Framing in Systemic Inquiries with the Juggler – TB872 Part 02 Week 11-12

While reading Systems Practice: How to Act (in situations of uncertainty and complexity in a climate-change world (Ison, 2017) to accompany my study of TB872 Managing Change with Systems Thinking in Practice, I am simultaneously developing my understanding of Systems Thinking concepts as described in the provided literature, and developing my Systems practice capability by learning how to apply Systems Thinking in practice (STiP).

There are limitations to my ability to engage in Systems praxis based on what I have learnt on this module so far, and probably in the future too. I have discussed some of these constraints in previous posts, and will contextualise my concerns using Systems theory here as I practise applying the ‘juggler’ isophor or BECM framework in relation to my systemic inquiries as part of this module.

Definitions

For the purposes of my recursive learning and clarification of the subject, here are definitions of some relevant concepts before continuing:

The Juggler Isophor:

The ‘juggler’ is Ray Ison’s heuristic for utilising systems thinking to understand, adapt, and improve practice systemically. The acronym ‘BECM’ can be used as a mnemonic device for visualising and analysing four aspects of engaging with, taking action in, or performing within, a situation:

☞ B-Ball / Being

Bringing awareness to our selves as practitioners and participants within a situation; developing understanding of how we know about our knowing.

Key terms:

• Being ethical: Increasing the level of freedom and choice by acting with responsibility and awareness of consequence. Take responsibility for one’s own views and actions, whilst accommodating different perspectives, by using phrases such as “in my experience, I find…” rather than imposing and defining without inquiry. See Foerster (1992, 2002); Ison (2017, p. 106, 197).
• Embodied person: All understanding and knowledge is shaped by our bodily experience. Mind is body. Understanding is pluralistic. See Ison (2017, p. 88).
• Explanations: can satisfy claims or conditions that are felt to be sufficient by emotion. See Maturana (2008); Ison (2017, p. 87).
• Isophor: Like a metaphor, referencing similar practice from a different domain e.g. ‘juggler’ where a practice arises from an embodied way of knowing that can be translated across domains. See Ison (2017, p. 89).
• Living in language: Language defines understanding, categorisation and perception—what we see and how we see it (framing). See Ison (2017, p. 90, 130).
• Social Technology: Invisible technology embedded in daily practice such as language, rules, procedures, customs. These are emergent practices and traditions arising from social relations, and are not always useful or valid. See Ison (2017, p. 97, 111).
• Emotions: We are always in emotion, affecting our rationality. See Vickers’ ‘appreciative system’ (1984); Ison (2017, p. 88).
• Institution: Culture and understanding imposed via institutional arrangement. See Ison (2017, p. 90).
• Technology as mediator: Technology shifts constraints and possibilities of what we can do, and therefore our conception of the world. See Ison (2017, p. 110).
• Traditions of understanding: The totality of the history of someone’s life including, for example, their biological being, culture, education, and experiences. See Ison (2017, p. 99).
• PFMS: A model of practice for analysing the relational dynamics of practice / engagement with a situation by bringing attention to the Practitioner (P), their chosen Frameworks (F), Methods (M), the Situation (S) itself, and their relationship to each other. See Ison (2017, p. 50).

☞ E-Ball / Engaging

Analysing our understanding of our engagement with a situation (why do we think and act the way that we do?); creating the circumstances for emergence.

Key terms:

• Choices about situations: We can all make choices including the naming and framing categorisations that we make, which will determine how we engage with a situation. See Ison (2017, p. 120).
• Bringing forth: Making a distinction (not assigning character) of a difficulty or a mess is a choice. See Ison (2017, p. 137).
• Complex adaptive system (CAS): Categorisation or possible way of looking at / engaging with a situation—”how would I engage with the situation if it was a CAS?” See Ison (2017, p. 134).
• Difficulty: Situations that can be improved by extracting one problem from them and solving it (it is an exception, not the norm in information-related contexts). See Ison (2017, p. 129).
• Experience: can cause us to make distinctions and categorise, resulting in particular types of engagement. See Ison (2017, p. 119).
• Wicked problems / wicked situations: ill-defined, ambiguous, unique situations where there is little consensus. Likely symptomatic of bigger ‘issues’. See Ison (2017, p. 122).
• Tame problems: Stable problem statement with right/wrong solution and a defined stopping point, similar to other problems so solutions are readily available. See Ison (2017, p. 123).
• Mess: Problems are extracted from unstructured states of confusion. External conditions lead to dissatisfaction which lead to problems and opportunities. See Ackoff (1974); Ison (2017, p. 120, 128).
• Resource dilemma: One of the ways of framing or categorising global ecological crises, water crises etc. Challenged by Ison et al (SLIM, 2004). See Ison (2017, p. 237).
• Reification: Making abstract concepts more ‘real’, making them a part of our lived experience or giving them greater meaning or power in real-world situations. This can reduce framing choices, and freedom to alter how we engage with situations. See Ison (2017, p. 131).
• Neologism: Coining new terms, framing or re-framing a concept. See Ison (2017, p. 120).
• Systems diagramming: can be used to understand and engage with a situation of concern, convey and simplify complexity, and communicate systems concepts in regards to a situation. See Ison (2017, p. 152).

☞ C-Ball / Contextualising

Adapting our practice or approach to the situation; choosing boundaries, concepts, methods, and tools for the context.

Key terms:

• Aware systems practice: Being able to distinguish between systemic and systematic, utilising diverse contextualisation towards greater opportunity for change. See Ison (2017, p. 156, 198).
• Designing a systemic inquiry: Adapting inquiry processes from systems methods such as Soft Systems Methodology which involves setting up a structured exploration of a situation, and outlining actions to modify, monitor and adapt the situation. See Checkland (2002); Ison (2017, p. 166, 172).
• Exploring purpose: A system of interest is defined by exploring boundaries and the ‘what, how and why’ of a situation. It can be assessed by performance in relation to the system purpose. See Ulrich (2000); Churchman (1971); Ison (2017, p. 163).
• Patterns of Knowing: Epistemological systems practice breaks reinforced ideological cycles, creating purposeful learning systems (different ways of knowing). See Ison (2017, p. 162).
• Purposeful versus purposive behaviour: Assigning meaning to one’s own motivations versus externally assigned purpose. See Ison (2017, p. 159).
• Revealing and concealing metaphors: As we live in language, reality can be hidden, and other ideas reified, through the use of metaphor. See Ison (2017, p. 171, 174).
• Systematic thinking tradition: e.g. ‘hard’ systems—goal-seeking, ontological, logic-based, using systems as models of reality. See Ison (2017, p. 160).
• Systemic thinking tradition: e.g. ‘soft’ systems—learning oriented, epistemological, subjective, accommodating, using systems as constructs for understanding. See Ison (2017, p. 160).
• Metaphor analysis: Highlights normalised perceptions and creates opportunity for reframing with alternative meanings. See Ison (2017, p. 175).
• Method / Methodology: Identify appropriate processes, adapt for given context. Using a method means following a process. Methodology braids theory and practice while assessing PFMS. See Ison (2017, p. 167).
• Multi-methodology: Methodological pluralism—the ability of a practitioner to contextualise diverse approaches for systemically desirable, culturally feasible, ethically defensible change. See Ison (2017, p. 156).

☞ M-Ball / Managing

Reviewing our practice over time, as the situation changes and we adapt to it; improving our performance of juggling all the balls; choosing systemic over systematic thinking and action.

Key terms:

• Causal-loop models: Diagram showing causal relationships between interconnecting systemic elements. See Ison (2017, p. 211, 209).
• Perspectives on managing: Ison theorises that ‘managing’ can be broken down into ‘getting by’ (maintenance), ‘getting on top of’ (controlling and adapting), ‘creating space for’ (organising). It is an embodied, emergent awareness of ‘what we do when we do what we do.’ See Ison (2017, p. 190).
• Transformation: Processes converting input to output. See Ison (2017, p. 191).
• Emotions: determine value, perception, motivation, purpose, social influence via relationships, systemic feeling and understanding. See Ison (2017, p. 193).
• Systemic awareness: Awareness of ‘what you do when you do what you do’ is increased, emergent from the process of purposefully creating reflective space. See Ison (2017, p. 192, 195).
• Emergence: A balance of control is required to allow for possibilities, innovation and adaptation, and spontaneity in self-organising relationships. See Ison (2017, p. 202).
• System Dynamics tradition: Analysing systems in terms of how feedback and control affects elements and interconnections in a system. See Ison (2017, p. 208).
• Viable Systems Model (VSM): Organisational model for autonomous systems, capable of producing themselves. See Beer (1972); Ison (2017, p. 214).

Systemic Inquiry:

Systemic inquiry is a way of engaging with messy, complex situations that emphasises learning and reflexivity over achieving specific outcomes, using systemic methods of exploration to create the circumstances for systemically desirable and culturally feasible change, and continued improvement through learning systems. Comparatively, project management usually has end-goals of ‘problem-solving’ and attaining specific outcomes, and there are fewer opportunities for learning and adaptation. Systemic inquiries may be open-ended, flexible, and inclusive of the perspectives of a range of stakeholders.

Systemic Inquiry 1 (S1):

S1 is a part of the TB872 learning system that involves development of the students’ systems practice. This includes improving our understanding of STiP, developing STiP literacy and STiP capability—ability to think and do STiP. This is achieved through study of TB872 and its other constituent: Systemic inquiry 2 (S2).

Systemic Inquiry 2 (S2):

S2 is a part of the TB872 learning system that involves students managing change in a situation of concern to them. For this, we will be thinking about how we do, could, and would, manage change systemically in a specific situation—it may involve using existing Systems frameworks and methods, or adapting them. In any case, self-awareness as an observer and practitioner within our situation of concern and system of interest will be essential for a complete systemic understanding. We have been using the Practitioner-Frameworks-Method(ology)-Situation (PFMS) and Being-Engaging-Contextualising-Managing (BECM) heuristics to assist with systemic reflection and analysis of our chosen situations.

S1 + S2:

These two inquiries combined form a ‘virtuous cycle of inquiry’ to develop STiP capability through praxis in a purposefully designed learning system. Although the process of learning is described as recursive and cyclical, there is also movement between levels of abstraction that creates a ‘braided’ style of interconnected learning (Ison and Blackmore, 2014).

Situation of concern:

A situation of concern is an area of interest that might usually be referred to as a ‘problem’ or ‘issue’. Using the term ‘situation of concern’ avoids labelling that influences our (and others’) perception of the situation, allows for reframing as a means to adjust our engagement with the situation. It can also reduce presumptions of potential actions and ‘solutions’ (Ison and Blackmore, 2020).

When choosing the situation of concern for our S2 inquiry, it was required that the following criteria were met in order to demonstrate our ability to manage change in complex situations using STiP:

• sufficiently rich and messy to warrant detailed exploration and of potential interest to a group of people
• not an all-and-everything situation such as the state of the planet – you need to nominate something more focused
• one where you can distinguish between what is directly relevant to your concerns and what is contextual, at least to some degree
• one in which you can articulate your concerns, rather than assuming it will be of general concern to all
• inhabited with other people who are, or could become, stakeholders in any purposeful attempts to manage change with STiP
• potentially open to different framing choices.

Framing:

Framing is the assignment of meaning to a situation that creates a specific way of looking at and understanding that situation. As in photography, we create borders around the subject, and add filters that make things appear in a certain way. The way framing occurs can be socially constructed by many influences such as educational, political or cultural interpretations of a situation. By reframing our conceptualisations, we may have fresh perspectives, new insights, different interpretations and feelings about a situation. With awareness of our own traditions of understanding and that of others, we can reflect on how our internalised framing of situations aligns with systemic purpose and desirability, and make conscious decisions about reframing where it is beneficial to do so.

Using the Juggler to Understand Changes in my Framing of S1

How my framing of, and engagement with, TB872 has changed

– Using the B-Ball (Being)

Previously:
I understood that my traditions of understanding affected my practice but did not consider it in all situations. I lacked the language for it as a practice, and so it did not always occur to me to consider it.

Currently:
Having the language for reflexive practice, and recursively developing understanding of reflexivity as part of my practice, reinforces knowledge through the praxis of systemic reflection on my ‘Being’. This can be seen as a part of ‘living in language’, in the sense that my worldview and potential for action is expanded as language reveals or inserts new elements into my constructed perception of reality and multiplying its potentiality.

Possible future:
By using BECM / juggling the B-Ball, I can identify the pros and cons of different approaches, and evaluate my own approach using certain frameworks or methods. I can develop my own processes with awareness of my own strengths and weaknesses.

– Using the E-Ball (Engaging)

Previously:
My original way of developing my STiP capability was to use course materials and ask for other appropriate content to engage with. I have methods of learning that I am used to, but have learn to adapt my methods somewhat depending on my ability and motivation levels at different times.

Currently:
Using BECM, my practice of engaging with STiP study is more open to possibility in some ways, although I also am able to identify constraints to my practice.

I consider why I think about module content in certain ways, and why methods of engagement in the module were chosen.

Possible future:
In future, I will be able to be more conscious of my choices regarding defining or not defining learning content, experiences and processes. I can choose, or look for, new ways to approach learning.

– Using the C-Ball (Contextualising)

Previously:
My understanding of systemic approaches was limited in terms of lineages, and I expected a wider variety of approaches, frameworks and methods for managing change systemically, to be taught.

Currently:
I am adjusting my expectations of what ‘can’ be taught within the context of an academic curriculum, particularly of how contextual systems practice may be taught and evaluated.

Possible future:
I am hoping to later understand the systemic factors determining the design of learning systems in complex settings, giving insight into the scope of such design, and its constraints.

– Using the M-Ball (Managing)

Previously:
It was, and is, hard to imagine what this process looks and feels like in the context of a real-world situation. It seems like keeping a checklist in mind while practicing, as a reminder to keep juggling.

Currently:
I am still working to consolidate my understanding of systems thinking and systems practice, embracing complexity and doing inquiries or research without an outcome in mind. It feels unrealistic, especially if we have an idea of a positive outcome would look like to us.

Possible future:
Perhaps with experience, I will apply these systems theories from TB872 in a variety of contexts, and then have a more informed opinion about their usefulness and practicality.

My current situation of concern

I would like to explore challenges relating to diversity and inclusion in postgraduate Systems curricula, specifically at The Open University since I am currently studying in this capacity with the TB872 module and have some insight into the structure of learning systems for studying Systems. I have not been studying for long, and it is my first time studying Systems, so I have limited understanding of what an ‘ideal’ Systems course looks like. I do know, as someone that falls into multiple ‘minority’ group categories (minorities within minorities, even!), what it feels like to experience things that are just not designed for you. Sometimes this is intentional, sometimes it is an unintentional outcome of design choices made for the ‘majority’ or for other specific groups that you don’t happen to be a part of. Based on my experience with the curriculum so far, how it feels for me to participate in the module, and the feelings of other students, I hypothesise that there are some possible challenges worth exploring for the betterment of the curriculum and Systems as a whole. As a Designer with experience in Education, I am very excited to explore the design process of the learning system that is now providing me with the framework to explore its design!

There are a wide range of people involved in, and affected by, the design of Systems Thinking curricula (and potential challenges relating to diversity and inclusion). For example:

• students
• educators
• course authors
• policy makers
• academic Systems practitioners
• professional Systems practitioners
• stakeholders in systems affected by the use of STiP (potentially everyone!)

I wonder to what extent all those people were able to contribute to the discussion of what would be systemically desirable in the design of a learning system to teach Systems Thinking in Practice. Even on a basic level, there may be difference in opinion about what Systems Thinking is, or should be, or what would be valuable enough to include in educational materials of a subject with such widespread potential use. I can see there being many potential systemic ‘issues’ here but perhaps I am jumping the gun, framing and applying labels too soon. This is why a systemic inquiry would be very useful.

Using the Juggler to Understand Changes in my Framing of S2

How my framing of, and engagement with, my ‘situation of concern’ has changed

– Using the B-Ball (Being)

Previously:
Based on my traditions of understanding, I was likely to take a critical approach to my situation of concern. This was limited by my lack of understanding of the Systems field of study, and being new to postgraduate education.

Current:
Juggling the B-Ball / using BECM encouraged me to be more analytical, evaluating my own practice, wanting to understand others’ practice with the framework, and to understand how effective the framework is.

Possible future:
I can reflect on why I find issue with elements of the curriculum, find how my understanding and feelings differ from other stakeholders, how that affects analysis of the situation, and how a potential learning system can take these into account.

– Using the E-Ball (Engaging)

Previously:
I expected my post-graduate learning processes to be more linear and predetermined rather than open-ended and based on theories and practices that are not standardised.

Currently:
I now have a better understanding of the structure of module’s learning system, and some of the theory behind its design as it appears to be the same as the systemic processes we are learning about in the module itself. I am more aware of the possibilities of choice available to myself and stakeholders in creating and engaging with the learning system recursively. I am also more aware of potential issues with reification and framing of Systems concepts as constraints to the understanding and development of systems in practice.

Possible future:
I hope to better understand how certain choices were made by stakeholders, by engaging in systemic inquiry and discovering alternative methods for engagement. For example, exploring how we assign purpose to the system, and how expectations for engagement emerge or are designed into learning systems.

– Using the C-Ball (Contextualising)

Previously:
Contextualising was initially instinctive to some extent, when approaching my engagement with the curriculum with the goal of improving and learning—I had a strong sense of purpose regarding the context of learning for personal development and enjoyment as well as academic success, and with my previous academic experience I had my own ideas about how to adapt my processes in order to achieve my goals.

Currently:
I can now more consciously develop my STiP learning process with awareness of context and potential choices such as Systems frameworks and methods. I am aware of more factors to consider in practice.

Possible future:
There is a chance that by considering specific factors systematically, for systemic awareness, some flexibility or nuance of practice is lost. Hopefully I can gain experience in evaluating systemic interconnections to make appropriate choices in my future practice.

– Using the M-Ball (Managing)

Previously:
I think it is common to view organisational issues from a view of needing to find consensus, or using systematic processes to complete projects that have clear goals. This was more common in my own practice, but my instinct to systematically identify and analyse multiple systemic elements and interconnections in situations made me curious to find better ways of managing complexity (as I understood it—not necessarily affecting multiple stakeholders).

Currently:
I am still cautious to assign myself a ‘managing’ role in regards to my situation of concern aside from managing my own behaviour and choices about how I engage with the situation. There are many elements of the situation that are not in my control, so my ‘management’ of factors outside of myself are hypothetical. BECM is more appropriate than PFMS in my opinion, because I am engaging in some way in every situation of concern and can think about how I engage with it, but I do not necessarily have power to change the situation itself.

Possible future:
Using BECM / juggling the M-Ball and evaluating how I ‘juggle’ may be useful for:

• developing activity models / processes before managing change
• analysing performance during the process of engaging with a situation
• further analysing performance after the process of engaging, to review my approach and adapt for similar inquiries in the future.

How my framing of stakeholders’ possible understanding of, and engagement with, my ‘situation of concern’ has changed

– Using the B-Ball (Being)

Previously:
Before understanding BECM, my assumptions about educational systems such as the TB872 and the STiP curriculum at The Open University were that knowledge would be passed down to students in a hierarchical or linear fashion.

Currently:
With better understanding of the B-Ball, and the role of stakeholders in systemic inquiry as described in the module material, I am more aware of the huge contributions everyone can bring to Systems because of each of our unique traditions of understanding.

Stakeholders within The Open University Systems Thinking community, such as STiP professors, tutors, other staff and students are also more likely to have greater awareness systemic methods of analysing and evaluating situations, and of how to ‘juggle’ the ‘B-Ball’ than typical stakeholders. This could result in some really insightful and valuable feedback as part of a learning system to continually improve the STiP curriculum.

Possible future:
Using the B-Ball analogy to analyse the practices of stakeholders in my situation of concern, and bringing the the value of diverse perspectives in academia to light, may support the development of STiP curricula to be more inclusive and relevant to a wider audience.

– Using the E-Ball (Engaging)

Previously:
I believed that the course creators engaged with the STiP curriculum based on ‘standard’ Systems Thinking practices, but it is clear that they are heavily influenced by specific lineages which are outlined in the course materials.

Currently:
I don’t think there are many ‘standard’ practices in Systems, and the methods for using systems thinking that are known are not widespread or mainstream.

All stakeholders engage with the module and curriculum for their individual purposes. Their experience and understanding of STiP is different, as are their goals and priorities.

Possible future:
There is a lot of potential in developing awareness in stakeholders of their practices of engagement, and how teaching, learning and practicing Systems Thinking can be systemically developed.

– Using the C-Ball (Contextualising)

Previously:
Stakeholders’ choices make sense to them at the time, and they may or may not have awareness of why they make certain choices. However, teaching staff and designers of learning systems have a better understanding of context, available tools and methods. Students probably assume that their interests are prioritised when learning systems are designed

Currently:
From some of the discussions I have had on the module forums, it seems that students are realising that their ideologies and purpose may not align with the concepts being taught in TB872, what the intended purpose was when designing the curriculum, and if the design fulfils the purpose.

Systemic inquiry may be appropriate to determine a systemically desirable, culturally feasible, and ethically defensible route to further developing the curriculum for the benefit of the system.

Possible future:
By juggling the C-Ball, I can assess performance of systems practice that occurred in the design of the STiP learning systems. I would be interested to discover which factors were considered in the design, and why; how did their design choices relate to the system purpose; who the purpose and the system was designed to serve.

– Using the M-Ball (Managing)

Previously:
I would have thought that those developing STiP curricula have good intentions to create learning systems that are respected by peers and students, so at the very least there is incentive to create a curriculum that is representative of current thinking about Systems. They may have been juggling with or without awareness, but it is highly likely that there are specific goals being designed towards, that creators would have to be aware of in order to have a postgraduate curriculum approved.

Currently:
Now I think that those with knowledge and the purpose of teaching and implementing such a system have responsibility for continued development of the systems they create, and that their systems for developing those learning systems should be systemically desirable, culturally feasible, and ethically defensible.

Possible future:
I hope to gain better understanding of how the M-Ball was juggled in the designing of the STiP curriculum by skilled and experienced systems thinkers at The Open University. I would like to use those findings to develop my own practice.

Presumptions of Influence – a diagram

The following diagram is an estimation of how I presume (hypothesising, using purposive framing and deduction) certain influences might affect the development of The Open University (OU) STiP curriculum:

In my estimation, there is social influence from OU and non-OU social sources, and Systems Thinking (ST) and non-ST sources. The OU STiP students and OU curriculum staff are on the border of accessing the OU STiP community from non-STiP backgrounds. These people are less immersed in STiP and therefore naturally operate with different frameworks and methods than those that are focused on Systems Thinking in their everyday practice.

Those on the borders of communities are able to bring fresh insight and diverse perspectives from their non-STiP traditions and social circles. This is supported by the book Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice (Chris Blackmore, 2010) which discusses some of the benefits of ‘outsider’ perspectives and the difficulties they may face crossing the boundaries of those groups despite the huge benefits they may provide as they develop interdisciplinary knowledge, thus enriching and enhancing collective learning.

As a new STiP student at the OU, coming from a design background, I remain on the periphery until I have proven my worth either academically or professionally within the field of Systems or adjacent area of practice. As a framework, or group of frameworks and methodologies, Systems is applicable to almost any domain and so a ‘Systems practitioner’ may not label themselves as such—they may be a professor of Engineering, they may be a warehouse manager, a biologist, or a farmer. This makes the potential for a rich tapestry of Systems practices and understandings to evolve and interweave. If that is already the case, it is not apparent through the course material. Some OU STiP students have presumed that perhaps the material is intentionally designed to create space for application within various fields but I wonder if the potential for such diversity is absent from the very design of the material and therefore lacking insight into the myriad of ways Systems may not only be applied in professional practice, but also taught and used to inspire systemic thinking and practice across all the global demographics that it has the potential to benefit in a climate-change world.

If there are influential groups or individuals with greater potential of bringing diverse perspectives and influencing diverse groups outside of academic circles, I would argue that more importance should be placed on inviting those perspectives into the development of systems curricula.

My intention with the hypothesis that the STiP curriculum at The Open University suffers from a lack of diverse perspectives is to explore, systemically:

• how diversity may benefit the curriculum
• why diversity may or may not be given priority in the development of the curriculum, and
• how improvements can be made to the systems and processes involved in designing Systems curricula, in order to create powerful, inspiring, and engaging learning systems with systemically desirable, culturally feasible, and ethically defensible outcomes for all potential stakeholders.

I am currently not ‘managing’ change in my situation of concern. However, I believe that through inclusive policies, and well-designed feedback systems, a greater sense of responsibility and opportunity could be offered to disparate groups of systemic practitioners to contribute to the intellectual field of Systems. Systemic inquiry may be one way to identify where change is needed, and a way to communicate the need for diverse perspectives using the language of the Systems community.

An Ethical Review of My Proposed Inquiry

Ethics is a big consideration for me in general, and with reference to the juggler, reflexive practice naturally results in the review of the ethics of our practice. For example, the B-Ball provides a framework for self-reflection which builds self-awareness and consciousness of the effect of our behaviours. Self-awareness puts us into a position of responsibility for ourselves—making choices about what we think and do, and who we want to be going forward.

Would my systemic inquiry (S2) be considered ethical? It would depend on whether we agreed on whether the purpose of the system of learning—both the STiP curriculum itself, and the system for developing or designing the curriculum—was ethical, and for whom the system was beneficial or harmful. We would have to discuss if we agree on who should benefit, whether the system’s function supports this, and what we consider to be ‘ethical’.

Our ethics arise from our values which are defined by culture, context and language, our traditions of understanding, our emotions. Systemic inquiry might be able to unveil some of underlying themes (personal and societal) that inspire the development of a curriculum using certain purposefully chosen methods, and containing certain purposefully chosen content.

There are times, when analysing the possible understanding that stakeholders have in my situation of concern, I have not always assigned full responsibility to the designers of postgraduate STiP curricula for the systems, processes or methods of designing a systemically desirable learning system that they have utilised. I think that, although there are many factors to consider, this is a mistake on my part. We give children more leeway because they generally have less capacity for self-reflection, self-awareness, and understanding of how they affect others. These are skills that develop with time, experience, and growth. Most adults have much greater capacity for these skills, and therefore greater responsibility to practise and develop that capability to improve the ways we engage with situations by improving our ability to self-reflect, as well as juggle the other balls as part of our everyday practice.

Additionally, experienced and skilled systems thinkers that take on the task of designing a curriculum that has incredible potential for changing how we manage some of the most wicked, messy and complex situations in all of human existence, do have a huge responsibility. Those people must have the awareness that they teach is essential for thinking systemically and ‘doing Systems’, so that we can all contribute as responsible stakeholders and practitioners to our practice of learning to live sustainably, with equity and inclusivity, in this climate-change world.

References

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

Ison, R. (2017) Systems Practice: How to Act: In situations of uncertainty and complexity in a climate-change world. London: Springer London. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9.

Ison, R. (2020) ‘Part 2. A systemic inquiry into systems thinking in practice’, TB872: Managing change with systems thinking in practice. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=2303521.

Ison, R. and Blackmore, C. (2014) ‘Designing and developing a reflexive learning system for managing systemic change.’, Systems, 2(2), pp. 119–136. Available at: http://www.mdpi.com/2079-8954/2/2/119/htm.

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