Suchergebnisse

This book aims to rethink systemic intervention to enhance its relevance for supporting social change in the 21st Century. It offers a new systems philosophy and methodology, focusing upon the fundamental importance of exploring value and boundary judgements as part of the intervention process. A pluralist practice is also promoted, and the reader learns how s/he can draw upon a wide variety of theories and methods to maximise flexibility and responsiveness during interventions. Four detailed examples of the practice of systemic intervention are also provided, each of which is used to illustrate a different aspect of the methodology outlined in the book

No single evaluation method, or method of directing organizational change, can cope with every issue faced when evaluating, or intervening in, service systems for people with disabilities. By identifying the strengths as well as the weaknesses of various methods, we might find that they complement one another. This paper explores this complementarity of different methods, pointing the way to a more flexible, responsive and critically aware evaluation and change practice. A framework of four methods is presented: PASS/ING, Viable System Diagnosis, Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing, and Soft Systems Methodology. These may be used in conjunction with one another to address a variety of ethical and organizational issues in the evaluation and change of service systems for people with disabilities.

AbstractThis paper explores what we might mean by the terms "humanism" and "the ecological perspective" using a new kind of systems model. It is argued that humanism represents an uncritical acceptance of boundaries that always prioritise individual human beings, human societies and/or human communicative systems in analyses. The contention is that this can no longer be considered legitimate. If an uncritically prioritised boundary is always placed around the human element, then that which is seen as lying beyond the human boundary (our "environment") will inevitably be marginalised, and will come to be regarded as profane. What is profane is subject to abuse, much of which is ritualised. Because we now realise that there is no real separation between "us" (human beings) and "it" (the environment), this is not 'just' environmental abuse ‐ it is self‐abuse. Our "selves" are wider than the uncritically prioritised boundaries of our human bodies. We therefore have to look for an alternative to humanism. One such alternative is the ecological perspective which allows choice between boundaries and refuses to prioritise the human element uncritically.

AbstractIn this paper, we propose a research agenda to support the recovery of Alexander Bogdanov's philosophical and systemic thinking that culminated in his magnum opus, Tektology. Our main reason for doing so is to re‐address enduring questions about the unity of science and the unity of the systems paradigm. Since the turn of the new millennium, there has been renewed interest in the ideal of the unity of science. General system theory (GST), cybernetics and complexity science are three significant intellectual sources inspiring this renewal. It is not unusual for these ideas to be grouped under the umbrella terms systems science or systems thinking, which are two ways to present a single systems paradigm, and we will explain why its "unity" is both necessary and problematic. Bringing Bogdanov's work back to address the unity question can help us to progress toward unity in diversity.

AbstractThe term 'systemic innovation' is increasing in use, but there is no consensus on its meaning: five understandings of the term can be identified, each based on a different view of what the word 'systemic' should refer to. The first understanding focuses on technologies, where the innovation in focus is synergistically integrated with other complementary innovations, going beyond the boundaries of a single organization. Therefore, 'systemic' refers to technological innovations interacting in a larger product system. A second use of the term refers to the development of policies and governance at a local, regional or national scale to create an enabling environment for innovation systems. Here, 'systemic' means recognition that innovation systems can be enabled and/or constrained by a meta‐level policy system. The third use of the term says that an innovation is 'systemic' when its purpose is to change societal laws and norms to place new enablers and constraints on innovation in the interests of ecological sustainability. What makes this systemic is acknowledgement of the existence of nested systems: innovation systems are parts of economic systems, which are parts of societal systems, and all societies exist on a single planetary ecosystem. The fourth use focuses on collaboration in innovation networks with multiple actors. This has evolved from the first understanding of systemic innovation, but the critical difference is the primary focus on people and processes rather than technological products. The word 'systemic' refers to the interdependency of actors in a business or community context, leading to a need to cocreate value and innovate in concert or through coevolutionary dynamics. The fifth use of the term 'systemic innovation' concerns how people engage in a process to support systemic thinking and action, and it is primarily this process, and the thinking and action it gives rise to, that is seen as systemic, rather than the innovation system that they exist within or are trying to create. It is this fifth understanding that accords with most of the literature on systems thinking published over the last 50 years. The current paper offers a contemporary perspective on what systems thinkers mean by 'systemic', and this not only enables us to provide a redefinition of 'systemic innovation', but it also helps to show how all four previous forms of innovation that have been described as systemic can be enhanced by the practice of systems thinking.

This paper makes the case for extended ways of knowing in systemic intervention. It argues that the deployment of formal (even reflective) thinking and dialogue methods are inadequate, on their own, to the critical tasks of comprehending larger wholes and appreciating others' viewpoints. Theory and techniques need to go further and access other forms of knowing, held in experiential, practical or symbolic ways. This could offer a better basis to incorporate marginalized people and other phenomena that are affected by interventions but do not have a voice, such as ecosystems and future generations. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This paper outlines a new systemic mediation approach, based on the idea that the most important thing for many participants in mediation is to have their moral reasoning understood and appreciated. This is frequently more important to people than financial reparation. We compare our mediation approach with others to demonstrate that many previous approaches share the assumption that once the interests of a participant have been identified, these should not be questioned. In contrast, our systemic mediation approach encourages participants to explore their own and other people's moral frameworks to enable critical reflection on their interests. Indeed, the concept of an 'interest' can be reframed as the boundary that a participant uses to delimit his or her concerns, and boundaries can be shifted in response to moral reasoning. Our mediation approach aims to generate both personal insights and improvements in mutual understanding. The mediator plays a facilitative role but cannot be neutral: the morality of the mediator unavoidably influences his or her facilitative interventions. Therefore, personal reflection by the mediator on his or her own moral framework is essential, so that its influences can be made visible and the facilitator can thereby be held accountable for them in dialogue with his or her peers. Tools are provided in our systemic mediation approach to support reflection on moral frameworks and boundaries of concern, and a practical example of their use in Colombian mediation practice is provided. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Community Operational Research: OR and Systems Thinking for Community Development sets out the current concerns of Community Operational Research (Community OR for short) and explores new possibilities for its continued development. Leading Community OR writers, with international reputations in operational research and systems thinking, have contributed chapters that illuminate different aspects of Community OR theory and practice. There is a focus on the value of systems approaches, and other significant perspectives are also represented. The result is a rich mix of theories, methodologies and case studies that will be a significant resource for both practitioners and academics engaged in community development

Problem avoidance can be an issue in both Eastern and Western cultures, and in some Eastern contexts it can stem from the desire to promote organizational harmony: identifying problems can lead to blame, thereby fracturing harmonious relationships. The authors have developed and applied a Buddhist systems methodology (BSM) to counteract problem avoidance in Taiwanese Buddhist organizations. Unlike many Western action research approaches, which require participants to start by identifying problems or problematic situations, the BSM uses Buddhist concepts that are closely associated with the practice of harmonious living. Thus, it reframes problem exploration as the exercise of Buddhist discipline applied to organizational life, which is likely to be viewed as a co-operative and culturally valued endeavour. In a project with a large non-profit organization, the authors tackled a significant conflict and underlying issues. An evaluation of the project demonstrated that the BSM helped overcome the culture of problem avoidance. While the BSM itself might only be relevant to Buddhist organizations, there is a wider principle at work: when problem avoidance has cultural roots, action researchers could usefully look at how problem exploration might be reframed using a way of thinking that is culturally familiar and highly valued by the participants.