View
105
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Systems Thinking toward institutional innovation and change
Bernard Hubert (Agropolis International)
& Ray Ison (Open Univ., UK & Monash Univ., Australia)
International Conference on Integrated Systems Research
Ibadan – March 3-6, 20015
Ibadan 03-03-15
Innovation vs Technology transfer
• Innovation is lead by those who are holding stake in a situation to change the situation or their position within this situation …
• It could rely on new technology or on new forms of social(/economic) organization or on new understanding of the context based on new knowledge
• The role of research is by producing this “new”: by simply changing procedures (“controlled design”) either by exploratory approaches (“innovative design”)
• Innovation doesn’t avoid competition among stakeholders if there is any comparative advantage
• In case of public goods it has to be collectively managed : Innovation Platforms, Innovation Systems, etc.
Ibadan 03-03-15
The researcher as an agent of change
• How to interact better to create knowledge that can engender innovation
• The research process is not separable from decision-making: investigation is central to the design of solutions (choices to be made)
• Social learning is one way to entail a social dynamic which transforms the perspectives and objects of interest as well as the actors themselves in the collective learning process
• …given the inseparability of knowledge and relationships • …a learning system can only be said to exist after its enactment
(i.e. upon reflection) • The challenge is not the individual scientist but the determinants
of the overall paradigm in which they operate
Ibadan 03-03-15
S1 → S2 → S3 etc
Changes in social relations
Ibadan 03-03-15
“Traditional” position of research
Politicy actors
Research Intermediary
bodies
Stakeholders Citizens
Ibadan 03-03-15
Policy actors
Research Intermediary
bodies
Stakeholders Citizens
CRISIS
BREAKING
Policy actors
Research Intermediary
bodies
Stakeholders Citizens
R1
R2 R3
R4
New relationships based on “knowing and learning”
approach
Ibadan 03-03-15
New ways to practice research in complex situations
• as researchers external to the process, observing, recording, and analysing methods and processes for the co-creation of inter-active learning (R1),
• who are orchestrating invitations to engage in conversations and actions (R2),
• and who are looking at the ‘objects’ around which new actions and relationships among IB, SH, and C, are mobilised (R3),
• as well as participating in the co-creation of the new actions and relationships (R4).
Ibadan 03-03-15
Ibadan 03-03-15
Organisational learning
Second order change Goals &
Concepts
First order change Rules
Third order change
Values & Ideas
Theories for action (« self evident »)
Action strategies implemented
Values, theoretical backgrounds, worldviews and conceptions
Consequences
Five ‘variables’ which enhance or constrain transformation towards concerted action
Ibadan 03-03-15
For a transformative praxis
• A premise is that it is very useful to view sustainability as an emergent property of stakeholders interaction with their relational domain, and not a technical property of the ecosystem
• Understanding adaptation as co-evolution in terms of the conservation of structural coupling (between relational domain & phenomenal domain)
• And take on the choice to see a situation as a wicked problem (vs a tame one), depending on our will to face complexity
• Build the system of interest as an epistemological device (a way of knowing about a situation)
Ibadan 03-03-15
Two looks of an observer in noting the generative domain,
or the resultant phenomenon in a different domain.
This figure depicts Maturana’s iconic representation of a living system that remains conserved as such, as long as both autopoiesis and adaptation (structural coupling) persist (Source: adapted from Bunnell 2008, p. xiii)
.
Ibadan 03-03-15
Some ‘basics’ about ‘research’ as a form of practice
• practice as a relational dynamic
• traditions of understanding of the researcher(s)
• choices that can be made
– theoretical frameworks (F)
– about situations (S)
– researcher/practitioner (P) modes
– about method/methodology (M)
• research as an effective (emergent) performance
Ibadan 03-03-15
Understanding research practice …?
P = practitioner F = framework of ideas/theory S = situation M = method or methodology T= techniques
Ibadan 03-03-15
Too often the focus is on the M
M
Ibadan 03-03-15
Technology is rarely understood in relation to practice
Ibadan 03-03-15
What 30 years of cognitive research suggests?
Table 1 Some contrasting features between the traditional Western conception of the
disembodied person with that of an embodied person
Traditional Western conception of the
disembodied person The conception of an embodied person
The world has a unique category structure
independent of the minds, bodies or
brains of human beings (i.e. an objective
world).
Our conceptual system is grounded in,
neurally makes use of, and is crucially shaped
by our perceptual and motor systems.
There is a universal reason that
characterizes the rational structure of the
world. Both concepts and reason are
independent of the minds, bodies and
brains of human beings.
We can only form concepts through the body.
Therefore every understanding that we can
have of the world, ourselves, and others can
only be framed in terms of concepts shaped by
our bodies.
P
Ibadan 03-03-15
P
Ibadan 03-03-15
Is a concert made up from a collection of different ‘disciplines’ collected in the same room?
Bringing multiple perspectives to a joint task?
Is it additive, as in a final report?
A situation of concern
Different theoretical frameworks & assumptions
Ibadan 03-03-15
An emergent performance
….what makes systems practice?
Ibadan 03-03-15
Some ‘basics’ about ‘Systems’
• the two adjectives from ‘system’
• exploring ‘Systems’ intellectual lineages
• choosing ‘system’ or ‘situation’
– a ‘system of interest’
– results from relational thinking
• key concepts common to different lineages
Ibadan 03-03-15
Ibadan 03-03-15
• The systemic, systematic duality
Ibadan 03-03-15
An emergent performance
….what makes systems practice?
Ibadan 03-03-15
Ibadan 03-03-15
S1 → S2 → S3 etc
Changes in social relations
Ibadan 03-03-15
Choices about ‘framings’ for situations
S
Ibadan 03-03-15
Levels of organisation
Ibadan 03-03-15
Systemic
(epistemologies)
Systematic
(ontologies)
To start with a situation or THE system – a choice to be made
Ibadan 03-03-15
For an aware systems practitioner a system of interest is an epistemological device – a way of knowing about a situation
? of purpose
Ibadan 03-03-15
What narrative can be constructed?
• appreciating the nature and scope of the contribution that Systems understandings and practices have already made
• Building sustainable rural future: The added value of systems approaches in times of change and uncertainty
Ibadan 03-03-15
3. Ricefield as an agroecosystem
Agro-ecosystems analysis
Ibadan 03-03-15
Conceptual models/typologies
Ibadan 03-03-15
Agroecosystems as human activity systems: Hawkesbury model
Ibadan 03-03-15
An ethics of practice – opening up more choices
• fostering the circumstances for epistemological awareness and researcher responsibility
Ibadan 03-03-15
Heinz von Foerster ‘act always so as to increase the number of choices’
Ibadan 03-03-15
Institutionalizing systems approaches
• recognizing and addressing factors that constrain the flourishing of Systems as a domain of inquiry and practice
Ibadan 03-03-15
Different institutional forms for governing and managing purposeful action as part of an overall process of systemic
development through social learning (Source: Ison et al 2008).
Ibadan 03-03-15
In a climate-change world we need greater capability for
improvising and sustaining effective performances
Ibadan 03-03-15
Conclusions
Ibadan 03-03-15
Systems thinking and practice which attends to perspectives, multiple partial views, assumptions, framings, traps….and much
more… still has much to contribute