Complex system governance requires systems thinking - how to find systems thinkers

In low-income and middle-income countries, such as those in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, the COVID-19 pandemic has had substantial implications for women's wellbeing. Policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted the gendered aspect of pandemics; however, addressing the gendered implications of the COVID-19 pandemic comprehensively and effectively requires a planetary health perspective that embraces systems thinking to inequalities. This Viewpoint is based on collective reflections from research done by the authors on COVID-19 responses by international and regional organisations, and national governments, in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa between June, 2020, and June, 2021. A range of international and regional actors have made important policy recommendations to address the gendered implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on women's health and wellbeing since the start of the pandemic. However, national-level policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have been partial and inconsistent with regards to gender in both sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, largely failing to recognise the multiple drivers of gendered health inequalities. This Viewpoint proposes that addressing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women in low-income and middle-income countries should adopt a systems thinking approach and be informed by the question of who is affected as opposed to who is infected. In adopting the systems thinking approach, responses will be more able to recognise and address the direct gendered effects of the pandemic and those that emerge indirectly through a combination of long-standing structural inequalities and gendered responses to the pandemic.

Complex systems affect every part of our lives from the ecosystems that we inhabit and share with other living organisms to the systems that supply our water (i.e., water cycle). Evaluating events, entities, problems, and systems from multiple perspectives is known as a systems thinking approach. New curriculum standards have made explicit the call for teaching with a systems thinking approach in our science classrooms. However, little is known about how elementary in-service or pre-service teachers understand complex systems especially in terms of systems thinking. This mixed methods study investigated 67 elementary in-service teachers’ and 69 pre-service teachers’ knowledge of a complex system (e.g., water cycle) and their knowledge of systems thinking. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sub-sample of participants. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of content assessment data and questionnaires were conducted. Results from this study showed elementary in-service and pre-service teachers applied different levels of systems thinking from novice to intermediate. Common barriers to complete systems thinking were identified with both in-service and pre-service teachers and included identifying components and processes, recognizing multiple interactions and relationships between subsystems and hidden dimensions, and difficulty understanding the human impact on the water cycle system.

This paper proposes Systems Thinking as a methodology to better observe, learn, analyse and construct curriculum and pedagogy. Informed by von Bertalanffy’s (1950) principle of Dynamic Equilibrium (Fliessgleichgewich), Systems Thinking presents a means to consider complex systems as continuously breaking down and rebuilding to adapt and maintain function. In addition, I refer to two root metaphors applied by key systems theorists: (i) Descartes world like a machine (reductionism) and (ii) world like an Ecology (holism) and relate these to a Systems Thinking approach to curriculum construction, pedagogy and learning. I also draw upon the Aristotelian dictum: ‘the whole is greater than its parts’ (gestalt) to illustrate how elements of all systems are interconnected and how the application of Systems Thinking can inform new pedagogical approaches and curriculum design. In explaining how a Systems Thinking approach could apply to curriculum development, I draw on two key theorists who draw their perspectives from organismic biology: Ludwig von Bertalanffy and Fritjof Capra, and compare their concepts with theorists who focus on more organisational and applied perspectives, such as Russell Ackoff and Peter Senge. I link this spectrum of Systems Thinking to curriculum development, by first considering its specific relevance to education through its relationship to applied approaches to learning, such as those proposed by Kurt Fischer and Zheng Yan (1998) and Fischer (2019). I then consider the potential for Systems Thinking to act as an analytical tool, which can be applied to global/national educational policy and practice. By looking at critiques of the reductionist Global Education Reform Movement (GERM) as described by Sahlberg (2012), I consider the ways in which taking a Systems Thinking lens can shift the balance in curriculum design more towards Capra’s proposal for a deeper ecology in learning. Finally, I examine the case of the Australian Curriculum and outline how Systems Thinking provides an innovative methodology to support curriculum development of relevance to today’s context. In considering effective historic and emerging initiatives, I propose future approaches where Systems Thinking can be a co-creation tool for learners throughout the education system that is sensitive to student self-efficacy, personalised and independent learning. This is imperative if we are going to prepare students for a future world that cannot be conceived, predicted nor imagined.

Complex systems are characterised by many autonomous and diverse interrelated components, tightly coupled through many interconnections; irreducible; exhibiting emergence; as well as being inseparable from their environment and context. These characteristics also describe modern enterprises whose landscapes are fraught with difficulties stemming from excess complexity, emergence, and uncertainty. System control and guidance are provided by metasystems, which are the sets of interrelated functions that govern the systems or enterprises. Governance provides control, communications, integration and coordination functions for a complex system, and includes the establishment and execution of policies and procedures that help ensure viability of the system. In this article, the role of leadership in establishing and ensuring execution of complex systems governance functions will be explored from a systems theory perspective.

Regional complex system simulation optimization through linking governance and environment performance: A case study of water environmental carrying capacity based on the SDES model

Complexity and innovation are emerging as fundamental issues for the future of human life and society. To deal with them, different versions of systems thinking have been proposed. However, System‐of‐Systems (SoS) thinking, based on the biperspectival principle and human reflexivity, has not yet been clearly recognized. The unclear distinction between ‘systems’ and ‘SoS’ thinking often results in confusion and misapplication of related concepts within the closed cycle of ‘system ↔ system‐of‐systems ↔ complex system ↔ system’, implying a need to address a set of inter‐related questions: (1) What is the trajectory of systems thinking embracing complexity and innovation? (2) How does such a trajectory of systems thinking shape the future systems thinking in terms of SoS? and (3) What is SoS thinking? To address these questions, this article aims to explore the future of systems thinking in terms of SoS by embracing complexity and innovation, and delve into the theoretical origins of SoS theory, as well as its scientific connotation and logical framework. Firstly, the trajectory of systems thinking is outlined based on varying degrees of complexity across the dimensions known–unknown whole, and fixed–flexible relationships, respectively. Thereafter, the evolution path toward SoS thinking is analysed. Finally, the scientific connotation and logical framework of SoS thinking including (1) reshaping of boundaries, (2) governance of relationships, and (3) self‐reflexivity and innovation, are explained based on the co‐existence of paradoxes. The research results shed new light on the development of systems thinking in terms of SoS for complexity and innovation, by expanding the theories that integrate systems and complexity perspectives. Moreover, they provide practical guidance for applying SoS thinking based on the biperspectival principle and human reflexivity, along with a logical framework for engaging complexity and innovation at multiple levels of SoS.

<no abstract available>

This study examines the implementation of systems thinking in community leadership through a thorough scoping review. The study seeks to assess the integration of systems-thinking ideas into leadership practices to improve decision-making, cooperation, and community outcomes. The Scopus and Google Scholar databases were used to systematically identify scholarly literature. Key search terms were “systems thinking,” “thinking skills,” “community leadership,” and “leadership.” The initial search yielded 19 pertinent studies that examined the convergence of systems thinking and community leadership. After applying inclusion criteria based on relevance and evidence, only nine papers were identified as offering significant empirical or theoretical support for the application of systems thinking in leadership contexts. The results show that community leaders can effectively use systems thinking in their work by focusing on a few key areas: continuous learning, dynamic and holistic thinking, understanding and changing mental models, recognising patterns in complex systems, and using system logic to solve problems and plan for the future. These elements, together, make community leadership more flexible, stronger, and forward-thinking. The study underscores the essential function of systems thinking as a transformative paradigm for tackling complex community issues and realising sustainable community development objectives.

The purpose of this paper is to explore a metasystem perspective and implications for governance of complex systems. Governance of complex systems is the set of functions that manage the system to achieve its goals while the system experiences change. A metasystem perspective is essential to understanding the factors affecting system governance and in defining the minimum critical specifications for governance of a complex system or system of systems. This paper explores metasystem perspectives and identifies implications for governance to better understand metasystem functions. The paper concludes with recommendations for further research in complex system governance.

Understanding complex systems is an important goal for science learning, so it requires a deep understanding of complex systems knowledge as a subject matter that should be taught in schools. The analysis was conducted to find the dimensions of complex systems and their relevance to the characteristics of systems thinking in the context of science. The systems thinking framework in science learning materials is built based on the dimensions of complex systems and systems thinking. The results of the conceptualization of systems thinking framework are expected to provide a way to select science learning materials as content knowledge of complex systems and contribute to complex systems learning that facilitates systems thinking.

Systems thinking provides new ways of seeing the world, focusing attention on the relationship between elements in complex systems and the spaces inbetween. Haynes study shows that many policy-makers valued systems thinking as a new way to approach old problems. But they also wanted greater focus on useful policy solutions. This raises interesting questions about the tensions between complexity and simple, action-oriented solutions and how evidence is used in decision-making. Backstage understanding of the complexity of policy problems is matched with the frontstage need to focus on what works. This reflects trends in recent public policy for evidence centres providing decision-makers with toolkits and dashboards of ‘proven’ interventions. There are good examples of evaluations using systems thinking allowing for complexity while addressing policymaker needs to be accountable for public investment and decisions. Strategic communication skills are needed to provide compelling stories which embrace systems thinking without losing clarity and impact.

In the operating conditions of the 21st century it is impossible to be competent alone' (O'Hara & Leicester, 2019, p. 16). Competence in leading and managing, as in any professional practice, is best understood as the ability to work with others to meet important challenges in complex human systems (Rychen & Salganik, 2003). Systems thinkers such as Oshry (1999, 2007, 2018, 2019, 2020) recognise that competence is a function of systems and culture; that is, of relationships. This insight acknowledges the importance of being able to work effectively in group settings but goes further in recognising that our lives are always lived in complex patterns of relationships with others (O'Hara & Leicester, 2019).

The article presents the results of a study aimed at determining the level of development of systemic thinking among students of the specialty “Special (defectological) education”. The study involved students of 2–3 courses studying in the fields of “Oligophrenopedagogy” and “Preschool defectology”. The purpose of the article is to present the results of a study of the level and structural organization of systemic thinking among students of the specialty “Special (defectological) education”, as well as to carry out a meaningful interpretation of the identified relationships. The methodological basis of the study was the psychological and pedagogical works of domestic and foreign scientists (V. V. Rubtsova, V. A. Spivak, D. M. Fisher, U. Ormanci, S. Cepni, P. Senge). B. F. Lomov’s systematic approach was used as the basis for the diagnostic study. In the process of qualitative and quantitative analysis of the results obtained, certain deficits of systemic thinking were identified and described; correlations between the components of systemic thinking were established; data were obtained that can be used in the development of educational programs aimed at developing systemic thinking among students. According to the results of the study, 67% of the sample have an average level of development of systems thinking, which is characterized by the ability to accurately analyze individual components of the system and the presence of persistent difficulties in synthesizing a holistic picture. Students successfully operate systems in familiar or simplified environments, but their thinking lacks the flexibility and depth to independently analyze and design complex, dynamic, and multilevel systems. In conclusion, the need to develop and implement educational tools such as a massive open online course and a set of online classes in the training of future speech pathologists is substantiated. Their purpose is to form and develop the structural components of systems thinking (including a person’s ability to analyze the system as a whole, establish cause–and-effect relationships between elements within the system, create new systems based on identified patterns, predict, assess risks and opportunities).

The grounded theory research method embodies a crucial element of postmodernist thinking due to its aversion to theory verification and its ability to imbue analysts with the power to discover theory. These processes closely mirror systems thinking because they allow for holistic examination. Postmodern systems thinking combines the worldview of postmodernism with systems thinking, creating a mechanism that is both respectful to the variations of human interaction and the need for “de-compartmentalizing” complex systems. The postmodern systems thinking framework united with grounded action research could be a potent approach for the dissemination of localized, culture-specific ideas in countries susceptible to Western hegemony.

Self-report assessments are used frequently in higher education to assess a variety of constructs, including attitudes, opinions, knowledge, and competence. Systems thinking is an example of one competence often measured using self-report assessments where individuals answer several questions about their perceptions of their own skills, habits, or daily decisions. In this study, we define systems thinking as the ability to see the world as a complex interconnected system where different parts can influence each other, and the interrelationships determine system outcomes. An alternative, less-common, assessment approach is to measure skills directly by providing a scenario about an unstructured problem and evaluating respondents’ judgment or analysis of the scenario (scenario-based assessment). This study explored the relationships between engineering students’ performance on self-report assessments and scenario-based assessments of systems thinking, finding that there were no significant relationships between the two assessment techniques. These results suggest that there may be limitations to using self-report assessments as a method to assess systems thinking and other competencies in educational research and evaluation, which could be addressed by incorporating alternative formats for assessing competence. Future work should explore these findings further and support the development of alternative assessment approaches.