So much good systems thinking in this discussion of physical literacy!

source Part 2: Considering the Individual -Environment Fit at the Core of Physical Literacy.  | footblogball

Part 2: Considering the Individual -Environment Fit at the Core of Physical Literacy.
January 20, 2020 footblogball-Mark O Sullivan Uncategorized
In part 2 of this blog, I will introduce a conceptual realignment of physical literacy that is different from the ‘business-as-usual’ concepts (see part 1), that seemingly underpin the construct in both policy and practice and even as a finally packaged product.

“Skillful interactions” refers to how a mover coordinates his/her behaviour within the performance context in relation to that environment, on the basis of not only the immediate physical and informational (i.e., situational) demands, but also on the basis of historical and cultural factors. Thus, following from Newell (1986), skillful interactions are sufficiently optimal solutions to the movement problem faced in terms of safety, efficiency and/or effectiveness for that individual at that moment in time – Phil Kierney (Footblogball,May 2018).

Such an emphasis shifts the narrative away from fundamental to functional, towards developing an adaptive ‘interactor’; considering the individual-environment fit.

Introduction

Current literature contains different representations of the concept of physical literacy (Edwards et al., 2016). Due to lacking a clear theoretical foundation, it can be argued that the construct has progressively evolved into something it originally was not (Young, O’Connor and Alfrey, 2019).This adaption of numerous definitions and interpretations across different countries, disciplines and organisation (Shearer et al., 2018), has arguably led to a lack of consensus as to how to employ it in practice (Hyndman & Pill, 2018; Jurbala, 2015).

This vagueness associated with the construct reveals aneed for a comprehensive theoretical rationale to underpin how to apply the concepts and ideas from physical literacy research. One such framework that can support the physical literacy journey is the theoretical framework of ecological dynamics. It has been previously argued by Roberts, Newcombe and Davids (2018) that ecological dynamics can inform how we can evolve the concept of physical literacy, both in policy and physical education curriculum, away from the dominant traditional approaches. I argue, from this perspective, the concept of physical literacy can be enriched and extended within and beyond organised sports and physical education, through the reconceptualisation of the nature of an individual’s relationship with the specific environments they interact with over a lifespan. The establishment of an individual -environment fit across varied movement contexts over a lifespan, should therefore be a central tenet of the concept of physical literacy.

continues in source: Part 2: Considering the Individual -Environment Fit at the Core of Physical Literacy.  | footblogball

I’m not comfortable with the description ‘the Liberating Structure ‘Panarchy” – since if I understand correctly, ‘Liberating Structures’ is a collection of facilitation techniques which significantly post-dates a large volume of work around the concept of panarchy (covered here at https://stream.syscoi.com/2019/05/16/panarchy/ , https://stream.syscoi.com/2019/12/31/ecology-and-society-the-dynamics-of-purposeful-change-a-model-silverman-and-hill-2018/ , https://stream.syscoi.com/2018/08/27/silverman-h-and-g-m-hill-2018-the-dynamics-of-purposeful-change-a-model-h-silverman-and-gm-hill/ , and mentioned in https://stream.syscoi.com/2017/08/21/cyclical-history-and-generations/) – there is some referencing in the article – however it is an interesting article about operationalising a concept, so here for consideration.

via Change Organizational Systems with the Liberating Structure ‘Panarchy’ – Business 2 Community

Change Organizational Systems with the Liberating Structure ‘Panarchy’
Christiaan Verwijs— January 21, 2020

How do you change a complex system? This is the quintessential question facing the people eager to change systems — like politicians, Scrum Masters, thought leaders, and other change agents.

In this post, we explore how the Liberating Structure ‘Panarchy’ offers a powerful perspective and allows you to put systems thinking into practice. And even though it is perhaps the most complicated of them all, Panarchy brings together all the promises of Liberating Structures: engage everyone and unleash change on every level.

“Even though it is perhaps the most complicated of them all, Panarchy brings together all the promises of Liberating Structures: engage everyone and unleash change on every level.”

Continues in Change Organizational Systems with the Liberating Structure ‘Panarchy’ – Business 2 Community

Project and Program Evaluation
Ripple Effects Mapping
Overview
Ripple Effects Mapping (REM) is a versatile participatory evaluation tool. The intent of REM is to collect the untold stories and behind-the-scene activities that can ripple out from a specific program or activity.

Designed to work effectively for gathering evaluation data from program participants, community or coalition partners, or other groups.
Effectively identifies what has occurred, as well as what is not occurring
Provides an opportunity to decide what direction the community, coalition, or group should head next.
Overall, the REM process is an effective way to get information from participants and on to paper in a visual way.

Additional Resources:

A Field Guide to Ripple Effects Mapping

Using graphics, pictures, and real-life examples of how Ripple Effects Mapping has been successfully used in multiple settings, the Field Guide to Ripple Effects Mapping provides a comprehensive overview of REM. Providing an in-depth examination of the origins, elements, and how-to of the REM process, this book is a step-by-step guide to successfully implementing this process with a group, collaboration, or community of choice.

To access the Field Guide, click here (Note: Move down the web page to locate the Field Guide).

Using Ripple Effects Mapping to Determine Your Program Outcomes

Two of the original developers of Ripple Effects Mapping conducted a webinar for eXtension. Join Debra Hansen, Associate Professor at Washington State University Extension and Lorie Higgins, Extension Specialist, University of Idaho, as they demonstrate the Ripple Effects Mapping process. This webinar describes how the mapping process has been used in a number of states and settings. Additionally variations in how it has been implemented is discussed. Finally, instructions are provided for coding to the Community Capitals Framework, as well as digitizing the maps.

To access the webinar, click here.

In-Depth Ripple Effects Mapping: A Participatory Evaluation Tool

During the 2016 National Association of Extension Program and Staff Development Professionals Conference, a workshop was presented focused on the REM process.

During the workshop, participants learned the following:

The foundation of Ripple Effects Mapping, including its field development and testing, therefore understanding how and why it is an effective evaluation tool;
How to develop useful and relevant Appreciative Inquiry questions and how to conduct Appreciative Inquiry interviews;
How to organize and conduct a Ripple Effects Mapping session by actively partaking in a mapping with fellow participants;
And what to do with the qualitative data collected during the mapping session, including how to digitize, code, and analyze the information and report the findings.
To review the materials presented, click here.

Published References:

Ripple Effects Mapping: A “Radiant” Way to Capture Program Impacts

Ripple Effects Mapping: An Effective Tool for Identifying Community Development Program Impacts

Using Ripple Effects Mapping to Evaluate Program Impact: Choosing or Combining the Methods That Work Best for You

via Ripple Effects Mapping | Project and Program Evaluation | Washington State University

via Joss Colchester @sysinnovation on twitter, core systems thinking and one of the foundational papers of complexity.

Science link via More Is Different | Science

pdf http://robotics.cs.tamu.edu/dshell/cs689/papers/anderson72more_is_different.pdf

via In Search of the 5th Attractor – Jim Rutt – Medium

[This essay was transcribed from a talk I gave at The Feast in October 2014. Video of talk]

For those who are interested in discussion, elaboration, and action around these ideas, try the Facebook Group: GameB or my podcast series: The Jim Rutt Show.

After a 25-year career building network-based businesses and other tech-intensive stuff, I spent the next 10 years associated with the Santa Fe Institute, the world’s leading research center, studying complex systems. Combining my business and scientific experiences, I’ve developed a strong interest in how complex social systems, especially societies, work and change, and how such knowledge can help us build a better society.

Jerri Chou, founder of The Feast, asked me to talk about “progression.” So I decided to talk about progression from a big picture perspective: how societies and similar large-scale social systems evolve. One important thing to keep in mind is that “progression” doesn’t necessarily mean progress; rather, it just means one thing after another. I forget who it was who said, “History is just one damn thing after another.” (Oh, yeah, it was Arnold Toynbee [one of the advantages of transferring my talk to writing is that I can look up references like that!].)

I’d say “progression” in terms of the evolution of complex systems is the same thing as “history.” It doesn’t necessarily move in a straight line; sometimes developments are kind of surprising. Indeed, one reasonable definition of a complex system is that it should be capable of surprising an observer, at least sometimes. For instance, consider a star that’s been doing its thing quietly for a couple of billion years. After billions of years of being a bright and shiny star, it blows up, because it’s reached a major transition point as a complex system. By going supernova, it’s changed so much as to be unrecognizable. What was once a stable star has now become a rapidly expanding ball of dust and gas that emits more energy over the course of a few months than it did in its entire lifespan as a star — surprising, to say the least.

Continues in source In Search of the 5th Attractor – Jim Rutt – Medium

via Alexander’s objectivity in life or quality – YouTube

“All of my life I’ve spent trying to learn how to produce living structure in the world. That means towns, streets, buildings, rooms, gardens, places which are themselves living or alive… depending on who you talk to, they’d say, ‘Well, this stuff Alexander’s been discovering is a lot of nonsense. There is no such thing as objectivity about life or quality.’ … They are simply mistaken.” Christopher Alexander This is a quote of Christopher Alexander which he made in San Jose, California, October of 1996, at The 1996 ACM Conference on Object-Oriented Programs, Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA). See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98LdF… for the full talk. This is also the source of this video. For a full transcript of the talk go to: https://www.patternlanguage.com/archi… For recent developments regarding Alexanders work see: https://www.mdpi.com/2413-8851/3/3/96

Systemic design: examples of current practice

Cat Drew
Following
Jan 2 · 10 min read

At the beginning of December, Design Council worked with The Point People to host an event on systemic design. Jennie Winhall and Cassie Robinson spoke about their work to create and move towards new systems, and Alistair Parvin, Ilishio Lovejoy and Nick Stanhope spoke about specific elements of their work to design systemically. We had 120 people sign up in less than 24 hours and a large waitlist. There is interest and intrigue. What is systemic design and why is it important?
There is a longer version of this blog here and the slides are here.

via Systemic design: examples of current practice – Design Council – Medium

Steven Hertzberg on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/posts/stevenhertzberg_beyond-reductionism-systems-biology-gets-activity-6619799222780866561-4C_b/

quoted:

“Real biological systems – in the wild, as it were – simply don’t behave as they do under controlled lab conditions that isolate component pathways. They behave as systems – complex, dynamic, integrative systems. They are not simple stimulus-response machines. They do not passively process and propagate signals from the environment and react to them. They are autopoietic, homeostatic systems, creating and maintaining themselves, accommodating to incoming information in the context of their own internal states, which in turn reflect their history and experiences, over seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, and which even reflect the histories of their ancestors through the effects of natural selection.”

and

Beyond reductionism – systems biology gets dynamic
By Kevin Mitchell – September 14, 2019

Is biology just complicated physics? Can we understand living things as complex machines, with different parts dedicated to specific functions? Or can we finally move to investigating them as complex, integrative, and dynamic systems?

For many decades, mechanistic and reductionist approaches have dominated biology, for a number of compelling reasons. First, they seem more legitimately scientific than holistic alternatives – more precise, more rigorous, closer to the pure objectivity of physics. Second, they work, up to a point at least – they have given us powerful insights into the logic of biological systems, yielding new power to predict and manipulate. And third, they were all we had – studying entire systems was just too difficult. All of that is changing, as illustrated by a flurry of recent papers that are using new technology to revive some old theories and neglected philosophies.

The central method of biological reductionism is to use controlled manipulation of individual components to reveal their specific functions within cells or organisms, building up in the process a picture of the workings of the entire system. This approach has been the mainstay of genetics, biochemistry, cell biology, developmental biology, and even neuroscience. When faced with a system of mind-boggling complexity, it makes sense to approach it in this carefully defined, controlled manner. In any case, in most of these fields it was technically only possible to manipulate one or a few components at a time and only possible to measure their effects on one or a few components of the system.

The productivity of reductionist methods, and the lack of viable alternatives, brought with it a widespread but often tacit commitment to theoretical reductionism – the idea that the whole really is not much more than the sum of its parts. Appeals to holism seem to many biologists not just out of reach technically, but somehow vague, fuzzy, and unscientific. We are trained to break a system down to its component parts, to assign each of them a function, and to recompose the systems and subsystems of organisms and cells in an isolated, linear fashion.

We can see this in genetics, with the isolation of a gene for this or a gene for that. Or in signal transduction, with the definition of linear pathways from transmembrane receptors, through multiple cytoplasmic relays, to some internal effectors. Or in neuroscience, with the assignment of specific and isolated functions to various brain regions, based on lesion studies or activation in fMRI experiments.

The trouble is that is not how cells and organisms work. Defining all these isolated functions and linear pathways has been productive, but only from a certain perspective and only up to a point. This enterprise has mostly depended on analysing responses to strong experimental manipulations – a trusted method to perturb the system but one that is inherently artificial (what Francis Bacon, the so-called father of empiricism, called “vexing nature”)*. And it has mostly analysed effects on limited, pre-defined readouts.

via Beyond reductionism – systems biology gets dynamic

via shared work — news + insights — the outside

Why Shared Work?

Tuesday and Tim developed this foundational model for use in their systems change work. Time and time again, it has helped us to get unstuck when working in very diverse groups. We must identify our Shared Work together to move forward collaboratively. In this first session, Tim and Tuesday lay the groundwork for understanding this pragmatic model for systems change.

These links are tagged ‘shared work’ and give an overview – they also offer an online course (paid) at https://onlinecourses.findtheoutside.com/courses/shared-work

via Helpfully subversive about frameworks | Agendashift

Cybernetics: The Macy Conferences 1946-1953: The Complete Transactions (2016)
16 December 2019, dusan
Filed under book, proceedings | Tags: · cybernetics, information, information theory, mathematics

“Between 1946 and 1953, the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation sponsored a series of conferences aiming to bring together a diverse, interdisciplinary community of scholars and researchers who would join forces to lay the groundwork for the new science of cybernetics. These conferences, known as the Macy conferences, constituted a landmark for the field. They were the first to grapple with new terms such as information and feedback and to develop a cohesive and broadly applicable theory of systems that would become equally applicable to living beings and machines, economic and cognitive processes, and many scholarly disciplines. The concepts that emerged from the conferences come to permeate thinking in many fields, including biology, neurology, sociology, ecology, economics, politics, psychoanalysis, linguistics, and computer science.

This book contains the complete transcripts of all ten Macy conferences and the guidelines for the conference proceedings. These transcripts are supplemented with an introduction by Claus Pias that charts the significance of the Macy conferences to the history of science.”

Edited and with a Foreword by Claus Pias
Publisher Diaphanes, Zürich, 2016
ISBN 9783037345986, 3037345985
734 pages

Publisher
Distributor
WorldCat

PDF (89 MB)

via Cybernetics: The Macy Conferences 1946-1953: The Complete Transactions (2016) — Monoskop Log