[DSRP Evidence](https://dsrpevidence.org/)

# Conceptualizing Systems Thinking in Evaluation

## Details

**Authors** Nowell B

**Year** 2008

**Publisher** Evaluation and Program Planning 31(3):329-331

**Kind of work** article

**Discipline** Systems Science

**Secondary disciplines** Public Policy

**Reading level** intermediate

**Kind of engagement** scholarly

[Read it at the publisher](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.04.007) 
10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.04.007

## In authors' words

### What they set out to do (purpose)

A theoretical analysis of systems thinking as an evaluator competency: how the elemental cognitive patterns relate to purposeful, skilled systems thinking, and what further criteria are needed to judge competence.

### What they found (results)

Nowell concludes that identifying elemental patterns — distinction, system, relationship, perspective — makes conceptualising systems-thinking competency substantially more approachable. But DSRP alone does not define competency, because judging how well someone thinks systemically requires normative criteria.

## Commentary

### In short

Strong theoretical endorsement of the elemental approach, with a normative-competency critique. Nowell sees the identification of elemental patterns of thought as a foundation for defining systems-thinking competencies, while arguing that the elements alone cannot say what counts as good systems thinking — competency involves judgements about relevance, values, assumptions and outcomes.

### In more detail

Nowell takes up the attempt to identify the elemental DNA underlying systems thinking and asks what follows if systems thinking is treated as a skill. She separates having and using the basic cognitive operations from thinking systemically toward a purpose: people necessarily construct schemas by drawing boundaries, selecting concepts, identifying relationships and adopting perspectives, so DSRP-like processes may be fundamental to cognition.

But not every model so constructed is equally useful or accurate. A systems thinker can still miss feedback, draw inappropriate boundaries, choose poor perspectives, or emphasise irrelevant relationships. Judging competency therefore requires deciding which distinctions, systems, relationships and perspectives suit the purpose. DSRP supplies the elemental framework; competency adds a normative layer about quality and relevance.

### Response

Nowell accepts the elemental patterns as a basis for defining systems thinking competency, and argues that the patterns alone cannot say what competent systems thinking is, because competence requires normative criteria. The objection identifies a question the structural claim does not answer.

**Patterns it shows** D, S, R, P

**How to cite this** Nowell B (2008). Conceptualizing Systems Thinking in Evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning 31(3):329-331.