Systemic Educational Approaches to Environmental Issues: The Contribution of Ecological Art

System thinkers and practitioners are trying to help society understand better the interconnectedness between issues that we previously tended to explore in isolation. Because of this, they have an important role to play in dealing with environmental issues. Indeed, the need to tackle those in holistic ways is now recognised and systems approaches are now complementing academic approaches such as ecological economics (Neumayer E (ed) (2003) Online encyclopaedia of ecological economics. International Society for Ecological Economics; Faber M, Manstetten R, Proops J (1996) Ecological economics. Concepts and methods. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham), which analyse ecological-human interactions. This paper explores how new forms of ‘environmental education’ could constitute particularly relevant vehicles for systems thinking and practice by building on messages and practices initiated in ecological art. Ecological art, it argues, has provided, for centuries, a practical form of holistic, interdisciplinary, problem-solving environmental management model—a particularly insightful illustration of how ‘systems thinking and practice’ can be used to deal with environmental problems. The paper suggests that art-based pedagogic forms could help put sustainability into practice by providing an educational tool that respects the systemicity of environmental issues and by encouraging systemic learning processes that are based on improved communication, sharing of perspectives, and stakeholders’ empowerment through participation and experience.

Is it Safe to Talk About Systems Again Yet?

The following article makes a case for the social sciences to renew their interest in systems, drawing on ideas circulating in organisational and community psychology, industry, engineering, biology and ecology, the new physics, management, evaluation, religion and spirituality, policy-making, human services professions, and service-user and community movements. It charts a different kind of systemic thinking in striking contrast to traditional mechanistic social systems theory. Sociology’s current resiling from systems theory is explained as a legacy of its loyal service in the ‘battlefield’ of the post WW2 critique of authoritarian structural-functionalist positivist systems and the hard-won interpretive turn to issues of process, diversity, conflict, change and a critical and ‘qualitative’ epistemology. A new transdisciplinary mental architecture of self-organising processes for complex living systems is offered which integrates understandings of both ‘structural systems’ and the ‘processual systemic’ in individual psychology, organisational sociology, and in action research as its epistemology.

Measuring the Performance of a Research Strategic Plan System Using the Soft Systems Methodology’s Three ‘Es’ and the Viable System Model’s Indices of Achievement

We explore problems involving the measurement of the performance of a system. We outline two systemic approaches that have come from different epistemological positions: one from the interpretivist paradigm (soft systems methodology) and the other from the cybernetic paradigm (viable systems model). These two systemic methodologies that have tackled problems involving performance measurement are considered and discussed: (a) Checkland’s systems ideas of ‘managing and controlling’ a system throughout a set of three measures of performance: efficacy, efficiency and effectiveness; and (b) Beer’s concepts of Actuality, Capability, Potentiality of the firm and his claims that the performance of a system needs to be quantifiable and resumed on ‘pure’ numbers which should reflect the survivability of the firm. A parallel is drawn between the two approaches concluding that although the paradigms underpinning them are in some way different, the practicalities of these approaches to control, measure and improve the performance of a system are very similar. A case involving the measurement of a proposed research strategic plan for a Manchester Metropolitan University Business School’s department is used to illustrate the systemic approaches.     

The Relationship of ‘Systems Thinking’ to Action Research

This article investigates the relationship of systems thinking to action research by reviewing the main developments in systems thinking and relating these to action research. There are two main lines of thought in systems thinking that lead to wholly different conceptions about action research. The first (systems thinking) advocates thinking about real social systems that it assumes exist in the world. The second (systemic thinking) supposes only that the social construction of the world is systemic. Greater emphasis is placed on systemic thinking consistent with its greater importance to contemporary action research. The article concludes that systemic thinking when taken to its practical conclusion from a critical perspective offers to action research a somewhat unique liberating praxis. Concern that any liberating praxis could remain hollow is addressed through a certain kind of ‘spiritual’ awareness that is suggested by wholeness.     

Feminist Systems Theory: Learning by Praxis

Feminist Systems Theory (FST) is an emerging theory grounded in cultural ecofeminism and critical systems theory. FST’s contribution is in a set of principles that contain implications for community development and social research. FST brings to the fore the importance of valuing and considering the voices of people at the margins of social research and community development projects and is an effort towards a new ontology and language of person and nature to adequately address environmental marginalization. The ‘systems’ theory contribution to FST enriches our repertoires of methods and tools with an emphasis on systems thinking characterised by the use of boundary analysis. FST is ideally situated to enhance systemic intervention practice, an application of action research and participatory research practices. This paper will examine ‘process philosophy’ necessary to understand the nature of boundary analysis and the implications for FST and praxis with relevant examples drawn from case studies of current applications of FST in action research settings; (1) economic analysis and transition pathways; (2) policy analysis of the Close the Gap strategy for Indigenous equality and equity in Australia; (3) a community food distribution system; and, (4) a community health and diabetes prevention program.     

Peirce and Beer

This paper considers the philosophical background of Stafford Beer's Viable Systems Diagnosis (VSD) as profoundly influenced by Charles Peirce. In a general sense, our work discusses the VSD theory base in the development of a model for actionable theory in organizations. This paper examines VSD theory in the Beer trilogy ‘Brain of the Firm,’ ‘The Heart of the Enterprise’ and ‘Diagnosing the System’ and we propose that a sound set of VSD action principles can be derived from this trilogy. We contend that the philosophical background underpinning these principles is important. Using Beer’s ‘Decision and Control,’ we consider that philosophical background and link Operational Research and the interdisciplinary learning within Cybernetics to modern general systems theory. We explore Beer’s viewpoint on the Peirce depiction of four main methods of fixing belief; tenacity, authority, a priori and finally the scientific to assist in that expansion. We consider how knowledge of Beer’s perspective on making sense of the world is important in the linkage of VSD theory to the managerial problem arena. We relate the Peirce methods to previously reported problem solving exercises involving the VSD ideology, which we will develop individually at a later date. This paper reflects our desire to express the interpretation of VSD theory in a language that the well-informed manager may readily translate into the third step of testing theory in practice.     

A New Paradigm of Organizational Transformation: Enacting Wholeness Praxis in the Oneness of Problem and Possibility

In view of the emerging complicated global problems intertwined with the degradation of the natural environment, we need to probe the nature of the problems caused by human thinking and action in order to find new possibilities and opportunities for our future. In this paper the authors analyze the ‘problem maze’ humans create to depict the nature of organizational problems across public, private, and the third sectors. In order to cultivate the capacity to envision the possibilities inherent to organizational problems, we approach organizational transformation from the perspectives of epistemology, ontology, methodology, and practicalogy. We also propose four approaches to organizational transformation, namely involutionary, evolutionary, revolutionary, and, holo-volutionary transformation. We expect that by highlighting the oneness of problem and possibility, and by characterizing “wholeness praxis” of organizational transformation, we would probably offer a new path of sustainable organizational development. We also use three social enterprises to demonstrate how social and organizational problems might be transformed into possibilities and opportunities.     

Action Research for Sustainable Water Futures in Western Sydney: Reaching Beyond Traditional Stakeholder Engagement to Understand Community Stakeholder Language and Its Implications for Action

Action on issues of ecological significance often requires changes in personal behaviour and political consensus on technologies to support these changes. Unfortunately, many consultation processes only engage a narrow range of stakeholders, usually those professionally engaged or already active on a range of community issues. This paper illustrates how people who are ‘hard to reach’ or seen as ‘apathetic’ might be engaged using ‘action-conversations’ that explore the social climate for action and how scientific/technical messages can be framed in the language of the community.     

Systemic Human Relations in Dynamic Equilibrium

This paper reports on a breakthrough in thinking based on 33 years of field practice-based inquiry and previously published studies. It brings together several bodies of established and emerging thought including systems thinking, epistemology, psychology and sociology, in a way of thinking about the living fabric of complex human systems-in-process. It is offered here as a kind of transdisciplinary ‘Rosetta stone’ to those working around the world with one or more of these bodies of thought as a way of making some critical connections between them. In summary, an integrating ‘mental architecture’ is proposed whereby inquiry (research as an evaluative dynamic act of seeking) may be seen as the way by which living (notably human) systems come alive, and which is incorporated, organ-ised, ‘structured’ and relationally embodied in an individual and their psychological mind as personal process, and in social collectivities and their sociological organisation as cultural process.

Leadership and Learning: A Critical Reexamination of Senge’s Learning Organization

From its inception the concept of the learning organization has been identified with a particular type of organization or new forms of organizational learning. But it is often forgotten that Senge’s ‘system thinking’ formulation of the learning organization was inseparable from an attempt to reformulate a new way of thinking about change agency and leadership in organizations. Here it is argued that Senge’s learning organization can be re-conceptualised as a partial fusion of ‘systems thinking’ and learning theories that leads to a concept of organizational learning as a form of ‘distributed leadership’. However, the concept is critically flawed because it cannot theorise the organizing practices by which learning to lead and leading to learn are shared or distributed in organizations. It is concluded that Senge’s under-theorized focus on distributed leadership consistently neglects issues of practice and issues of power. As such his work does not provide an exploration of the possibilities for increasing the dispersal of human agency, power, knowledge and autonomy within the workplace.     

Evaluating Climate Change Discourse in New Zealand

Issues of social responsibility, ethics and interdependence, as well as the pragmatic imperative to better understand complexity, require that diverse viewpoints be invited and given credence by policy makers seeking imaginative ‘solutions’ to climate change. This paper explores the statutory introduction of biofuels into New Zealand by way of the discourses that preceded this decision. This inquiry used Critically Systemic Thinking and ‘Mode 2’ Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) to engage with multiple stakeholders to the Biofuels policy to discover how the discourse was conducted. It concludes that the process of policymaking was framed in technical rationalist terms thereby favouring certain ‘worldviews’ over others. Accordingly, a model of ‘ideal’ discourse and decision making for governing the conduct of future public discourse is presented. This inquiry assists in re-establishing SSM as a rigorous and reflexive approach to analysing a complex issue and for enhancing collective learning into its content and process.     

Conclusion: New Directions Through Extending Deliberative Democracy to Enhance Representation and Accountability

Two way, systemic dialogue enables new ideas to emerge. Rorty (1989) in ‘Contingency, irony and solidarity’ argues that we need to ask questions that acknowledge solidarity with other human beings who suffer. He asks us to consider the consequences for humanity by widening our sense of solidarity or links with others. Considering their pain should be our starting point for drawing ever widening circles of solidarity. The issue is not idealism versus pragmatism as Rorty argues; it is about widening our understanding of the consequences of our thinking and our practice. We need to understand that the environment of which we are part has been shaped by our social, cultural, political and economic decisions and that it will in turn shape our thinking and practice. This is the principle of co-determination that has been developed by systems thinkers such as Maturana and Varela and understood by recent thinkers such as Tim Flannery (2007) and Ulrich Beck (1992, 1997).

F#-Time, Functions and Processes: Towards Sustainable Investment Risk Benchmarks

‘I made a mistake’: Alan Greenspan (Financial Times: Alan Beattie and James Politi: Washington, 23rd October 2008). Such are the words of great men, for even in troubled times their self-effacing manner provides useful guidance. Whilst Mr Greenspan may feel this way, he is a product of his environment, one that has seen the cumulative development of financial instruments and strategies that have not been thought through as to their impact on a complex economy. Mainly this is because risk is thought to be discrete and the methods used to price it are flawed. To an engineer the control of a machine is built-in. Although the economy is not a machine, but an intensely connected complex of ever emerging businesses, the process of control needs to be structured in a similar manner. Pricing investment risk in this environment should never have been left to opaque institutions, or processes that do not recognise the co-dependencies of business and systemic functionality. To do so is to ignore the correlation of events in a highly connected world. These events are dynamic and conditional, whose outturns are unknowable. This does not mean unmanageable, but that the control process be built-in to businesses and government in a consistent manner, transparent yet using different parameters. Transparent means that data, assumptions and processes need to be monitored and published in timely manner. As far as accounting for results is concerned it should be recognised that budgeting and reporting to investors is founded on dynamic processes that are therefore changeable; usually out of date; and co-dependent upon others within a complex dynamic network that is both internal and external to the business. The works of Stafford Beer (Brain of the Firm, Heart of the Enterprise, Diagnosing the System) Fredrick Vestor (The Art of Interconnected Thinking) and others are examples of how to manage the internal dynamics of a business and point to a methodology that synthesises the approaches of investors such as Warren Buffett so that extreme outcomes such as the Credit-Crunch 2008 can be reduced in frequency but investors are free to ‘take their risks’. This research aims to compare two extreme events in the financial arena, the ‘Reinsurance Spiral of the late 1980s’ and the ‘2008 Credit-Crunch’, show their commonalities and propose methods that supply liquidity in all but gross systemic failure and allow investment risk to be more ably assessed and priced. It is not meant to be an exhaustive analysis but one focused on how ignoring the proper relationship of time, functions and processes brought about the current problem in both insurance and the capital markets and how a solution may be found. This research note offers an overview on the ongoing PhD research on the topic.

The Continuous Improvement Grid: An Empirical Investigation into the Effectiveness of a Systems,and Action Research,Based Continuous Improvement Intervention,for ‘New’ Organisation Development

This paper is a rare example of a large scale (n = 1310), positivist, evaluation of an action research program. It documents how the Royal Navy used the principles of scholarly consulting and pragmatic science to develop, apply and review a systems based tool, and associated ‘new organisation development’ intervention, to help staff explore and share perceptions of working practices, in order to expand their awareness of their current work situation and so uncover opportunities for improvement. Survey results suggest that the majority of individuals found the interventions valuable and participants in the events enjoyed significantly higher levels of understanding of the organisation, and greater collective, and individual, benefit from it. Findings also provide empirical evidence of the importance of involvement to making successful change, especially when dealing with the change averse. Overall the experience, of which the action research based study and associated positivist survey were part, reinforce the importance of what is described as ‘normative realigning pedagogy’—helping people change by facilitating their generation of new forms of understanding.     

Fair and Open Approach to Academic Publishing

The Journal Systemic Practice and Action Research (SPAR) aims to encourage into print authors and practitioners of systemic thinking and practice from all kinds of background. In this note we describe both the publishing world into which SPAR has emerged and the systemic and inclusive thinking behind the journal’s publishing policy. We set out our manifesto for a fair and open approach to academic publishing. “A rich and diverse set of potential bibliometric and scientometric predictors of research performance quality and importance are emerging today—from the classic metrics (publication counts, journal impact factors and individual article/author citation counts) to promising new online metrics such as download counts, hub/authority scores and growth/decay chronometrics. In and of themselves, however, metrics are circular: They need to be jointly tested and validated against what it is that they purport to measure and predict, with each metric weighted according to its contribution to their joint predictive power. The natural criterion against which to validate metrics is expert evaluation by peers; a unique opportunity to do this is offered by the 2008 UK Research Assessment Exercise, in which a full spectrum of metrics can be jointly tested, field by field, against peer rankings.” (Harnard 2008)     

Action Research: Its Foundations in Open Systems Thinking and Relationship to the Scientific Method

This paper considers those interpretations of action research that can be traced to Kurt Lewin at the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the University of Michigan, and the work in social ecology by Emery and Trist at the Tavistock Institute. It locates the logical basis of these interpretations in the philosophy of pragmatism, particularly as it relates to Peirce’s inferential logic and inquiry system. Drawing on this argument, and on the significant developments in approaches to systemic thinking over the past 40–50 years, a normative set of criteria is established for action research. The paper concludes that both positivist science (which relates to closed systems thinking) and action research (which relates to open systems thinking) are essential to any complete scientific approach.     

Exploring an Explicit Use of the Concept of Sustainability in Transport Planning

The aim of this paper is to explore an explicit use of the concept of sustainability within transport planning. This paper analyses the concept of sustainability based on a practical approach for a sustainable development of Nordhavn, an area of Copenhagen, exemplifying a complex planning problem. An exploration of the application of the concept of sustainability is carried out using elements of Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). This approach indicates a need to separate the use of sustainability considerations regarding the transport planning ‘process’ from the transport planning ‘results’. The two approaches are related to the planning levels presented by Ulrich (Syst Prac 1(4):415–428, 1988). It was chosen to focus on the understanding of a sustainable transport planning process. This focus is addressed by four stakeholder groups interviewed based on the ‘ought to’ mode of Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH). Finally an outline of some of the factors of a sustainable transport planning process is proposed.     

The Viable Systems Model Applied to a National System of Innovation to Inform Policy Development

This paper outlines how the viable systems model (VSM) can provide insights into a National System of Innovation by focussing on the necessary variety needed to match the system's changing external environment. Because an innovation system is more diffuse than a firm, the VSM needs to be described within an ‘ecological’ metaphor. This approach gives insights into the system's learning processes, showing that there can be a trade-off between variety and control for the system to maintain a fixed level of viability. Furthermore, for many innovation systemsthe coordination is ‘soft’; taking place through markets, through Government directions, and through relationships embodied in clusters, unions or industry groups, etc.Governments generally can only manage the system indirectly by facilitating the generation of the necessary variety, influencing strategic directions, filling gaps in the system and encouraging coordination. Societal or cultural innovations, such as new forms of citizen participation in decision-making, may well improve the viability of an innovation system. However, if these innovations are pursued for societal rather than economic purposes, they fall outside the usual definition of innovation within an NSI.     

The Actions of Mahabharat (an Indian Epic): An Analysis from Action Science Perspective

This paper analyses the actions of Mahabharat from the point of view of action science. From the point of view of action science, the source of the problem of Mahabharat is the undiscussable issue of who should be the king of Hastinapur. The paper then analyses the actions of different actors of this epic. It concludes that Yudhishthir displays the Model I governing value of ‘minimize generating or expressing negative feelings’. Duryodhan displays the Model I governing value of ‘maximize winning and minimize losing’. Vidur, Bhishm and Dronacharya display the Model I governing value of ‘be rational’. Together these actors create the ‘limited learning system’ of Model O-I. The primary inhibitory loops created by this limited learning system finally lead to secondary inhibitory loop of polarisation of different actors into two groups and the emergence of win-lose group dynamics in the form of war as the only action which can settle the original undiscussable issue of who should be the king of Hastinapur.     

Towards an Holistic Framework for Environmental Change: The Role of Normative Behaviour and Informal Networking to Enhance Sustainable Business Practices

The term ‘Sustainable Development’ is brandished by modern businesses as a marketing ploy used to suggest evidence of ethical conduct, innovative thinking and moral superiority. However, when analysing an organisations’ adoption of sustainable practices, it is often clear—within the UK—that there are few activities that have been undertaken as an ethical stance instead of legal obligation (McCormick in Environmental politics and policy in industrialized countries, MIT, London, 2002). Our hypothesis is that most methodologies and practices for environmental management do not adopt a holistic perspective, causing significant problems in implementation from inadequate structures and communication channels (Espinosa et al. in Eur J Oper Res, 187:636–651, 2008). In particular we consider that most organisations are currently stifled with management hierarchies that prevent informal/social networking, which may be one of the most powerful natural forms for self-organisation. It is proposed that sustainable development requires more efficient communication channels that foster self-organisation and self-regulation as a method for more productive change processes. In this paper, we explain the reasons why meta-systemic principles of self-organisation and distributed network management offer clear criteria to design an environmental management system that operates on the basis of self-controlled individuals and communities.