It's been awhile since we've posted. Christine was a great loss to the project and me personally. Three papers we had been working on stalled. However, over the past few months, I have found myself presenting and talking on this topic a lot. I had the opportunity to attend a systems conference in July, and a workshop in September. I have talked with people in systems science and positive psychology. I presented the perspective in China, providing further food for thought. Through all of this, my thinking is evolving, changing, being refined. While I have little to show for it has this point, I think it has been an important period to let our early ideas germinate. 

As part of this, I have decided that our initial name, positive systems science, is not quite right. It seems like across areas, the word positive has been applied (e.g., positive education, positive organisational scholarship, positive humanities, positive health), and that connects it to positive psychology. We followed the same path. But we aren't simply suggesting that the positive perspective should be applied to systems science. Rather, it is a shift in positive psychology itself - an evolution, that moves it beyond the individual, beyond simple, linear, reductionistic models. It embraces complexity, multiple perspectives, and multiple realities. It is dynamic in nature. 

As such, I have decided to call this new areas Systems Informed Positive Psychology (SIPP). That's my working title at least. I still have to convince my collaborators of this name. What do you think? 

We have some big plans to come for the project, including several papers, practical tools, approaches to measurement, and more. I plan to start a SIPP interest group, so stay tuned for details on how to sign up and get involved. 

Written by Peggy Kern

Sadness. An emotion that positive psychology often avoids, yet is a very real part of life (just watch Inside Out as a great illustration of the beauty of different emotions), and one that covers me now. Last week, my colleague and dear friend, Dr Christine Siokou, suddenly passed away. It is an enormous loss.

I have lost an incredible person that has driven my work in ways that I would never have imagined. Over the past year, we have worked closely together, developing this area of Positive Systems Science. It has been a labour of our minds and hearts - driving us, challenging us, and inspiring us. We have met together each week, even multiple times during the week, carefully consider our ideas, writing together, questioning each word we use, turning things over and over from two different yet complementary perspectives. So far, we have several presentations and blog posts, an article under review), others in the works, and several grant proposals. The beginnings of something big... or not. Christine has pushed my thinking and ideas in ways that I never imagined, opening up a world of possibility. 

Christine was also a beautiful person, both inside and out. She had an incredible heart for people. I can't even begin to describe all of her good characteristics. I have truly been blessed by having her a part of my life. 

We have worked hard to establish this new area of PSS. There's so much missing, so much I never learned from her. I feel so inadequate to carry on without her. At the same time, she has inspired me, and I feel compelled to carry this area forward, perhaps as a legacy to an incredible person. These are some of the real-world complexities of life. 

Written by Peggy Kern

I recently had a conversation with Michelle McQuaid about our work on Positive Systems Science. We consider questions like are we oversimplifying positive psychology? And what are some of the implications of the PSS perspective?  Catch our chat here: http://ow.ly/sPzZ30aYYqS

Written by Peggy Kern

It’s been awhile since we’ve posted – we’ve been hard at work developing our ideas around Positive Systems Science (PSS). Here’s our latest thinking on some of the core tenets of PSS, which we are currently trying to publish – stay tuned.
 

• Concept of goodness: At its core, PSS is utilitarian in nature – the greatest good for the greatest number. This reflects the PP utilitarian perspective. However, what is meant by the greatest good is defined by the stakeholders involved, including the voices that are usually ignored, not determined by those with power.
• Epistemology: We need to consider the perspective of each stakeholder that is part of the system. The unique perspectives of each stakeholder create multiple realities. PSS enables resolution of differences through dialogue, rather than imposing a single reality.
• Goal: Like positive psych, PSS aims to build wellbeing. However, PP often focuses on continued improvements – pushing to always feel better. But continued growth is maladaptive and non-sustainable. Wellbeing involves people who feel good and function well in a sustainable manner over time. Thus, wellbeing involves establishing and maintaining balance, rather than growth at all costs.
• Individuals as part of the collective: While PP focuses on individuals and SS focuses on the collective, PSS is about the individual as part of the collective. It’s not just individual wellbeing – it’s more a question of your wellbeing as part of what you contribute to those around you.
• Perspective about the person: Individualized approaches that capture differing histories and perspectives are needed. Each person brings their unique history, experiences, and interpretation of those experiences to the table, which need to be considered when constructing and implementing actions and interventions. People have untapped, undetermined potential. But this is bounded by contextual restraints – there are limits on growth and achievement.
• Simplicity within complexity: Capturing the complex view off SS, PSS takes a broad understanding of the world. But it also tries to find points of parsimony to engage and motivate people toward changing their behaviors, attitudes, and more to move toward optimal function, rather than being apathetic and settling for the status quo.
• Mindset: SS acknowledges mental models or mindset as a key place to intervene, but lacks strategies to motivate people to change. PP is all about changing mindset (think growth mindset…). PSS draws on PP to find strategies to change how people think, feel, and behave.
• Dynamism of the system: The system is dynamic, but there are also static or more stable and slow moving elements, such as a person’s personality. These more stable areas can be targeted for intervention.
• Approach to problems: There are times when we need to deal with problems, but also hold on to long term vision. PSS maps out multiple pathways and long-and short term outcomes, allowing a strategic combination of short and long term solutions.
• Responsibility: Every part of the system is responsible for what is within their control. It is not up to the system alone – individuals must take responsibility. But there is much that is out of the control of the individual. We simultaneously need to create environments that support wellbeing.

 
What these realistically look like are still a work in progress. Ideas? Comment and share them with us!

Written by Peggy Kern

In this blog we would like to introduce Positive System Science which combines the strength-based lens of Positive Psychology with the complex, holistic lens of Systems Science, with the ultimate goal of bringing about desired systems change that supports the well-being of both individuals and living systems.

What is a systems approach?
 If you ask people about what a systems approach is, you'll get a lot of different answers. Across these different definitions, systems approaches include three core elements: 

1. A desire to understand interrelationships: how things are connected to each other and what comes from these different relationships?
2. A commitment to multiple perspectives: who are the different stakeholders, and what is their perception? How does a person's perspective affect their behaviour? What is considered to be success? 
3. An awareness of boundaries: What are the boundaries of a system? Who decides what the boundaries are, and where they are being drawn? What are the practical and ethical consequences of those boundaries?

 
Why do we need to consider systems in positive psychology?
Psychology as a field generally focuses on individuals - their thoughts, behaviours, and emotions. But the broader context in which a person resides is often ignored. Often, theories and interventions are thought to universally apply to different people, even though people come from very different backgrounds.  People in positive psychology too often make bold claims about the power of its findings and interventions.  In contrast, a systems approach acknowledges the complexity that people live and breathe everyday.  Rather than seeing contextual factors as noise, it embraces these factors and helps us understand all the different pieces that affect the individual in their daily life.

It is time for positive psychology to embrace a bigger perspective, acknowledging the complexity of human experience. This will help us better understand the different factors that influence individual and collective well-being, ultimately resulting in better-informed, more effective interventions that provide better value to individuals and society.
 
What is the Centre for Positive Psychology (CPP) doing?
The CPP is currently drawing together the strengths of Systems Science and Positive Psychology. We believe that the synthesis of these two areas will create an innovative, applied approach that is more effective than either perspective alone. We are introducing ‘positive systems science’ as a lens which combines a strength-based approach with systems thinking and tools, with the ultimate goal of bringing about desired systems change and well-being. Stay tuned for updates and details. 

Written by Dr. Christine Siokou