Post on 13-Feb-2017
Third-Order Change As a Systems Theory
for Community Psychology
American Psychological AssociationChristopher Beasley, PhD, MA
2016
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESEARCH TEAM
• Objects & Environments– Relationship between elements
• 3rd order change as systems theory– Interaction between communities & paradigms
in which problems are embedded
Systems Theory
Von Bertalanffy, 1968
• Reducing stagnation• Anticipation & reaction to changes– Changing environment– Uncertainty
• Stereotypes & biases • Power disparities
Why 3rd Order Change
Bartunek & Moch, 1994
• Nature of schemas in organizational change– Assumptions of cause & effect
• 1st Order– Schematically Concordant
• 2nd Order– Schematically Disconcordant
• 3rd Order– Aschematic
– Paradigms
Orders of Change
Watzlawick et al., 1974
• Change that relies on established paradigms– Usually centered on deficits and problems– Often a reaction to immediate problems– Leave social structures & cultures in place
• Incremental adjustments to individuals & settings
1st Order Change
Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974
• Crime– People do not have control
• People must be controlled– Greater enforcement/enforcers needed
1st Order Change Example
• Advantages– Simple & familiar
• Address known problems in expected ways• Limited in scope, thereby fostering efficiency
• Disadvantages– Short-term solutions to symptoms – May create problems in other parts of the
system
Pros & Cons of 1st Order Change
Robinson, Brown, Beasley, & Jason, 2015
• Change that alters the social context/paradigms
• Valued in community psychology• Longer-term distal problem focus– Often prevention-focused
2nd Order Change
Watzlawick et al., 1974
• Crime– People predisposed to good– Maldevelopment leads to antisocial behavior– Intervention can insure healthy development
• Thus reducing crime
2nd Order Change Example
• Advantages– Alters systems & structural causes of problems.
• Change objectives, roles, and the general nature of power
• Can address problematic ideas, structures, & systems– Opportunity for more comprehensive & longer-term
solutions • Potential for creative & innovative solutions to
entrenched system-level problems• Can reduce stigma toward individuals not functioning
well in the system
Pros & Cons of 2nd Order Change
Seidman, 1988; Watzlawick et al., 1974
• Disadvantages– May not offer immediate relief – Often conflicts w/ accepted paradigms
• Stakeholder objections & confusion• Limited support
– Empirical validation– Operationalization, goals, & measurement– Funding
• Typically lack manualized guides– Complicates implementation, replication, and adaptation
– Ethical dilemmas• Can weaken settings and their autonomy if not participatory • New problems may surface with new systems
Pros & Cons of 2nd Order Change
Watzlawick et al., 1974
• Awareness & ability to change schemata• Essential shift in the social fabric– Alter fundamental culture in which people,
systems, & structures are embedded– Challenges paradigms & practices, developing
culture• Continually questioning• Constantly identifying problems & social precipitants• Implementing solutions• Ongoing process and outcome evaluations• Ongoing critique of problems & ecological causes
3rd Order Change
Bartunek & Moch, 1987
• Crime– Human tendencies may not be consistently
good or bad• Some people may have greater self-control while
others may not– Causes of crime are multi-faceted and may
vary based on context• Situation will need to be assessed to develop
appropriate means of addressing problem
3rd Order Change Example
• Advantages– 2nd order change advantages– Setting flexibility
• Can become more flexible, adaptable, & innovative – Autonomy
• Potentially greater autonomy through internal awareness, problem-solving, and reflexive action
– Sustainability• Autonomy, flexibility, and sustained questions • Can identify and address future problems
Pros & Cons of 3rd Order Change
Robinson, Brown, Beasley, & Jason, 2015
• Disadvantages– 2nd order change disadvantages– Cognitive dissonance
• Discomfort expected as paradigms continually questioned
– Uncertainty• May make outcomes less certain• Stakeholders may feel uncomfortable• May be less attractive to external funding
Pros & Cons of 3rd Order Change
Bartunek & Moch, 1994; Robinson, Brown, Beasley, & Jason, 2015
• Series of 2nd order changes– Use differences in perspectives as a starting
point– Build informal structures to enable operation
from diverse perspectives– Expose members to experiences in various
cultural settings• Diffusion of key stakeholder experiences to
others
3rd Order Organization Change
Bartunek & Moch, 1994; Bartunek et al., 1983; Cox, 1991; Mirvis, 1990
• Community psychology & other fields have not framed community intervention as 3rd order change – Critical consciousness
• Can promote questioning of existing structures and schemas – Capacity building for self-sustained action & change
• May broaden perspectives on community problems & solutions
• May broaden resources available to address problems– Reflexivity
• Opportunity for continual examination of factors – Processes of change– Emerging ecological shifts
3rd Order Community Change
Robinson, Brown, Beasley, & Jason, 2015
• Critical Consciousness– Awareness of problem-related systems,
structures, & beliefs– Watts’ stages of sociopolitical development
• Unaware of system inconsistencies & dysfunction• See inconsistencies but feel powerless to change
structures• Question value of adapting to dysfunctional system
– Learning more about the system– Learning more about what maintains dysfunctions
• Act on critical awareness to change the system– Building capacity for collective action
3rd Order Community Change
Watts, Griffith, & Abdul-Adil, 1999; Watts, Williams, & Jagers, 2003
• Critical Consciousness– Communities may collectively
• Gain awareness• Process feelings of powerlessness• Question importance of adapting• Learn about systems constraining them • Act to change systems
3rd Order Community Change
Watts, Griffith, & Abdul-Adil, 1999; Watts, Williams, & Jagers, 2003
• Grounded Theory– Post-modern– Interactionist– Localized/contexualized – Democratized knowledge
• Situational Analysis– Analysis of elements in the situation– Relationship b/t elements in the situation– Analysis of elements of the social world in which situation
is taking place– Commitments, views, & actions of elements in social world– Positions on discursive issues
3rd Order Community Change
Clarke, 2005
• Capacity Building– Communities that Care (CTC)
• Developing prevention interventions • Providing resources• Promoting local stakeholder support & ownership
– Five-phase process• Assessing community readiness• Forming local coalition• Conducting needs assessment• Selecting evidence-based interventions• Implementing & evaluating intervention
3rd Order Community Change
Hawkins & Catalano, 1992
• Reflexivity– Encourage ongoing dialogue
• Actions, progress, & outcomes• Potential need to change structures again
– If intended outcomes are not achieved – If ecology changes such that structure is no longer
appropriate– Grounded theory w/ situational analysis
3rd Order Community Change
Robinson, Brown, Beasley, & Jason, 2015
• 3rd Order Goal– Innovative & adaptive systems & structures
that are sustainable through self-renewal• 3rd Order Objectives– Fundamental paradigm shift toward social
awareness, evaluation, & action– Culture of continual questioning
Summary
Robinson, Brown, Beasley, & Jason, 2015
• 3rd Order Processes– Critical consciousness– Capacity building– Reflexivity
• 3rd Order Methods– Sociopolitical development– Grounded theory w/ situational analysis– Capacity building
Summary
Robinson, Brown, Beasley, & Jason, 2015
• Development– Theory
• 3rd order community change• 3rd order community design
– Logic Model– Evaluation Methods– Instruments– Intervention
• Evaluation– When Best
Moving Forward
Bartunek, J. M., Gordon, J. R., & Weathersby, R. P. (1983). Developing “complicated” understanding in administrators. Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 273-284.
Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K. (1987). First-order, second-order, and third-order change and organization development interventions: A cognitive approach. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23(4), 483-500.
Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K. (1994). Third-order organizational change and the western mystical tradition. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 7(1), 24-41.
Clarke, A. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Sage.Cox Jr, T. (1991). The multicultural organization. The executive, 34-47.Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (1992). Communities that care. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Mirvis, P. H. (1990). Organizational development: Part II – A revolutionary perspective. In W. A. Pasmore & R.
W. Woodman (Eds), Research in Organizational Change & Development, Vol. 4, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Robinson, W. L., Brown, M., Beasley, C. R., & Jason, L.A. (2014). Advancing Prevention Intervention from Theory to Application: Challenges and Contributions of Community Psychology. In M.A. Bond, C. Keys, & I. Serrano-García (Eds.). Handbook of Community Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Seidman, E. (1988). Back to the future, community psychology: Unfolding a theory of social intervention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 3-24. doi:10.1007/BF00906069
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory. In D. Hammond (Ed), The science of synthesis: Exploring the social implications of general systems theory. New York, 41973, 40.
Watts, R. J., Griffith, D. M., & Abdul-Adil, J. (1999). Sociopolitical Development as an Antidote for Oppression-Theory and Action, American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 255–271. doi:10.1023/A:1022839818873
Watts, R. J., Williams, N. C., & Jagers, R. J. (2003). Sociopolitical development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 185–94. doi:10.1023/A:1023091024140
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem formation and problem resolution. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
References