Systemic Inquiry towards a Learning System of Interest – TB872 Part 02 Week 13

A note on linguistic approaches to systemic approaches

Activity 2.39 of TB872 asks us to conduct a search into references online to find out who is talking about the need for systemic change, which I found to be a thought-provoking but odd request. I thought it worth discussing my unease at some of the framing regarding the use of ‘system change’, and who is (or ought to be) using the term. It is not the first time that Ison refers to Tamkin et al (2010), disjointedly stating that outstanding leaders think systemically, before asking the reader who are the people asking for change and using terms such as ‘needing system change’? Ison goes on to explain that in light of activist movements in recent times, the meaning of systemic change does not reflect his idea (and the TB872 approach) of ‘starting with the situation (and your use of the E-ball) and not ‘a system’.’ Ison believes that the common meaning for systemic change obscures the situation and our responsibility to evaluate and adapt our understanding and practice. I am still not sure if the reference to Tamkin et al (2010) is to point out that as leaders we should take on that responsibility in order to be outstanding, or to demonstrate that through our search we will / won’t find outstanding leaders thinking systemically and acting in the long term.

In any case, I interpret this as a determination by Ison of how systemic change should be used, and who should have the responsibility for acting systemically, which looks to me like good example of a lack of perspective in regards to systemic power issues. This is also apparent to me in Ison’s list of four main constraints to the emergence and cultivation of systems practice:

1. The pervasive target mentality that has arisen in many countries and contexts
2. Living in a ‘projectified world’
3. ‘Situation framing’ failure
4. An apartheid of the emotions.

Should I assume that the following are a given?:

• Chronic disempowerment and the structural intersectionality of oppression and inequality
• The resulting lack of personal agency (whether perceived or actual)
• Living with disability
• Lack of relevant skills for deeper engagement with situations of concern
• Lack of access to resources or information
• Lack of access to opportunities for development
• Lack of access to community and social support
• Prioritising resources for survival (physical and psychological)

My additions to the list are just some of the possible constraints that people might call systemic issues. There are many more that could be added to the list—issues that obstruct a not-insignificant percentage of the world’s population from being able to manage systemic change systemically. The abstraction of systems can feel like a dismissal of the real lived experiences and outcomes of what some may argue are the intended functions of purposefully designed systems. It may be that the academically, conceptual system models are indeed a useful tool, but maybe we need a different word for the corresponding reality (please let me know if there is one!). Is another word needed for the different understandings of systems? Do we need to differentiate between them, if most people can understand a system as both being a conceptualisation and a description of either a perceived or imagined reality? Well, our attitude towards language can have powerful effects on our understanding of reality, as Ison would agree. Our attitudes towards viewing language prescriptively or descriptively says a lot about our attitudes towards social order, the value we place on different types of language use, and consequently the people that use different types of language (Straaijer, R., 2016).

I am still adjusting to the prescriptivist view that systems are merely models and tools for understanding ‘systemic’ experiences, as is taught in the ‘TB872 Systems Thinking in Practice at the Open University’ flavour of Systems. I use the term ‘systemic’ in a descriptivist way in my daily life, accepting that the meaning it holds to people comes from the experiences they have of what they collectively deem to be systems. There are reasons for people ‘reifying’ certain terms, especially if the effects felt by the supposed models of reality feel very real and not likely to change regardless of how much reflecting, learning and activity is performed.

‘…Systems of knowledge are never complete. Rather, they represent guidelines for “thinking as usual.” Kuhn (1962) refers to these guidelines as “maps,” while Schutz (1944) describes them as “recipes.” As Schutz points out, while “thinking as usual” is actually only partially organized and partially clear, and may contain contradictions, to its practitioners it provides sufficient coherence, clarity, and consistency. …According to Mulkay, “observation is not separate from interpretation; rather these are two facets of a single process” (1979:49).’

(Collins, P.H., 1986)

Although there are many ways that we are misled in our systems of education, information and media about what things mean, I believe we should give credit to people for being able to understand, interpret and communicate their experiences. We can learn a lot from the ways that people use language, why they have made linguistic choices, and what they communicate to others.

In general, the social reality includes a large variety of social constructions which, although they exist only by virtue of the fact that we treat them as real, affect our lives in a number of different ways. A classical expression of this in sociology is the Thomas theorem: “If people define situations as real, they are real in their consequences” (Thomas and Thomas, 1928).

(Lundh, L.-G., 2018)

I can to some extent understand the desire to insist on certain meanings if we believe those meanings could change how people think for the better. However, this seems antithetical to the purpose of systemic inquiry, co-inquiry, and the accommodation of stakeholders to find systemically desirable solutions. If we value the input of all people, then their understanding of the world and how they communicate about it is also valid. Finding a compromise amongst the diverse perspectives of many would be a collective effort, not the responsibility of one individual (or small group with similar views and similar motivations). This is the beauty of what I understand as systemic inquiry and collective action, despite the difficulties that may come with them. The prospect of the experiences of all people being equally valid and respected in decision-making that affects all of those people directly is something that many people would find hard to imagine, and perhaps is taken for granted by those that are used to the privilege of their opinion being sought.

Ison’s theory that juggling the E-Ball (looking at how we personally are affecting and engaging with a situation) should be one of the first steps in managing ‘change’ in a situation of concern, feels to me like either a poor attempt at engaging the actual leaders that are in positions of power to enact change, or an underestimation of how much power the average person has. The suggestion to maybe reframe the situation in our minds also comes across as condescending. Using Ison’s own example of the Black Lives Matter movement, let’s consider who were the people that felt the issues they experience to be ‘systemic’—why might that be? Are they the ones that need to be delving deeply inwards towards a paradigm shift that propels them to action? Are they the ones that should consider reframing the situation? Marketing works, and I can see that some of techniques around use of language, framing, and the psychology of motivation is utilised here, but any good marketer will tell you that you have to have your target audience in mind. I am probably not the target market for the message from Ison, and maybe that is why I struggle to understand or relate to it. I would love to have some clarity on this, as it could inform how the approach may be adapted for a greater number of people in situations that could benefit from STiP.

Taking a Design Turn

As I understand it, taking a ‘design turn’ is about being aware of the ‘turns’ your systems practice design could take. This requires reflection on our thinking and actions, awareness of our own perceptions, and understanding of our practice as well as the situations we practice in—bringing a second order perspective to our systemic inquiry.

‘First-order design is characterised by blueprints, goal-seeking behaviour and an assumption that control is possible. Second-order design contextualises whatever is designed and occurs when designers show awareness that the design setting includes themselves and their history.’

(Ison and Blackmore, 2014)

There may be social or cultural constraints, and other factors affecting our knowledge and understanding at any given time so it useful to question the boundaries we previously set for our inquiries, and our performance with regard to those systems of interest. This requires critical thinking about our sources of information, our interpretations of information and how we use the information to make decisions and take action.

To account for the likelihood that our practice performance will need to be evaluated and improved in relation to the purpose of the system of interest, we can design monitoring and evaluating sub-systems relating to measures of performance of the system, including our practice of engaging. Using the findings of iterative monitoring and evaluation, we can choose to make informed decisions to improve performance. Measures of performance may include efficacy, efficiency, and effectiveness.

‘For Blackmore (2005) a learning system comprises interconnected subsystems, made up of elements and processes that combine for the purpose of learning. The placement of a boundary around this system depends on both perspective and detailed purpose. From a first-order perspective the design of a learning system might seemingly involve combining elements and processes in some interconnected way as well as specifying some boundary conditions – what is in, what is out – for the purposes of learning.’

(Ison, 2017)

The term ‘design turn’ suggests that with awareness, we can take responsibility for future possibilities by designing them into existence—redesigning relational dynamics of a system or adjusting the boundaries of a system of interest. In practice I do not believe that enactment of such models is always a possibility, but it is a useful activity for describing ‘ideal’ or desirable systems for achieving a system purpose. Designing a system for learning is, I believe, valuable whether it is undertaken or not. A learning system offers an opportunity for appreciative inquiry that creates the circumstances for emergence of meaning and value, the possibility of redefined relational dynamics and transformative change that in itself may be motivational and transformative.

An Example of a Learning System to Manage Change

In Part 2.5.1 of TB872, Ison provides an example of his taking a design turn in systems practice whilst ‘engaged by researchers in the National Urban Water Governance Program (NUWGP) at Monash University, Australia, to help them design, facilitate and evaluate a series of events across Australia’s main capital cities’ (Ison et al., 2009). Ison describes ‘the events, and thus their design’ as ‘highly successful.’ Unfortunately I have not had time to read the entire report, so my understanding and evaluation of the example is based purely on the details given in the module material.

According to the description given:

• Objectives for research events were already determined by NUWGP in advance, including dissemination of selected research findings, supporting practitioners and organisations to transition to ‘water-sensitive city’ status, and develop a shared understanding of what a ‘water-sensitive city’ might look like and how it may be achieved.
• ‘The interactive sessions were organised as table-based systemic inquiries into transitioning to water-sensitive cities. This was based on the assumption that creating water-sensitive cities was a ‘wicked problem’ situation, that a diversity of views and perspectives needed to be engaged…’
• The interactive nature of the workshop was designed to ‘acknowledge and value the experience of those present’, ‘share views, knowledge and experience of the current situation’, and ‘identify key issues, opportunities, characteristics and actions for creating water-sensitive Australian cities’.
• ‘To meet the objectives and learning aspirations for participants, a generic learning system was developed and adapted to the specific contexts encountered in each city. In summary, the task accepted by the event designers was that it was (a) a systemic action research task, (b) conceptualised as design and praxis research in which our primary concern was (c) the design, implementation and evaluation of a learning system. The design was thus an alternative to the common linear transfer of technology or knowledge transfer model for doing research and development (Russell and Ison, 2007).’
• Conversation mapping was used to engage participants ‘which proved to be highly popular…’
• Participants provided the perspective on the situation, possible issues and opportunities, and recommendations for action. They showed enthusiasm for action and created a systems map of activities needed to transition to water-sensitive cities. Over 70% reported increased understanding of water-sensitive cities.
  Further detail available at Ison, Collins and Iaquinto 2021.

Regarding the systemic inquiry described here, it appears that there were already several assumptions about the priorities of the ‘inquiry’ and goals that the team were hoping to achieve from the inquiry. This is similar to Ison’s own descriptions of ‘projects’ and their downsides. In chapter 9 of Systems Practice (2017), Ison argues that a desire for certainty led to the proliferation of social technologies such as ‘targets’, ‘goals’, ‘key performance indicators’ and ‘the project’. These undermine our ability to engage with uncertainty, and to manage the dynamics of co-evolutionary change alongside our biosphere and other living beings. Setting targets can often be a means of deflecting criticism for systemic failures whilst also not addressing the systemic issues that caused them. This means that institutions such as governmental organisations do not actually learn, improve, and change adaptively. Cynically, I might presume that this is by design—a system for perpetuating the hierarchical ‘command and control’ mechanisms that Ison mentions on page 229.

Bell and Morse (2007) describe a project as ‘defined activities carried out by defined people with a defined end point in mind at a defined cost and over a defined period of time’ (p. 97).

(Ison, 2017)

One of the concerns discussed by Ison is that our capacity to ‘juggle’ all of the ‘balls’ of our collective practice effectively and systemically is lost when we simply mark a project as finished and file it away. We lose the accrual of benefits that come during the existence of a project, and any that may have come after, making the project ineffective for meeting long-term needs and goals (Bell and Morse, 2007). We lose the potential of learning, especially as projects often have targets and deliverables defined from the start. There is also likely to be a set structure to the project, with specific deadlines and limited allocated resources, resulting in the loss of potential for creativity, innovation, continued learning and development. The structure of well-defined projects can be very beneficial, particularly for those that are responsible for managing resources efficiently. However, the systematic processes of project management methods are not always applicable to the situation, and lack the leeway to fully explore the situation and discover responses that are appropriate.

The 2009 ‘inquiry’ described by Ison did not create a truly open-ended learning system to discover and develop the ideal ways of managing water in the city; it assumes that a certain perspective about water practice is ideal, and that particular understanding should be disseminated. The project is ‘highly successful’ in terms of meeting the original objectives, or in designing a system for disseminating a particular viewpoint. Ison claims that ‘the design was thus an alternative to the common linear transfer of technology or knowledge transfer model for doing research and development (Russell and Ison, 2007)’. However, the function of the designed system retains a top-down / hierarchical knowledge distribution teaching method disguised as a system for all stakeholders to authentically and collectively learn about and adapt to the needs of the system.

The design, implementation, and evaluation of an intervention like Narmada starts with some notion of “purpose” e.g., water security. Since a purpose reflects embedded values associated with some person or persons, it is valid to ask, “Whose purpose?” Identifying first what the purpose of the system should be helps identify who the intended beneficiaries ought to be, e.g. worst off groups, industrialists, farmers, non-human nature…. This in turn raises questions about what should be appropriate measures of success in securing some improvement to those beneficiaries. In particular it raises concern about the more ‘immeasurable’ values such as intrinsic value of nature or historic relational values of community cohesion and traditional practices etc.

(Reynolds, 2014)

This is another great example of how framing can obscure reality—a project with specific goals of distributing already-established ‘facts’ about a situation is framed as a systemic inquiry and learning system to identify issues, acknowledge diverse perspectives, and continually develop water practices. If I am understanding this correctly, the design is not of a learning system but of a reinforcement of learning system to reinforce the objectives of an organisation that knows best onto stakeholders in a way that ensures the ‘learners’ are happy to comply because they feel engaged in the process. That does not mean to say that the goals of the organisation were to deceive or manipulate, or that they were not genuinely interested in the feedback from participants. It was the responsibility of the systems thinkers to explain the benefits and characteristics of a systemic inquiry.

It is possible that my understanding is incomplete or influenced by my understanding of scientific research methods that involve a hypothesis that is clearly stated as a hypothesis, and research conducted to test the hypothesis rather than prove it. I am also taking literally the teachings by Ison, as I understand them, regarding what a systemic inquiry entails and that might not have been the intention in presenting the example. Perhaps the example given shows that it is not possible to enter into some inquiries without engaging in a project mindset, especially if you are a paid contractor for organisations that have a ‘projectified’ culture and specific motives for their projects/’inquiries’. Perhaps this was highly successful as a project in meeting certain goals, but I would argue that it was not successful as a systemic inquiry. Perhaps I am being prescriptive in my use of the term.

Updating my TB872 Learning Contract

My learning contract for TMA 01 was more focused on development of key skills and understanding of module materials. Since then, my priorities for learning and STiP practice have changed, through my study of TB872 (systemic inquiry 1) and applying systems thinking to my managing of change in a situation of concern (systemic inquiry 2). I am clearer on how to identify an appropriate situation of concern for which systemic inquiry would be suitable, creating a system of interest by setting system boundaries, selecting systems thinking techniques for analysing and communicating about a situation, and designing systems for continued learning with regards to the situation of concern.

My priorities going forward are more specific to S2 as I narrow my focus of praxis whilst engaging with the TB872 learning system, braiding S1 and S2. This shows a shift between systematic to systemic learning practice, and different levels of abstraction, as I adapt my STiP practice with recursive feedback throughout my progression through TB872. My deepening understanding of systems thinking allows me to design subsystems of interest within the subsystems of S1 and S2 in TB872, relevant to my understanding of my own knowledge and interests whilst also developing my performance in relation to the system function of the module.

On first consideration, I think my motivations for studying TB872 remain similar to those stated in TMA 01, although I would now remove ‘as taught for the MSc STiP at The Open University’ from the end of my statement as my interests are leading me to sources outside of the OU:

Although there are tangible outcomes I would like to achieve from studying, such as certification, I would say that higher level study is for me a system to satisfy some of my psychological and emotional needs. A sub-system of that is the TB872 module, but it has its own more specific transformational purpose through which the main system function is fulfilled: TB872 is for me a system to facilitate learning of Systems Thinking concepts (for practical applications of the managing of systemic change) towards a wider understanding of Systems Thinking in Practice (STiP)…

However, perhaps because my feelings about the module have changed over time, my previous statement of motivation above sounds more purposive than purposeful… I lacked my own thoughts about how I might use my learning other than to scratch a psychological itch. By thinking more about how I would apply systems thinking to a situation of concern in part 2 of TB872, and S2, I have gained more motivation regarding the practical applications of systems thinking, how Systems is taught, learnt, and practiced. I am more curious about what systems thinking really is, and more driven to find applications that satisfy my inner principles and motivations. My trajectory diagram in part 1 of TB872 outlined some of these motivations, but they are not apparent in my statement of motivation.

An issue that I have encountered is that there are multiple levels of thinking at which systems thinking can be applied, but I often struggle with selecting the appropriate level in my mind. I get confused about where action may be needed, depending on the (system) focus at that moment. It doesn’t help that my S1 and S2 are both related to learning systems for learning Systems! At one level I am thinking about the systems relating to my study of TB872; at another, the systems relating to teaching Systems through TB872, and the collective learning of the cohort. I am hoping that the third part of the module, focusing on communities of practice and social learning systems, will give me a better understanding of how these different levels of systems thinking and practice can be approached and synthesised.

In the meantime, I want to use a more ‘systemic’ approach to analyse the TB872 module, to utilise systems frameworks and methods that I ‘understand’ a bit better now, and to clarify how different understandings and framings of the purposefully designed learning system may be causing some of the confusion I, and other students, have experienced. Diagramming will also be a useful tool for maintaining clarity in my inquiries.

Designing a Conceptual Model for my Current Learning System of Interest

I could definitely be more proactive about using diagrams to support and communicate my understanding about systems of interest. A diagram that shows the interconnections we find in systems of interest demonstrates a design turn’ towards second-order systemic thinking as opposed to the systematic tabulated learning contracts produced in Part 1 of TB872.

A conceptual model of my learning system of interest may be useful for identifying ideal activity processes for a functioning system, and comparing logical processes to real-world processes (Checkland, 1981; Checkland and Scholes, 1990). It may also be useful in identifying areas of weakness in the activity model or leverage points for improving performance by measuring the effects of purposeful action against system purpose.

I used the CATWOE mnemonic to identify different elements of the TB872 system. CATWOE refers to the:

• Customers/Clients (C) that are the system beneficiaries
• Actors/Agents (A) that perform the activities which transform inputs into outputs from the system
• Transformation process (T) of the system that transforms inputs into outputs
• Weltanschauung/Worldview (W) or the wider context/perspective from which the ‘root definition’ (what a system does, how it does it, why it is being done) of the system is formulated
• Owners (O) of the system that commission and control the system that have the power to shut off the system
• Environmental constraints (E) such as ethical considerations, finance and resources etc.

My CATWOE analysis for TB872 differs if the system is seen from the perspective of the system designers or the students engaging with the learning system.

From the designers’ perspective (purposively determined by me)”:

TB872 is a learning system, owned by The Open University but produced by Systems professors, to create the conditions for student STiP proficiency and qualification by allowing tutors to enact the purposefully-designed learning system, transforming learners into more capable and knowledgable Systems practitioners, given the constraints of what is accepted by peers to be taught as ‘Systems’ within the context of post-graduate education in the United Kingdom.

The root definition may be:

A system for tutors to create the conditions for students’ proficiency development and qualification in STiP, by enacting the purposefully-designed learning system, in order to transform learners into more capable and knowledgable Systems practitioners.

From the perspective of myself, as a student:

TB872 is a learning system, owned by The Open University and produced by Systems professors, for post-graduate study and students’ development of STiP with the support of tutors in navigating the purposefully-designed learning process, transforming into more capable and knowledgable Systems practitioners, given the constraints of conditions within their individual domains for systems practice and the development of STiP.

The root definition may be:

A system for learners to engage in post-graduate study and development of STiP with the support of tutors in navigating the purposefully-designed learning process, in order to transform into more capable and knowledgable Systems practitioners.

Furthermore, with consideration of S2 (managing change with STiP in my situation of concern), CATWOE describes the system as:

A system for which I, as a student, take responsibility in managing change with STiP in relation to a learning system (TB872) that is owned by The Open University and produced by Systems professors, to improve STiP curricula by designing systems of learning and practice with the inclusion of diverse perspectives, given the constraints of Systems conventions, traditions of understanding based on specific Systems lineages, academic and professional cultures and norms, motivations and resources for enacting progressive learning systems for improvement in the field of Systems.

The root definition for my S2 may be:

A system for managing change with STiP by designing systems of learning and practice with the inclusion of diverse perspectives, in order to improve STiP curricula and the intellectual field of Systems.

Designers of TB872 obviously have different motivations, different constraints, and different reasons for engaging with the module. What we have in common is knowing that there are systemic factors out of our control that impact what is taught/learnt and if it is taught/learnt at all. I presume that there are many factors for designers to consider when designing a course module, so great thought and care must be taken by many people in the design process. The outputs from the learning system can be so varied because of the wide range of domains that student systems practitioners practice in, a systemic inquiry would be helpful in identifying the purposes and constraints of engagement with TB872.

For now, I will use the root definitions that I have uncovered for my engagement with TB872, S1 and S2, to create a conceptual model in order to reflect on my current understanding, what I have to learn, and what possible futures might be, as I see them now. Based on the root definitions, some of the logically implied actions to include in the conceptual model for my engagement with TB872 would include:

For S1 (‘Developing STiP capability through the study of TB872‘):

• engage with TB872 module materials
  • develop STiP literacy – concepts, lineages, methodologies
  • activities and SAQs – parts 1-3
  • reflect on learning from TMAs
  • reflexively engage with and develop learning contract
  • critically analyse the purpose and content of the module design/materials
  • develop post-graduate study skills
• combine learning from module material with learning from practice in S2
• Work with tutors and other students
  • ask questions and share learning in forums / email / calls / tutorials
  • make use of TMA feedback
• plan for possible future outcomes:
  • find direction of study towards areas of interest
  • learning to identify situations that would benefit from STiP
  • learning to create boundaries for systems of interest to apply STiP
  • learning to identify leverage points in systems of interest
  • read about domains you are passionate about and find appealing that may need STiP intervention
  • develop Systems frameworks and methodologies using your new understandings, critical thinking, and evaluation

For S2 (‘Managing change with STiP in the exploration of diversity and inclusion challenges in postgraduate (Systems Thinking) curricula’):

• research: inclusion of diverse perspectives in curricula
  • pros and cons of diverse perspectives in curricula
  • academic literature
  • module materials
  • personal experiences
• design systems of learning and practice for improvement of STiP curricula, using my research findings
  • research: design of learning systems, particularly curricula
  • research: design of systems of practice, particularly in Education
  • research: systemic design for improvement of curricula
  • research: systemic development of STiP
  • record current systems and processes in situation of concern
  • outline possible actions in process of developing STiP curricula
  • include monitoring and adaptation based on review of system
• plan for possible future outcomes: improvement of STiP curricula and the intellectual field of Systems
  • continued monitoring and feedback loops
    • reflection on systemic practice
    • analysis of system function in relation to system purpose
  • processes for enabling adaptation in practice to improve performance

These activities are better displayed in the form of a diagram because systemic interconnections can be more easily communicated in diagrams, as opposed to linear outlines that are more representative of strictly systematic, linear processes. Boundaries for the system of interest are made explicit in the diagram.

TB872 Activity 2.37 – A conceptual model of my learning system of interest

Designing a Systemic Inquiry to develop a Learning System for Managing Change in my Situation of Concern

Choosing an appropriate approach for systemic inquiry is a form of ‘contextualising’ or ‘juggling the C-Ball’, using Ison’s isophor (Ison, 2017). There are various systems approaches for systemic inquiry that may be suitable, but I am not yet familiar enough with them all to make a well-informed choice. I still consider this good practise/practice in my system for developing STiP capability! For now, although I will be designing a learning system based on my learning so far from TB872 focusing on the work of Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), I think Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) may be an appropriate reference due to the nature of my inquiry. My choice may change as I learn more about different approaches and methodologies (and their ‘theoretical underpinnings’), and as I develop the confidence to ‘enrich’ or ‘integrate’ approaches for the purposes of my inquiry, as discussed in Ormerod, R.J. (1997).

‘CSH appears well-aligned to address problems in education as one of the core features of the methodology is the provision of a platform for groups or individuals that may not otherwise have the opportunity to express their views on a situation by which they are directly impacted. The CSH framework can therefore be used to guide students’ involvement in the design and improvement of their learning experiences, an opportunity that they may not usually be afforded…

These problem contexts are not overtly coercive, however, power dynamics, and conflicting understandings and interests do play an influential role: students and teachers have different roles and levels of control in the learning environment.’

(Hutcheson, M. et al., 2024)

According to Ulrich (2000), a system of interest can be formed with CSH by using a series of 12 boundary judgement questions.

A checklist of boundary-setting questions for the design of a system (S) of interest (adapted from Ulrich, 2000):

Sources of motivation

• Beneficiary or client: who ought to be/is the beneficiary if S is to be designed or improved?
• Purpose: what ought to be/is the purpose of S?
• Measure of success: what ought to be/is S’s measure of success (or improvement)?

Sources of control

• Decision maker: who ought to be/is the decision maker (in command of resources necessary to enable S)?
• Resources: what components of S ought to be/are controlled by the decision maker?
• Environment: what conditions ought to be/are part of S’s environment, i.e. not controlled by S’s decision maker and therefore acting as possible constraint?|

Sources of expertise

• Expert (or designer): who ought to be/is involved as designer of S?
• Expertise: what kind of expertise or relevant knowledge ought to be/is part of the design of S?
• Guarantor: what ought to be/is providing guarantor attributes of success for S (e.g. technical support, consensus amongst professional experts, stakeholder involvement, political support) and hence what might be/are false guarantor attributes of success (e.g. technical fixes, managerialism, tokenism)?

Sources of legitimacy

• Witnesses: who ought to be/is representing the interests of those affected by but not involved with S, including those stakeholders who cannot speak for themselves (e.g. future generations and non-human nature)?
• Emancipation: to what degree, and in what way, ought/are the interests of the affected free or not from the effects of S (e.g. privileging economic growth over environmental protection)?
• Worldview: what should be/is the worldview underlying the creation or maintenance of S? i.e. what visions or underlying meanings of ‘improvement’ ought to be/are considered, and how ought they/how are they to be reconciled?

By systematically addressing the various sources of influence in a situation, we are sure to identify the level of influence amongst stakeholders, how that power is distributed amongst those that are involved and those that are directly affected by the situation. Our inquiry will determine the boundaries for a system of interest on which we can focus our attention and actions, and give us insight into stakeholding issues that may need to be addressed, particularly in regards to individuals and groups that are typically marginalised and neglected.

‘Drawing on a wider range of perspectives – particularly those of marginalised individuals or groups – increases the probability of uncovering such marginalised elements in problems where the prevailing narrative is shaped by dominant stakeholders.’

(Hutcheson, M. et al., 2024)

Reflections

I can feel that my recursive learning practice as part of TB872 is having the intended effect of connecting and building on learning over time, and it is very satisfying to experience the clicking together of concepts in my mind. This is definitely helped by reiterating my understanding when I write and rewrite my notes into blog posts, forcing me to learn each concept well enough to be able to explain it to others and gain enough information that I can form an opinion on it without, hopefully, sounding too ignorant! I have had a couple of comments about my writing displaying an authentic engagement with the course material, and I am glad that it shows—I am keen to learn, sometimes overly expressive of my opinions on things that I do not have a full understanding of. I do cringe looking back at how little I knew and knowing that soon I will look back at this moment in the same way. Nevertheless, these posts are proving to be a fascinating record of my growing understanding, and changing perspectives over time as I explore the paths that Systems Thinking (and, of course, my own traditions of understanding) take me.

Part 2 of TB872 is at its end, with the submission for our second tutor-marked assignment (TMA) due next week! In my mind, I already am conducting an inquiry into my S2 situation of concern, but the focus now will be describing, explaining, and justifying my systemic inquiry. I may post my TMA here, but unlike everything else I post, the TMA will get a grade from my tutor so I will know if it’s worth sharing! I will most likely be back in a couple of weeks posting about Part 3. It will be the last part of this module and I am already excited about the next one—TB871 Making Strategy with Systems Thinking in Practice.

References

Collins, P.H. (1986) ‘Learning from the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought’, Social Problems, 33(6), pp. s14–s32. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/800672.

Hutcheson, M., Morton, A. and Blair, S. (2024) ‘Critical Systems Heuristics: a Systematic Review’, Systemic Practice and Action Research, 37(4), pp. 499–514. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-023-09665-9.

Ison, R. (2017) Systems Practice: How to Act (2017). 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.

Karve, V.W. (2010) ‘Root Definition and CATWOE model – Ethics Based Soft Systems Approach’, Academic and Creative Writing Journal Vikram Karve, 18 October. Available at: https://karvediat.blogspot.com/2010/10/root-definition-catwoe-model-ethics.html.

Lundh, L.-G. (2018) ‘Psychological Science within a Three-Dimensional Ontology’, Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 52(1), pp. 52–66. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-017-9412-8.

Ormerod, R.J. (1997) ‘The design of organisational intervention: Choosing the approach’, Omega, 25(4), pp. 415–435. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(97)00006-6.

Reynolds, M. (2014) ‘Equity-focused developmental evaluation using critical systems thinking’, Evaluation, 20, pp. 75–95. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389013516054.

Straaijer, R. (2016) ‘Attitudes to prescriptivism: an introduction’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(3), pp. 233–242. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2015.1068782.

Ulrich, W. (2005) ‘A mini-primer of critical systems heuristics’, Werner Ulrich’s Home Page, pp. 1–4. Available at: https://www.wulrich.com/csh.html.