Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Systemic Research Practices Towards the Development of an Eco-Community in Vietnam: some Joint Post-Facto Reflections

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Systemic Practice and Action Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article we discuss how an interdisciplinary research team partnered with a variety of stakeholders concerned with and/or affected by the impacts of climate change in the Red River Delta of Vietnam. The research, undertaken from 2016 to 2018, drew upon a wide range of methods to investigate systemically these impacts – with a view to the research inputting into the development of (more) sustainable ways of living. The research solicited various accounts of the experience of climate change in the community, set up learning processes in community meetings, and created an interface with government officials positioned at commune, district, provincial, and national levels. The intention was to offer support towards developing a learning process (broadly defined as including learnings/systemic inquiry across organizational levels of the society) to pursue options for sustainable living. The article offers our post-facto reflections which render more explicit (to ourselves and for the benefit of audiences) how the research team, with Hoang as lead researcher, facilitated the inquiry process towards developing a synthesis which underscored the assets for resilience to climate change and supported interventions to strengthen such (defined) assets.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The term “systemic thinking” in critical systemic thinking is explained by Flood and Romm (2018) by referring to (systemic) thinkers’ recognition that when viewing the world, as humans we do not have access to an interpretation-free vision. Flood and Romm indicate that the term “systemic thinking” (rather than systems thinking) expresses this recognition. As they put it, the term “‘systems thinking’ has been used to describe a world comprising real systems and literally ‘knowable’” (2018, p. 261). In contrast, systemic thinking “accepts that each picture [construction of the world] is no more than an interpretation of what is going on and issues faced. The foundation of systemic thinking and learning in organizations, then, is premised on a “dialogue over the many different interpretations of issues faced and their prioritization in organizational change” (2018, p. 262). See also Flood and Finnestrand (2020, pp. 4–5) for further elucidation of “critical systemic interpretation”).

    .

  2. The Center for Eco-Community Development (ECODE) was developed by an interdisciplinary research group at Hanoi National University in Vietnam. It is a Vietnamese non-government organization and is now officially registered as member organization of the Viet Nam Union of Science and Technology Associations (VUSTA) with an operation permit from the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (2015).

  3. This pooling was done through many email exchanges and exchange of documents between us over an extended period. This was followed by our joint construction of this article in which we wrote into each other’s suggested text, and modified and added/deleted, until we arrived at this shared product.

  4. In Vietnam, mass organizations are normally classed as civil society organizations (CSOs). They exist at the commune, district and provincial levels (as seen from Appendix A), of which the commune level is most important because they are the direct representatives of community and they work directly with the people daily. (They can be distinguished from the voluntary social organizations, which operate voluntarily and receive only a small portion of the monthly support budget from the budget. Members of these unions still earn income from other jobs or livelihoods. They act as further liaison between the community and the local government.)

  5. Shiva (2017) advises that the term “resources” should be seen in the context of its original meaning connected to “resurgence” or “regeneration, so that they are seen as linked to living (rather than mechanical) systems.

References

  • Ackoff RL (1981) The art and science of mess management. Interfaces 11:20–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff RL, Pourdehnad J (2001) On misdirected systems. Syst Res Behav Sci 18(3):199–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker JM (2019) The map as object: working beyond bounded realities and mapping for social change. Educ Res Soc Chang 8(1):138–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chilisa B (2017) Decolonizing transdisciplinary research approaches: an African perspective for enhancing knowledge integration in sustainability science. Sustain Sci 12(5):813–827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chirisa I (2009) Prospects for asset based community development in Epworth and Ruwa, Zimbabwe. Afr J Hist Cult 1(2):28–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman CW (1967) Wicked problems. Management Science 14(4): B-141-142 (guest editorial)

  • Cuc LT (2011) Vietnam: traditional cultural concepts of human relations with the natural environment. Asian Geogr 1:67–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunninghm G, Mathie A (2002) Asset-Based Community Development: An overview. Paper prepared for the ABCD workshop organized by the Coady International Institute, February 2002

  • Flood RL (2001) The relationship of “systems thinking” to action research. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. Sage, London, pp 133–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Flood RL, Romm NRA (2018) A systemic approach to processes of power in learning organizations: part I—literature, theory, and methodology of triple loop learning. Learn Organ 25(4):260–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flood RL, Finnestrand H (2020) A mighty step: critical systemic interpretation of the learning organization. In: Örtenblad AR (ed) The Oxford handbook of the Learning Organization. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory A, Atkins J, Midgley G, Hodgson A (2019) Stakeholder identification and engagement in problem structuring interventions. Eur J Oper Res 283(1):321–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson K, Rose DB, Fincher R (2015) Preface. In: Gibson K, Rose DB, Fincher R (eds) Manifesto for living in the Anthropocene. Punctum books, Brooklyn, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris LD, Wasilewski J (2004) Indigeneity, an alternative worldview: four R’s (relationship, responsibility, reciprocity, redistribution) vs. two P’s (power and profit). Sharing the journey toward conscious evolution. Syst Res Behav Sci 21(5):489–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoang HTN, & Hoc, TQ (2018) Some ideas for developing the eco-community concept in Vietnam. In: Proceedings of international conference (Hanoi Forum, 2018): Towards sustainable development. National University of Vietnam, Hanoi

  • Hesse-Biber S (2019) Transcript of keynote address on mixed methods and transformative approaches to social and environmental justice (MMIRA regional conference, Flinders, Australia, December 2017). In: McIntyre-Mills JJ, Romm NRA, Corcoran-Nantes, Y. Mixed methods and cross-disciplinary research: Towards cultivating eco-systemic living. Springer, Cham, pp. vii-x

  • Hoc TQ, Hoang HTN (2018) Resilience assessment of socio-ecological system in Red River Delta. In: Proceedings of international conference (Hanoi Forum, 2018): Towards sustainable development. National University of Vietnam, Hanoi

  • Holmes JP (2019) “I love teaching but I hate being a teacher”: how can effective teachers flourish? Doctoral thesis in Education, UCL Institute of Education

  • Houghton L (2009) Generalization and systemic epistemology: why should it make sense? Syst Res Behav Sci 26(1):99–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebenberg L, Wall D, Wood M, Hutt-MacLeod D (2019) Spaces and places. Int J Qual Methods 18:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Magill G (2018) Pivotal perspectives on integral ecology. In: Magill G, Potter J (eds.), Integral ecology: protecting our common home. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle Upon Tyne (pp 2–7)

  • Martinez-Alier J (2009) Ecological economics: taking nature into account. In: Splash CL (ed.), Ecological economics. Routledge, New York, pp 39–61

  • McIntyre-Mills JJ (2014a) Systemic ethics and non-anthropocentric stewardship. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre-Mills JJ (2014b) Systemic ethics to support wellbeing. In: Thompson PB, Kaplan DM (eds) Encyclopedia of food and agricultural ethics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1708–1718

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre-Mills JJ (2017) Planetary passport: re-presentation, accountability and re-generation. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mertens DM (2019) Transformative mixed methods in troubling times. In: McIntyre-Mills JJ, Romm NRA, Corcoran-Nantes Y (eds.), Mixed methods and cross-disciplinary research: Towards cultivating eco-systemic living. Springer: Cham, pp xi-xviii

  • Midgley G (2000) Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology and practice. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York

  • Midgley G (2006) Systemic intervention for public health. Am J Public Health 96(3):466–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midgley G, Reynolds M (2002) A new agenda for operational research and environmental management. In: Ragsdell G, West D, Wilby J (eds) Systems thinking and practice in the knowledge era. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 211–218

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Midgley G, Reynolds M (2004) Systems/operational research and sustainable development: towards a new agenda. Sustain Dev 12(1):56–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholas G, Foote J, Kainz K, Midgley G, Prage, K, Zurbriggen C (2019) Towards a heart and soul for co-creative research practice: a systemic approach. Evidence & Policy 1–18

  • Örtenblad A (2015) Towards increased relevance: context-adapted models of the learning organization. Learn Organ 22(3):163–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raelin J (2012) The manager as facilitator of dialogue. Organization 20(6):818–839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajib S (2010) Climate and disaster resilience index of Asian cities. Kyoto University, Japan

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramasamy K, Jonas J, Rajib S, Yukiko T (2011) Applying a climate disaster resilience index (CDRI) to enhance planning decisions in Chennai, India. Kyoto University, Japan

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel H, Webber M (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romm NRA (2002) A trusting constructivist approach to systemic inquiry: exploring accountability. Syst Res Behav Sci 19(5):455–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romm NRA (2013) Employing questionnaires in terms of a constructivist epistemological stance: reconsidering researchers’ involvement in the unfolding of social life. Int J Qual Methods 12:652–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romm NRA (2015) Reviewing the transformative paradigm: a critical systemic and relational (indigenous) lens. Syst Pract Action Res 28(5):411–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romm NRA (2017) Foregrounding critical systemic and indigenous ways of collective knowing toward (re)directing the Anthropocene. In: McIntyre-Mills JJ, Romm NRA, Corcoran-Nantes Y (eds) Balancing individualism and collectivism: social and environmental justice. Springer, New York, pp 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Romm NRA (2018a) Sustainable development towards an inclusive wellbeing: Some possibilities emanating from South Africa. In: Proceedings of international conference (Hanoi Forum, 2018): Towards sustainable development. Hanoi, National University of Vietnam

  • Romm NRA (2018b) Responsible research practice: revisiting transformative paradigm for social research. Springer, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead J (2006) The past, the present and the future of problem structuring methods. J Oper Res Soc 57:759–765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiva V (2017) Why we need an organic future. NOFA-VT 2017 Keynote Address (19 February 2017). Accessed 2 January 2020 at: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gof7vdQI6OM

  • Syarifuddin N (2017) Asset-based community development (ABCD) model: an approach for improving environmental and behavioral health. Adv Sci Lett 23:3364–3366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens A (2013) Ecofeminism and systems thinking. Routledge, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens A (2015) Ecofeminism and systems thinking: shared ethics of care for action research. In: Bradbury H (ed) The sage handbook of action research, 3rd edn. London, Sage, pp 564–572

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens A, Taket A, Gagliano M (2019) Ecological justice for nature in critical systems thinking. Syst Res Behav Sci 36:3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokols D (2018) Social ecology in the digital age. Academic press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Tschakert P, Dietrich KA (2010) Anticipatory learning for climate change adaptation and resilience. Ecol Soc 15(2):11 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wadsworth Y (2010) Building in research and evaluation. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirawan R, McIntyre-Mills JJ (2019) Innovation for social and environmental justice: a way forward? In: McIntyre-Mills JJ, Romm NRA, Corcoran-Nantes Y (eds) Democracy and governance for resourcing the commons. Springer, Cham, pp 447–460

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge with thanks the funding for this project received from the Center for Eco-Community Development (ECODE), and from the Asian Management and Development Institute, Vietnam.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Eco-Community Development (ECODE), Viet Nam Union of Science and Technology Associations (VUSTA), Hanoi, Vietnam

    Ha TN Hoang

  2. Department of Adult Education and Youth Development, University of South Africa, Building 10, Sunnyside Campus, Pretoria, 0002, South Africa

    Norma RA Romm

Authors
  1. Ha TN Hoang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Norma RA Romm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Norma RA Romm.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure Statement

There was no conflict of interest in doing this research or writing it up.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

Table 1 List of collaborators in Giao Thuy district, Nam Dinh province
Full size table

Appendix B: The questionnaire based on the CDRI Index: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 5*5 (translated from Vietnamese)

Appendix C

Table 2 Table of 5*5 matrix of CDRI
Full size table

Appendix D: Interview guide for in-depth interviews with local participants (key questions)

  • Do you realize how the weather and climate have changed in recent years, especially about natural disasters? How does it happen?

  • How do natural disasters and climate change impact on your family? (to employment and income / livelihoods? health, living environment, family relationship, women’s health, ect?)

  • What role do natural ecosystems play for community livelihoods? What is the most important ecosystem for your community? Why?

    Or which community livelihoods depend most on the natural environment? Specifically? How has it been affected in the past?

    Besides the harmful effects, are natural disasters and climate change beneficial? Or do you take advantage of climate change?

  • How are women and children affected by natural disasters, climate change and environmental incidents? What actions have they taken to deal with these negative transformations? What role do they play in adaptive plans and solutions? (at household, community and commune level)

  • Has your family adapted to natural disasters and climate change over the years (in life and production)? How to overcome difficulties?

  • What support has the local government helped your family and your community to deal with natural disasters and climate change?

  • Who in the community usually has adaptation planning? What role does the government play?

  • How do people / communities participate in natural disaster preparedness plans or response plans?

  • Which local specialized agencies (district and commune level) often participate in livelihood development, natural disaster response and climate change activities?

  • What are the ways people use to provide feedback and feedback to local authorities on socio-economic development plans and plans to respond to natural disasters and climate change? What is the most common way?

  • Who are community meetings usually hosted by? Do people enthusiastically participate?

  • Do households in the community work together in livelihood development? If yes, how? Please provide a few examples?

  • Do households in the community work together to protect the natural environment and disaster response? (ecosystems such as mangroves, mudflats, etc.)? If yes, how? Please provide a few examples?

  • Do you know about projects or supporting activities of social organizations or non-governmental organizations? If known, please describe in detail .

Appendix E: Brief summary of results (synthesis) of assessing climate resilience via this project

Evaluation results show that, the overall ranking of Giao Thuy district’s climate resilience through 5 resources is 3.72 score – equivalent to Medium-high. Among them, social resources have the highest score (4.07) due to outstanding advantages of awareness and experience of the community in response to natural disasters, CC and participation, solidarity and support in the community, besides it is an effective operation of mass organizations. Ranked second is Physical resource (3.84) - medium-high (partly due to the results achieved from new rural construction); Natural resource (3.66): medium-high; Policy Institute (3.5): medium; Economic resource (3.4) is the lowest, medium – low level (the reason is due to many financial and budgetary difficulties for CC response and development).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Results of assessing climate resilience of Giao Thuy district through resources (Giao Thuy district, Nam Dinh province, Vietnam)

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hoang, H.T., Romm, N.R. Systemic Research Practices Towards the Development of an Eco-Community in Vietnam: some Joint Post-Facto Reflections. Syst Pract Action Res 33, 599–624 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-020-09533-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-020-09533-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation