evaluation, and the identification of the existing situation. Although the diagnostic stage is referred to differently in sociological and managerial literature, it is always characterized as either a qualitative or quantitative determination of the situation.

The confirmation that the problematic situation is the subject of social diagnostics can be found in studies of practically oriented social diagnostics as a type of sociological inquiry. In sociology, "sociological research" in relation to practical activity is viewed as diagnostic procedures, or, in relation to organizations, it represents a form of technology for producing problematic information.

The distinction between the research approach in general and the diagnostic approach in particular is determined by the orientation of the study. In the research approach, the primary focus lies in seeking patterns within causal relationships or the theoretical clarification of problems, along with their analysis and classification. The diagnostic approach, on the other hand, aims to identify "specific problems of a particular organization," meaning it formulates the real problem in terms of the social phenomena and processes examined in both theoretical and empirical sociology.

In examining the structure of social diagnostics, Yu.P. Surmin and M.V. Tulenkov propose the following stages: describing the actual state of the object (situation), determining the desired (benchmark) state of the object (situation), comparing the actual and desired states of the object (situation), and verifying whether the states correspond—continuing practical activity in the same mode if they do, or correcting them if they do not. The structure of social diagnostics, by its nature, constitutes a cognitive framework for studying the problematic situation, wherein the first stage involves investigating the conditions of the problematic situation and its actual state; the second stage is the identification of the desired requirements for resolving the problematic situation; the third stage consists of comparing and determining the gap between the existing and desired conditions; and the fourth stage involves measuring or verifying. It is essential, in our view, to separately highlight the resultant stage of the research into the problematic situation, which denotes the activity and its outcomes in resolving the problem, or inaction and, consequently, its results.

A comprehensive overview of methodological approaches to studying social problems has been provided by V.N. Minin, I.G. Yasavyev, and T.M. Simonova. However, further analysis of the subject of social problems, its structure, and comparison with the stages of the genesis of methodological approaches has yielded several important conclusions. Our research unexpectedly revealed a correspondence between the structure of diagnostics and the historical sequence of forming the main methodological approaches to studying social problems. Thus, we shall present a comparison of methodological approaches to the investigation of social problems from the perspective of the structure of the subject of social diagnostics.

In the study of social problems, components of the subject of diagnostics have been examined from various scientific approaches: the objective conditions of reality and subjective requirements, the framing of tasks as the identification of the gap between the actual (situation, objective conditions) and the necessary (subjective requirements—values, norms, ideals). The specificity of the approaches is largely related to the dominance of one or another component of the structure of the social problem within methodological studies.

For instance, the situation, as a confluence of objective conditions clarifying the specificity and correlation of manageable and unmanageable factors, occupies a central focus in the paradigm of "social pathology" within Marxist and conflictological traditions. In the tradition of social pathology, the foundational idea is that of order, the normal functioning of the objectively existing "social organism," with any disruptions being viewed as pathology. The Marxist tradition operated from a materialist conception of history, thus framing problems through the analysis of material production and the principal social contradictions. These problems reflected the fundamental contradictions within society between productive forces and production relations, between labor and capital, and between capitalist owners and the working class—producers of that capital. The uneven distribution of resources and goods, as well as issues of discrimination and exploitation, were investigated. Consequently, the conflictological tradition focused on the uneven distribution of resources, the struggle of interests, and any forms of exploitation and discrimination that lead to conflict.

The "gap" between social requirements and objective conditions conceptually dominated in axiological approaches that investigated the possibilities of identifying, comparing, evaluating, and measuring this gap. These approaches continued the tradition of social pathology while integrating achievements from other objectivist approaches. The axiological approach was shaped by the theory of social disorganization and the functional approach, which centered on studying dysfunctions. Yet, within the disorganization approach, greater attention was given to the distribution of fundamental values resulting from the division of social labor and the cementing of society through the process of social integration. The functionalist approach adopted the intersubjectivity of social integration and transformed it into functional relationships with institutions and values, thereby addressing the issue of deviation. Dysfunction reflected subjective activities that did not meet the functional requirements of the social system and undermined its institutional ties. The conflict-value school delineated objective conditions and their identification as "social problems," shifting the research focus towards the value-laden world of individuals and the mental sphere of social groups.

The interest of researchers gradually shifted toward a subjectivist orientation. Thus, the interactionist approach placed at its center not objective problems, but issues of communication, the societal and societal reactions to "deviations," the identification of deviants, and the labeling of individuals. The constructivist approach, too, abandoned the study of objective conditions, instead focusing on how the problem was articulated, maintaining that the essence of the problem lay in its formulation as demands and the existence of an individual or group drawing public attention to these demands and establishing forms of social control over the resolution of the problem by authorities.

Methodological approaches to studying the problem gradually enriched the structure of the subject of social diagnostics with knowledge, aligning with practical solutions or theoretical reflections on the possibilities of overcoming the dominant social problems within society. These conclusions significantly substantiate the integrity of the subject of social diagnostics as the investigation of social problems and their structures.

Conversely, the fragmentary nature of the subject of social diagnostics leads to a narrowing of the essential, generic characteristics of social diagnostics. Thus, Yu.P. Surmin and M.V. Tulenkov note the overlap of "social diagnostics" with concepts such as "research" or "social characterization" and "typification" in a broad sense. They highlight the specificity of social diagnostics in a narrow sense—as one of the types of reproductive social cognition—through five characteristic features. Therefore, let us analyze the fundamental tenets of the distinctive characteristics of social diagnostics as interpreted by these authors.

1. “Social diagnostics, by its intended purpose, is not an heuristic, creatively cognitive process, as its tasks do not include the search for and discovery of new laws and trends or the increase of new social knowledge. Its primary purpose is to classify phenomena of social reality under already known categories of events, states, and phenomena of social life... Social diagnostics is the procedure of identifying the state of the object of study with a specific class or type of social phenomena.” This characterization, in our opinion, significantly restricts the essence of diagnostics. Diagnostics is equated solely with the identification of the state of the object with a known class of social phenomena. However, it is precisely the presence of a high degree of uncertainty that determines the extensive use of expert heuristic methods in diagnostic procedures for modeling specific problematic situations. Moreover, diagnostics does not always correlate exclusively with known classes and types of social phenomena. It can be conducted based on requirements, goals, norms, values, and ideals in complex, atypical states and situations. Classification generally relies on one or two criteria, while diagnostics may involve a multi-criteria selection that possesses its procedural specificity. Social diagnostics cannot be limited solely to a reproductive procedure. In fact, it possesses heuristic potential, as new concepts and theories have emerged precisely from heuristic diagnostics of social situations. Social diagnostics is not reduced to the procedure of classification and typology, although it encompasses them. Its significance is indeed related to identification and comparison, but the requirements for the situation are not confined to predetermined objectivized scientific positions; they include subjective needs, interests, motives, goals, values, norms, and ideals that influence not only activity but also socio-cultural behavior. The essential limitations for subjective activity are the strength, orientation, and mechanisms of objective processes, which are reflected in management theory as the distinction between controllable and uncontrollable factors, subjective and objective factors. Not all subjective and objectivized requirements can be realized, as their adjustment occurs through the interaction of subject-subject-object dynamics, in the interplay of the objective and the subjective, reflecting the social measure of life for both subjects of interaction and society as a whole. Therefore, social diagnostics entails the identification and comparison of the actual state of the object with social requirements that reflect the measure of social life in subject-subject-object relationships.
2. “Social diagnostics includes the typification of signs and phenomena, as well as the identification of empirical models with theoretical ones. After all, social diagnostics is primarily a procedure of successive typifications.” In this assertion, the essence of diagnostics is unjustifiably narrowed to the typification of signs, while the identification of empirical models with theoretical ones is insufficient, even considering the sequential nature. For instance, in the course of political negotiations, diagnostics is not confined to a predetermined theoretical definition of the typology of signs and phenomena. In reality, unexpected turns, hidden interests, and goals may arise that not only adjust previously established positions but may also fundamentally alter the mechanism of diagnosing the problematic situation. Additionally, deviations in social processes may have a systemic, cumulative effect, leading both to irreversible destruction and, conversely, to a qualitative leap in development. Typification, as the search for essential typical differences, and classification, as the study of the intensity and limits of certain properties, become not merely inadequate but also a misguided procedure of social diagnostics, as the causal relationships of both deterministic and stochastic (probabilistic) nature are vital for diagnostics, reflecting significant, often nonlinear social processes of a systemic nature. Thus, in the recollections of the higher command of the imperial army, the events of the Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917 were interpreted as a sequence of significant processes of state instability: World War I, which weakened the state’s life potential, the delegitimization of governance in two abdications (in the last monarchial abdication, society was called upon to be loyal to the Provisional Government, which, in turn, proved incapable of governing in a complex unstable military, political, and economic situation), amid ministerial turmoil. All this unfolded in the active self-organization of the lower strata of society in the Councils of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, led by the resolutely and radically inclined parties of the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and Social Revolutionaries. As a result, the social diagnostics of the state apparatus, with its constant reports and accounts, proved ineffective, as the state confronted a new systemic crisis that dismantled the system of power relations and the regime, while social diagnostics and the informational support for decision-making did not account for the existing level of social problems. A similar situation occurred during the collapse of the USSR. In diagnostics, it is more appropriate to assert a specific, objectively oriented character rather than an abstract one. It reflects the unity of the concrete and the abstract, the theoretical and the practical, centered on the concrete and the practical. While the dominance of concreteness and practical orientation is evident in diagnostics, it should not exclude theoretical and abstract analysis.
3. “Social diagnostics—assert Yu.P. Surmin and M.V. Tulenkov— as a procedure for reproducing specific social-scientific knowledge often intertwines with scientific inquiry and creativity… in the creation of fundamentally new typologies… with new possibilities for the identification of empirical models with theoretical ones.” This characterization seemingly aims to “soften” the second aspect while preserving the “reproductive nature” of diagnostics, as the stage of theoretical modeling has been omitted from diagnostics, leaving only empirically oriented models and excluding qualitative modeling of the problematic situation. However, diagnosing as a basis for forecasting can possess a descriptive, qualitatively defined nature, which may encompass both typical and atypical characteristics of the situation.
4. “Social diagnostics—note the aforementioned authors— fulfills one of the science’s most crucial functions—the prognostic one. Indeed, without a qualified diagnosis, there can be no qualified prognosis, as the identification of the social state with a specific type of social phenomena (states) implies that this state corresponds to the logic (regularities) of the functioning and development of this type of phenomena, wherein the future of specific, individual phenomena can be traced…” This assertion contradicts the definition of forecasting, which cannot be based solely on a reproductive foundation, merely on a procedure of comparison and typology, as this would exclude the possibility of qualitative leaps in societal development, reducing all forecasting to mere extrapolation. In other words, social diagnostics embodies an inseparable connection between the determination of the situation and its active transformation. Diagnostics is a technology for determining the situation, and the problem-oriented nature serves as the basis for subsequent forecasting (defining the image of the future in its polyvariability), projecting as a whole-orientation of activity toward the future optimal state of the object, planning as the spatial-temporal determination of activity for the realization of the project, and management as the continuous organizational support for the execution of this activity.
5. “In determining the social diagnosis, a sufficiently high degree of affinity is observed between social reality and its subjective assessments (ideological or ideational-political). According to the authors, this can be avoided either by not providing assessments at all or by making them objective. The phenomenon of objective assessment in social diagnostics often takes the form of dichotomy, where all studied social phenomena, signs, processes, and states are diagnosed through dismemberment and objective social significance, based on two polar assessments.”

This characterization, as it appears to us, has also proved to be limited, as the realm of the proper has been reduced solely to subjective and ideational-political evaluations. The demands inherent in defining a problematic situation reveal a subjective nature. They may indeed be subjective if they do not reflect objective social processes; however, in such instances, the problem takes on a deformed, distorted character, which in turn precludes the formulation of an adequate managerial decision and the corresponding activity addressing the social issue. Therefore, in establishing subjective requirements for addressing a problematic situation, one should avoid the absolutization of the subjective within the interrelation of the subject-subject-object dynamics. This is an important, albeit singular, aspect of defining the problematic situation in activity.

Transitioning to an analysis of the categorical series associated with the concept of “social diagnosis,” we first note that social-diagnostic activity serves, on one hand, as a form of goal-setting employed by management subjects, and, on the other, as a type of social technology disseminated by these subjects within the sociocultural space. In the latter case, it possesses all the characteristics of “social technology”: artificiality, repeatability, replicability, operationality, holistic orientation, internal logicality, consistency, and algorithmicity.

“As for the level of involvement,” observes V.I. Podshivalina, “in management processes, it is prudent to distinguish two types of social technologies. First, we refer to technologies of social diagnosis, wherein the object of algorithmization consists of methods for identifying a social object or its subsystems. Diagnosis itself is, in essence, a technology of change, which is realized through the reflection of representations existing within the organization concerning itself. Furthermore, we may speak of technologies aimed at influencing social processes, where the object of algorithmization pertains to the methods of their implementation.” This position emphasizes the significance of social diagnosis, which lies in evaluating the fundamental social properties of individuals or social groups in relation to the general patterns and characteristics elucidated within the framework of sociological knowledge.

According to V.V. Shcherbina, the meaning of the concept of “diagnosis” largely depends on the position of the specialist or researcher. If diagnosis is viewed from the perspective of a practicing professional, it highlights the characteristics of the information-gathering process regarding the state of the object. The goal of diagnosis, in this case, is to determine the readiness and ability of the object to perform its prescribed functions and subsequent corrective influences. From the perspective of the specialist, developer, and practitioner of diagnostic tools, diagnosis is seen as a means of promptly and qualitatively obtaining information about the state of the object. For a sociologist specializing in the development of diagnostic tools, diagnosis constitutes a specialized direction of activity straddling the realms of fundamental science and practice, closely linked with the methodology of creating such tools. It is worth noting that the introduction of subjective specificity in diagnosis by V.V. Shcherbina allows for a continuation of the analysis within the context of subject-subject-object relationships. This approach demonstrates the unity of the information-measuring process for acquiring qualitative and quantitative information about the state of the object (those manifestations of the object perceived by the subject), the objectified-evaluative aspect — in the readiness and ability of the object to fulfill its functions (the subject's awareness of the object's state, the determination of the subject's relation to it), the subject-activity aspect — in the implementation of corrective influence (the holistic orientation of the object in the subjective action), and the conceptual-modeling process — in the development of diagnostic tools (modeling, objectified in the technological process of diagnosis).

In sociological science, according to V.I. Podshivalina, there exist five conceptual approaches to the analysis of social diagnosis.

In the first approach, social diagnosis is regarded as a procedure for detecting deviations of the social object from accepted norms. From the perspective of the second approach, social diagnosis is a method for identifying problems. In contrast to the first approach, this one prefers to “work” more swiftly with a healthy social organism than with a sick one. The third approach can be termed organic or systemic. Here, social diagnosis is seen as a means of identifying the integrity of the social system. In this instance, social diagnosis serves as a method for working with holistic (systemic) objects that can restore and compensate for lost elements and functions. In the fourth approach, social diagnosis is a means of clarifying the correspondence of the social object to its ideal or deviation from it. In the fifth approach, social diagnosis is interpreted as a means of determining the value and significance of the social object, phenomenon, or process. Axiological (value-based) diagnosis is imbued with the ideas of axiology and valuation theory, for the relevance and essence of social diagnosis depend upon the nature of societal development.

In the proposed classification, the normative approach, which examines deviations from generally accepted norms, and the problem-oriented approach are distinguished solely by subjective preferences and the state of the object—“sick” and “healthy.” However, the illness of the social organism is perceived as a problem that has reached a critical phase of development, threatening the integrity and existence of the object. The problem-oriented approach incorporates the normative one more readily than it is equivalent to it. The third, system-oriented approach is distinguished by a different criterion, as it can also be normatively oriented, where the norm may relate to development (stable development) or the stabilization of state (stability of position). The fourth defined approach also pertains to the normative, wherein an ideal is established that shapes values and models a normative system of the best. In this normative approach, axiology is subjectivized in relation to the anticipated and encouraged future. The fifth approach can also be classified as normative, as the significance of the process and phenomenon is determined by values, value norms, and specific requirements for the process; thus, the diagnostic approach here predominates with axiological procedures.

The determination of the generic traits and structure of the social problem in relation to sociological diagnosis possesses a certain heuristic quality and allows for the systematization of the general, particular, and singular. The problem-oriented approach serves as the general, while the particular approaches are characterized by the predominance of one structural component or another; thus, situational and normative approaches exist. In this last category, it is possible to identify subtypes of normal, value-based, and ideal evaluative definitions.

The identification of the generic traits of social diagnosis and its subject holds significance for another form of diagnosis—psychodiagnosis.

In contemporary psychological science abroad, the concept of psychodiagnosis pertains to the methodologies of H. Rorschach and other validated tests; it is associated with the assessment of various disturbances and deviations through psychological means; it is sometimes used as a synonym for psychological testing, encompassing all that pertains to the development and application of diverse measurement tools for individual differences.

Abroad, psychodiagnosis has developed with an emphasis on measuring individual differences through projective methods. Advocates of psychological testing (R. Rorschach, M. Mayle, R. Hayes, and others) have sought to evaluate various disturbances and deviations through psychological means, as well as to develop and apply diverse measurement tools for individual differences, standing in opposition to a psychometric orientation aimed at uncovering a holistic picture of individuals.

Psychological diagnostics in the USSR primarily evolved within the Leningrad School of Psychology under the guidance of B.G. Ananiev in the late 1960s. Ananiev defined psychodiagnostics as a research direction aimed at determining “the levels of development of psychophysiological functions, processes, states, and properties of the individual... establishing the structural features of each of these and their constellations that create complex behavioral syndromes..., recognizing states of a person in response to various stimulators, stressors, frustrators, and complex situations…, and determining the potentials of human development (productivity, giftedness, special abilities, etc.).” It follows that “any mental process is formed as a certain constellation of psychophysiological functions (sensory, mnemonic, verbal, tonic, etc.), actions involving various operations (perceptual, mnemonic, logical, etc.), and motivations (needs, attitudes, interests, and value orientations).”

The anomalous aspects of diagnostics and the need for its orientation towards personality research were highlighted by V.I. Voitko and Yu.Z. Hilbukh (1976): “Firstly, psychodiagnostic research always has personality as its subject... Secondly, psychodiagnostics does not simply deal with individual persons—it engages only with those individuals whose behavior and activity are already known to exhibit certain deviations, shortcomings, and so on.”

Psychodiagnostics as a discipline concerning the methods of classifying and ranking individuals by various criteria, as well as methods for uncovering the peculiarities of the human psyche, was examined by K.M. Gurevich and E.M. Borisov (1981, 1993). “People,” as emphasized by one of these authors, “have various individual-psychological traits. And how the laws of psychology manifest in the psyche of a specific individual is determined by their individual characteristics. Therefore, it is necessary to study these traits to predict how people behave in various life circumstances and whether their manifestations will differ.” The authors further note that psychodiagnostics, defined as the science of ranking and classifying individuals by measurable traits, has undergone a noticeable shift in emphasis towards its humanization.

In this definition, one can align with the proposition regarding the inseparable connection between the laws of psychology and individual-psychological traits, as a unity of the general, particular, and singular, as well as the theoretical and practical. Equally significant is the methodological assertion of the inherent unity of diagnosis and prediction, both in its temporal delineation of past — present — future and in the processual interrelation of state — future state, situation — its change.

A successful attempt to generalize the definitions of predecessors was made by L.F. Burlachuk: “Psychodiagnostics is a domain of psychological science that develops the theory, principles, and instruments for the assessment and measurement of individual-psychological traits of personality.” In this definition, L.F. Burlachuk reconciles the theoretical and practical interrelations of diagnosis through the unity of theory, principles (the recognized laws), and the instruments for evaluating and measuring the individual-psychological traits of personality.

These aspects are also emphasized by A. Anastazie and S. Urbina in their foundational work on psychological testing, which is one of the primary methodologies of psychodiagnostics. “The use of tests in individual counseling,” they note, “has gradually expanded from narrow recommendations regarding educational and professional plans to encompass all aspects of an individual’s life. Emotional well-being and effective interpersonal relationships increasingly stand out as goals of counseling. There is also a growing trend to use tests to enhance self-understanding and personal growth. Within this application of tests, their indicators form part of the information on which a person bases decisions about themselves and their life. Clearly, psychological tests are now employed to address a wide array of practical problems. Yet, we must not forget that such tests are also an important means of fundamental research.”

These positions characterize both the humanization and the expansion of the scientific field of psychodiagnostics in general, and testing in particular, in the context of the relationship between the individual and the organization, as part of a holistic system of relations to oneself, to the objective world, to others, and to social institutions. Furthermore, attention is drawn to the unity of the theoretical and practical, the fundamental and applied nature of diagnostic research, confirming and substantiating the attributive characteristics of social diagnostics.

It is precisely from these perspectives that we will attempt to examine in more detail the subject of social diagnostics—the social problem. In addressing this question, we will first focus on the role of the problem in orienting social-diagnostic activities and in forming the overall perspective for comprehending social reality. It is worth noting that the connection between “problem” and “perspective” in methodological and categorical contexts has, until recently, received insufficient attention. Nevertheless, in scientific research, the clarifying phrase “problems and perspectives” has long since become commonplace.

The etymology of the word “problem” stems from the Greek problēma—task, obstacle, difficulty. Within the etymology of the term “problem,” we can identify several significant aspects: 1) a problem characterizes the subject-object relationship, as complexity implies an objective necessity for additional effort from the subject, while an obstacle represents an external hindrance encountered by the subject; 2) a problem, as a task, relates to either theoretical or practical, productive or cognitive activities; 3) the semantic load of “problem” is closely associated with concepts such as “movement,” “development,” “dynamics,” and so forth.

In contemporary scientific and reference literature, various definitions of “problem” frequently arise. Firstly, there are definitions in which a problem is equated with a question. In this case, a problem is viewed as “a theoretical or practical question that requires resolution or investigation,” or, somewhat more broadly, “as a concept that expresses a question that objectively arises in the course of cognitive development, or a complex of questions whose resolution holds significant practical or theoretical interest.” Secondly, a problem may be defined as “a contradictory situation that presents itself in the form of opposing positions regarding the explanation of any phenomena, objects, or processes, necessitating an adequate theory for its resolution.” Thirdly, a problem is regarded “as a critical divergence between desired and actual states, which serves as a catalyst for the subject’s efforts.”

In this definition, there are two approaches to understanding a problem. According to the first approach, a problem is considered a situation in which set goals remain unachieved. In the second case, a potential opportunity is viewed as a problem.

In the first definition, the problem is reduced to an epistemological aspect; in other words, the problem is narrowed down to a question, to a conscious lack of information. In this instance, conditions and requirements are excluded from the problem. Such exclusion raises doubts, as, on one hand, various aspects can be examined within the same problem, represented by different questions (which clarify conditions and requirements), while, on the other hand, without defining conditions and requirements, it is impossible to ascertain the content of the question. Moreover, the problem will be illusory and unresolved without the objectively necessary efforts of the subject addressing the question. Thus, we see that the first definition is insufficient to reflect the essence of the concept of “problem.”

Etymologically, this approach is connected to the understanding of a problem as a task or assignment. However, any task consists of the following elements: the conditions of the task, which determine the causal relationships within the situation recognized as problematic; the requirements that reflect the objective or subjective necessity of aligning the existing state with the desired one; and the questions that express a deficiency of information, the resolution of which either clarifies the conditions of the task (clarifying questions) or constitutes the solution to the problem (the main question of the task). In defining the problem as a task, the epistemological approach is paramount, as the essence of the solution lies in the search for and verification of scientific facts that define the conditions and pathways for solving the problem, as well as the relevance and adequacy of the requirements in addressing the task.

In our view, the second approach narrows the concept of "problem," as it reduces the problem to opposing epistemological positions. The ontological aspect plays a significant role in the problem, which, although not ignored, recedes into the background in this definition. The ontological aspect manifests in the fact that the obstacle to achieving the goal objectively exists, just as the subject confronting the problem exists. Simultaneously, the ontology of the problem expresses the development process of the objective problematic situation or the subject within it. The ontological definiteness of the problem determines the epistemological and praxeological aspects. In the broadest sense, the structure of the praxeological or activity aspect of the problem is defined by V.S. Yukayeva as the "internal structure of the problem." In this structure, the subject, object, connections, and goal of the resolution are distinguished. It is important to note that the epistemological and praxeological aspects of the problem are inseparably interconnected, as knowledge and activity in solving the problem are intertwined. The definition of the object, subject, and connections of the problem establishes the conditions of the task. The subject of the problem is defined by the requirements and clarifying questions, while the resolution of the main question manifests essentially as a process of goal-setting. Here, the central focus for the epistemological aspect is the clarification of the subject of the problem, while for the praxeological aspect, it is the goal-setting process, as the choice of alternatives, pathways, and means for solving the problem.

A different perspective on studying the problem emerges from a third definition of the phenomenon, in which the problem is examined through the dialectics of possibility and reality, the real and the desired. On one hand, the problem presents itself as one of the manifestations of the dialectical relationship between reality and possibility, expressing the dynamics of the transition from possibility to reality, as it encompasses not only the actual state but also the desired state. On the other hand, the problem manifests as a product of causal relationships in which unresolved issues become the cause of new problems, stemming from both the old problem and the inaction of the subject. In this context, the search for the relationship between the significance of the real (objective) and the desired (subjective) is conducted.

I.V. Bestuzhev-Lada, accepting the problem as a rupture between the actual and the desired, emphasized the problematic state and the problematic situation. "A problematic state is one in which there objectively exists and is subjectively recognized by a person, social group, or society as a whole the necessity for significant changes to bring the actual and desired states as close as possible. Accordingly, a problematic situation is a collection of problematic states, a condition of affairs in a particular area overall, in which the indicated necessity emerges as an imperative complex for an individual, social group, or society as a whole, as a social phenomenon (a problem and problematic state may not necessarily be of a social nature)." The distinction between possibility and problem in I.V. Bestuzhev-Lada's work is linked to the identified stages of formulating a prospective social problem, where, following an analysis of the relationships within the initial model and the projected background, a concluding stage follows—building a prognostic model. This final stage is reduced to clarifying the features of the prospects for further development of the object of research in light of emerging trends, with a conditional abstraction from any possible or necessary intervention by the sphere of governance. In other words, he extracts management possibilities from the prospective problem.

In our opinion, it is necessary to distinguish between possibilities and problems, but it is not advisable to remove possibilities from the composition of the problem, as possibilities are the conditions of the problem. The choice of the solution to the problem manifests as a choice of alternatives, of conscious possibilities. The question of the measure of the problem remains undeveloped when the gap between the actual and desired becomes excessive, incompatible with the normal functioning of the social object, that is, using I.V. Bestuzhev-Lada's terminology, when a problematic situation arises. The underdeveloped measure of the problem (problematic situation) and its boundaries are connected to the lack of a search for a "common denominator" of the desired within the polymorphic social world or the absence of an exploration of the axiological aspect within the problem. The problem can be evaluated in various ways and hold different values for specific individuals, social groups, and society at large. Here, the most critical question arises: Is the "desired" formed arbitrarily and whimsically for certain social subjects, or are there common grounds ("common denominator") for various evaluative systems? In our view, a common denominator exists across different systems, defined by the measure of life that limits the subject's arbitrariness. In the problem, the evaluative component is determined by the measure of life and death of the social subject within an interconnected and dynamic triad: existence—implementation (becoming)—realization, since the desired is unattainable outside the measure of life of the subject. Thus, the level of problems depends on the level of the measure of life, on the existence—implementation (the attainment of the level of mental and spiritual life)—realization of what has been implemented, while the evaluation of the problem is related to its correlation with the triadic measure of life. These conclusions are entirely valid not only for humans but also for other, larger social subjects to whom the significance of integrity and life is granted—social groups and society.

All these perspectives converge on the definition of the problem, in which the problem is considered in the dialectics of possibility and reality, the real and the desired. On one hand, the problem appears as one of the manifestations of the dialectical interrelationship between reality and possibility, expressing the dynamics of the transition from possibility to reality, as it encompasses not only the actual state but also the desired state. On the other hand, the problem is a manifestation of causal relationships, wherein unresolved problems become the cause of the emergence of new problems, resulting from both the old problem and the inaction of the subject. In this context, the search for the relationship between the significance of the real (objective) and the desired (subjective) unfolds. In other words, the problem can be formulated in its broadest sense as a rupture between the actual and the desired, with the latter limited by the possible. Conversely, if the desired is not limited by the possible, the problem takes on an illusory character, as it does not align with the conditions that actually exist. In this definition, all four aspects of the problem are reflected: in the ontological aspect, the rupture between the desired and the actual manifests as complexity; in the epistemological aspect—as a task; in the praxeological aspect, in the unity of subject, object, connections, and goal of resolution, where the rupture itself becomes the subject of the subject's activity; in the axiological aspect, the demarcation of the problem from non-problematic and problem-free situations is examined. At the same time, one aspect may dominate within the problem, characterizing its specificity. Based on the exploration of the content of the problem as a prerequisite for the social perspective of the subject, since the resolution of worldview problems leads to a change in the world picture, one can define the process of such change, the correlation of composition and architecture of the social perspective.

The social perspective, as a means of defining the dynamics of development within that portion of the social picture of the world to which the subject's activity is oriented, cannot help but be grounded in prospective problems, which emerge through meticulous scientific analysis of the unity of ontological, epistemological, praxeological, and axiological aspects, forming the triad of life in Ukraine: its existence—implementation—and realization of what has been achieved. In this case, one can assert the prospects of the posed problems, as the distortion of one aspect in the analysis of the problem leads to a distorted outcome in the resolution of the problem. The absence of the triadic life of Ukrainian society results in an "absurd closed circle" of existence, living for the sake of life.

In defining the problem, the social subject elucidates the objective foundations of the social perspective, what exists in the social world and changes independently of the subject, which is reflected in the conditions, and also reveals the subjective meaning of the social perspective, determining its requirements and ideals within that part of the social world that is contingent upon the subject's activity and cognition. Extracting the social perspective from the dialectical interrelationship between the objective and the subjective precludes its systematic investigation. Thus, ignoring the subjective aspect of the social perspective leads to the subject's determinism and fatalism. Fatalism diminishes the subject's activity and confidence, imposing the measure of life externally, irrespective of what constitutes the foundation of fatalism—God, Chaos, fate, a bright or dark future, and so forth. Conversely, disregarding the objective aspect of the social perspective leads to voluntarism and a sense of impunity on the part of the subject, thereby restricting the measure of life solely to internal characteristics. The measure of life reveals itself only in relationships and must be examined within the dialectical nature of the subjective and objective aspects of the social perspective. As a result, the emergence of social problems reflects a broader or narrower context of social being in the dynamics of its development, encompassing the field of social work, where it finds its application. The exploration of the dynamic aspects of social work is conducted by the scientific discipline of social work theory and methodology.

In social work, as a form of social activity, there is a pronounced focus on the individuals and their social status, which subsequently serves as the foundation for the idealization of social work. The contradiction inherent in the social perspective as the measure of life manifests in the "need for social work," encompassing various components of existence: social assistance, services, processes, programs, systems, and so forth. Social work becomes a mechanism for solving social problems and must address societal phenomena that arise due to social contradictions. A problem in social work signifies the practical activity of addressing a problematic situation that emerges from objective necessity. In contemporary social work, understanding the social perspective appears as an interactional model. In this model, the primary goal is to stimulate the personal development of the subject and ensure the socialization of individuals, while simultaneously serving as a basis for the ideological dimension of the social perspective and reflecting the idealization of social work.

The measure of life determines social diagnosis not only as a theoretically conscious activity but also as a socio-cultural practice of everyday life, passed down from generation to generation. Diagnosis, in a broad sense, manifests as the capacity and tools for recognition, while in a narrower sense, it is the process of recognizing the situation of an individual, a social group, or society at large, as well as their behaviors and activities, employing metaphorical images of diagnosis in everyday practice. Diagnosis occurs at various levels of human cognition; at the theoretical level, it appears as the activity and technology of problem recognition, and at the mundane, everyday level, as diagnostic practices of figurative recognition.

The presence of diagnostic practices in daily life is a natural phenomenon of anticipatory reflection, serving as a basis for forecasting in general and communication in particular. Everyday diagnostic practices are transmitted from generation to generation, becoming stereotyped, evolving, and spreading within socio-cultural communities and societies. They are characterized as practically oriented identifications and evaluations that influence decision-making processes and the socio-cultural behaviors of individuals. In the absence of technological, artificial character and theoretically conceived algorithmic principles, these practices are metaphorical in nature; recognition is performed similarly but without clearly scientifically grounded procedures. At the foundation of metaphorical practices of recognition lie the principles of similarity and likeness, which are employed either consciously or unconsciously, thoughtfully or spontaneously.

The primary diagnostic metaphors include the images of “boundaries,” “norms,” “social pathology,” “advancement,” “dispositions,” and “reconnaissance,” as well as “patterns” and “investigations.”

The image of “boundaries” and “norms” pertains to the distribution of norms and extremes and their evaluation. If the norm is deemed the best, then the search proceeds toward harmonizing conditions, investigating and diagnosing the possibilities for timely action within the bounds of the norm, thereby preventing the system or its components from reaching an extreme state that could lead to irreversible damage to the norm. If development is considered the optimum, then qualitative changes in the norm are explored as it transitions through extremes. In this context, qualitative development necessitates accounting for the reserves of normal functioning within the social organism for the sake of development, limiting advancement to the internal resources of the system. The dialectical unity of optimal development and the best state allows for the formulation of an approach to harmonious development. This approach encompasses not only the study of the compatibility of the development of system parts but also the coherence of state and development.

The metaphor of “social pathology” develops in direct relation to the understanding of norms, with the specificity being that pathology is viewed as a disease affecting the integrity of the organism, distorting its normal state. Two approaches emerge from the metaphor of “social pathology”: the “paramedical” or symptomatic approach, which employs known diagnostic procedures based on the principle of “symptom — treatment,” and the “medical” or causal approach, which entails systematic study not only from the perspective of general knowledge but also in identifying the particular and specific (individual) in addressing social problems.

The image of “advancement” is directly linked to the process and image of mapping, drawing principles of similarity with topographic and bathymetric maps. This metaphor is executed in the concepts of “dispositions” and the military-topographic image of “reconnaissance,” which aim to characterize the balance of forces, their resources, territorial arrangements, possibilities, and outcomes of confrontation between “warring parties.” Similarities with planimetric maps are reflected in metaphors of highways, railways, “paths,” “networks,” “webs,” and so forth.

In this context, the study of locations (the interrelations of entities) necessarily includes a range of causal, structural-functional, field, and other relationships. The process of unpacking the meanings of metaphors may also incorporate correspondences to the fundamental processes of cartography, the formation of a “language of maps,” the study of the “relief of the terrain,” and the conventional symbols used in the visualization of problems and situations.

Metaphors of “patterns” are employed in diagnostic practices through both conscious and unconsciously adopted “classifications” and images, as well as in comparing familiar people (situations, events) with the unfamiliar.

The metaphor of “investigation” employs images analogous to reading and interpreting traces. In this metaphor, a deductive approach is generally applied, moving from the general to the particular, from the understanding or image of causal relationships within the event field to the specifics of the concrete situation.

Social diagnosis, as a goal-oriented activity of management subjects, is objectified in diagnostic practices and social technologies that are transmitted by management subjects within the socio-cultural space. In this latter instance, it exhibits all the characteristics of a “social technology”: artificiality, repeatability, reproducibility, operability, holistic orientation, internal logic, coherence, and algorithmicity.

Diagnosis, understood as a technology, constitutes the identification of a situation, while its problem-oriented nature serves as the foundation for subsequent forecasting. This includes the formation of a vision for the future, encompassing its multiple variations and the prioritization of future projects. It also involves design, which focuses the activities on the future state of the object, planning, which provides a spatiotemporal certainty for these activities, and management, which ensures the continuous support of the execution of these endeavors.