Systemic Action Research

The Intellectual Underpinnings of Systemic Action Research

One of the most important foundation stones for systemic action research was laid by Kurt Lewin in the 1940s. He not only articulated the importance of action research itself but also developed the notion of a field of relations. He argued that phenomena do not exist in isolation but are interconnected through multiple relationships. His notion of a force field was a precursor to the relational understanding of power articulated by Michel Foucault, which sees power not exclusively in the relationship of the dominant with the exploited but rather as a system of constantly shifting interrelationships which create dynamic patterns of inclusion and exclusion, dominance and submission and insistence and resistance. These relationships form a ‘system’. Another key conceptual underpinning has been the work of Checkland, who developed the idea of ‘soft systems’. Moving radically away from the idea of systems as depictions of objective reality, he highlighted the different and overlapping systems of relationships that are perceived by actors. An understanding of multiple subjective versions of reality allows us to learn about how ‘reality’ might be constructed and what the systemic patterns that emerge from this tell us about how change might happen.

What follows from this is that changes in one part of the system create changes across the system. The patterns they create can crystallize into ‘social norms’ and other ‘system dynamics. These become powerful forces which militate against further change. Change may happen but is frequently not sustainable as power is exerted through these norms to force divergent behaviour and activity back towards the status quo. [Page 749]This thinking is strongly supported by complexity theory, which shows how underlying ‘attractors’ draw people towards equilibrium points which can be sustainably changed only when strong enough alternative attractors are created.

Change is considered typically to be iterative and emergent. One thing leads to another, and each of these changes, in turn, has an impact on a myriad of other relationships within the system. This leads to emergent outcomes where there is no directly apparent relationship between the components and what emerges as the whole. This means that it can be as effective to create changes in parts of the system that do not initially seem to be the centre of concern as to focus on where the ‘problem’ appears to lie. Because of the relational nature of change, we need to be constantly alert to the fact that even changes which appear to be desirable in relation to a particular intervention may have unexpected or unwanted consequences elsewhere in the system. Similarly, positive outcomes can come from unanticipated sources.

...