Setting up a systemic inquiry for a situation of concern – TB872 Part 02 Week 07

Going forward in part 2 of TB872, we will be engaging in a cycle of systemic inquiry that develops our Systems Thinking in Practice (STiP) capabilities (Systemic Inquiry 1) and the process of managing change in a situation of concern (Systemic Inquiry 2). As we continue through the course, our learning from Systemic Inquiry 1 (S1) and Systemic Inquiry 2 (S2) will contribute to the development of each other in a ‘braided’ style of interconnected learning (Ison and Blackmore, 2014). This process can be seen as a learning system designed to develop STiP capability through praxis in specific situational applications. The ways we choose to manage change in our situation of concern in S2 must be demonstrated to be systemically desirable and culturally feasible, as well as informed by the ‘virtuous cycle of inquiry’ with S1 (The Open University, 2021).

‘Systemic inquiries’ in this module refers to models of activity as seen in the work of Peter Checkland, particularly Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). With SSM, systems are monitored to measure performance against the espoused purpose of the system, and action taken when standards of performance are not met (Checkland, 1999). The activities in the model form a system for doing systemic inquiry. There are other ways of doing systemic inquiry (see Churchman, 1971), but I have referred primarily to part 2 of the TB872 module material in my design of a systemic inquiry.

When presented as a diagram, the parts of the system shown are kept limited in number for clear communication of the process, but they can be expanded into subsystems if needed. Systematic and systemic processes are present in this system—systematic processes are more visible at the subsystem level, describing how things are done. Focusing on the whole visible system shows us what is being done, and moving to the higher level super-system would describe the why or purpose of the system. During an inquiry, it is likely that we would need to move between system levels to keep the inquiry on track, evaluating the performance of the whole system in relation to the system purpose.

Performance is measured by evaluating the different parts of the system systematically, and exploring their systemic interconnections. What culturally feasible changes can be made to the different parts of the system? How will those changes affect each of the other parts? What are the emergent properties, and are they systemically desirable? What further action is needed to effectively fulfil the purpose of the system?

Systemic inquiry is defined as systemic because rather than following linear processes to arrive at pre-determined outcomes, purposeful consideration is made to facilitate purposeful action:

• Situations are viewed in context with input from various perspectives
• Systemic inquiry draws on Systems Thinking lineages—theories of learning, action research, cooperative inquiry, and adaptive management
• Purpose is clarified through inquiry, not prescribed
• The ‘what’, ‘how’, and ‘why’ of a situation are explored when appropriate
• Continuous adaptive development is enabled through a thoughtfully designed learning system
• The goal is purposeful action that is systemically desirable, culturally feasible, and ethically defensible—this is achieved by working toward the development of a learning system that supports social learning via systemic co-inquiry

Note regarding co-inquiry: When we engage in co-inquiry with other stakeholders, we embody governance of our shared situation which expands our potential for influencing adaptive change through a wider array of resources and practices. Social learning also provides us greater potential for reframing contexts through the lens of different perspectives. If we can embrace the uncertainty of an unknown destination in our systemic co-inquiry, we may uncover complexity and interdependencies that offer new opportunities for change.

In part 1 of the TB872 module, we contributed to our systemic inquiries by:

• Exploring situations systematically and systemically, and learning about which types of situations are likely to benefit from systemic inquiry as opposed to linear problem-solving / thinking styles
• Exploring the history of our personal situation, our ‘tradition of understanding’
• Building awareness that we are all part of every situation we engage with, and that it is important to consider the effects of our ‘practice’ in those situations
• Exploring some of the different lineages of systems thinking in practice
• Developing our relational thinking skills, improving our STiP capability
• Using heuristic tools to explore how any form of practice can be understood as an emergent performance which is context sensitive

A primary book for the TB872 module is Systems Practice: How to Act (In situations of uncertainty and complexity in a climate-change world) by Ray Ison (2017). Although we were not required to read the whole book, only selected chapters, I did read as much of the module material as I could before beginning the course as I was not very familiar with Systems as a field of study. I had critiques about some of the ideas in the book, the lack of empirical evidence, lack of diversity of viewpoints, and lack of clarity about the author’s reasoning regarding certain choices when designing the Open University’s Systems curriculum.

On second reading of the module’s recommended chapters of Systems Practice, and having completed part 1 of the module, I could engage in deeper analysis of the content of the book with greater understanding of its concepts. This type of iterative or recursive learning is, in fact, a feature of the TB872 module. We are encouraged to keep track of how our understanding has changed, because reflection and reflexive thinking about our own knowledge and skills is so important in the type of Systems Thinking we are being taught to engage in.

The book explains how systemic inquiry differs from traditional project management as a method for managing complex situations. Chapter 10 describes our ‘projectified world’ in which working on projects towards set targets is the norm because of our desire for certainty even, and especially, when dealing with complex issues that could benefit from a Systems Thinking approach. The desire for certainty is not conducive to STiP, and ‘projectifying’ the ways that we manage change in challenging situations perpetuates a ‘command and control’ hierarchical model where outcomes are predetermined, all action is in service of achieving goals set by specific individuals, and a set amount of resources are allocated to achieve the goal in a set amount of time. They are reliant on systematic thinking and ‘technical rationality’ that are not supportive of the development of iterative learning systems and adaptive practices. Ison argues that systemic thinking and practices are essential for the highly complex and uncertain situations we are facing globally such as those caused by anthropogenic climate change.

The ‘End-of-module Assignment’ (EMA) for TB872 requires that students outline a learning system for managing change in a situation of concern. Learning systems that are designed for long term development take into account the multitude of factors and various stakeholder perspectives involved in the system of interest that our situation of concern is situated in. Because the processes for learning from changes in the situation and in our practice is designed into a systemic inquiry, the process is inherently circular as we adapt our practices and learn from the emergent outcomes. We are not expected to manage issues as big as climate change, but will need to design systems that show that we can manage complex situations of concern in a systemic way.

My concern when deciding on the perfect ‘Situation of Concern’ to focus my systemic inquiry on, was that it wouldn’t meet all the criteria for a useful study that could also demonstrate my STiP capability. The situation would need to be:

• Complex, and not easily addressed with linear problem-solving ideas/methods
• Affecting various stakeholders that maybe don’t agree on what the actual ‘problem’ is
• Narrow enough that my engagement with the situation as a practitioner is worth reflecting on
• Something that you I have some influence to manage change in

I have been finding it difficult to think of a situation like this, that I would actually have any power to manage and change. My personal life does not give me access to problematic situations that affect lots of people. I would either have to focus on a situation that I am already engaging with (such as being a student), or one that may take much more time to research.

I evaluated several potential ‘situations’ for my S2 inquiry, and encountered the recurring issue of the situations either being too broad in scope or not sufficiently complex for the purpose. This makes me wonder, again, to what extent does everyone have a responsibility to think and act systemically if most people seemingly lack power to enact systemic change? However, when discussing with my fellow students on the module forum, I concluded that even if the challenges we are experiencing feel specific to ourselves, they still exist in the context of the same global economic, political, social, biological etc systems that affect us all. Maybe there isn’t a situation that’s ‘too small’ if we analyse it in the context of its institutionalisation… By recognising our shared contexts, we might even discover motivations for collective action and change. It is interesting to think that this way of ‘reframing’ a situation to explore its complexity is also something that can be done to reduce its perceived complexity or negative associations in situations with a high level of stakeholder conflict or contention (Ison, 2017, p236).

My tutor advised that for our purposes on this module, we do not necessarily have to have any power to change the situation ourselves, and do not have to enact the learning system. We can choose a situation where we might have to lobby others to make change in the situation. It seems that I can submit my systemic inquiry in the form of a proposal, like I did for the final assessment of the course Design Thinking for the Greater Good – Innovation in the Social Sector. I can evaluate the situation, present my systemic inquiry process, and suggested learning system for continuous development of the situation. This has to be done within the limited timespan of the module so I am tempted to go with whatever might be simplest while meeting the requirements, but I also don’t want to waste time on something that is not interesting or useful.

My instinct, when it came to deciding on a situation, was to think about what felt important to me. All purposeful action, including engagement with a process of systemic inquiry, is underpinned by internal motivation driven by emotion. Emotions play a big part in how we approach and manage situations. For example, fear limits our ability to make changes, but uncertainty opens us up to inquiry towards action, as opposed to the inaction resulting from confident ‘knowing’ (Ison, 2017, p337). Aside from making for a highly motivational process of inquiry, and greater interest in the subject, a situation chosen on the basis of emotional drive will be one that is easier to evaluate the performance of. The emotions we, and other stakeholders, are experiencing defines whether the situation is desirable and working well for the stakeholders involved. Our feelings about the situation determine where action or inaction is needed.

In my experience, the times when I have been motivated to make change have often been driven by strong emotion such as frustration, anger, sadness, or excitement. When I feel content it generally means that I am fine with the situation as it is. A sense of dissatisfaction will at the very least make us think about taking action and making change. Because of my personal history and ‘traditions of understanding’, the situations I feel strongest about tend be related to justice, freedom, fairness, and progressive values. This is reflected in the choices I made, narrowing down my ideas to those related to development within my local community (within which it would unfortunately be hard to reflect on my own ‘practice’ due to lack of current active participation) and those relating to being a post-graduate student.

1. Managing Diversity and Inclusion Challenges in Postgraduate (Systems Thinking) Curriculums
2. Managing Online Collaboration and Group Work Challenges for Disabled Students
3. Managing local community development systemically via non-profits / governmental organisations

After researching into potential areas of contention for multiple stakeholders, I found that there may be a strong basis for looking deeper into possible challenges relating to diversity and inclusion in Systems Thinking curricula at the Open University (OU) where I am studying. The OU has extensive documentation on its efforts towards creating a fair and accessible learning environment, and standards for education that complies with government policies and laws on equality. There is a detailed history on the development of Systems at the OU, and evaluations of the course creators own praxis in creating reflexive learning systems. It would be very on-brand and meta to review their learning systems for designing learning systems for designing learning systems, alongside the design of my own learning system! I think it would be really useful to compare our processes, as a way of improving my own learning and practice as a student utilising Systems Thinking in Practice.

References

Checkland, P. (1999) Soft systems methodology : a 30-year retrospective ; and, Systems thinking, systems practice. [New ed.]. Wiley. Available at: https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1130282268952033152 (Accessed: 20 December 2024).

Churchman, C.W. (1971) The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization. Basic Books.

Ison, R. (2017) ‘Systemic Inquiry’, in R. Ison (ed.) Systems Practice: How to Act: In situations of uncertainty and complexity in a climate-change world. London: Springer, pp. 251–274. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9_10.

Ison, R. and Blackmore, C. (2014) ‘Designing and Developing a Reflexive Learning System for Managing Systemic Change’, Systems, 2. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/systems2020119.

The Open University (2021). ‘Part 2’, TB872. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=2303521 (Accessed: 20 December 2024).