Module 5 Undergraduate Discussion Rubric Explain how systems thinking integrates short-term versus long-term planning in community development. How does systems thinking "correct for" the fundamental

Though one may be working in the school system, he or she will need to be aware of health care systems, safety systems (sidewalks, bus routes, chi ld abuse reporting laws, etc.), and individual family systems. It should be readily apparent ; community psychology requires bread th and depth of local systems. The human body is a system , as is a society and its culture; each has many parts that serve functions both obvious and hidden. These parts interact to form a gestalt — a whole larger than the sum of the parts. Communities, as well as society, function to maintain themselves by creatin g their own behavior as they act, whether it is personal habits or cultural memes. Communities are systems and have systems within them inhabited by individuals who are systems themselves, who group and regroup in a myriad of systems for whatever purpose needs attending to. It is complex — systems are nested within systems. What one needs to understand is that the function or purpose — the planned result — is often the most critical determinant of the systems behavior (Meadows, 2008). Often collective behavior po ints to functions that are unstated or at cross -purposes to a stated intent. Equally as often, communities house differing, competing, and contentious value assumptions that determine systems applications. Community psychology looks to navigate these syste mic interactions, asking critical questions . For example, how do one’s value assumptions, actions , and intended results line up , and how does one negotiate differences that affect systems applications? Two additional concepts make up systems thinking: the use of time and how feedback reinforces or changes the system functions. Are communities looking for long - or short -term gains? Is it better to build for what the society needs now or for a 50 -year functional time line? What feedback does the community ge t? Do accidents mean our roads are too narrow or that posted speed limits are too high? Are welfare requests breaking the budget , and does this mean that benefits are too generous or that the economy is tanking beyond anyone’s control? Are student s’ math a nd science scores high or low , and what are the reasons — better teachers, better equipment , too many students in the classroom , not enough equipment? Individuals debate the causes and consequences endlessly in our communities. A last point in looking at what systems are: they are not static , and their functions are not well captured by static measures or values. This leads one into how one comes to understand and apply systems thinking. Panarchic Theory Panarchy is a theory that begins with a question . Do cycles, confirmed in natural ecosystems , apply to human built “ecosystems ”? The cycles that this theory speaks to are nested realities of birth -growth -stability -decline/collapse -rebirth. In Panarchy (2002), Gunderson and Holling argue that cultural ecosystems have these same cycles within them, subject to the same rules of resource discovery/ birth — use/ growth — balance/ stability — scarcity/ decline and collapse — starting again/ rebirth. Gunderson and Holling argue that human history tells us about civilizati on s after civilization s that have gone through this cycle. Whenever a resource is discovered or created, it fosters growth and stability until scarcity begins. If a community prepares for scarcity (depreciation in businesses, reserves in governments, famil y bank accounts, etc. ), it can manage decline until it adapts or finds new resources. If a community does not prepare, collapse is like driving off a cliff. There are many theories about systems cycles. Panarchy is one such theory , the point of which for c ommunity psychology is its insight that systems vetted in nature apply to cultural systems as well. To put it in a practical way, decisions made for individual advantage (the individua l person, family, business, and so on ) are made and must be understood to be made within sustainable community advantage (community as family, business, government , and so on ). The key word for the community psychologist is sustainability, not of nature, but of human systems. Do schools educate future citizens well enough ac ross all social classes to maintain democracy, economic stability, and social order? Does the medical system work well enough for all that not only individual illnesses are managed but pandemics can be prevented? Do social services cover a broad range of n eeds from the elderly to the disabled and from child abuse to delinquency prevention, and from drug abuse to homelessness ? These systems are subject to p anarchic cycles — they are created and grow, reach a point of stability, then as communities chang e with job losses, population gro wth, and so on , decline set s in. Understanding that communities operate on cycles enables a society to frame its community planning, policies, and intervention strategies. Systems in nature are born — a forest grows up, enriches t he soil, drops seeds , and grows until weather patterns change and decline sets in. The original trees will die off , but something else will take their place — decline leads to rebirth and is a necessary part of it. Communities operate in the same way. If communities plan on resource growth and decline, if they plan on new industries for when the existing ones decline , then these communities will manage stability longer and avoid rapid collapse. If communities plan on cost savings beginning when there is en ough funding , they will have options when funding gets tight. If a town overspends , it will go bankrupt ; if it underspends, its infrastructure may be unprepared for an unexpected event. Two key insights: both underuse and overuse have consequences, and for esight calls for preparation. As one looks at panarchy, one sees that it is a way of thinking with systems. Systems thinking goes deep . Asking what the effects are of an action is one thing ; asking what interactions may occur is anothe r. B oth are good qu estions, but asking about the effects of the effects is systems thinking. Panarchy theory presents communities with a reality check. No matter a community’s ideology, behavior will be tested against sustainability. Can a community long ignore its water res ources? Can a commu nity long ignore its poor or it s wealthy? Can a community ignore a measles outbreak among its chil dren? The answers are obvious. P anarchy theory would argue — as do Gunderson and Holling , Panarchy (2002) , and Homer -Dixon, The Upside of Down (2006) — that societies have ignored their support systems, be they bridges, welfare, education, the environment, democracy, and so on . The last point to make leads into the idea of self -organization as an adaptive part of both individual and communit y development: whether prepared or not, the consequences of community behavior will occur for good or ill. Self -organization looks to the pathways and patterns that emerge from systems as they create their own behavior. The community psychologist will be a dept at identifying intended as well as unintended consequences of systems for the individual and the community. Self -Organization In systems theory, the idea is that systems develop patterns and flow that “create ” their own future behavior. Individual be havior s have cumulative effects — heav y drinking may lead to addiction, loss of income, and injury to others . A ll of these have additive effects: damage in the community requiring increased police presence, assistance to families impoverished by the consequences of addiction. A river has banks that contain and direct the flow of water, unless a flood or other eve nt changes the channel, and similarly, human behavior follows patterns. A very telling example of this is the Oregon Trail — traces of which can be seen and followed across the desert in Oregon and Idaho. The ruts formed by thousands of wagons remain. Even t oday, if one was to traverse this route , one could follow these ruts , as they would be easier than breaking new ground. Communities develop “ruts ”— they work unless and until things change. The community psychologist recognizes conditions of change as well as established patterns and pathways. Community psychology looks at the patterns . It looks a t the physical resources, from the lay of the land to the water and soil — what does it allow for? At the population — what are its skills, and how do they mix and match for what a community needs? At the public needs , such as schools, churches, laws, transportation, social order , and mental health — how is it best to organize to meet these needs? Will the community accept diversity or hew to traditional roles?

Many o f the responses to these questions will flow from the value assumptions held by members of the community. Many of these responses are self - organized — they flow rationally, emotionally, naturally from value assumptions held. Self -organization has several co mponents, three of which will be addressed here: a sustainable direction (the assumption that individual advantage is based on and interacts with community advantage ); conditions of opportunity (all resources including people and their values ); and an understanding of carrying capacity (a measuring stick that helps determine underuse and overuse ). These concepts pertain to both the individual a nd the community. For example, t hree square meals is a sustainable individual and community advantage (directio n) . Square is defined by what we determine to be a nutritious meal (the condition of opportunity) , and the carrying capacity would be to use one measure as determined by the UN to be 2 ,000 calories per day (approxim ately 25% fat, 35% protein, and 40% carbs ). Overeating can result in obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes ; undereating can result in malnutrition and developmental delays (physically, cognitively, and emotionally ) with long -term consequences. Self -organization recognizes individual and community needs and identifies the means to meet them. Not all of this is obvious or easily agreed upon — in fact, it is highly contentious. There are proponents of public school systems and opponents of them; both have solid arguments when looked at individ ually. However, collectively, add in social class differences: some could afford to educate their children, some wou ld not be able to. Look further. How will this affect employers looking for qualified people, wages for unskilled labor, safety for a commun ity ? W ould a community need more health, po lice, welfare services for under educated individuals? Collectively, the consequences affect all. Self - organization asks that communities look at the flow — its direction, the conditions of opportunity that exist or that can be developed, and the carrying capacity for both over - and under use in the community — not just for now, but with foresight , and not just for the intended and anticipated consequences, but also for the unintended. The Fundamental Attribution Error The fundamental attribution error (FAE) is a special insight in social psychology that has powerful implications for community psychology. The FAE states that societies tend to blame individuals (their dispositions or character traits) for the problems in their lives, neglecting the possibility that the situation (the systems involved) have a part in creating the problems that individuals as well as communities face. Society blames the welfare mom for her children’s problems, neglecting the role played by an absent father or the lack of adequate finances, the subsequent impact on safety due to where the mother and child live, or the lack of health insurance, which results in a sick child missing school and possibly failing because he or she cannot get to th e doctor. In short, the community psychologist is up against a bias in which we blame the individual and do not recognize the role that community systems play (Ross & Nisbett, 2011). This bias means that society often does not acknowledge the role of the s ituation in shaping individual or collective behavior. The FAE — that the individual is solely responsible for his or her own behavior — is a value assumption of this highly individualistic culture. Like many biases, it has a valid basis in experience but does not look at the whole picture. Individual behavior is nested in multiple individual and community realities. These r ealiti es need to be factored in to any actions taken. Individual and community responsibility are bound together. In light of this explanation, the community psychologist looks to be preventative . W hat policies and preparations can be made to maintain community order, growth, sustainability in the face of human need, change, and so forth ? Conclusion Systems theory envisions cycles, and cycles within cycles, that shape human behavior individually and collectively. Individuals are often unaware of the cycles in t heir communities with consequences they may be unprepared for. This thinking is sometimes at odds with the assumptions on how to live in this individualistic culture. Systems generate their own behavior; they self -organize . Roads need repair , which requir es crews and equipment requiring funding, requiring government, accountants, taxes, and plans . Wherever people gather into communities, the need for order generates behavior from land claims (zoning) to regulations for pollution, education, taxes, welfare, and safety. The larger or more complex the community, the larger and more complex the system that will be generated.

Community psychology functions to understand the system that manages the community as it responds to human need. What responses best maint ain both the individual and the community? The fundamental attribution err or is a bias toward individual -blame against contributing situational factors. Thi s is a highly contentious issue. H ow much is the community responsible for the individual, and how much is the individual responsible for the community? This is perhaps a question that cannot be fully and finally answered — it is itself a situational or community choice. The community psychologist, as a systems analyst, works to bring the individual and the collective together to meet common human needs for social order, prepa redness, and sustainability. Reference s Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in s ystems . White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing. Ross, L., and Nisbett, R. (2011). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. London, England: Pinter and Martin Ltd.