Systems Practice: Being, Engaging, Contextualising, Managing – TB872 Part 2 Week 10

In just a few weeks, I will be submitting my second tutor-marked assignment (TMA 02) and with a lot of reflection and participation in module activities that I summarise in these blog posts, I hope to be able to answer the following questions (summarised for brevity):

• What are the arguments for and against engaging with situations through systemic inquiry?
• What is the situation of concern you have chosen for your systemic inquiry (S2), and how will you be engaging with it?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of your choice of situation of concern for S2, and how will these influence your approach to your End-of-Module Assessment (EMA)?
• How might a systemic inquiry or systemic co-inquiry be designed and, where relevant, enacted as a learning system in your proposed situation of concern?
• The question ‘What do you do when you do what you do?’ is one of the main organising questions in Systems practice, the module book for TB872 Part 2. Provide your own answer to this question drawing on your study of Part 2 in relation to your understanding of managing change.
• Redesign the ‘learning contract’ you designed in TMA 01 in the form of: a written description of a system of interest; a conceptual (activity) model of a system of interest which could also be understood as a design for a learning system; include a new subsystem which can be labelled as ‘an EMA answering sub-system’.
• What does ‘taking a design turn’ mean in relation to your own developing STiP?

S2 refers to the second systemic inquiry we are required to complete, demonstrating our ability manage change in a situation of concern using STiP. S1 is the systemic inquiry in which we develop our STiP capability through studying TB872.

It seems that as well as gauging our systemic literacy and understanding of the module content, the questions in in this TMA (as in the last one) are preparations for the next part of the module and the EMA. We will continue to build on our previous work, understanding of Systems concepts and practices, to develop our own learning systems and perhaps our own concepts and practices.

For some of the questions, it may be enough to reference course materials or my own notes but, in my opinion, the most important (and challenging) questions to nail for progression in the module are to do with:

• Identifying a situation of concern for systemic inquiry (S2) with which we can show how we would manage change in that situation using Systems Thinking in practice (STiP)
• Designing a systemic inquiry and activity model / learning system in our proposed situation of concern, using STiP
• Evaluating our choices of situation and our process of designing a learning system in terms of assessment criteria for the TB872 EMA

For this module, we are expected to present our use and understanding of Systems Thinking through the ‘PFMS’ and ‘BECM’ heuristics (or an equivalent adaptation) relating to our practice. PFMS is the acronym for Practitioner, Framework, Method(ology), Situation. BECM stands for Being, Engaging, Contextualising, Managing. PFMS refers to elements of a system of practice to consider in our systemic evaluations, whereas BECM refers to the various ‘balls’ that a practitioner juggles as part of their practice. The process is analogised through the ‘juggler’ heuristic in Systems Practice by Ray Ison (2017).

Inspired by Humberto Maturana, Ray Ison describes the ‘juggler’ as an isophor rather than a metaphor since a metaphor relates or transfers meaning from one narrative to explain an unrelated abstract concept, but an isophor is used to find equivalents across domains. In this case, if we know what a juggler is and what they do, we can more easily understand the subject. This is not significantly different to common understanding of metaphors, so I believe the terms can be interchangeable. To relate back to the course materials I will refer to the example as an isophor.

To expand on the metaphor / isophor, the elements involved in juggling are the balls being juggled interacting with the actions of the juggler, in relation to the environment and context that the juggling takes place in. Without any of the these elements, the system of juggling would not work. The purpose of the system e.g. to entertain others, to earn money, to improve a skill etc. will determine which elements may need to be altered or removed, what they may need to be replaced with, and the methods or processes by which the elements will interact following any changes. The changes will be decided by the juggler (practitioner) based on their intention, their personal desires based on their traditions of understanding and goals for the future. The system of practice in this case is unique to the practitioner, but may be adapted for other practitioners to apply to their own unique practice or when juggling together.

The juggler isophor is appropriate in relation to handling each task or ball separately and one-at-a-time, in a process of switching between modes rather than doing all at the same time. The process happens quickly and requires focus. Each can also be handled individually without juggling, but when directly engaging with situations for the purpose of systemically evaluating and improving our practice, the four balls can be useful points to keep in mind and come back to. It may be that we drop certain balls if we are not experienced in juggling, and according to Ison in Systems Practice, it is important to juggle all balls for effective practice.

In chapter 3 of Systems practice, it is claimed that the juggler isophor is an ‘ideal type’ for a systems practitioner. TB872 definition states that the ‘ideal type’ describes the most common characteristics of a practitioner rather than the ideal characteristics. The term is confusing, perhaps because it is based on the German Idealtypus associated with Max Weber’s explanation of ‘idea-concepts’ that describes how we make sense of phenomena using subjective ‘ideals’, commonality of behaviour which we interpret as being of a certain ‘type’. As I understand it, this suggests that the juggler isophor is not instructional, but descriptive of how we may categorise systemic practice based on the features we assign to it. This opens up the idea to potential adaptation based on the actuality of the situation, and necessity of the circumstance. The practitioner can learn from the heuristic by borrowing from its presets, with understanding that they are suggestions and not a representation of every practice/situation.

Ison (2017) often refers to metaphors (and isophors) as evidence of our ‘living in language’ which can reveal as well as conceal (obscure) aspects of a situation. The juggler isophor brings up a lot of things to think about. Those things are already a part of our understanding, so we may miss important points outside of our understanding unless we ask the right questions. Our traditions and bias will always affect our priorities, decisions and actions, especially in situations that require quick thinking. Since the juggling of the balls is a mental process, our thoughts are concealed unless we consciously reveal and share our processes which might be challenging in many situations such as in the example (see activity 2.26). We will subconsciously choose to focus on elements of our practice that we think are more important, and might be chosen differently by another practitioner. Juggling, in these terms, is very much reliant on the interpretations of the practitioner and how they choose to utilise it as a tool for reflecting on their practice. Awareness of this can also be seen as part of the ‘juggling’.

We can see PFMS and BECM as ways of understanding practice from different levels of abstraction, or seeing practice in relation to time—PFMS appears as a snapshot, whereas BECM describes the ongoing process of thinking about and adapting our practice systemically. With this in mind, I refer to PFMS and BECM to describe my practice and learning process for the purposes of understanding STiP from the perspectives of the module creators (primarily Ray Ison) and perhaps to develop my own adaptations.

On reflection, I do ‘juggle’ in my daily life, and do so with multiple systems of interest, each with different purposes or goals. For example:

• I want to keep up with my uni work and study effectively
• I want to maintain my social relationships
• I want to maintain a clean and comfortable home
• I want to make sure that I stay on top of my hygiene and self-care.

Each of these domains requires different approaches, but also managing the requirements of all of these domains (as I define them) is a system that requires juggling. To use the isophor, I juggle the balls that constitute my daily practice by:

• Being (B Ball): I have to remain aware of my capabilites, my emotional motivations, and what my mind and body need to be able to fulfill the purpose of my self-defined system of practice in my daily life. Through reflexive contemplation and checking in with myself throughout the day, I am aware of my strengths and weaknesses when it comes to achieving certain tasks, and when I may need to ask for help with juggling each of the balls.
• Engaging (E Ball): I have to maintain awareness of the status of each domain and the extent to which they meet the criteria I have defined for them. This is to some extent a reflection on (and evaluation of) my performance, but a more objective understanding requires an evaluation of the naturally-occurring changes in the situation—many of which are outside of my control.
• Contextualising (C Ball): As the situation is continually changing, my approach and methods of engaging with the situation must adapt. I have to make decisions about what is necessary to think about and act on, depending on what I gain from juggling the other balls.
• Managing (M Ball): Over time, I am able to see how effective my performance is and if there are changes that need to be made to how I reflect on my self as a practitioner, understand and interact with real-world situations, adapt my practice, and review my performance.

To further expand on my understanding of what is being juggled, or ‘what I do when I do what I do’, I will give examples of how I might apply the isophor to systemically analyse my practice in a specific situation that might also inform my S2 inquiry. I think the practice of caring for or teaching children and young people feels very much like juggling, so I can relate somewhat to some of the difficulties that educators and instructors experience based on work I have done in my past. I do think I would have been much better at my job if I was an aware systemic practitioner, knowing to ask the right questions and adapt my practice accordingly. There are so many factors to constantly think about when working in educational settings, for example:

Juggling the B Ball ✦ Reflecting on reflection of your own practice

Are you maintaining awareness of yourself in this situation?

• What are your personal qualities and characteristics that might be beneficial or detrimental to the situation?
• Is your disposition suited to communicating with young people appropriately?
• How are you feeling? Are you mood or energy levels affecting your practice?

What are you / could you be bringing to the situation?

• Do you have the relevant skills and qualifications to look after children?
• How will your personal experiences, traditions of understanding, skills and knowledge affect your choices of methods and frameworks to employ?
• How is your way of looking at, or thinking about, doing this kind of work different from other people’s? How do your values and feelings differ? How does this affect your choices and behaviours?
• What are other ways to care for the young people, other than the ways you know about?

What are your responsibilities in the situation? With young people and children, there are usually a lot! How can you ensure that your behaviour and choices continue to be ethical and responsible?

Are you aware of the other ‘balls’ involved in your practice?

How do your unique elements of Being affect your ability to juggle all the other balls? How will they affect your ability to effectively engage, contextualise, and manage the situation?

What will you do to mitigate any negative effects, or maximise positive outcomes as a result of your current status?

Juggling the E Ball ✦ Understanding and interacting with a real-world situation

• How are you thinking about the situation, and why?
• How are you engaging with the young people in real life?
• What is your understanding of their individual needs and personalities?
• Is there another way to engage with the situation? Can this change over time?
• How can you reframe your thinking to improve your performance e.g. if the goal is to educate the young people while keeping them entertained, could a different perspective be useful in achieving that goal?

Juggling the C Ball ✦ Adapting practice and choosing an approach

• Which systemic approach do you instinctively go for when you look after children as a practice in certain settings?
• Which approaches are most effective when practicing teaching versus playing?
• Are there more suitable approaches for childcare or teaching that can be adopted over time? Are those approaches systemic, considering the various elements of practice and contributing to systemically desirable outcomes, such as the young people being happy and enjoying learning whilst meeting their individual educational goals?

Juggling the M Ball ✦ Reviewing practice over time

• How will you continue to juggle all the balls as you progress through time?
• Are there elements of your performance as a care-giver or educator that require development?
• What choices might you make going forward to improve your performance, considering the elements of your practice and how they inter-relate?
• How might you develop a system of learning or improvement for your practice?
• How might this affect or be affected by other stakeholders?
  • Are there other teachers or supportive adults that you could inquire with?
  • How do the individual differences of the young people affect your choices and ability to juggle?
  • How do the perspectives of other parents, teachers, managers, community members etc. affect your decision-making?
• What other factors do you need to consider when juggling in your practice? How do you need to adapt, or improve your ability to adapt?

Ison’s claims about the advantages of systems practice in Systems Practice (chapter 4) include:

• Systems practice has particular characteristics that make it qualitatively different to other forms of practice.
• An effective and aware systems practitioner can call on a greater variety of options for doing something about complex ‘real-world’ situations than other practitioners do.
• Being able to deploy more choices when acting so as to enhance systemically desirable and culturally feasible change has important ethical dimensions.
• Our individual and collective capabilities to think and act systemically are underdeveloped and this situation is a strategic vulnerability for us, as a species, at a time when concerns are growing for our continued existence in a co-evolutionary, climate-change world.

I agree that in the case of the early-twenties-year-old youth worker and teaching assistant version of me, any level of systemic awareness in practice would have been beneficial and Ison’s claims would absolutely apply. I might argue that the ability to understand and execute STiP is something that is intuitively developed over time through the natural process of learning through contextualisation of our experiences over time. This process is probably even more effective after our frontal lobes have developed. I guess this is supported by Ison’s references to cyclical development in TB872 and Systems Practice.

In my first TMA, I drafted a ‘learning contract’ that put PFMS to use in identifying elements of my learning practice that I think I should focus on going forward and how high of a priority each of them were. The TB872 learning system that enables progressive development of my practice can be seen as cyclical, or spiral, as I reflect on and add to my previous understanding. In this case I can show how my understanding has changed since writing my learning contract in TMA 01:

I have a better idea of what I will need to do for my TMA (and EMA), and am enjoying the reinforcement of understanding I am getting as I progress through the course. I do still have questions about why the curriculum is structured as it is despite finding my experience engaging and inspiring (this is already a great outcome!). I am still interested in conducting my S2 systemic inquiry on this, whilst understanding that my questions may be answered by completing the module materials. I think this makes the inquiry more interesting to me though—finding out how well the TB872 learning system serves the purpose of the system would be an excellent way of identifying how useful it is as a point of comparison in my future systemic thinking and practice, and development of learning systems for continual development in my systems of interest.