The state of methods and tools for social systems change

Abstract

The last decade or so has seen an increase in the rate of attention to systems change and the application of multiple theories to study and influence change in systems. This article considers how these theories, described in other articles in this issues, plus theories about complex adaptive systems open opportunities for us to continue to expand our repertoire of tools and methods to address systems change. These conceptual frameworks, tools, and methods are expected to help us increase our capacity to study and influence both planned and self-organizing systems change. New tools and methods have emerged and others are needed to help us continue to explore and influence the complex social systems within which we operate.

Understanding the Implementation of a Complex Intervention Aiming to Change a Health Professional Role: A Conceptual Framework for Implementation Evaluation

“…It concerns examining the linkages and interrelationships between the parts (subsystems) and the whole, and the relation of the whole with its context (Hargreaves, 2010;Parsons, 2007;Trochim, Cabrera, Milstein, Gallagher, & Leischow, 2006). Exploring the change process thru a systemic lens requires focusing on the interactions between system parts and with external environment as well as on coherence and alignment of the system's components with the desired impact (Foster-Fishman, Nowell, & Yang, 2007;Supovitz & Taylor, 2005).…”

Six Guiding Principles for Evaluating Mode-2 Strategies for Sustainable Development

“…The number of activities and actors involved as well as the various scales at which interventions take place add to the complexity of attributing possible effects to the intervention program. As CAS theory states, knowing the factors that influence a system does not mean we can control these factors and expect predictable outcomes (Parsons, 2007). In the field of evaluation too, the analysis of (causal) links between policy interventions and their outcomes is considered challenging (e.g., see Perrin, 2002), particularly when complex problems or programs are concerned (e.g., Dyehouse, Bennet, Harbor, Childress, & Dark, 2009;Forrest, 2007;Patton, 2008;Williams & Imam, 2007).…”

“…A mode-2 approach not only requires a flexible and context sensitive methodology but also an interdisciplinary team with interactional expertise of the fields it operates in (Collins & Evans, 2002), competences in project, process, knowledge, and network management, and support from its commissionaires. What makes it particularly difficult, however, is the power of prevailing (Cabrera, Colosi, & Lobdell, 2008;Churchman, 1970;Dyehouse et al, 2009) and CAS (Eoyang, 2007;Parsons, 2007). Reflecting and learning are therefore essential features of mode-2 approaches to sustainable development (see, e.g., Armitage, Marschke, & Plummer, 2008;Hendriks & Grin, 2007) and can be strengthened by corresponding approaches to evaluation (e.g., Burns, 2007;Imam, LaGoy, & Williams, 2007;Midgley, 2007).…”

Importance of Monitoring and Evaluation in the Sustainability of Constituency Development Fund (CDF) Projects in Kenya

“…Communities face complex and varied problems, characterized by inherent uncertainty that spans for long time therefore calling for effectively planned strategies that are based on situational, iterative and best suited experimentation (Voss et al, 2006). There should be a link between reflection and action (Giddens, 1984), participation of stakeholders create a complex structure and behavioral change of actors hence need clear role demarcation as well as constant update of progress in the undertaking (Eoyang, 2007;Parsons, 2007). Monitoring and evaluation in its course must consider existing structures while suggesting probable changes in the lifetime of the project (Churchman, 1970;PMI 1996).…”

“…An intervention is put in place in consideration of its inputs, its expected outcomes, agreed relationships between them, and mechanisms relating to expected programme outlook at the end and how it will influence the next stage, however this does not make evaluator to control the factors (Chen, 1990;Rosas, 2005;Yampolskaya, Nesman, Hernandez, & Koch, 2004;Patton, 2008;Christie & Alkin, 2003;Parsons, 2007). It is not an easy task to determine link between policy interventions and their outcomes since academic theories are not at all times translated into practice without the community and other stakeholders" full participation (Perrin, 2002;Dyehouse, Bennet, Harbor, Childress, & Dark, 2009;Forrest, 2007;Patton, 2008;Imam et al, 2007;Friedman, 2001;Schön, 1974, 1978) …”