Systemic Action Research

What's its purpose in systems grantmaking?

To influence the system by understanding and changing the relationships and interactions among system variables and their resulting patterns of behaviors.

What is it?

A participatory process that combines design, planning, action and evaluation into an action learning cycle that is repeated every few months to enable real-time learning. The iterative phases include the following:

Analyze the situation.
Generate new theories of change.
Plan action.
Take action.
Evaluate impact.

When is it useful?

When working on issues, fields, or movements that need to engage multiple stakeholders with different perspectives on what systems change is needed
In formative assessment and learning processes

Example from the field

How does Systemic Action Research work?

Systemic Action Research contains many of the elements of traditional action research, which is a participatory process that incorporates design, planning, action and evaluation into iterative cycles. However, SAR focuses on system change rather than individual, group or community-level change. It studies how and why change happens (not what change happens) as well as unintended consequences. SAR is guided by five principles:

It must focus on the system dynamics that need shifting through the process.
It is designed to engage large groups of people across the system in multiple parallel inquiry processes that are linked together.
As different aspects of the system are revealed, the boundaries of the system will continue to shift, bringing different stakeholders into the inquiry process.
Facilitators need to be aware of their power and its impact on the learning framework (see more on this below).
Data are tested for legitimacy by determining if they resonate with stakeholders across the system.

In Nairobi’s Kamakunji slum, the Netherlands International Development Organization used SAR to advance access to clean water and sanitation. The SAR process resulted in the creation of a youth group that successfully connected 120 homes to sewers in just three months and the identification of local champions who converted latrines into toilets.

At the beginning of the SAR cycle in Kamakunji, community members identified access to clean water as a pressing need. Rather than quickly moving to try to bring actors related to the water system to the table, the facilitators spoke to community residents. They discovered a key obstacle: landlords’ resistance to connecting units to the water system. By opening up lines of inquiry with both landlords and tenants, stakeholders revealed that landlords did not want to connect to the water system because it meant that their units would be registered with the local council and they would then owe taxes. The organization did not know about or understand this link with taxes at the beginning of the cycle. An inquiry that kept tight system boundaries around the groups of stakeholders involved in the inquiry process would not have revealed it. As the facilitators moved through the SAR cycle, they kept the lines of inquiry with tenants and landlords parallel; power imbalances would make it challenging to bring these groups together. Both groups continued to move through action cycles and open up new possibilities to influence the system (in divergent and convergent ways), resulting in increased access to clean water. This example reveals how system boundaries are porous and, as issues are followed in a SAR inquiry, different actors join the cycle.

What are tips and cautions for systems grantmakers and the social sector?

SAR does not assess impact in relationship to baseline measures of expected outcomes set forth at the outset of a project. Rather, it looks at decisions, actions and impacts that emerge during the process.
The process may incorporate and utilize many of the other resources in this guide.
The facilitators may be the only people in the process connected across the entire system. Thus, facilitators must be aware of their own power in creating the framework for learning and shaping the inquiry, and connecting the data. Consequently, it is key to be intentional about who facilitates the process. Engaging local champions to help guide the process is one effective way of distributing leadership.

Resources

Assessing Impact in Dynamic and Complex Environments: Systemic Action Research and Participatory Systemic Inquiry

By Danny Burns
Centre for Development Impact, 2014
Above image reproduced with permission from the Centre for Development Impact.

Link to Article

Navigating Complexity in International Development: Facilitating Sustainable Change at Scale

By Danny Burns and S. Worsley
Practical Action Press, 2015

Link to Book

Systemic Action Research: Changing System Dynamics to Support Sustainable Change

By Danny Burns
Action Research, 2014

Link to Article

Acknowledgments

Danny Burns

Leader, Participation Research Cluster, Institute of Development Studies

Systems Grantmaking Resource Guide

Resource Type

Process

Systems Questions

People

Variables

Learning

Grantmaking Stages

Develop grantmaking strategy

Identify and select grantees

Shape and monitor grants

Assess impact and learn

Participation

Highly participatory

Expertise

A skilled facilitator

Time

6-12 months