Abstract

The study examines how the concept of “polycrisis” is understood by experts, given its rapid uptake in policy and academic debates despite inconsistent meaning. Using Q-methodology with 50 experts, the authors identify four distinct framings. While all agree polycrisis is cross-sectoral and more than a buzzword, they diverge on drivers, knowledge adequacy, and governance implications.

Introduction

The paper situates polycrisis within the Anthropocene, where crises are interacting, persistent, and boundary-spanning rather than isolated events. It argues that polycrisis is often used rhetorically, repackaging existing perspectives without improving policy insight. This conceptual gap matters as the term increasingly shapes strategic foresight, risk governance, and sustainability debates.

Materials And Methods

The research applies Q-methodology to capture shared and contested interpretations of polycrisis. Fifty experts with demonstrated engagement in the concept were asked to rank 33 curated statements derived from academic and grey literature. Quantitative factor analysis was combined with qualitative interview analysis to interpret the resulting framings.

Discourse Identification And Q-set

A scoping review informed the development of 33 statements covering definitions, drivers, dynamics, impacts, responses, and knowledge. Statements were mapped across seven analytical dimensions to ensure conceptual breadth. Items were refined through pilot interviews, ethics review, and bilingual translation checks.

Participants Selection

Participants were selected from three groups: authors of relevant peer-reviewed work, attendees of dedicated polycrisis workshops, and members of specialist polycrisis networks. Of 166 experts contacted, 50 participated. The sample is predominantly based in Europe and North America, reflecting where the concept currently circulates most strongly.

Q-sort And Interviews Conduct

Q-sorts and interviews were conducted online. Participants ranked statements on a quasi-normal grid from strong disagreement to strong agreement, followed by open-ended discussions explaining their choices. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically coded to support interpretation of the quantitative results.

Factor Analysis And Interpretation

Principal component analysis with varimax rotation produced a four-factor solution explaining around 50% of variance. Factors were selected based on statistical criteria and interpretability. Factor narratives were developed by combining factor loadings, distinguishing statements, and interview insights rather than statistical dominance alone.

Ethics Review

The study received approval from the Stockholm Resilience Centre’s ethics subcommittee. Participation was voluntary, informed consent was obtained, and data were handled in line with GDPR requirements. No personal identifiers were collected, and data access was restricted to the research team.

Results

Four coherent framings emerged: analytical tractability, networked shocks, global governance, and conceptual stringency. Across all factors, experts agree polycrisis unfolds across temporal and spatial scales, crosses sectors and borders, and is not disproportionately concentrated in the Global North. All reject the view that polycrisis is merely a buzzword, but differ on causal drivers, predictability, and appropriate responses.

Discussion

The analysis highlights both consensus and fault lines. Structural framings emphasise capitalism and colonial legacies, while shock-based framings focus on system interconnectivity. Governance-oriented views prioritise institutional coordination over causal explanation. These differences shape how risks are interpreted and which policy responses are favoured, underscoring the political significance of conceptual framing.

Societal And Policy Implications

The authors argue that clearer use of polycrisis can strengthen systemic risk assessment, disaster risk reduction, and sustainability planning. Policies should be assessed for reinforcing effects across systems and time horizons. Effective responses require coordinated, cross-scale governance, integration of equity considerations, and reflexive institutions capable of learning under uncertainty.

Limitations And Future Development

Limitations include the non-random, Global North–skewed sample and the framing effects of the selected statements. Future research should expand participation from the Global South, incorporate additional crises, and test how different polycrisis framings influence real-world decision-making through simulations and deliberative processes.

Conclusion

The paper concludes that polycrisis is a legitimate but contested concept. Its plurality of meanings can support more robust analysis if used with conceptual clarity and awareness of its theoretical roots. Reconnecting polycrisis to Edgar Morin’s crisis theory positions it as a lens for analysing breakdown and transformation together within sustainability science.