#ISSS2016 Boulder

2823 A Systemic Model for a telecommunications innovation system was designed with the proposal for technological development, to avoid situations that endanger the cancellation, by the International Union of Communications of the satellite orbits assigned to Mexico, and thus promote public and private investment through the integration of basic and applied scientific research in enterprises. The idea is to make appropriate innovations and make significant improvements to products, thus meeting the demands of domestic and international consumers. Keywords: Systemic model, innovation, and technological development.

2887 This article outlines a unified Communication Theory linking cyber-systemic, and cyber-semiotic perspectives. The objective is explaining communication as an emergent system from the interaction process between socio-ecological systems. The emergent communication system seen from a unified perspective is applied as a participative integral transformation process toward the harmonic relationship between human communities and their dynamic social and natural environment. It includes the description of an evolutionary communication process between social and environmental leaders of organizational networks under real conditions. It describes the evolutionary stages of the communication system between different social and environmental leaders who have been working in social organizational networks of Mexico in the last thirty years. The last stage of this emergent communication process among social organizational networks leaders began in 2009, is called: the Ecosystemic Dialogues, it is communication system with qualitative complexity and critical awareness. It is a social laboratory of change under real conditions, through a participative action-research cybernetic process, for a harmonic and sustainable relationship between human and natural systems, through a complex communication dynamic. It is a process toward the sustainable systemic health of the planet. Keywords: Communication, cyber-semiotic, qualitative complexity, emergent properties, ecosystemic metaphor

2777 This paper introduces Positive Systems Science (PSS), which combines the strength-based lens of positive psychology with the holistic lens of system science, with the ultimate goal of bringing about desired systems change that supports the well-being of living systems. Systems science is an interdisciplinary field that studies the nature of systems—from simple to complex. Positive psychology aims to empirically understand and build wellbeing, resilience, and optimal function in individuals, organizations, and communities (Seligman & Csikzsentmihalyi, 2000). Like a pair of spectacles, each lens is valuable in and of itself, but we suggest that the synthesis of the two fields transcends the value of either one alone. Systems theory draws from diverse disciplines, including biology, sociology, ecology, engineering, computer science and philosophy. It enables interdisciplinary dialogue between autonomous areas as well as within the science itself. Although there are numerous approaches within systems science, they share three common aspects: 1)A desire to understand inter-relationships; 2)A commitment to multiple perspectives and 3)An awareness of boundaries (Williams & van’t Hof, 2014). Despite its successes and the potential of the science to address the complexity of real world problems, system science has never captured the attention of a wide audience. There is a vast literature on systems theory and methods that newcomers can feel overwhelmed, with nowhere to start. New users have to master a large number of theories, ideas and techniques and a subscription to a particular view of what system thinking is. Further, there is a lack of research on its practical application. In contrast, positive psychology has successfully engaged researchers, professionals, policy makers, and the general public, with scholarship in the field increasing by 410% of the past decade (Rusk & Waters, 2015). It provides scientific understanding of the human psyche and methods for affecting mindsets, motivations, and individual behaviors. We suggest that positive psychology adds value to systems thinking theory by emphasizing the importance of mindsets and motivations, and methods for shifting individual behaviour. Further, drawing on its strategies for connecting with various audiences, positive psychology can help make systems tools more useable, practical, and engaging. As an example, we demonstrate how a commonly used systems framework, Peter Senge’s ‘system archetypes’ can be adapted and strengthened by interpreting the archetypes from a positive lens. We will show how making tools more user friendly invites researchers from other disciplines, policy makers and practitioners to try on parts of the theory and benefit without having to master a large number of ideas and techniques before they can apply them in their work and life. Notably, the popularity of positive psychology has come at the cost of application going well beyond the science, with interventions and programs blindly implemented while ignoring the complex context in which people reside. Systems science challenges positive psychology to add sophistication to the methods and theories, which better captures real world experiences. Systems tools can take positive psychology to a deeper level that will have more sustainable impact. Thus, systems science and positive psychology both have strengths and weaknesses, and we suggest that the synthesis of the two perspectives will create frameworks, tools, and applications that are greater than either perspective alone. Such an approach does not simply identify and address existing problems, but generates pathways toward yet unimagined futures.

2783   This workshop will expand upon the content and ideas provided in the earlier session: Outdoor Adolescent Rites of Passages: Theoretical Foundations, Contemporary Shortcomings, and the Emerging New Model. Participants will be engaged by exploring personal connections to the outdoors and meaningful experiences they have had in the wilderness. A practical and working model of a community-based outdoor youth engagement initiative will then be presented. Participants will be asked to contribute to the development of this model through critical feedback, generative dialogue, and human-centered design. Participants will leave the workshop with a deeper understanding of how outdoor rites of passage can be offered in any community, as well as having contributed to the development of a practical initiative in Colorado.

2784  The workshop develops a network thinking lens then builds inter-organizational networking capacity with participants using Network Weaving principles and processes (Holley, 2010). Participants interact using Liberating Structures (Lipmanowicz & McCandless, 2014) to build relationships in the session and unleash collective intelligence to form inclusive networks of diverse stakeholders. An exercise makes the group’s structure visible first on butcher paper and then modeled in a free on-line network mapping tool (Kumu). An appreciation of the power of network thinking is developed. Techniques for building action-oriented, intentional, relationship-rich, and supportive networks can be applied to participant’s respective domain practices. Facilitated structures that achieve surprisingly good group engagement are easily adopted upon returning to participant home organizations. And we have fun!
This highly participatory workshop addresses the challenge of sustainability in human collectives working for change together by harnessing their diversity through intentional and systematic relationship building.  It uses information technology to make relationship structure visible (Kumu). It uses a “social technology of discourse” (Liberating Structures) to engage the active intelligence and diversity of every participant to build a social structure (Community of Practice) that can affect change through harnessing and coordinating their common intention.

Participants learn and take away:
1. A network thinking lens• Use a network thinking lens to engage differently in organizations • Use Network Weaving principles to begin to build out intentional networks for action• Holley, J. (2012). Network weaver handbook: A guide to transformational networks. Network Weaver Publishing
2. Use Liberating Structures to enable surprisingly good outcomes for groups• Learn the Liberating Structure called “1-2-4-all” to enhance the generative potential of any meeting• Learn the Liberating Structure “Social Network Webbing” so face-to-face groups visualize their networks• Capture the value diversity brings through full participation; encourage every voice• Lipmanowicz, H., & McCandless, K. (2014). The surprising power of liberating structures: Simple rules to unleash a culture of innovation.
3. Connect with people doing similar work, create Communities of Practice• Use Kumu to capture and model those relationships• Get support from like-minded network builders in the session when we return to our practices• https://kumu.ioParticipants discuss how and why building intentional networks based on strong, supportive relationships result in action. We’ll demonstrate Network Weaving concepts and methods applied to organizational networks. We’ll make networks visible by actually capturing and modeling the network of participants. Using Liberating Structures that hold both the individual and collective in the session enables participants to try them in their practices. Participants leave with new perspectives, increased skills in facilitating conversations, and accessible demonstrations of simple tools that support ongoing organizing.

The session is a micro-iteration of a participatory action research cycle. By observing, thinking, acting, and reflecting, the participants move together through cognitive and behavioral transformation about network thinking. The session uses a series of generative and participatory interactions (Liberating Structures) to engage people to learn and build a Community of Practice (CoP) for thinking from a network perspective and for building effective networks. The community structure is modeled in a tool (Kumu) that will allow participants to easily access each other after the session and use the tool to model their own native relationship and intentional networks.Impact? Effective large-scale collaborative relationship building and network thinking can be part of sustaining structures of intention and agency. Networks can address the challenge of systemic power imbalance; encourage peer relationships, valuing everyone’s unique contribution. Network thinking can empower everyone to step into leadership roles. Networks reach across a diversity of stakeholders drawing them near to each other in adaptive interaction. Promoting network thinking in a group of passionate change practitioners can lead to changes at scale.

2788 The proposed presentation will present the theoretical findings of my master’s thesis, as well as their practical application to youth engagement programming around the world. The presentation will first outline a traditional rites of passage framework as it relates to community-based engagement of youth. Research from the fields of psychology, anthropology, experiential education, and systems dynamics will be presented to demonstrate the importance of such practices in healthy youth and community development. The challenges that contemporary outdoor youth engagement programs are encountering will be explored, highlighting the specific system obstacles they face in effective implementation. The presentation will progress to present a research backed, theoretical model for the development of community-based outdoor rites of passage programming. The proposed model involves active community mentorship networks, locally based preparation and reintegration of participants by community members, and self-directed adolescent design of rites of passage experiences. Lastly, I will discuss the practical application of this model in various youth engagement initiatives around the world. The audience will be engaged to both share their own outdoor rites of passage experiences, as well as contribute tangible additions to the emerging new model of community-based outdoor youth engagement. Future research on the relationship of such programming to asset building communities will be proposed and discussed at the end of the presentation.

2782 In this paper we discuss how socio-technical intervention in socio-ecological systems can increase understanding of burning issues that drives systems unstable and unbalanced. Using the challenge of drilling oil in the Yasuni National Park ecosystem in Ecuador and balancing it with the diversity of socio-cultural inhabitants in the ecosystem, we show how we can develop a space for evolution of mutual understanding of a CoI (Community of Interest) consisting of multiple system stakeholders and what mechanisms can help us in articulating concrete actions happening across different domains - ranging from scientific findings and publications all the way to artistic and emotional-engaging interventions, evolving in this way from mere transdisciplinary to rather holistic approach of solving complex socio-ecological problem. Paper presents outcomes of the pre-event, at-event, and post-event interventions at the workshop “Which data to look for? How to build thriving knowledge communities?“ related to the BunB conference. Our unique approach was to provide CollaboFramework (consisting of CollaboScience and CollaboArte socio-technical systems) that creates a dialogical space for mapping mutual fuzzy and multi-truth knowledge of known issues and guiding evolution of that initial knowledge through the set of dialogical interactions among stakeholders. CollaboFramework system is a novel approach that unites infrastructure for the collective-knowledge space with the set of socio-technical tools that incrementally evolve that collective-knowledge weaving. With CollaboFramework we recognize uniqueness and complexity of transdisciplinary dialogue of CoIs that aim solving wicked problems. We provide support for modeling personalized socio-technical processes governing each of those communities. Processes coordinate different components of CollaboFramework in the most efficient way for particular CoI and challenges it is facing at the moment. Processes guided with socio-psychological insights help CoIs to converge multidisciplinary knowledge into coherent and landscaped knowledge with the set of insights that will be capable of governing future actions and interventions in the problem-space, namely creating public media and artistic projects that will engage society and let all relevant stakeholders to be heard and recognized. In the future iterations of the CoI events, this will bring additional insights and start another iteration in the spiral of CollaboDialogue and calls for actions. In this paper we discuss how socio-technical intervention in socio-ecological systems can increase understanding of burning issues that drives systems unstable and unbalanced. Using the challenge of drilling oil in the Yasuni National Park ecosystem in Ecuador and balancing it with the diversity of socio-cultural inhabitants in the ecosystem, we show how we can develop a space for evolution of mutual understanding of a CoI (Community of Interest) consisting of multiple system stakeholders and what mechanisms can help us in articulating concrete actions happening across different domains - ranging from scientific findings and publications all the way to artistic and emotional-engaging interventions, evolving in this way from mere transdisciplinary to rather holistic approach of solving complex socio-ecological problem. Paper presents outcomes of the pre-event, at-event, and post-event interventions at the workshop “Which data to look for? How to build thriving knowledge communities?“ related to the BunB conference. Our unique approach was to provide CollaboFramework (consisting of CollaboScience and CollaboArte socio-technical systems) that creates a dialogical space for mapping mutual fuzzy and multi-truth knowledge of known issues and guiding evolution of that initial knowledge through the set of dialogical interactions among stakeholders. CollaboFramework system is a novel approach that unites infrastructure for the collective-knowledge space with the set of socio-technical tools that incrementally evolve that collective-knowledge weaving. With CollaboFramework we recognize uniqueness and complexity of transdisciplinary dialogue of CoIs that aim solving wicked problems. We provide support for modeling personalized socio-technical processes governing each of those communities. Processes coordinate different components of CollaboFramework in the most efficient way for particular CoI and challenges it is facing at the moment. Processes guided with socio-psychological insights help CoIs to converge multidisciplinary knowledge into coherent and landscaped knowledge with the set of insights that will be capable of governing future actions and interventions in the problem-space, namely creating public media and artistic projects that will engage society and let all relevant stakeholders to be heard and recognized. In the future iterations of the CoI events, this will bring additional insights and start another iteration in the spiral of CollaboDialogue and calls for actions.

2815 A sizeable body of research and literature is developing about toxic leadership and workplace bullying. Our earlier work found distinctions between tough bosses and true bullies in the workplace. A later study showed that military officers were able to clearly identify differences between hard but effective leaders and toxic leaders. That work was extended into the organizational climates which seem to promote toxic leaders and bullies. Other colleagues have explored potentials for changes in bullying behavior through executive coaching interventions, noting that some executives simply lack awareness of their behaviors, or the effects on those around them. The focus of this paper is the synthesis of earlier findings, to begin a more systemic understanding about the relationships between individual, organizational, and societal behaviors with respect to bullying and toxic leadership.

2781 Learning networks combine multistakeholder collaboration with community-spanning interaction and exchange across sites and scales. They are inter-organizational voluntary collaboratives that support innovation and social learning to promote systemic change. Learning networks are often attempted in situations where existing institutional arrangements cannot address looming challenges, and change is thwarted by a combination of lack of capacity and a powerful status quo. The four learning networks we are examining address the challenges of ecological fire restoration, urban resilience, fostering adaptive capacity to climate change and other unprecedented challenges in developing countries, and the deep cultural divide between the academy and the public (also see our team website www.brugo.org). We will consider how these LNs increase capacity to transform complex adaptive systems in which they are embedded. Our definition of resilience is grounded in how collective action can purposefully reconfigure systemic relationships to promote a new and desired state. We will explore how learning networks can balance the autonomy that individual organizations and communities require with the cohesion required to catalyze transformative change in policy and institutions operating at higher spatial/temporal/organizational scales. Different kinds of learning take place at each of different network levels – it is the effective interweaving of these heterogeneous interactions that fosters transformative capacity. Learning networks are bridging organizations: they form a bridge between different ways of knowing in communities and organizations, and they bridge to alternative futures by fostering innovation. Learning networks disrupt old habits and foster new collaborative relationships, reinforcing participants’ shared ties and purpose while providing freedom to experiment with innovative approaches. Learning networks rely on effective design and ongoing facilitation to function effectively. Network facilitators or “netweavers” may be formally identified or may emerge from among network participants. These netweavers collaborate with participants in identifying goals and an effective network topology and infrastructure. Netweavers initiate activities that build community and promote a shared identity that provides the foundation for common practice and purpose. Ties within the network deepen over time as participants identify collaborative solutions. We will explore these features by drawing insights from the origin, design and netweaving of our four learning networks. We will show how effective learning networks possess a loose, light structure that allows them to learn and adapt as their membership becomes more confident and experienced, as new needs and opportunities are recognized, and as resources and institutional support require. We will also consider how network design is cross-scalar, combining interpersonal and group collaboration with network-spanning interaction and exchange. Finally, we will reflect on how networks foster transformative capacity, an idea that is both conceptually subtle and difficult to detect over the short timescale of our fieldwork. To the extent possible, our work is conducted by our being embedded in network leadership teams and actively participating in ongoing discussion about the network design and facilitation. We will also discuss how participatory action research and developmental evaluation frameworks enable this balance between participation and analytical engagement.

• Description:  Systemic Sustainability and Systems Literacy ultimately involve transformative changes at the personal and social level. What individual competencies are needed and how will student researchers navigate the treacherous waters ahead for ‘out-of-the-box’ thinkers? We emphasize the importance of integrated personal skills and effective collaborative and innovative networking to build transformative communities.

Chair: Pamela Buckle

Invited Speakers:

• Pamela Buckle (The Challenge of Graduate Research in systems science and practice)


• Delia McNamara (Ranulph Glanville Memorial Talk) – Importance of collaboration and connection for student research.


• Student Award Papers (Vickers, Rappoport, Mead)

Systemic Sustainability and Systems Literacy ultimately involve transformative changes at the personal and social level. What individual competencies are needed and how will student researchers navigate the treacherous waters ahead for ‘out-of-the-box’ thinkers? We emphasize the importance of integrated personal skills and effective collaborative and innovative networking to build transformative communities.

We live in a world that is increasingly networked technologically, with a growing diversity in methods and media of communication and connection, providing an ever increasing level of complexity.  This network of complexity and diversity is presenting both opportunities in terms of innovation and community, and threats in terms of uncertainty, risks and unforeseen disruptive events.  Yet is this network, or ecology of networks, a system?  When does a network become a system and what is our role within the system to harness the potential of the networks for systemic purposes and systemic action?   Exploring critical systems thinking, in particular the boundary, cybernetics and design thinking, can we build effective systemic capacity for collaboration and purposeful action to educate, inform and inspire engagement with systems literacy within and beyond the systems community?Keywords: Critical Systems Thinking, Boundary, Boundaries, Cybernetics, Networks, Collaboration, Connection, Leadership, Systemic

The Vickers award encourages contributions to areas of consideration where systems approaches stand to enrich the social sciences, humanities and the arts.

More about Sir Geoffrey Vickers: http://www.isss2016usa-india.com/#!sir-geoffrey-vickers/hapzs

More about the Awards:  Student Awards

The Rapoport award recognizes works in the domains of the physical sciences, the life sciences, mathematics and engineering.

More about Anatol Rapoport: http://www.isss2016usa-india.com/#!anatol-rapaport/mhvum

More about the Awards:  Student Awards

The Mead award considers contributions across the domains considered by both the Vickers and the Rapoport awards, but distinguishes those that place special emphases on feminist, collectivist, and culturally pluralistic perspectives

More about Margaret Mead: http://www.isss2016usa-india.com/#!margaret-mead/hp4p3

More about the Awards:  Student Awards