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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Participatory Action Research and the Development of Critical Creativity: A “Natural” Combination?

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.     

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.     

“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.     

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.     

Environmental Paradigms,Biodiversity Conservation,and Critical Systems Thinking

In 1994 Gerald Midgley addressed the issue of the boundary implications of two different paradigms of thought about the environment, namely, humanis and the ecological perspective The distinction that he makes is important because it draws attention to the value implications of an uncritical acceptance of boundaries around human interests that serves to marginalize the environment. It is argued here, however, that Midgley does not go far enough. Just as an uncritical acceptance of humanis marginalizes the environment, so an uncritical acceptance of the environmental perspectiv runs the risk of prioritizing some elements of the environment over others, e.g., the interests of individual animals over species or over ecosystems. This paper seeks to correct this limitation in Midgleys account by developing a more sophisticated framework of environmental paradigms: a framework that can be used to clarify the values of stakeholders in critical systems interventions involving the management of biodiversity.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Business Action Research in Practice—A Strategic Conversation About Conducting Action Research in Business Organizations

The objectiveof this paper is to provide practitioner researchers with insights into the initial findings around the challenges of conducting business action research in practice in commercial settings on the basis of experiences of a PhD cohort at Monash University in the first 18 months of candidature. In performing the role of a concluding paper, it sets out a generic framework for action research that the cohort has come to embrace. In doing so, it draws on emergent themes spread across the six diverse topics that are the subject of action research interventions of the cohort members. The paper then identifies and analyses the common patterns that have emerged and offers observations and conclusions for those involved in practitioner research.     

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.     

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.     

Man–Machine Systems: People and Technology in OR

This paper provides an exploration of how different understandings of man–machine systems have accompanied developments in Operational Research. In particular, the paper will challenge the notion that we are in a position of mastery with respect to technology. Both Hard OR and Soft OR are criticized for a failure to examine adequately the relationship between people and technology. Toward the end of the paper a new way of understanding this relationship will be proposed in terms of technologies of the self or what Michel Foucault called ethics.     

Reflection on the Purposes of Research,Action, and Scholarship: A Case of Cross-Cultural Participatory Action Research

Beginning with some basic principles of participatory action research, the author draws upon personal experience to identify the ways in which the experience of the practice of participatory action research creates forms of publication somewhat different in intent and nature from conventional forms of research. The experience selected involves cross-cultural research, and the particular problems of representation of the other in such settings are engaged. The overall experience is then drawn upon to identify some of the key qualities of action research which differ both from other forms of research and from some of the advocacies for action research.     

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.     

Mutual understanding,revisited after nearly 25 years

Almost 25 years have passed since Churchman and Schainblatt published their paper on mutual understanding, The Researcher and the Manager: A Dialectic of Implementation. It has had quite an influence on the methodology and the practice of operational research and management science (OR/MS). Here, the concept of mutual understanding is reconsidered in a multiaspect scope, and the role of psychological typologies as a base for mutual understanding is evaluated. Finally, a diamond of thought is derived from Kant's three kinds of action.     

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.