Critical systems practice 4: Check—Evaluating and reflecting on a multimethodological intervention

Abstract

This is the fourth of a series of papers on the stages of critical systems practice. Critical systems practice is a multimethodology that seeks to employ the ideas of critical systems thinking to intervene in and improve complex real-world 'messes'. It has four stages-Explore (the problem situation), Produce (an intervention strategy), Intervene (flexibly), and Check (on progress)-called to mind as EPIC. The aim is to set out where thinking has reached on the best way to carry out each of these stages and to invite comment on what more needs doing. This paper discusses the fourth stage, Check. During Check, decision makers, and other stakeholders, evaluate the intervention, reflect on what has happened with a view to improving future interventions, and discuss next steps.

Systems thinking for creative and flexible practice

“…In his latest works, Jackson (2020aJackson ( , 2020bJackson ( , 2021aJackson ( , 2021bJackson ( , 2023 emphasizes the importance of pragmatism in systems thinking. Drawing from a pragmatist philosophy, once a methodology is chosen and deployed in a problem context, it does not have to be sacrosanct, and along with the context it is deployed in, the methodology can have varied and evolving spatial or temporal qualities.…”

Festschrift for Mike Jackson: Call for papers for a special issue of Systems Research and Behavioral Science

“…He has set out his views on the current state of both critical systems thinking (CST) and critical systems practice (CSP), exploring what more needs doing (Jackson, 2020a). He has written four papers on CSP (Jackson, 2020b(Jackson, , 2021(Jackson, , 2022a(Jackson, , 2022b, seeking to show what the ideas of CST entail when translated into practice. These will form the basis for a forthcoming practitioner's guide to CST.…”

In search of a golden mean for systemic evaluation: A response to Michael Quinn Patton

“…It is that CSP represents my best attempt to draw upon what the systems tradition as a whole currently has to offer and to suggest how this can be taken advantage of in evaluation practice. All four of the recently published papers on CSP (Jackson, 2020(Jackson, , 2021(Jackson, , 2022a(Jackson, , 2023 invite comment on what more needs doing, and I am pleased that Michael has responded to that call. I am not an expert on the evaluation field and not familiar with evaluation frameworks that do not explicitly make use of systems ideas.…”

“…In search of a golden mean for systemic evaluation: A response to Michael Quinn Patton I am grateful to Michael Quinn Patton for his full and considered response (Patton, 2023) to my article 'Critical systems practice 4: Check-Evaluating and reflecting on a multimethodological intervention' (Jackson, 2023). I agree with him that systemic evaluation should be nonsequential, iterative, useful, developmental and engaged, seeking to make the world a better place.…”

“…Critical systems practice adheres to these principles, and I will not, therefore, be addressing Points 11 and 12 in Michael's letter. For the evidence, see Jackson, 2020Jackson, , 2021Jackson, , 2022aJackson, , 2023 We are on the same side, and I cannot but be inspired by the vision behind 'blue marble evaluation' (Patton, 2020). I do, however, have things to say about Points 1-10.…”