Land degradation is considered an event in this first layer, the tip of the iceberg.īut this is not happening just on one farm: Many farms in the region have been suffering from land degradation for a long time, and the global trend is actually rising. The Land Degradation “Iceberg” in Central Americaįor example, if we traveled to a random location in rural Central America, we would likely end up on degraded farmland, where we would see farmers struggling to make ends meet. How does this model help us understand the root causes of the problems we see around us? And finally, the lowest layer consists of the mental models, including mindsets, values and assumptions, that shape the system and keep its structures in place.Below that are the systemic structures, such as rules, institutions and practices, that influence the patterns of events.Below that are the patterns of events happening over time.The visible part sticking out of the water represents the events we see happening, which may be positive or negative.The systems thinking “iceberg” has four layers: Just as the 90% of an iceberg that remains submerged is responsible for the 10% we see above water, there are deeper systems-level issues that form the root causes behind the most persistent development challenges. Following the iceberg model’s analogy, these events are the tip of an iceberg: If we cut it off by addressing only those issues, the iceberg’s buoyancy will take over and a “tip” emerges again, as the same problem reappears. Below, we’ll explore this model and discuss how it has impacted our efforts to support land restoration and improve agri-food systems.Ī key principle in systems thinking, as applied to the development sector, is that the “events” that we perceive as development challenges are actually the result of underlying systemic causes. The iceberg model helped us to recognize the systemic root causes of land degradation, and to identify what it takes to restore lands at a large scale. These are practices that curb erosion and improve soil structure and fertility to allow increased farm productivity and improve water and food security. To help guide this work, we applied an emblematic system thinking tool, the iceberg model, to the case of scaling land restoration practices in Central America. In exploring the implications of this new way of thinking, we’ve asked ourselves what “agri-food system change” really involves, and what that means for scaling innovations in a systems context. For example, in our line of work at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), we speak less of “agriculture” and more of “agri-food systems,” in which production and consumption are connected and limited to our planetary boundaries. Since then, we have observed a surge in the use of words like “systems thinking” and “transformation” in the development sector. We proposed some strategies to develop a more systemic and problem-driven approach to scaling successful initiatives, but we also recognized that the widespread application of such approaches was an exception rather than a rule. We called for a massive break with the linear and technology-driven way of providing solutions for global problems. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).Two years ago, we wrote a NextBillion article on why so many promising innovations are so hard to scale to a level where they have a significant impact on the Sustainable Development Goals. The mystery that remains is why Hall believed the metaphor's origin to lay somewhere in Fechner's writings. The mystery of the Freudian iceberg is not completely resolved, but we have made considerable progress. Hall was one of the founders of American psychology. Fechner and following that thinker upon many important points." The iceberg metaphor of mind has another source with a solid connection to Freud: Granville Stanley Hall. Jones encouraged this interpretation, quoting Freud on being "open to the ideas of G. Many have taken this to mean that the Freudian iceberg metaphor derives directly from Fechner. So the question is, where did it come from? Much attention has been directed to a passage in Ernest Jones's biography of Freud. It is a metaphor that has become ubiquitous in (English-language) writings about Freudian theory, but that does not find its source in his work. The problem is that Freud never mentioned the iceberg in his published writings. A simple Internet search of the terms "Freud iceberg" will bring forth hundreds of examples. The image serves as an illustrative metaphor for Freud's theory of the mind: Only a fragment of our ideas and feelings are conscious or "visible" to us, while the vast bulk of our mental content is unconscious or "invisible" to everyday introspection. Look at any introductory psychology book that covers psychoanalysis, and you are likely to find an image of an iceberg floating in the sea.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |