Version User Scope of changes
Aug 25 2009, 1:55 AM EDT (current) chachabooth 8 words added, 4 words deleted
Aug 20 2009, 7:55 AM EDT chachabooth 713 words added

Changes

Key:  Additions   Deletions
After having described the key tenets and tools of systems thinking, it needs to be reflected why and how this discipline is relevant for improving our practice of conflict analysis. This also means that we need to ask ourselves “What is it that we cannot see or understand with the conflict analysis frameworks that we have used so far? What do we want to learn more by applying systems thinking?”.

Systems thinking is today applied extensively in corporate business and organisational learning. There are examples for where it is also applied in the wider social and political sphere, for instance to urban development, the economic crisis, etc.[1] According to Gene Bellinger, there are a number of situations, where it is appropriate and beneficiary to apply systems thinking:
  • There are multiple perspectives on just what the situation is, and how to deal with it.
  • Things seem to oscillate endlessly.
  • A previously applied fix seems to overshoot the goal
  • A previously applied fix has created problems elsewhere
  • Over time there is a tendency to settle for less
  • After a fix is applied the problem returns in time
  • The same fix is used repeatedly
  • There is a tendency to allow an established standard to slip
  • Growth slows over time
  • Partners for growth become adversaries
  • Limitations experienced are believed to result from insufficient capacity
  • There is more than one limit to growth
  • Limited resources are shared by others
  • Growth leads to decline elsewhere[2]

Among this list, we can identify a number of “situations” that are commonly faced in peacebuilding/conflict transformation work:
  • In conflict situations, there are usually several perspectives on what the conflict is about and how it should be dealt with.
  • Conflict situations are often described as intractable – violence and other destructive forms of behaviour have a tendency to reoccur.
  • A peace agreement has created further tensions.
  • A peace agreement has favoured tensions in another part of the country.
  • Peace agreements are not respected and the conflict escalated again after some time.
The nature of conflict situations therefore seems to demand a systems thinking approach. Systems thinking highlights that it there is a need to go beyond seeing events – by identifying patterns of behaviour and the underlying structures that produce these behaviours – in order to deal with complex problems. It is an action-oriented approach, the purpose of understanding the systems structures that explain patterns of behaviour is to find leverage points for change. Bellinger defines:
“Leverage points are those influences within a system where small changes can effect a substantial change in the system itself.”[3]

The strength of systems thinking for conflict analysis – and conflict transformation – seems to be exactly this, making sure that the strategies we use are derived from analysis and change the system and thereby interventions have the potential to contribute to sustainable positive change.

Some exploration and testing how systems thinking can be applied to conflict analysis has already been done by CDA’s Reflecting on Peace Practice project.[4] Also, the Berghof Foundation for Peace Support had done considerable work in the area of “systemic conflict transformation”.[5] Nevertheless, there does not yet seem to be comprehensive experience with “system conflict analysis” as Peter Woodrow calls it. WeThe arefield of peacebuilding is in a stage of exploration by “trying” systems thinking tools in the field together with peacebuilders.peacebuilders, Systemsbecause systems thinking seems to a promising approach:

“if conflicts conform to the same principles as other types of systems, we should be able to figure out how to induce positive change, by developing a systems understanding of the conflict, identifying key leverage points for change, and undertaking appropriate intervention strategies.”[6]

Notes:
[1] For some examples refer to Applied Systems Thinking < http://www.appliedsystemsthinking.com/resources.html> (accessed 20 August 2009)
[2] See Bellinger, Systems Thinking. A Disciplined Approach, 2004. < http://www.systems-thinking.org/stada/stada.htm> (accessed 20 August 2009).
[3] Bellinger, Systems Thinking. A Disciplined Approach, 2004.
[4] See here 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) CDA Collaborative Learning Projects, Reflecting on Peace Practice Participant Training Manual, Cambridge, MA, 2009, p. 10 <http://www.cdainc.com/cdawww/pdf/manual/rpp_training_participant_manual_rev_20090104_Pdf.pdf> (accessed 27 July 2009)
[6] Woodrow, Advancing Practice in Conflict and Strategy Development, p. 4.

Source: chachabooth@gmail.com



Add a New Page