Systems thinking, knowledge and action: towards better models and methods

Allan Best and Bev Holmes

Many thanks to the Annette Boaz, managing editor of Evidence & Policy and to Policy Press for agreeing to make this article open access until April 16 2012. 


Best and Holmes (2010) paper has been an important publication in informing recent approaches to knowledge exchange at CRFR. The KE reading group met to consider how thinking in different ways about the processes of knowledge exchange might inform our work.

The authors set out three ‘generations’ of thinking:

1. Linear models
2. Relationship models
3. System models

  

LINEAR MODELS

·        One-way process, ie research passed from researcher to user ·        Knowledge = product ·        Generalised across difference contexts and settings ·        Good when: Well defined criteria is met Good support for behaviour change Well-resourced

RELATIONSHIP MODELS

·          Characterised by relationships between people (networks) ·          Knowledge = from multiple sources ·          Collaboration in both creating research and using research ·          Good when Needs to be adapted to local setting Organisational culture favours evidence-informed planning

SYSTEM MODELS

·        Knowledge cycle tightly woven within priorities, culture and context ·        Circular model with emphasis on the importance of relationships, linkages and exchange ·        Explicit and tacit knowledge need to be integrated to inform decision-making and policy ·        Feedback loops essential ·        Good when: All stakeholders are active collaborators Partnering organisations willing to invest time and resources KE = business strategy

Members of the reading group easily identified examples of linear and relationship models of knowledge exchange in their own work and the work of others, and it was clear to see when each approach might work in relation to different kinds of problems or projects.  It was apparent that most of the work we were now involved with followed a relationship model and acknowledged the value of working collaboratively with a range of stakeholders in the both the planning and implementation of research.

Good working examples of a systems approach to knowledge exchange were less evident, although the About Families project based at CRFR was established within this type of approach.

We reflected on our experiences of trying to positively influence relationships through knowledge exchange activities in terms of how we set up and conduct  meetings, conferences and online forums. Allowing for engaged dialogue, especially between people from different sectors, and avoiding approaches where academics are seen as experts with all the answers, can help shape more productive exchanges.. There is though, still a difficulty in getting people from different sectors and organisations together to address issues, especially when their core work focuses on different areas, and their incentives and rewards push them in different directions.

Often the most effective people in bringing about change can be people on the periphery of the system rather than leaders, partly because people on the sidelines can afford to be more innovative and have less to lose than people in the centre. This might inform our choice of partners for KE, especially in more entrenched or controversial areas of work

We also questioned how easy it would be to define the parameters of working relationships within a system model, as such close working relationships and continuous feedback loops can lead to a greater dependence on key workers if not properly managed.

But using this framework helps us to think through the ways we communicate research, the relationships through which KE occurs, and the systems and contexts where change might happen. This is helpful for planning for more effective approaches to KE. It challenges us to move beyond some of the basic and tired approaches, and to think more deeply about what we are doing and why.

Best, A. and Holmes, B. (2010) Systems thinking, knowledge and action: towards better models and methods, Evidence & Policy, 6(2): 145-159.

GUS inform Scottish Parliament enquiries

Findings from the Growing Up in Scotland (GUS) study were presented to the Scottish Parliament Finance Committee enquiries into preventative spending. GUS is a major longitudinal research project that tracks the lives of several groups of Scottish children through their early years and beyond. To date, over 15,000 children have been included in the study, which means that around one in 10 children born in Scotland in the specified years (2002-03; 2004-05 and 2010-11) have been included in the study.

GUS was invited to give evidence as part of the committee’s on-going consideration of preventative spending. The study is uniquely placed to provide understanding of the influence of children's early circumstances and experiences from a specifically Scottish perspective.

The transcript is available from: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28862.aspx?r=6901&mo

Enduring love?

Professor Lynn Jamieson, Co-Director at CRFR spoke at the launch of the Enduring Love project in January. As an affiliate organisation we thought it would be a good opportunity to give this very interesting research project and their questionnaire a plug!

Complete the questionnaire and find out more at: http://www8.open.ac.uk/researchprojects/enduringlove/

Influence, trust and relationships – the practice of knowledge exchange?

This is the first of what will be a regular post from our Knowledge Exchange reading group. We hope that others find it interesting.

Influence, trust and relationships – the practice of knowledge exchange?

• Opinion leaders: who are they and how do we find them?


• Challenging, affirmative or influential: what makes us decide evidence is relevant and how do we react?


• Knowledgeable assumptions: how do our experiences and instincts limit our need to ask ‘why’?

These are a few questions that members of the CRFR Knowledge Exchange Reading Group were asking after reading ‘Primary Care: Evidence based guidelines or collectively constructed “mindlines”? An ethnography study of knowledge management in primary care’ (Gabby & Le May, 2004). Reading this paper provided an opportunity to reflect on insights into how evidence is used in practice (in two GP surgeries) in day-to-day decision-making.

The authors coined the phrase ‘mindlines’ as a way of describing how practitioners draw on different sources of information to inform what they believe to be clinically good practice. As readers, we assume the practitioners use evidence-based-practice as a result of their formal training and professional registration. However, constantly developing mindlines are formed by a wider range of additional (in some cases stronger?) influences. These wider influences were: their work environment; patients; experience; infrastructure; teachers/training; reading/updates; “they say..”; ‘reps’; opinion leaders; each other and ‘patients views’.

Gabbay J. and May A., BMJ Volume 329, 2004

For these practitioners, guidelines for evidence based clinical practice were readily accessible in a range of formats. However, in practice the guidelines were only one element of this wider mix of influences. Trusted sources of information, which provided commentary, reflections or interpretation of the research literature, appeared to have a greater influence over day to day practice. The evidence base that was being drawn on by these trusted sources themselves was not routinely questioned - that the fact they were trusted was enough.

So, thinking about the questions above, maybe we should take them one step further and also ask:

• Is it possible to identify (and understand) the different influences for practitioners when they are working within their own dynamic, local context?


• How do ‘trusted’ sources influence practitioners and (how?) does this compare with the influence of ‘leaders’ (including opinion leaders)?


• How can we use the ideas of mindlines to inform ways we encourage practitioners to engage with research?

Bad news for disabled people

Nick Watson has collaborated on two new publications of interest:

Bad News for Disabled People: How the newspapers are reporting disability (http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_214917_en.pdf)
Comparing reporting in five newspapers from 2010-2011 and 2004-2005, research found that disabled people are more likely to be reported in a negative light than they were 5 years ago. There has been an increase in articles reporting disability as a benefit problem, an increase in articles on benefit fraud and the 'burden' that benefits claimants and disabled people are having on the economy, an increase in language suggesting that disabled people are 'undeserving' and that the incapacity benefit had become a "lifestyle choice". Asking how these changes in reporting can been seen, in part, as support for the Government's introduction of spending cuts, the report cautions the newspapers on the impact this type of reporting might have on lives of disabled people and the progress of disability rights in the coming years.


Routledge Handbook on Disability Studies
(http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415574006/)
Taking a multidisciplinary approach to disability, the Handbook provides an authoritative and up-to-date overview of the main issues in the field around the world today. With contributions from leading international scholars, the Handbook updates readers on different models and approaches to disability, how key impairment groups have engaged with disability studies, current policy and legislation responses as well as how disability studies has interacted with other disciplines and themes.

Nick is Professor of Disability Studies and Director of the Strathclyde Centre for Disability Research at the University of Glasgow, and Associate Director at CRFR.

Monogamy in men

BBC Radio 4: Thinkins Allowed. 15 February 2012
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/ta

Professor Lynn Jamieson, Head of of Sociology at The University of Edinburgh and Co-Director at CRFR participates in a discussion on monogamy and cheating with sociologist Eric Anderson from Winchester University. Lynn comments on the changing nature of sexual intimacy in long-term relationships, and the emotional and sexual motivations of men who cheat.
Skip to 0:14:50 to hear from the beginning of the discussion.

Scottish perspective on families as Justice Secretary announces plans to overhaul family justice system

Justice Secretary, Ken Clark, this morning outlined plans to overhaul the family justice system: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/feb/06/ken-clarke-divorced-fathers-rights.

To provide a Scottish slant on families we have brought together some key research findings from CRFR and from the Growing Up in Scotland (GUS) study.

· 1 in 5 children do not live with their father. Of these children over 65% have contact with their non-resident parent, and most have frequent contact of once a week.[1] Where fathers pay maintenance, there is usually more contact with children and less conflict between parents.[2]
· The majority of shared-parenting arrangements are decided between the parents, with just 5% of families going through the court system.1
· Almost all families with young children receive some form of support from the child’s grandparents. Of the two-thirds of families in Scotland with a child aged under 2 who use childcare, 60% used grandparents for some or all of this care.[3]
· Family change can be disruptive for all members of a family and that families need to be supported through this process. Children and young people experiencing family change through the divorce, separation or re-partnering are also more likely to experience other changes such as moving house, town and/or school.[4] Family disruption or absence of a family member, in addition to other changes, can stack up and push the balance towards risk for all family members.[5]
· When children are older at the time of their parents separation it alters the children’s relationship with both parents, not just the one who becomes non-resident. Children feel better when they can see by the way their parents act, that they still have an important place in both of their parents’ lives.[6]
· Conflict does not necessarily lead to unhappier relationships. How conflict happens and how it is dealt with is what matters, and can influence the impact on children.[7]

For more details on the work and research of CRFR visit: www.crfr.ac.uk

GUS has been tracking the lives of 8000 Scottish families and their children since their birth in 2005.For more details on Growing Up in Scotland visit: www.growingupinscotland.org.uk.

For more information on About Families, visit: www.aboutfamilies.org.uk.


[1] Growing Up in Scotland Topic Research Findings No. 1/2009, Non-resident parenting Summary Report, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/03/11112830/0.
[2] Mountney K.,and Morton, S. (2011). Together and apart: supporting families through change, Briefing 2, June 2011. Available from www.aboutfamilies.org.uk.
[3] Bradshaw, P., Jamieson, L., and Wasoff, F. (2008). Use of informal support by families with young children. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.
[4] Highet G and Jamieson L (2007) Cool with change: young people and family change. Edinburgh: CRFR.
[5] Marryat, L & Martin, C (2010) Growing Up in Scotland: Maternal mental health and its impact on child behaviour and development' Edinburgh; The Scottish Government.
[6] Highet G and Jamieson L (2007) Cool with change: young people and family change. Edinburgh: CRFR.
[7] Mountney, K., and Morton, S., (2011) Together and apart: support families through change. Briefing 2, June 2011. Available from: www.aboutfamilies.org.uk.