Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Systemic Inquiry

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Systems Practice: How to Act in a Climate-Change World

Abstract

Four pervasive institutional settings inimical to the flourishing of systems practice and also unhelpful in equipping us for living in a climate changing world are introduced and described. These are: (i) the pervasive target mentality that has arisen in many countries and contexts; (ii) living in a ‘projectified world’; (iii) ‘situation framing’ failure, and (iv) an apartheid of the emotions. It is argued that for systems practice to flourish it is necessary to move the focus away from both the individual as practitioner and the historical concern with methods, tools and techniques. The proposed alternative is to understand that managing (juggling the M-ball) involves an ongoing relationship between a systems practitioner and his or her context; that is a co-evolutionary dynamic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The idea that something is ‘systemically desirable’ is a key feature of SSM thinking as articulated by Checkland and colleagues [11, 13]. I use it to mean a possible action(s) that is understood to be systemically coherent as the result of some form of inquiry or investigation into a situation, including, but not only conceptual and/or quantitative modelling. What is systemically desirable however may not be culturally feasible to implement. However, if the right people learn through a process of systemic inquiry then what is culturally feasible, or not, can change.

  2. 2.

    Systemic inquiry builds on and extends Churchman’s epistemological assumptions; it is concerned with the design of inquiring (or learning) systems and is grounded in various traditions of systems scholarship including second-order cybernetics [39, 51] and applied systems studies [11, 12, 40]).

  3. 3.

    I do not plan to expand upon systemic development here – see Bawden [2].

  4. 4.

    The lineage of doing systemic inquiry that we enact is not the only lineage amongst systems scholars. Burns [8 p. 8] refers to networked systemic inquiry as a more organic form of action inquiry, sets of inquiry practices that underpin systemic action research. For him an ‘inquiry stream is a series of linked meetings which explore issues and constructs action over a period of time.’ On the other hand Klein [38] describes Systemic Inquiry as they enact it as a methodology for organisational development on the basis of applied narratives.

  5. 5.

    For example thinking of a systemic inquiry as akin to a ‘Royal Commission’ or ‘Board of Inquiry’ would be a mistake. Both of these institutional arrangements have become reified in ways that mean they are either open to political manipulation (e.g. by specifying terms of reference in a Royal Commission) or are closed to changing context. Another way of thinking of a systemic inquiry is as a device to enact deliberative decision making, or as a cornerstone of more deliberative democracy.

  6. 6.

    Figure 10.1 is itself a conceptual systems model – sometimes also referred to as an activity model. At the core of SSM-style systems practice is an appreciation that the ‘modeling language’ is all of the verbs in the [English] language – hence the focus within SSM on activity [13].

  7. 7.

    This section draws extensively on Collins et al. [17].

  8. 8.

    In presenting Checkland’s model for enacting a systemic inquiry I am not presenting a blueprint or plan for doing systemic inquiry. As I have, or will outline, I am not committed to all the verbs that Checkland uses in his model nor am I committed to the problem metaphor. Of course consistent with SSM practice one should always feel free to act with awareness and change the verbs (activities) in the model recognising that in the process a new system of interest is created.

  9. 9.

    Our theoretical approach to social learning is discussed in full elsewhere (see Blackmore et al. [6]; Collins et al. [18]; Collins and Ison [15]; Collins et al. [19]).

  10. 10.

    I have already provided detail on the ethics statement included in the contract in Chapter 5 – see Box 5.2).

  11. 11.

    The fifth work stream was the production of a refereed scientific paper with our co-researchers – thus I only deal with the first four here.

  12. 12.

    Although this particular framing has its origins in natural resource dilemmas our experience is that it can be equally useful as a framing of situations in large and complex organisations such as the EA.

  13. 13.

    Of course I do not make the claim that these are the only innovations necessary.

  14. 14.

    I have sadly come to the conclusion that as currently constituted within a globalising Higher Education sector it is virtually impossible for any University to become a learning organisation.

  15. 15.

    We need to ‘apprentice’ systems practitioners as jugglers. They can’t be “trained” except for some basic concepts and techniques. My experience is that they need to learn on the ground with an experienced ‘juggler’ understood perhaps as the progression from apprentice, to journeyman juggler and then master juggler!

  16. 16.

    In using these two examples I am trying to make the point that systemic inquiry is something that can be run at the level of the nation or as an international ‘platform’. Examples of systemic inquiry that can be set up and institutionalised as part of personal practice or in organisational settings have already been given. Nor am I claiming that there are no examples already, perhaps of international commissions, or the Club of Rome, that could be understood in terms of a ‘systemic inquiry’ but the point is they have not been institutionalised as such and it is not an option that is currently considered by decision makers.

  17. 17.

    Mark Moore at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government coined the term ‘Public Value’ in the mid 1990s. Seddon (p.162–171) outlines how the concept of ‘public value’ has been taken up and fostered in the UK [44].

  18. 18.

    Thus Vickers’ retirement work could be framed as ‘I have found it useful to think of my life’s work in terms of appreciative systems’.

References

  1. Armson, R., Holwell, S.E., Ison, R.L., Lobley, K., Marsh, P. and Widdows D.C. (2010) Managing organizational complexity: project development for building a university-based leadership community for systems thinking and systems practice. Human Relations (in preparation)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bawden, R.J. (2005) Systemic development at Hawkesbury: Some personal lessons from experience. Systems Research & Behavioral Science 22: 151–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Blackmore, C. (2005) Learning to appreciate learning systems for environmental decision making – a “work-in-progress” perspective. Systems Research & Behavioural Science 22: 329–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Blackmore, C.P. (2009) Learning systems and communities of practice for environmental decision making. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, Communication & Systems Department, The Open University, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Blackmore, C.P. and Morris, R.M. (2001) Systems and environmental decision making—Postgraduate open learning with the Open University. Systemic Practice & Action Research 14(6): 681–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Blackmore, C.P., Ison, R.L. and Jiggins, J. (2007) Social learning: an alternative policy instrument for managing in the context of Europe’s water. Environmental Science & Policy 10, 493–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bopry, J. (2001) Convergence toward enaction within educational technology: Design for learners and learning. Cybernetics & Human Knowing 8, 47–63.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Burns, D. (2007) Systemic Action Research. A Strategy for Whole System Change. Policy Press, Bristol.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Churchman, C.W. (1971) The Design of Inquiring Systems: basic concepts of systems and organizations, Basic Books: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Checkland, P. (1994) Systems theory and management thinking, In Blunden, M. and Dando, M. (eds) special issue of American Behavioural Scientist 38 (1), 75–91.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Checkland, P.B. (1999) Soft Systems Methodology: A 30 Year Retrospective. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Checkland, P. (2002) ‘The role of the practitioner in a soft systems study’, notes of a talk given to OuSyS and UKSS, Saturday 8th December 2001, in Quarterly Newsletter of the Open University Systems Society (OUSyS), Open University: Milton Keynes, No. 27, March 2002, pp. S5–S11.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Checkland, P.B., Poulter, J. (2006) Learning for Action. A short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers and students. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Checkland, P.B. and Winter, M. (2006) Process and content: two ways of using SSM. Journal of the Operational Research Society 57, 1435–1441.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Collins, K.B. and Ison, R.L. (2009a) Jumping off Arnstein’s ladder: social learning as a new policy paradigm for climate change adaptation. Environmental Policy & Governance 19, 358–373.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Collins, K.B. and Ison, R.L. (2009b) Trusting emergence: Some experiences of learning about integrated catchment science with the Environment Agency of England and Wales. Water Resources Management (Published online: 27 May 2009) see http://www.springerlink.com/content/f262271h16517072/

  17. Collins, K.B., Ison, R.L. and Blackmore, C.P. (2005) River basin planning project: social learning (Phase 1). Environment Agency, Bristol, UK (http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/epages/eapublications.storefront/461d27cd009bdf4e273fc0a80296067e/Product/View/SCHO0805BJHK&2DE&2DE#).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Collins, K., Blackmore, C., Morris, D. and Watson, D. (2007) A systemic approach to managing multiple perspectives and stakeholding in water catchments: Some findings from three UK case studies. Environmental Science & Policy 10(6): 564–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Collins, K.B., Colvin, J. and Ison, R.L. (2009) Building ‘learning catchments’ for integrated catchment managing: designing learning systems and networks based on experiences in the UK, South Africa and Australia. Water Science & Technology 59(4) 687–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cooperider, D.L. and Srivastva, S. (1987) Appreciative inquiry in organizational life, In: R. Woodman and W. Passmore (Eds) Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 1: JAI Press: Greenwich, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Coyne, R. and Snodgrass, A. (1991) Is designing mysterious? Challenging the dual knowledge thesis. Design Studies 12 124–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think. A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process (revised edn), Boston, D.C. Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Foerster, A., Ison, R.L. and Godden, L. (2008) Systemic and adaptive water governance: Reconfiguring institutions for social learning and more effective water managing? Concept Paper for a Program of Research prepared for a seminar to explore the role of social learning in water policy and law Friday 5 December 2008 (unpublished).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Giddens, A. (2009) The Politics of Climate Change. Polity: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Glanville, R. (2002) A (cybernetic) musing: some examples of cybernetically informed educational practice. Cybernetics & Human Knowing 9 117–126.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gotches, G. and Ludema, J. (1995) An interview with David Cooperider on appreciative inquiry and the future of OD, Organization Development Journal 13, 5–13.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Helme, Marion (2002) Appreciating metaphor for participatory practice: constructivist inquiries in a children and young people’s justice organisation. Unpublished PhD Thesis. The Open University: Milton Keynes.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hooker, C.A. (1992) Value and system: notes toward the definition of agriculture. Proc. Centenary Conference, Agriculture and Human Values. UWS-Hawkesbury.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ison, R.L. (1993) Changing community attitudes. The Rangeland Journal 15, 154-66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ison, R.L. (1994) Designing learning systems: How can systems approaches be applied in the training of research workers and development actors? Proceedings International Symposium on Systems-oriented Research in Agriculture and Rural Development Vol. 2. Lectures and Debates. pp. 369–394. CIRAD-SAR, Montpellier.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ison, R.L. (2001) Systems practice at the United Kingdom’s Open University. In J. Wilby and G. Ragsdell (Eds.). Understanding Complexity, (pp. 45–54). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: New York.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Ison, R.L. (2005) Traditions of understanding: language, dialogue and experience. In Meg Keen, Valerie A. Brown and Rob Dyball (eds), Social Learning in Environmental Management. Towards a Sustainable Future, pp. 22–40. Earthscan: London.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ison, R.L. and Armson, R. (2006) Think, Act & Play im Leadership der Kybernetik zweiter Ordnung. Lernende Organisation. Zeitschrift fur systemishes Management und Organisation No 33, September/Oktober (www.lo.isct.net) ISSN 1609-1248 pp. 12–23. [Published by: Institut für Systemisches Coaching und Training, Zielorientierte Entwicklung von Menschen, Teams & Unternehmen GmbH, Lange Gasse 65 A-1080 Wien, Austria].

  34. Ison, R.L. and Russell, D.B. (2000a) Exploring some distinctions for the design of learning systems. Cybernetics & Human Knowing 7 (4) 43–56.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ison, R.L. and Russell, D.B. (Eds.) (2000b) Agricultural Extension and Rural Development: Breaking Out of Traditions (pp. 239). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ison, R.L., Bawden, R.D., Mackenzie, B., Packham, R.G., Sriskandarajah, N. and Armson, R. (2007a) From sustainable to systemic development: an inquiry into transformations in discourse and praxis, Invited Keynote Paper, Australia New Zealand Systems Conference 2007, “Systemic development: local solutions in a global environment” 2–5 December 2007, Auckland, New Zealand.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ison, R.L., Blackmore, C.P., Collins, K.B. and Furniss, P. (2007b) Systemic environmental decision making: designing learning systems. Kybernetes 36, (9/10) 1340–1361.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Klein, L. (2005) Systemic inquiry – exploring organizations. Kybernetes 34 (3/4), 439–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Maturana, H. and Poerkson, B. (2004) From Being to Doing: the Origins of the Biology of Cognition. Carl-Auer: Heidleberg.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Open University (1998) Environmental Decision Making. A systems Approach (T860) Open University: Milton Keynes.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Reason, P. and Rowan, J. eds (1981) Human Inquiry: a sourcebook of new paradigm research. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Rowan, J. (2001) The humanistic approach to action research. In Handbook of Action Research. P. Reason and H. Bradbury, eds., Sage: London.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Schön, D.A. (1995) The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change November/December, 27–34.

    Google Scholar 

  44. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  45. SLIM (2004a) Developing Conducive and Enabling Policies for Concerted Action. SLIM Policy Briefing No. 5. SLIM (available at http://slim.open.ac.uk/objects/public/slimpb7final.pdf). 4p.

  46. SLIM (2004b) SLIM Framework: Social Learning as a Policy Approach for Sustainable Use of Water (available at http://slim.open.ac.uk). 41p.

  47. Torbert, W.R. and Cook-Greuter, S.R. (2004) Action Inquiry: The Secret of Timely and Transforming Leadership. Berrett – Koehler Publishers: San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Vickers, G. (1965) The Art of Judgement: a study of policy making. Chapman and Hall: London.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Vickers, G. (1970) Freedom in a Rocking Boat: changing values in an unstable society. Penguin: Harmondsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Vickers, G. (1983) Human Systems are Different. Harper and Row: London

    Google Scholar 

  51. von Foerster, H. and Poerkson, B. (2002) Understanding Systems. Conversations on Epistemology and Ethics. IFSR International Series on Systems Science and Engineering, Vol 17. Kluwer/Plenum: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Winter, M. and Checkland, P.B. (2003) Soft systems: a fresh perspective for project management, Civil Engineering 156 (4), 187–192.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

    Ray Ison

Authors
  1. Ray Ison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ison, R. (2010). Systemic Inquiry. In: Systems Practice: How to Act in a Climate-Change World. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-125-7_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-125-7_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-84996-124-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84996-125-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation