Abstract
A systems practitioner has to contextualise their practice to their circumstances in their choice and use of systems boundaries, concepts, tools, methods, etc. In this chapter what is entailed in juggling the C-ball is explored. It is argued that an aware systems practitioner has more choices than the practitioner who is not aware. A primary aspect of awareness is use of the distinction between systemic and systematic thinking and action. Arguments are made that an aware systems practitioner is able to contextualise a diverse array of systems concepts and methods thereby creating an opportunity for advantageous changes in ‘real-world’ situations that are systemically desirable, culturally feasible and ethically defensible. A case study of a systemic inquiry that adapted to unfolding circumstances is used to exemplify juggling the C-ball.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For example if fast and slow were defined by lap times, this would require a whole assessment and monitoring system which would become unwieldy.
- 2.
Horses for courses means that what is suitable for one person or situation might be unsuitable for another (Source: http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/horses+for+courses.html, Accessed 17 May 2017).
- 3.
The challenge for the systems practitioner is to be able to engage in double learning – learning about the domain in which practice is occurring and learning about the systems approach to the domain as well as juggling the other balls. This is a lot to manage.
- 4.
The various Systems traditions might equate more to Inuit, Lapp, Anu, or even Tongan, etc. One can be quite proficient with the richness in any one of the branches without being a scholar of the nature of the branches.
- 5.
‘French philosopher and Jesuit priest who trained as a palaeontologist and geologist and took part in the discovery of Peking Man … Teilhard’s primary book, The Phenomenon of Man, set forth a sweeping account of the unfolding of the cosmos’ (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin, Accessed 17 May 2017).
- 6.
From my perspective the Systems literature about multi-methodology too often falls into this trap (see Open University 2000a).
- 7.
I am not claiming that all human action in its doing is purposeful – in many ways we often do what we do and later attribute purpose to our doing, particularly if an explanation or justification is required.
- 8.
It is important to understand how systems thinkers understand the what, how, why distinctions. In any given conception of a system of interest what refers to the system, how to a sub-system and why to the supra-system. Of course from another observer’s perspective what might become why and so on. Conceptually the use of these terms involves understanding the systems concept of hierarchy or layered structure and an appreciation that these are not fixed but different ways of looking at (engaging with) a situation .
- 9.
Exploring purpose also surfaces different boundary judgments that are being made, either explicitly or implicitly. Thus in the debate on GMOs, within the category GMOs I could choose to distinguish two different systems – ‘a system of within-species gene manipulation’, e.g. traditional plant breeding or ‘a system to introduce novel, alien genes into an organism’ – transgenics. The lack of differentiation of these two possible ways of seeing GMOs has, in my view, seriously constrained the public understanding of the situation .
- 10.
See Checkland and Poulter (2006) for an explication of this approach.
- 11.
I have already made clear my own preferences regarding the ontological status of systems; my preference is to see ‘systems’ as epistemological devices – thus my use of the language : a system of interest … to someone … which is brought forth (distinguished) as part of practice in a situation . In presenting Churchman ’s ideas I make no claims or commitments to the study of the evidences of design or purpose in nature, a position I do not find satisfying.
- 12.
From an aware systems practitioner perspective this question does not assume there is ‘a’ system to which this question applies, but that different actors will distinguish different systems, i.e. make different boundary judgments , and that the role that systems research can fulfil is to surface and explore the implications of the differences as part of a process of change (e.g. as depicted in Fig. 1.3).
- 13.
My perspective on methodologies is grounded in my own practice – particularly that of being a systems educator and experiencing how mature age students learn about systems tools, techniques and methods. It is challenging for many students to move beyond the application of method to becoming methodological (not to be confused with ‘methodical’) in their practice. There is also a danger in treating methodologies as reified entities – things in the world – rather than as a practice that arises from what is done in a given situation . My own perspective is that texts that write about ‘systems methodologies’ too often lead to the sort of reification that I discussed in Chapter 6, thus taking attention away from systemic praxis .
- 14.
Triggered is used here as a term as an attempt to avoid the more usual application of linear cause-effect thinking; my understanding of ‘learning systems’ of the form created through this inquiry is that they are not deterministic but create the circumstances for emergence . I also invited in feedback an accounting for any changes that had happened – in asking this question my aim was to provide an opportunity to tell a story, which may, or may not involve a story about causation on the part of the responder.
- 15.
My existing commitments precluded my offering this as a strategy. This is also a limitation of my engagement as I did not have someone with me as part of the process who may have been able to take such a strategy forward.
- 16.
See High et al. (2008); an invitation is not an invitation if one is not willing to accept no for an answer – if one is upset that an invitation is not accepted then what was issued as an invitation was, more often than not, a demand or an attempt at coercion disguised as an invitation. An invitation and an intervention thus have very different underlying emotional dynamics . Intervene is derived from the Latin ‘venire’, and has the sense of ‘coming between’. ‘Advice’ has a similar root (Shipley 1984). On the other hand ‘invitation’ can be traced back to the Sanskrit ‘vita’ meaning loved (Barnhart 2001).
- 17.
Briggs in her 2009 (Briggs 2009) presentation points to the fundamental tensions between the vertical accountabilities in the Westminster system of Cabinet Government, with its underlying accountability of individual Ministers to Parliament, where differences are ultimately resolved in the Cabinet or by the Prime Minister and the horizontal responsibilities in whole of government approaches, where differences are expected to be resolved within and between agencies and, potentially, other stakeholders. Thus the current (UK, Australian) governance situation can be usefully understood as a structure determined system that does what it is structured to do, and no more. But clearly it is no longer adequate for contemporary circumstances.
References
Armson R (2011) Growing wings on the way: systems thinking for messy situations. Triarchy Press, Exeter
Barnhart R (2001) Chambers dictionary of etymology. Chambers, USA
Briggs L (2009) Delivering performance and accountability – intersections with ‘wicked problems’. The international society for systems sciences annual conference, Conference paper. Brisbane, Australia, July 2009
Checkland PB (1985) From optimizing to learning: a development of systems thinking for the 1990s. J Oper Res Soc 36:757–767
Checkland PB (1993) Systems thinking, system practice. Wiley, Chichester
Checkland PB (2001) Presentation to a joint meeting of UKSS/OUSys. OU Systems Society Newsletter, February
Checkland PB, Poulter J (2006) Learning for action: a short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers and students. Wiley, Chichester
Checkland PB, Scholes J (1990) Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley, New York
Checkland PB, Winter M (2006) Process and content: two ways of using SSM. J Oper Res Soc 57:1435–1441
Churchman CW (1971) The design of inquiring systems: basic concepts of systems and organisations. Basic Books, New York
Churchman CW (1979) The systems approach and its enemies. Basic Books, New York
Cook N, Wagenaar H (2012) Navigating the eternally unfolding present. Toward an epistemology of practice. Am Rev Public Adm 42:13–38
Fell L, Russell D (2000) The human quest for understanding and agreement. In: Ison RL, Russell DB (eds) Agricultural extension and rural development: breaking out of traditions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 32–51
Foucault M (1972) The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. Pantheon, New York
High C, Ison R, Blackmore C, Nemes, G (2008) Starting off right: reframing participation though stakeholder analysis and the politics of invitation. Proc. Working Group 13 ‘The OECD’s New Rural Paradigm’, XII World Congress of Rural Sociology, Seoul, Korea
Ison RL (2000a) Technology: transforming grazier experience. In: Ison RL, Russell DB (eds) Agricultural extension and rural development: breaking out of traditions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 52–76
Ison RL (2000b) Systems approaches to managing sustainable development: experiences from developing supported open-learning. Invited Paper: Ecological sustainability theme, Proceedings of 16th symposium of the international farming systems association and 4th Latin American farming systems research & extension symposium, 27–29 November 2000, Centro de Extension Universidad Catolica, Santiago Chile
Ison RL (2002) Some reflections on a knowledge transfer strategy: a systemic inquiry. Fifth European farming systems research conference, Conference paper, Florence, April 2002
Ison RL, High C, Blackmore CP et al (2000) Theoretical frameworks for learning-based approaches to change in industrialised-country agricultures. In: Cerf M, Gibbon D LEARN Group (eds) Cow up a tree. Knowing and learning for change in agriculture. Case studies from industrialised countries. INRA (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique) Editions, Paris, 31–54
Ison RL, Russell DB (eds) (2000) Agricultural extension and rural development: breaking out of traditions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 239
Kersten S (2000) From debate about degradation to dialogue about vegetation management in western New South Wales, Australia. In: , LEARN GroupCerf M, Gibbon D et al(eds) Cow up a tree. Knowing and learning for change in agriculture. Case studies from industrialised countries. INRA (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique) Editions, Paris, p 191–204
Kersten S, Ison RL (1998) Listening, interpretative cycles and dialogue: process design for collaborative research and development. J Agric Educ Ext 5:163–178
Lave J (1993) The practice of learning. In: Chaiklin S, Lave J (eds) Understanding practice. Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 3–35
Maturana H (1988) Reality: the search for objectivity or the quest for a compelling argument. Ir J Psychol 9:25–82
McClintock D (2000) Considering metaphors of countryside in the United Kingdom. In: LEARN GroupCerf M, Gibbon D et al (eds) Cow up a tree. Knowing and learning for change in agriculture. Case studies from industrialised countries. INRA (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique) Editions, Paris, p 241–251
Open University (2000a) Managing complexity. A systems approach (T306). The Open University, Milton Keynes
Open University (2000b) Systems thinking and practice: diagramming (T552). The Open University, Milton Keynes
Reynolds M (2006) Critical appraisal in environmental decision making. Book 4 (T863). Environmental decision making: a systems approach. The Open University, Milton Keynes
Russell DB, Ison RL (2000a) The research–development relationship in rural communities: an opportunity for contextual science. In: Ison RL, Russell DB (eds) Agricultural extension and rural development: breaking out of traditions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 10–31
Russell DB, Ison RL (2000b) Designing R&D systems for mutual benefit. In: Ison RL, Russell DB (eds) Agricultural extension and rural development: breaking out of traditions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 208–218
Schön DA (1995) The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change November/December 27–34
Seddon J (2008) Systems thinking in the public sector: the failure of the reform regime … and a manifesto for a better way. Triarchy Press, Axminster
Senge P (1998) A brief walk into the future: speculations about post-industrial organisations. Syst Think 9:1–5
Shannon C, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL
Shipley JT (1984) The origins of English words: a discursive dictionary of Indo-European roots. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD
Shotter J (1993) Conversational realities: constructing life through language. Sage, London
Ulrich W (1983) Critical heuristics of social planning: a new approach to practical philosophy. Wiley, Stuttgart: Chichester/Haupt (paperback edition)
Ulrich, W (1996) A primer to critical systems heuristics for action researchers. Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull, Hull, UK, 31 March 1996, 58pp (ISBN 0-85958-872-6)
Ulrich W (2000) Reflective practice in the civil society: the contribution of critically systemic thinking. Reflect Pract 1(2):247–268
Wallis P, Ison RL (2011) Appreciating institutional complexity in water governance dynamics: a case from the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Water Resour Manage 25(15):4081–4097
Wallis P, Ison RL, Samson K (2013) Identifying the conditions for social learning in water governance in regional Australia. Land Use Policy 31:412–421
Webber L (2000) Co-researching: braiding theory and practice for research with people. In: Ison RL, Russell DB (eds) Agricultural extension and rural development: breaking out of traditions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 161–188
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Open University
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ison, R. (2017). Juggling the C-Ball: Contextualising Systems Approaches. In: Systems Practice: How to Act. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-7350-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-7351-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)