Exploring the factors that contribute to the development of systems awareness

ABSTRACT

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences that contributed to the development of a systems thinking paradigm in instructors in a college of agriculture.

Design/Methodology/Approach: A phenomenology design was used to understand the lived experiences of eleven instructors.

Findings

Three themes emerged regarding how they perceived their development of systems awareness, (a) they were primed to be systems aware, (b) they were in environments that nurtured systems awareness, and (c) the educational system impacted their development of systems awareness.

Practical Implications

Practical implications focus on creating opportunities for curiosity-driven thought and behavior for students throughout primary, secondary, and tertiary schooling.

Theoretical Implications

Our results also advance theory about the development of systems awareness which can be tested in other settings and with other people.

Originality/Value

This research addresses a gap in the literature on systems thinking.

KEYWORDS:

• Systems thinking
• problem-solving
• higher education
• agricultural systems

Introduction

The complex and rapid changes facing the world today require a way of thinking that allows people to manage, adapt, and identify sources of problems and new opportunities (Meadows 2008). This new way of thinking is particularly needed to address a key concern facing the agricultural sector; how does it produce the necessary amount of food for a growing population while keeping it affordable and accessible (Kuhmonen 2018)? McKim and McKendree (2020) state that tomorrow’s problems, such as climate change, soil degradation, and water quality, are growing increasingly complex as they impact, and are impacted by, agriculture, food, and natural resources (AFNR) systems. This idea of complex interactions is echoed by Kuhmonen (2018), who writes that new concerns have developed beyond simply producing food and include environmental concerns, uneven development, agricultural intensification, and market imbalance. There has been an increase in the multidimensionality, diversity, and complexity of the agricultural industry’s problems (Kuhmonen 2018), and students must be prepared to address these problems (McKim and McKendree 2020).

According to Meadows (2008), when humans act in complex systems without fully understanding how the system works, they create further challenges for society to address. This observation complements Rittel and Webber’s (1973) view that if an individual does not understand a problem before trying to solve it, they contribute to wicked problems. Wicked problems move beyond complex problems because there is no clear pathway to resolving the issue (Whyte and Thompson 2012). The AFNR systems are full of wicked problems due to the social complexity of issues, as various stakeholders’ interests and values influence (and are influenced by) institutional complexity (Head and Alford 2015). As such, these wicked problems make it difficult to find an optimal solution that satisfies all (Checkland 1985).

Bawden et al. (1984) specifically examined problem-solving in AFNR contexts. They propose a hierarchy of approaches based on the problems’ complexity and the abilities of the person working to solve the problem. The four approaches include (a) a reductionist scientific approach, (b) a reductionist technological approach, (c) a hard systems approach, and (d) a soft systems approach. Walters et al. (2016) note that many scholars from diverse fields believe that developing a systems thinking mindset is important to help conceptualize reality. Systems thinking is a model of thinking differently (Cabrera, Colosi, and Lobdell 2008) that has been proposed as a solution to tackling complex issues (Plate 2010). The use of systems thinking can allow individuals to make better decisions when facing complex AFNR systems because it utilizes a holistic approach that addresses the impacts of social and technical issues (Blackmore, Sriskandarajah, and Ison 2018; Ison 2012).

Learning to think can be viewed as a developmental process (Salner 1986). de Langhe et al. (2017) note that many people struggle to understand nonlinear relationships. Since people like to create simple straight lines between variables (i.e. linear thinking) when confronted with complex issues, they fall into a linear bias trap, in which they try to utilize linear thinking in nonlinear situations (de Langhe et al., 2017). However, people are aware of systems and understand that not every situation is linear. However, this is not the same as systems awareness because systems awareness includes people needing to comprehend the idea of interconnectedness, processes, and boundaries (Ison 2008). Ison and Straw (2020) used different terminology to describe the interconnectedness between what they call systemic sensibilities, systems literacy, and systems thinking in practice. With systemic sensibility and systems literacy being consistent with systems awareness. Systems awareness could be considered a precursor to systems thinking since it sets the foundational concepts needed to grasp systems thinking. However, while most individuals (but not all) may have systems awareness, there is little research to determine how they reached this cognitive level and if specific experiences contributed to their development.

Literature review

Complexity within AFNR systems

By 2050 it is estimated that the world population will exceed 9.7 billion individuals (United Nations [UN] 2019), and it is projected that agricultural production will need to increase by 50% to meet the demand (Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] 2018). To complicate matters of how to feed this increase in population, obesity, clean water, finite land for agriculture, and unstable governments, to name a few, pose added challenges. Kuhmonen (2018) notes that while the existing problems are expected to remain for decades, the added challenge of climate change is expected to exacerbate current problems while creating new problems. These problems will cross geographic boundaries, and this, alongside the technological and communication advances, is further increasing the interconnectedness of various societies (Danjean et al. 2014; Lamm and Harder 2010). Murakami, Hendrickson, and Siegel (2017) note that a sole authority cannot address these issues because the constantly changing conditions in which these problems are situated cannot be separated from the complex interactions of human values. According to Rittel and Webber (1973), this description of issues would classify them as wicked problems since wicked problems seem to defy solutions because each action creates interactions in other areas creating simultaneous solutions and new issues. To make meaningful progress toward addressing these issues, McKim and McKendree (2020) argue that people of today will need to have the cognitive ability to conceptualize and find solutions for these complex AFNR systems. Further, some of these people will work in government and be responsible for crafting policies designed to address these complex problems, so their abilities to be systems thinkers could have even greater impacts (Ison and Straw 2020). (Table 1)

Table 1. Participant Demographics.

Participant	Academic Department
BB	Soil and Water Science
Betty	Agricultural Education and Communication
Bruce	Soil & Water Sciences
Carrie	Forest, Fisheries, & Geomatics Sciences
Colin	Entomology & Nematology
Dan	Soil & Water Sciences
Gregory	Environmental Horticulture
Kevin	Forest, Fisheries, & Geomatics Sciences
Rachel	Family Youth & Community Sciences
Ringo	Forest, Fisheries, & Geomatics Sciences
Rose	Forest, Fisheries, & Geomatics Sciences

Graduates are not being equipped to deal with complexity

In 2009, the United States National Research Council (NRC) grew concerned that graduates lacked the knowledge and skills to operate in an increasingly globalized agricultural industry (NRC 2009). However, there have only been slight shifts in the educational approaches, which McKim et al. (2019) note are insufficient in preparing graduates to solve wicked problems. Greer (2010) noted that linear thinking is often the dominant approach utilized by teachers, influencing their student’s thought processes. According to Arndt (2006), linear thinking involves looking at simple systems from the perspective that a single factor causes one effect. While this approach is sufficient to reach goals in simple situations, Vance et al. (2007) argue that it will fail in more complex systems that make up our unpredictable turbulent world. Roychoudhury et al. (2017) expressed a concern that current educational practices may increase students’ knowledge of complex topics but fall short of increasing their understanding of these issues. This is critical because, as stated earlier, to begin to address wicked problems, there needs to be an understanding of the system(s) in which they operate (Meadows 2008). Over three decades ago, Bawden (1991) argued that agriculturalists need to develop a paradigm that can address the magnitude of the problems being studied, and systems thinking is often touted as a solution to solving complex problems (Plate 2010). In earlier work, Bawden et al. (1984) suggest an experientially based approach for developing systems thinking and highlight one such example in Australia. However, Salner (1986) cautioned that curricula alone are insufficient; students must be developmentally ready to examine their underlying epistemological assumptions to become systems thinkers.

Systems awareness and systems thinking

To tackle wicked problems, people need to understand the complexities of systems and be able to analyze the interdependence between system components (Levy, Lubell, and McRoberts 2018). Although there are numerous definitions of systems thinking, this paper will use the following definition, ‘a set of synergistic analytic skills used to improve the capability of identifying and understanding systems, predicting their behaviors, and devising modifications to them to produce desired effects’ (Arnold and Wade 2015, 675). While each definition varies, mainly depending on the discipline using the definition, a common thread focuses on looking at the interconnections between components while also taking a holistic perspective (Hu & Shealy 2018). It is important to note that systems are not phenomena independent of the person but rather epistemological interpretations of people (Checkland 1983; Ison 2017). Systems thinking allows the person to better analyze the world around them (Arnold and Wade 2015).

Randle and Stroink (2018) argue that systems thinking should be viewed as a cognitive paradigm, implying a progression from linear thinking to systems thinking. Linear thinking can be considered the lowest of the cognitive domains because it is the default method of thinking (Ebersbach et al. 2010). Kali, Orion, and Eylon (2003) state that before reaching a systems thinking paradigm, individuals must develop an understanding that focuses on the parts and the wholes of systems. Cabrera, Colosi, and Lobdell (2008) also imply that there is a developmental process when they differentiate two ways for people to consider systems. The first is thinking about systems (systems awareness), and the second is systems thinking. The former is informal and done by individuals daily, while the latter is more structured and includes abstract cognition (Cabrera, Colosi, and Lobdell 2008).

The picture that emerges is a developmental process that an individual can progress through to achieve a systems thinking paradigm. However, how individuals reach this paradigm is not fully explored. This study seeks to explore Cabrera et al.’s (2008) assertion that systems awareness is different from systems thinking and could be considered a precursor to developing a systems thinking paradigm if one also considers Kali, Orion, and Eylon’s (2003) claim that there is a knowledge building component within the systems thinking paradigm.

Purpose

This study aimed to explore the experiences that contributed to the development of a systems thinking paradigm in instructors in a college of agriculture by focusing specifically on systems awareness. The overarching question that guided this study was, what experiences contributed to instructors’ development of systems awareness?

Methods

Phenomenology

According to Patton (2002), humans create meaning out of their experiences, which forms the basis of phenomenological research. Phenomenological philosophy is focused on the descriptions of experience since there must be a clear understanding of the experience to create a foundation for understanding within the world (Polkinghorne 1989). An underlying assumption of phenomenological research is that individuals share an essence(s) to the experience that can describe the phenomena (Patton 2002). The inclusion of an interpretive dimension in the research can form a basis for practical theory (Lester 1999). Therefore, phenomenology embraces the subjective view of the experience because this is needed to gain a complete understanding of phenomena (Moran 2002). Describing and interpreting the structures of the lived experience can be difficult through the usual research approaches; therefore, phenomenology is a practical approach to gaining new perspectives and knowledge (Fuster Guillen 2019).

Reflexivity in research

Researchers are a crucial instrument in qualitative research (Creswell and Creswell 2018) because they bring beliefs and philosophical assumptions into their research (Creswell and Poth 2018). Snape and Spencer (2003) make the case that how researchers carry out their research depends upon a range of factors, including their ontological beliefs and epistemological leanings. Through reflexivity, the researcher uses introspection to determine their role and subjectivity in the research process (Palaganas et al. 2017). Below is the researcher’s reflexivity statement as it pertains to the research topic:

As a first-generation Jamaican American growing up in a city my knowledge of agriculture was shaped from a consumer perspective. My agricultural education journey led me to look at agriculture from all angles and gather as many viewpoints as possible about issues. Teaching agriculture at a suburban school required me to connect the consumer aspect of agriculture to the industry aspects in order to make it relatable to my students. This has contributed to my development of a systems thinking paradigm, which underpins my beliefs that there are multiple ways to view the world. As I have developed and benefitted from systems thinking, I highly value it and believe there should be a more concentrated effort to develop this cognitive level. As I conducted this study, I was cognizant of how my experiences and beliefs impacted this study, particularly how they influenced the interpretation of the data.

Population and sampling

The target population was instructors in the University of Florida College of Agricultural and Life Sciences. Criterion-based purposive sampling was utilized to select participants for the study. This approach was selected to find individuals who are well-informed about the phenomenon being investigated (i.e. developing a systems thinking paradigm). Purposive sampling is common in qualitative research to identify and select individuals with particular qualities (Etikan, Musa, and Alkassim 2016). The criteria included instructors who self-affiliated with the interdisciplinary School of Natural Resources and Environment (SNRE) in the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences and devoted at least 30 percent of their effort to teaching.

Data collection

Data were collected by individual interview method using a semi-structured interview guide focusing on experiences of developing a systems thinking paradigm and higher-level thinking. Polkinghorne (1989) states that interviews are the preferred method for phenomenological research because they allow for the investigation of the meaning behind the theme of the experience. The researcher created an interview guide based on their previous knowledge of the field of study and a literature review, which was reviewed by a second researcher. A conceptual model based on a literature review was utilized to guide the interview, which utilized questions focused on contextualization, apprehending the phenomenon, and clarifying the phenomenon (Bevan 2014).

The interview guide consisted of eight questions. After approval gained from the [university] Institutional Review Board, data were collected via in-depth interviews. Eleven participants from seven different departments were interviewed in September and October 2021, and each lasted between one hour to one hour forty-five minutes. Interviews were conducted over Zoom and automatically transcribed. The researcher then scrubbed all identifying information and edited the interviews for clarity.

Data analysis

Moustakas (1994) outlines a three-step approach to analyzing a phenomenological study: (a) read through all data collected, (b) generate themes from the collected data, and (c) apply the themes to the research questions. Data were analyzed using a combination of deductive and inductive coding. Directed content analysis coding was utilized to examine the existing conceptual framework guiding this study but then moved to inductive open coding to create new codes (Saldaña 2021). Axial coding was utilized to construct linkages between the data (Saldaña 2021).

Participant demographics

Eleven participants were interviewed for this study, all of whom identified as having a systems thinking paradigm, although a few mentioned that they were not sure if their view of systems thinking was accurate. Seven participants were male (BB, Bruce, Dan, Colin, Gregory, Kevin, and Ringo) and four participants were female (Betty, Carrie, Rachel, and Rose). There were seven departments that the sample pulled from and six were represented in this study, (a) Agricultural Education and Communication, (b) Entomology and Nematology, (c) Environmental Horticulture, (d) Family, Youth and Community Sciences, (e) Forest, Fisheries, and Geomatics, and (f) Soil and Water Science. The largest department represented was Forest, Fisheries, and Geomatics, with four participants, followed by Soil and Water Science, with three participants. Six of the participants were professors and five were assistant professors.

Ensuring quality in the study

One of the most contentious issues of qualitative research is the question of validity since validity focuses on whether the evidence reflects reality. Hammersley (1990) notes that ‘truth’ is often interpreted; and because people’s behavior and beliefs change constantly, it is difficult to control in natural settings. Therefore, validity is an issue because a researcher can focus on an aspect within a setting, but the very setting itself can change over time. Often, trustworthiness is used instead of validity, because the researcher focuses on accurately capturing a viewpoint, as opposed to providing evidence of a fixed reality (Fielding and Fielding 1986).

Thick descriptions, an audit trail, bracketing, and a reflexivity statement were used to ensure trustworthiness (Lincoln and Guba 1985). Thick descriptions were utilized since brief snippets of conversation are not enough to justify a well-grounded explanation (Bryman 2003). An audit trail was utilized to demonstrate that the researcher had not selected field data to fit a preconception of the phenomena (Fielding and Fielding 1986). As part of the audit trail, the researcher’s notes resulted in a modification of the interview guide to accurately capture participant experience. The researcher also tracked the data analysis process and kept versions of the results and conclusions during each stage of the process. Bracketing and a reflexivity statement were utilized to assist the researcher in making personal judgments (Ashworth 1999). Member checking was also utilized to ensure that the researcher accurately captured and interpreted the participants’ experiences (Merriam 1995).

The researcher acknowledges that a limitation of this study is that they cannot determine if the instructors interviewed represent a larger group of instructors. In addition, there is a limitation that the researcher cannot generalize the results of this study because it is unknown if participants’ experiences accurately represent the phenomenon under investigation.

Results

Linear thinking may be the modus operandi for most individuals as they go about their daily lives, but it falls short when they are forced to interact with multiple system elements. As such, at the bare minimum, individuals need to develop an awareness of systems and systems awareness. The former implies that individuals recognize that the world they operate in consists of various systems (ex. educational systems, welfare systems, computer systems, etc.), while the latter implies that they can conceptualize how these systems may operate. Individuals need to have systems awareness to engage in higher cognitive thinking, i.e. systems thinking. Three themes emerged (see Figure 1) regarding how instructors perceived their development of systems awareness, (a) they were primed to be systems aware, (b) they were in environments that nurtured systems awareness, and (c) the educational system impacted their development of systems awareness.

Figure 1. Themes and Sub-themes of the Development of Systems Awareness.

Primed for systems awareness

While literature supports the idea that linear thinking is an inborn characteristic due to its presence in very young children (Ebersbach et al. 2010), there are also inborn characteristics that support the development of systems awareness.

Rachel supports this idea as she stated, ‘I suspect people come sort of pre-primed or not based on family influence and teachers’ when speaking about developing system awareness. Kevin went further, stating, ‘I think I’ve always been primed for that sort of that way of thinking. I mean, I don’t know whether it’s genetically native or what, but I’ve sort of had an awareness that there are these interesting hooks amongst things in the world that impact one another.’ Colin noted that he was always interested in problem-solving as a kid but could not cite a specific incident that started or nurtured this ability. He attributed his love for solving problems as something that helped him realize that there was more than linear thinking.

Both Betty and Rose mentioned that they were curious children, with Rose elaborating that she has always been interested in looking at how everything works together and interacts. Bruce found himself asking fundamental questions about the way things worked, as well as the ‘underlying nature of reality.’ Gregory also felt that his systems awareness developed partly because he wanted ‘to understand how things fit together when he encountered new ideas and concepts.’ He further elaborated that his ‘basic curiosity of wanting to know how things work, and how things work together’ helped him realize that ‘it’s rare for something to work completely in isolation.’

Nurturing systems awareness

Participants’ childhoods were varied, and each had unique experiences; however, there was an underlying essence that critical experiences helped nurture their development of systems thinking awareness. These experiences came in the form of early contradictions in their worldview and the influence of family and organizations.

Early contradictions

Participants provided several examples from their childhood that required them to confront their view of the world, which they said played a critical role in developing systems awareness. When Ringo was growing up, he was a religious minority which meant that ‘my whole life was looking at the world through a different lens than almost everybody else.’ His experiences seeing how his peers behaved contradictory to their religious values was one of the most significant factors contributing to his development of systems awareness because he was able to make observations from outside the dominant culture.

Rachel’s upbringing was at times unstable, and this instability forced her to ‘confront a more complex world at a quite early age,’ which forced her to look at things from different angles. Rachel recalled an incident in her youth where she wanted to play with a Black family, but her parents said she could not because they had animals in their house. This explanation confused her because she too had animals in her house, including a pet pig, and she could not understand why there were different standards. As a result of this, she said, referring to the development of systems awareness, ‘so I think things like that, I suspect, [these] early contradictions, because if you think about, cases like that you can’t get away with linear thinking because it will never explain it.’

Kevin attributed some systems awareness to his parents exposing him to concepts that knocked him out of his comfort zone, which he viewed as an essential part of his development. Growing up overseas, he developed an affinity for Eastern thinking, which he described as ‘circularity of causality,’ before being confronted with the difference in Western thinking, which is viewed as more linear. Similarly, Bruce found himself reading about Eastern religions and comparing them to his Christian upbringing. He noted that this caused him to reflect on the fundamental nature of reality and found it to be ‘more broadening than just a very linear reading of either religion or of science.’ In addition, Bruce reflected that reading poetry also helped shape his systems awareness because the imagery in poems was very nonlinear, unlike the textbooks he read in school.

Growing up in a culture that promoted systems awareness

In addition, participants spoke highly about their parents and how their influence helped them develop systems awareness. Rose’s father was an engineer, and ‘he really instilled in me, to sort ask questions, figure out how things work together … always trying different things.’ Kevin spoke about how his parents had advanced graduate degrees in different fields, and they created a family culture of ‘probing and connecting the dots.’ BB grew up in an academic environment that promoted learning new things and encouraged him to be curious, which he reflected was an essential aspect of his development.

Ringo and Carrie did not mention their parents’ influence, but they did talk about how different organizations helped them develop systems awareness. Carrie cited her leadership experience as a Girl Scout helped her realize the various things needed to accomplish a project. She viewed it as an efficacy-building experience that exposed her to different aspects of running a project, which helped her develop systems awareness. Ringo went to several ranger programs and was surprised when a ranger engaged in back-and-forth talk with the children about why a tree bent a certain way. The discussion covered many different ways that could have caused the bend, and he remembered thinking, ‘I’m thinking wow, that’s complicated. Who would have thought?’ In addition, as part of a Boy Scout experience, he was ‘forced to sit and look at something.’ He said of that experience, ‘you can start seeing all the variables that you wouldn’t see when you’re just off of your friends walking through the forest … and then I think all that did is that kind of opened my brain.’

Systems awareness development within the educational system

Participants shared their thoughts about the educational system’s role in their development of systems awareness. In particular, Rachel contends that the model used to structure programs and teach is very linear.

Dissatisfaction with the educational system

Several of the participants felt that the structure of educational systems has detrimental outcomes for the development of systems awareness. There was a common theme of frustration among participants about following a structure that did not support real-world applications or making connections. Gregory reflected that he could see how educational systems can reinforce linear thinking because he described himself as a curious child who loved coming up with ideas but felt that school conditioned this out of him. Betty mirrored this statement when she stated, ‘to me, the system was oppressive because I wanted to do things that my teachers didn’t want … all the rules, I didn’t want to do the assignments, the way they told me to do them.’

Colin asserted that he did not do well in class because he didn’t like the structure of the classes, saying.

You have to go to school; you have to do this assignment, you have to read this book, and then you know write something about it. I don’t know, maybe that was too linear for me. It’s not that I wasn’t capable of doing it. I just didn’t see the value in it, I didn’t know what it would get me in the long run … I didn’t understand why school was so important, and you know why doing assignments that had very little to do with like the real-world application.

Kevin felt that the educational systems are focused on process understanding and fixated on completing a task in a specific context. He went on to say that students are conditioned to think, ‘this equation applies to this problem, so if I see a problem like this, I know that I should apply that equation.’ However, as a consequence, he explained that students are ‘ill-equipped to deal with them [systems] in a holistic way because they’ve sort of received only compartmentalized information.’

Dan remembered an incident where his former teacher caused his classmates to freak out because he required his students to read papers and critically reflect on the readings. The students would be required to justify their answers, and the teacher introduced the idea that there might not be a good answer. Dan recalled, that ‘people that are obsessed with their GPA’ struggled with this approach and did not handle this different approach from the more traditional learning approach. Betty noted a similar issue when she said, ‘they want to know what it takes to get an ‘A,’ so if you don’t have some sort of structure about that they panic, they fall down, they freaked out.’ As such, Betty felt that the secondary educational system is a very structured standardized system that does not allow for curiosity in students. Similarly, Kevin felt that while current teaching approaches allow people to be good at doing things, ‘I don’t know that it stimulates people to think about new connections.’

Educational practices that assisted in the development of systems awareness

Participants noted that within the educational systems, two concepts helped them become more systems-aware. These concepts focused on connecting content to real-world applications and structuring lessons around problem-solving.

BB felt that while he discovered systems thinking pretty late, he started to recognize the concept of linear versus nonlinear much earlier, partly because of how his math teacher taught about exponential growth. The teacher utilized a real-world scenario of bank accounts and interest rates to explain the concept and, as such, BB felt he was able to grasp the concept and transfer it to his science class and bacteria cell growth. Colin’s chemistry class had a student teacher who was very engaging because he didn’t do things ‘by the book.’ Instead, the student-teacher was able to get the students to think more about chemistry by making real-world connections. Colin reflected that solving a problem out of textbooks was not exciting or motivating, instead ‘I think it had to have that real-life application.’

Gregory stated that he loved doing science fairs because it allowed him to ask questions and explore new ideas and concepts. Colin said, ‘I just didn’t like the math classes until, you know, I started doing experiments and collecting data and kind of using it to solve a problem to answer a question.’ BB remembered that his teachers structured their classes to ask students to defend or solve problems using a more question-oriented approach. One aspect of this approach that he found particularly helpful was that if he made a mistake, he could talk with his teachers about the problem. The key to this approach was that his grade would not be affected by the number of mistakes, giving him the freedom to work on different problems and make mistakes. As he stated, ‘I struggled and made mistakes, but those mistakes played a key role in figuring things out. So, I think I really benefited from this.’

Conclusions and recommendations

Conclusions

Participants in this study had three types of experiences that contributed to their development of systems awareness: (a) they were primed to be systems aware, (b) they were in environments that nurtured systems awareness, and (c) the educational system impacted their development of systems awareness.

Within the nature vs. nurture debate, scientists are exploring the idea that the development of an individual involves the intertwinement of genes and the environment (Dodge 2004). Mirroring this new train of thought, it appears to be a combination of inborn characteristics and environmental outcomes that influences the development of systems awareness. Individuals may be primed for systems awareness, but key environmental influences can also contribute to this development. Furthermore, the educational system learning environment can be utilized to promote systems awareness; however, current practices often hinder developmental growth, which is a precursor for developing systems thinking (Salner 1986).

Several participants agreed that some individuals have characteristics that predispose them to become systems aware. These characteristics assisted them in realizing that there were connections in the world that could not be explained by linear thinking. According to Jirout (2020), children have a driving need to learn about the world around them, and this drive is spurred on by curiosity and problem-solving. Participants noted that they always felt that they wanted to learn more about the world, and through reflection and problem-solving, they realized that linear thinking could not explain much of what they were observing. Characteristics such as these were identified as occurring for as long as participants can remember, supporting the idea that the development of systems awareness is supported by inborn characteristics.

Aside from inborn characteristics, systems awareness is developed from various environmental experiences. One such experience is when children and young adults are confronted with early contradictions in their worldviews. When this occurs, there is a state of discomfort or tension within the individual because the new information is inconsistent with their previously held belief (Festinger 1957). Festinger (1957) refers to this tension as cognitive dissonance, and Bonardi and Roussiau (1999) state that a change in thought process can occur to reconcile the conflicting information. According to Mezirow (1978), when individuals experience a disconcerting predicament that challenges their current view of the world, a transformation of their mental map can ensue. Being outside of the dominant culture, being confronted with stark contradictions, or being provided opportunities to compare differing viewpoints and opinions can be the impetus to developing a systems awareness in individuals. Systems awareness can also be developed in environments that actively support curiosity, exploration, and problem-solving.

Zhao (2018) stated that the current educational system is outdated and based on Industrial Age concepts such as efficiency and performance based on pre-determined skills deemed valuable by those in authority. As such, this educational system does not allow for many opportunities for students to indulge in their curiosity, focus on problem-solving, or be creative (Zhao 2018). Participants had strong opinions regarding how the education system affected their development of systems thinking. The dominant approach used by teachers is that of linear thinking (Greer 2010), and participants identified this as being a hindrance to their development of systems awareness. The lack of connection between content and the real world, not being allowed to problem solve, and being conditioned to think that there was always one correct answer, were cited as examples of these practices. It may not be a stretch to claim that the current educational structure impedes the development of systems awareness by stifling curiosity and discouraging questioning and independence. However, when education focused on real-world applications and provided opportunities for problem-solving, participants felt this was beneficial to systems awareness development.

Ison (2008) suggests that people can understand the basic concept that systems have interconnected things. However, systems awareness goes beyond knowing that things can be interconnected and includes an awareness of cycles, connectivity, counterintuitive effects, and unintended consequences (Ison 2008). Individuals may be primed towards systems awareness but there is also an environmental component that must be considered.

Recommendations for practice

There should be a concentrated effort to encourage people (and society) to be more accepting of mistakes and reward those who promote and nurture curiosity. Research has shown that sensitivity to mistakes leads to increased anxiety and maladaptive perfectionism among students (Bas 2011). Bas (2011) recommends that efforts should be made to reduce mistake sensitivity by building up self-esteem and minimizing maladaptive perfectionist tendencies. Parents, teachers, community leaders, co-workers, etc., can support individuals who want to explore and take risks by providing reassurance and encouragement. Youth organizations such as Boys and Girls Club, 4-H, FFA, Boy and Girl Scouts, etc., can create programs that introduce people to different perspectives and problems and allow them to question and reflect on the information. Although it is challenging to move society towards accepting a different culture, that does not mean that it should not be attempted. Reaching out to people and organizations who specialize in planned change and starting small scale can work towards shifting the needle towards creating individuals who are not just aware of systems but are also systems aware.

There are several recommendations for people within the educational system as well. People in positions of leadership need to create a culture where education is not so intimately linked to performance but rather to problem-solving and content exploration, much like the example shared by Bawden et al. (1984). Those who develop curriculum and standards should focus on connecting information to real-world problems and events as opposed to simply learning content for the sake of remembering facts or procedures. Although it would be unrealistic and potentially detrimental to do away with performance-focused content, there should be a shift away from this current approach towards one where content focuses on exposing students to the complexity they will be facing in the real world. This exposure should be done to invite reflection and problem-solving by stoking students’ curiosity and desire to understand their world.

This shift in culture needs to occur not just from a curricular standpoint but also in the philosophy of how assessments are conducted. Participants noted that when they were allowed to fail without being penalized, they were more open to problem-solving and exploring connections in the world. As such, educators should consider de-coupling grades from right and wrong answers as a form of assessment and instead focus on developing assessments that reward trying and exploring. While this may seem counterintuitive in the face of current educational practices, it will better prepare students to face an increasingly complex world where they will need to be creative and explore options in the face of different problems. Developing a culture where students will not be penalized for making mistakes will encourage students to think more critically and not be afraid of trying and failing. This would also create a climate where creativity and curiosity are encouraged, leading to greater systems awareness. Since students spend most of their developmental years within the educational system, action is needed to support systems awareness.

Green and Olson (2008) state that instructors at higher education institutions will need to prepare students to thrive in a complex world by opening their minds to new ways of thinking and broadening their frame of reference by addressing different perspectives. Therefore, departments and disciplines of AFNR systems should consider structuring their curricula around current problems facing their discipline and encourage instructors to expose students to various perspectives surrounding the issue. Ison and Straw (2020) advocate for applying a Systems Thinking in Practice (STiP) process whereby students work in social learning environments focused on real-world situations. Content should be taught utilizing pedagogy centered around problem-based learning, team-based learning, and active, hands-on learning to mimic what graduates face when they enter the workforce. Instructors should be aware that these approaches run counter to what most students have experienced throughout their educational history, and there may be a learning curve and periods of uncomfortableness among the students. Administrators of these instructors should be aware that student evaluations of the class and instructors might be lower due to student discomfort. It is recommended that administrators create an evaluation that assesses students a few months (or years) after taking these types of courses to determine the effectiveness of the course in preparing students for their chosen careers. These evaluations should be utilized instead of current course evaluations, as they would more accurately reflect students learning gains without the emotional discomfort that may have occurred immediately after the course was concluded. Ison and Straw (2020) go beyond suggestions for a single course and offer thoughts on institutionalizing Systems Thinking in Practice across the curricula, offering the Open University in the United Kingdom as an example.

Furthermore, when engaging students with research, instructors should provide their students with autonomy and allow them to choose topics that drive their interest. Although this approach may come with more risks of failure, this will provide students with experiences that better reflect what they will face postgraduation. Rather than be frustrated with potential failures, instructors should embrace the learning opportunity presented to them and encourage students to reflect critically on this experience. In addition, there should be a more significant effort to connect research experiences (including fieldwork) to content, as it appears that this relationship is an essential component of systems awareness. The same can be said about students’ experiences outside of academia and other real-world experiences they may have.

Recommendations for research

It is recommended that further basic and applied research be conducted on the development of systems awareness. Due to the nature of this study, it is limited in scope so it cannot be generalized. It is recommended that it be repeated in different settings (ex. non-U.S. based educational systems), different populations (ex. K-12 agriculture teachers), and different types of institutions (ex. technical vocational education and training (TVET) programs).

Theoretical research should be conducted to determine what systems awareness should entail and if there are different levels of awareness. Furthermore, research should be conducted to determine if different types of experiences have different impacts on the development of systems awareness. While curiosity seems to be linked to systems awareness, further research should be conducted on this topic and other individual characteristics that may contribute to systems awareness. Research on connections between systems awareness and critical thinking should be explored. Furthermore, research should investigate how systems awareness is viewed as different from systems thinking and how it can be developed into systems thinking.

Applied research should be conducted to investigate if non-traditional approaches to education are effective in developing systems awareness. Further research should also investigate creating experiences in different contexts that promote the development of systems awareness. Research should look into the influence of youth organizations on developing systems awareness in their members. Lastly, research should investigate whether individuals who are more systems aware are more inclined to systems thinking and determine if they are better prepared to face issues of complexity.

Implications

Due to the increase in complexity and wicked problems facing the AFNR systems, we cannot continue educating the next generation in the same manner as previous organizations. Current approaches to preparing the next generation are not taking advantage of human curiosity and the drive to better understand the world around them. Creating experiences that lead to the development of systems awareness is derived from the promotion of curiosity-driven thought and behavior. As individuals engage in this type of learning, there is significant cognitive engagement and processing, which supports deeper learning (Jirout 2020). This can prepare individuals to develop and engage in systems thinking, which requires a higher level of cognitive thinking (Kali et al. 2003). If we expect future generations to be prepared to address wicked problems and complex issues, we need to take meaningful action to change our current approaches to education and science. As Bawden (1991) stated, ‘In sum, we must be prepared to let go the old and embrace the new science and praxis of complexity’ (2371). Since this statement was made, a whole generation was raised under the old system, but we cannot afford to raise the next generation in the same way. The future of AFNR depends on us creating a new generation who can embrace and operate in this praxis of complexity, and the start of this can be the development of systems awareness.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Katrina Alford

Dr. Katrina Alford, Education is a Training Specialist in the Center for Online Learning and Technology at the University of Florida, [email protected].

Nicole Stedman

Dr. Nicole Stedman is a Professor and Dean of the Graduate School at the University of Florida, [email protected].

J. C. Bunch

Dr. J. C. Bunch is an Associate Professor in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication at the University of Florida, [email protected].

Shirley Baker

Shirley Baker is a Professor in the School of Forest, Fisheries, and Geomatics Sciences at the University of Florida, [email protected].

Grady Roberts

Dr. Grady Roberts is a Professor in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication at the University of Florida, [email protected].