A Systems Approach for Engaging Groups in Global Complexity: Capacity Building Through an Online Course

ORI GIN AL PA PER

A Systems Approach for Engaging Groups in GlobalComplexity: Capacity Building Through an OnlineCourse

Tom Flanagan • Janet McIntyre-Mills • Tony Made • Kelly Mackenzie •

Charles Morse • Gayle Underwood • Ken Bausch

Published online: 21 October 2011� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract Sustainability is not simply about changing practices but more centrally about

agreeing to change practices together. To achieve such an end, groups need to improve

processes for making complex decisions together. An online course was designed and

tested linking students in the United States and in Australia. Students engaged in a re-

enactment of deliberations based on Hasan Ozbekhan’s ‘‘Predicament of Mankind,’’ which

was constructed originally under assignment from the founders of the Club of Rome in

1970. This re-enactment included contemporary research for examples of a set of 49

continuous critical problems of mankind, asynchronous clarification of these problems

using a wiki, pair-wise construction of a systems view of problems assessed to be of

highest priority by the class, narrative analysis of the structure, and creative suggestions for

resolving the systems problem based on resources available today. This report comments

on the strengths and challenges identified in an initial application of an approach for

building collaborative and systems thinking skills through an online course in a general

education curriculum. Findings are particularly meaningful for contemporary policy

makers as well as online educators.

Keywords Sustainability � Structured dialogic design (SDD) � Problematique �Online course � Group decision making � Systems approach

T. Flanagan (&)Institute for 21st Century Agoras, Providence, RI, USAe-mail: [email protected]

J. McIntyre-Mills � T. Made � K. MackenzieFlinders University in Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia

C. MorseAndover Newton Theology School, Newton, MA, USA

G. UnderwoodInstitute for 21st Century Agoras, Kalamazoo, MI, USA

K. BauschInstitute for 21st Century Agoras, Atlanta, GA, USA

123

Syst Pract Action Res (2012) 25:171–193DOI 10.1007/s11213-011-9216-6

Introduction

This is a pilot project of the Institute for 21st Century Agoras. Eight Australians and eight

Americans participated in an online for-credit course in Sustainability at the Flinders

University in Adelaide, South Australia (Australia) March 21–April 10. The course sought

to identify the most influential elements of the global Problematique and to accomplish this

in 4 weeks. In order to accomplish this feat, the course enlisted the 49 Continuous critical

problems (CCPs) identified in the original Prospectus of the Club of Rome (Ozbekhan

1970). These 49 ‘‘wicked problems’’ were identified by Hasan Ozbekhan, Alexander

Christakis, and Erich Jantsch as critical elements of the global problematique.

This prospectus was not adopted by the Club. The Club adopted a top–down expert

analysis of the human condition using the newly devised System Dynamics modeling

methodology advanced by Jay Forrester (Forrester 1961). Subsequent work led to the

publication of the Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972). This system dynamics approach

has been used extensively ever since, including use in online systems thinking courses (see

Reimann et al. 2007). It is a powerful expert-driven methodology that creates an inclusive

and interactive model of materials and flows through systems. In global modeling, this

includes major environmental factors such as population growth, water resources, food

production, natural resources, and pollution. Limits to Growth became a focus for dis-

cussions on both the implications of the model and the modeling process itself.

The fundamental differences between the output of the Systems Dynamics model and

the challenge of the problematique as envisioned by Ozbekhan relate to the nature of the

problems considered by Ozbekhan (e.g., sociotechnical challenges driven by human

intentions rather than materials and flows driven by the nature of a system) and Ozbekhan’s

view (which echoed and enhanced the views of Churchman 1971, 1982) that a bottom-up

process was needed both to define the nature of the problem and develop options for

addressing the problem if the ‘‘people’’ of the globe were to actively embrace their roles in

making changes. The point is that modeling a system based upon careful observation of a

system is different from mapping a collective view of how a system aught to change. The

near-term weakness of Ozbekhan’s 1970 prospectus was the uncertainty of how to

approach the sociotechnical problem from a bottoms-up perspective. Ozbekhan and col-

leagues labored to devise such a methodology. In the decades that followed, formal pro-

cesses for working with groups matured and incorporated some of the design tools that

previously had been available only to skilled engineers. Today these efforts have culmi-

nated in an approach which is called Structured Dialogic DesignSM (SDD). With this new

tool, groups who are not formally trained in engineering or systems science can investigate,

structure, and prioritize action on Ozbekhan’s original set of CCPs to assess leverage

points that will enable us to overcome the deep splits in our societies.

Course Philosophy and Special Resources

Courses and programs on the topic of sustainable living systems have emerged in uni-

versities across the globe in recent years. These programs stress an interdisciplinary

approach, and seek to engage students from all academic fields. At the same time, uni-

versities are drawing upon the talent and good will of faculty from distinct fields to

contribute to courses which are intended not only to blend backgrounds but also to merge

into a coherent sense of boundary-spanning academic understanding. More than cobbling

chunks of understanding from different fields into an admixture of ideas, sustainability

programs are hoping to blend understandings and approaches at an atomic level and derive

172 Syst Pract Action Res (2012) 25:171–193

123

an entirely new composition of understanding. Such a result requires approaches which can

construct new meaning through collaborative explorations of complex issues and through

collaborative assessment of preferred responses to complex situations. The present course

engaged a body of students in an academic experience using a learning laboratory that

incorporates elements of the SDD methodology and allows students to create new

understandings and strategies for action in response to the overwhelming complexity of the

world today (n.b., use of SDD in online-based community design and problem solving has

been described elsewhere; see Laouris et al. 2010).

Students were provided with copies of Hasan Ozbekhan’s Predicament of Mankind, the

prospectus which was created under assignment from the founders of the Club of Rome in

1970. This document presented a rationale for concurrently engaging a set of 49 CCPs that

impact the global situation of human life on the planet. The Ozbekhan report was selected

both because of its classic timelessness and also because it provides a means of introducing

a requisite amount of ‘‘diversity’’ into a deliberation about global sustainability. A rigorous

understanding of the meaning of the entire set of the 49 problems in either a classic or a

contemporary context constitutes a ‘‘cognitive overload’’ even for highly skilled profes-

sional global policy planners.

Students were challenged to deal with the reality of cognitive overload as an aspect of

inclusive deliberation of contemporary problems. To manage this real world challenge,

they were individually assigned five distinct problems to study in depth. Independent study

of students required students to find and document background information that supports

their emerging understanding of the individual problems assigned to them. This task

allowed the collective assembly of students to engage a requisite diversity of issues in a

fashion which prevented cognitive overload for the individual students.

It is, of course, recognized that students are incomplete authorities on the topics which

they were charged to introduce, discuss and defend. Life does obligate individuals to take

up such missions from time to time, and in this spirit the course did embrace the imper-

fections of the real world challenge that confronts policy makers. A professional reen-

gagement of the subject matter presented in the Ozbekhan report would, of course, draw

upon seasoned witnesses whose lives have been deeply enmeshed in each of the specific

problem areas to present testimony to the depth and scope of all individual problems. Even

so, the real world process of understanding complex ‘‘organic’’ situations is a continually

evolving approximation. To keep pace with evolving complexity, planning tools need to

generate iterative updates rapidly, robustly, and affordably. The course sought to simulate

this real world planning challenge by preserving and building upon the language Ozbekhan

originally provided in the form of labels for 49 CCPs.

Because students bring their individual experiences into the content of sustainability

courses, the selection of a diversified set of participating students is a highly desired factor

for enhancing the requite variety of perspectives pooled in the course content. This

experimental course pooled participants from one Australian university and from three

universities in the United States. Academic credit for student participation was awarded

through prior arrangements with Dr Janet McIntyre, Flinders Institute of Public Policy and

Management, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.

Generic Requirements of Online Learning

Online learning requires a three part focus on engaging content, effective platform, and

productive teaching style. Teachers who are moving toward online courses are faced with a

need to make stylistic changes, and students who experience an online course need to

Syst Pract Action Res (2012) 25:171–193 173

123

engage the material in new ways. The present course sought to apply both asynchronous

dialogue through electronic discussion threads and synchronous dialogue through voice-

over-Internet protocol. In addition, the course applied a collaborative modeling tool

(Interpretive Structural Modeling; ISM) to facilitate co-creation of an ‘‘epistemic artifact’’

of their group learning (Sterelny 2005, as cited by Scardamalia and Bereiter 2006). Fea-

tures of this online course are anticipated to enhance the level of student engagement also

for students working in blended online and face-to-face classrooms.

From the student perspective, recent research has suggested that students who experience

both online and face-to-face classrooms ‘‘see their learning unfolding in two parallel worlds,

one virtual and the other real’’ (Coates 2005). This matters because making subject matter

relevant and ‘‘real’’ plays a significant roll in fostering engaged learning (McBrien et al. 2009).

This present study gathers student subjective reflective assessments of the quality of their ‘‘real

world experience’’ within the online class. The power (and in any first exposure, also the

novelty) of collaborative group-decision-making to generate a class capstone consensus

statement of their understanding involves highly focused dialogue and frequent reversal of

opinions which explicitly draw class participants into the co-creative process. This pilot

project additionally seeks to gather perspectives from teachers on the added burden of applying

a synchronous collaboration task in an otherwise asynchronous collaborative course plan.

The Learning Challenges of the Course

Students were enrolled in or were allowed to audit the Democracy and Sustainability

(PoAd 9117) course as offered at Flinders University. They were challenged to apply an

innovative interactive online methodology to construct a consensus systems view of 49

CCPs impacting the world. Students came from diverse backgrounds with varied levels of

knowledge and experience and different levels of familiarity with online learning.

The first challenge students faced was the need to connect through a set of independent

learning management tools. These tools included email, a wiki website, voice-over-internet

for individual calls and conference calls, and a virtual meeting room for sharing computer

screen displays while using interactive software tools. Students needed to learn to use these

tools to support conventional conversations with peers and instructors, asynchronous

threaded dialogue for instructional content, and real-time virtual conferencing for con-

sensus work. Time zones (Australia and eastern United States) did present challenges, as

did shifts in class times due to daylight savings practices.

Beyond the challenge of working with and through the learning management platform,

students engaged a level of complexity that is rarely presented in face-to-face classroom

settings. This complexity was manageable only because students were mature enough to

accept their personal challenge to become ‘‘content experts’’ with respect to specific

assigned critical continuous problems. The level of expertise that students acquire and

share with their peers in the classroom is an aggregate reflection of their prior experience,

their research prowess, and their artful use of dialogue to convey meaning. Students were

challenged to reach out broadly for contemporary illustrations of critical continuous

problems, to dig deeply for reflective understanding of these problems, and to share suc-

cinctly through concise textual and verbal clarifications.

The Relevance of the Subject Matter to a Global Classroom

To achieve a sustainable future, citizens need to rethink their rights and responsibilities in

terms of an expanded sense of space and time. Current forms of democracy and governance


123

have failed, as is evident by the failed Copenhagen Summit and the hung parliaments in the

United Kingdom and Australia. Little research on ways to scale up democracy and gov-

ernance has been undertaken in Australia (Alport and Macintyre 2007; McIntyre-Mills

et al. 2006).

The social contract within the nation state does not go far enough to address the big

challenges of the day, namely poverty, pollution and conflict (Nussbaum 2006; Faist 2009).

The failure of the Copenhagen summit in Dec 2009 demonstrates the need to develop a

means to enable large groups of people to explore the implications of complex challenges

such as poverty, climate change and competition for resources and then to reach sus-

tainable decisions.

How do we enable people to extend their sense of solidarity beyond the nation state and

to consider the interests of future generations of life? This involves holding in mind many,

diverse variables and being prepared to consider the values of diverse stakeholders, in

order to have ethical imagination (Somerville 2009) and to make ethical decisions for a

sustainable future (Dryzek 2000, 2010).

This research addresses the trans-boundary ethical question: how to address complex

social and environmental challenges of ideological fragmentation, poverty, and pollution.

Human security and wellbeing are ‘‘wicked problems’’ (Rittel and Webber 1984) that

comprise many diverse interrelated variables and that have a strong value and emotional

dimension. Ozbekhan recognized this in the 1970s when he coined the term ‘‘problema-

tique’’ to express problems which consist of many elements that are poorly understood,

interactive, and evolving.

This research illustrates how a technology for authentic democracy can be applied to

guide the formulation of policies for social and environmental justice. This experimental

course presents a model for implementing the goals of United Nations’ Aarhus Convention

to focus interactions between the public and public authorities. This Convention grants

rights to the public regarding access to information, public participation and access to

justice, in governmental decision-making processes on matters concerning the local,

national and trans-boundary environment. Rights alone, however, are not sufficient. This

experimental course also seeks to present a means of building the capacity that will provide

access for participation under the spirit of the Convention.

Methods

To understand the complex global situation, Ozbekhan ‘‘deconstructed’’ the problematique

into 49 CCP using steps (a) through (c) in the methodology shown in Fig. 1. Students

engaged this mission by approximating steps (d) to (i) of the SDDSM process.

Step (a) is an acknowledgement of a complex situation. Actually, this is not trivial.

Problems which are too large for an individual to consider (e.g., the issue of global climate

change), can suffer the fate of being ignored. Step (a) is a conscious and deliberate

recognition of the necessity to address a complex problem. The complex situation

encompasses many interrelated institutions, ideas, cultures, economic constraints, etc. This

hodgepodge (or ‘‘wicked problem’’) is acknowledged with the goal of framing a triggering

question to guide its deconstruction.

In step (b), a triggering question is framed to establish the context for the dialogue. A

sample triggering question might be: What are the issues and factors that we must keep inmind as we plan to take actions for a sustainable future during the next 2 years?


123

In response to such a question, a body of ‘‘experts’’ states an issue for consideration in

round robin fashion, step (c). They label their ideas, and the labels are posted on a wall. In

a second round robin, step (d), participants respond to questions asking them to clarify their

ideas. Each explanation is captured in a footnote to the issue it describes, and everyone

agrees that each speaker exclusively owns the words and meanings expressed for the issue

that they have named.

In step (e), the participants collaborate to inductively sort the issues into affinity clus-

ters. And in step (f), participants agree upon labels for the clusters they have created. These

steps build a common language and a sense of shared competence within the group.

In step (g), participants individually rank these clusters according to their perceived

relative importance. Aggregate votes suggest issues which the group prefers to address first

as they build their systems structure.

In step (h), participants create a systems structure by exploring relationships among

issues in a pair-wise fashion. The exploration is guided by assessing whether issue A

significantly influences issue B, and then whether issue B influence issue C, etc.

In this course, students were not asked to perform a cross-impact assessment, step (j), so

the class exercise ended with step (i), where students interpreted their learning in the

context of their consensus and created narratives to summarize their interpretation of the

systems view. Instead, students were guided to superimpose options for action onto the

global problematique that they had constructed to move their thinking from the ‘‘problem

space’’ into the ‘‘solution space’’ of collaborative work.

The process learning objectives in the application of this methodology in the class

include:

• Understand approaches to preserve authenticity in participant expression of his/her

idea;

• Understand the difference between round-robin idea elicitation and brainstorming;

• Understand the mechanics of the construction of authentic consensus;

• Recognize the importance of the triggering question in eliciting ideas;

• Recognize the importance of balancing the ‘‘power relations’’ among the stakeholders;

Fig. 1 Steps in the structured dialogic design� process


123

• Recognize that ‘‘popular’’ ideas in complex situations lead to ‘‘erroneous priorities.’’

The Method is discussed in considerable detail by Christakis and Bausch (2006) and

Flanagan and Christakis (2010).

Results

To gain a collective understanding of these problems which in aggregate are overwhelming

to even the most experienced policy maker, each student was assigned five CCPs to clarify

for the benefit of the group. Each student posted their own CCPs and their preliminary

clarifications on an online Wiki where these interpretations were open for discussion from

other members http://predicament-retrospective.wikispaces.com.

Clarification

In face-to-face applications of SDD, discussion during the clarification step is limited to

questions which seek clarification or to comments which relate to a presumed parallel or

outstanding example of the idea being clarified. The online asynchronous application of

SDD allows more time for individuals who are not the original authors and owners of the

meaning of an issue to expound on their understandings of the issue. This online mixed-

author practice can enrich meaning; however, we acknowledge that the goal of SDD in

face-to-face practice is to preserve the integrity of the meaning as it is held by the original

author. For classroom purposes with class participants who are—by assignment—ad hoc‘‘experts,’’ our goal is to foster interaction as a foundation for learning. This approach

seems particularly appropriate for tasks which ask students to infer the original meaning of

the missing authors in historic re-enactments, such as the present case.

Clarification continued over a 1 week period during which time each student was

required to read the threads for all of the posted ideas, and to inject a question for

clarification where they felt that clarification was needed. The resulting collection of

threads were consolidated into a document which each student then could use as a refer-

ence for recalling the meanings of the issues as further steps were taken to understand the

global problematique.

Clustering

With a shared understanding of meaning, participants typically cluster issues on the basis

of their similarity to each other. Clustering (step 3) requires the application of inductive

logic in group form; the clusters are discovered by examining their members in a collective

process. Groups face the temptation of the tradition of naming clusters in efforts to

facilitate sorting members into clusters; however, this is the antithesis of the clustering

group learning process.

Another way of understanding inductive clustering in a group is as a practical exercise in

what one of our authors has identified as ‘‘body wisdom’’ (Bausch 2010). Choices of strong

similarity among issues rely upon subjective convictions, intuitions, and feelings. Once the

choice is felt, participants are then asked to backfill the understanding by openly explaining

the similarities they feel are strongly related. The group then either expresses its tentative

agreement (because reassigning members of some clusters to later emerging clusters is

always a possibility) or an alternate clustering is proposed. Groups must engage this task


123

http://predicament-retrospective.wikispaces.com

slowly until they internalize the judgments that they must make, and then the pace quickens as

individuals in the group learn to work with and trust their body wisdom. They do not abandon

logic, but they hold it in abeyance in order to express the subjective depth of their under-

standing. The subsequent stages of SDD rely upon subjective intuition in much the same way.

Preliminary clustering was performed on an ad hoc basis on behalf of the class by a small

set of class volunteers who were able to assemble face-to-face. We are aware of online card-

sorting tools which could allow all group members to individually sort issues into clusters

(e.g., http://websort.net). This autonomous individual sorting, however, would be individual

learning, even if the result is reconciled as an aggregate of individual choices. Choosing

together is different from choosing individually and then aggregating results. An individual

making a decision alone is not stimulated and confronted with the wisdom of others.

The preliminary cluster was presented to the entire class for review, comment, and

possible revision. With a shared understanding of members of the clusters, the class

proposed and then selected names for each of the clusters (see step (f)). The Clusters are

presented in Table 1.

Voting on Perceived Importance

Class participants each voted individually for five CCPs that they considered most

important to include in a structure of the global problematique. This voting is NOT a

means of establishing priority among ideas, but rather it is a simple means for identifying a

starting set for constructing a systems view when a group is dealing with substantially

more than a dozen important ideas. The class voting revealed 12 CCPs which received two

or more votes. The list is shown below:

49 (6 votes) Insufficient understanding of the CCP, of their nature, their interactions, and of the futureconsequences both they and current solutions to them are generating

15 (4 votes) Generalized lack of agreed on alternatives to present trends

2 (3 votes) Widespread poverty throughout the world

41 (3 votes) Inadequate participation of people at large in public decisions

12 (2 votes) Affluence and its unknown consequences

18 (2 votes) Growing irrelevance of traditional values and continuing failure to evolve new valuesystems

22 (2 votes) Environmental pollution

24 (2 votes) Major disturbances of the world’s physical ecology

25 (2 votes) Generally inadequate and obsolete institutional arrangements

28 (2 votes) Ideological fragmentation and semantic barriers to communication between individuals,groups, and nations

34 (2 votes) Fast obsolescing political structures and processes

37 (2 votes) Growing use of distorted information to influence and manipulate people

Creating the Influence Map

The 12 CCPs that achieved two or more votes were subjected to ISM (Warfield 1973). The

modeling process was supported with software (CogniScope II; Christakis 1996) and the

display of the software was shared through access to a virtual meeting space (https://www.

gotomeeting.com). The software was programmed so that relationship assessments would


123

http://websort.net

https://www.gotomeeting.com

https://www.gotomeeting.com

Table 1 Representative grouping of 49 problems into affinity clusters

Cluster #1: population growth/distribution (9 ideas)

(CCP-1) Explosive population growth with consequent escalation of social, economic, and otherproblems

(CCP-8) Growing inequalities in the distribution of wealth throughout the world

(CCP-19) Inadequate shelter and transportation

(CCP-20) Obsolete and discriminatory income distribution system(S)

(CCP-27) Unbalanced population distribution

(CCP-31) Widespread unemployment and generalized under-employment

(CCP-32) Spreading ‘‘discontent’’ throughout most classes of society

(CCP-43) Irrational distribution of industry supported by policies that will strengthen the currentpatterns

(CCP-48) Irrational practices in resource investment

Cluster #2: poverty, lags & gaps (4 ideas)

(CCP-2) Widespread poverty throughout the world

(CCP-5) Generalized and growing malnutrition

(CCP-9) Insufficient and irrationally organized medical care

(CCP-39) Growing technological gaps and lags between developed and developing areas

Cluster #3: warfare (5 ideas)

(CCP-3) Increase in the production, destructive capacity, and accessibility of all weapons of war

(CCP-29) Increasing a-social and anti-social behavior and consequent rise in criminality

(CCP-30) Inadequate and obsolete law enforcement and correctional practices

(CCP-33) Polarization of military power and psychological impacts of the policy of deterrence

(CCP-40) New modes of localized warfare

Cluster #4: urbanization (2 ideas)

(CCP-4) Uncontrolled urban spread

(CCP-17) Continuing deterioration of inner-cities or slums

Cluster #5: education (3 ideas)

(CCP-6) Persistence of widespread illiteracy

(CCP-13) Anachronistic and irrelevant education

(CCP-37) Growing use of distorted information to influence and manipulate people

Cluster #6: institutional arrangements (9 ideas)

(CCP-7) Expanding mechanization and bureaucratization of almost all human activity

(CCP-25) Generally inadequate and obsolete institutional arrangements

(CCP-34) Fast obsolescing political structures and processes

(CCP-38) Fragmented international monetary system

(CCP-41) Inadequate participation of people at large in public decisions

(CCP-42) Unimaginative conceptions of world-order and of the rule of law

(CCP-45) Obsolete system of world trade

(CCP-46) Ill-conceived use of international agencies for national or sectoral ends

(CCP-47) Insufficient authority of international agencies

Cluster #7: prejudices (3 ideas)

(CCP-10) Hardening discrimination against minorities

(CCP-11) Hardening prejudices against differing cultures

(CCP-28) Ideological fragmentation and semantic barriers to communication between individuals,groups, and nations


123

be focused using the generic question: ‘‘Would making progress on CCP X help SIG-

NIFICANTLY in making progress on CCP Y in the context of the global problematique?’’

The software uses transitive, irreflexive and asymmetric logic to fit a group’s consensus

assessment into a tree-like structure. Moreover, the software prompts the group to respond

only to those remaining paired comparisons which have not already been explicitly

specified as a result of the group’s expressed choices and the use of transitive, irreflexive

and asymmetric logic.

Within 2 h of structured dialogue, class participants from across the globe meeting in a

virtual classroom reached consensus on a systems structure for 12 CCPs. The system

structure was an influence map (an ISM product, or a ‘‘tree’’) which displayed highly

dependent or highly influenced problems, bottle neck problems, and deep driver problems.

The deep driver problems are located at the root of the tree (see Fig. 2).

Interpreting the Influence Map

The resulting tree had six levels, and the drivers located on the deepest level (VI) were in a

‘‘cycle;’’ that is, they were judged to mutually influence each other. This cycle consisted of

CCP 34 ‘‘Fast obsolescing political structures and processes’’ and CCP 37 ‘‘Growing use of

distorted information to influence and manipulate people.’’ Immediately above this cycle

was another cycle of mutual influence consisting of CCP 49 ‘‘Insufficient understanding of

the CCP’’ and CCP 18 ‘‘Growing irrelevance of traditional values and continuing failure to

evolve new value systems.’’ Together, CCP 34 and CCP 37 were judged to significantly

influence the prospect of resolving CCP 18 and CCP 49, and that influence then propagates

through the entire mapped structure.

The class participants’ consensus view was that addressing these four CCPs will sig-

nificantly improve the prospects of coming to grips with the global problematique. The two

deepest drivers in the systems map (CCP 34 and CCP 37) were among the lowest ranked

Table 1 continued

Cluster #8: unknowns (2 ideas)

(CCP-12) Affluence and its unknown consequences

(CCP-49) Insufficient understanding of CCPs, their nature, their interactions and the futureconsequences that their current solutions are generating

Cluster #9: environment (6 ideas)

(CCP-14) Generalized environmental deterioration

(CCP-21) Accelerating wastage and exhaustion of natural resources

(CCP-22) Growing environmental pollution

(CCP-24) Major disturbance of the globe’s/world’s physical ecology

(CCP-35) Irrational agriculture practices

(CCP-36) Irresponsible use of pesticides, chemical additives, insufficiently tested drugs, fertilizers, Etc.

Cluster #10: value-base (6 ideas)

(CCP-15) Generalized lack of agreed-on alternatives to present trends

(CCP-16) Widespread failure to stimulate man’s creative capacity to confront the future

(CCP-18) Growing irrelevance of traditional values and continuing failure to evolve new value systems

(CCP-23) Generalized alienation of youth

(CCP-26) Limited understanding of what is ‘‘feasible’’ in the way of corrective measures

(CCP-44) Growing tendency to be satisfied with technological solutions for every kind of problem


123

priorities selected for structuring by the class. While the class did demonstrate the

‘‘erroneous priorities’’ effect, their most preferred option (CCP 49) appeared just one level

above the deepest drivers.

Discussion

Comparison of Class Re-enactment with Ozbekhan’s Team Structure

In 1995, Hasan Ozbekhan and colleagues revisited the original problematique and its 49

CCPs through an application of the SDD method (see Fig. 3; Christakis 2006). Working

Fig. 2 Class influence structure of the global problematique


123

with a group of three participants, Ozbekhan’s team constructed a structure with 24 CCPs

(twice as many as were used in the class re-enactment). Ozbekhan’s team’s structure had

seven levels (the class structure had six). Students were presented with Ozbekhan’s team’s

results and were challenged to find some similarities and differences which might reflect

changes in the global problematique over the years. The students focused their attention at

the deep drivers at the base of the tree.

Fifteen years ago, Ozbekhan’s team did not view CCP 37 ‘‘Growing use of distorted

information’’ as one of the 24 problems they felt were essential in a basic structure of the

Fig. 3 Ozbekhan’s team influence structure of the global problematique (1995)


123

problematique. This, of course, was at the very dawn of the Internet. It was a time when

email was just breaking into the commercial market. Has information become more dis-

torted recently? Or are we simply now more aware of the impacts of distorted information?

The second deepest driver identified by the class, CCP 34 ‘‘Fast obsolescing political

structures and processes’’ does appear in the map constructed by Ozbekhan’s team, but it is

not mapped as a deep driver. Has this obsolescence become more problematic today? Are

our demands on our political structured greater today after our awakening to a global war

of terrorism?

The class and Ozbekhan’s team both felt that CCP 18 ‘‘The growing irrelevance of

traditional values and continuing failure to evolve new value systems’’ and CCP 49

‘‘Insufficient understanding of CCP’’ were highly influential problems impacting much of

the systems structure of the problematique. This feature appears to be stable over time. Are

we trapped wallowing in societies with anemic value systems? Can we not free ourselves?

Are conflicting value systems hardened beyond flexible growth? What have we really

learned about the world over the last 15 years? We still seem to lack systemic under-

standing about the problems of the world and how to tackle them.

We are confused, individually and collectively. Individuals with strong personal con-

viction in their understanding of the way that the world works are frustrated that others

cannot simply see things their way. We can see this as an interpretation of the combined

effects of: The growing irrelevance of traditional values and continuing failure to evolve

new value systems; Insufficient understanding of CCP; The growing use of distorted

information to influence and manipulate people; and the fast obsolescing of political

structures and processes. These CCPs result in a confused population, with no way to

fathom drastic social change. Considered together this might be seen as a prescription for

fundamentalism or fascist takeover.

Each individual problem in the global problematique carries a world of facts, figures,

meanings, and futures. The full set of problems is not comprehensible in its entirety by any

one mind. What the application of SDD does for a class of students—or a committee of

policy makers—is to focus attention on issues and ideas that matter by framing those ides

in a consensually constructed systems view and considering the nature of their interactions.

With good data from the past, and equally hopeful participation in the present and the

future, we can look for trends which may indicate changes in pressure points for resolving

the problems.

It is important that such views be provided to the public in a transparent, simple and

actionable form. Currently, media and government portray an essentially confused and

potentially deliberately warped image of the world. Top–down national or global views fail

to reflect the understandings, intentions, and true priorities of humanity from our vantage

points within our communities. Global economic growth today comes face to face with

local sustainability. Powerful special interests continue to pigeon-hole complex issues into

separate and easily marginalized boxes. This happens because communities do not make

use of available tools which will allow them to form sophisticated consensus statements

about complex situations. Based on experiences in communities, classrooms, and online

classes, SDD is emerging as an important tool for discovering community consensus.

It is perhaps not a great surprise that groups who reflect on our global state of affairs

agree the 49 CCPs identified at the founding of the Club of Rome all still persist today. It

has been said that even great persistent evils, over a sufficient passage of time, seem less

evil and more like a part of the fabric of life. It is not enough that we identify deeply

influential problems impacting the global problematique—we must find the strength and


123

courage to attack them. The power of tools such as SDD is that they can focus our efforts

for transformative change.

Identifying Corrective Actions

The follow up from the work done by the Democracy and Sustainability (PoAd 9117)

course as offered at Flinders University would, by the reasoning presented in this docu-

ment, be focused an addressing ‘‘deep drivers’’ of the global problematique. As a capstone

task, the class nominated eight ‘‘options’’ for action and mapped those options as a

superposition structure on top of the structure of the global problematique which they had

produced (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4 Superposition of action options on the global problematique


123

Option 1: Expose parties presenting false information, specifically media and corporate messages

Option 2: Acknowledge the tragic necessity of wars as a means of reducing conflicting ideologies ifcollaboration is blocked

Option 3: Convene religious leaders to agree upon our shared moral values

Option 4: Insist that our governments foster authentic collaborative initiatives

Option 5: Social and environmental sustainability should be present in the classroom all the time

Option 6: Lead other groups the re-enactments of the Ozbekhan project

Option 7: Provoke cognitive overload to force groups to seek new approaches

Option 8: Apply SDD broadly in many contexts as alternatives to obsolescing decisions processes

While the deepest drivers identified in the class map (addressed in the capstone task

with options 1, 5 and 8) will required specialized skills and interventions at large scale

and/or over extended periods of time, members of the education community might

collectively agree that CCP 49 ‘‘Insufficient understanding of CCP’’ could be a focus of

academic energies (addressed with options 6 and 7). For example, new courses could be

established in relevant planning and policy making programs. Online tools like SDD

could guide students through a reflective analysis and position them to focus on options

for attacking specific deep drivers. SDD itself can also be used to ‘‘structure’’ options for

action so that the foundation steps in attacking an important problem can be identified

through a consensus understanding. At a university level, interdisciplinary learning is

often a mixture of ideas that falls short of an atomistic synthesis of a new view and a

new approach. Students, educators, and community stakeholders might be invited to

contribute their ideas for how investigating how their views on the global problematique

will lead to actions in local communities, which might begin to change the culture of the

world.

The democracy and sustainability (PoAd 9117) course as offered at Flinders University

has been a beginning and it falls to us to decide if we will find a way to extend its lessons

into action.

Critique of elements of the learning platform

Many universities are currently providing online and blended learning opportunities for

students at multiple levels of academic training. For the ease of institutional use, most

universities adopt a uniform ‘‘learning management system’’ that then becomes a de facto

platform for all of their online institutional courses. Such systems typically integrate

registration with course work and student records; however, the choice of any one system

and its attendant management policies can unintentionally erect access barriers for

experimental courses which pool students from different university systems. To maximize

accessibility and replication of this experimental course, a decision was made to use

components of a communication platform that are publically available to all without cost.

An alternative, of course, would be a philanthropic offering by a global information

company to host academic courses for global audiences when the subject matter of those

courses meet both social and academic standards. The significant liability in the ad hoc

platform we have used in this study is that components themselves will be unfamiliar to

many first time students. Individual and collective accommodations with the use of the

communication platform will be required by new teachers as well as new students, and this

can delay diffusion of the learning experience to many audiences.


123

The individual components of our ad hoc learning platform are considered below:

Email

Course participants were engaged using individual email accounts, some of which may be

supported through their home universities. Email was used to guide students to registration

processes, to present class schedules, and to distribute instructions for accessing other

components of the learning platform. None of our course participants reported difficulty

with their email communications; however, high volume use of email alone as a means of

exchanging and contributing to rapidly updated information is impractical in even modest

size classes.

Voice-Over-Internet

SKYPE software provides free, voice-over-Internet communication (http://www.skype.

com/). Users need to have personal computers that include microphones and speakers and

need to have administrative control over the computers that they are using so that they can

download and install free SKYPE software. We have used this resource for groups of up to

16 participants. At the start of the course, email instructions for acquiring a SKYPE account

were presented to students, and faculty SKYPE account names were shared. Students and

faculty established individual calls amongst themselves in anticipation of an initial con-

ference call. The initial conference call convened the class to elicit collective reflection of

the course design, review of the syllabus, and questions related to assignments. This call

also allowed class participants to discuss other components of the online learning platform.

SKYPE additionally provided students with an instant means of seeing when their

instructor might be available for an impromptu ‘‘office visit’’ or when fellow students

might be available for an impromptu consult. Easy voice contact adds an important

mechanism for working with students who may be participating from different cultural and

linguistic backgrounds.

Wiki Website

A jointly authored website was used as a repository of course participant contributions to

the content of the course. Wikispaces was selected as the online repository for the course

because it was judged to offer a facile system for managing multiple streams of threaded

discussion, it had proven to be reliable in prior testing, and it offered its services without

user fees. A class worksite was established and was sequentially expanded as the course

progressed through its 6 week cycle (http://predicament-retrospective.wikispaces.com/).

The class wiki workspace was configured to provide distinct ‘‘workspace sections’’ for

each of the following phases of class activity (though not all phases were used in this pilot

course):

• The problem sets and their clarifications

• The students’ individual preferences for most important problems

• The class’s collective understanding of interactions among highly preferred problems

• The students’ individual narrative accounts of that understanding

• The students’ individual recommendations for acting on highly preferred problems

• The overlay of actions on the class’s understanding of the system of influence among

problems


123

http://www.skype.com/

http://www.skype.com/

http://predicament-retrospective.wikispaces.com/

• Individual student reflections on the content and process of learning through this

experimental online course

The class wiki workspace content included supportive documents in the form of:

• A disclaimer which clarifies that the class wiki is not a work product of the current Club

of Rome

• A catalogue of key email notices about administrative issues within the course

• A record of the course announcement

• A library of course readings

• A syllabus of course tasks

• A list of course participants and their contact information

• A page providing world time zones to support in trans-global synchronous meetings

The Wiki workspace approach was based upon practices developed and validated by

Gayle Underwood, who has 15 years of experience in education in online learning projects.

She is the senior technology integration consultant for the Allegan Area Education Service

Agency and is recognized for her leadership in Universal Design for Learning in Michigan

schools. Internationally, Gayle has been supporting online learning for Turkish and Greek

communities in the island of Cyprus and is working with Americans for Indian Opportunity

(AIO) and the Advancement of Maori Opportunity (AMO) to enhance interaction and

communication among indigenous people throughout the world. The effective use of this

wiki, including orientation and coaching for course participants, is a task of the instruc-

tional staff.

Online Screen Sharing

Student access to online screen sharing involves responding to an invitation to enter a

specialized, interactive website. For the purpose of this pilot course, a no-cost, trial

membership was secured from GoToMeeting (http://www.gotomeeting.com/fec/). Stu-

dents were emailed a URL for the website with instructions for entering the classroom and

a time for signing into that website. The classroom can be open for public participation or

password protected for private meetings at the instructor’s option.

From the instructor side, software needs to be downloaded and a hosting session

needs to be scheduled and launched. The online class used only basic features of the

virtual classroom to enable online screen sharing. SKYPE conference calls were estab-

lished concurrently to assure than any potential loss in connectivity with the virtual

classroom could be recognized immediately. Serendipitously, it was discovered that

agreement and disagreement with the significance of proposed influence among pairs of

problems could be recorded in a facile fashion using the ‘‘chat’’ subroutine of the

SKYPE product. This proved to be superior to a role call for oral votes for each

relational assessment.

The virtual classroom proved effective as a means of sharing a software display screen

as students engaged in real-time, pair-wise comparison of CCP.

Systems Structuring Software

Instructors applied CogniScopeII software to collect and display the 49 CCPs, construct

affinity clusters, and construct an interpretive structural model (ISM) based on the class’s

pair-wise comparisons. The class successfully constructed a tree-like map based upon their


123

http://www.gotomeeting.com/fec/

highly preferred CCPs. An academic version of this software package that is limited

to mapping 15 problems is available free to academic users (see http://www.global

agoras.org/).

Critique of the Course Plan

The five-week experimental online course followed a collaborative, project-oriented

pedagogy and was made available through the Graduate Program in Policy and Admin-

istration (PoAd 9117-5) at Flinders University during the months of March and April,

2010. The course was co-designed by Dr. Janet McIntyre-Mills who teaches at Flinders

University and at the University of Indonesia and by Dr. Kenneth Bausch and his col-

leagues within the Institute for 21st Century Agoras. This experimental course combined

experienced teachers with a novel learning environment, and introduced an innovative

collaborative approach to foster student engagement. The course was scheduled to run

continuously over 6 weeks during which time students would convene into five synchro-

nous, full class participation events scheduled for early morning in Australia and late

afternoon in the United States.

Student participation was evidenced by the level and the quality of questions and

responses contributed to the dialogue throughout the process. Students were expected to

present and defend their individual understanding for CCPs and were also expected to

challenge the understanding of CCPs posted by other class participants. This created a

transparent record of how students contributed to the class dialogue. No upper limit was

established for student participation in exploring CCPs posted by other students; however,

‘‘active engagement’’ was modeled by two class auditors who had contributed to wiki-

based clarifications in prior collaborative learning projects.

Contributions in terms of original, independent research and clarification of CCPs

(including illustrative website references), individually written narratives based upon the

consensus map that the class constructed, and summary reflections [i.e., a 6,000 word essay

based upon elaboration of the work within the online classroom] were graded using tra-

ditional academic metrics.

Conclusion

Online learning analyses are most frequently reported based on experiences of classes

which are embedded within codified learning management systems applied by instructors

trained in the use of the platforms and backed up with local technical support. One of the

goals of this experimental project was to engage novice participants with an overwhelming

body of complexity while concurrently challenging them to work through an unfamiliar

learning management platform. This is perhaps as difficult an academic challenge as any

instructor might care to engage. Indeed, the instructors who agreed to participate in this

study acknowledged their reliance on information systems professionals to help them learn

as they go. The challenges encountered in this experimental course are on one hand fully

expected yet on the other hand surprising. They include:

1. Delay in course launch

2. Technical challenges working with the platform components

3. Uncertainty with respect to student expectations

4. Complexity of subject matter


123

http://www.globalagoras.org/

http://www.globalagoras.org/

5. Language issues working across international cultures

6. Efficiency in collecting real-time input

7. Differences in—and changes in—local time zones

8. Changes in course enrolment during the course

9. Evolving ideas for course content during the course

Initially, a wiki shell was constructed for the instructor, SKYPE addresses were pro-

vided to the instructor, and a GoToMeeting account was opened for the instructor. After a

frustrating attempt to launch the course using only self-informed familiarity with the

platform components, a decision was taken to transfer the platform management task to an

experienced information system management team. Instructors retained direct contact with

students within and beyond the synchronous meeting events. Technical issues encountered

by students as they engaged the use of the learning platform were addressed in conference

calls. Unanticipated changes in day light savings time in both the United States and

Australia, in different weeks, led to confusion. One of these changes led to a fracture of the

class at intensely interactive structuring phase of the course. To mend this fracture, faculty

and support staff duplicated the structuring experience for members of the class who were

late entering that session (giving rise to a preliminary 1st structural map and then allowing

for a full class second structural map).

Given technical problems and information complexity, it would be understandable if

student engagement were to decline. Through subjective interviews (independent of any

grade consequence), students universally expressed views which indicated that they felt

they were part of a ‘‘real world’’ shared learning environment throughout this pilot course.

Participant Reflections

The process taught participants in different ways. The open forum on the Predicament of

Humankind enlightened students about the complexity and nature of the problems at hand.

The use of SDD opened eyes to an effective way of communicating. An experience of online

and international active decision-making provided the many lessons already enumerated.

To connect the minds of people from different sides of the world (Australia and the

United States), email, SKYPE, wikispaces and gotomeeting.com were used effectively (in

most instances), with only a few minor mishaps. There were confusions with time zones

and technology failure but in all it was an excellent way to facilitate trans-boundary

dialogue and collaborative learning. However, I found some limitations to the technique in

that I felt very out of my depth in the concept of systems design, making me cautious to

contribute in the beginning.

As a method of learning I found the online classroom to be very beneficial, something

completely different from conventional university education. The opportunity to work with

leaders in the field encouraged me to work harder. It was comforting to realize that the

same exercise was completed in 1995 by a smaller group of people.

Strengths challenging, discussions inclusive, equal involvement of all participants.

Different perspectives from spanning generations, life experience, knowledge, world-view.

Maintaining autonomy.

Weaknesses time gap miscommunication, technology failing (Skype), overwhelming

(part of SDD process), left powerless in the wake of all these overarching problems. A

different result will always be produced (varied interpretations of issues).

The subject was not ‘taught’ using action learning principles. During the process I was

more concerned with the CCPs, not the technique used for discussing them, I don’t know


123

whether this was intentional or not but I feel that more reflection on SDD would have been

beneficial. The one-on-one sessions with Janet were very beneficial because it was more

casual, relevant and I was more inclined to give my opinion. These need to be part of the

topic. Would have liked some ideas for practical application in the public sector.

Structured dialogue could be used to address the complex and wicked problems

apparent in our society today. By thinking outside the square, listening to members of the

community and not being restricted by the stereotypes we place on ourselves as humans. In

practice, care would need to be taken with the number of people participating, where

having too few people would not be representative of the community and having too many

would draw the process out over a long time.

The major barrier to this is our tendency to continue as usual, making only minor

changes so as to maintain political power. Such a major change to democracy: placing the

power with the people, instead of with the bureaucrats would make a major change in

democracy. If we remain stuck in this restrictive mindset, we stand no chance of con-

fronting the complex web of issues humanity is faced with.

It is 4:45 AM in Vienna and the pounding of my head and conscience has led me to

make a blogger contribution, whilst the reflections are floating and sorting into my con-

sciousness. The potential and pitfalls cannot be divided into two neat compartments; they

are of course systemically linked. The difficulties and potentials are linked and need to be

addressed by means of systemic (Taoist) principles. The stress we have felt due to space—

time differences is undeniable, as is the physical stress caused by technological glitches

with the link ups. The time differences cannot be solved by reliance on world time

clocks—because clearly the local daylight saving is not always factored in quickly.

Also human error seems to creep in with day light saving occurring simultaneously in

South Australia and during a different week in USA. Reliance on group emails to confirm

times seems to be the safest approach to check on the times, particularly when so many

players are involved in so many places internationally.

Potential The facilitation locally needs to be conducted by people who trust the con-

tributions of the wider team. This was built into the design and was the factor that carried

us through the difficult stages of recruiting and sustaining the initial stages of the con-

versation. Clearly distance technology only roughly approximates the relationships that are

created face to face. It is in these relationships that sufficient trust is built up to weather the

stages of testing the new technology. The fact that students were clearly interested and

keen to ‘give it a go’ was the other strong supporting factor.

As far as the process is concerned as a local facilitator, juggling many other teaching,

research projects means that time is always a problem. Conversation and making time for

conversation is difficult. Another challenge is that interested students like to ‘dip their toe

into the water’ to find out about the participatory democracy process, which is good, but do

not realize the amount of time required. This needs to be carefully managed. My role as

local facilitator as well as participant was blurred as I stepped in and out of role. The same

applied to Ken and Tom.

The fact that students were registered to participate and that much was at stake for them

and for the participants leading the process cannot be denied either. The position and

reputation power of the local facilitators play a role as is the wish to develop democratic

participatory processes! This needs to be unpacked more with the participants. The process

itself is extended over weeks for teaching purposes and reflection which also has strengths

and weaknesses on which the participants need to comment. For me the process of coming

up with a triggering question is a vital stage, but leaving this out for the purpose of

focusing on the 49 CCPs was appropriate for the teaching experience.


123

This was my first foray into Online Collaborative Inquiry so I’ve not much to compare

the quality to. But personality I would have preferred to be around a table with yellow

pads, pencils, and coffee, a clear reflection of my predisposed Luddite tendencies. That

said, by the third session I was over most of my anxiety and was able to enjoy the

interaction. The interesting part for me was the reward, we produced an artifact of our

collaborative work and from that we were able to focus on action. The give and take of the

clarification process was stimulating and enjoyable and at some level I would have

appreciated more time in that discussion.

Dialogue Reenactment provides insight into the human predicament through the process

of clarification. To view persistent problems from a new social location affected not only

by a different knowledge and experience, but also from a new place in time allows for the

possibility of an expanded perspective. Placing stakeholders in the expanded dimension of

time brings clarification in that we have, in looking to the past, seen the future of prior

enactments. We can, in effect, collaborate with the past. It’s a little like having 3d glasses,

though not quite so good as a time machine. I am quite sure that the better we understand

the past and the outcomes of our processes and decisions, the more likely our chances for

successful outcomes in the future. By using the 49 CCP as originally written maintains a

foundation on which we can construct our current clarifications. In applying the Cogni-

scope software we are able to achieve readily comparable results and thereby judge our

progress or lack thereof in dealing with the CCPs as described in the Problematique.

This way of teaching and decision-making seems to hold promise for engaging with

local and regional governments to address problems. My concern is that the process be

applied appropriately. Citizens may like to comment on issues and sit in halls where they

can hear the 49 CCPs described by people with professional expertise and then move to

ranking which are the 5 most pressing problems for them. Then move onto a SDD that is

facilitated along the lines we have followed using distance communication to scale up the

conversations from local to regional levels.

The actual process of thinking through the relationships across the variables is not

problematic for people with tertiary level education or (I believe from our shared empirical

experience) for people with lived experience and a concern for the issues that are discussed

in the triggering question. The biggest issue is the fear of technological failure and the need

to make enough time for the conversation.

The way in which the conversation clarified and persuaded participants to change their

votes needs to be explored carefully. When students and professors engage together is the

engagement the same as when complete strangers engage? Then again—would complete

strangers make the time and sustain the effort to engage? This is the point I was raising

initially about the potential and pitfalls being systemically linked.

Democracy and governance require trust and openness. But this has risk. It is a risk we

have to take. The positive and negative potential for two-way democracy and two-way

governance is undeniable. Software to engage participation will need to be protected from

those who could subvert it. The potential for viruses to infect and control computers so that

messages or votes could be sent without our knowing is undeniable.

I feel this initial online collaboration was successful despite the celestial interference

with the times for class meetings. There were however, times when I did not feel there was

good communication between the United States and Australia. Expectations of how the

session would proceed did not always seem to coincide. The course outline may have been

in part responsible, it could have been enlarged by way of explanations of terms and perhaps

included examples of what you expected from our posts. Hopefully our experience can lead

to a prescribed format that all participants are clear on before we begin. On our last session


123

the flow of conversation seemed to work pretty well, but I was aware that open questions

often led to silence. I believe in part this is because people were being polite and allowing

for the first person to begin and avoid speaking over another. On the other hand directed

questions often put people on the spot and might have provided responses from a sense of

duty as opposed to inspiration. The Go to Meeting format seemed more manageable than

Skype, but in either case the format seems to limit the spontaneity of an in-person situation

that might have inspired better collaboration. From my perspective spontaneity works to

propel inspiration, the online group work as we were practicing did not leave room for much

spark. One suggestion is to spend some time in preparation working one-on-one. If a

participant could spend even 15 min during the week to prepare for the group meeting with

a member of the knowledge management team I believe we could provide better flow and

content. Another possibility would be to push participants into pairing up, The team could

assign someone from the United States an Australian conversation partner, again providing

some one-on-one time to discuss class material and perspectives on the course.

Every human invention can be subverted, but society and the environment function

because we remain (at this stage) able to manage the perturbations and changes. I am going

to the International Federation of Systems Research on strategies to advance systems

thinking. Needless to say the SDD approach will be mentioned as a viable means to scale

up democracy and governance. To my mind if we close off freedoms to participate we will

undermine democracy and the potential for good governance. ‘Good’ is a value concept

that needs to be defined with future generations in mind. We can be free and diverse—but

only to the extent that we do not undermine the freedoms of others.

Keeping a balance between centralized and decentralized steering is the challenge……Interestingly my headache has gone. I believe that my conscience feels better, because I have

met my commitment to meet my colleagues on line. Candace Pert (1997) ‘Molecules of

Emotion’ would agree that our thinking shapes matter. Our thinking matters because it is the

basis of the design we bequeath to the next generation. As Prof Chroust said, ‘‘Brisbane,

Australia is a natural history museum.’’ Magnificent Vienna does not have many birds. Our

culture is our choice. Let it be informed and let us be stewards in the sense used by Laszlo (2000).

The online collaborative process applied in this pilot course demonstrated measures of success

yet also identified challenges for future use. Even within the modest goals of this class, it is clear that

a new approach to collaborative decision-making to engage the overwhelming problems facing the

world today can be extended to virtual classes and communities through currently available online

methodologies. Beyond the classroom, online application of SDD has been used with groups engaged

in education system transformation, nation rebuilding, and policy evaluation (see Laouris, Y,

Underwood, G, Laouri, R and Christakis, AN, 2010). Enhancements in the publically available online

platforms used in this project present genuine opportunities to accelerate the diffusion of online

collaborative decision-making processes which are essential to enact authentic participatory

democracy.

References

Alport K, Macintyre C (2007) Citizens to netizens: grass roots driven democracy and e-democracy in SouthAustralia. Int J Elec Govt Res 3(4):38–57

Bausch K (2010) Body wisdom: interplay of body and ego. Ongoing Emergence Press, AtlantaChristakis AN (1996) A people science: the cogniscope (TM) systems approach. SYSTEMS J Transdiscipl

Syst Sci 1(1):16–19Christakis AN (2006) A retrospective structural inquiry of the predicament of humankind prospectus of the

club of Rome (Chapter 7). In: Janet Judy McIntyre-Mills (ed) Rescuing the enlightenment from itself:critical and systemic implications for democracy. Springer Science & Business Media, Inc, Heidelberg


123

Christakis AN, Bausch K (2006) How people harness their collective wisdom and power to construct thefuture in co-laboratories of democracy. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte

Churchman CW (1971) The design of inquiring systems. Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization,Basic Books, New York

Churchman CW (1982) Thought and wisdom. Intersystems Publications, CalifornianCoates H (2005) Leveraging LMSs to enhance campus-based student engagement. Educ Quart 28(1)1–6Dryzek JS (2000) Deliberative democracy and beyond: liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford University

Press, OxfordDryzek JS (2010) Green democracy, global governance. Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia,

CanberraFaist T (2009) The transnational social question: social rights and citizenship in the global context. Int

Sociol 24(1):7–36Flanagan T, Christakis AN (2010) The talking point: creating an environment for exploring complex

meaning. Information Age Publishing, CharlotteForrester JW (1961) Industrial dynamics. The M.I.T. Press, CambridgeLaouris Y, Underwood G, Laouri R, Christakis AN (2010) Structured dialogue embedded within emerging

technologies. In: George Veletsianos (ed) Emerging technologies in distance education. AthabascaUniversity Press, Edmonton, pp 153–173

Laszlo A (2000) The epistemological foundations of evolutionary systems design. In: Allen JK, Wilby J(eds) Proceedings of the world congress of the systems sciences and ISSS 2000 international societyfor the systems sciences 44th annual meeting, Toronto

McBrien JL, Jones P, Cheng R (2009) Virtual spaces: employing a synchronous online classroom tofacilitate student engagement in online learning. Int Rev Res Open Distance Learn 10(3):23–22

McIntyre-Mills J (2006) Systemic Governance and accountability: working and reworking conceptual andspatial boundaries. Springer, London, vol 3 of C. West Churchman Series

Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens WW III (1972) The limits to growth. Universe Books,New York

Nussbaum M (2006) Frontiers of justice, disability, nationality and species membership. Harvard UniversityPress, London

Ozbekhan H (1970) The predicament of mankind. http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/loversofdemocracy/Predicament.PTI.pdf

Pert C (1997) Molecules of emotion. Scriber, New YorkReimann P, Thompson K, Weinel M (2007) Collaborative learning by modelling: observations in an online

setting. In: ICT: providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings Ascilite Singapore2007:887–897. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/reimann.pdf

Rittel H, Webber M (1984) Planning problems are wicked problems developments in design methodology.Wiley, New York

Scardamalia M, Bereiter C (2006) Knowledge building: theory, pedagogy, and technology. In: Sawyer K(ed) Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 97–118

Somerville M (2009) The ethical imagination. Montreal Magill University Press, MontrealSterelny K (2005) Externalism, epistemic artefacts and the extended mind. In: Schantz R (ed) The exter-

nalist challenge: new studies on cognition and intentionality. De Gruyter, BerlinWarfield JN (1973) On arranging elements of a hierarchy in graphic from. IEEESMC 3(2):121–132


123

http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/loversofdemocracy/Predicament.PTI.pdf

http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/loversofdemocracy/Predicament.PTI.pdf

http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/reimann.pdf

Documents

A Systems Approach for Engaging Groups in Global Complexity: Capacity Building Through an Online Course