| 1. |
- Bammer, G., et al.
(författare)
-
Expertise in research integration and implementation for tackling complex problems: when is it needed, where can it be found and how can it be strengthened?
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Palgrave Communications. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2055-1045. ; 6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Expertise in research integration and implementation is an essential but often overlooked component of tackling complex societal and environmental problems. We focus on expertise relevant to any complex problem, especially contributory expertise, divided into 'knowing-that' and 'knowing-how.' We also deal with interactional expertise and the fact that much expertise is tacit. We explore three questions. First, in examining 'when is expertise in research integration and implementation required?,' we review tasks essential (a) to developing more comprehensive understandings of complex problems, plus possible ways to address them, and (b) for supporting implementation of those understandings into government policy, community practice, business and social innovation, or other initiatives. Second, in considering 'where can expertise in research integration and implementation currently be found?,' we describe three realms: (a) specific approaches, including interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, systems thinking and sustainability science; (b) case-based experience that is independent of these specific approaches; and (c) research examining elements of integration and implementation, specifically considering unknowns and fostering innovation. We highlight examples of expertise in each realm and demonstrate how fragmentation currently precludes clear identification of research integration and implementation expertise. Third, in exploring 'what is required to strengthen expertise in research integration and implementation?,' we propose building a knowledge bank. We delve into three key challenges: compiling existing expertise, indexing and organising the expertise to make it widely accessible, and understanding and overcoming the core reasons for the existing fragmentation. A growing knowledge bank of expertise in research integration and implementation on the one hand, and accumulating success in addressing complex societal and environmental problems on the other, will form a virtuous cycle so that each strengthens the other. Building a coalition of researchers and institutions will ensure this expertise and its application are valued and sustained.
|
|
| 2. |
- Barros-Castro, Ricardo A., et al.
(författare)
-
Systemic Intervention for Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Systems research and behavioral science. - : Wiley. - 1092-7026 .- 1099-1743. ; 32:1, s. 86-105
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper presents a systemic intervention approach as a means to overcome the methodological challenges involved in research into computer-supported collaborative learning applied to the promotion of mathematical problem-solving (CSCL-MPS) skills in schools. These challenges include how to develop an integrated analysis of several aspects of the learning process; and how to reflect on learning purposes, the context of application and participants' identities. The focus of systemic intervention is on processes for thinking through whose views and what issues and values should be considered pertinent in an analysis. Systemic intervention also advocates mixing methods from different traditions to address the purposes of multiple stakeholders. Consequently, a design for CSCL-MPS research is presented that includes several methods. This methodological design is used to analyse and reflect upon both a CSCL-MPS project with Colombian schools, and the identities of the participants in that project. Copyright (c) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
|
|
| 3. |
- Cronin, K., et al.
(författare)
-
Issues Mapping : A problem structuring method for addressing science and technology conflicts
- 2014
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Operational Research. - : Elsevier BV. - 0377-2217 .- 1872-6860. ; 233:1, s. 145-158
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- There are new opportunities for the application of problem structuring methods to address science and technology risk conflicts through stakeholder dialogue. Most previous approaches to addressing risk conflicts have been developed from a traditional risk communication perspective, which tends to construct engagement between stakeholders based on the assumption that scientists evaluate technologies using facts, and lay participants do so based on their values. 'Understanding the facts' is generally privileged, so the value framings of experts often remain unexposed, and the perspectives of lay participants are marginalized. When this happens, risk communication methodologies fail to achieve authentic dialogue and can exacerbate conflict. This paper introduces 'Issues Mapping', a problem structuring method that enables dialogue by using visual modelling techniques to clarify issues and develop mutual understanding between stakeholders. A case study of the first application of Issues Mapping is presented, which engaged science and community protagonists in the genetic engineering debate in New Zealand. Participant and researcher evaluations suggest that Issues Mapping helped to break down stereotypes of both scientists and environmental activists; increased mutual understanding; reduced conflict; identified common ground; started building trust; and supported the emergence of policy options that all stakeholders in the room could live with. The paper ends with some reflections and priorities for further research.
|
|
| 4. |
- Fazey, Ioan, et al.
(författare)
-
Ten essentials for action-oriented and second order energy transitions, transformations and climate change research
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Energy Research and Social Science. - : Elsevier BV. - 2214-6296 .- 2214-6326. ; 40, s. 54-70
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The most critical question for climate research is no longer about the problem, but about how to facilitate the transformative changes necessary to avoid catastrophic climate-induced change. Addressing this question, however, will require massive upscaling of research that can rapidly enhance learning about transformations. Ten essentials for guiding action-oriented transformation and energy research are therefore presented, framed in relation to second-order science. They include: (1) Focus on transformations to low-carbon, resilient living; (2) Focus on solution processes; (3) Focus on ‘how to’ practical knowledge; (4) Approach research as occurring from within the system being intervened; (5) Work with normative aspects; (6) Seek to transcend current thinking; (7) Take a multi-faceted approach to understand and shape change; (8) Acknowledge the value of alternative roles of researchers; (9) Encourage second-order experimentation; and (10) Be reflexive. Joint application of the essentials would create highly adaptive, reflexive, collaborative and impact-oriented research able to enhance capacity to respond to the climate challenge. At present, however, the practice of such approaches is limited and constrained by dominance of other approaches. For wider transformations to low carbon living and energy systems to occur, transformations will therefore also be needed in the way in which knowledge is produced and used.
|
|
| 5. |
- Foote, J., et al.
(författare)
-
Systemic evaluation of community environmental management programmes
- 2021
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Operational Research. - : Elsevier. - 0377-2217 .- 1872-6860. ; 288:1, s. 207-224
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Community environmental management (CEM) involves the facilitation of community partnerships, local dialogue, consultation and participative decision-making. This is increasingly seen as a solution to some of the more complex environmental issues faced by regulatory authorities. Anecdotal evidence suggests that CEM programmes have much potential, but the evaluation of them is problematic, and there is a need for more robust evidence of their effectiveness. This paper reports on the development of a new CEM evaluation approach (inspired by soft systems methodology, developmental work research and systemic intervention), which was trialled with a New Zealand regional council. The approach shows promise in addressing common evaluation bottlenecks and helping stakeholders to develop causal narratives that more fully account for the complex relationship between community participation and environmental outcomes. However, while the local participants in the CEM initiative acted on the evaluation findings, they hoped that it would stimulate wider organisational change, and this did not happen. Project reflections, informed by institutional theory, reveal that the logics of 'participation' and 'community' implicit in the findings were appropriate for local participants, but non-participating regional council stakeholders read the findings with different logics, and therefore the evaluation failed to communicate the necessity for wider change. The reflections highlight a previously unrecognised evaluation bottleneck. While the CEM evaluation methodology has the potential to be adapted for other contexts, if wider organisational change is required, care must be taken to anticipate the different institutional logics of stakeholders who might be unfamiliar with, or even hostile to, CEM. (c) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 6. |
- Gregory, Amanda J., et al.
(författare)
-
Stakeholder identification and engagement in problem structuring interventions
- 2020
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Operational Research. - : Elsevier. - 0377-2217 .- 1872-6860. ; 283:1, s. 321-340
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper addresses the under-researched issue of stakeholder identification and engagement in problem structuring interventions. A concise framework is proposed to aid critical reflection in the design and reporting of stakeholder identification and engagement. This is grounded in a critical-systemic epistemology, and is informed by social identity theory. We illustrate the utility of the framework with an example of a problem structuring workshop, which was part of a green innovation project on the development of a technology for the recovery of rare metals from steel slag. The workshop was initially going to be designed to surface stakeholder views on the technology itself. However, it became apparent that a range of other strategic issues concerning the future of the site were going to impact on decision making about the use of steel slag. It therefore became important to evolve the agenda for the problem structuring, and this is where the critical-systemic approach made a difference. It enabled the workshop to be reframed as a community-based event looking at how the former steelworks site could be developed for new purposes. Evaluation of this problem structuring intervention revealed significant stakeholder learning about the issues needing to be accounted for, and a range of possible options for the development of the steelworks site were explored. The paper ends with a discussion of the utility of social identity theory for understanding the processes and outcomes of the workshop, and reflections are provided on its implications for operational research practice more generally.
|
|
| 7. |
- Hansen, Angela R., et al.
(författare)
-
Negotiating Food Systems Resilience
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Nature Food. - : Nature Publishing Group. - 2662-1355. ; 1, s. 519-519
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 8. |
- Helfgott, Ariella, et al.
(författare)
-
Exploring Boundaries in Food Systems Research : Implications for Projects on UK Food Security
- 2020
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This report describes the Global Food Security (GFS) Boundaries Project, which represents the first systematic attempt to apply critical systems thinking and practice to a food systems research programme (as opposed to a single food system project). The focus was the Global Food Security – Resilience of the UK Food System in a Global Context (GFS-FRS) Research Programme, made up of 13 projects looking at different aspects of the UK food system.
|
|
| 9. |
- Helfgott, A., et al.
(författare)
-
Multi-level participation in integrative, systemic planning : The case of climate adaptation in Ghana
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Operational Research. - : Elsevier B.V.. - 0377-2217 .- 1872-6860. ; 309:3, s. 1201-1217
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Adaptation to climate change is impacted by a range of interrelated processes operating from local to global levels. There are often significant disconnects between different people's perceptions of responsibilities, capabilities and motivations, and divergent understandings of how the system works across actors, sectors and levels of governance. This results in misalignments of policies and practices, plus ineffective flows of resources and knowledge across the network of climate adaptation actors. As these disconnects are rooted in deep misunderstandings of the grounded realities of different actors, an experiential process of mutual discovery is required to build shared understanding and mutual respect. While it is common in the literature for people to talk about multi-level governance, most existing planning processes involve the production of separate plans at each individual level, based on the often-mistaken assumption that they will aggregate into an effective multi-level approach. This paper presents a new, multi-level integrated planning and implementation (MIPI) process, bringing together diverse actors from community, district, regional and national levels in the same workshop. The MIPI process creates a safe space that allows participants to interact directly in conducting systemic, cross-level analyses, as well as the multi-level integration of policies, plans and programs. The paper describes how the MIPI process was designed and facilitated in Ghana to address climate change, agricultural development and food security. This methodology has potential for much broader applicability to complex, multi-level planning and implementation processes.
|
|
| 10. |
- Hobbs, Catherine, et al.
(författare)
-
How Systems Thinking Enhances Systems Leadership
- 2020
-
Annan publikation (populärvet., debatt m.m.)abstract
- Systems leadership is only part of what is needed to deal with cross-cutting issues.Leaders need to be allowed to step back from the system they are in, think about what they are trying to achieve in relation to the bigger picture, and collaborate with a broad range of stakeholders.Doing this effectively requires systems thinking, which enhances systems leadership. This paper outlines some of the most useful systems thinking approaches.
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
- Johnson, Michael P., et al.
(författare)
-
Emerging trends and new frontiers in community operational research
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Operational Research. - : ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV. - 0377-2217 .- 1872-6860. ; 268:3, s. 1178-1191
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Community Operational Research (Community OR), and its disciplinary relation, Community-Based Operations Research, has an increasingly high profile within multiple domains that benefit from empirical and analytical approaches to problem solving. These domains are primarily concentrated within nonprofit services and local development. However, there are many other disciplines and application areas for which novel applications and extensions of Community OR could generate valuable insights. This paper identifies a number of these, distinguishing between 'emerging trends' (mostly in well-studied areas of operational research, management science and analytics) and 'new frontiers', which can be found in traditions not commonly oriented towards empirical and analytical methods for problem solving, where community-engaged decision modeling represents new ways of generating knowledge, policies and prescriptions. This paper will show how the exploration of emerging trends and new frontiers in Community OR can provide a basis for the development of innovative research agendas that can broaden the scope and impact of the decision sciences. D .
|
|
| 13. |
- Lilley, Rachel, et al.
(författare)
-
Mindfulness and Behavioural Insights : Reflections on the Meditative Brain, Systems Theory and Organisational Change
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Awareness-Based Systems Change. - : Presencing Institute, Inc.. - 2767-6013 .- 2767-6021. ; 2:2, s. 29-57
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper explores the impacts of the Mindfulness-Based Behavioural Insights and Decision-Making (MBBI) programme. Combining mindfulness with behavioural insights instruction, the authors have developed the MBBI programme through a series of iterative trials over the last ten years. In addition to fusing mindfulness and behavioural insights, this programme also draws on the theories of autopoiesis, anticipatory systems, the predictive brain and constructed emotions, which all challenge the common assumption that behavioural and emotional responses are automatic (triggered by given stimuli and not open to change through self-reflection). The paper explores the use of the MBBI in the Welsh Civil Service. Employing evidence from in-depth interviews with participants and a SenseMaker analysis, it rethinks the role of mindfulness at work, repurposes the application of behavioural insights training toward a more ethical and systemic direction, and develops a reflective approach to capability building amongst public servants.
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
- Lindhult, Erik, et al.
(författare)
-
Value driven innovation in industrial companies : A complexity approach
- 2015
-
Ingår i: The XXVI ISPIM Innovation Conference ISPIM'15.
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- The purpose of this research is to contribute to the development of an interactive, systemic and ecosystem view of innovation and its management. This emerging interactive and systematic view of innovation labeled as Value Driven Innovation in this research, where enhanced symbiotic value is continuously discovered and realized in interactive processes among stakeholders such as customers, providers, suppliers and related partners. The main outcome of the research is a complexity conceptualization of value driven innovation, which synthesizes and extends to value-driven innovation management recent developments in complexity science. In addition, the findings may provide useful tools to clarify and enhance the manageability of innovation in the face of complexity, uncertainty and unpredictability.
|
|
| 17. |
- Lowe, D., et al.
(författare)
-
Evaluating how system health assessment can trigger anticipatory action for resilience
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Disciplinary Convergence in Systems Engineering Research. - Cham : Springer International Publishing. - 9783319622170 - 9783319622163 ; , s. 765-776
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- In 2014, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory developed and implemented a novel approach to assess the system by which the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence delivers infrastructure projects and services. This approach brought together existing methods to constitute a hybrid problem structuring method that offered the potential to trigger anticipatory intervention by focusing on the health as opposed to the performance of this system. This paper revisits the initial assessment to examine whether use of the method has led to increased system resilience, and in particular to understand what it was about the method that helped to deliver benefits. Insights with regard to the structures and processes necessary to enable anticipatory action for resilience are presented.
|
|
| 18. |
- Midgley, Gerald, et al.
(författare)
-
A systems perspective on systemic innovation
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Systems research and behavioral science. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1092-7026 .- 1099-1743. ; 38:5, s. 635-670
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The term ‘systemic innovation’ is increasing in use, but there is no consensus on its meaning: five understandings of the term can be identified, each based on a different view of what the word ‘systemic’ should refer to. The first understanding focuses on technologies, where the innovation in focus is synergistically integrated with other complementary innovations, going beyond the boundaries of a single organization. Therefore, ‘systemic’ refers to technological innovations interacting in a larger product system. A second use of the term refers to the development of policies and governance at a local, regional or national scale to create an enabling environment for innovation systems. Here, ‘systemic’ means recognition that innovation systems can be enabled and/or constrained by a meta-level policy system. The third use of the term says that an innovation is ‘systemic’ when its purpose is to change societal laws and norms to place new enablers and constraints on innovation in the interests of ecological sustainability. What makes this systemic is acknowledgement of the existence of nested systems: innovation systems are parts of economic systems, which are parts of societal systems, and all societies exist on a single planetary ecosystem. The fourth use focuses on collaboration in innovation networks with multiple actors. This has evolved from the first understanding of systemic innovation, but the critical difference is the primary focus on people and processes rather than technological products. The word ´systemic´ refers to the interdependency of actors in a business or community context, leading to a need to co-create value and innovate in concert or through co-evolutionary dynamics. The fifth use of the term ‘systemic innovation’ concerns how people engage in a process to support systemic thinking and action, and it is primarily this process, and the thinking and action it gives rise to, that is seen as systemic, rather than the innovation system that they exist within or are trying to create. It is this fifth understanding that accords with most of the literature on systems thinking published over the last fifty years. The current paper offers a contemporary perspective on what systems thinkers mean by ‘systemic’, and this not only enables us to provide a redefinition of ‘systemic innovation’, but it also helps to show how all four previous forms of innovation that have been described as systemic can be enhanced by the practice of systems thinking.
|
|
| 19. |
- Midgley, Gerald, et al.
(författare)
-
Critical Systems Thinking, Systemic Intervention and Beyond
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Handbook of Systems Science. - New York : Springer. - 9789811507199 - 9789811507205 ; , s. 107-157
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Applied systems thinking has evolved since the 1950s through three paradigmatic waves. Authors in the first wave regarded systems as real-world entities, and systems models as representations of reality, so objectivity was important. In contrast, second wave authors emphasized thinking in terms of systems, and the exploration of multiple perspectives. The role of models was to aid mutual under- standing and enhance the appreciation of diverse viewpoints on possible actions to be taken. In the 1980s, first and second wave advocates came into conflict. Then some third wave authors, initially working under the banner of critical systems thinking, argued that the division of the systems research community into two camps was unhelpful, and they advocated methodological pluralism – mixing methods from both traditions. Other authors set out to address power relations during interventions – in particular, the practice of exploring value and boundary judgments in projects in order to address conflict and marginalization. This practice came to be called “boundary critique,” and it was eventually integrated with methodological pluralism in a new approach called “systemic intervention.” This chapter gives readers a thorough overview of the emergence and maturation of both critical systems thinking and systemic intervention, illustrated with practical exam- ples. It then discusses two major problems that remain unaddressed in the third wave. First, the increasing proliferation of methodologies and methods has resulted in such a diversity of views on systems thinking, that explaining what it is to newcomers has become a real challenge. Second, despite this diversity, all the new methodologies and methods are still founded on principles of rational analysis, and approaches that go beyond this are marginalized. For instance, arts-based and theater methods are rarely mentioned in the literature on systems thinking, yet they can help people discover how their value and boundary assumptions have roots in unconscious impulses and memories. Such discoveries help to unfreeze taken-for-granted understandings, including the internalization of oppressive power relationships. Very recent writings have begun to tackle these problems, but it is too soon to judge whether they represent an extension of the third wave, or the first swellings of a new, fourth wave of systems thinking.
|
|
| 20. |
- Midgley, Gerald, et al.
(författare)
-
Dealing with challenges to methodological pluralism : The paradigm problem, psychological resistance and cultural barriers
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Industrial Marketing Management. - : ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC. - 0019-8501 .- 1873-2062. ; 62, s. 150-159
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper calls for methodological pluralism in industrial marketing research. We discuss three challenges that proponents of methodological pluralism have to address if their practice is to be seen as credible: the paradigm problem; psychological resistance; and lack of cultural readiness to accept pluralism. We review the works of a variety of authors from other disciplines who have tackled these problems, and identify useful ideas to take forward into a model of learning. This addresses the paradigm problem by making it clear that no pluralist methodology can exist without making its own paradigmatic assumptions. It deals with psychological resistance by talking in terms of learning, starting from wherever the researcher is currently situated (a large knowledge base is not needed to begin practicing methodological pluralism). However, this model does not deal with the question of whether the time is right, culturally, for methodological pluralism. We argue that the time will be right when it is widely appreciated that methodological pluralism adds value to industrial marketing research practice. The next step for our research community must be the accumulation of a body of empirical evidence to demonstrate that this added value does or does not exist. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 21. |
|
|
| 22. |
|
|
| 23. |
- Midgley, Gerald
(författare)
-
Moving beyond value conflicts : Systemic problem structuring in action
- 2016
-
Ingår i: OR58. - 9780903440608 ; , s. 117-133
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Value conflicts can become entrenched in a destructive pattern of mutual stigmatization, which inhibits the emergence of new understandings of the situation and actions for improvement. In extreme cases, such patterns can even lead to violence. This paper offers a new systems theory of value conflict, which suggests the possibility of three different strategies for intervention using problem structuring methods: supporting people in transcending overly narrow value judgements about what is important to them; seeking to widen people's boundaries of the issues that they consider relevant; and attempting to challenge stereotyping and stigmatization by building better mutual understanding. Each of these three strategies is illustrated with practical examples from operational research projects on natural resource management in New Zealand.
|
|
| 24. |
- Midgley, Gerald, et al.
(författare)
-
Systemic mediation : Moral reasoning and boundaries of concern
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Systems research and behavioral science. - : Wiley. - 1092-7026 .- 1099-1743. ; 30:5, s. 607-632
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper outlines a new systemic mediation approach, based on the idea that the most important thing for many participants in mediation is to have their moral reasoning understood and appreciated. This is frequently more important to people than financial reparation. We compare our mediation approach with others to demonstrate that many previous approaches share the assumption that once the interests of a participant have been identified, these should not be questioned. In contrast, our systemic mediation approach encourages participants to explore their own and other people's moral frameworks to enable critical reflection on their interests. Indeed, the concept of an 'interest' can be reframed as the boundary that a participant uses to delimit his or her concerns, and boundaries can be shifted in response to moral reasoning. Our mediation approach aims to generate both personal insights and improvements in mutual understanding. The mediator plays a facilitative role but cannot be neutral: the morality of the mediator unavoidably influences his or her facilitative interventions. Therefore, personal reflection by the mediator on his or her own moral framework is essential, so that its influences can be made visible and the facilitator can thereby be held accountable for them in dialogue with his or her peers. Tools are provided in our systemic mediation approach to support reflection on moral frameworks and boundaries of concern, and a practical example of their use in Colombian mediation practice is provided.
|
|
| 25. |
- Midgley, Gerald, et al.
(författare)
-
Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods
- 2013
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Operational Research. - : Elsevier BV. - 0377-2217 .- 1872-6860. ; 229:1, s. 143-154
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Operational researchers and social scientists often make significant claims for the value of systemic problem structuring and other participative methods. However, when they present evidence to support these claims, it is usually based on single case studies of intervention. There have been very few attempts at evaluating across methods and across interventions undertaken by different people. This is because, in any local intervention, contextual factors, the skills of the researcher and the purposes being pursued by stakeholders affect the perceived success or failure of a method. The use of standard criteria for comparing methods is therefore made problematic by the need to consider what is unique in each intervention. So, is it possible to develop a single evaluation approach that can support both locally meaningful evaluations and longer-term comparisons between methods? This paper outlines a methodological framework for the evaluation of systemic problem structuring methods that seeks to do just this.
|
|
