Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods

Midgley, Gerald; Cavana, Robert Y.; Brocklesby, John; Foote, Jeff; Wood, D.; Ahuriri‐Driscoll, Annabel

doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2013.01.047

Cited by 143 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 91 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

121

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results presented here are a summary of an evaluation of the STEEP methodology (Yearworth 2014) 8 , which was primarily carried out with a view to methodological learning (Yearworth & White 2014) and based on approaches suggested by Ormerod (2013) and Midgley et al (2013). Here we focus on the Purposes and Outcomes dimensions of the Midgley et al framework, specifically focussing on the narrative report for the project.…”

Section: Bristol Project Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate change and cities: problem structuring methods and critical perspectives on low-carbon districts

Freeman¹,

Yearworth²

2017

Energy Research & Social Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cities around the world have set climate change mitigation targets, yet actions to implement these targets have so far proved inadequate. Better methodology is needed to support this impetus for action.Problem structuring methods (PSMs) enable improvements to be made in wicked problem situations; they appear to have potential to improve climate change mitigation actions but they are difficult to carry out in highly pluralist problem contexts. A case study (STEEP) that applied a PSM to support lowcarbon urban energy master planning in three cities is presented. The STEEP methodology was effective in reducing the wickedness of the problem but issues of a lack of clarity on problem ownership and lack of interessement were seen. A reflective boundary critique study found that there was a mismatch between power and interest amongst key stakeholders towards the low-carbon vision. Three key issues identified in the case study were discussed through the lens of critical systems thinking: (i) the need for new competencies, (ii) dealing with wickedness, and (iii) behavioural complexity and discordant reference systems. The paper suggests how these issues might be improved through the application of non-PSM theories which can support the use of PSMs in improving city-level climate change mitigation.Key Words: Problem structuring methods; problematisation; Boundary Critique; climate change mitigation; critical systems thinking IntroductionRecent decades have seen slow and insufficient progress on climate change mitigation -the reduction of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions to below a "safe" level, as recommended by climate science (Edenhofer et al. 2014). Climate change mitigation has been described as a "wicked" problem (Rittel 2There is much potential for cities to play an active role in climate change mitigation. A 40% reduction in carbon emissions from UK cities could be possible by 2020 just from investing in cost-effective lowcarbon technologies (Sullivan et al. 2013). City governments often control some of the key factors related to carbon emissions such as land use planning, building regulations, public transport, and waste management (Kousky & Schneider 2003). Across the world, cities are joining together to support each other in the goal of transitioning to a low-carbon future (for example, the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (www.c40.org) and Local Governments for Sustainability (www.iclei.org)). In reality, however, low-carbon cities are difficult to achieve. A study of eight new-build eco-cities found that the idea of building smart, sustainable cities is still relatively new and unproven, with projects being To guide the reader through the rest of this paper, a brief description of the main sections follows:• Section 2, Background -Perspectives on Urban Climate Change Mitigation: A review of the literature on the nature of the problem of climate change mitigation at the city level, including barriers to mitigation, ideological perspectives from social science, and governance mechanisms that ha...

show abstract

Section: Bristol Project Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate change and cities: problem structuring methods and critical perspectives on low-carbon districts

Freeman¹,

Yearworth²

2017

Energy Research & Social Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some participatory, interactive and facilitated approaches used in COR are systemic (Jackson, 2002;Midgley et al, 2013). They help stakeholders "enhance mutual understanding", as well as undertake "bigger picture analyses, which may cast new light on the issue and potential solutions".…”

Section: The Viable System Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying OR to problem situations within community organisations: A case in a Danish non-profit, member-driven food cooperative

Tavella

Παπαδόπουλος

2017

European Journal of Operational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This has resulted in a third wave of systems approaches: Critical Systems Thinking (CST) (Ulrich 2000;Jackson 2006). CST rests on the key notion of "boundary judgment", and how it determines how people perceive and judge a particular situation (in relation to what is and what ought to be the case) (Midgley 2000). Setting a system boundary is a critical choice about what the study considers to be relevant knowledge and legitimate decision makers.…”

Section: Critical Systems Thinkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The soft approach takes the view that scientists bring their own values and subjective interpretations with the aim of intervening within the system. Intervention is defined as "purposeful action by an agent to make change" (Midgley 2000). Active stakeholder engagement and an active researcher role are common pillars of soft systems and also action research.…”

Section: Soft Systems Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incorporating Human Aspects into Groundwater Research and Policy Making: A Soft and Critical Systems Thinking Approach

Elsawah

Guillaume

2016

Integrated Groundwater Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Groundwater management issues present a serious challenge partly because of the complexity and uncertainty that human elements (i.e. cognitive, social, cultural and political) bring into the problem, as well as our limited capacity to fully comprehend and deal with such elements and their interactions with the biophysical systems. Whereas there is a wide recognition of the importance of stakeholder participation for the design and implementation of effective policies, the ongoing depletion of groundwater and disputes surrounding management policies suggest the need for better participatory mechanisms. This raises the question of how human elements can be incorporated into groundwater policies. Whereas there is no single discipline that can provide answers for such crucial research and policy questions, this chapter argues that systems thinking (especially soft and critical approaches) has the potential to provide a framework of theories, methods and example applications to help incorporate human elements into groundwater management and research. This chapter aims to give an overview of systems thinking by firstly describing the theory, distinguishing between hard, soft and critical systems thinking approaches. Secondly, we discuss the importance of mixing methods from these approaches and evaluating

show abstract

Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods

Cited by 143 publications

References 91 publications

Climate change and cities: problem structuring methods and critical perspectives on low-carbon districts

Climate change and cities: problem structuring methods and critical perspectives on low-carbon districts

Applying OR to problem situations within community organisations: A case in a Danish non-profit, member-driven food cooperative

Incorporating Human Aspects into Groundwater Research and Policy Making: A Soft and Critical Systems Thinking Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About