Sign in or 
- EasyEdit
- Edit tags
-
(what's this?What are these tools?
People just like you can add or edit the content on this site. If you want to try editing, but aren't ready to add to this site, try our demo area.
Read more about editing pages at Wetpaint Central.
) - Report page
Share this
Applying systems thinking to conflict analysis
Conflicts as systems?
If systems thinking is viable for our field, we need to develop an operational understanding of how we can describe conflicts as a system, i.e. a group of interacting, interrelated, and interdependent components that form a complex and unified whole that has a purpose. So, we need to ask:
Where to start with the analysis?
The Reflecting on Peace Practice project suggests starting a systemic conflict analysis by creating a systems map of all the factors and issues that were found most important. In order to identify these factors, a force field analysis, looking at forces for and against peace (these are forces for conflict), is conducted. Among the forces for conflict – the conflict’s driving forces – the ones most important (key driving forces) are selected.[2]
Force field analysis seems a good starting point for a systems thinking conflict analysis, because it does not ask specifically for actors and already at that initial stage takes us away from our “everyday” understanding of conflict. It seems however also a viable strategy to start the analysis process with another relatively “simple” conflict analysis tool, such as the one described in 3.1 of this paper. Based on this “initial analysis”, the key variables in the conflict system can be identified.
Examples for key variables in conflict systems could be:[3]
Once variables have been identified, two systems thinking tools are important to use: behavior over time graphs and causal loop diagrams. With these two analytical tools you can increase your understanding of the variables, how they change over time and how they interact with each other.
You can start by grouping the variables and this way establish some sub-systems within the system. Then put all the variables in one system in one behavior over time graph and see how they have changed over time and in relation to each other. Then start thinking about how the causal loop would look like, what logical order can the variables can be put into. If one variable is adding to the other (or changing it in the same direction), put a + at the top of the arrow. If a variable is subtracting from another (or changing in the opposite direction), put a – at the top of the arrow. This way you will be able to identify whether the loop is balancing or reinforcing (only +/- or at least more +/- than -/+). If the impact or influence of one variable/factor on another is not direct, figure out which factor is intervening and how.[4] Once you have drawn causal loops for subsystems, see how they work together. Keep the behavior over time graphs in mind as well.
You can use the archetypes described in systems thinking literature in order to identify typical and problematic system structures.
Stock and flow diagrams
Stock and flow diagrams are pointed out as a key tool in systems thinking. This element has, however, not been highlighted by the RPP project. How stocks and flows can be applied to conflict analysis has to be explored, possibly with an experienced systems thinker. It could be interesting, for instance, to see “violence” as a stock and ask what inflows and outflows exist in order to see how these flows can be altered.
From analysis to action: Identifying leverage points
Use the resulting “systems map” for the purpose of identifying leverage points – where can you intervene and make a difference (as changes in one part of the system assumingly also lead to changes in other parts) with regards to conflict dynamics? As the RPP Participant Training Manual notes, “there are no quick and easy formulas for finding leverage points.”[5] The manual suggests three questions to explore where leverage points could be:
Conclusion: 7 Steps for a systems thinking conflict analysis
There is so far no comprehensively developed guide for applying systems thinking to conflict analysis. It is suggested here to go through a number of steps in order to apply systems thinking tools to conflict analysis. Systems thinking is like learning a new language, you become fluent through practicing.
Step 1 - Developing an "initial" understanding of the conflict through conflict stages and force field analysis
In order to be able to look in underlying patterns and behaviour, an initial understanding of the conflict situation is necessary. The analysis of conflict stages and the exploration of a force field lay the basis for the succeeding steps.
Step 2 - Selecting key variables
As suggested by RPP, the force field analysis results can be used to identify what variables that are most important to explain the patterns of behavior of the conflict.
Step 3 - Grouping of key variables
After a certain number of key variables that make up the conflict system have been selected, they can be grouped initially: which variables work directly together? Which ones in an indirect manner? This step does not yet look at the causal interactions between variables in detail.
Step 4 - Behavior over time graphs
The analysis of conflict stages conducted in the first step of the analysis will already have given an overview of how the conflict developed historically. This can now be used to analyse how the selected key variables have changed over time. The behavior over time graph for each variable should start in the past, covers the present and can also look in the future. The graphs for the key variables can then be compared to each other. This will be helpful for the next step.
Step 5 - Causal loops
Now, go back to the grouping of key variables and explore their causal interrelationships.
Step 6 - Finding archetypes
Conflicts can be described as "problematic system structures" and the endgoal of using systems thinking is to find "solutions". Archetypes, such as "Escalation", "Shifting the burden", "Fixes that backfire" might be visible in the evolving system structure.
Step 7 - Identifying leverage points
Where can you intervene and make a difference (as changes in one part of the system assumingly also lead to changes in other parts) with regards to conflict dynamics?
Sources:
CDA Collaborative Learning Projects, Reflecting on Peace Practice Participant Training Manual, Cambridge, MA, 2009.
<http://www.cdainc.com/cdawww/pdf/manual/rpp_training_participant_manual_rev_20090104_Pdf.pdf> (accessed 27 July 2009)
Woodrow, Peter, Advancing Practice in Conflict Analysis and Strategy Development. Interim Progress Report, Cambridge, MA, 2004. < http://www.cdainc.com/cdawww/pdf/article/RPP%20Article%20Conflict%20Analysis%2020060101.pdf> (accessed 20 August 2009)
Notes:
If systems thinking is viable for our field, we need to develop an operational understanding of how we can describe conflicts as a system, i.e. a group of interacting, interrelated, and interdependent components that form a complex and unified whole that has a purpose. So, we need to ask:
- What are the components and what are their interactions?
If we draw on our “traditional” conflict analysis practice, we could easily conclude that the conflicts components or elements are the conflict actors and that the actors’ interactions make up the system as a whole.[1] However, this understanding does not correspond with the tools of systems thinking that have been introduced earlier, such as causal loops and behavior over time graphs, that in essence look at “variables”, i.e. things that can change, and how these mutually influence each other and change over time. While actors are not variables, their behavior might well be. Also, key driving forces of conflict, for instance resource scarcity, can be a variable in a conflict system.
- Where can we draw the boundary of the system?
Intuitively, we would probably draw boundaries around the conflict in geographical terms (when we are thinking about actors relate to each other, where they fight, etc.). While geographical limitations are important to focus the analysis, the system’s boundaries are drawn considering which variables are important in order to explain the system’s behavior.
- What is the system’s purpose?
If conflict is a system, then one needs to be able to define its purpose. This purpose could be positive (e.g. the motivation of change processes) or negative (e.g. the maintenance of unhealthy relationships).
Where to start with the analysis?
The Reflecting on Peace Practice project suggests starting a systemic conflict analysis by creating a systems map of all the factors and issues that were found most important. In order to identify these factors, a force field analysis, looking at forces for and against peace (these are forces for conflict), is conducted. Among the forces for conflict – the conflict’s driving forces – the ones most important (key driving forces) are selected.[2]
Force field analysis seems a good starting point for a systems thinking conflict analysis, because it does not ask specifically for actors and already at that initial stage takes us away from our “everyday” understanding of conflict. It seems however also a viable strategy to start the analysis process with another relatively “simple” conflict analysis tool, such as the one described in 3.1 of this paper. Based on this “initial analysis”, the key variables in the conflict system can be identified.
Examples for key variables in conflict systems could be:[3]
- Proliferation of arms
- Violence
- Displacement
- Insecurity
- Protection
- Distrust, intolerance, hate
- Strength of the state
- Struggle for power
- Corruption, patrimonialism/clientelism
- Existence of armed groups
- Impunity
- Poverty
- Unequal access and allocation of resources
- Gap among social classes
Once variables have been identified, two systems thinking tools are important to use: behavior over time graphs and causal loop diagrams. With these two analytical tools you can increase your understanding of the variables, how they change over time and how they interact with each other.
You can start by grouping the variables and this way establish some sub-systems within the system. Then put all the variables in one system in one behavior over time graph and see how they have changed over time and in relation to each other. Then start thinking about how the causal loop would look like, what logical order can the variables can be put into. If one variable is adding to the other (or changing it in the same direction), put a + at the top of the arrow. If a variable is subtracting from another (or changing in the opposite direction), put a – at the top of the arrow. This way you will be able to identify whether the loop is balancing or reinforcing (only +/- or at least more +/- than -/+). If the impact or influence of one variable/factor on another is not direct, figure out which factor is intervening and how.[4] Once you have drawn causal loops for subsystems, see how they work together. Keep the behavior over time graphs in mind as well.
You can use the archetypes described in systems thinking literature in order to identify typical and problematic system structures.
Stock and flow diagrams
Stock and flow diagrams are pointed out as a key tool in systems thinking. This element has, however, not been highlighted by the RPP project. How stocks and flows can be applied to conflict analysis has to be explored, possibly with an experienced systems thinker. It could be interesting, for instance, to see “violence” as a stock and ask what inflows and outflows exist in order to see how these flows can be altered.
From analysis to action: Identifying leverage points
Use the resulting “systems map” for the purpose of identifying leverage points – where can you intervene and make a difference (as changes in one part of the system assumingly also lead to changes in other parts) with regards to conflict dynamics? As the RPP Participant Training Manual notes, “there are no quick and easy formulas for finding leverage points.”[5] The manual suggests three questions to explore where leverage points could be:
- What factors are driving the evolution of the system? Which factors, if they were changed, would lead to significant change in the system?
- Where are the “weak” links? Where can links between factors be broken?
- Given who we are (our resources, structures, access, etc.), which of these are most likely to be able to influence?[6]
Conclusion: 7 Steps for a systems thinking conflict analysis
There is so far no comprehensively developed guide for applying systems thinking to conflict analysis. It is suggested here to go through a number of steps in order to apply systems thinking tools to conflict analysis. Systems thinking is like learning a new language, you become fluent through practicing.
- Step 1: Developing an initial understanding of the conflict through conflict stages and force field analysis
- Step 2: Selecting key variables
- Step 3: Grouping of key variables
- Step 4: Behaviour over time graphs
- Step 5: Causal loops
- Step 6: Finding archetypes
- Step 7: Identifying leverage points
Step 1 - Developing an "initial" understanding of the conflict through conflict stages and force field analysis
In order to be able to look in underlying patterns and behaviour, an initial understanding of the conflict situation is necessary. The analysis of conflict stages and the exploration of a force field lay the basis for the succeeding steps.
Step 2 - Selecting key variables
As suggested by RPP, the force field analysis results can be used to identify what variables that are most important to explain the patterns of behavior of the conflict.
Step 3 - Grouping of key variables
After a certain number of key variables that make up the conflict system have been selected, they can be grouped initially: which variables work directly together? Which ones in an indirect manner? This step does not yet look at the causal interactions between variables in detail.
Step 4 - Behavior over time graphs
The analysis of conflict stages conducted in the first step of the analysis will already have given an overview of how the conflict developed historically. This can now be used to analyse how the selected key variables have changed over time. The behavior over time graph for each variable should start in the past, covers the present and can also look in the future. The graphs for the key variables can then be compared to each other. This will be helpful for the next step.
Step 5 - Causal loops
Now, go back to the grouping of key variables and explore their causal interrelationships.
Step 6 - Finding archetypes
Conflicts can be described as "problematic system structures" and the endgoal of using systems thinking is to find "solutions". Archetypes, such as "Escalation", "Shifting the burden", "Fixes that backfire" might be visible in the evolving system structure.
Step 7 - Identifying leverage points
Where can you intervene and make a difference (as changes in one part of the system assumingly also lead to changes in other parts) with regards to conflict dynamics?
- What factors are driving the evolution of the system? Which factors, if they were changed, would lead to significant change in the system?
- Where are the “weak” links? Where can links between factors be broken?
- Given who we are (our resources, structures, access, etc.), which of these are most likely to be able to influence?[6]
Sources:
CDA Collaborative Learning Projects, Reflecting on Peace Practice Participant Training Manual, Cambridge, MA, 2009.
<http://www.cdainc.com/cdawww/pdf/manual/rpp_training_participant_manual_rev_20090104_Pdf.pdf> (accessed 27 July 2009)
Woodrow, Peter, Advancing Practice in Conflict Analysis and Strategy Development. Interim Progress Report, Cambridge, MA, 2004. < http://www.cdainc.com/cdawww/pdf/article/RPP%20Article%20Conflict%20Analysis%2020060101.pdf> (accessed 20 August 2009)
Notes:
[1] See here the definition of conflict that was used earlier in this paper A conflict is a social situation, in which a minimum of two actors (parties) pursue incompatible goals/objectives (or perceive them as being incompatible).
[2] See CDA Collaborative Learning Projects, Reflecting on Peace Practice Participant Training Manual, Cambridge, MA, 2009, p. 3.
<http://www.cdainc.com/cdawww/pdf/manual/rpp_training_participant_manual_rev_20090104_Pdf.pdf> (accessed 27 July 2009) p. 6.
<http://www.cdainc.com/cdawww/pdf/manual/rpp_training_participant_manual_rev_20090104_Pdf.pdf> (accessed 27 July 2009) p. 6.
[3] Examples inspired from Woodrow, Peter, Advancing Practice in Conflict Analysis and Strategy Development. Interim Progress Report, Cambridge, MA, 2004. < http://www.cdainc.com/cdawww/pdf/article/RPP%20Article%20Conflict%20Analysis%2020060101.pdf> (accessed 20 August 2009) p. 14.
[4] See here CDA, RPP Participant Training Manual, p. 8.
[5] CDA, RPP Participant Training Manual, p. 8.
[6] See CDA, RPP Participant Training Manual, p. 8.
chachabooth |
Latest page update: made by chachabooth
, Aug 25 2009, 1:54 AM EDT
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by chachabooth
32 words added 36 words deleted view changes - complete history) |
|
More Info: links to this page
|
There are no threads for this page.
Be the first to start a new thread.
