Chapter 20 · Canonical English edition

20. What Counts as a Result in a Living-Systems Method

Functional Systems Facilitation · Dmitry Shamenkov

Section 28 of 53version 1.1 · July 2026Source: Book_OD
← Book contents

20. What Counts as a Result in a Living-Systems Method

Distinguishing a Result from a Side Effect

In the classic biomedical model, the result of treatment is usually described as a change in a specific symptom: “glucose level dropped,” “anxiety decreased on scale X,” “insomnia disappeared.” This is convenient for measurement, for regulatory approvals, for talking with a physician. But it does not always capture what actually happens when you work with a living system.

Suppose a person enters the program with the request “reduce my anxiety,” and a few months later their anxiety really has fallen — but so has much else besides: their sleep has improved, their relationship with their wife has been restored, they took a vacation for the first time in five years, they rethought their business and raised their prices. What here is the “result,” and what is the “side effect”? Single out anxiety alone, and we radically underestimate what happened. Describe all of it, and we are forced to work with a multidimensional picture of change.

That is why, in our work, we use whole quality-of-life scales rather than a single metric — for example, WHOQOL-100 and WHOQOL-BREF, which cover the physical domain, the psychological domain, the level of independence, social relationships, the environment, and the spiritual domain all at once — alongside separate clinical scales for anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-9), stress, and exhaustion. This multidimensionality of measurement is a necessary condition for capturing the multidimensionality of real change.

A Hierarchy of Data

In evaluating a living-systems method, it helps to distinguish three levels of data, each contributing something of its own:

  • Level 1 — direct quantitative data on the method itself. What did validated scales show in the people who went through our program specifically? This is the most specific data, but it is limited by the size of the samples available to us.

  • Level 2 — qualitative data and cross-cutting observations from practice. What do the participants themselves say? Which patterns recur from group to group? What concrete life changes take place? This is data on a larger scale (thousands of people), but less formalized.

  • Level 3 — meta-analytic data on related methods. What do the large meta-analyses show for approaches that draw on mechanisms close to ours (acceptance and commitment therapy, mindfulness-based interventions, group psychotherapy, peer support, gratitude practices)? This is data on hundreds of thousands of participants, and it provides a reliable context for interpreting our own numbers.

Any one of these levels, on its own, would be incomplete. Level 1 speaks specifically, but narrowly. Level 2 speaks broadly, but less formally. Level 3 offers a rigorous quantitative base, but not for our specific method. Taken together, the three levels give a coherent picture in which each complements the others.

A Metaphor

The three levels of data are three lenses through which one and the same reality comes into view. The first is a powerful microscope, resolving a few details with great precision. The second is a wide-angle lens, taking in the whole landscape. The third is a map of the terrain, showing how our landscape sits within a larger whole. No single lens gives the full picture. But together they are the most reliable approximation we can reach today of what the method actually does.