Gerald Midgley

The Sacred and Profane in Critical Systems Thinking

This paper looks at what we mean by being critical about systems. In particular, it seeks to expand our understanding of the process of making boundary judgments so as to explore the relationship these judgments have with values and ethics.

Systemic Intervention for Public Health

Many calls have been made for a systems approach to public health. My response is to offer a methodology for systemic intervention that (1) emphasizes the need to explore stakeholder values and boundaries for analysis, (2) challenges marginalization, and (3) draws upon a wide range of methods (from the systems literature and beyond) to create a flexible and responsive systems practice.I present and discuss several well-tested methods with a view to identifying their potential for supporting systemic intervention for public health.

Pluralism and the legitimation of systems science

The central message of this paper is that methodological pluralism is essential for the continued legitimation of systems science. This statement is supported by a critique of our notion of complexity. Our traditional view of complexity focuses upon the “natural world” of object relations and thereby excludes complexities of moral decision making and subjectivity. However, we are now beginning to realize that these realms of complexity are not independent of one another. Indeed, our ability to cope adequately with many of the problems we are currently facing, especially global problems, depends on being able to understand the systemic relationships between all three. Interestingly, we find that different methods have evolved to handle the different forms of complexity. Therefore, if our inquiries are going to have any legitimacy in tackling some of the major issues of today, we must indeed embrace methodological pluralism.

Science as systemic intervention: some implications of systems thinking and complexity for the philosophy of science

This paper sidesteps the usual starting points for debate about complexity and the philosophy of science, which tend to assume that science is primarily about observation. Instead, the starting point is intervention, defined as purposeful action by an agent to create change. While some authors suggest that intervention and observation are opposites, it is argued here that observation (as undertaken in science) should be viewed as just one type of intervention. We should therefore welcome scientific techniques of observation into a pluralistic set of intervention methods, alongside methods for exploring values, reflecting on subjective understandings, planning future activities, etc. However, there is a need to explicitly counter a possible pernicious interpretation of this argument: intervention could (erroneously) be viewed as flawlessly preplanned change based on accurate predictions of the consequences of action. This is the mechanistic worldview that systems thinking and complexity science seek to challenge. Therefore, having redefined scientific observation as intervention, the paper revisits insights from systems thinking and complexity to propose a methodology of systemic intervention. Some brief reflections are then provided on the wider social implications of this methodology.

What Is This Thing Called CST

This chapter introduces and critiques some early ideas about Critical Systems Thinking (CST), a research perspective that is said to embrace a set of fundamental commitments. Five were identified by Jackson (1991a), and three by Schecter (1991) and Flood and Jackson (1991a).1 The three commitments are: Critical awareness—examining and reexamining taken-for-granted assumptions, along with the conditions that give rise to them Emancipation—ensuring that research is focused on “improvement,” defined temporarily and locally, taking issues of power (which may affect the definition) into account Methodological pluralism—using a variety of research methods in a theoretically coherent manner, becoming aware of their strengths and weaknesses, to address a corresponding variety of issues. The definitions given above are my own. They are inevitably an oversimplification of the range of issues considered important by critical systems thinkers, but are useful for indicating the general interests pursued by proponents of the perspective.

Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods

Operational researchers and social scientists often make significant claims for the value of systemic problem structuring and other participative methods. However, when they present evidence to support these claims, it is usually based on single case studies of intervention. There have been very few attempts at evaluating across methods and across interventions undertaken by different people. This is because, in any local intervention, contextual factors, the skills of the researcher and the purposes being pursued by stakeholders affect the perceived success or failure of a method. The use of standard criteria for comparing methods is therefore made problematic by the need to consider what is unique in each intervention. So, is it possible to develop a single evaluation approach that can support both locally meaningful evaluations and longer-term comparisons between methods? This paper outlines a methodological framework for the evaluation of systemic problem structuring methods that seeks to do just this.

Dealing with coercion: Critical Systems Heuristics and beyond

This paper begins with an introduction to the philosophy and methodology of Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH). Following this, various citicisms of CSH are reviewed. One particularly important criticism is that CSH should not be seen as a replacement for other systems approaches, but as complementary to them. It is this idea of complementarity that has led several Critical Systems thinkers to take CSH, along with a number of other systems methods, and try to show that they are most appropriately used in different contexts. CSH, it is said, is at its most useful when we are confronted with coercive situations. However, in this paper it is argued that coercion is usually characterised by closure of debate. Therefore CSH, which depends upon the possibility of communication (or arbitration) between stakeholder groups, becomes redundant when coercion is experienced. It is further argued that coercion can only be addressed adequately by widening our definition of systems practice to include campaigning and direct political action. There is still considerable scope for developing these areas in the systems domain.

What Is This Thing Called CRITICAL Systems Thinking

This paper is about Critical Systems Thinking (CST), a research perspective which is said to embrace three fundamental commitments. These are commitments to: critical awareness—examining and re-examining taken-for-granted assumptions, along with the conditions which give rise to them; emancipation—ensuring that research is focused upon ‘improvement’, defined temporarily and locally, taking issues of power (which may affect the definition) into account; and methodological pluralism—using a variety of research methods in a theoretically coherent manner, becoming aware of their strengths and weaknesses, to address a corresponding variety of issues.

Developing the methodology of TSI: From the oblique use of methods to creative design

During the last 13 years, a dialogue has been conducted in the Critical Systems literature on the subject of choice betwen methods. However, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, researchers went in two separate directions. One direction involved an exploration of the “creative design of methods.” This is when the problem situation is understood in terms of a series of systemically interrelated research questions, each of which might need to be addressed using a different method, or part of a method. A synthesis is generated that allows each individual research question to be addressed as part of a whole system of questions. The other research direction involved the development of “Total Systems Intervention” (TSI), a meta-methodology that, amongst other things, encourages the creative exploration of the problem situation prior to the choice of methods. One of the latest innovations in TSI is a theory of the “oblique” use of methods. This is the use of methods for purposes other than those they were originally designed for. However, it is argued here that all the case studies that have been subject to an “oblique” interpretation can be better explained if they are seen as examples of the creative design of methods. We can therefore bring together the two strands of research that have hitherto been pursued separately in the Critical Systems literature. it is suggested that TSI can be enhanced by an understanding of the creative design of methods because the latter allows us to explain the purposive, flexible, and responsive way in which TSI is most successfully used in practice.

Unfolding a Theory of Systemic Intervention

This paper interrogates four perspectives (structuralist community psychology, deconstruction, interpretive systemology, and critical systems thinking) to inform the unfolding of a theory of systemic intervention. A vision of epistemology is provided which clarifies the relationships among knowledge, power, will and intervention, and a normative framework for systemic intervention is then presented. Finally, the theory unfolded in this paper is deconstructed to reveal a second theory, yet to be explored, of systemic life projects. This provides an exciting agenda for future research.