Part 1
In the previous section we explained why we are focusing on analytical and adaptive capacities and suggested a process of organizational analysis and adaptation. In this section we begin to develop an understanding of analytical capacity and suggest that the purpose of being analytical needs to be linked more explicitly to improved actions or policies. Analytical capacities should include, but extend beyond, the ability to reflect on practice and analyses data. They should also involve the ability to look at issues from new perspectives, to think ‘outside the box’ and to develop new paradigms if needed. The process of investigation, of being analytical about our work, therefore requires a continuous process of conceptualizing and re-conceptualizing. This is not merely about gathering information according to per-determined frameworks and views of the world. It is also about detecting signs that these frameworks have become inadequate or less relevant, and searching for new ways of articulating or conceptualizing the world in order to resolve issues.
Developing analytical capacity involves encouraging organizations to observe their reality and to question received models, modifying them or changing them where necessary.
Organizations, like individuals, observe and interpret reality according to previous experiences which may then be fitted into received/accepted ways of viewing the world. There may be certain areas of work where organizations primarily build their knowledge base from their cumulative experience of carrying out regular activities – such as delivering services. However, in identifying new areas of work or reviewing strategic directions, the tendency may be for an organization to base their analysis on predominant models or ways of seeing things rather than thinking afresh. In the aid sector, social development work is complex and very context specific, and those who drive the agenda (e.g. donors) – however well meaning – may find that their current paradigms or models are too often accepted uncritically by development organizations/actors.
Developing analytical capacity therefore involves encouraging organizations to observe their reality and to question the received models, modifying them or changing them where necessary. This implies an evolving interaction between theory and practice, as is described in following sections, through:
Developing analytical capacity involves encouraging organizations to observe their reality and to question received models, modifying them or changing them where necessary.
• Observing reality by articulating the view of the world that we hold, and understanding this from different perspectives (concepts).
• Creating meaning by selecting ways of collecting, reflecting on and interpreting information in relation to specific situations or issues (data collection and analysis). This new knowledge can then be fed back into the views we hold about the world (back to the concepts again).
Observing Reality
This first step in the analytical process is an exercise in imaginative description – that is describing a specific situation in detail and as accurately as possible, before proceeding to creating meaning from the information gathered. It involves standing back from reality to see things with fresh eyes and not getting too stuck in habitual ways of perceiving the world. Due to the complex nature of social development, and the dynamic interrelationships involved, developing a view of the world can involve starting to see the world as a ‘whole’.
Understanding the Whole
Organizations, and the people within them, should be seen not just as passive observers of the world but as active participants which are intricately interconnected with the wider system in which they operate11. Conventional analysis has tended towards simplifying complexity by reducing the whole into a series of constituent parts. This reductionist analysis can be a logical way of thinking about machines, which operate as a whole when all the parts are assembled, but is less useful for the dynamic human systems which characterize organizations because of its limited ability to capture:
• the dynamics and interrelationships within an organization as a ‘living’ system which is constantly growing and evolving
• the relationships and interactions between the organization and the complex social, political, economic, cultural and physical environment in which it operates.
The complexity of human systems arises from the unpredictable nature of the multiple relationships and interactions between the different elements within the system.
In contrast, systems thinking is a way of coming to grips with complexity by standing back from and conceptualizing the whole. The complexity of human systems arises from the unpredictable nature of the multiple relationships and interactions between the different elements within the system. Systems thinking aims to recognize these interactions ‘in a variety of different directions, i.e. vertical, horizontal and circular, paying much more attention towards capturing flow, movement and dynamics’12. It questions the implicit linearity, or cause and effect, that is often assumed between an intervention and a set of consequences. One way to visualize the difference between the ‘mechanistic linear approach and the holistic, systemic approach is to compare the results of throwing a rock and a live bird. Mechanical linear models are excellent for predicting where the rock will end up, but useless for predicting the trajectory of a bird’.13
Unfortunately, many resolve this rock/bird dilemma by strapping the rock to the back of the bird, throwing it in the air and hoping for the best.
One characteristic of a system is that the results or effects of some interactions within the system can bring about modifications to the system itself. These ‘feedback loops’ can be difficult to predict and may therefore cause unintended consequences. The development world is littered with such situations. One example is an agricultural research station in Turkey that worked with local farmers to increase the productivity of their barley crop and therefore their income. After seven years of plant breeding experiments they managed to increase productivity by about 20 per cent, which initially delighted local farmers. However, the farmers soon went back to sowing their original barley seed. The researchers had not anticipated that the straw of the new barley was too tough for the farmers’ sheep to eat and therefore could not be used as a winter fodder. This meant that any benefit received from the increased productivity was cancelled out by the reduction in available fodder.
Using systems thinking as part of an analytical process can help individuals and organizations to observe the whole, interpret patterns and dynamics and understand interrelationships.
Using systems thinking as part of an analytical process can help individuals and organizations to observe the whole, interpret patterns and dynamics and understand interrelationships. One tool that is being used increasingly to visualize and map complex systems is the rich picture method (see text box below).
Mapping a System using Rich Pictures
Drawing a rich picture is one way of mapping human systems which involve multiple relationships. Drawing pictures can be a better medium than writing for expressing these complex relationships because pictures encourage a more dynamic and holistic representation of a situation – in short they can provide a rich amount of information in an easily digestible form. In the example of farmers in Turkey given above this may have highlighted the multiple uses of barley and how altering one use can affect another.
A rich picture expresses how an individual or group sees a particular situation. The pictures can explore factors in the wider environment, identify issues, problems or concerns and even represent them as metaphors. Pictures therefore allow people to express their ideas creatively, for example:
as an organismic or organizational drawing – which with lines, bubbles, broken lines, circles etc. represents the nature of relationships
as a collection of different smaller drawings representing different elements of the situation
The following rich picture came from an INTRAC training course in 2003 where it was used as a group-based activity. This involved an individual identifying an organizational issue that they wanted to share with the rest of the group, in order to get their input and advice.
In the previous section we explained why we are focusing on analytical and adaptive capacities and suggested a process of organizational analysis and adaptation. In this section we begin to develop an understanding of analytical capacity and suggest that the purpose of being analytical needs to be linked more explicitly to improved actions or policies. Analytical capacities should include, but extend beyond, the ability to reflect on practice and analyses data. They should also involve the ability to look at issues from new perspectives, to think ‘outside the box’ and to develop new paradigms if needed. The process of investigation, of being analytical about our work, therefore requires a continuous process of conceptualizing and re-conceptualizing. This is not merely about gathering information according to per-determined frameworks and views of the world. It is also about detecting signs that these frameworks have become inadequate or less relevant, and searching for new ways of articulating or conceptualizing the world in order to resolve issues.
Developing analytical capacity involves encouraging organizations to observe their reality and to question received models, modifying them or changing them where necessary.
Organizations, like individuals, observe and interpret reality according to previous experiences which may then be fitted into received/accepted ways of viewing the world. There may be certain areas of work where organizations primarily build their knowledge base from their cumulative experience of carrying out regular activities – such as delivering services. However, in identifying new areas of work or reviewing strategic directions, the tendency may be for an organization to base their analysis on predominant models or ways of seeing things rather than thinking afresh. In the aid sector, social development work is complex and very context specific, and those who drive the agenda (e.g. donors) – however well meaning – may find that their current paradigms or models are too often accepted uncritically by development organizations/actors.
Developing analytical capacity therefore involves encouraging organizations to observe their reality and to question the received models, modifying them or changing them where necessary. This implies an evolving interaction between theory and practice, as is described in following sections, through:
Developing analytical capacity involves encouraging organizations to observe their reality and to question received models, modifying them or changing them where necessary.
• Observing reality by articulating the view of the world that we hold, and understanding this from different perspectives (concepts).
• Creating meaning by selecting ways of collecting, reflecting on and interpreting information in relation to specific situations or issues (data collection and analysis). This new knowledge can then be fed back into the views we hold about the world (back to the concepts again).
Observing Reality
This first step in the analytical process is an exercise in imaginative description – that is describing a specific situation in detail and as accurately as possible, before proceeding to creating meaning from the information gathered. It involves standing back from reality to see things with fresh eyes and not getting too stuck in habitual ways of perceiving the world. Due to the complex nature of social development, and the dynamic interrelationships involved, developing a view of the world can involve starting to see the world as a ‘whole’.
Understanding the Whole
Organizations, and the people within them, should be seen not just as passive observers of the world but as active participants which are intricately interconnected with the wider system in which they operate11. Conventional analysis has tended towards simplifying complexity by reducing the whole into a series of constituent parts. This reductionist analysis can be a logical way of thinking about machines, which operate as a whole when all the parts are assembled, but is less useful for the dynamic human systems which characterize organizations because of its limited ability to capture:
• the dynamics and interrelationships within an organization as a ‘living’ system which is constantly growing and evolving
• the relationships and interactions between the organization and the complex social, political, economic, cultural and physical environment in which it operates.
The complexity of human systems arises from the unpredictable nature of the multiple relationships and interactions between the different elements within the system.
In contrast, systems thinking is a way of coming to grips with complexity by standing back from and conceptualizing the whole. The complexity of human systems arises from the unpredictable nature of the multiple relationships and interactions between the different elements within the system. Systems thinking aims to recognize these interactions ‘in a variety of different directions, i.e. vertical, horizontal and circular, paying much more attention towards capturing flow, movement and dynamics’12. It questions the implicit linearity, or cause and effect, that is often assumed between an intervention and a set of consequences. One way to visualize the difference between the ‘mechanistic linear approach and the holistic, systemic approach is to compare the results of throwing a rock and a live bird. Mechanical linear models are excellent for predicting where the rock will end up, but useless for predicting the trajectory of a bird’.13
Unfortunately, many resolve this rock/bird dilemma by strapping the rock to the back of the bird, throwing it in the air and hoping for the best.
One characteristic of a system is that the results or effects of some interactions within the system can bring about modifications to the system itself. These ‘feedback loops’ can be difficult to predict and may therefore cause unintended consequences. The development world is littered with such situations. One example is an agricultural research station in Turkey that worked with local farmers to increase the productivity of their barley crop and therefore their income. After seven years of plant breeding experiments they managed to increase productivity by about 20 per cent, which initially delighted local farmers. However, the farmers soon went back to sowing their original barley seed. The researchers had not anticipated that the straw of the new barley was too tough for the farmers’ sheep to eat and therefore could not be used as a winter fodder. This meant that any benefit received from the increased productivity was cancelled out by the reduction in available fodder.
Using systems thinking as part of an analytical process can help individuals and organizations to observe the whole, interpret patterns and dynamics and understand interrelationships.
Using systems thinking as part of an analytical process can help individuals and organizations to observe the whole, interpret patterns and dynamics and understand interrelationships. One tool that is being used increasingly to visualize and map complex systems is the rich picture method (see text box below).
Mapping a System using Rich Pictures
Drawing a rich picture is one way of mapping human systems which involve multiple relationships. Drawing pictures can be a better medium than writing for expressing these complex relationships because pictures encourage a more dynamic and holistic representation of a situation – in short they can provide a rich amount of information in an easily digestible form. In the example of farmers in Turkey given above this may have highlighted the multiple uses of barley and how altering one use can affect another.
A rich picture expresses how an individual or group sees a particular situation. The pictures can explore factors in the wider environment, identify issues, problems or concerns and even represent them as metaphors. Pictures therefore allow people to express their ideas creatively, for example:
as an organismic or organizational drawing – which with lines, bubbles, broken lines, circles etc. represents the nature of relationships
as a collection of different smaller drawings representing different elements of the situation
The following rich picture came from an INTRAC training course in 2003 where it was used as a group-based activity. This involved an individual identifying an organizational issue that they wanted to share with the rest of the group, in order to get their input and advice.
No comments:
Post a Comment