Can We Change Systems Without Examining Where We Stand?

Can We Change Systems Without Examining Where We Stand?

Melanie Goodchild’s article on Relational Systems Thinking made me reflect on a concept often overlooked in research and sustainability practice: before seeking to understand or change a system, we may need to consider where we stand within it.

Goodchild begins by situating herself in relation to her family, Nation, land, history, and relationships. She presents this not as background separate from the research but as part of how she establishes her responsibilities as a researcher. Her use of the Anishinaabemowin expression Gidinawendimin, “we are all related to each other,” reinforces the idea that knowledge is produced through relationships rather than by an entirely detached observer.

This challenged me to think more carefully about my positionality.

In conventional research, especially quantitative research, we often aim to maintain analytical distance between the researcher and the subject being studied. This distance is valuable: it helps us establish transparent methods, assess evidence consistently, and prevent personal preferences from shaping the results.

But distance should not be confused with having no position at all.

The questions we ask, the variables we measure, the boundaries we set around a system, and even the outcomes we call “success” stem from particular disciplinary, institutional, and social locations. Goodchild’s work reminds us that acknowledging this does not weaken rigorous research. It can make the assumptions underlying the research more visible.

The article develops this argument through Dibaajimowin, a story, and Relational Systems Thinking, which serves as a dynamic interface. Goodchild focuses on what happens where different knowledge traditions meet. Rather than collapsing them into a single framework, she explores how people can work within that complex space without reverting to simple binaries or hierarchies.

I find this relevant to sustainability because sustainability problems rarely fall within a single discipline or a single way of understanding the world. Climate change, energy transitions, water management, conservation, and community development involve scientific evidence, institutions, lived experience, histories, values, relationships, and diverse understandings of responsibility.

The temptation is often to bring these perspectives together and call the result “integration.”

One lesson I draw from Goodchild is the need to be more cautious about that word.

Sometimes the more responsible task is to stay attentive to the interface itself: notice where meanings overlap, where they differ, where translation is possible, and where forcing agreement may erase something important. Her framework seeks to move beyond binary and hierarchical thinking while preserving the complexity of the space between knowledge traditions.

For quantitative research, this raises a question that goes beyond methodological choices or the boundaries represented in systems diagrams:

When defining sustainability problems, it is important to recognize how personal backgrounds, experiences, and assumptions shape what we consider significant and what we may overlook. This requires critical reflection on both the strengths and limitations of one's perspective.

Perhaps reflexivity is not something that comes after the analysis. Perhaps it is part of doing the analysis well.

Goodchild’s article leaves me thinking that systems change may require more than understanding connections among other people, institutions, and environments. It may also require the humility to recognize our own place within those connections.

#RelationalSystemsThinking                   #SystemsThinking

#Sustainability                                            #WaysOfKnowing

#Positionality                                               #IndigenousKnowledge

#ResearchPractice                                        #SustainabilityLeadership