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.     

A Brief Crack of Light?

This is a contribution to an inquiry into the historical meaning of Professor Checkland's soft systems thinking. Heidegger's picture of the present postmodern (or high-modern) epoch provides a context for unfolding that historical meaning. The discussion is focused on the possibility that Checkland's thinking could represent one of the "brief cracks" in the solid neo-instrumental way of appearing (whatever-is-the-case) that characterizes our present epoch.     

The Oblivion of Churchman's Plea for a Systems Approach to World Problems. I. The Inseparability of Systems Thinking and World Issues in the Modern Epoch

Systemic Practice and Action Research - The presentation of a Systems Approach made by Churchman in 1968 starts from a close link between a systems approach and tackling world problems. The link is...     

Refocusing Systems Analysis of Organizations Through a Semiotic Lens: Interpretive Framework and Method

Recent advances in systems theory have significantly raised its utility for supporting problem-structuring activity in organizations. However, this approach has been inadequately developed for representing and evaluating the nature and outcomes of organizational functioning. Toward that end this paper introduces a new method, called interpretive systems analysis, which incorporates ideas from semiotic theory. Using this method, the complex web of agents, actions, means, and circumstances in organizational functioning may be analytically discriminated into multiple courses of action that are emphasized on dimensions of legitimacy, motivation, and power. An integrative appraisal of key elements and factors shaping organizational performance may then be achieved through the formulation of “systems of significance,” formed of oppositional and associative relations. Organizations can thus be illuminated in terms of principle inconsistencies and tensions shaping their operations. The application and utility of this method is illustrated through a case study of customer service operations.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The origins and nature of critical systems thinking

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

A multiperspective systems-based framework for decision support systems design

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

Birth and Demise of a Social Protection Organization in Venezuela

In this article a context for the study of a social protection organization is presented. This context is based on three ideas: (i) social protection is a requirement for assuming the cohesion and continuation of society; (ii) in an industrialized society, social protection is conceived in connection with salary; and (iii) the organizational form of social protection in Venezuelan society is Social Security guaranteed by a Welfare State. The becoming of our Social Security organization is interpreted with these concepts. The interpretive process consists in the unfolding of the relation between the organizational form and the conceptions about social protection since the birth of the organization 60 years ago. This unfolding simultaneously reveals failure concerning coverage of the risks typical of social security and a radical change in the conception of social protection in Venezuela. These results rest on the non-realization of premise ii of the interpretive context in the case of the Venezuelan society. The article concludes by showing the need to understand the conceptions regarding social protection in contexts different from that of an industrial society (advanced or not).     

Unfolding a Theory of Systemic Intervention

This paper interrogates four perspectives (structuralist community psychology, deconstruction, interpretive systemology, and critical systems thinking) to inform the unfolding of a theory of systemic intervention. A vision of epistemology is provided which clarifies the relationships among knowledge, power, will and intervention, and a normative framework for systemic intervention is then presented. Finally, the theory unfolded in this paper is deconstructed to reveal a second theory, yet to be explored, of systemic life projects. This provides an exciting agenda for future research.     

A Maturing of Systems Thinking? Evidence from Three Perspectives

This paper reviews trends in systems theory/thinking from the 1970s to the early 2000s. It proposes a maturation of the field based on certain conceptual and methodological advances that have sought to liberate systems thinking from earlier strictures. An edited dialogue among three prominent systems thinkers from different systems schools—Merrelyn Emery, Bob Flood, and Eric Wolstenholme—provides evidence. Similarities and differences are identified, complementarities among the schools are derived and analyzed, and trajectories for future research are indicated.     

A critique of hierarchy theory

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

The observer's role and the process of critical review

The intention in this paper is to present a framework of critique which can be used to evaluate OR and determine (1) whether it is possible for OR to address its missing systemic, interdisciplinary components and (2) whether OR might address the practical (human) considerations often found in complex problem situations. The discussion begins with hierarchy theory and the work of C. West Churchman and moves towards incorporating those insights into a process of critical review (Wilby, 1996) as practiced within Total Systems Intervention (Flood and Jackson, 1991a, b; Food, 1995; Flood and Romm, 1996).     

Total systems intervention and human inquiry: The search for a common ground

Total Systems Intervention (TSI) is an approach to intervening in problem situations which has much to offer where complex interacting issues need to be addressed by the complementary use of intervention methodologies. That such an approach has much in common with Action Research (AR) has been recognized, with much recent effort being devoted to the relationship between AR and Critical Systems Thinking (CST), the theoretical endeavor underpinning TSI. This paper further develops this line of debate and relates AR or Human Inquiry (HI) more directly to TSI, using an information systems intervention to enhance the study. The outcome is a demonstration of how TSI implicitly uses techniques informed from the field of Action Research, and how a more thorough synthesis of HI with TSI might serve to improve the overall intervention process.     

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.     

系统方法论研究的现状分析与展望

对目前系统方法论的研究进行分类：硬系统方法论、软系统方法论和批评性系统方法论，分析了不同系统方法的哲学思想、方法步骤及其局限性，探讨了未来系统方法论发展的形式。     

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.     

Critical introductory notes on farming systems research in developing third world agriculture

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