Complexity, systems, learning and impact: Compare, contrast, cross-fertilize

I'm a keen follower of the CH?RA Foundation and its work on supporting the emergence of learning systems that can develop the capacities needed to address complex challenges. See for instance, the 2021 green paper on the future of development.

I'm also a keen follower of the work of Toby Lowe, his colleagues at Northumbria University (see harnessing complexity for better outcomes in public and non-profit services) and at the Centre for Public Impact, and the Human. Learning. Systems. approach.

I see lots of connections - including through relationships with Climate-KIC - and strong complementarities between the approaches taken by the Human Learning Systems initiative and the Ch?ra Foundation to supporting the emergence of systems (and portfolios of experiments) that learn to address complex challenges.

And, supporting such emergence - actually the emergence of living, learning and loving systems - is the focus of my freelancing adventures. Perhaps, even, my life :-)

So, this post, by Luca Gatti, suggesting a working definition of impact in relation to complex adaptive human social systems, really caught my attention. https://www.dhirubhai.net/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7115977964302823424

Specifically, it reminded me of Toby's recent piece on "explode on impact", in which Toby makes the case that a focus on impact - particularly when simplistic measures of impact feed into accountability processes and funding decisions - is not appropriate for social systems with complex causalities. https://toby-89881.medium.com/explode-on-impact-cba283b908cb

See here for an extensive response and thoughtful defense of "impact" from Thomas Aston - https://thomasmtaston.medium.com/the-end-of-impact-2ca6cc4fddc3

And see here for my - keep the baby, but discard the bathwater of simple causality - take on the discussion https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/selected-seedlings-complexity-causalities-corruption-alan-hudson/

As I put it, we can perhaps "discard the murky and misleading bathwater of simple causality whilst keeping a careful baby-focused eye on what difference we’re making, and what seems to be emerging, and using the information gleaned in this way to support our learning and adaptation."

So, I'd be keen to explore the similarities and differences between how the CH?RA Foundation and Human. Learning. Systems. think about, and handle, the complex challenge of impact (or, more broadly, being able to somehow assess what difference some actions are making, and use that assessment to inform subsequent adaptive actions).

Beyond that specific focus, I'd be super-interested to explore, compare and contrast the practical application of the respective approaches that the Ch?ra Foundation, Human Learning Systems and various other initiatives (formal, informal, and indigenous) take to supporting systemic learning which helps people to make sense of, and find ways of addressing, complex social challenges.

Such collaborative learning at this +1 level might itself support the emergence of increasingly rich and fruitful approaches to embracing complexity, and in turn greater capacity to address the complex challenges that we face.

I think it could be a very productive endeavour. Let me know if that sounds interesting and useful.

PS: One of the things I'm doing (a systemic practice, in effect) is - in the soil of the relationships I'm part of - nurturing an evolving and interconnected network of ideas and knowledge about systemic practices, collaborative learning, and complex social challenges. A digital garden, if you will. This includes information about lots of initiatives and approaches, including those of the Ch?ra Foundation and the Human Learning Systems community. I've yet to work out how to make my garden open and collaborative, but if you're interested in seeing what's in my garden, or learning more about my knowledge gardening practices, feel free to drop me a line. I'm more than happy to share.