Earthdream: A critical interpretation

“The Earth is on the verge of destruction” has become a common cry nowadays. This cry embodies “the Earth and its ailments” as a symbol which synthesizes many concerns revolving around modern decadence and the current predicament of human-kind. But what contexts provide full meaning to this symbol? What conditions have made possible the emergence not only of extremely waste-oriented and environmentally dangerous societies but also of a spiritually impoverished world? In the spirit of interpretive systemology, a critical interpretation of the “Earth's ailments” is undertaken in this paper. The interpretive task is cast in the form of a hermeneutical exercise, namely, the exegesis ofEarthdream, a book written by Robert Hamilton. This particular piece of work, upon which the present paper is fully based, is chosen as a vehicle for the critical interpretive inquiry, not only because it summarizes the current debate on the world crisis (thus providing a standard reference for beginning the interpretive inquiry), but also because the argument it develops can be molded within a format which facilitates the critical interpretation to be conducted. Accordingly, two interpretive contexts will be uncovered, and internal and external critiques outlined; to give full meaning to the symbol “Earth's ailments.” Two major interests propel the interpretive task. One relates to the participation of systems practitioners in the current crisis and the need to encourage responsible systems practice. The other interest arises simply from the fact that we are all on the same raft called Earth, and the raft seems to be sinking!     

The critical kernel in modern systems thinking

This paper unpeels two influential contributions to modern systems thinking, Beer's viable system model (VSM) and Checkland's soft systems methodology (SSM), and finds inside a critical kernel. It is argued, indeed, that these approaches become coherent only when liberated from their regulative shells and interpreted from the critical position. So much does the critical kernel lie at the very heart of modern systems thinking.     

Complexity and systems thinking in futures research: From “neutral” scenarios to value considerations

Futures research can be defined as the study of the present from a point of view of a special interest in comprehending the future. The basic features of futures research include multidisciplinarity and normativity, as well as interest in studying “trend breaks” and new phenomena in social development. In practice these requirements are seldom fulfilled, and a search for a new “paradigm” for futures research has been going on for some years. The implications of the newly arisen “complexity” discussion seem to offer some new perspectives to tackle the short-comings of futures research. Especially the idea of multiverse of realities, “holistic” systems thinking, and irreversibility and randomness seen as inherent parts of social development can be considered as highly valuable to the methodological development of futures research. When taking into consideration these implications it is justified to speak of a transition from the ordinary scenario thinking to the idea of “making the future” in futures research.     

Discordant pluralism: A new strategy for critical systems thinking

Systems science is characterised by a huge diversity of theories and practical applications which have arisen since its inception. Each of these theories and ways of practising systems science has legitimate claims for its ability to handle certain kinds of systems problems. Dealing with this diversity can be seen as a critical issue for systems thinking and practice. One approach to handling this rich diversity has been to attempt to capture it in frameworks which align features and positions in a “complementarist” fashion. By reviewing work undertaken by systems thinkers who have advocated such a stance, it will be demonstrated that complementarism has its faults, and can be perceived as an imperialist strategy. A route out of the impasse will be suggested through the use of a form of discordant pluralism, which, if taken up, has the potential for bringing together conflicting perspectives in a new constellation.     

Criticizing the phenomenological critique—Autopoiesis and critical realism

There has been, and still is, an important debate between critical systems and soft (interpretive) systems concerning epistemology and ontology. Flood and Ulrich argued for a position they termed “critical idealism,” but this has been contested by Fuenmayor, who proposed that critical systems was unnecessary since phenomenology provided the necessary and sufficient form of critique. This paper, in turn, argues for critical systems, providing a critique of phenomenology which shows that at least three of its own presuppositions are invalid. It is further suggested that an adequate philosophy for critical systems has not yet emerged and that the cognitive autopoietic theories of Maturana and the critical realism of Bhaskar will be important strands in its development.     

Piaget,self-organizing knowledge,and critical systems practice

An examination of Piaget's conception of the source, nature, development, and use of knowledge reveals that his model for the genetic development of human knowledge is cybernetic and self-organizing. Moreover, Piaget presents a model of cognition which is a reflection and extension of autopoietic biological organization; both cognitive and organic systems are seen to exhibit organizational closure and structural plasticity. An action-based intervention method, modeling embedded learning structures as cybernetic, autopoietic systems, may provide insight toward clarifying some theoretical and methodological problems of critical systems thinking.     

Transforming Adult Learning Through Critical Design Inquiry

Marching toward the 21st century, there are not only drastic changes in global economic and political development, but also in technological advancement and ecological evolution. All of these are intertwined with one another to shape national and societal development in various areas. In the milieu of education, these changes exert great influence on the way we perceive learning and instruction, this in turn calls for a paradigm shift in the way we design learning and instruction. Consequently, calls to critically examine the way we have been designing our learning and instruction have gained more and more attention in the past decade. Since design could help in realizing our visionary ideals, and transforming these ideals into innumerable learning and working contexts, we need to probe into how our learning and instruction could be more creatively and powerfully designed. The author contends that most learners, through the process of critical envision and enaction, could learn to design their own learning, either independently or collectively, through the cultivation of design capacities. In this paper, the author first presents the historical analysis of the theoretical foundations of instructional design, and then takes a critical approach to examining the alternative possibilities of instructional design. Based on the critical perspectives of design, she develops the critical design inquiry by integrating the richness of contemporary critical thinking into that of systems thinking and design thinking. To make the critical design inquiry an educational praxis, rather than just another design theory, the author takes a participatory and collaborative approach to design with a group of adult students. The critical design approach aims at enlightening the adult learners’ inner systems revolution and enriching the outer learning environments through collaborative design engagement. In the final section, the author explicates how the confined roles of instructional designers could be conceptualized through the critical design inquiry.     

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.     

Control,organization, and accounting: A genealogy of modern knowledge-power

Much social scientizing tends to be ahistorical, particularly with regard to its fundamental terms and constructs, which are implicitly defined atemporally as simply “being there,” the givens of discourse. The history of two such terms, “control” and “organization,” is investigated here. In an elaboration of Foucault's idea of power-knowledge relations, a two-stage history of the terms is set out linked to the historical emergence of accounting. In the first stage, the initial invention of the terms in the thirteenth century is aligned with the contemporaneous invention of the doubleentry system, with all these innovations embodying a new power of writing. However the constructs only develop their modern significance as forms of knowledge-power at a much later stage, following the establishment of a “disciplinary” power-knowledge nexus post-1800. Under this interpretation, accounting, control, and organization, far from being ahistorical givens of discourse, are constructs which help establish the modern world of “disciplinary,” that site where the power of expert knowledge must operate.     

Educational systems design: Making it more user friendly

Concerns about our current public education systems have given rise to a variety of reform efforts. During the past several years, efforts have begun to emphasize the importance of systems thinking and a “systemic” approach for bringing about fundamental educational reform. In spite of the promise of system design as a model for systemic change, it has been largely ignored by its intended clients, the educational leadership. This paper explores some of the reasons for this and proposes a number of actions that need to be taken if system design is to become a viable approach.     

The commune's practical wisdom

Although the basic assumptions of scientific management are detrimental to the public policy of the community, they still govern its theorization and implementation. The main reason we continue to conduct our communal policy thinking in terms of scientific management is that we still lack relevant, practical alternative theories, models, and languages, which might serve to ground our thought and behavior. The present paper discusses the implications of the concept of “emancipatory interest” for the public policy of the community. The “practical wisdom” model is proposed to bridge the gap between the theory of emancipation and its praxis. Its usefulness is demonstrated in the context of an intervention study on the crisis within, and transformation of the kibbutz commune.     

System–Environment Relations in the Theories of Open and Autopoietic Systems: Implications for Critical Systems Thinking

This short paper revisits Bertalanffy??s open systems theory and Luhmann??s theory of autopoietic social systems in order to highlight the linkage between systemic complexity and the carrying capacity of the environment. Being paradigmatically focused on biological complexity, Bertalanffy??s work shows this linkage to be relatively unproblematic. In contrast, Luhmann argued that autopoietic social systems are likely to develop excessive complexity which overstrains the environment??s carrying capacity. The paper synthesizes these conceptions into a framework of discretionary social decision-making aimed at preventing systemic complexity from becoming excessive. Rooted in the idea of balancing the system and the environment, this framework determines the optimal level of systemic complexity as that level which systems can maximally attain without incurring the risk of self-destruction. The system?Cenvironment balance is shown to be the general systems theory core of Ulrich??s critical systems heuristics and critical systems thinking more generally.     

ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS THEORY： SOME BASIC CONCEPTS, METHODS AND RESULTS

The adaptive systems theory to be presented in this paper consists of two closely related parts: adaptive estimation (or filtering, prediction) and adaptive control of dynamical systems. Both adaptive estimation and control are nonlinear mappings of the on-line observed signals of dynamical systems, where the main features are the uncertain-ties in both the system‘s structure and external disturbances, and the non-stationarity and dependency of the system signals. Thus, a key difficulty in establishing a mathematical theory of adaptive systems lies in how to deal with complicated nonlinear stochastic dynamical systems which describe the adaptation processes. In this paper, we will illustrate some of the basic concepts, methods and results through some simple examples. The following fundamental questions will be discussed: How much information is needed for estimation? How to deal with uncertainty by adaptation? How to analyze an adaptive system? What are the convergence or tracking performances of adaptation? How to find the proper rate of adaptation in some sense? We will also explore the following more fundamental questions: How much uncertainty can be dealt with by adaptation ? What are the limitations of adaptation ? How does the performance of adaptation depend on the prior information ? We will partially answer these questions by finding some “critical values“ and establishing some “Impossibility Theorems“ for the capability of adaptation, for several basic classes of nonlinear dynamical control systems with either parametric or nonparametric uncertainties.     

Strategic ideologies and state hegemony,with empirical illustrations from Japan and the United Kingdom

The idea of constitutive and strategic ideologies reflects the analytical distinction between ideologies as outcomes of an inverted reality and ideologies as conditions for the reproduction of that inverted reality. The paper gives two empirical illustrations (from Japan and the United Kingdom) of strategic ideologies, showing how isolated events, which would have normally attracted little attention, became dramatized out of proportion in the false name of attempting to restore/maintain social order. The paper suggests that such reactionary responses are typical of contemporary social systems when faced with problems of weakening internal hegemony (social integration). Instead of recognizing that such problems potentially stem from structurally inherent system-imperatives, the powers in those social systems uncritically and yet strategically seek explanation and place responsibility upon accidental but opportune “events” deemed external and inimical to the mainstream “life-world.” The paper suggests that the interest of liberating systems theory and practice can be advanced by systematic efforts to unmask the ideological concealments so prevalent in our contemporary social formation.     

Involved in Praxis and Analytical at a Distance

Lately, society has pressed for more direct societal relevance of social research. The argument of this special issue is that engaged research is an answer to the demand for a social science that matters. We define engaged research as a praxis where researchers actively engage in a social field in the pursuit of solving important local problems, while at the same time combining this with a scientific knowledge generation process. In other words, we discuss the conditions for research when researchers “go native” to solve problems and reflect along with participants. We have been able to find several sources of arguments supporting such a research strategy, but our search for methodological guidance on how to act as an engaged researcher has been in vain. What does it take for a researcher to do engaged research? The set of articles in this special issue all address certain aspects of this challenge. Some discuss the researcher’s path towards deep field engagement, whereas others discover various challenges and skills involved in engagement, and the task of developing scientific knowledge based on engaged research.     

Making learning critical: Identity, emotion, and power in processes of management development

In recent years, a substantial volume of broadly critical knowledge of management and organization has been established, but comparatively little attention has been given to the question of how the insights of such knowledge might be communicated or applied pedagogically. The temptation or danger, arguably, is for critical knowledge to be substituted for the content of “traditional management education,” with minimal regard for its contribution to processes of personal, social, and organizational development. The chief purpose of this paper is to put some flesh on the claim that critical theory can make an important contribution to the principles and practice of management education. After summarizing some key differences between “traditional management education” and action learning (concerning learning and personal experience), these differences are illustrated by reference to a case study, which in turn, provides a basis for highlighting the relevance of critical thinking for addressing problems and issues thrown up through action learning for managers.     

Foucault's interpretive analytics of power 1,2

In this paper an interpretation of Foucault's work on power is presented. One aim is to introduce this aspect of Foucault's work to the emerging debate on Critical Systems Thinking. Another goal is to clarify how Foucauldian discourse about power can be framed within the notion of “interpretive analytics” (a term that describes Foucault's work, conceived by Dreyfus and Rabinow). This metalogical thinking proposes that archaeological and genealogical dimensions are proper methods for the study of the History of Thought. The interpretive space of experience-in which knowledge, power, and self are the axes of experience-is presented as a comprehensive model of the critical task of the History of Thought. Foucault's work is analyzed according to this model. Two conceptions of power arise from this analysis: the first conception is a peripheral view of power which raises key questions that drive the second, microphysical conception of power. We then demonstrate how the latter absorbs the former. The microphysical conception is based on a nominalistic view, which raises issues about nominalism in Foucault's critical thinking. These are addressed at the end of the article.     

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 road to emancipation is through organizational development: A critical evaluation of total systems intervention

Total Systems Intervention (TSI) has been claimed to be the practical face of critical systems thinking. This article reviews the central principles of TSI, describes its theoretical base, and outlines its logic. It is argued that, far from being the way forward for management science, as its supporters claim, TSI is beset by logical and conceptual problems which render its use problematic. More specifically, TSI appears to confuse logical types; its use of metaphors tends to be circular and unnecessary; and its avowed complementarism is insufficiently thought out. It is also argued that TSI is only contingently linked to critical systems thinking and that the latter's assumptions are not followed through in practice. TSI, in the final analysis, appears to be relying on commonsense, eclectically drawing on other problem-solving methods, but in itself unable to present a distinctively new, theoretically sound, and methodologically consistent approach.     

Developing total systems intervention (TSI): The critical review mode

Total systems intervention (TSI) is a meta-methodology which interprets and brings into action a range of problem solving methodologies, viewing problem solving as a process of intervention where practitioners can learn about and manage complex interacting issues. When first presented, TSI was the framework that evolved from one of many possible operationalisations of critical systems thinking. From these beginnings, TSI (as one practical implementation of the principles of CST) now continues its development into a methodology for use by problem solvers in all situations, not just the organisational-enterprise setting. This paper presents a detailed operationalisation of the critical review mode, the framework of which may also be of use in the operationalisation of the other modes in TSI.