Search

This paper emerged as a result of Anishinabe and non-Indigenous scholars discussing the basic principles behind systems thinking. By asking the question "what is a system?", we uncovered that our very understanding of what makes a system was vastly different. As scholars working in cross-cultural and inter-cultural environments, these differing worldviews can create systemic challenges in unpacking complex problems. Trans-systemics offers language to unearth these assumptions by the recognition that the dominant, or "loudest", systems are not always the most appropriate or equitable. It goes beyond critical systems thinking to identify that tackling complex problems requires the recognition that there are multiple, overlapping systems and worldviews at play. We identified three key takeaways from Indigenous trans-systemics for socio-ecological systems thinkers: (1) trans-systemics is a call to humility, asking us to critically examine our patterns of thought and behavior; (2) by exploring humility, trans-systemics allows us to move past the autopoiesis of Eurocentric systems thinking to consider interdependence; and (3) to utilize Indigenous trans-systemics, we need to fundamentally reconsider how we understand the systems around us and bring in outside tools and concepts to enact meaningful systems change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Learning the art of any professional practice like engineering design or computer programming is a challenge for students and adds to the complexity of teaching such a technical discipline. Institutional regulations, along with industry expectations, increase the burden on the educator to develop a successful instructional environment. Critical systems thinking provides practitioners, in general, with a framework for understanding interrelation and complexities in a variety of problem situations. The art of systems thinking requires discourse on both the interdependencies, and multiple perspectives present in a problem situation. However, little guidance exists for educators in applying the concepts of critical systems thinking in their everyday practice of teaching a professional practice module at university level. This paper suggests a methodology based on action research and critical systems thinking concepts, to incorporate the art of systems thinking in the teaching of a professional practice module. The phases of action research are described from the critical systems perspective of Ulrich, in order to provide guidelines for an educator to embrace the complexity of professional practice education. Programming is used as a demonstration of the proposed methodology. The methodology incorporates systems thinking aspects such as the totality of conditioned realities, boundary critique, and acting as a witness sensitive to polemical argumentation on behalf of the affected. It demonstrates how Ulrich's approach involves - and respects - all stakeholders in a system and guides the individual educator to excel in teaching a professional practice module. By making a conscious effort to listen to the affected and to incorporate as many conditioned realities as possible, the educator should be able to improve student engagement, resulting in better skills. We provide a demonstration of the art of teaching a professional practice module methodology which enables the educator to develop the programming skills of students in a complex environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper contributes to the development of a problem-structuring method for exploring sustainability opportunities in systems. It presents a case of designing the plane while flying it, using an action research methodology to develop the Sustainability Opportunity Study over a period of 2 years. The problem-structuring method was applied and developed in the context of a research and development network for improving sustainability of housing in East Africa through alternative binders in block-based building. The resulting method consists of the three main stages Diagnosing, Analysing, Solving, where activities are informed by critical systems thinking and insights derived from experience and reflections from the case. The method uses different types of workshops to derive specific project proposals for further implementation and realisation of the identified sustainability opportunities. Results also suggest four types of evaluation of the Sustainability Opportunity Study based on the main focus of the intervention: Focus on effectiveness (number of relevant project proposals), focus on creating shared understanding (perceived learning among participants), focus on ensuring fairness (level of engagement among marginalized stakeholders), or focus on commitment to Critical Systems Thinking (breadth and depth in Diagnosing, Analysing and Solving). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In pursuit of global sustainable value creation, the conceptual ambiguity inherent in sustainability poses a challenge for goal-seeking problem-solvers. This paper addresses this challenge by introducing a typology for distinguishing among nine types of sustainability challenges that could be faced in systemic intervention. To navigate the complexity and vagueness inherent in sustainability, the Space of Challenges (SOC) is utilized as a tool for second-order systems thinking, grounded in the fundamentals of critical systems thinking. The paper aims to support system thinkers seeking to organise a systemic intervention for improved sustainability performance of systems. The support is developed to contribute to the alignment of sustainability challenges with suitable systems methodologies in multimethodological systemic interventions. A typology is proposed to differentiate sustainability challenges, and then integrated with the Cynefin sense-making framework to categorise challenges as simple, complicated or complex. The Space of Challenges framework is then applied to a case of sustainable housing in East Africa exploring alternative binders in block-based building, to highlight the differences among the nine types of proposed sustainability challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes an action research study where the researcher developed and tested an alternative business requirements elicitation approach that enables reflection on business intelligence business requirements from a social/organisational perspective and, accordingly, surfaces user-centric requirements that support development of systems that are technically good and effectuate organisational improvement. It is based on critical systems heuristics, a framework that facilitates participative discourse to surface contributing and consequential factors of a planned social system, i.e. relevant sources of motivation; expertise; inflicting and controlling boundaries; and sources of moral and political justification acting as guardians for all that will be impacted upon by the adjusted social reality caused by the new system. Such an approach is valuable to developers of business intelligence systems; it complements traditional requirements gathering approaches. Present-day organisations require efficacious decision-making capabilities to succeed—business intelligence systems enable efficacious decisions. However, business intelligence systems often fail, at great expenses to organisations. They fail due to social/organisational infeasibility, rather than technical insufficiency; they fail when developers lack adequate understanding of users' business requirements. Appropriate business requirement specifications entail more than definitions of functional, non-functional and technical attributes of new systems. Business requirements must also capture the social/organisational context of a system, i.e. the impact that it will inevitably have on users and the organisational environment, so as to ensure that it ultimately bring about improvement. The approach developed in this study enables elicitation of user-centric business requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper attempts to build a conceptual framework for community engagement in micro-insurance scheme design and deployment. The framework is founded on critical systems thinking literature that introduces the characteristics of openness, flexibility, and agility. The authors have focused on a community-led micro-insurance model, where the nature of the engagement itself underpins the success or failure of a scheme, due to their very nature of operations. Select systems thinking tools are introduced to better understand issues that arise in enhancing community engagement and flexibility, both of which are regarded as a critical aspect in the development of micro-insurance schemes. Reference and learning are drawn from an on-ground scheme in India implemented by the Micro Insurance Academy. The second author of this paper was the lead for this scheme. This is a proposed framework and is yet to be tested on ground. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organizational management often faces complex problem contexts, requiring intervention for improvement. Many intervention approaches exist to achieve a purpose in real world applications. Each intervention approach was developed with a specific world view (weltanschauung), dictating its methods and purpose. In a complex problem context, a single intervention approach is insufficient to address all challenges faced. Combining multiple intervention approaches, bringing differing perspectives, facilitates holistic action. Several methodologies have been developed to combine multiple perspectives, including soft systems methodology (SSM), total systems intervention (TSI), creative design of methods (CDM), and boundary critique. Each of these methods has strengths and weaknesses. A barrier to their use in organizations is the requirement for systems thinking education. This paper presents a framework for defining and selecting approaches for intervention in complex problem contexts. It also provides a method for utilizing this framework to design holistic and effective interventions. A case study is discussed, where the proposed framework and method are applied to a small non-profit service organization that performs knowledge-based work in a dynamic environment. The proposed framework and application method are presented through (1) description of the need, (2) review of contributing literature, (3) presentation of the framework, (4) description of the method, and (5) illustration in the case study organization. Limitations, future development, and scope of applications of the proposed framework and method are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes an action research study where the business requirements analysis approach of a business intelligence development project was enriched. Critical systems heuristics, a critical systems methodology that is positioned in the critical systems thinking paradigm, was applied to surface the inherently conflicting views and visions (however unknown to them) that the various stakeholders had regarding a new business intelligence system and its underlying business process. It therefore enabled surfacing of human/cultural and organisational issues that would have negatively affected the adoption of the new system; these were successfully resolved. Accordingly, the various stakeholders reflected on their real requirements that constituted improvement, rather than mere automation, of a business process; it ultimately resulted in a successful new business intelligence system that realised business benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Critical systems thinking (CST) and community based participatory research (CBPR) are distinct approaches to inquiry which share a primary commitment to holism and human emancipation, as well as common grounding in critical theory and emancipatory and pragmatic philosophy. This paper explores their intersections and complements on a historical, philosophical, and theoretical level, and then proposes a hybrid approach achieved by applying CBPR's principles and considerations for operationalizing emancipatory practice to traditional systems thinking frameworks and practices. This hybrid approach is illustrated in practice with examples drawn from of the implementation of the learning organization model in an action research setting with the Autistic community. Our experience of being able to actively attend to, and continuously equalize, power relations within an organizational framework that otherwise has great potential for reinforcing power inequity suggests CBPR's principles and considerations for operationalizing emancipatory practice could be useful in CST settings, and CST's vocabulary, methods, and clarity around systems thinking concepts could be valuable to CBPR practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to demonstrate how project-based learning can be used from a critical systems perspective in data warehousing education. Data warehousing is a discipline in information technology focusing on providing data-driven decision support systems for strategic decision making. In this study we used action research from a critical (emancipative) perspective to reflect on our current instructional design of the data warehousing module before redesigning it to better serve the needs of the involved and affected. We used critical systems heuristics and project-based learning as frameworks of understanding to guide our intervention. Project-based learning is a learning/teaching approach aimed at organising the learning experience in terms of a project. We used written interpretive interviews in the diagnosis and evaluation of success phases of our action research cycle. Our reflection is according to the action research model of Checkland reflecting on our success in the area of application (data warehousing instruction) as well as our methodology (action research from a critical social theory perspective) and our framework of ideas (project-based learning and critical social heuristics). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Faced with the common problem of dissatisfaction with the outcome of investments in information systems (IS), the IS community has long sought ways to improve information systems development (ISD). This paper reports on action research (AR) that sought to improve the effectiveness a UK university's student record system (SRS), which had exhibited persistent problems. Critical systems thinking (CST) is seen to have value for ISD and was used to guide the AR. In the first stage of this research, the issues with the initial design of the SRS were identified to have largely resulted from insufficient elicitation of the underlying assumptions about, and perspectives on, complex organisational issues. The second stage centred on examining the situation from an 'ought' perspective analysing what should be done and how, in order to develop creative solutions to the problems uncovered. The third stage involved recommending solutions to address the problems identified in order to improve the effectiveness of the SRS. Overall, the AR indicates that CST enables those involved to view the design and implementation of the SRS as a holistic system, critically reflect upon broad and complex human, technological and organisational issues from different perspectives, and thereby identify creative solutions. The main contribution of this research is in generating support for an ISD intervention guided by CST. The results of, and the understanding developed from, this intervention are likely to be relevant to the problems that frequently occur in similar situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Throughout the development sector, there is increasing recognition of links between the environment and aspects of development such as poverty alleviation, health, income generation, and agriculture. While furnished with a diverse range of perspectives and approaches, development practice is in need of ways to better conceptualize the interactions between the social, environmental, and economic dimensions of sustainability so that opportunities for simultaneous improvement in human and ecological well-being can be identified more readily. Critical systems thinking is proposed as a way for development practitioners to conceptualize and act toward the integration of these economic, social, and environmental dimensions and, in so doing, support communities to nurture both human and ecosystem well-being. Four desirable attributes of a critical systems thinking approach to development are identified based on development literature, critical systems literature, and the author's research into sustainability in semi-rural communities in Vietnam. The four attributes are 'a systems thinking approach;' 'an ethical base to action and choices;' 'critical reflection permeates processes;' and 'appreciation of diverse views and application of diverse approaches.' These attributes are described and then offered as the basis for further discussion of the ways in which simultaneous improvement of human well-being and ecosystem health can become an integral part of development practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research under way by this author seeks to return to von Bertalanffy's philosophical deliberations believing that they can provide an input which is as yet untapped and which provides a journey through phenomenological and existential ideas. The motivation for the research stems from three interlinked areas. First, in examining the beginnings of Critical Systems Thinking, a justification is found for its embrace of diverse inputs which began with Critical Theory and Habermas. A main conclusion is that any diversity must have one thing in common: it must not violate systemicity. This leads to an examination of the initial Habermasian incorporation, where one finds that a question which directly leads Critical Systems Thinking to consider critical awareness, social awareness, and human emancipation remains unanswered. An answer is provided, but this answer comes from an as yet untapped source in the field, the work of Jean-Paul Sartre. The appearance of Sartre in providing what is deemed to be an important answer begs the further question of whether he can inform Critical Systems Thinking without violating systemicity. A return to von Bertalanffy, in the third section, shows that no such violation is pending since a reading of his philosophical deliberations paves the way for an input from Sartre, first through the phenomenological tradition and then through its existential variant. In the process, the systemic nature of both Sartre's approach and ethical concerns unfolds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper, the second in a “duology” reporting on an action research project about public health services in Venezuela, presents a narrative of an intervention process launched on the basis of the conceptual framework presented in the first paper of the “duology.” Thereafter, a deeper reflection on such process, its meaning and its historical possibilities is presented. In this way a cycle of research-action-research is completed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the first of a “duology” of articles reporting on an action research project about public health services in Venezuela. This first paper presents a summary of a conceptual framework from which a process of intervention was launched. The second paper, which follows immediately in this special issue, presents a narrative of the intervention process and a final discussion about it. The conceptual framework is constituted by two types of interpretive models of the role of the state concerning health services. On the one hand, four “logical” interpretive models are summarized. They correspond to four theories about the socioeconomic mission of the state in a modern society. Different thematic interpretations concerning the role of the state in health services are derived from such general missions. On the other hand, two different and, to a certain degree, opposed “historical” interpretive models about the present Venezuelan socioeconomic-political situation and their corresponding power structures are outlined. The four “logical” interpretive models are discussed in the light of the two “historical” models in terms of desirable and feasible courses of political action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systems thinking is presented as the antithesis of 'reductionism.' This article-the first in a trilogy which intends to present an ontoepistemological foundation for interpretive systemology-is concerned with understanding the ontoepistemological roots of reductionism. The immediate purpose of such an understanding is to provide an interpretive contrasting context (a counter-ontoepistemology) against which an ontoepistemology for systems thinking can dialectically be drawn (the second and third papers in the trilogy published in this issue of Systems Practice). The inquiry into the ontoepistemological roots of reductionism leads to the principle of noncontradiction. Such a principle is shown to be the source of the merging together the most fundamental ontological and epistemological principles ruling Western thought. As such, they are shown to have brought about reductionism in modern science. Finally, the 'form of essential recursiveness' is put forward as a logical antithetical form with regard to the principle of noncontradiction and which will serve as a logical instrument for developing an ontoepistemology for the systems approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this introductory paper to the special issue of Systems Practice devoted to Interpretive Systemology, some of the conditions under which this trend in systems thinking has come to life are briefly depicted. For that purpose a 'wider' and a 'narrower' scene are presented. The 'wider scene' presents the general questions and problems that are to be tackled by Interpretive Systemology, within a wide international perspective of systems thinking and practice. The narrower scene, which is related to more particular conditions, shows how some circumstances connected to the socalled 'Third World' or 'underdeveloped' countries have helped to trigger the launching of Interpretive Systemology. Finally, a brief outline of the research program for Interpretive Systemology is introduced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Both an ontoepistemology for reductionist modern science (counter-ontoepistemology) and an ontology for interpretive Systemology have been outlined in the two preceding papers in this special issue of Systems Practice. In the present article, the notion of 'truth' is interpreted in terms of both the ontoepistemology of 'reductionism' and the ontology of interpretive systemology. Both interpretations are discussed. Such a discussion represents the objective of this paper, that is, to outline the epistemological 'face' of the ontoepistemology of interpretive systemology. In order to design that 'epistemological face,' the relation between ontology and epistemology must be clarified. Such a relation is seen from the standpoint already provided by the ontology. After the discussion on the notion of truth, the general shape of a systemic-interpretive inquiring process is outlined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the second article in a trilogy. In the preceding paper, an ontoepistemology for reductionism was presented. It thus constituted a contrasting counter-ontoepistemology for the systems approach. The present article is devoted to outlining an ontoepistemology for the systems approach which, in contrast with the former counter-ontoepistemology, can explain wholeness. Such an outline is organized around the description of the essentially dynamic structure of an everyday-living situation, so that the holistic character of what-ever-is-the-case may be put forward. The discussion concerning the structure of an everyday-living situation is performed under a phenomenological approach. Thus, the paper begins by presenting a very brief introduction to phenomenology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the first exposition of a new methodology (or perhaps meta-methodology) for systems practice known as Total Systems Intervention (TSI). Designed to overcome the weaknesses of hard, cybernetic, and soft systems approaches and build on their strengths, TSI represents a practical face of critical systems thinking. It advocates combining three building blocks-systems metaphors, 'system of systems methodologies,' and individual systems methodologies-in an interactive manner which is deemed to be particularly powerful and fruitful. In this paper the philosophy, principles, and phases of the TSI methodology are set out and two very different examples of its use are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Critical systems thinking is a relative newcomer in the systems tradition of thought. Nevertheless, it has already made a number of significant contributions to the field and is now developing more quickly than any other part of systems thinking. The paper charts the origins and nature of this evolving, critical systems, body of work. The author's own impressions of its development are first set out. This helps establish that critical systems thinking has come to rest upon five 'commitments' which define its essential character. These commitments are then used to classify the published literature associated with critical systems thinking. The result is a review of the origins and nature of critical systems thinking up to 1990. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is the first in a trilogy which intends to discuss the notion of critique within two different contexts: Modern Western Philosophy and Contemporary Systems Thinking. This first paper presents a phenomenological inquiry into the concept of 'critique.' The result of the inquiry is a model of the possibilities of critique which is used to interpret four 'moments' of critique in Modern Western Philosophy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper unpeels two influential contributions to modern systems thinking, Beer's viable system model (VSM) and Checkland's soft systems methodology (SSM), and finds inside a critical kernel. It is argued, indeed, that these approaches become coherent only when liberated from their regulative shells and interpreted from the critical position. So much does the critical kernel lie at the very heart of modern systems thinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historical processes entailing power, ideology, and social control in sociocultural systems have been given scant attention in the literature of systems theory. Preference has instead been given to naturalistic accounts of systems behavior, using either 'hard' or 'soft' systems models. This paper argues that unless an account of systems stability and change is sought in the conscious actions of humans as makers or victims of history, no valid explanation of constancy and change, insofar as sociocultural systems are concerned, is likely to ensue from the current preoccupation with functionalist and even interpretive approaches. The argument is developed by examining the concepts of power and ideology, concepts which, borrowing Steven Lukes' aptly descriptive words, are 'ineradically evaluative and essentially contested' but which, nevertheless, emerge jointly as the essential motif for any kind of social stability and change, be it conservative, reactionary, reformist, or radical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Third World agricultural research of household-managed production units, the systems approach is applied in the form of Farming Systems Research (FSR). Several authors reviewed here have criticized the way in which this is done. It appears that most of them neglect the fact that most FSR belongs to the 'hard' systems approach. The problem context (the household production unit and its surrounding socioeconomic system), however, consists of sense-giving subjects, which have conflicting goals and interests. Their thinking and behavior are determined largely by power relations. Therefore, in FSR, the hard systems approach should be discarded and a critical alternative approach should be developed instead. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inquirers explore situations from their own Weltanschauung and model them through a paradigm. A relationship between Weltanschauung and the paradigm is explored, as is that between paradigms and situations. Within the context of Critical Systems Thinking, exploration of how paradigms and their coordination, and thus the methodologies that they entertain, can be used within the action of complementarism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systems science is characterised by a huge diversity of theories and practical applications which have arisen since its inception. Each of these theories and ways of practising systems science has legitimate claims for its ability to handle certain kinds of systems problems. Dealing with this diversity can be seen as a critical issue for systems thinking and practice. One approach to handling this rich diversity has been to attempt to capture it in frameworks which align features and positions in a 'complementarist' fashion. By reviewing work undertaken by systems thinkers who have advocated such a stance, it will be demonstrated that complementarism has its faults, and can be perceived as an imperialist strategy. A route out of the impasse will be suggested through the use of a form of discordant pluralism, which, if taken up, has the potential for bringing together conflicting perspectives in a new constellation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper suggests one way of managing plurality of theories and methodologies and ways of operationalising them. It suggests that the management of options needs to be linked to a process of reflexive consciousness. Reflexive consciousness operates by recognising that choices of theoretical and methodological commitment have to be made for the purposes of action. Awareness of the provisional and partial nature of choices is key to the management of options. Choice-making is marked by an awareness of the way in which the facility for judgement has been exercised. This includes considering how judgements may be accounted for in the light of alternative choices. Informed awareness means taking into account theoretical debates that may be brought to bear in facilitating an appreciation of methodologies and possible operationalisations of them. It also means taking into account matters of contemporary concern (specialist or popular) raised in the process of social debate. Our argument is detailed through an explication of what we call diversity management and triple loop learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Critical Systems Thinking is an approach which aims at providing a coherent platform to guide systems practitioners through the numerous systems paradigms and systems methodologies currently available. However, it claims not only that it can provide an efficient way for choosing the appropriate methodology based on proper understanding of their strengths and weaknesses, but also that it is grounded within a commitment to critique, complementarism, and emancipation. Furthermore, it has claimed to be deeply rooted in the ideas of Habermas and Foucault. Considering recent research in Foucault's philosophy, this paper attempts to provide of CST a critical examination which can be extended to other areas of the management and systems sciences. In the context of this examination, the conclusion has been reached that CST has at least two options. The first is to redefine itself as a demystification process (of cherished concepts such as emancipation, complementarism, intervention and so on), if it wants to remain somehow 'inspired' by Critical Theory. The second one is to redefine its 'critical' claims so as to become aligned with managerial activities such as business consultancy and intervention, openly acknowledging an application of Critical Theory that is instrumental, if such an influence indeed exists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper traces the levels of understanding based on which three development-planning exercises were carried out in a microwatershed in the South Indian State of Kerala: the first by a governmental department and the other two by a nongovernmental organization. The microwatershed is considered here as a natural-cultural system. The authors identify three levels of understanding: the first level influenced by a technological solution, the second one by certain methods, and the third by the ideological viewpoints. The authors argue for a critical understanding of the ideological viewpoints implicit at the third level. This argument, based on the experience of the case study, derives strength from the developments in Critical Systems Perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Total systems intervention (TSI) is a meta-methodology which interprets and brings into action a range of problem solving methodologies, viewing problem solving as a process of intervention where practitioners can learn about and manage complex interacting issues. When first presented, TSI was the framework that evolved from one of many possible operationalisations of critical systems thinking. From these beginnings, TSI (as one practical implementation of the principles of CST) now continues its development into a methodology for use by problem solvers in all situations, not just the organisational-enterprise setting. This paper presents a detailed operationalisation of the critical review mode, the framework of which may also be of use in the operationalisation of the other modes in TSI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A typology of power is presented. The typology guides researchers/practitioners to the main concerns currently debated about power and its abuses. Possible ways of managing organisational issues explicitly dealing with power and abuses are explored. The typology forms three arenas of discourse to make this possible: structuralism, intersubjective decision making, and might-right management. Structuralism deals with issues surrounding organisational design and process design. Intersubjective decision making deals with issues surrounding processes of debate. Might-right management deals with issues surrounding disempowering social practices that impact on designing and debating. The arenas of discourse suggest ways, that differ, of understanding and managing a range of issues related to the operation of power. This is part of a wider project called Diversity Management, which in turn is part of Critical Systems Thinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to review recent developments in critical theory on the political function of the public sphere and the emancipatory potential of new social movements. This work is shown to be relevant to systemic decisions made under conditions of public conflict. Normative models for the self-understanding of actors engaged in self-limiting emancipatory struggles in modern societies are reviewed and related to the concerns of Critical Systems Thinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Total Systems Intervention (TSI) as a form of Critical Systems Thinking has been subject to criticism concerning the actual application of its emancipatory commitment. The emancipatory potentials of TSI or other systems-oriented change efforts may possibly be improved through their linkage to employee ethical skill development. Acknowledging a 'strategic twist' in consulting efforts to encourage greater emancipatory practice and a more communicative ethic, an agenda for consultants is suggested to provide incremental emancipatory potentials for organizations with many apparently coercive characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The design of Decision Support Systems (DSS) has become an increasingly complex task, so much so that further significant advances in DSS applications may well require a deeper understanding of the nature of system complexity itself. This paper explores the concept of system complexity and its impact on DSS design from a critical systems perspective angle. Ways of consolidating the various DSS concepts are presented which should lead to more creative and more comprehensive DSS applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is concerned with the development of 'Systems Thinking.' In particular, it considers and critiques 'traditional Systems Thinking' within the framework of Critical Systems Thinking. Before embarking on such a venture it is necessary to derive a base context from which to develop argument and analysis. Therefore the outline of this paper is as follows: A contextual setting for Systems Thinking, Theoretical Considerations, Soft Systems Thinking and Methodology, and A Critical Systems Thinking (CST) approach. The account of the development of Systems Thinking is followed by a synopsis of a theoretical framework for Systems Thinking which will allow us to gain an understanding of contemporary views. The paper then goes on to review SSM and CST in order to provide a platform for a critique of traditional forms of Systems Thinking. The final section briefly discusses the applicability of CST to the 'real-world' context by outlining some current studies being undertaken by the author. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In our zeal to apply models successfully, failures of the model are often overlooked. A model may be used for quite some time before its success is questioned or before the model fails to be applied successfully. Since hierarchy theory has been deemed successful in the systems field, it is necessary and appropriate to critique the development and application of hierarchy theory using the framework presented in Creative Problem Solving (Flood and Jackson, 1992). That framework proposes a critique that uses the four areas of theory, utility, ideology, and methodology in reviewing a systems theory. It is important to examine hierarchy theory through the analytical filter of critical systems thinking if we are genuinely to understand what hierarchy theory has to offer systems thinking in the exploration of complex situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reviews the dominant approaches to the design of decision support systems with reference to recent developments in information technology. The complexities and difficulties of the various developments are also discussed and their implications explored. A multiperspective, systems-based framework is presented which aims to lessen these difficulties. The framework is based on the theory and concepts of critical systems thinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

My intention in this paper is to make sense of the relationship between Action Research (AR) and Critical Systems Thinking (CST). On the surface, the two strands of thinking do not seem to have much in common. There is hardly any common reference in texts written within each tradition. Deeper down, however, there may be common concerns. The point of departure is to focus on how professionals interact with real-world problems and to clarify the underlying values for professional practice. To facilitate a discussion on the relationship between AR and CST, a frame of reference is developed based on analyzing the meaning construction process. Based on this platform, the relationship among theory, practice, and people shapes the ground for the discussion. Within this discussion three questions are raised: (1) Is the theory understood by the people and based on their interests? (2) Are the research questions relevant for the people? and (3) Are people emancipated to act in their own interests? The relationship between AR and CST can be examined based on these three questions. In concluding, I argue for the potential of a mutual and fruitful dialogue between AR and CST. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We probably have simplified matters too much. We tend to talk about systems thinking and practice as if we knew what they are. The fashionable call for 'holistic' or 'systems' thinking in ecological issues provides a major example. This much is certain: the quest for comprehensiveness, although it represents an epistemologically necessary idea, is not realizable. If we assume that it is realizable, the critical idea underlying the quest will be perverted into its opposite, i.e., into a false pretension to superior knowledge and understanding-a danger of which the environmental movement does not always appear to be sufficiently aware. My question, therefore, is this: How can we deal critically with the fact that our thinking, and hence our knowledge, designs, and actions, cannot possibly be comprehensive, in the sense that we never 'comprehend' all that ought to be understood before we pass to judgment and action? What consequences does this fact imply for a critical systems approach to ecological concerns and, ultimately, for our concepts of rationality in general? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is a slightly summarized version of an invited plenary at the Aegean Seminar, which took place at the Greek island of Samos in July 1992. The original title was 'An Interpretive Systemological View of the Issue: 'Environmental Fluctuations and Cultural Change in Island Societies.'' It is an hermeneutical inquiry into the interpretive context that provides full meaning to the issue of Environmental Fluctuations and Cultural Change. The roots of the relationship of causality embedded in such a title are traced so that its underlying ontological assumptions are uncovered. This sort of archaeological inquiry will finally unearth the interpretive context that provides full meaning to such a relationship of causality, namely, neoevolutionary organicism. This theoretical outcome of Modernity embraces natural and social sciences under the aegis of a single way of thinking, feeling, and acting which buries the Enlightenment conception of liberty and its consequent problem of morality and of practical reason. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An examination of Piaget's conception of the source, nature, development, and use of knowledge reveals that his model for the genetic development of human knowledge is cybernetic and self-organizing. Moreover, Piaget presents a model of cognition which is a reflection and extension of autopoietic biological organization; both cognitive and organic systems are seen to exhibit organizational closure and structural plasticity. An action-based intervention method, modeling embedded learning structures as cybernetic, autopoietic systems, may provide insight toward clarifying some theoretical and methodological problems of critical systems thinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is written to accomplish two objectives: first, to introduce the Emery-Trist systems paradigm to the critical systems thinking, a largely neglected and under-utilized paradigm; second using a critical systems thinking framework, to provide a rational justification in an attempt to track the developments in the ETSP so that an extended heuristic map is offered to the scholars interested in the Emery-Trist systems paradigm. Four tracks within ETSP are identified and analyzed to produce a liberation theme that has not previously been articulated. The liberation theme imminent in all four tracks of the paradigm development denotes the value and the promise of the ETSP to the critical systems thinking community as well as to other systems thinkers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emerging descriptions of critical systems thinking (CST) have yet to provide much information on how consultants with such a philosophy should act as potential organizational change agents in actually gaining opportunities to introduce CST applications. Issues of professional activism and advocacy need to be explored in the recommended actions taken by such change agents to challenge the dominant ideology and aspects of a coercive political climate that exists in many organizations. Theory development and the creative potential of CST may be enhanced by its advocates studying related critical theory development in other management and social science subfields. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article describes approaches to rhetorical criticism used in recent years, reviews the Critical Systems perspective, and examines the relevance of Critical Systems to rhetorical criticism. The argument is that rhetorical criticism must advance the position for improving the human condition, not simply advance our understanding of human communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper deals with the need for stakeholders to participate actively in organizations, so that systems methodologies can be applied in a critical fashion with the objective of arousing the emancipatory interest. It discusses the meaning of emancipation in the labor movement tradition and the emergence of the apathy of working people toward it. Critical Systems Thinking is obliged to face this apathy in its attempt to motivate the emancipatory interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The central message of this paper is that methodological pluralism is essential for the continued legitimation of systems science. This statement is supported by a critique of our notion of complexity. Our traditional view of complexity focuses upon the 'natural world' of object relations and thereby excludes complexities of moral decision making and subjectivity. However, we are now beginning to realize that these realms of complexity are not independent of one another. Indeed, our ability to cope adequately with many of the problems we are currently facing, especially global problems, depends on being able to understand the systemic relationships between all three. Interestingly, we find that different methods have evolved to handle the different forms of complexity. Therefore, if our inquiries are going to have any legitimacy in tackling some of the major issues of today, we must indeed embrace methodological pluralism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper focuses on the research strategy that I employed during doctoral studies. An overarching framework of Action Research (AR) was used in the development of a complementary approach to creative studies. At the time of the studies AR seemed to be a “natural” choice and I did not overly concern myself with exploring as to why that was the case. However, I recognize the value of contemplating the appropriateness of research strategy and, in this paper, now reflect on some of the parallel strands implicit in AR and in “critical creativity” that I now realize served to enrich the overall research process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]