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).     

Emancipation and truth in critical systems methodologies

This paper deals with the need for stakeholders to participate actively in organizations, so that systems methodologies can be applied in a critical fashion with the objective of arousing the emancipatory interest. It discusses the meaning of emancipation in the labor movement tradition and the emergence of the apathy of working people toward it. Critical Systems Thinking is obliged to face this apathy in its attempt to motivate the emancipatory interest.     

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.     

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.     

Science as Systemic Intervention: Some Implications of Systems Thinking and Complexity for the Philosophy of Science

This paper sidesteps the usual starting points for debate about complexity and the philosophy of science, which tend to assume that science is primarily about observation. Instead, the starting point is intervention, defined as purposeful action by an agent to create change. While some authors suggest that intervention and observation are opposites, it is argued here that observation (as undertaken in science) should be viewed as just one type of intervention. We should therefore welcome scientific techniques of observation into a pluralistic set of intervention methods, alongside methods for exploring values, reflecting on subjective understandings, planning future activities, etc. However, there is a need to explicitly counter a possible pernicious interpretation of this argument: intervention could (erroneously) be viewed as flawlessly preplanned change based on accurate predictions of the consequences of action. This is the mechanistic worldview that systems thinking and complexity science seek to challenge. Therefore, having redefined scientific observation as intervention, the paper revisits insights from systems thinking and complexity to propose a methodology of systemic intervention. Some brief reflections are then provided on the wider social implications of this methodology.     

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.     

Total systems intervention: A practical face to critical systems thinking

This is the first exposition of a new methodology (or perhaps meta-methodology) for systems practice known as Total Systems Intervention (TSI). Designed to overcome the weaknesses of hard, cybernetic, and soft systems approaches and build on their strengths, TSI represents a practical face of critical systems thinking. It advocates combining three building blocks-systems metaphors, system of systems methodologies, and individual systems methodologies—in an interactive manner which is deemed to be particularly powerful and fruitful. In this paper the philosophy, principles, and phases of the TSI methodology are set out and two very different examples of its use are provided.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

A Framework of Value-Focused Systems Thinking

Values and value judgments should be tackled explicitly and directly in theory and practice. To do so, systems intervention as a communication process has to be designed in pursuit of the systemic and critical cause. This paper proposes a framework of value-focused systems thinking. The interdependence of values and techniques, and the theory of communicative competence, are briefly discussed as philosophical underpinnings. A methodology is outlined consisting of a reconstruction, judgment, and action cycle revolving around communication design.     

Systems thinking,systems practice,and practical philosophy: A program of research

IfSystems Practice is to serve the cause of socially rational decision making, its understanding of systems approach must open itself up to the communicative dimension of rational practice uncovered by contemporary practical philosophy. This programmatic paper argues that building the bridge between the two traditions of systems thinking and practical philosophy is a key challenge to be faced by the systems community. A three-level framework of rational systems practice is suggested as a point of departure for a program of research.     

Applications of living systems theory

Living systems theory identifies basic principles that underlie the structure and processes of living things and relates them to the nonliving physical world, integrating and bringing order to the ever-growing mass of empirical data about them. In addition, living systems models and methodology are useful in empirical research on the great variety of systems of interest to psychology and related fields and in study of individual systems at any of the eight levels of living systems.FromAnalysis of Dynamic Psychological Systems, Volume 2: Methods and Applications, edited by Ralph L. Levine and Hiram E. Fitzgerald, Plenum Press, New York, 1992.     

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.     

Conceptions of ideology: An exegesis and critique

Conceptions of ideology exhibit an awesome diversity. From an exegesis of nine different conceptions, this paper argues that it is the historical materialist view of ideology that reflects its specificity as a critical concept. From exegesis, the paper moves to diagnosis, using the critical idea that it is the systematic concealment of social contradictions that defines the ideological dis-ease. Thus, the positivist hard systems approach is found to suffer from the ideology of economic individualism. The structuralist hard systems approach suffers from the ideology of sociological unitarism. The soft systems approach suffers from the ideology of naturalism, thereby laying itself open, by default, to ideological penetration, especially of the sociological unitarist type. In programmatic terms, this unmasking of ideologies in the interest of enlightenment is one of the necessary functions for the liberation of systems theory.     

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.