Introduction
Saskia Rysenbry, School Curator and Abdul Dube, School Collaborative Partner, co-stewarded Visualising the Field of Systems Practice - phase three of our inquiry into the wider field of systems change. This project set out to make visible the diverse, often under-recognised landscape of systems change practice across the world. What began as a mapping exercise evolved into a deeper, dialogue-based exploration of how systems change work shows up across contexts, regions, and practices.
It began with questions: What does the global field of systems practice look like? Who is doing the work? How does systems change work showing up in different contexts? These questions evolved into a collaborative effort with community curators, systems practitioners, and network conveners to challenge prevailing (largely Western) definitions and the fragmented nature of the systems change field.
A Brief History of the Project
- Phase One - making networks visible (2020): Started with a peer-nominated Kumu map of 40–50 systems practitioners, visualising early networks and sparking interest in how the field sees itself.
- Phase Two - exploring affinities through language and work (2021–2022): Collaborated with Eric and Vibrant Data Labs and mapping 400+ practitioners by language affinities from public data, surfacing key themes and patterns - but also biases toward Global North communities and narratives.
- Phase Three - nurturing dialogue and gaining insights on field building (2022–2024): Recognising the limits of earlier phases, we collaborated with community curators to identify and connect with systems practitioners in India, South Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central & South America. This phase introduced a new layer of mapping systems change resources, expanded the map to over 700 practitioners and 120 resources, and included co-hosted sessions to explore emerging networks and shared learning.
- Phase Four - deepening engagement and supporting field building (see more under Phase Four: Supporting Regional Change Ecosystems)
Patterns Across the Field
When we look at the data, a few strong themes stand out. Half of the systems practitioners on the map describe their work in terms of:
- Organisational and leadership development (15%)
- Multi-stakeholder collaboration and facilitation (13%)
- Equity and systemic change (11%)
- Engaging with complexity and systems thinking (11%)
But when we zoom into specific regions, patterns and priorities emerge - revealing how systems practice is shaped by context. While each regional cluster represents a smaller subset of the whole, the data offers a valuable doorway into understanding how systems change work is being articulated and expressed in different places.
- In India, which accounts for around 10% of the global dataset, the strongest theme is systems change and equity (20%). This is followed by complexity and systems thinking (12%), community engagement and leadership development (12%), and clusters around social justice (9%) and international development (9%). While the sample is relatively small, these patterns point to a practice landscape that is engaged with structural change, justice, and leadership, and working within the development sector.
- In Southeast Asia, the top theme by far is design thinking and social innovation (34%), with a strong current of stakeholder collaboration (28%). This might suggest a landscape shaped by innovation, co-creation, and entrepreneurial approaches to systems work.
- In Africa, leadership and organisational development emerge as the strongest theme (25%), followed by international development, capacity building, and social innovation. These patterns might reflect a focus on building infrastructure and strengthening local capacity to support systemic change across diverse contexts. Much of this work is shaped by operating within and alongside the development and social innovation sectors.
The resources curated in the map surface slightly different patterns. The most common themes are collaborative and collective action (39%), working with complexity and systems thinking (28%), and equity and systemic change (15%). Rather than reflecting practice as seen through the practitioner mapping, these themes reveal the dominant language used to describe what counts as “systems change” in publicly available resources. In doing so, they highlight a gap between the lived, often unseen work of practitioners and the formalised language that tends to shape visibility in the field.
Working with Community Curators
In India, Hansika surfaced gaps in regional representation and the siloed nature of many practitioners. She reflected that while many in India don’t identify their work as “systems change,” the mapping process helped surface parallel, intuitive practices and revealed a strong appetite for deeper engagement in the field. She noted that existing frameworks and tools often fall short in culturally specific contexts, highlighting the need for co-created, contextually rooted resources and more relational approaches to field building.
In Southeast Asia, Stephanie described a disconnect between Western-origin systems models and lived experience. She emphasised the need for stories and frameworks that emerge from within communities, not ones imposed from outside. She reflected that the project revealed not just connections, but a deeper question of how people gather around transformational learning and hold those spaces. Culture plays a vital role in shaping systems “it irrigates through the ways in which people relate to each other” and future work must centre local knowledge, relationships, and context-specific approaches.
In South Africa, Nicole supported sensemaking on what systems work looks like in practice and how existing narratives do or don’t reflect that reality. She noted that a lot of impactful work happens outside Western frameworks and professional platforms, making it less visible, and that the language often used in systems change can miss the lived realities of those working in rural or marginalised contexts. What stands out in South Africa is the diversity and complexity of contexts and approaches, and Nicole reflected on how to better honour and recognise them.
As we worked with curators across these regions several key themes emerged:
- Practitioners are often isolated working without access to shared language, frameworks, or communities of practice, there is a strong appetite for deeper engagement
- Context and story are central - metaphors like the iceberg model or XX often felt abstract or culturally irrelevant. There is a growing call for models and resources that are rooted in local cosmologies, mythologies, and contexts - ones that speak the language of place and honour different ways of knowing.
- The map became a tool for dialogue - to spark conversation, supporting workshops where practitioners explored shared language and considered how they might contribute to strengthening local change ecosystems.
The Role and Limits of Technology
The technical aspects of the mapping continued to evolve alongside the community work. AI was used to group bios, identify themes, and create connections between points - on semantic similarities in how people described themselves. This part was how the field helped to see itself, rather than imposing external limits.
Yet these technological tools, however advanced, could not escape the constraints of their inputs. The map remained visible only toward English-speaking, digitally visible practitioners. While improvements in scraping and clustering made the data more flexible, it was the community curators, the facilitated sessions, the storytelling, that brought in the human layer.
We found that mapping was most powerful when used not as a standalone tool, but as a way to hold collective inquiry. In sessions in India, for example, the map was used to provoke discussion about shared challenges and missing voices. Participants reflected on how systems change language shows up (or doesn’t) in different places, and what metaphors might better serve their work. These reflections, in turn, began to shape new ideas for regionally grounded learning resources and facilitation tools.
What We've Learnt
The first phase of Visualising the Field was about making networks visible and sparking the interest in mapping the field, the second was about exploring networks through language and work, and this phase focused on nurturing dialogue, strengthening ecosystems, and gaining insights on local field building. We have learnt that:
- systems practice is shaped by context
- there is a gap between the lived, often unseen work of practitioners and the formalised language that tends to shape visibility in the field
- There is strong appetite for deeper engagement in the field - as they often feel isolated
- whilst ensuring that the process is designed for culturally specific contexts, highlighting the need for co-created, contextually rooted resources and more relational approaches to field building
Phase Four: Supporting Regional Change Ecosystems
What we’re exploring through phase 4 is how these insights can support laying the groundwork to strengthen local and regional change ecosystems. Our ambition is to sustain and deepen our partnerships with community curators across four regions. Our vision is to continue enriching the field through:
- Facilitated dialogue spaces that use mapping as a tool for collective inquiry
- Convening regional field retreats to find the potential as an ecosystem to work together towards advancing communities of systemic practice
- Co-created learning resources rooted in local stories and practices
- Communities of practice that explore shared language, strengthen local change ecosystems and seek to cultivate capacity and capability further (if required)
This work is part of a broader effort to loosen the dominance of Western knowledge systems in defining what is valued as systems change knowledge and practice. It’s not just about representing different geographies but about seeking resonance in the field as plural and emergent.
We invite funders, partners, and peers who are committed to field building, narrative change, and systems practice in context to join us in shaping what comes next.
