© Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, Volume 19, Number 1, p. 1, (2015)
Copyright © 2015 by the University of Georgia. All rights reserved. ISSN 1534-6104
Systemic Engagement: Universities as Partners in Systemic Approaches to Community Change
Miles A. McNall, Jessica V. Barnes-Najor, Robert E. Brown, Diane Doberneck, and Hiram E. Fitzgerald
Abstract The most pressing social problems facing humanity in the 21st century are what systems theorist Russell Ackoff referred to as “messes”—complex dynamic systems of problems that interact and reinforce each other over time. In this article, the authors argue that the lack of progress in managing messes is in part due to the predominance of a university-driven isolated-impact approach to social problem solving. The authors suggest an alter- native approach called systemic engagement (SE), which involves universities as partners in systemic approaches to community change. The six principles of SE are presented and illustrated with a case example. Barriers to SE are discussed, and strategies are proposed for increasing faculty use of this methodology. The promises and perils of SE as an alternative community-engaged approach to social problem solving are considered.
Introduction
T he most pressing problems facing humanity in the 21st century (e.g., climate change and social inequality) are not isolated problems, but what systems theorist Russell Ackoff (1999) referred to as “messes”—complex dynamic systems of problems that interact and reinforce each other over time. The complexity of messes presents daunting challenges to our collec- tive problem-solving capacities, let alone the capacities of any par- ticular engaged scholar. In the context of calls to strengthen the role of universities in addressing social problems (Boyer, 1990; Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities, 1999), it is reasonable to ask whether prevailing forms of engaged scholarship are capable of managing messes. In this article, we argue that the lack of progress in effectively managing complex problems is due in part to the predominance of a particular approach to engagement called the isolated-impact approach (Kania & Kramer, 2011). In the isolated-impact approach, universities and communities collabo- rate to design and implement interventions that address a partic- ular problem, with limited attention paid to the contextual factors that perpetuate the problem. Such interventions, if designed well and implemented with fidelity, may have strong short-term effects

2 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
within a narrow range of outcomes for targeted populations, but the dynamics of the larger system that generated the problem remain unchanged. In addition, isolated-impact efforts are frequently con- ducted as stand-alone projects that are disconnected from other related efforts, thereby failing to realize the synergies possible with more coordinated strategies. In this article, we propose an alter- native to the isolated-impact approach to problem solving called systemic engagement (SE). We discuss the six principles of SE and provide a case example to illustrate the principles. We then con- sider barriers to faculty involvement in SE and how these barriers might be surmounted to allow for the wider use of SE.
Systemic Engagement Simply put, SE involves universities as partners in systemic
approaches to social problem solving. SE has six key principles:
1. Systems thinking 2. Collaborative inquiry 3. Support for ongoing learning 4. Emergent design 5. Multiple strands of inquiry and action 6. Transdisciplinarity
Although SE includes within its scope all community–univer- sity partnerships that use systemic approaches to social problem solving, the focus of this article is on SE within the context of place- based initiatives, or what we refer to here as systemic approaches to community change.
Systems Thinking Systems theorists have argued that the foundation of systems
thinking is holism (Midgley, 2007), comprehensiveness (Midgley, 2000), or “taking into account the whole” (Burns, 2007, p. 21). In other words, systems thinking involves a widening of the usual scope of inquiry to include a larger share of the contextual factors that contribute to messes. Imam, LaGoy, and Williams (2007) argued that three systems concepts are essential for understanding sys- tems-based interventions: boundaries, perspectives, and entangled systems (or relationships). Because of the inclination toward com- prehensiveness in systems thinking and the practical impossibility of considering every influence on a focal problem, boundaries help

Systemic Engagement: Universitities as Partners in Systemic Approaches to Community Change 3
define what lies inside or outside the scope of a particular inquiry. However, these boundaries must be placed carefully and provision- ally, with a clear understanding of the implications of their place- ment for what or whom is included or excluded from the inquiry space. Systems thinking also involves considering the subject of inquiry from the perspectives of a wide range of individuals with a stake in managing the problem or from different perspectives on the possible purposes of the system in question. Finally, systems thinking involves an exploration of the key relationships among system elements, between systems and subsystems, and how these relationships contribute to the perpetuation of the problem.
Boundaries. SE expands the boundaries of inquiry based on the understanding that complex problems rarely (if ever) arise from the action of a single isolated cause. Rather, complex problems typi- cally result from the interplay of relationships among several fac- tors. In addition, problems rarely exist in isolation. Instead, they are often subcomponents of dynamic systems of problems that interact and reinforce each other over time (i.e., messes). For this reason, Ackoff (1999) argued that “a partial solution to a whole system of problems is better than whole solutions of each of its parts taken separately” (p. 324). Based on these insights, SE expands the bound- aries of inquiry to bring “whole systems of problems” within the inquiry space of an initiative. For example, a systemic approach to the study of child development, informed by Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory, would expand the typical bound- aries of inquiry from influences operating within the child’s proximate microsystem (family, school, neighborhood, and peers) to influences operating in the child’s mesosystem (connections between elements of the microsystem), exosystem (industry, social services, neighbors, and mass media), and macrosystem (attitudes and ideologies prevalent in the larger culture).
Perspectives. SE expands the boundaries of inclusion based on the understanding that there is no single correct definition, perspective, or understanding of problems or systems of problems (indeed, whether something is a problem is a matter of perspec- tive), and that those affected by problems should have a voice in how they are addressed. Far too often university-based scholars develop theory-based interventions for testing and dissemination in communities, viewing communities largely as “passive distribu- tion or delivery systems rather than as rich sources of knowledge and skills” (Miller & Shinn, 2005, p. 169). SE pushes the boundaries of inclusion to incorporate the perspectives of a broad range of both community-based and university-based actors with a stake in the

4 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
problems, explicitly including both local and indigenous knowl- edge and generalized university-based knowledge both in under- standing problems and in generating solutions to manage them (Fitzgerald, Bruns, Sonka, Furco & Swanson, 2012). SE strives to bring these different sources of knowledge into respectful and appre- ciative dialogue with one another for the purpose of cocreating new understandings and codesigning new solutions to complex problems.
Relationships. SE explores the relationships between sys- tems and subsystems and among the components of systems to reveal the complex dynamics that perpetuate the problem of con- cern. Meadows (2008) argued that whereas changes in system ele- ments (e.g., changes in the individual members of a social group) typically have little to no effect on the functioning of a system, changes in their interconnections will often have very large effects. Consequently, a clear understanding of the relationships among a system’s components is essential to restructuring that system to produce different results. As Meadows (2008) has argued, “the results that systems produce will continue until they are restruc- tured” (p. 4). A systemic study of child development would explore the structure of relationships both within and across micro-, meso-, exo-, and macrosystems. For example, within the level of individual children, it would explore the relationships among four brain systems (executive, regulation, sensory, and relevance; Lillas & Turnbull, 2009) while also examining the influences of factors operating at the micro-, meso-, and exosystem levels on the func- tioning of these same brain systems.
Collaborative Inquiry Collaborative inquiry refers to the use of collaborative and
participatory approaches to research and evaluation. SE inten- tionally solicits multiple perspectives on problems and relevant systems by drawing on both local and indigenous knowledge as well as generalized university-based knowledge to understand problems and to generate strategies for managing them more effectively. The methods of inquiry best suited to fostering deep participation by people with a stake in particular problems and utilizing both university-based and community-based sources of knowledge for understanding and managing them are collabora- tive approaches to inquiry and action such as community-based participatory research (Israel et al., 2001, 2008; Minkler & Wallerstein, 2008), participatory action research (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000; McTaggart, 1991; Whyte, 1991), and collaborative and participatory

Systemic Engagement: Universitities as Partners in Systemic Approaches to Community Change 5
approaches to evaluation (Cousins & Whitmore, 1998). In addition, there are explicitly systemic approaches to collaborative inquiry, including systemic action research (Burns, 2007), systemic interven- tion (Midgley, 2000), and participatory system dynamics modeling (Hovmand, 2014). Despite their differences, these approaches share a commitment to involving community members at some level in all or nearly all phases of inquiry, including identification of the problem or topic of inquiry, selection of research or evaluation questions, choice of research or evaluation methods, collection of data, analysis of data, interpretation of findings, deliberation over the implications of findings for further inquiry or action, and dis- semination of findings.
Support for Ongoing Learning In their review of the successes and failures of comprehen-