A Boundary Makes a Map: Reflections from building a prototype directory of actors responding to the polycrisis

Read and download the full report here.

Executive Summary

We built a prototype directory of actors responding to polycrisis in the “global south”, consisting of 90 initial organisations and 25 in detail. In this report we describe the process and reflect on the key question of what characterises an “actor responding to the polycrisis”.

Introduction

Context: we wanted to build a directory/mapping

We wanted to create a prototype directory of actors responding to the polycrisis with a focus on actors in the global south. (For a variety of reasons: the reasons for mapping were explored and questioned in detail in our previous report).

However, we don’t have a good definition (yet) of polycrisis and hence of actors responding to a polycrisis

A key question in any mapping or directory is who to include – i.e. what defines the (fuzzy) boundary of the map. Or, conversely, who or what is at the center of the map and what is more on the periphery.

From our interviews with key stakeholders, we had discovered that there was, as yet, limited agreement on what exactly defined a polycrisis even amongst those leading stakeholders. This obviously is also true in terms of defining actors responding to the polycrisis. (For example, is Greenpeace a polycrisis actor? Is WEF a polycrisis actor? etc.) How, then, to proceed?

Our approach: make an initial directory bootstrapped with rough criteria and snowball sampling, then reflect and refine

Given this lack of clear boundary – or a clear center – we decided that the best approach was to get started in some manner or other. Specifically:

• Start with some rough criteria and a snowball sample approach. Our rough criteria were:
  • Intersystemic analysis: seeing issues arising from systemic or intersystemic sources. For example, take malnutrition: one could just see malnutrition as caused by lack of food (not systemic). However, instead an (inter)systemic lens would look at the impact of underlying stressors like climate change or ethnic conflict. Or, for example, seeing ecological crises as linked to certain worldviews and cultural attitudes rather than just, for example, fossil fuel use.
  • Intersystemic action: addressing the problems inter-systemically, i.e. engaged in “paradigmatic” change that aims to transform multiple systems and the worldviews/narratives in which they are rooted.
• Generate the initial directory: We identified more than 90 initial organizations and did detailed desk research on more than 25 to build up an initial directory (available here).
• Reflect on results to refine the “boundary” of the map/directory: this is the contents of this report
• Iterate: (future work beyond the scope of this project) continue this process based on the newly clarified boundary

This report reflects on the question of what organizations are “responding to the polycrisis”

This report is a companion to the main directory. Through creating the directory we came to reflect expansively on the question of what is the “boundary” (or center) of this mapping: i.e. what does it mean for an organization to be “responding to the polycrisis?” Specifically, we examine 6 examples from our full list:

• Summarize what they are up to and key information relevant to our assessments
• Outline - and question - how they demonstrate intersystemic analysis and intersystemic action
• Invite you as the reader to reflect on what you think

Finally, in the concluding discussion we raise some key questions and share a few thoughts on preliminary criteria which could help going forward to address this question of how to assess the connection of a stakeholder with polycrisis response.

Full report

Read and download the full report here.