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.     

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: 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.     

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 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.     

Pluralism and the legitimation of systems science

The central message of this paper is that methodological pluralism is essential for the continued legitimation of systems science. This statement is supported by a critique of our notion of complexity. Our traditional view of complexity focuses upon the natural world of object relations and thereby excludes complexities of moral decision making and subjectivity. However, we are now beginning to realize that these realms of complexity are not independent of one another. Indeed, our ability to cope adequately with many of the problems we are currently facing, especially global problems, depends on being able to understand the systemic relationships between all three. Interestingly, we find that different methods have evolved to handle the different forms of complexity. Therefore, if our inquiries are going to have any legitimacy in tackling some of the major issues of today, we must indeed embrace methodological pluralism.     

David Hume and systems practice

The aim of this paper is to provide some refreshment for jaded and confused spirits. David Hume, the foremost critic of the Enlightenment, asked some questions, pertinent to systems practice, which have yet to be answered fully. His attacks on superstition and naive realism will be received with sympathy today, but he still makes challenges to rationalism and to a priori knowledge and principles, which are as fresh today as they were in his time. He also has some advice for systems practitioners.     

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.     

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.     

Enhancing Emancipatory Systems Methodologies for Sustainable Development

Our interest lies in applying the principles of critical systems thinking to human activity systems in developing countries in situations where issues of natural resource sustainability constrain the feasible set of long-term strategies. The concept of sustainable development provides an expanded domain for critical systems thinking. The fundamental values underpinning sustainable development are that both intragenerational and intergenerational equity are important. As a consequence, key stakeholders are often excluded from power-sharing within current social systems. Addressing these issues requires renewed focus on emancipatory commitment and methodologies. To date, Ulrich's critical systems heuristics is the only critical systems methodology that offers practicable tools for emancipation. A case study analysis in Tigray, northern Ethiopia, provides insights in relation to the application of critical system heuristics to issues of sustainable development and highlights the need to extend the use of critical systems heuristics beyond the design and monitoring of structured interventions.     

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.     

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.     

Tracking the development of the Emery-Trist systems paradigm (ETSP)

This paper is written to accomplish two objectives: first, to introduce the Emery-Trist systems paradigm to the critical systems thinking, a largely neglected and under-utilized paradigm; second using a critical systems thinking framework, to provide a rational justification in an attempt to track the developments in the ETSP so that an extended heuristic map is offered to the scholars interested in the Emery-Trist systems paradigm. Four tracks within ETSP are identified and analyzed to produce a liberation theme that has not previously been articulated. The liberation theme imminent in all four tracks of the paradigm development denotes the value and the promise of the ETSP to the critical systems thinking community as well as to other systems thinkers.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 34th meeting of the International Society for Systems Science, Portland, Oregon, in July 1990.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.