Methodological foundations of systems methodologies

In social systems science generally, and in management science particularly, recent developments in the variety of types of specific problem-solving methodologies (under the rubric of hard and soft systems approaches) have given an impetus to a line of inquiry, as well as debate on the nature of those methodologies. On the one hand, there has been the view that what we are witnessing is a form of Kuhnian crisis. On the other hand, a complementarist view of developments has been argued and a contingency approach proposed. But one thing has been common among the competing views: a belief that the prospects for further advances in the design and application of those methodologies, and in resolving the current controversies, lie in serious attempts to reconsider and clarify the underlying metatheoretical assumptions and concerns. This paper is an attempt to contribute to such an endeavor. A brief exposition of three methodological foundations (namely, empiricism, hermeneutics, and critique) is made, not only with the purpose of highlighting the nature as well as the limits of their epistemological and ethical claims, but also as a basis for illuminating both the nature of contemporary work on systems inquiry, design, and problem solving and the ongoing debate on what constitutes appropriate criteria for choice of specific methodologies.     

Critical systems thinking: Edgar Morin and the French school of thought

In response to the call that systems practitioners need to produce a second epistemological break corresponding to a shift of interest from systems science to systems rationality, it is submitted that the preparation for this break has already been carried out. It is shown that systems rationality is firmly established and central to the French school of thought in systemics and that the philosophical groundwork has been extensively laid out by Edgar Morin. A very limited exposé of Morin's work is presented in support of this claim.     

The scene for Interpretive Systemology

In this introductory paper to the special issue ofSystems 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.     

The roots of reductionism: A counter-ontoepistemology for a systems approach

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 ofSystems 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.     

Testament to conversations on critical systems thinking between two systems practitioners

This is a testament to conversations held in Berne and Fribourg, Switzerland, in late 1988. The main theme that we present concerns seeking to find an adequate epistemology for systems practice, to find a truly critical approach, by shifting our interests from systems science to systems rationality (i.e., by reaching out toward a systems epistemological ideal) and by dealing with sociological phenomena such as the effects of material conditions and false consciousness and inequalities associated with these. Social rationalities relating to positivism, interpretivism, and critique are considered. Limitations and legitimacies of these rationalities in social contexts are made explicit in these discussions.Conversations were held in Berne and Fribourg, Switzerland, between 30 November and 5 December 1988.     

Researching-Acting-Reflecting on Public Health Services in Venezuela. I. A Conceptual Framework

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.     

Application of (dialectical) systems thinking to understand managerial problems in Yugoslavia today

Soon after its reestablishment in 1945, Yugoslavia saw no other official solution for its management and government modernization but self-management. This was underestimated by many influential people, so the Tayloristic model of the thinking and the working subsystems was not dissolved. It stresses specialization and reinforces one-sidedness. It also divides people into those who command and those who obey, leaving little room for wholism and creativity. New solutions are needed, and we see them in the transition toward the managerial style we all think, we all work, based on creative cooperation of the Many in constant search for change by innovation. This can also be a new partial system of self-management: the doers' innovation of the daily work processes.     

Accounting—A virtual autopoietic system?

The debate about the application of the concept of autopoiesis to social systems has been disabled by the difficulties of defining the autopoiesis of a specific social system ostensively. This paper considers the evidence that the circular relations of production which define autopoietic processes appear both in the cognitive domain and in the domains of human activity associated with accounting. Without a sound theoretical footing and, in the eyes of some, fatally flawed, accounting appears to be organizationally closed, capable of adapting itself to its rapidly changing environment, and probably well able to engulf many of the alternative ways of representing activities in society. It is concluded that if there are indeed autopoietic suprahuman systems of a natural kind mobilizing mankind in their service, then accounting is to be numbered among them.     

Systems and organizations: Distal and proximal thinking

The paper introduces the contributions to this special issue ofSystems Practice on Systems and Organizations: New Directions in terms ofdistal andproximal thinking. Distal thinking refers to ready-made concepts, to the finished effects and outcomes of thought and action; proximal thinking, to process and event, to the continuous and unfinished. The papers presented here deal with various aspects of the distal/proximal distinction in social systems and organizations, and especially draw out the implications of recent work in information technology, sociology of technology, accounting theory, and organization studies for a proximal conception of systems and organizations.     

Increased competence as a process of surviving in shared information spaces

Connections between people and groups are growing more frequent and more intense. Cultural events, changes in laws, activities of organizations, and new ideas elsewhere affect one's own decisions and activities more and more. This development has strong implications for the way people can increase their competence and how they can affect what happens to their own community or geographical area. In this paper consequences are considered for a special type of tool, the so-called problem language, that appears to be intimately entwined with many other tools in operations research, cybernetics, and systems research. The language appears most adequate in situations where boundaries can be found such that external events have minimal impact on what happens inside those boundaries. The change in connectivity makes finding such boundaries less and less probable. This suggests looking for another language, to structure the processes necessary when one intends to overcome difficulties that cannot be represented and solved as problems. A language of access is proposed, derived partly from studies in areas where it has never been possible to find boundaries as indicated. Within the framework of this language one can derive methods of externalization that imply speeding up flows of information in a shared workspace or shared information space. Their implementation is greatly facilitated—or even made possible at all—by recent developments in information technology.     

An interpretive-systemic study of the University of Los Andes

This article is a summary of an interpretive-systemic study of the University of Los Andes in Venezuela. Following the methodological guidelines of interpretive systemology, three interpretive contextual systems were designed in order to comprehend the sense of the university. These three interpretive contexts were derived from possible different interpretations of the University Law (Statutes). Results obtained from the thematic interpretation of university activities and decision taking reveal an institution removed from any of the missions depicted in the interpretive contexts. A fourth interpretive context was designed to provide an interpretation of the regulative role the institution plays in order to maintain a particular social order and power structure. This fourth interpretive context shows greater interpretive power with regard to actual university activities than the other three.     

Cybernetics and Participation: From Theory to Practice

A combination of recent cybernetic discourse provides guidelines for reconsidering our way of thinking about the relationship between government and the governed. With reference to contemporary understanding of natural biological systems and complexity, it is possible to reformulate a language that has tended to be dominated by notions of competition and survival of the fittest. Instead we can perhaps move toward reconsidering social systems in terms of a more dynamic and equitable understanding of the fit and structural dance of different systems, and postulate that the motor for progress is the coexistence of difference rather than might over right. This paper synthesizes the somewhat different insights of Stafford Beer and the Santiago School of Cognition, and reports on a real-world initiative that sought to instantiate governance as a phenomenon constituted by the governed. Technological developments of the knowledge age are proposed as supporting such democratic initiatives.     

Archaeology of (systems) inquiry

In this paper six scenarios for the future of systems problem solving are investigated in order to ascertain whether an approach can be identified (a) that offers prospects for the long-term survival and success of systems problem solving in practice and (b) that does this without incorporating theoretical contradictions. The six approaches come under the four class headings pragmatism, isolationism, imperialism, and pluralism. The theoretical foundations of each approach are explored in a discursive fashion. This makes explicit to systems practitioners the underlying principles on which their activities are overlaid and puts such approaches into the theoretical context of the six approaches identified herein.     

Researching-Acting-Reflecting on Public Health Services in Venezuela. II. Community Action and Critique

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.     

Churchman's “process of unfolding”—Its significance for policy analysis and evaluation

Churchman's process of unfolding is one of his lesser known concepts, yet it is essential for understanding his dialectical systems approach. This paper gives a brief introduction to the concept and presents a simple framework for applying it to policy analysis and program evaluation.     

An Inquiry into the Historical Meaning of “The Fifth Discipline”

This paper shows a possible way to unfold the historical meaning of The Fifth Discipline. The thread of this way is the question about the new way to be human promoted by The Fifth Discipline. It is shown that this new way of being is not modern and coincides at several points with the ancient one. This situation is given two opposed interpretations. The first one points to a sort of a returning of our cultural worldview to the ancient one. A critique to this interpretation leads to a second possibility, which points to a radicalization of the instrumental trends of high modernity. Then a second critique is articulated which shows that the shift in the idea of humanity manifested by The Fifth Discipline remains obscure and problematic for our current way of thinking.     

A Systemic View of Transformational Leadership

A systemic view of transformational leadership is developed. Initially the terms administration, management, and leadership are distinguished. Leadership as an aesthetic function is then discussed. Growth, visions, and strategy continue discussions. It is then argued why leadership cannot be taught. Ways of viewing the world as systems that underpins transformational leadership are then set out. The paper concludes with a discussion of systemic transformation.     

Rhetorics and Realities in Public Service Organizations: Systemic Practice and Organizational Learning as Critically Reflexive Action Research (CRAR)

This article sets out to develop an argument and theory-in-practice related to organizational learning and systemic practice as critically reflexive action research (CRAR). It explores principles and concepts associated with CRAR, in the context of different emphases in understandings of and approaches to managing or working with change. The notion of epistemologies of practice is developed, as the basis for introducing on-site and off-site CRAR as interweaving cycles of managerial and organizational learning. A multilayered illustration of an improvisational CRAR environment, using principles of dialectical enquiry and critical learning theater, is offered. A diagrammatic analysis provides the framework for describing and reflecting critically on key CRAR processes. This is expanded with a consideration of possibilities for documentation that can assist with the validation of quality in CRAR processes and outcomes. This has relevance in the context of postpositivist action research at postgraduate levels or within project-based CRAR partnerships. This leads to a further discussion of principles and concepts, in the context of other literature and pressures on public services.     

“Becoming Different”: Accessing University From a Low Socioeconomic Community—Barriers and Motivators

Access to tertiary education by individuals from low socio-economic backgrounds has been extremely low historically, despite policies to address this inequity. Twenty eight people from a low socio-economic community with almost the lowest rates of access to university in Australia were interviewed to identify the barriers they had encountered and the factors that had enabled them to access and complete a university qualification. Barriers reported occur both within the community, and external to, or on the boundary of the community. Internal barriers included lack of information about the existence of university or its value for individuals, cultural beliefs about acceptable aspirations, a lack of role models within the community, and a lack of the opportunity to compare the impact of a university education on lifestyle, opportunities and options. Motivators identified are categorised as nature of work; interest, role models/comparisons competition/proving, and encouragement.