Critical Systems Thinking, Systemic Intervention, and Beyond

Abstract

Applied systems thinking has evolved since the 1950s through three paradigmatic waves. Authors in the first wave regarded systems as real-world entities, and systems models as representations of reality, so objectivity was important. In contrast, second wave authors emphasised thinking in terms of systems, and the exploration of multiple perspectives. The role of models was to aid mutual understanding and enhance the appreciation of diverse viewpoints on action to be taken. In the 1980s, first and second wave advocates came into conflict. Then some third wave authors, initially working under the banner of critical systems thinking, argued that the division of the systems research community into two camps was unhelpful, and they advocated methodological pluralism-mixing methods from both traditions. Other authors set out to address power relations during interventions-in particular, the practice of exploring value and boundary judgements in projects in order to address conflict and marginalization. This practice came to be called 'boundary critique', and it was eventually integrated with methodological pluralism in a new approach called systemic intervention. This chapter gives readers a thorough overview of the emergence and maturation of both critical systems thinking and systemic intervention, illustrated with practical examples. It then discusses two major problems that remain unaddressed in the third wave. First, the increasing proliferation of methodologies and methods has resulted in such a diversity of views on systems thinking, that explaining what it is to newcomers has become a real challenge. Second, despite this diversity, all the new methodologies and methods are still founded on principles of rational analysis, and approaches that go beyond this are marginalized. For instance, arts-based and theatre methods are rarely mentioned in the literature on systems thinking, yet they can help people discover how their value and boundary assumptions have roots in unconscious impulses and memories. Such discoveries help to unfreeze taken-for-granted understandings, including the internalisation of oppressive power relationships. Very recent writings have begun to tackle these problems, but it is too soon to judge whether they represent an extension of the third wave, or the first swellings of a new, fourth wave of systems thinking.

Paradigm, specialty, pragmatism: Kuhn's legacy to methodological pluralism

“…That extended form I shall, following Kuhn's custom, call 'scientific cooperation', to be conducted by project-based teams (see Table 1). Working on a specific project usually within a limited time span, and hopefully with stakeholders as widely as possible, members from different specialisations temporarily come together, enlarge overlaps between their expertise cum methodologies, construct a temporary, purpose-built 22 Early contributions to CST include Flood (1990), Jackson (1991a, 1991b), Jackson (1982Jackson ( , 1985Jackson ( , 1991, Midgley (1992), Mingers (1980Mingers ( , 1984Mingers ( , 1992, Mingers and Gill (1997) and Ulrich (1983Ulrich ( , 2003; for reviews see Jackson (2020a) and Midgley and Rajagopalan (2021). 23 It would be interesting to see how long the overlaps will last, and how strong isolation mechanisms will get, between the two CST specialties.…”

“…Unfortunately, the self‐doubt ends up merely ‘branding’ or ‘translation’ tactics. Some decide ‘to stop using the term “critical systems thinking”’ (Midgley & Rajagopalan, 2021, p. 20) because ‘critical’ allegedly deters wider audience. Others take the matter more seriously.…”

“…And the victory is said to be total: ‘People are still making new contributions, but they are now mostly developments of existing theory, methodology, and methods rather than offering something fundamentally new’ (Midgley & Rajagopalan, 2021, p. 31). The implication: in the days and years ahead what will, and should, happen are all and only ‘puzzle‐solving’ within the bound of the Paradigm‐theoretic ‘normal science’.…”

“…Meanwhile, worries come to surface just why the reach of the victory is so limited: ‘It is not clear why there is not greater take up CST and CSP in the wider management sciences’ (Jackson, 2020a, p. 28); ‘the ideas were not particularly influential in the social sciences. More importantly, they were little known outside academia, except among organisations directly involved in CST projects’ (Midgley & Rajagopalan, 2021, p. 20). Precious self‐doubt.…”

Systems Approach to Address Human Resource Issues: A Case in a Commercial Livestock Farm in Southern Nigeria

“…Findings also validate the authors' thoughts on the choice of systemic intervention in the current research with the complementary application of different techniques in the research process (Midgley & Rajagopalan, 2019). The engagement with participants involved in the operations of the case study organization also supported learning across in the case study organization about the depth of human resource operational challenges addressed in the research.…”