Thinking about Systems for Inclusivity – TB872 Part 01 Week 03

In week 3 of TB872 Managing Change with Systems Thinking in Practice, we examine our own systemic sensibility, literacy and capability. We are encouraged to appreciate relational as well as linear cause-and-effect thinking, so that we can become stronger at using both systemic and systematic thinking whenever it is appropriate. In the book Systems Practice: How to Act, Ray Ison (2017) talks about an exercise where participants are asked to describe the process by which walking happens as a practice. Apparently it is not common for people to describe the process in a relational way, so it seems relational thinking is a skill that needs to be practiced.

If we want to describe the process of walking, we can talk about it in terms of the relationship between the person and the medium they are interacting with. In this example, the floor or other surface is just as important a component in the process as the person, as both are necessary for the process of walking, as we know it, to occur. Similarly, our practice is constituted of various elements acting relationally. We can use the Practitioner-Framework-Method-Situation (PFMS) heuristic to reflect on these dynamics (Ison, 2017).

The PFMS model is a useful tool for guiding second-order thinking which always places the Practitioner as a participant in the situation, allowing us to consider the effects of our practice on the Situation of concern. Practitioners can use the tool to consider how different changes may affect the system of practice and the Situation, learn through this process of thinking, and make more informed decisions because of their consideration of all of these factors.

In the PFMS model, there are several areas that provide opportunity for learning and change. In the model, we have the Practitioner (P) who brings their own tradition of understanding to all situations—they may choose a Framework (F) of ideas and Method (M) for engaging with the Situation (S). As the Practitioner reflects on their practice using the PFMS heuristic, they may become aware of the limitations of their own capabilities, ways of thinking and chosen styles of practicing, for dealing with the Situation. If they decide not to remove themselves from the Situation after this realisation, they can make change by using different tools, models, theories and methods in their practice. Their awareness of their own traditions and thinking styles may allow them to utilise their relative strengths (abilities and understanding that is beneficial to the Situation), and minimise biases or unhelpful thinking that could be detrimental to the goals of the practice. For this to be achieved, taking the opportunity to clarify what is desirable and feasible would be also be helpful. I touch on this later, as I am interested in how the interests of others engaging in a Situation affects our management of change within that context.

At this point in the TB872 module, we can compare our current understanding with that which we had three weeks ago, and in a few more weeks we can do the same. A poll of students showed that many students have by now realised that they have systemic sensibility that they need to recover. Perhaps that is something that many of us have, but I’m still not sure to what extent it is a ‘natural’ trait or one that is learnt. I am also curious why this idea of innate systemic sensibilities is included in the poll, suggesting that it is a common idea or theory (that I haven’t yet heard of or understood). Although, I know that I see the world systemically, and behave in a way that shows awareness of my role and participation in systems, I don’t think that my systemic thinking and organic conclusions about systems are the same as the systematic process of analysis involved in studying Systems Thinking. Using tools for thinking ensures that we think in a certain way, using specific methods, ideas, and processes. This is very useful for baking systemic thinking into our practices, but the reification of constructs in this way can have negative consequences such as baking in limitations to freedom and creativity of thought.

Tools such as PFMS can be used as a launching off point for innovation if it inspires us to investigate and develop each element of our practice. It is also a reminder to review changes we make within ourselves as Practitioner (P), our Framework of ideas (F), Methods/Methodologies (M), and the Situation (S). If we consider how well the elements P, F, M, and S are combined within the context, or for the purpose/function of the system of practice, we can evaluate the quality and effectiveness of performance. Performance in this case refers to practice in relation to the overall goal of the practice. As Practitioners (P), we can ask ourselves, for example, if the Frameworks (F) and Methods (M) were relevant and appropriate, if we managed different elements well or if we could improve our performance in some way by engaging with the situation differently.

When we reflect on a situation, we are thinking about it, interpreting the situation, and trying to understand it. But the methods we have discussed here are more complex. Reflexivity is a term that I keep coming across in the study materials. At first I thought ‘reflexive’ meant purposefully acting on our purposeful reflections, perhaps because the word ‘reflex’ makes me think of a reaction one might have to an action. It actually refers to when something refers back to itself like reflexive pronouns e.g. the word ‘oneself’ that refers back to the subject of the clause in which it was used. In social sciences, it is defined as a method or theory that takes into account the effect of the researcher on the subject of the research.

Reflexivity is higher level reflection with which we reflect on reflecting, thinking epistemologically about the process of reflection. This could include thinking about what caused us to think in a certain way in relation to a situation, why we interpreted the situation the way that we did. This is called second-order thinking, and in regards to ‘reflexivity’ we can see it as a higher level method of processing our thinking, participation, and practice as we engage with a situation of concern. This type of thinking requires awareness of our role in the systems we engage with, and an understanding that we cannot be separated from our practice nor from the Frameworks and Methods we introduced to a Situation. The choices and decisions we make in our practice are informed by our biological, social and cultural histories, and that is the case for everyone affected by or involved in a Situation. By thinking reflexively, or reflecting on our own ways of thinking, we can be more aware of individual strengths and weaknesses, and the diverse contributions we can benefit and learn from if we look both inside and outside of ourselves.

Our framework of ideas for applying Systems Thinking in Practice (STiP) will be chosen by us based on our experience and interest in certain intellectual fields. We can expand our toolset and framework by developing our systems literacy. This is an important part of studying STiP because when managing change in our Practice, Systems Thinking is reflexive as we consider the various influences on our thinking and actions, and how that translates to our interaction with a situation.

When I first started studying STiP with the TB872 module, one of the questions I needed an answer to was one that I interestingly had not often thought about in relation to my academic studies. Maybe because of my age and maturity at this stage of my life, or maybe because the scope of study for this module initially seemed quite narrow, and course materials limited. Although I am keen to learn new information and try new things, I needed to know why we were studying Systems Thinking in this specific way. This meant I needed to look at the lineage of this course of study—who influenced the authors of the course materials, how valid and applicable are those influences to what I hope to learn, and why was certain content chosen over others? I still haven’t come to final conclusions to those questions, but I do appreciate that we are encouraged to read the book Systems Thinkers (Ramage & Shipp, 2020) and have access to heuristics such as a trajectory diagram for some of the Systems and Cybernetics approaches, and related thinkers in the intellectual field.

The authors of Systems Thinkers include at least one paragraph discussing the lack of representation of women in the field and in their book, and another explains their reasons for not including thinkers from the selected USA-UK tradition. The narrow demographic is very noticeable upon reading. The circle of academics becomes even smaller when you realise that several of the systems thinkers knew each other either through attending or working at the same university, or participating in the same community of practice. I imagine that this could easily create an echo chamber if new ways of thinking are not encouraged and introduced. In the age of the internet, we don’t have much of an excuse to ignore thinkers of an even wider range of intellectual fields. However, as mentioned in my previous post about my experience with TB872, I was advised not to take on too much by asking for information on thinkers from different backgrounds and cultures.

As discussed in another book provided for the TB872 module from The Open University, being a part of a community is not just about the identification of an individual with the group, but also the acceptance of the individual by the group willing to allow the crossing of boundaries (Blackmore, 2010). Academia in the Europe and North America has the reputation of being whitewashed, exclusionary, and lacking diversity (Ono-George, M., 2019), especially in positions of power where decisions are made about what constitutes a field of study and what doesn’t. Many educational institutions have made promises to improve equity, diversity and inclusion practices through schemes such as the Race Equality Charter which The Open University is a member of, but most of these organisations have little to show for their institutional membership. This is a huge problem for the uptake of perspectives and innovations from minority groups in countries like the United Kingdom and United States.

My tutor may be right that there isn’t enough time in this module to learn about a wide array of lineages, but I hope to be able to include varying viewpoints in my own learning and practice. I also hope that opportunities are provided to a more diverse range of academics, to produce more inclusive curricula to educate for a more inclusive society. Aside from the general lack of diversity in positions of power in Britain and in the British Education system, individuals in academia also have their own traditions and educations that are limited. We can see that even amongst experts in systems thinking, reflexive practice does not resolve issues of inequality. Inequalities in the UK, and specifically in Education, are a huge concern. As I am currently in Education, I am in a position that gives insight and provides opportunity for research into managing change, social learning, and collective practice for systemic change regarding the current Situation.

Using the PFMS framework to identify and evaluate features of group practice on this module, I identified my current Situation of concern to be the potential negative consequences of a lack of diverse perspectives in the development of post-graduate curricula, such as the TB872 module at The Open University. To narrow down the Situation further, and get to grips with PFMS, I began an investigation first looking at those involved with the TB872 module that may be affected by the issues raised in my hypothesis.

By considering the Situation of concern, I realised that everyone has different concerns in regards to TB872 and their experience at The Open University. Not everyone is affected by the same issues directly, and we all organise our time and efforts presumably based on our own priorities. Earlier in the module, the differences amongst the cohort were made visible through polls in the module activities and discussions on the module forums. We could see that everyone comes with a variety of areas of interest and expertise, and different goals for their time with TB872. I have now decided to conduct a poll of students and tutors on the module forum to find out more and while waiting for the results, I noted my own initial assumptions about how PFMS could be applied to the group, if there are those that perceive themselves to have a shared situation of concern as opposed to a concern that applies only to their individual experience.

I started with identifying the Practitioners involved in my module—they would include the designers of the course, the tutors and the students including me. As a ‘control’ subject, I compared my sibling who is a systems thinker and practitioner but not involved with any systems courses at the moment.

The Frameworks that can be applied to all Practitioners would include:

• Traditions of understanding—every individual has a unique background and history
• Concepts of ‘change’, ‘systems’, ‘systems thinking’ and ‘practice’ shaped by individuals’ language and culture, education, field of work, experiences and understanding
• Personal interests and goals in relation to Systems / STiP
• Wider context of cultural norms and practices, rules and regulations, and behaviour expectations for those in educational institutions and society in general
• Ethical and cultural limitations on what can and should be discussed, studied, and written about
• Specific systems thinking lineages that influenced the creators of the TB872 module, and influenced Systems as an intellectual field

Frameworks that directly affect those involved with the module, but not likely to apply to my sibling or others not studying at The Open University:

• Curriculum and module material as presented on the TB872 module website through The Open University
• Systems Thinking as defined and taught at The Open University as an institution, as a department that teaches Systems, and as individual instructors with their own traditions of understanding relating to Education and Systems

There are limitations imposed on how students, educators and facilitators can and should behave whilst engaging with each other and participating in academic practice. Despite individual differences, there is shared understanding of norms and expectations related to living and studying in the UK, and communicating with people based in the UK. The communication style and language used could affect the concepts being thought about and how they are conveyed to others.

Methods employed by all Practitioners include:

• Researching and referencing systems thinkers, their conceptual lineages, traditions, frameworks, and fields related to Systems
• Referring to personal experience with STiP, managing change and application of Systems concepts
• Communities and networks that facilitate communication and social learning
• Using tools for learning about, engaging with, and communicating about Situations of concern and systems of interest e.g. PFMS heuristic, diagramming etc.

Methods used by those directly involved with TB872 but not likely to apply to my sibling or others not studying at The Open University:

• Reinforcement of learning through use of specific language, ideas, theories, tools etc. related to systems thinking (within the framework of the TB872 module)
• Reinforcement of set curriculum and path of study to be followed.

In the next series of activities that I will share, I hope that I will be able to have some input from the various TB872 Practitioners to test my assumptions and develop my understanding of managing change with systems thinking.

References:

Ison, R. (2017) Systems Practice: How to Act in a Climate-Change World. London: Springer London, pp 49-53. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7351–9.

Ono-George, M. (2019) ‘Beyond diversity: anti-racist pedagogy in British H⁠istory d⁠epartments’, Women’s History Review, 28(3), pp. 500–507. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09612025.2019.1584151.

The Updated Race Equality Charter | Advance HE_ (no date). Available at: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/equality-charters/updated-race-equality-charter#Overview (Accessed: 17 November 2024).

Blackmore, C. (ed.) (2010) Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice. London: Springer London. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-133-2.

Ramage, M. and Shipp, K. (2020) Systems Thinkers. London: Springer London. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7475-2.