Critical systems heuristics (CSH) is a framework for reflective professional practice organised around the central tool of boundary critique. This paper, written jointly by the original developer, Werner Ulrich, and Martin Reynolds, an experienced practitioner of CSH, offers a systematic introduction to the idea and use of boundary critique. Its core concepts are explained in detail and their use is illustrated by means of two case studies from the domain of environmental planning and management. A particular focus is on working constructively with tensions between opposing perspectives as they arise in many situations of professional intervention. These include tensions such as 'situation' versus 'system', 'is' versus 'ought' judgements, concerns of 'those involved' versus 'those affected but not involved', stakeholders' 'stakes' versus 'stakeholding issues', and others. Accordingly, boundary critique is presented as a participatory process of unfolding and questioning boundary judgements rather than as an expert-driven process of boundary setting. The paper concludes with a discussion of some essential skills and considerations regarding the practice of boundary critique. What Is CSH?A systems approach begins when first you see the world through the eyes of another.(C.W. Churchman 1968, p. 231)We do not need the systems concept at all if we are not interested in handling systems boundaries critically. (W. Ulrich 1996, p. 17) Critical systems heuristics (CSH) as developed by one of the authors (Ulrich 1983 ) is a philosophical framework to support reflective practice. In its most simple 1 Parts of the account of the NRUA-Botswana study in Section 6.2 of the present paper are repro duced from an earlier publication by one of the authors (Reynolds 2007 ); we are grateful to the publishers of Edge Press, Point Reyes, CA, for granting us permission to reproduce this material. formulation, CSH uses a set of 12 questions to make explicit the everyday judge ments on which we rely (consciously or not) to understand situations and to design systems for improving them. Table 6.1 describes the 12 questions. The precise nature and use of these so-called boundary questions will be explained later. For now we can briefly summarise three basic reasons for raising them and hence, three reasons for using CSH. Table 6.1 ). In sum, the 12 questions prompt an understand ing of the 'bigger picture'. Unfolding multiple perspectives: promoting mutual understandingThe boundary questions (hereafter referred to as CSHq1-12) reveal contrasting judgements as to what aspects of a situation ought to be/are part of the picture we make ourselves of it and what other aspects ought to be/are left out. CSH calls these judgements boundary judgements. They offer a way to examine how we frame situations. When people talk about situations, it often happens that their views differ simply because they frame the situations differently; more often than not, people are unaware of this source of misunderstanding and conflict, and even if they...

The review offered several important conclusions. First, while there was no core ST/CS "canon," certain terms appeared frequently across the reviewed texts. Second, even as these ideas are gaining traction in academic and practitioner communities, most are concentrated in a few journals. Finally, articles on ST/CS remain largely theoretical illustrating the need for further study and practical application. Given the challenge posed by the next phase of development, gaining a better understanding of ST/CS ideas and their use may lead to improvements in the implementation and practice of the Sustainable Development Goals.

No abstract

Achieving nature conservation goals require grappling with 'wicked' problems. These intractable problems arise from the complexity and dynamism of the social-ecological systems in which they are embedded. To enhance their ability to address these problems, conservation professionals are increasingly looking to the transdisciplines of systems thinking and evaluation, which provide philosophies, theories, methods, tools and approaches that show promise for addressing intractable problems in a variety of other sectors. These transdisciplines come together especially around praxis, i.e., the process by which a theory or idea is enacted, embodied or realized. We present a review and synthesis of the learnings about praxis that have emerged from The Silwood Group, a consortium of conservation professionals, professional evaluators, and complexity and systems thinkers. The Silwood Group believes that for conservation activities to achieve ambitious goals, we should benefit nature without compromising the well-being of people, and that framing a praxis for conservation in the context of social-ecological systems will provide the greatest potential for positive impact. The learnings are presented as four key principles of a 'praxis for effective conservation'. The four principles are: (1) attend to the whole with humility; (2) engage constructively with the values, cultures, politics, and histories of stakeholders; (3) learn through evaluative, systemic enquiry, and (4) exercise wisdom in judgement and action. We also provide descriptions and references for tools and methods to support such praxis and discuss how the thinking and approaches used by conservation professionals can be transformed to achieve greater effectiveness.

The purpose of this paper is to enrich the current conceptualization of graduate employability and employment through the lens of policy, academia and practice in UK higher education. We examine the UK policy context that is shaping graduate employability and employment debates before enriching this conceptualization through a discussion of key themes in the academic literature. We then undertake a comparative study across a sample of 35 higher education institutions in the UK to identify and discuss key employability practice areas shaping their graduate employability and employment provision. We do so by drawing on institutional employability data that is already available in the public domain. In mapping key themes in the literature against institutional employability practice, we conclude that the employer‐university interaction theme in the literature is not sufficiently addressed in UK higher education practice. Drawing on the evidence from our comparative study, we provide a discussion on four directions worthy of further exploration by universities as they shape their institutional responses to the lack of employer‐university interaction.