scholarly journals Applying a Systems Perspective to Preventive Health: How Can It Be Useful? Comment on "What Can Policy-Makers Get Out of Systems Thinking? Policy Partners’ Experiences of a Systems-Focused Research Collaboration in Preventive Health"

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt Egan ◽  
Elizabeth McGill
Keyword(s):  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Preventive Health ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Support Intervention ◽  
Political Consequences ◽  
Potential Barriers ◽  
Systems Perspective ◽  
Mixed Response ◽  
Intervention Planning

Advocates suggest that a paradigm shift in preventive health towards systems thinking is desirable and may be underway. In a recent study of policy-makers’ opinions, Haynes and colleagues found a mixed response to an Australian initiative that sought to apply systems theories and associated methods to preventive health. Some were enthusiastic about systems, but others were concerned or unconvinced about its usefulness. This commentary responds to such concerns. We argue that a systems perspective can help provide policy-makers with timely evidence to inform decisions about intervention planning and delivery. We also suggest that research applying a systems perspective could provide policy-makers with evidence to support planning and incremental decision-making; make recommendations to support intervention adaptability; consider potential barriers due to incoherent systems, and consider the political consequences of interventions.

scholarly journals What Can Policy-Makers Get Out of Systems Thinking? Policy Partners’ Experiences of a Systems-Focused Research Collaboration in Preventive Health

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-76
Author(s):  
Abby Haynes ◽  
Kate Garvey ◽  
Seanna Davidson ◽  
Andrew Milat
Keyword(s):  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Systems Approach ◽  
Policy Design ◽  
Preventive Health ◽  
Policy Action ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Policy Work ◽  
Policy Problems ◽  
Depth Interviews

Background: There is increasing interest in using systems thinking to tackle ‘wicked’ policy problems in preventive health, but this can be challenging for policy-makers because the literature is amorphous and often highly theoretical. Little is known about how best to support health policy-makers to gain skills in understanding and applying systems thinking for policy action. Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with 18 policy-makers who are participating in an Australian research collaboration that uses a systems approach. Our aim was to explore factors that support policy-makers to use systems approaches, and to identify any impacts of systems thinking on policy thinking or action, including the pathways through which these impacts occurred. Results: All 18 policy-makers agreed that systems thinking has merit but some questioned its practical policy utility. A small minority were confused about what systems thinking is or which approaches were being used in the collaboration. The majority were engaged with systems thinking and this group identified concrete impacts on their work. They reported using systems-focused research, ideas, tools and resources in policy work that were contributing to the development of practical methodologies for policy design, scaling up, implementation and evaluation; and to new prevention narratives. Importantly, systems thinking was helping some policy-makers to reconceptualise health problems and contexts, goals, potential policy solutions and methods. In short, they were changing how they think about preventive health. Conclusion: These results show that researchers and policy-makers can put systems thinking into action as part of a research collaboration, and that this can result in discernible impacts on policy processes. In this case, action-oriented collaboration and capacity development over a 5-year period facilitated mutual learning and practical application. This indicates that policy-makers can get substantial applied value from systems thinking when they are involved in extended co-production processes that target policy impact and are supported by responsive capacity strategies.

scholarly journals The Challenges of Putting Systems Thinking into Practice Comment on "What Can Policy-Makers Get Out of Systems Thinking? Policy Partners’ Experiences of a Systems-Focused Research Collaboration in Preventive Health"

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Boswell ◽  
Janis Baird ◽  
Ravita Taheem
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Preventive Health ◽  
Recent Analysis ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Policy Actors ◽  
Concrete Action ◽  
Preventive Public Health

In theory, ‘systems thinking’ offers a remarkably attractive solution to the persistent challenges of preventive public health. Haynes and colleagues’ recent analysis of the Prevention Centre in Australia offers reason for optimism that it might be possible to translate this promise into action on the ground. In this commentary, we critically assess the claims from this promising case study and their broader applicability to the cause of preventive health. We argue that, in many other contexts, persistent obstacles remain, such as a lack of buy-in from senior policy actors, and a lack of tangible or concrete action following through on an abstract commitment to systems thinking.

scholarly journals Overcoming Barriers to Applying Systems Thinking Mental Models in Policy-Making Comment on "What Can Policy-Makers Get Out of Systems Thinking? Policy Partners’ Experiences of a Systems-Focused Research Collaboration in Preventive Health"

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sobia Khan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Models ◽  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Mental Model ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Preventive Health ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Solution Generation ◽  
Australian Researcher

Systems thinking provides the health system with important theories, models and approaches to understanding and assessing complexity. However, the utility and application of systems thinking for solution-generation and decision-making is uncertain at best, particularly amongst health policy-makers. This commentary aims to elaborate on key themes discussed by Haynes and colleagues in their study exploring policy-makers’ perceptions of an Australian researcher-policy-maker partnership focused on applications of systems thinking. Findings suggest that policy-makers perceive systems thinking as too theoretical and not actionable, and that the value of systems thinking can be gleaned from greater involvement of policy-makers in research (ie, through co-production). This commentary focuses on the idea that systems thinking is a mental model that, contrary to researchers’ beliefs, may be closely aligned with policy-makers’ existing worldviews, which can enhance adoption of this mental model. However, wider application of systems thinking beyond research requires addressing multiple barriers faced by policy-makers related to their capability, opportunity and motivation to action their systems thinking mental models. To make systems thinking applicable to the policy sphere, multiple approaches are required that focus on capacity building, and a shift in shared mental models (or the ideas and institutions that govern policy-making).

scholarly journals Can Systems Thinking Become "The Way We Do Things?" Comment on "What Can Policy-Makers Get Out of Systems Thinking? Policy Partners’ Experiences of a Systems-Focused Research Collaboration in Preventive Health"

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bev J. Holmes
Keyword(s):  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Critical Success Factors ◽  
Success Factors ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Preventive Health ◽  
Prevention Research ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Mutual Learning ◽  
Critical Success ◽  
The Way

In "What Can Policy-Makers Get Out of Systems Thinking? Policy Partners’ Experiences of a Systems-Focused Research Collaboration in Preventive Health," Haynes et al glean two important insights from the policy-makers they interview. First: active promotion of systems thinking may work against its champions. Haynes and colleagues’ findings support a backgrounding of systems thinking; more important for policy-makers than understanding the finer details of systems thinking is working in situations of mutual learning and shared expertise. Second: coproduction may be getting short shrift in prevention research. Most participant comments were not about systems thinking, but about the benefits of working across sectors. Operationalizing the ‘co’ in co-production is not easy, but it may be where the pay-off will be for prevention researchers, who must understand the critical success factors of co-production and its potential pitfalls, to capitalize on its significant opportunities.

scholarly journals Reflections on Methodological Congruence in Systems and Complexity-Informed Research Comment on "What Can Policy-Makers Get Out of Systems Thinking? Policy Partners’ Experiences of a Systems-Focused Research Collaboration in Preventive Health"

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Teixeira de Melo
Keyword(s):  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Preventive Health ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Traditional Research ◽  
Or Practice ◽  
Complex Forms ◽  
Patterns Of Interaction ◽  
Forms Of Knowledge

In this paper we argue, for an increased congruence between the conceptual frameworks and the research methodology in studies focused on the theory or practice of systems and complexity-informed thinking (SCT). In doing so, we believe we can build more complex forms of knowledge with clearer and more impactful implications for practice. There is scope for both methodological innovations and the adaptation of traditional research methods to enact properties congruent with the systemic complexity of our targeted realities. We organise our reflection around the paper of Haynes et al. We provide examples of how a research methodology more deeply embedded in systems and complexity-thinking may add depth and meaning to the research results and their interpretation. We explore the creative adaptation of the interview techniques to integrate systemic forms of questioning (eg, circular and reflexive questioning) to map the patterns of interaction contributing to the outcomes of interventions.

scholarly journals But Does It Work? Evidence, Policy-Making and Systems Thinking Comment on "What Can Policy-Makers Get Out of Systems Thinking? Policy Partners’ Experiences of a Systems-Focused Research Collaboration in Preventive Health"

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tara Lamont
Keyword(s):  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Public Investment ◽  
Strategic Communication ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Simple Action ◽  
Policy Problems ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Policy Solutions

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.

scholarly journals Can We Build an Evidence Base on the Impact of Systems Thinking for Wicked Problems? Comment on "What Can Policy-Makers Get Out of Systems Thinking? Policy Partners’ Experiences of a Systems-Focused Research Collaboration in Preventive Health"

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane T. Finegood
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Informed Decision ◽  
Informed Decision Making ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Policies And Programs ◽  
The Impact

The published literature on the application of systems thinking to influence policies and programs has grown in recent years. The original article by Haynes et al and the subsequent commentaries have focused on the upstream connection between capacity building for systems thinking and systems informed decision-making. This commentary explores the downstream connection between systems-informed decision-making and broader impacts on the health system, the health of the population and other economic and social benefits. Storytelling, systems-based syntheses and systems intervention principles are explored as approaches to strengthen the evidence base. For systems thinking to gain broader acceptance and application to complex health-related challenges, we need more of an evidence base demonstrating impact.

scholarly journals Sense-Making, Mutual Learning and Cognitive Shifts When Applying Systems Thinking in Public Health – Examples From Sweden Comment on "What Can Policy-Makers Get Out of Systems Thinking? Policy Partners’ Experiences of a Systems-Focused Research Collaboration in Preventive Health"

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica E. Nyström ◽  
Sara Tolf ◽  
Helena Strehlenert
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Soft Systems Methodology ◽  
Sense Making ◽  
Systems Methodology ◽  
Soft Systems ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Mutual Learning ◽  
Double Loop Learning

It is widely acknowledged that systems thinking (ST) should be implemented in the area of public health, but how this should be done is less clear. In this commentary we focus on sense-making and double-loop learning processes when using ST and soft systems methodology in research collaborations with policy-makers. In their study of policymakers’ experiences of ST, Haynes et al emphasize the importance of knowledge processes and mutual learning between researchers and policy-makers, processes which can change how policy-makers think and thus have impact on real-world policy concerns. We provide some additional examples from Sweden on how ST has been applied to create learning and shared mental models among stakeholders and researchers in national and regional healthcare development initiatives. We conclude that investigating and describing such processes on micro-level can aid the knowledge on how to implement ST in public health.

scholarly journals Research collaboration and topic trends in Computer Science based on top active authors

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. e41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Wu ◽  
Srinivasan Venkatramanan ◽  
Dah Ming Chiu
Keyword(s):  
Computer Science ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Time Window ◽  
Time Windows ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Team Research ◽  
Continuous Presence ◽  
Shed Light

Academic publication metadata can be used to analyze the collaboration, productivity and hot topic trends of a research community. In this paper, we study a specific group of authors, namely the top active authors. They are defined as the top 1% authors with uninterrupted and continuous presence in scientific publications over a time window. We take the top active authors in the Computer Science (CS) community over different time windows in the past 50 years, and use them to analyze collaboration, productivity and topic trends. We show that (a) the top active authors are representative of the overall population; (b) the community is increasingly moving in the direction of Team Research, with increased level and degree of collaboration; and (c) the research topics are increasingly inter-related. By focusing on the top active authors, it helps visualize these trends better. Besides, the observations from top active authors also shed light on design of better evaluation framework and resource management for policy makers in academia.

scholarly journals Long-term Development of National Human Capital. Evidence from China and Poland

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 30-66
Author(s):  
Łukasz Bryl
Keyword(s):  
Human Capital ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Tertiary Education ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Human Capital Development ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Industry Research ◽  
National Human ◽  
Capital Development

AbstractObjective: The aim of this paper is to present the long-term development of the chosen human capital indices that uncovers and compares the outcome of the national efforts performed by the two culturally distant countries (China and Poland) over the decade. Additionally, paper indicates the areas of further HC progress in both nations.Methodology: The study was based on measuring human capital with the help of deliberately chosen set of macroeconomic indices (28 items) referring to the nations’ capability to create innovations. Analysis was performed for the 2007–2017 years.Findings: Positive phenomena in the case of human capital development outperform the negative ones in both countries, however, the extent is more remarkable in the case of China. China managed to: improve greatly the pupil-teacher ratio (both in primary and secondary schools), increase secondary and tertiary education enrolment rate along with the rise of the no. of students from abroad. In Poland, the greatest increase was observed in the case of the number of researchers what consequently contributed to the improvement of number of scientific and technical articles and citable documents (h-index).Value Added: To the best Author’s knowledge this is the first paper that compares national human capital development in Poland and China with a set of indices focused on capability to create innovations and adopts longitudinal approach.Recommendations: Policy-makers in the case of Poland should concentrate on: fostering university/industry research collaboration, improving rank in worldwide QS classification and performing more efforts to attract and retain talents. Moreover, the negative trends should be reversed with regard to: PISA scores and general quality of education system. In turn, Chinese authorities should facilitate better PISA scores and increase the presence of scientific and technical articles.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document