Systemic Thinking in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic Crisis

A special issue of Systems (ISSN 2079-8954). This special issue belongs to the section "Systems Practice in Social Science".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 March 2021) | Viewed by 35564

Special Issue Editors


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Business School, Manchester Metropolitan University All Saints Campus, Manchester M15 6BH, UK
Interests: literacy health and planetary health in Latin America; applying circular economy systemic principles to food waste management; promoting ecological and environmental awareness in HEIs; Interdisciplinary approaches to research climate emergency
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Rural Engineering and Postgraduate Programme in Agroecosystems, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis 88034-000, SC, Brazil
Interests: dynamics of social-ecological systems; cyber-systemic thinking to deal with complex situations; adaptation to climate emergency
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Independent Researcher, Barrow-in-Furness LA14 3DY, UK
Interests: making art with ecology through storying processes; engaging with the nexus of climate, species and cultural crises; exploring co-learning ecopedagogy for capable futures and adaptation; ‘creating space for life to move onwards’
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

In an increasingly connected world, the complexity of the Covid-19 pandemic has affected all levels of society, but some more than others. As we attempt to comprehend the unprecedented consequences, the dynamic situation shifts to reveal new ones that add to this complexity.

Systems thinking is the conscientious use of systems ideas when facing complexity according to Checkland (1999); Maani and Cavana (2000) and Jackson (2003) help us to understand and tackle complex situations such as the one we are now experiencing. Broadly, systemic thinking opposes reductionistic thinking. Midgley (2000) refers to reductionism as belonging to the mechanistic worldview in that it concentrates attention on linear, causal relationships between variables and invariably fails to view relationships and understand the wider systemic context.

Systems thinking (ST) has been extensively applied to many fields of knowledge, particularly in organisational settings when problematical situation or ‘messes’ are most recurrent, yielding effective results. Ackoff (2004:1) urges us to take a systemic perspective particularly when public policy is involved: ‘Almost every problem confronting our society is a result of the fact that our public-policy makers are doing the wrong things and are trying to do them righter’. Ackoff (2004:1)

Furthermore, the OECD (2020) has called for the use of ST principles to cope with the aftermath Covid-19:

[…] policy interventions and priorities to address Covid-19 must incorporate principles of system resilience to systemic disruption now, for not doing so will limit future socioeconomic recovery for the next decade at least. Systems thinking is the most powerful tool we have at our disposal to accomplish this task, if it is part of a trilogy completed by anticipation and resilience.

The evolution of systems thinking (ST) in management science methodologies has generated a set of systemic methodologies that enrich our understanding of the complex nature of our world. The spread of these applications has been visible in fields of knowledge, such as operational research, management sciences, general management, information systems, psychology, cognitive sciences, ecology, cybernetics, law, computer sciences, creative arts practices, family therapy, and organizational theory (among others). Debates about the handling of the effects Covid-19 have increased interest in systems thinking in the field of health, healthcare, and medicine. Two recent online publications suggest the necessity of using ST: Covid-19 means systems thinking is no longer optional (Reynolds, 2020) and A systems approach to preventing and responding to COVID-19 (Bradley, et al 2020).

You are invited to submit a paper that explores the role of systems thinking in terms of addressing the challenges set by the outbreak of the pandemic and its aftermath.

We are interested in original conceptual and empirical papers related, but NOT restricted, to the following topics:

  1. The design and improvement of pandemic systemic frameworks and models, ensuring effectiveness; 
  2. The use of systemic methodologies to understand the pandemic and its consequences;
  3. How to systemically learn the lessons from other countries’ experiences;
  4. The design of systemic models to inform decision-making about emerging from lockdown;
  5. Systemic real-world applications from interdisciplinary groups using real and relevant data to understand pre-, during, and post-Covid-19;
  6. How have different cultures within society responded to the pandemic and what may we systemically learn from them?
  7. To what extent has Covid-19 impacted ecosystems and what lessons may be systemically adopted?
  8. How may the application of systems thinking enable better understanding of recovery?
  9. How might systems thinking contribute to crisis management and critical futures thinking?
  10. Failing governance systems and the outbreak of Covid-19;
  11. The design of learning systems for managing the post-pandemic crisis.

This Special Issue will further explore and promote some of the key developments in the use of systemic thinking in disaster events, be they man-made or natural, and illustrate how these developments are helping practitioners, policy makers, and decision-makers tackle the complexity of contemporary and problematic social, political, business, security, health, and environmental situations.

The length of manuscripts submitted to this Special Issue should between 5000 to 7000 words.

For questions regarding appropriate content concerns and proposed topics, please contact the Special Issue guest editors.

Prof. Dr. Alberto Paucar-Caceres
Prof. Dr. Sandro Schlindwein
Dr. David Haley
Guest Editors

References:

  1. Checkland, P. B. (1981, 1999) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley
  2. Jackson, M. C. (2003). Systems Thinking: Holism for Managers, Wiley: Chichester
  3. Maani and Cavana, (2000). Systems Thinking and Modelling, Prentice Hall.
  4. Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology, and Practice. New York: Kluwer Academic.
  5. Declan Terence Bradley, Mariam Abdulmonem Mansouria, Frank Keea and Leandro Martin Totaro Garcia (2020) EClinicalMedicine Volume 21, April 2020 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30069-9/fulltext https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100325. Published by The Lancet. Accessed 15 June 2020
  6. Seth Reynolds. https://www.thinknpc.org/blog/covid-19-means-systems-thinking-is-no-longer-optional/9 April 2020. Accessed 15 June 2020
  7. OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19). A systemic resilience approach to dealing with Covid-19 and future shocks. http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/a-systemic-resilience-approach-to-dealing-with-covid-19-and-future-shocks-36a5bdfb/. Accessed 15 June 202

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Systems is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • Systems Thinking in post covid-19 scenarios;
  • Systems Dynamics to support covid-19 impact;
  • Systemic Frameworks for COVID-19 aftermaths;
  • Systemic methodologies to assess COVID-19 consequences;
  • Systemic thinking to foster resilience post- covid-19;
  • Systemic modelling supporting post covid-19 education systems

Published Papers (6 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

24 pages, 1300 KiB  
Article
A Systemic Framework to Evaluate Student Satisfaction in Latin American Universities under the COVID-19 Pandemic
by Silvia Quispe-Prieto, Melissa Franchini Cavalcanti-Bandos, Manuel Caipa-Ramos, Alberto Paucar-Caceres and Héctor Heraldo Rojas-Jiménez
Systems 2021, 9(1), 15; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems9010015 - 12 Feb 2021
Cited by 20 | Viewed by 6463
Abstract
Latin American universities (LAUs) have been going through a serious lack of economic resources which has plunged them into a deep financial crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this calamity. However, LAUs have implemented online teaching processes in order to mitigate the effects [...] Read more.
Latin American universities (LAUs) have been going through a serious lack of economic resources which has plunged them into a deep financial crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this calamity. However, LAUs have implemented online teaching processes in order to mitigate the effects of scheduling and other classroom disruption. There is evidence that these modes of teaching have had a reasonable reception but the level of student satisfaction is yet unknown. This article takes a systemic view of the predicament facing LAUs. It represents the elements related to the disruption caused by COVID-19 in a rich picture, building a systemic framework to explore student satisfaction with remote teaching. Using a sample of 298 students from Brazil, Colombia, and Peru, the study analyzes their situation through: (a) Well-being, educational resources, and learning experience and; (b) General satisfaction with virtual classes. Applying exploratory factor analysis, this study identifies three dimensions: (a) satisfaction with support and adaptation in the virtual modality; (b) satisfaction with the interaction in the virtual classroom; and (c) satisfaction with the development of the study program. Medium/high scores for the dimensions indicate moderate/high levels of satisfaction. The findings suggest that there are still unsatisfied needs regarding access to digital resources and socio-emotional needs. This article could be of interest to Higher Education Institutions (HEI) planners dedicated to post-pandemic, virtual education. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Systemic Thinking in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic Crisis)
Show Figures

Figure 1

14 pages, 1002 KiB  
Article
A Critical Inquiry into the Value of Systems Thinking in the Time of COVID-19 Crisis
by David Haley, Alberto Paucar-Caceres and Sandro Schlindwein
Systems 2021, 9(1), 13; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems9010013 - 3 Feb 2021
Cited by 20 | Viewed by 6750
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic offers an historic precedent to review and challenge the values of social, economic, environmental, and cultural belief systems. The concept of the “New Normal” and the experience of the global pandemic provide points of transition in thinking about our relationship [...] Read more.
The COVID-19 pandemic offers an historic precedent to review and challenge the values of social, economic, environmental, and cultural belief systems. The concept of the “New Normal” and the experience of the global pandemic provide points of transition in thinking about our relationship to our planet and to each other. These include the fragility of contemporary economics, dependency on industrialized urban infrastructures, and reliance on top-down governance, vulnerability to climate disasters, dislocation from the natural world, societal inequalities, and the loss of cultural memory. The paper considers the potential role of systems thinking in attempting to manage societies’ responses to the pandemic. To provide the methodological context in which some systems thinking can be applied to alleviate the pandemic, we conduct a focused literature review of systemic frameworks, and using examples from Brazil and England, the paper questions the validity of existing disaster management systems and proposes an integrated critical systems approach. Reflecting on these experiences, questions of systems criticality are further developed and considered in relation to critical recovery from disasters and as integral critical systems (ICS) to interrogate the intention of systems. Finally, the paper reflects upon the value of systems and the values embedded in systems that may or may not promote equitable well-being in recovery from disasters such as COVID-19. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Systemic Thinking in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic Crisis)
Show Figures

Figure 1

15 pages, 3025 KiB  
Article
Modeling Framework to Evaluate Vaccine Strategies against the COVID-19 Pandemic
by Donovan Guttieres, Anthony J. Sinskey and Stacy L. Springs
Systems 2021, 9(1), 4; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems9010004 - 13 Jan 2021
Cited by 12 | Viewed by 5289
Abstract
SARS-CoV-2, with an infection fatality rate between 0.5 and 1%, has spread to all corners of the globe and infected millions of people. While vaccination is essential to protect against the virus and halt community transmission, rapidly making and delivering safe and efficacious [...] Read more.
SARS-CoV-2, with an infection fatality rate between 0.5 and 1%, has spread to all corners of the globe and infected millions of people. While vaccination is essential to protect against the virus and halt community transmission, rapidly making and delivering safe and efficacious vaccines presents unique development, manufacturing, supply chain, delivery, and post-market surveillance challenges. Despite the large number of vaccines in or entering the clinic, it is unclear how many candidates will meet regulatory requirements and which vaccine strategy will most effectively lead to sustained, population-wide immunity. Interviews with experts from biopharmaceutical companies, regulatory and multilateral organizations, non-profit foundations, and academic research groups, complemented with extensive literature review, informed the development of a framework for understanding the factors leading to population-wide immunity against SARS-CoV-2, in particular considering the role of vaccines. This paper presents a systems-level modeling framework to guide the development of analytical tools aimed at informing time-critical decisions to make vaccines globally and equitably accessible. Such a framework can be used for scenario planning and evaluating tradeoffs across access strategies. It highlights the diverse and powerful ways in which data can be used to evaluate future risks and strategically allocate limited resources. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Systemic Thinking in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic Crisis)
Show Figures

Figure 1

12 pages, 621 KiB  
Article
How We Understand “Complexity” Makes a Difference: Lessons from Critical Systems Thinking and the Covid-19 Pandemic in the UK
by Michael C. Jackson
Systems 2020, 8(4), 52; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems8040052 - 7 Dec 2020
Cited by 19 | Viewed by 6702
Abstract
Many authors have sought to summarize what they regard as the key features of “complexity”. Some concentrate on the complexity they see as existing in the world—on “ontological complexity”. Others highlight “cognitive complexity”—the complexity they see arising from the different interpretations of the [...] Read more.
Many authors have sought to summarize what they regard as the key features of “complexity”. Some concentrate on the complexity they see as existing in the world—on “ontological complexity”. Others highlight “cognitive complexity”—the complexity they see arising from the different interpretations of the world held by observers. Others recognize the added difficulties flowing from the interactions between “ontological” and “cognitive” complexity. Using the example of the Covid-19 pandemic in the UK, and the responses to it, the purpose of this paper is to show that the way we understand complexity makes a huge difference to how we respond to crises of this type. Inadequate conceptualizations of complexity lead to poor responses that can make matters worse. Different understandings of complexity are discussed and related to strategies proposed for combatting the pandemic. It is argued that a “critical systems thinking” approach to complexity provides the most appropriate understanding of the phenomenon and, at the same time, suggests which systems methodologies are best employed by decision makers in preparing for, and responding to, such crises. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Systemic Thinking in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic Crisis)
Show Figures

Figure 1

12 pages, 492 KiB  
Article
Inter-Work and Ethical Vigilance: Two Scenarios for the (Post-)Pandemic Future of Systems Thinking
by José-Rodrigo Córdoba-Pachón
Systems 2020, 8(4), 36; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems8040036 - 4 Oct 2020
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 2661
Abstract
For several decades, systems thinking has been a defined body of knowledge that has contributed to many areas of science. Its value has, critically, resided in (meta- or post-) paradigmatic and participative use of one or several systems approaches to help stakeholders’ structure [...] Read more.
For several decades, systems thinking has been a defined body of knowledge that has contributed to many areas of science. Its value has, critically, resided in (meta- or post-) paradigmatic and participative use of one or several systems approaches to help stakeholders’ structure and tackle complex problems. With renewed and (post-)pandemic interest in interdisciplinary work, this paper argues that to continue securing a future, system thinking requires a wider understanding of the dynamics and intertwining of knowledge unfolding and ethics in society. Two different but overlapping scenarios for systems thinking are proposed: (a) One based on inter-(disciplinary, para/professional, group) work and (b) another based on ethical vigilance. The first one is not so different from what has been envisaged for systems thinking in the last few years. Nevertheless, and following the ideas of the sociologist Andrew Abbott, this scenario proposes the explicit inclusion of the goal of knowledge rediscovery to promote a sense of solidarity, mutual understanding and compassion. For the second scenario, Michel Foucault’s notion of governmentality is used to problematize pandemic events and practices, and to offer possibilities for individual critical thinking and action, also leading us to consider the importance of (self-other) compassion. Features, implications, questions and examples of use are provided for each scenario. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Systemic Thinking in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic Crisis)
Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 4013 KiB  
Article
Balancing User Comfort and Energy Efficiency in Public Buildings through Social Interaction by ICT Systems
by Alessandro Franco
Systems 2020, 8(3), 29; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems8030029 - 28 Aug 2020
Cited by 13 | Viewed by 3983
Abstract
Energy efficiency, indoor environmental quality, and comfort in public buildings has received increasing attention in recent years as it can contribute to maintaining safety conditions and to the reduction of conventional fuels consumption, energy costs for building owners, and greenhouse gas emissions. People [...] Read more.
Energy efficiency, indoor environmental quality, and comfort in public buildings has received increasing attention in recent years as it can contribute to maintaining safety conditions and to the reduction of conventional fuels consumption, energy costs for building owners, and greenhouse gas emissions. People are an integral part of any building energetic ecosystem as, according to some estimates, they spend a great part of their life in indoor spaces. On one side, occupants are responsible for the energy consumption of the building and for this reason the “psychology of energy saving” has received attention since the 70s up to recent results. On the other hand, strategies for energy efficiency should not jeopardize occupants’ health and quality of life. While general awareness of the value of environmental variables has increased in the last few years, this interest has recently been further exacerbated by the spreading of the well-known COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, as most countries have started planning post-lock-down activities, there is a growing concern regarding how social distancing measures can be enforced in shared buildings and strict indoor air quality control can prevent airborne virus transmission in crowded spaces. The paper discusses the perspectives of increasing the level of social interaction of building users through the systematic use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), and in particular, some specific platforms. The ICT system, taking information from the occupants in a concerted way, can be an important instrument to collect data, coming both from physical sensors and from people to develop a multi-objective control strategy for the Heating, Ventilation, and Air Cooling (HVAC) systems in order to obtain energy savings whilst balancing user comfort and healthy conditions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Systemic Thinking in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic Crisis)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop