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 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 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 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 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 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.

Environmental Policies for Emergency Management and Public Safety

2019 ◽  
pp. 903-922
Author(s):  
Amidu Owolabi Ayeni
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Emergency Management ◽  
Community Participation ◽  
Government Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Environmental Issues ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Green Policy ◽  
Or Organization

Policy refers to the commitment of people or organization to the laws, regulations, and other green mechanisms concerning environmental issues. Community participation has become important in government, policy makers, and environmentalists over last few decades, and as a result, it is now an established principle as it is widely used not only in academic literature but in policy-making documents, international discussions, as well as in local debates when considering issues dealing with decision-making to achieve sustainable development. Implementation of green policy and community participation programs through representatives—organization, groups of individuals—enhances the benefits of polices and program and adds value to policy as well as making the policy's results and responses more effective and stronger.

Defining the Phenomenon of Mental Models for Critical Events

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kanter van Deurzen ◽  
Imre Horváth ◽  
Regine Vroom
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Models ◽  
Mental Model ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Critical Events ◽  
Cognitive Representations ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Strong Relation ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Definition Of

People use cognitive representations in order to characterize, understand, reason and predict the surrounding world. A class of these representations are called mental models. Designers of informing systems are interested in how mental models influence decision making, especially during critical events. With this knowledge they could optimize the content and amount of information that is needed for a dependable decision making process. New insights are needed about the operation of mental models in the course of critical events, as well as on how informing influences the real life operationalization of mental models. Most of the definitions available in the literature are overly general, and no definition was found that would support the design of informing systems for critical events. Therefore, the objective of our research was to derive a definition of mental models that play a role in critical events. Actually, we systematically constructed a definition from those attributes of mental model descriptions that were found to be relevant to critical events. First we decomposed 125 published descriptions to a set of attributes, and then assessed each attribute to see if they were associated with critical events, or not. In fact, this analysis involved not only the relevance of the attributes to critical events, but also the frequency of occurrence in the surveyed papers. This exploration provided a large number of attributes for a new mental model definition. Based on the top rated attributes, a definition was synthesized which, theoretically, has a strong relation to critical events. Though further validation will be needed, we argue that the derived mental model definition is strong because it establishes relationships with all generic features of critical events and makes the related information contents explicit. Hence the proposed definition can be considered a starting platform for investigations of the influence of informing on decision making processes in critical events.

Case Study: The Wrong Mental Model can Kill You

2007 ◽  
Vol 51 (9) ◽  
pp. 554-558 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Nemire
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Models ◽  
Mental Model ◽  
External World ◽  
Roller Coaster ◽  
Internal Representations ◽  
Study Participants

Mental models are internal representations of the external world that are thought to influence perception and decision-making. An inappropriate mental model of a “roller coaster” was hypothesized to have caused the injury of one person and the death of another in a roller coaster incident. A study was conducted to learn about existing internal representations of roller coasters. Participants were asked to draw a roller coaster. Despite the existence of several types of roller coasters, 98% of the study participants drew a roller coaster representing the oldest and most prevalent type of coaster. The results of the study are discussed with respect to this injury incident and the importance of educating product users about more appropriate mental models that may help prevent injury or death.

scholarly journals Uncovering the processes of knowledge transformation: the example of local evidence-informed policy-making in United Kingdom healthcare

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
John Gabbay ◽  
Andrée le May ◽  
Catherine Pope ◽  
Emer Brangan ◽  
Ailsa Cameron ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Interpersonal Relationships ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Comparison Method ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Contextual Knowledge ◽  
Healthcare Provision ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Knowledge Transformation ◽  
Local Evidence

Abstract Background Healthcare policy-makers are expected to develop ‘evidence-based’ policies. Yet, studies have consistently shown that, like clinical practitioners, they need to combine many varied kinds of evidence and information derived from divergent sources. Working in the complex environment of healthcare decision-making, they have to rely on forms of (practical, contextual) knowledge quite different from that produced by researchers. It is therefore important to understand how and why they transform research-based evidence into the knowledge they ultimately use. Methods We purposively selected four healthcare-commissioning organisations working with external agencies that provided research-based evidence to assist with commissioning; we interviewed a total of 52 people involved in that work. This entailed 92 interviews in total, each lasting 20–60 minutes, including 47 with policy-making commissioners, 36 with staff of external agencies, and 9 with freelance specialists, lay representatives and local-authority professionals. We observed 25 meetings (14 within the commissioning organisations) and reviewed relevant documents. We analysed the data thematically using a constant comparison method with a coding framework and developed structured summaries consisting of 20–50 pages for each case-study site. We iteratively discussed and refined emerging findings, including cross-case analyses, in regular research team meetings with facilitated analysis. Further details of the study and other results have been described elsewhere. Results The commissioners’ role was to assess the available care provision options, develop justifiable arguments for the preferred alternatives, and navigate them through a tortuous decision-making system with often-conflicting internal and external opinion. In a multi-transactional environment characterised by interactive, pressurised, under-determined decisions, this required repeated, contested sensemaking through negotiation of many sources of evidence. Commissioners therefore had to subject research-based knowledge to multiple ‘knowledge behaviours’/manipulations as they repeatedly re-interpreted and recrafted the available evidence while carrying out their many roles. Two key ‘incorporative processes’ underpinned these activities, namely contextualisation of evidence and engagement of stakeholders. We describe five Active Channels of Knowledge Transformation – Interpersonal Relationships, People Placement, Product Deployment, Copy, Adapt and Paste, and Governance and Procedure – that provided the organisational spaces and the mechanisms for commissioners to constantly reshape research-based knowledge while incorporating it into the eventual policies that configured local health services. Conclusions Our new insights into the ways in which policy-makers and practitioners inevitably transform research-based knowledge, rather than simply translate it, could foster more realistic and productive expectations for the conduct and evaluation of research-informed healthcare provision.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document