Wendy J. Gregory

Dealing with Diversity

Interests within the systems community have turned during the last decade toward a consideration and an importation of ideas emanating from what might be termed “Continental” philosophers. I refer, of course, to interest in the work of Habermas and, to a lesser degree, of Foucault, Derrida, Lacan, and Lyotard (see, e.g., Cummings, 1994; Flood, 1989a Flood, 1989b Flood, 1989c, Flood, 1990a Flood, 1990b Flood, 1990c; Fuenmayor, 1985, Fuenmayor, 1990a, Fuenmayor, 1990b, Fuenmayor, 1991; Gregory, 1990, Gregory, 1992; Jackson, 1982, Jackson, 1983, Jackson, 1985a, Jackson, 1985b, Jackson, 1987a, Jackson, 1987b, Jackson, 1989, Jackson, 1990, Jackson, 1991a, Jackson, 1991b; Levy, 1991; Midgley, 1990, Midgley, 1991, Midgley, 1992a, Midgley, 1992b, Midgley, 1994; Mingers, 1980, Mingers, 1992; Oliga, 1988, Oliga, 1990a Oliga, 1990b Oliga, 1990c, Oliga, 1991; Payne, 1992; Ulrich, 1983, Ulrich, 1988; Valero-Silva, 1994, Valero-Silva, 1995a, Valero-Silva, 1995b, this volume; Wooliston, 1990, Wooliston, 1991a,Wooliston, 1991b—other contributors are listed by Oliga, 1988, Oliga, 1991). The main questions for contemporary systems practitioners, especially those whose field of intervention is organizations and communities, have emerged from the sheer range of approaches that are available for responding to problems, problematics, messes, or problem situations.

Discordant pluralism: A new strategy for critical systems thinking

Systems science is characterised by a huge diversity of theories and practical applications which have arisen since its inception. Each of these theories and ways of practising systems science has legitimate claims for its ability to handle certain kinds of systems problems. Dealing with this diversity can be seen as a critical issue for systems thinking and practice. One approach to handling this rich diversity has been to attempt to capture it in frameworks which align features and positions in a “complementarist” fashion. By reviewing work undertaken by systems thinkers who have advocated such a stance, it will be demonstrated that complementarism has its faults, and can be perceived as an imperialist strategy. A route out of the impasse will be suggested through the use of a form of discordant pluralism, which, if taken up, has the potential for bringing together conflicting perspectives in a new constellation.

Transforming Self and Society: A "Critical Appreciation" Model

This paper sets out to uncover some relationships between reflection, discourse and action. By challenging and synthesizing some polemical arguments concerning the creation, maintenance, and transformation of self and society, a model of self-society dynamics that operates through reflection, discourse, and action is developed. The model of self-society dynamics brings together aspects of self-reflection and ideology-critique (explored in the paper), which it is suggested are required for any intervention (transformative action) to be grounded in locally meaningful ways. By creating a dialog community in which self- and group assumptions can be subjected to validation through discourse, it is proposed that a dynamic balance between individual needs and broader societal aims may be achieved. If individuals can be open to such discourse (i.e., they can become critically self-reflective), then it is argued that possibilities for achieving sustainable change will be significantly enhanced.

Reflections on critical systems thinking and the management of change in rule‐bound systems

Looks at a specific variant of systems thinking, called critical systems thinking, which is an approach that was developed in the UK during the 1980s. In particular, consideration is given to “rule‐bound” systems – scenarios where the possibilities for change have been found to be problematic. The characteristics of such situations will initially be set out, focusing on the power relations that appear to pervade such situations. A prison‐based change management initiative is used to show how critical systems thinking can be employed, and provide some reflections on the process of change management and the outcomes achieved. These reflections point to some difficulties experienced that emerged from the rule‐bound nature of the problem situation and ways in which such difficulties might be addressed in similar situations in the future are suggested. Insights for both private and public sector organizations are drawn throughout the paper.

Designing educational systems: A critical systems approach

ConclusionThe foregoing represents a brief consideration of the role of critical systems thinking in the design of education systems. Given the inherently political nature of education systems as belief and value-building systems, it seems vital to me that a critical perspective be employed in evaluating the intended design as well as the proposed design process. Without such a critical view, designers are in danger of representing a (perhaps misinformed) single viewpoint. Furthermore, designs which have not been subjected to such a critical analysis will be of a regulative and status quo enhancing nature. Given the essence of the problems that education systems designers are trying to resolve, it is imperative that we utilize the critical systems approach in all stages of the design process.

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.

A Practical Project at HM Prison Hull

The paper presents an application of the reconstituted version of Total Systems Intervention (called TSI#2 hereafter) in a prison context. Questions are raised about the putative success or failure of the intervention in terms of the principles of TSI#2. The aim of the study was to carry out a practical application of ‘Total Systems Intervention’ (TSI) (Flood and Jackson, 1991; Flood, 1995), to promote a multi-agency perspective toward support systems for young offenders who find themselves detained in the stark and often hostile environment of an adult prison. Since 1847 it has been recognised in this country that children who break the law should not be treated in the same way as adult offenders (Levenson, 1976). The principles of treating young offenders differently from adults, and endeavouring to educate and reform rather than punish, were granted full statutory force under the Children’s Act 1908. Yet it was not until early in 1991 that it was announced by Kenneth Baker, the then Home Secretary, that the practice of remanding 15 and 16 year old youths to prison was to be abolished.

Approaches and Methods of Systems Design: Critical Pedagogy

This paper focuses on the processes of systems design. Several approaches have been witnessed over the last few decades, which can be classified as “doing to”, “doing for”, and more lately as “doing with”. It will be argued that this latest participative style of systems design is ethically the most sound. Various systems approaches will be loosely classified within the three categories, and the question will be raised as to whether systems science does offer any coherent and rigorous “doing with” design methodologies.