Norma R. A. Romm

Enhancing the process of methodology choice in total systems intervention (TSI) and improving chances of tackling coercion

The process of Choice in TSI is reexamined in this paper. Previously, methods2 have been understood to have a given and immediate purpose and are employed when this is judged to be most suitable in the circumstances. In this paper we suggest that methods can be operated in ways that meet purposes not provided by their founding theoretical underpinnings. We develop this argument by pointing to cases where cybernetic or soft methods are driven by purposes and principles given to emancipatory methodology—in a quest to address more effectively issues of coercion. This may be necessary when explicit and direct employment of emancipatory methodology is not sensitive enough to political dynamics, where certain people may feel overly threatened by its language and consequently feel the need to subvert its use. We develop a defence for thisoblique use of cybernetic and soft methods in coercive contexts, and extend the argument to suggest that all methods can be employed in such a way.

Contours of diversity management and triple loop learning

Introduces diversity management as managing the increased diversity of issues that confront humankind in contemporary organizational and societal affairs. Defines triple loop learning as being about the increase in the fullness and deepness of learning about the diversity of issues and dilemmas faced. Presents the contours of diversity management and triple loop learning. Sees the latter as the denouement of single loop learning and of double loop learning. Provides a “quickmap” of the contours of diversity management and triple loop learning.

Knowing as Intervention: Reflections on the Application of Systems Ideas

The relation between theory and practice is explored in this paper with respect to an examination of various systems approaches. It is argued that the moment of “knowing” already contains practical implications in that “comprehension”gears practice in certain directions. Practice/application can fulfill the demands of theory through the operation of a self-fulfilling prophecy effect. The way in which theoretical conceptions of systems researchers may constrain practice is explored with reference to the work of Beer, Checkland and Scholes, and Ulrich. In the course of this exploration, alternative views of the way in which viable systems diagnosis, soft systems methodology, and critical systems heuristics may be utilised, are offered.

Interdisciplinary Practice as Reflexivity

This article considers ways in which interdisciplinarity may be practiced. The suggestion is that interdisciplinarity as a practice can be understood as embracing a reflexive orientation on the part of inquirers. It is this orientation which enables them to entertain possibilities for taking on board ideas/interpretations exceeding the boundary of some “source discipline.” It is part of the responsibility of inquirers to consider whether single discipline-based research might be unduly restrictive in its way of seeing issues of concern and hence of constructing options for action. Interdisciplinary processes imply that effort is expended to create fresh opportunities for understanding-and-action through working with the juxtaposition and interplay of different vantage points on inquiry. Possibilities for discursive accountability on the part of all concerned are hereby extended. It is also suggested that calls for more interdisciplinary inquiries are part of a larger project toward the increased democratization of discussion about research practices in society. Discussions about the value and validity of interdisciplinary inquiries may be seen as linked up with the pursuance of such democratisation.

Inquiry‐and‐intervention in systems planning: Probing methodological rationalities

Inquiry and intervention towards improving systems planning are argued in this paper to be inseparable features of the same process. The formula “comprehension=application” is explored to evoke possibilities for inquiry‐and‐intervention which transcend the confines of any given theory‐practice cycle. It is suggested that the partiality of a uni‐theoretical response may be replaced by judgements grounded in discursive accountability. This is not tantamount to validation through respect for “the evidence” of practice (for this still may be caught up in the same cycle); nor is it tantamount to consensual validation (for judgements do not always rest on agreements—indeed agreement as a form of social planning may itself become stifling of diversity and choice). A notion of discursive accountability is outlined in this paper and it is proposed that systems planning becomes enriched insofar as knowledge‐judgements are seen to rest on processes of discursive accountability.

Becoming More Accountable: A Comment on Hammersley and Gomm

This article provides a response to Hammersley and Gomms article entitled Bias in Social Research (1997). Hammersley and Gomms proposed conception of bias is rooted in a particular view of the pursuit of scientific knowledge - a view which they call nonfoundationalist. The way in which Hammersley and Gomm account for their nonfoundationalist view and the way in which they level critiques against relativism and standpoint epistemology, are challenged in this article. The discussion is focused around my concern that their account excludes (as outside the range of relevant argument in research communities) a serious consideration of alternative epistemological orientations.

Plurality revisited: Diversity management and triple loop learning

This paper suggests one way of managing plurality of theories and methodologies and ways of operationalising them. It suggests that the management of options needs to be linked to a process of reflexive consciousness. Reflexive consciousness operates by recognising that choices of theoretical and methodological commitment have to be made for the purposes of action. Awareness of the provisional and partial nature of choices is key to the management of options. Choice-making is marked by an awareness of the way in which the facility for judgement has been exercised. This includes considering how judgements may be accounted for in the light of alternative choices. Informed awareness means taking into accounttheoretical debates that may be brought to bear in facilitating an appreciation of methodologies and possible operationalisations of them. It also means taking into account matters ofcontemporary concern (specialist or popular) raised in the process of social debate. Our argument is detailed through an explication of what we call diversity management and triple loop learning.

Some Anomalies in Ulrich’s Critical Inquiry and Problem-Solving Approach

This paper probes some of Ulrich’s assertions with respect to the relevance of a Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) approach to critical inquiry and problem solving, and it draws out certain anomalies in the position. The concept of ‘anomaly’ as used here is derived from Gouldner (1980). It refers to internal contradictions in a theory (as located by a critic) or points to ‘information’ which represents bad news for the theory (which the theoretician may be inclined to resist). ‘Hostile information’ or bad news evokes (perceived) events or ideas not accounted for in the theory and not in keeping with its premises — hence generating an external anomaly. Gouldner argues that all theories can be considered critically by locating anomalies (both internally and externally derived ones), thus providing impetus for reconsideration of theoretical positions and their implications for relevant practice. In this paper, anomalies are posed in confrontation with the texts of Ulrich, as part of an effort to enter into dialogue with, and extend, the work.

Employing Questionnaires in terms of a Constructivist Epistemological Stance: Reconsidering Researchers’ Involvement in the Unfolding of Social Life

In this article, I delve into what it might mean to employ questionnaires without regarding them simply as a way of attempting to discern relationships of correlation or causality between defined variables (as in positivist and post-positivist conceptions of questionnaires). I shall consider the implications of researchers using questionnaires on the basis of alternative paradigmatic orientations. I shall discuss, in particular, interpretivist stances and more constructively-oriented stances (as qualitatively-oriented paradigmatic positions) with reference to different understandings of questionnaire use. I shall also reflect on how qualitative positions that embrace a constructivist epistemological stance can lead to a redirection of questionnaires in relation to more “usual” (post-positivist-directed) usages. In the course of the discussion I make a case, drawing on a version of constructivism, for researchers taking responsibility for their involvement—no matter what methods are used—in the unfolding of the social worlds of which research is a part. Taking into account the constructivist epistemological understanding that questionnaires—as well as other research methods—contribute to the construction of responses rather than merely “finding” responses from research participants, I suggest that some responsibility needs to be taken by those employing questionnaires for the potential social impact of these on research participants as well as wider audiences.

Facilitation as Fair Intervention

This chapter elucidates a view of facilitation in which explicit attention is paid to the way in which the facilitator of group processes may adopt a role as (temporary) participant in the process, at times contributing content-suggestions to the discussions. Our argument is relevant to the practice of community operational research (‘Community OR’ for short) in that it considers what it might mean to develop a community towards enriched dialogical competence. Midgley and Ochoa-Arias (1999) indicate that when practitioners undertake work labelled as Community OR, there are often implicit visions of community that they bring to bear as they proceed. In this chapter, we pay explicit attention to the way in which we operated in terms of a specific conception of ‘community’ when we acted as facilitators in the context under consideration. Our approach draws to a large extent on Habermas’s (1984, 1987) concern with enhancing ‘communicative rationality’ in social relationships. We spell out a pragmatised version of Habermas’s argument as it relates to validity checking, but we also extend/modify the argument to take account of the continued fragility of the dialogical process.