Search

Traditionally, systems thinking support has relied on an ever-increasing plethora of systems tools, methods, and approaches. Arguably though, such support requires something different from, and more accessible than, detailed instruction on somewhat abstract laws and detailed principles and/or constitutive rules associated with conventional systems approaches or systems 'tools of the trade'. For busy managers and decision makers working in often-stressful conditions, what is perhaps more valued are simple principles for enabling systems thinking in practice. Such principles should acknowledge and build on existing (multi)disciplinary skill sets and expertise, allowing for more meaningful interdisciplinary support amongst professions, as part of a nested transdisciplinary support for addressing wider social challenges. This monograph offers three principles of systems thinking in practice (STiP): relational STiP, perspective STiP, and adaptive STiP. They each have two sets of operational principles applicable to first-order and second-order practice, respectively. The three general principles are nested in an overriding principle of STiP as praxis (theory-informed action or thinking in practice) manifest in the need for being both systemic and systematic. The three principles represent a distilled expression of a systematic literacy of systems thinking, a literacy that speaks to the systemic sensibilities of Inter-relationships, Perspectives, and Boundaries (sometimes referred collectively as IPB), associated with any area of intervention. Drawing on metaphors of bricolage, conversation, and performance, and building on philosophical foundations of boundary critique, the three principles provide for a requisite systems literacy (as an emergent property of systemic sensibilities and systems thinking literacy) for enabling appropriate STiP capabilities to flourish when making a meaningful change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traditionally, systems thinking support has relied on an ever-increasing plethora of systems tools, methods, and approaches. Arguably though, such support requires something different from, and more accessible than, detailed instruction on somewhat abstract laws and detailed principles and/or constitutive rules associated with conventional systems approaches or systems ‘tools of the trade’. For busy managers and decision makers working in often-stressful conditions, what is perhaps more valued are simple principles for enabling systems thinking in practice. Such principles should acknowledge and build on existing (multi)disciplinary skill sets and expertise, allowing for more meaningful interdisciplinary support amongst professions, as part of a nested transdisciplinary support for addressing wider social challenges. This monograph offers three principles of systems thinking in practice (STiP): relational STiP, perspective STiP, and adaptive STiP. They each have two sets of operational principles applicable to first-order and second-order practice, respectively. The three general principles are nested in an overriding principle of STiP as praxis (theory-informed action or thinking in practice) manifest in the need for being both systemic and systematic. The three principles represent a distilled expression of a systematic literacy of systems thinking, a literacy that speaks to the systemic sensibilities of Inter-relationships, Perspectives, and Boundaries (sometimes referred collectively as IPB), associated with any area of intervention. Drawing on metaphors of bricolage, conversation, and performance, and building on philosophical foundations of boundary critique, the three principles provide for a requisite systems literacy (as an emergent property of systemic sensibilities and systems thinking literacy) for enabling appropriate STiP capabilities to flourish when making a meaningful change.

Social responsibility issues keep reoccurring despite the popularity of numerous approaches perceived widely as adequate. In this paper, the authors conducted a systematic literature review to explore this phenomenon from a systems thinking standpoint. The findings revealed that each approach is founded on a different systemic paradigm, makes different assumptions on the nature of social responsibility issues, and has different objectives when resolving them. Therefore, employing any of these approaches alone will certainly fail given their underlying systemic limitations. The findings also revealed that these approaches are complementary from a critical systems thinking perspective, hence, researchers and practitioners can use their tools and methods together in the form of tailored interventions to better address efficiency, subjectivity, and fairness when resolving social responsibility issues. This paper concludes by proposing a practical framework based on critical systems practice which encompasses four systemic paradigms allowing the inclusion of a spectrum of perspectives, and assumptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Reflecting on learning from the practical experience in the employment of systems thinking and facilitation to tackle complex, multi‐stakeholder problems in work settings, three interconnected challenges were commonly encountered: an inclusivity challenge, a capability challenge and a change challenge. A series of typical cases are outlined to help illustrate these challenges, where combinations of participative systems methods, models and facilitation practices were employed within complex, multi‐stakeholder policing problem situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the fourth of a series of papers on the stages of critical systems practice. Critical systems practice is a multimethodology that seeks to employ the ideas of critical systems thinking to intervene in and improve complex real‐world 'messes'. It has four stages—Explore (the problem situation), Produce (an intervention strategy), Intervene (flexibly), and Check (on progress)—called to mind as EPIC. The aim is to set out where thinking has reached on the best way to carry out each of these stages and to invite comment on what more needs doing. This paper discusses the fourth stage, Check. During Check, decision makers, and other stakeholders, evaluate the intervention, reflect on what has happened with a view to improving future interventions, and discuss next steps. [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 is the third of a series of papers on the stages of critical systems practice. Critical systems practice is a multimethodology that seeks to employ the ideas of critical systems thinking to intervene in and improve complex real‐world problem situations. It has four stages—Explore (the problem situation), Produce (an intervention strategy), Intervene (flexibly) and Check (on progress)—called to mind as EPIC. The aim is to set out where thinking has reached on the best way to carry out each of these stages and to invite comment on what more needs doing. This paper discusses the third stage, Intervene. It is concerned with executing a flexible multimethodological intervention in accordance with the agreement reached by decision makers, and other stakeholders, at the end of the previous stage. The theoretical and practical problems associated with multimethodological interventions are discussed, and solutions and ways forward are suggested based on the philosophy of pragmatism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been a growing interest in introducing systems thinking ideas in the program evaluation field over the last decades. Most of these efforts have supported the practice of evaluation, rather than contributing to produce theoretical advancements in evaluation. This article illustrates how systems thinking concepts may enrich the program evaluation field both at theoretical and practical levels. In particular, it examines how critical systems thinking perspectives and concepts were introduced in evaluation by discussing the design of an evaluation of a peace-building program in Colombia. We describe theoretical contributions of systems thinking within a reframed evaluation methodology and illustrate its application in a practical evaluation. Finally, we discuss some advantages of using systems thinking in evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, the application of instant messaging (IM) in programming training is argued to be possible and inevitable, especially in the high schools/colleges of poor communities. However, challenges in its application were noted. These challenges of utilising IM and the reluctance of the students in applying it in their programming training acted as a motivation for the study. Our aim is to use IM for a different purpose than its original intention. Critical systems heuristics was used as a multi‐methodological framework for the incorporation of various conditioned realities, where the technological pedagogical content knowledge framework was applied to incorporate the applicable technological, pedagogical, content areas. The guidelines were enhanced from knowledge gained from an action research project with trainee teachers. This iterative process demonstrates the incorporation of both theoretical and empirical context‐based perspectives into the understanding and addressing of a problem environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Frustration among systems thinking practitioners and academics surfaces from time to time at the apparently limited real‐world influence of systems methodologies and frameworks. Critical systems thinking (CST), in particular, faces many of the challenges common to qualitative research and has the additional challenge that its principal modality is to offer ways of conceptualising. This paper argues that recent explorations of phronetic social science (PSS) provide a useful conceptual frame to discuss and enhance the value of CST. We outline some characteristics of phronetic models and how to conceive and evaluate systemically informed phronetic models. By way of illustration, the paper describes the phronetic framing of two practical tools to support collaborative practice, each built on existing systemic models. Finally, we discuss the potential value of informing PSS with insights drawn from CST, and CST with insights drawn from the emerging field of PSS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introducing systems thinking concepts in the programme evaluation field has been mostly aimed at supporting the practice of evaluation, rather than towards making theoretical advancements in the evaluation field. This paper introduces ideas and principles from systems thinking at the theoretical and practical levels in the programme evaluation field as applied to a peace‐building programme called the Hermes Programme in Colombia. This document demonstrates how systems thinking concepts and tools were used in the practice of evaluation. We show the theoretical development of the proposed evaluation and explain how its stages were carried out in evaluating the Hermes Programme. This paper also illustrates the benefits of using systems thinking in evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article investigates a Basic Writing program shared between a University of California campus and a local community college in which the curriculum, assessment practices, and larger programmatic structures were heavily influenced by an exit exam modeled after the UC system’s Analytical Writing Placement Exam (AWPE). Drawing from scholarship on assessment ecologies and critical systems thinking, I analyze data from an institutional ethnography, including interviews with faculty and administrators and institutional documents. My analysis centers on how institutional and administrative thinking about students and faculty established the AWPE as the dominant force within the program, creating friction between stakeholders as perspectives on the program’s purpose diverged. This research has implications for the challenges presented by regressive institutional cultures of writing for WPAs and researchers working toward reform in Basic Writing programs across higher education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasingly, researchers and practitioners operate in complex systems difficult to comprehend. In them, the multiplicity of perspectives, elements and relationships operating on multiple levels makes the practice of systems thinking and boundary critique considerably difficult. Drawing upon boundary critique and hierarchy theory, this paper presents ways of thinking in terms of multilevel boundary judgements models useful for addressing the aforementioned problem in all fields of study. A real example of the use of these models is presented. This paper also discusses how thinking in terms of multiple levels of boundary judgements is important to better deal with values and moral frameworks and to promote critical reflexivity in systemic interventions, while escaping the dangers of reductionism. Furthermore, a systemic way of exploring the role of moral frameworks in systems practice is discussed, contributing with new concepts useful to develop a deeper understanding of ethical issues in systems practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public health problems are often complex and 'wicked' in nature. Wicked problems have multi-factorial causation, are dynamic and often understood and acted upon differently by different actors. Multi-sectoral collaboration is increasingly emphasized for tackling wicked problems through developing a strategic multi-sectoral plan and then taking collective action. Critical systems thinking can support the development of a shared perspective of the problem, strengthen participation in collective action and foster reflective practices to continuously improve both problem understanding and action. In this paper, we present a critical collaboration model, drawing together two complementary theoretical frameworks, as well as insights from three case studies from New Zealand, to offer a systematic approach to adopting a critical systems perspective in public health collaboration. The model provides six questions to make explicit individuals' understandings or assumptions about how others perceive an issue, problem or evidence, and the process of identifying answers strengthens the dialogical and reflective aspects of the collaboration. We indicate some potential areas for the application of the model to integrate critical systems thinking in collaborative practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Social prescribing (SP) allows health professionals to refer primary care patients toward health and wellbeing interventions and activities in the local community. Now widely implemented across the UK and adopted in other nations, questions arise concerning the modelling of present and future schemes, including challenges to full engagement encountered by stakeholders, which lie beyond the scope of traditional evaluations. Critical Systems Thinking (CST) allows for holistic analysis of fields where multiple stakeholders hold diverse interests and unequal power. Methods We use CST to (a) critically examine a developing rural social prescribing scheme from multiple stakeholder perspectives and (b) present a relational model for local social prescribing schemes. Our fieldwork included 24 in-depth interviews, regular planning meetings with key stakeholders, and discussions with those involved with national and international SP landscaping. A modified grounded theory approach was used for the analysis, and to consider the core elements of social prescribing sustainability. Results Our study confirms that local social prescribing schemes must operate with numerous stakeholder interests in mind, seeking to address real life social complexity and offer integrated solutions to multifaceted issues. Three main areas are discussed: holistic vision and boundary judgments; barriers and facilitators; relational issues and “emotional buy in”. Problems for staff include selecting suitable clients, feedback and technological issues and funding and evaluation pressures. Barriers for clients include health, transport and expense issues, also lack of prior information and GP involvement. Emotional “buy-in” emerged as essential for all stakeholders, but hard to sustain. Based on our findings we propose a positive relational model comprising shared vision, confidence and commitment; motivation and encouragement, support and wellbeing focus, collaborative relationships, communication and feedback, access to information /resources, learning in and from action, with emotional “buy-in” at its heart. Conclusion Those implementing social prescribing in different localities inevitably face hard choices about what and whom to include. Research on the sustainability of social prescribing remains limited, studies are required to ascertain which “holistic” models of social prescribing work best for which communities, who are the main beneficiaries of these approaches and how “buy-in” is best sustained.

Business intelligence systems are used in support of strategic decision‐making in organisations. Strategic decisions in support of the sustainable development goals require accurate and accessible data. Of equal importance is the sustainability of the business information systems themselves. Not only should they be sensitive to resource consumption but they should also be designed for the future needs of the organisation. We argue that sustainable business intelligence systems should represent as many perspectives in the organisation as possible supported by the available data. In order to achieve this, a critical (Kantian) systems perspective is suggested that foster appreciation of different perspectives in the organisation. Prevailing belief in the business intelligence system industry is that a key business problem should drive development of the system. Our position is more future oriented in that we argue that inclusion of all available perspectives on business problems will prolong the life of the system, thereby making it more sustainable. This is not an idealistic requirement when a data vault is used for the data model of the system. Contrary to the more common dimensional modelling, data vault modelling does not require restrictive decisions to be made on the scope of the system. In fact, the worst‐case scenario is addressed in the initial model. The paper provides a conceptual discussion of how a business intelligence system should be designed and developed to ensure that it is sustainable. Since the right system should be developed in the right way, we incorporate known success factors into our discussion. We argue that the critical (Kantian) systems perspective can lead to the right system and that data vault modelling in context of lessons from identified success factors is the right way to develop the business intelligence system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the second of a series of papers on the stages of critical systems practice. Critical systems practice is a multimethodology that seeks to employ the ideas developed in critical systems thinking to intervene in and improve complex real‐world problem situations. It has four stages—Explore (the problem situation), Produce (an intervention strategy), Intervene (flexibly) and Check (on progress)—called to mind as EPIC. The aim is to set out where thinking has reached on the best way to carry out each of these stages and to invite comment on what more needs doing. This second stage, Produce, is concerned with the design of an appropriate multimethodological intervention strategy based on the outcomes of Explore. The first pass through the Produce stage concludes when it becomes possible to set objectives for the intervention and to structure and schedule its delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The International Council on Systems Engineering has long declared a wish to extend the scope of application of systems engineering from its traditional sphere of complex technical systems to more complex sociotechnical systems. The Segura River reclamation project was a successful systems engineering project, involving water treatment and management and environmental regeneration, which falls squarely into the latter category. Taking lessons from this project, the paper sets out to understand the circumstances in which systems engineering can be successful in guiding and managing interventions in nontraditional domains such as transportation, housing, infrastructure, health and environmental systems. This involves an analysis using critical systems thinking. The paper also seeks to suggest how systems engineering must change to ensure success in circumstances that are less propitious for its theory and practice than in the Segura case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper draws lessons from the Ebola Virus Disease epidemic to suggest how health systems research can be strengthened to assist better with preparedness for and mitigation of future public health emergencies. The epidemic killed more than 11 000 people in West Africa between February 2014 and January 2016. The causes of the epidemic and the response to the outbreak harbour many lessons concerning how health systems were overwhelmed and need to be re‐designed in order to cope with future public health emergencies and limit their escalation. From these lessons, it is possible to identify the most significant systemic issues that must be addressed to ensure health systems can exhibit greater resilience in the face of similar events in the future. The paper goes on to consider the current capacity of health systems research (HSR) to assist with the management of these issues and to suggest that critical systems thinking and practice could empower health systems researchers and practitioners in a manner that would give them much greater potency. The research has additional importance now that Covid‐19 has demonstrated that pandemics are not 'black swan' events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic research is often regarded as less than helpful for practice, while knowledge practitioners are accused of failing to apply relevant research in their industries. This study successfully bridged the theory-practice gap in that it resolved a real-world problem and added to the body of knowledge, i.e. it aided to: identify underlying social root causes of a flawed project governance process and associated decision support software; define actions for improvement; and realise generalisable theoretical and applied knowledge to improve both theory and practice. It illustrates that collaborative academic research adds value to both academia and industry. This paper discusses an empirical study where soft systems methodology (SSM) was applied as an interventionist action research (AR) method, positioned in the critical systems thinking (CST) and critical social research (CSR) paradigm. SSM is defined as a learning system that facilitates the identification of actions for improvement of problematical social contexts--it gives epistemological guidance to systematically explore perspectives of individuals involved in and affected by social (e.g. organisational) settings, to identify actions for improvement. However, SSM is found to be most often applied interpretively by academia, i.e., to understand a problem context, rather than to improve it, and by practitioners as a consulting tool. SSM successfully facilitates exploring of problematical social contexts, but, according to users of it, fail to effect real and lasting change. It is also quite difficult to extract generalisable learning from its output. In this study, the researcher argues that SSM have the potential to live up to its original intent. So, she positioned SSM in the CST/CSR paradigm by applying an enriched version of it. She guided participants to reflect on inherent flaws in the scrutinised project governance business process and associated decision support software. Hence, by applying methodological pluralism, she also guided them to reflect on actions for change in light of the organisation's socially constructed structures and their effects on involved and affected stakeholders of the process. SSM was enriched by also reflecting on the output of facilitated workshops, which aimed to identify required transformation to improve upon deficient project governance, from the perspectives of: the role of the participant(s) in the organisation; the effects that identified organisational decisions and changes may have on them; and by asking probing questions about the crux of statements made, e.g. if it is presumed to be true, what would the effect be, or vice versa. The outcome was emancipation, as key underlying social and structural causes for the organisational deficiencies surfaced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the compatibility of Ghana's e-waste policy (Act 917) in the country's socioeconomic context. Our article starts with two main questions based on our empirical engagements with the act which, contextually, mimics the extended producer responsibility. First, we question the pessimistic imaginaries about the e-waste industry that seeks its outright trade ban or promotes a single version of recycling. Second, we query if the underlying assumptions and basic mechanisms of extended producer responsibility can create the enabling environment to actualize sound e-waste management. Based on prevailing context, the imaginaries appear socially peripheral, isolated, and powerless, and we call for a broader, unbiased, in-depth, critical systems thinking for understanding the complexities and multidimensional nature of the waste electrical and electronic equipment industry. We suggest that it is by fostering the positive synergies across sectors and among policies that environmentally sound e-waste policy outcomes can be achievable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the first of a series of papers on the stages of critical systems practice. Critical systems practice is a multimethodology that seeks to employ the ideas developed in critical systems thinking to intervene in and improve complex real‐world problem situations. It has four stages—Explore (the problem situation), Produce (an intervention strategy), Intervene (flexibly) and Check (on progress)—called to mind as EPIC. The aim is to set out where thinking has reached on the best way to carry out each of these stages and to invite comment on what more needs doing. The first stage, Explore, is concerned with how to start a multimethodological study. If this is done well, it can bring to the fore opportunities for a full and in‐depth systems intervention. If done badly, it can lead to practice that makes the problem situation worse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Social prescribing (SP) allows health professionals to refer primary care patients toward health and wellbeing interventions and activities in the local community. Now widely implemented across the UK and adopted in other nations, questions arise concerning the modelling of present and future schemes, including challenges to full engagement encountered by stakeholders, which lie beyond the scope of traditional evaluations. Critical Systems Thinking (CST) allows for holistic analysis of fields where multiple stakeholders hold diverse interests and unequal power.Methods: We use CST to (a) critically examine a developing rural social prescribing scheme from multiple stakeholder perspectives and (b) present a relational model for local social prescribing schemes. Our fieldwork included 24 in-depth interviews, regular planning meetings with key stakeholders, and discussions with those involved with national and international SP landscaping. A modified grounded theory approach was used for the analysis, and to consider the core elements of social prescribing sustainability.Results: Our study confirms that local social prescribing schemes must operate with numerous stakeholder interests in mind, seeking to address real life social complexity and offer integrated solutions to multifaceted issues. Three main areas are discussed: holistic vision and boundary judgments; barriers and facilitators; relational issues and "emotional buy in". Problems for staff include selecting suitable clients, feedback and technological issues and funding and evaluation pressures. Barriers for clients include health, transport and expense issues, also lack of prior information and GP involvement. Emotional "buy-in" emerged as essential for all stakeholders, but hard to sustain. Based on our findings we propose a positive relational model comprising shared vision, confidence and commitment; motivation and encouragement, support and wellbeing focus, collaborative relationships, communication and feedback, access to information /resources, learning in and from action, with emotional "buy-in" at its heart.Conclusion: Those implementing social prescribing in different localities inevitably face hard choices about what and whom to include. Research on the sustainability of social prescribing remains limited, studies are required to ascertain which "holistic" models of social prescribing work best for which communities, who are the main beneficiaries of these approaches and how "buy-in" is best sustained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present a research approach that seeks to develop and strengthen participatory action research (PAR) when applied in social-ecological systems (SES) by combining it with critical systems thinking (CST). This research approach responds to the urgent societal need to move beyond predefined project framing in development projects. While PAR acts as a basis for operationalizing participatory research processes, CST supports PAR by including explicit questions about system and problem boundaries. We first present this approach in the context of existing approaches and then go on to illustrate it by investigating a SES case study of a marine system on the Caribbean Saba Island as part of a project to protect sharks from extinction. The case study illustrates that strengthening PAR with the explicit framing questions used by CST combines the strengths of these two approaches. This combination allows participants: (1) to (re)frame the problem definition and scope as perceived by the different stakeholders, and (2) to find, co-create, and implement viable solutions with local stakeholders to improve a SES based on local needs and diverse stakeholders' perspectives on potential solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been a considerable growth in interest in Health Systems Research over the last 25 years. It is only recently, however, that health systems researchers have started to examine the key conceptual tool in their armoury – the notion of 'system'; – and only then in a sporadic fashion. This paper argues that the failure to undertake this challenge has held back the field both theoretically and in terms of practice. Critical systems thinkers have, by contrast, spent the last 30 years conducting a second‐order analysis of different systems and complexity approaches, the way they employ the concept of 'system';, and the difference this makes to the theories espoused and the modes of intervention endorsed. They have also explored how different systems approaches can be used in combination to bring about improvement by addressing the multi‐dimensional complexity thrown up by wicked problems. What critical systems thinkers have failed to do is get their hands dirty and demonstrate, through practical application, that their approach is useful in the health systems domain. Given the significance of health systems for public well‐being, and their inherent complexity, this is something that needs rectifying. If Critical Systems Thinking can support Health Systems Research with appropriate theories and methodologies, and health systems researchers are willing to involve critical systems thinkers in tackling the major issues they face, then a fruitful partnership can be forged. [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]

The life of a refugee is hard. We show how Maslow's theory of motivation can be utilized to better understand the situation of refugees in the Netherlands. Our aim is to formulate guidelines for the authorities in terms of logistical support. From a methodological position, we motivate the use of critical systems thinking to be used in wicked problems. The popular account of Maslow's work undermines key aspects from the original work, namely, preconditions for need satisfaction and the role of information. As we analysed stories told by refugees, it is these lesser known aspects of his theory that provided most insights. Freedom in host countries is gained on different levels. Contrasting Maslow's view, we propose that freedom is an "end" and hierarchical. Without information, the refugee cannot experience freedom. Because the stories of the refugees follow Maslow's needs hierarchy, we argue that information provided should be according to this hierarchy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Negotiations are part of systemic interventions. Because moral frameworks affect goal setting and decision‐making processes in negotiation, they can have an important effect in systemic interventions. In this paper, we use critical systems thinking to improve our understanding of the structure of moral frameworks and judgments in negotiation. We explore several moral frameworks that are applied in negotiation, and we demonstrate how boundary critique can be employed to understand and deal more reflexively and holistically with moral judgments that are part of negotiations in systemic interventions. By adopting a critical perspective of our assumptions and rationality in negotiation practice, we attempt to show how to open negotiations that are part of systemic interventions to more reflexive and informed possibilities. This can help us to avoid implementing changes in a systemic intervention that promote moral perspectives, which are not based on a holistic and reflexive exploration of the stakeholders' moral frameworks. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors of this paper provide a brief overview of the rights‐based literature that has been used to produce mechanisms to acknowledge non‐human agency in critical systems thinking (CST). With consideration of recent studies of plant cognition, we propose that by recasting CST's underlying commitments, we may produce new ontologies and new ways of working with the embedded stakeholders of socioecological systems. While the discursive shifts are simple, to recast 'social awareness' as 'socioecological awareness' and 'human emancipation' to 'emancipation', these changes open up the boundaries, scope and relevance of practice. We see this as a second turn and the next important movement in CST. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many authors have sought to summarize what they regard as the key features of “complexity”. Some concentrate on the complexity they see as existing in the world—on “ontological complexity”. Others highlight “cognitive complexity”—the complexity they see arising from the different interpretations of the world held by observers. Others recognize the added difficulties flowing from the interactions between “ontological” and “cognitive” complexity. Using the example of the Covid-19 pandemic in the UK, and the responses to it, the purpose of this paper is to show that the way we understand complexity makes a huge difference to how we respond to crises of this type. Inadequate conceptualizations of complexity lead to poor responses that can make matters worse. Different understandings of complexity are discussed and related to strategies proposed for combatting the pandemic. It is argued that a “critical systems thinking” approach to complexity provides the most appropriate understanding of the phenomenon and, at the same time, suggests which systems methodologies are best employed by decision makers in preparing for, and responding to, such crises.

We present a research approach that seeks to develop and strengthen participatory action research (PAR) when applied in social-ecological systems (SES) by combining it with critical systems thinking (CST). This research approach responds to the urgent societal need to move beyond predefined project framing in development projects. While PAR acts as a basis for operationalizing participatory research processes, CST supports PAR by including explicit questions about system and problem boundaries. We first present this approach in the context of existing approaches and then go on to illustrate it by investigating a SES case study of a marine system on the Caribbean Saba Island as part of a project to protect sharks from extinction. The case study illustrates that strengthening PAR with the explicit framing questions used by CST combines the strengths of these two approaches. This combination allows participants: (1) to (re)frame the problem definition and scope as perceived by the different stakeholders, and (2) to find, co-create, and implement viable solutions with local stakeholders to improve a SES based on local needs and diverse stakeholders' perspectives on potential solutions.