Designing for Health Promotion, Social Innovation, and Complexity: The CoNEKTR Model for Wicked Problems

Chapter

Abstract

Global health care and promotion in the twenty-first century faces challenges posed by aging populations, mass migration, environmental threats, and the rise of new types of infectious diseases; issues that are interconnected, dynamic in nature, and without precedent. These are commonly calledwicked problems: ones that are complex, ill formulated, “joined-up”, confusing, and require multi-party collaboration to address [1]. Wicked or complex problems are resistant to the linear and simple solutions sets that are often employed in health systems that typically come with a push towards models of best practice and evidence-based medicine [2, 3]. While these solution sets demonstrate utility in certain areas pertaining to healthcare, they typically fail when applied to health promotion and population health [4] which commonly deal with multi-causal, contextually bound, and dynamic problems. It is for this type of problem space that complexity science and systems thinking are most appropriate [5]. In terms of action, it is often the place frequented by designers [6].

Keywords

Migration Recombination Marketing 

References

  1. 1.
    Rittel H, Webber M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 1973;4:155–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biswas R, et al. The process of evidence-based medicine and the search for meaning. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13(4):529–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sturmberg JP, Martin CM. Complexity and health – yesterday’s traditions, tomorrow’s future. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15(3):543–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Norman CD, Best A. Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents: commentary. Evid Based Child Health. 2009;4(2):890–2.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Norman CD. Health promotion as a systems science and practice. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15(5):868–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buchanan R. Wicked problems in design thinking. Des Issues. 1992;8(2):5–21.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kolko J. Exposing the magic of design: a practitioner’s guide to the methods & theory of synthesis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simon HA. The sciences of the artificial. 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    IDEO. IDEO [cited 2012 February 27, 2012]. Available from http://www.ideo.com (2012).
  10. 10.
    Brown T, Wyatt J. Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Soc Innov Rev. 2010; 31–35.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kelley T. The art of innovation: lessons in creativity from IDEO, America’s leading design firm. New York, NY: Crowne Publishers; 2001.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mau B, Institute Without boundaries. Massive change. New York, NY: Phaidon Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berger W. Glimmer: how design can transform your life, your business, and maybe even the world. Toronto, ON: Random House Canada; 2009.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brown T. Change by design. New York, NY: Harper Collins; 2009.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kelley T. The ten faces of innovation: IDEO’s strategies for defeating the devil’s advocate and driving creativity throughout your organization. New York, NY: Doubleday; 2005.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martin R. The design of business: why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thackara J. In the bubble: designing in a complex world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sawyer RK. Social emergence: societies as complex systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coyne R. Wicked problems revisited. Des Stud. 2005;26(1):5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ambrose G, Harris P. Basics design: design thinking. West Sussex: Ava Publishing; 2010.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Barnwell M. Design, creativity and culture: an orientation to design. London: Black Dog Publishers; 2011.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baston CD, et al. Empathy and attitudes: can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? J Personal Soc Psychol. 1997;72(1):105–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ickes W. Empathic accuracy. J Personal. 1993;61(4):587–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stephan WG, Finlay K. The role of empathy in improving intergroup relations. J Soc Issues. 1999;55(4):729–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Buxton W. Sketching user experiences: getting the design right and the right design. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann; 2009.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wurman RS. Information anxiety 2. Indianapolis, IN: QUE; 2001.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baty S. Solving complex problems through design. Interactions. 2010;17(5):70–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Innes JE, Booher DE. Planning with complexity: an introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. London: Routledge; 2010.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sawyer RK. Explaining creativity: the science of human innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sawyer RK. Group genius: the creative power of collaboration. New York, NY: Basic Books; 2008.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Coveney P, Highfield R. Frontiers of complexity: the search for order in a chaotic world. New York, NY: Random House; 1995.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Miller JH, Page SE. Complex adaptive systems: an introduction to computational models of social life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Deshpande A, Jadad A. Web 2.0: could it help move the health system into the 21st century? J Mens Health Gend. 2006;3:332–6.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Seeman N. Web 2.0 and chronic illness: new horizons, new opportunities. Healthc Q. 2008;11(1):104.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cisco Systems. Cisco virtual networking index: global mobile data traffic forecast update 2010–2015. Cisco Systems: San Jose, CA; 2011.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ling R, Stald G. Mobile communities: are we talking about a village, a clan, or a small group? Am Behav Sci. 2010;53(8):1133–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ling R. New tech, new ties: how mobile communication is reshaping social cohesion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Norman CD, et al. Designing health innovation networks using complexity science and systems thinking: the CoNEKTR Model. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;16(5):1016–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wenger E. Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wenger E, Snyder W. Communities of practice: the organizational frontier. Harv Bus Rev. 2000;78(1):139–45.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Li L, et al. Evolution of Wenger’s concept of community of practice. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Norman CD, Huerta T. Knowledge transfer & exchange through social networks: building foundations for a community of practice within tobacco control. Implement Sci. 2006;1(1):20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ho K, et al. Electronic communities of practice: guidelines from a project. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2010;30(2):139–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Owen H. Open space technology: a user’s guide. New York, NY: Berrett-Koehler; 1997.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Brown J. The World Cafe: shaping our futures through conversations that matter. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler; 2005.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Crossett L, Kraus JR, Lawson S. Collaborative tools used to organize a library camp unconference. Collab Librariansh. 2009;1(2):66–9.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Greenhill K, Wiebrands C. The unconference: a new model for better professional communication, in LIANZA Conference Papers 2008. Auckland, NZ: Lianza; 2008. p. 1–18.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tapscott D, Williams AD. Wikinomics: how mass collaboration changes everything. Toronto, ON: Portfolio/Penguin; 2007.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Howe J. Crowdsourcing: why the future of the crowd is driving the future of business. New York, NY: Crown Business Publishing; 2008.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Surowiecki J. The wisdom of crowds. New York, NY: Doubleday; 2004.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gloor PA. Swarm creativity: competitive advantage through collaborative innovation networks. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Aral S, van Alstyne M (2009) Networks and novel information: the diversity–bandwidth tradeoff, in Workshop on Information in Networks (WIN). New York, NY; 2009.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Skinner HA, Maley O, Norman CD. Developing Internet-based eHealth promotion programs: the spiral technology action research (STAR) model. Heal Promot Pract. 2006;7(4):406–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Smith WA. The meaning of Conscientizacao: the Goal of Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Centre for International Education; 1976.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wallerstein N, Sanchez-Merki V. Freirian praxis in health education: research results from an adolescent prevention program. Heal Educ Res. 1994;9(1):105–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lawson B. How designers think: the design process demystified. Amsterdam, NL: Architectural Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sanger J. Seven types of creativity: looking for insights in data analysis. Br Educ Res J. 1994;20(2):175–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Stickdorn M, Schneider J, editors. This is service design thinking. Amsterdam, NL: BIS Publishers; 2011.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Surman M, Weshler-Henry D. Common space: beyond virtual community. Toronto, ON: Pearson – Financial Times; 2001.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Patton MQ. Utilization-focused evaluation. 4th ed. Los Angeles, CA; 2008.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Patton MQ. Developmental evaluation: applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Israel BA, et al. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Palo Alto, CA, USA. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:173–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Patton MQ. Developmental evaluation. Eval Pract. 1994;15(3):311–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Westley F, Zimmerman B, Patton M. Getting to maybe: how the world is changed. Toronto, ON: Random House Canada; 2006.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Argyris C, Putnam R, Smith D. Action science: concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1985.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Stringer ET. Action research: a handbook for practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1996.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Whyte WF. Participatory action research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Best A, Hiatt RA, Norman CD. Knowledge integration: conceptualizing communications in cancer control systems. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;71(3):319–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Best A, et al. Systems thinking for knowledge integration: new models for policy-research collaboration. In: McKee L, Ferlie E, Hyde P, editors. Organizing and reorganizing: power and change in health care organizations. Houndsmill: Palgrave McMillan; 2008. p. 154–66.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kerner JF. Knowledge translation versus knowledge integration: a “funders” perspective. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Oldenburg B, Parcel GS. Diffusion of innovations. In: Rimer BK, Lewis FM, Glanz K, editors. Health behavior and heath education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2002.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. New York, NY: Free Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Small ML. Unanticipated gains: origins of network inequality in everyday life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Shirky C. Here comes everybody: the power of organizing without organizations. New York, NY: Penguin; 2009.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Halamka J, et al. Exchanging health information: local distribution, national coordination. Heal Aff. 2005;24(5):1170–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dalla Lana School of Public HealthUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.CENSE Research + DesignTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations