What is often missing in social change models
One of the main reasons I decided to pursue a Doctor of Public Health (DrPH) at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health was its focus on preparing mid-career professionals to lead transformative change in public health systems. The DrPH emphasizes the practice of adaptive leadership, understanding adult development theory and reflexive practice, and creating space for underrepresented voices to be heard, while engaging with the personal, interpersonal, social, and structural dynamics that drive system transformation.
I attach my next favorite visual created by Déline Petrone, the talented graphic scribe at the Salzburg Global Seminar and RWJF’s workshop “Centering on Equity: Transforming the Health Science Knowledge System.” ( https://lnkd.in/dnY4dtFJ )
The image emerged from a discussion we had on what works—and what doesn’t—when creating social change models, inspired by Christina Economos’ key elements for social change, and visualized by Seth Kahan here https://lnkd.in/dVVbaWcG
If you look closely, you’ll notice how the drawing from our discussions highlights the importance of holding space for transformation, framing the challenge while recognizing bias, cultivating collective solidarity, and fostering bottom-up leadership—all while recognizing the role of organizations as implementers of agendas.
However, I believe there are a couple crucial ingredients missing when we talk about systems change:
1️⃣ Understanding historical forces:
Systems are perfectly designed to achieve the outcomes we see today, and often these outcomes reflect long-standing, entrenched dynamics. For example, in the U.S., Native Americans face severe health disparities that stem from historical forces like forced displacement, broken treaties, and systemic neglect by government agencies. These historical injustices disrupted community health structures and access to resources, leading to higher rates of chronic diseases and poor access to healthcare. To change systems, we must first acknowledge why they are the way they are and identify leverage points for transformation.
2️⃣ Recognizing the role of emotion:
Social movements often fall short because they rely too heavily on science-based research without considering how to mobilize people emotionally. While evidence-based recommendations are crucial, they don’t always spark the action needed for social change. If data and facts alone could drive movements, we would have tackled climate change decades ago, and Roe v. Wade might not have been overturned.
Can you think of a successful social movement that didn’t effectively combine science with persuasion and emotion to achieve its goals?