The Ontological Status of Critique

Two previous papers by the author are summarized in order to provide the context for the arguments and results of the present paper. The author's previous research has identified the exact place where critique is epistemologically actioned and this enables the present paper to argue for the attribution of ontological status to critique. Since it is commonly acknowledged that a lack of critique results in dogmatism or bounded rationality, these latter two are investigated—in greater depth than previously considered in the literature—and, though they are shown to be inescapable, they provide a route toward a fundamental principle which systemically brings together ontological, epistemological, ethical, and emancipatory concerns. The principle can be stated as follows: One is more or less emancipated depending upon the extent to which one is aware of critique-bounded emancipation as an ontological necessity and thus to the degree to which one ceases to attempt escaping from practical critique into the realms of dogmatic emancipation and rationally bounded emancipation. The paper provides accurate definitions of critique and emancipation, showing that one cannot be considered without the other, thus framing the manner in which further discussion of these two intimately related issues can be continued. In keeping with the author's previous published research, the relevance of von Bertalanffy's deliberations to Critical Systems Thinking, as well as Sartre's philosophy to systems thinking in general, is upheld.     

Critical considerations in the development of systems thinking and practice

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.     

Groundwork of a Sartrean Input Toward Informing Some Concerns of Critical Systems Thinking

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.     

Systems Thinking and Management Epistemology

Epistemology, or the theory of knowledge, is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge, its presuppositions and basis, and the general reliability of claims to knowledge. Since its birth, Social Systems Sciences (S3) has been critical of positivist epistemology in the discipline of management. The epistemological foundations of management theory have evolved with the development of three paradigms—the idea of social science, the unity of science movement, and the behavioral science revolution. Examining the epistemological foundations of maangement theory, this paper reflects on the role of positivism as a dominant ideological construct (or a grand-narrative) in management and organizational studies.     

Towards a critique of Critical Systems Thinking within a foucauldian framework: A “demystification process” or an “instrumental use” of Critical Theory

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.     

Understanding natural-cultural systems for development planning: The problems of developing societies

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.     

Systems thinking and critique. I. What is critique?

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 ofcritique which is used to interpret four “moments” of critique in Modern Western Philosophy.     

Critical methods and ideology: An international perspective

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.     

Soft System Dynamics Methodology (SSDM): Combining Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and System Dynamics (SD)

Soft System Dynamics Methodology (SSDM), a systemic methodology product of the combination of two widely used systems-based methodologies from two different systems thinking paradigms, Systems Dynamics (SD) and Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), is presented. The paper argues that by combining some of SD and SSM stages, within the intellectual framework proposed by SSDM, a methodology developed by one of the authors¹ much can be gained in a systemic intervention to tackle complex social problematic situations. A framework for comparing the ontological, epistemological and methodological principles of SD, SSM and SSDM is proposed and the synthesizing and dialectical role of SSDM is advanced. The 10 stages of SSDM are outlined and illustrated by an application on a small Peruvian company; and a set of conclusions and points for further research are discussed.     

A Systemic Model for Managing and Evaluating Conflicts in Organizational Change

Change or innovation diffusion is a key issue for most business organizations but is yet difficult to implement as the change management process is often complex as it relies on an organized methodology to complement an organization’s commitment and participation. An ambiguous environment surrounding change mechanism tends to develop unintended attitudes, resulting in resistance and conflict. The study proposes a model for the management of such conflicts among change participants (involved and affected) in the context of organizational change. The authors consider organizational change process as an innovation project that treats change and conflicts holistically with the Ulrich’s notion of boundary considerations (boundary critique). A social network setting of multiple stakeholders is considered to effectively help in resolving problematic situations that hinder organizational learning and change. The proposed model provides a theoretical foundation based on concepts governing Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH), change theory, stakeholder theory and conflict management.     

Developing the methodology of TSI: From the oblique use of methods to creative design

During the last 13 years, a dialogue has been conducted in the Critical Systems literature on the subject of choice betwen methods. However, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, researchers went in two separate directions. One direction involved an exploration of the “creative design of methods.” This is when the problem situation is understood in terms of a series of systemically interrelated research questions, each of which might need to be addressed using a different method, or part of a method. A synthesis is generated that allows each individual research question to be addressed as part of a whole system of questions. The other research direction involved the development of “Total Systems Intervention” (TSI), a meta-methodology that, amongst other things, encourages the creative exploration of the problem situation prior to the choice of methods. One of the latest innovations in TSI is a theory of the “oblique” use of methods. This is the use of methods for purposes other than those they were originally designed for. However, it is argued here that all the case studies that have been subject to an “oblique” interpretation can be better explained if they are seen as examples of the creative design of methods. We can therefore bring together the two strands of research that have hitherto been pursued separately in the Critical Systems literature. it is suggested that TSI can be enhanced by an understanding of the creative design of methods because the latter allows us to explain the purposive, flexible, and responsive way in which TSI is most successfully used in practice.     

Truth and openness: an epistemology for interpretive systemology

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.     

A multidimensional perspective of organizational change

This paper discusses some key societal changes which are pressuring organizations to find new ways to use their workforces more creatively so that they can face increasing environmental and internal complexity. It is argued that we should use a multidimensional perspective to promote the multifaceted organizational change needed in today's society, since each existing approach gives a distinctive but partial contribution to the understanding of organizational phenomena. A multidimensional training and intervention technique we have begun to develop to promote organizational change is then presented, and this is compared and contrasted with Critical Systems philosophy, principles, and methods of intervention.     

Designing a Management System for a Rural Community Development Organization Using a Systemic Action Research Process

This paper describes the first phase, 'finding out', of a systemic participatory action research intervention in the management systems of a rural community development organization in the KwaZulu-Natal province of South Africa. The aims of the intervention were to (a) improve the management system of this organization, and (b) evaluate the usefulness of particular systems methodologies for the improvement of management systems of organizations involved in community development in under-resourced rural contexts. The second phase, "implementation," needs to be completed and thoroughly evaluated before any final conclusions can be drawn about the suitability of the chosen systems framework for Third World type rural contexts. However, the second phase is, at the time of writing, underway and all indications are that an interpretive ('Soft') Systems Methodology, combined with insights from a more functionalist ('hard') approach (with methods chosen through a Critical Systems Thinking framework) holds much promise for participatory systemic interventions in these contexts.     

Business Process Reengineering (BPR) Versus Outsourcing—Critical Perspectives

This article presents a case example involving the renaming of an organizational change process from BPR to outsourcing. The paper discusses the important ramifications of such a name change in that the recognition of outsourcing allowed an organizational commitment to counseling and termination advice. The paper discusses two ways of looking at the name change, one from a critical theory perspective and one from a realist perspective. It demonstrates how theory can provide useful yet markedly different interpretations of such organizational events. Critical theory operates from within what can be termed the transitive epistemological dimension, whereas critical realism tends to emphasize the importance of ontological issues. Each has important things to say about the situation and improves our understanding overall.     

A Systemic Action Learning Cycle as the Key Element of an Ongoing Spiral of Analyses

The Systems movement in the United Kingdom, in addressing the task of enquiry, has created a surfeit of methodologies. Each, like some closely guarded religious sect, demands adherence to its own presentational rules and procedures, its own epistemological and ontological position. Much of the secondary literature of the U.K. Systems movement focuses on examining the strengths and weaknesses of these separate approaches, devises complex decision rules for when to use which methodology, and attempts to map particular methodologies onto "appropriate" scenarios. This paper attempts to present a generalized form of the cyclic activity of investigation and action which is encompassed by many of the methodologies. It is shown that this does not require the presentation of a "lowest common denominator" activity set, which is of no value, but rather draws on the underlying power of the approaches to present a robust and defensible cycle of activities which are continuously reenacted over time. The implications of this spiral model of Action Learning are examined, both in relation to the development of existing methodologies and in relation to the issues related to managing a complex analysis project. The paper concludes by showing how individual analysis cycles merge into a never-ending learning spiral in a complex, dynamic, real-world environment.     

Exploring an Explicit Use of the Concept of Sustainability in Transport Planning

The aim of this paper is to explore an explicit use of the concept of sustainability within transport planning. This paper analyses the concept of sustainability based on a practical approach for a sustainable development of Nordhavn, an area of Copenhagen, exemplifying a complex planning problem. An exploration of the application of the concept of sustainability is carried out using elements of Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). This approach indicates a need to separate the use of sustainability considerations regarding the transport planning ‘process’ from the transport planning ‘results’. The two approaches are related to the planning levels presented by Ulrich (Syst Prac 1(4):415–428, 1988). It was chosen to focus on the understanding of a sustainable transport planning process. This focus is addressed by four stakeholder groups interviewed based on the ‘ought to’ mode of Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH). Finally an outline of some of the factors of a sustainable transport planning process is proposed.     

A Holistic Approach for Designing Human-Centric Trust Systems

Online trust systems, albeit existing as technical implementations, aim to translate the role that trust has in the traditional world onto the virtual platforms. Establishing the inter-dependence between these systems and the human-factor is essential for reducing, but more importantly for understanding the inherent complexity of the open social platforms, and for improving the user-experience and system-performance. This work determines the systemic features of trust and introduces a novel framework of design-properties based on the principles of General Systems Theory. We determine the systemic properties which lack in the current technical solutions, and incorporate social factors into the design-guidelines of trust systems. We introduce four influence-factors and demonstrate that accounting for those factors leads to compliance with the generic system-principles. Finally, we employ case study analysis following the premises of case study research established in the social science literature. By performing semantic analysis of the state of the art on trust systems, we are able to identify two semantic clusters to which trust research belongs, and to choose in a non-random manner the representative case studies for evaluation upon our framework. To our knowledge, this is the first study applying fundamental social science principles from General Systems Theory and case-study research for the purpose of theory-building and evaluation of technical human-centric solutions.     

Dealing with coercion: Critical Systems Heuristics and beyond

This paper begins with an introduction to the philosophy and methodology of Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH). Following this, various citicisms of CSH are reviewed. One particularly important criticism is that CSH should not be seen as a replacement for other systems approaches, but as complementary to them. It is this idea of complementarity that has led several Critical Systems thinkers to take CSH, along with a number of other systems methods, and try to show that they are most appropriately used in different contexts. CSH, it is said, is at its most useful when we are confronted with coercive situations. However, in this paper it is argued that coercion is usually characterised by closure of debate. Therefore CSH, which depends upon the possibility of communication (or arbitration) between stakeholder groups, becomes redundant when coercion is experienced. It is further argued that coercion can only be addressed adequately by widening our definition of systems practice to include campaigning and direct political action. There is still considerable scope for developing these areas in the systems domain.