Critical Systems Theory for Qualitative Research Methodology

C H A P T E R 6

Critical Systems Theory for Qualitative Research Methodology

*Sunnie Lee Watson and William R. Watson *Alphabetical - Chapter is dual-authored with equal credit for each author.

Critical systems theory (CST) is derived from the ideas of systems theory and critical social theory. In the mid-20th century, systems theory was established by a multidisciplinary group of researchers who shared the view that science had become increasingly reductionist and the various disciplines isolated. Bertalanffy (1968) was among the first to establish a general systems theory, which noted the existence of principles and laws that could be generalized across systems and their components. The term “system” has been defined in various ways by different systems researchers, but the core concept is one of an organization of interacting or interdependent parts forming an integrated whole. In other words, systems thinking entails identifying the components making up a system and understanding their relations and how they impact the larger system, external systems, supra-systems, and vice versa.

Systems theory became a large influence in management sciences and research over the last half of the 20th century with the development of hard- and soft-systems thinking for understanding various kinds of systems, including natural systems, engineering systems, and human social systems. However, while applying systems thinking in human systems in the early 1980s, a number of systems-thinking researchers felt the need for systems theory to evolve towards a more critical, socially aware approach to systems thinking and practice (Mingers, 1980; Jackson, 1982). These scholars developed their critical approach to systems thinking based on the epistemo-logical and ontological views of Habermas (Flood & Jackson, 1991; Jackson, 1991a, 1991b), and today CST is defined by its commitment to three core values and commitments: critique, emancipation, and pluralism (Schecter, 1991; Flood & Jackson, 1991).

With decades of research and practice in the management and operation-al sciences, CST’s approach to research methodology, and its core concepts

WATSON & WATSON

2

of critique, emancipation, and pluralism, offer considerable insight to qualitative researchers in many disciplines. This chapter examines CST and its methods as applied to and informing qualitative research and its goals and methods. The chapter begins with a discussion of the development and philosophical perspectives of CST, and then moves on to a more practicable discussion of the application of CST’s system of systems methodologies framework in light of qualitative research and practice.

CST Development and Epistemological Perspectives

Metaphors for Understanding Systems As discussed earlier, the term “system” is defined in various ways by many systems researchers. However, in general, it encompasses the concept of an organization of interacting or interdependent parts forming an integrated whole. Systems thinking went through significant developments over the last half of the 20th century, including the evolution of the core metaphors used for representing various systems concepts. Flood and Jackson (1991) discuss the progression of five systemic metaphors for understanding human social systems and phenomena, which represent the gist of management and organizational theory. These metaphors demonstrate the evolution in systems thinking that took place: machine, organic, neurocybernetic (brain), cultural, and political.

In the beginning, human social phenomenon was thought of as if it was a naturally forming physical system such as the solar system, and a “machine” metaphor was used to explain this hard-systems approach. In this closed system view, a system is understood to be comprised of parts, each with its own clearly defined function and it is assumed to operate routinely and repetitively towards efficiently meeting predetermined goals. The machine metaphor is highly appropriate for understanding human-designed physical systems such as machines, and some machine-like systems that have humans as parts of the system, such as factories, armies or fast-food chains. Howev-er, the social systems researcher who studies human and social phenomena finds the machine metaphor inadequate in applying it in the works of social sciences, such as understanding problem situations in schools, labor unions, or communities of learning.

In addressing this inadequacy, the organic metaphor was put forward by social systems researchers. The organic metaphor is a more open systems view and represents the initial state of modern systems thinking about human

CRITICAL SYSTEMS THEORY FOR QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

3

social phenomena. This view looks at an organization as a self-regulating and self-maintaining organic or ecological system such as animals or plants: a “complex network of elements and relationships that interact forming highly organized feedback loops, existing in an environment from which it draws inputs and to which it dispenses outputs” (Flood & Jackson, 1991, p. 10). Some examples of systems that fit this systems view could be the ways that small businesses or schools work to adapt and survive in today’s unstable economic times. This metaphor however views relations of the components of the system as only harmonious and does not recognize the conflict that exists within the system.

The neurocybernetic view sees a system as a brain that depends upon the ability to communicate and learn. It focuses on active learning and control rather than passive adaptability of systems and has led to systems work in information processing and viability. This view adds to the importance of accepting dynamic rather than static objectives of systems and self-questioning more than self-regulating in systems thinking. Examples of systems that fit this view would be consulting firms, research and develop-ment institutions, or knowledge groups. However the neurocybernetic view lacks the viewpoint of seeing the system as constructed by the individuals, and often overlooks that the purposes of the parts may differ from those of the whole.

The cultural metaphor focuses on the “often unspoken but familiar ways of thinking and acting that exist” in organizations; in other words, the “various nebulous, shared characteristics at all levels of organization: societal, corporate, group, etc.” (Flood & Jackson, 1991, p. 11). This meta-phor’s use of the word “culture” can be quite misleading to qualitative researchers, as it is focusing on culture as being “engineered” by the decision makers in the system, and is used in ways of promoting an official, collabo-rative, and community-like spirit in an organization. A cutting-edge comput-er technology research laboratory that emphasizes not only the technology and structure of its organization, but also the changing perceptions and values of the employees would be a good example in describing this meta-phor. This view recognizes the social nature of human systems, but does not consider the differing opinions in the system, and therefore pushing an engineered culture can lead to attempts at ideological control that can promote mistrust or resentment in an organization.

Finally, there is the political metaphor that highlights all organizational activity as interest based. It views a human system as one in which everyone is an individual who pursues his or her own interests and is always potential-ly in competition with other individuals, forming a system. This approach

WATSON & WATSON

4

looks at problem situations that are unitary, pluralist, or coercive as competi-tive relations between individuals and groups over the pursuit of power. These situations can be seen as representing a team, coalition, or prison type of relations, respectively. For example, we can think about the situation of a nonunionized nursing workforce in a hospital. Let’s say the hospital is facing budget cuts and lays off numerous staff. Working long hours in a down economy, nurses and medical assistants feel a lack of power to seek better compensation and working conditions. Furthermore, individual nurses feel compelled to compete with their peers in an attempt to improve their stand-ing with administration in order to gain any measure of job security possible, while the hospital administration is taking advantage of this competition to further cut income and benefits. A political metaphor views this system as being comprised of individuals and possibly groups of individuals (doctors, nurses, patients, administration) who are in conflict over issues of power and ultimately focusing on satisfying their own interests. The three types of relations, unitary, pluralist, or coercive, will be discussed further later in this chapter when discussing appropriate systems methodologies. This viewpoint is more critical in nature in that it recognizes the key role of power in systems; although this focus on power can have the potential to lead to generating unnecessarily undesirable effects such as mistrust or cynicism regarding all human social phenomena.

It is important to note that all metaphors discussed above by Flood and Jackson (1991) are helpful, valid perspectives on different kinds of systems and systems problems, and not one metaphor is more accurate or true. However, some systems views and metaphors are more useful than others to the qualitative researcher who is likely to be studying social and cultural systems and phenomena. The following discussion on the development of systems thinking will explain why a CST is an appropriate approach to consider for qualitative researchers.

Hard-Systems Approaches to Systems Thinking Early systems thinking represented a hard-systems approach, which reflects a positivist epistemology with the methods focusing on prediction and control inspired by the natural sciences. While this approach was valuable in understanding systems such as machines, armies, and factories as we discussed earlier, social researchers faced challenges in applying hard-systems thinking to understand human social phenomena. Systems research-ers found it difficult to apply this hard-systems view to understanding complex human problems, such as poverty, high-school drop-out rates, or


5

conflicts between business owners and labor unions. Checkland (1981) argued that the engineering-inspired, hard-systems focus on identifying objectives and optimal solutions for meeting those objectives represented an inaccurate view of the reality of human systems. He further argued that hard-systems thinking did not recognize the conflict that can exist in social systems that makes the setting of clear, correct objectives and desirable end points impossible. Systems researchers agreed that social systems are too complex for the black and white methodologies of hard-systems thinking, resulting in reductionist, inaccurate, and unsuitable approaches to solving social problems. Jackson (1985) discussed how the engineering focus of hard-systems thinking presupposes that system objectives can be determined from outside the system, while in reality, objectives originate from individu-als and groups within social systems and can often vary or conflict. This false assumption by hard-systems thinking means that success from designed interventions can only take place if there is agreement on objectives across the entire system, which is unlikely, or that objectives of the system are determined by those in power and without the input of others in the system, which is more likely. The hard-systems philosophy of identifying an “opti-mal” solution regardless of the viewpoints or values of individuals in the system was a big challenge in understanding human social systems (Jackson, 1985).

Soft-Systems Approaches to Systems Thinking In elaborating on the challenges of the application of hard-systems methods to human social systems work, researchers (namely Churchman, Ackoff, and Checkland) turned to soft systems approaches and a more interpretive and subjective approach (Jackson, 1982).

Both ontological and epistemological distinctions exist between the two approaches of hard- and soft-systems thinking: what social system is onto-logically, and how we gain knowledge about them epistemologically. Soft-systems thinking’s understanding of human systems includes the cultural, psychological aspects of human activity as well as the objective, hard systems approach. It views social systems as constructed by individuals and strives to understand and respect the perspectives of those individuals rather than studying the system as if observed from an outsiders’ perspective. Given the differing viewpoints that individuals bring with them, soft systems does not seek a “optimal solution” as even understanding of the problem will be “subjective” to all individuals in the system. Instead, soft-systems thinking seeks a dialogue between individuals and decision makers in the

WATSON & WATSON

6

systems in order to reach agreement (albeit temporary) about the nature of the system. The systems analyst then works with the different individuals involved in the process to identify potential changes that they can agree are possible and will be beneficial.

Despite the move away from hard-systems approaches, soft systems it-self saw criticism. Jackson (1982) argued that meaningful change is unlikely through soft-systems approaches as soft-systems practitioners are typically working at the ideological rather than practical levels. The lack of under-standing of social facts and constraints, as well as the likely unwillingness of individuals in positions of power to fully participate in the required dialogue among stakeholders also make significant change difficult. Jackson (1982) further argued that the “subjective” approaches of soft-systems thinking constrain soft-systems practitioners’ ability to intervene and make meaning-ful change in situations of fundamental conflict or unequal power, as soft-systems thinking only gathered the “subjective” opinions in a system. He discussed how “soft systems thinking either has to walk away or fly in the face of its own philosophical principles and acquiesce in proposed changes emerging from limited debates characterized by distorted communication” (p. 236).

Critical Systems Approach to Systems Thinking So while hard-systems approaches are suitable for closed, engineered systems, and soft-systems approaches are better suited for human systems, systems thinkers still identified the challenges of hard- and soft-systems thinking not being able to capture and reconstruct holistic meaning that is shared within the system, and argued for an approach that will help under-stand a collective, shared meaning of a system rather than merely collecting the various opinions in a system. And the need for a critical systems ap-proach was identified for “situations where there is little common interest shared between stakeholders, there is fundamental conflict, and the only consensus that can be achieved arises from the exercise of power” (Jackson, 2001, p. 237). A focus on critical analysis of systems, particularly in regard to issues of power, oppression, and emancipation, became highlighted as a requirement in using systems approaches. As Ulrich (2003) stated, “Systems thinking without critique is blind with respect to its underpinning boundary judgments and their normative implications” (p. 327). Furthermore, beyond the issues of power and emancipation, which became a defining characteris-tic of CST, the strengths and weaknesses of different systems methods led to a focus on pluralism of methodologies, recognizing these strengths and


7

weaknesses and using approaches in combination for different contexts and purposes. Accordingly, the commitment to critique, emancipation, and pluralism form the three core values and philosophy of CST.

CST Philosophy and Core Principles

Development and Epistemological Perspectives The philosophical underpinnings of a critical approach to systems theory were initially established by Churchman (1970). In his discussion of opera-tions research and management science, he identified the need to move away from the approaches of the natural sciences inherent in what he called the rational operational approach and its foundation of rationalism and empiri-cism. He noted that these approaches did not fit with the actual realities of operational research and its human components, particularly the messy nature of social systems and the anxieties of such social issues as political power, poverty, crime, or pollution. It was Churchman’s (1970) view that the rational tradition of systems thinking could not address these issues. He called for an irrational systems approach founded on the philosophy of Kant’s discussion of “systemic judgments” necessary for understanding and making data meaningful. Along with this, he incorporated Hegel’s view of additional “alternative systemic judgments,” which lead to a “learning process” of understanding that there can be no one absolutely right judgment or solution to a system problem (p. 42). Through this argument, he estab-lished a need for critique in systems thinking by pointing to the need to view systems thinking as a system itself and one that should therefore be open to systems analysis. Checkland (1985) later distinguished between these approaches as a hard-systems approach versus a soft-systems approach, the critiques of which we discussed in the previous section. The further devel-opment from the soft-systems approach to a critical approach founded on emancipatory principles can be seen in Jackson’s (1985) criticism of soft systems and call for a critical approach. In his criticism of the interpretive nature of soft-system approaches and their shortcomings, Jackson draws heavily on Habermas’s (1973, 1984, 1987) epistemological theory of universal human participation in work and interaction and his theory of knowledge-constitutive interests. These theories respectively deal with the concepts of communication free from distortion and communication compe-tence through an ideal speech situation where validity claims are respected, and the authentication of the knowledge produced in communication by a

WATSON & WATSON

8

process of enlightenment of where the actors in communication attain self-understanding and recognize the account of their communication as accepta-ble. Systems researchers find these concepts of particular importance when considering systems wherein inequality of power exists in relation to opportunity, authority, and control. Through this development and epistemo-logical heritage that CST holds, from hard-, soft-, and to critical systems thinking, CST’s three core principles can be identified as critique, emancipa-tion, and pluralism as we discuss in the following section (Schecter, 1991; Flood & Jackson, 1991).

Commitment to Critique The first core principle of CST is a commitment to critique and is reflected in the previous discussion of hard- and soft-systems approaches. The notion of critique facilitates the researcher to critically consider the methods, practice, and underlying theory that she brings to her research. In applying a systems-thinking approach, the researcher should be critical of the chosen methods and the theories they reflect when planning her research. It intends to be cautionary against the lack of focus on theory that “pragmatists” invoke in putting together a toolkit of “proven” methods, and is also watchful against the choice of “isolationists” who pick a single theory as solely legitimate (Flood & Jackson, 1991). Instead, an understanding of the theory behind different methodologies is necessary with an effort to uncover hidden assumptions and conceptual traps that a researcher might have.

For example, a researcher using soft-systems methodology seeks above all to generate mutual understanding by exploring worldviews; however, theoretically this process could be endless and therefore the process typically will allow the dominant culture to specify when this exploration is over. As a result, the theory behind a soft-systems approach can be inappropriate in a system where different groups have different power. A steadfast focus on dialogue for understanding can be pointless if the group in power has no interest and sees no benefit in recognizing or conceding a weaker group’s point of view. Thus the concept of mutual understanding through dialogue is a conceptual trap to the practical solving of problems in systems where inequality of power does not allow for mutual respect (Flood & Jackson, 1991).

A commitment to the critique of the underlying ethics and a questioning of understanding, particularly in regards to normative content and the value of rigor, is necessary in order to ensure that traditional approaches do not import existing “baggage” into the research study. This commitment is


9

especially important in discussing the issues of power and barriers to communication that may exist in systems, as we discuss in the next core commitment.

Commitment to Emancipation A second key commitment of CST is the commitment to emancipation, which includes the notions of freeing of the system and system’s individuals from any kind oppression that disables them to critique and fully develop their potential. It also includes the idea of freeing systems researchers and practitioners from the control of research methodologies in power. This directs the researcher to recognize the barriers to human emancipation: the unequal power relations and the conceptual traps, which exist and can be easily overlooked. Jackson (1985) explicitly called for an emancipatory systems approach, and Flood (1990) identified his discussion of CST as liberating systems theory that calls to “liberate and critique.” Oliga’s (1991) examination of stability and change in social systems, which he calls “empower and transform” (Schecter, 1991) as well as Ulrich’s (1987, 2003) critical systems discourse are all considered as a commitment to emancipa-tion in order to work towards full human potential development via free and equal participation in community. Examples of systems that are emancipa-tory would be small groups that make decisions together and have a highly reflective group culture, being fully self-monitoring, self-critiquing, and self-guiding, although these small systems are usually embedded within dominant larger systems in ways that can limit the emancipatory potential of that smaller system.

Commitment to Pluralism The final core value of CST is pluralism, focusing on the notion that re-searchers should employ a creative design of methods by appreciating all methods and using multiple methods, grounded in appropriate theory. Schecter (1991) argues for taking on a pluralistic approach over isolationist, imperialist, or pragmatic approaches to systems thinking. This pluralistic approach does not agree with the “pragmatists” trend of using a toolkit of only “proven” methods, and also disagrees with the “isolationists” who pick one theory as solely acceptable (Flood & Jackson, 1991). It rather strives to liberate researchers from these prevailing approaches of using methodology and help them to create a meta-language that can properly locate the re-searcher’s own intentions and have crosscultural understanding and commu-

WATSON & WATSON

10

nications with others. By doing this, the researcher will support the environ-mental compatibility of the chosen methods. Ulrich (2003, 2006) is another systems researcher who discusses how methodological pluralism and complementarism is indispensable. However he also warns against shallow pluralistic approaches in that prevailing notions of complementarism “rely on a positivistic concept of methodology choice” and that “systemic boundary critique and other forms of emancipatory reflection and discourse are subordinated to the choice of the intervention purpose (and of a correspond-ing methodology)” (Ulrich, 2003, p. 340). He calls for “deep complementar-ism” that distinguishes itself from prevailing, shallow conceptions of methodological pluralism “by not subordinating emancipatory reflection and boundary critique to methodology choice” (2003, p. 340). The notion here is to be cautionary against relying on a positivistic trend of methodology choice, which disallows the researcher from engaging in boundary critique, a process that permits her to gain accurate understanding of the scope and design of the system and what members, facts, and norms are to be consid-ered relevant in that particular system. Boundary critique is a key notion in critical systems thinking that helps boundary judgments explicit by revealing the current state of the system (what it is) and the just or desired state of the system (what it should be). The detailed process of boundary critique will be further described later in our section on critical systems heuristics.

CST in Research and Practice

While systems theory has decades of research and practice in the manage-ment sciences, its impact on qualitative research outside of the field of management science has been minimal. However, critical systems science has significant similarities with qualitative research, as both research areas are heavily influenced by Habermasian social and epistemological theory and perspectives (Carspecken, 1996; Jackson, 1985). By combining this critical view and the systems-thinking approach to the study of social systems, CST and its methodologies can contribute valuable methods and guidance for qualitative researchers. Jackson (2001) argues that social scientists are often well grounded in theory, but seldom can provide specific guidance for how society or organizations can be changed; while systems scientists commonly are focused on practice, but do not ground it in theory. CST seeks to bring these disciplines together to provide practical means, which remain grounded in established theory. When applying CST in research and practice, a researcher is utilizing a system of system methodologies (SOSM).


11

The Systems of Systems Methodologies The SOSM approach arises from the established base of research on the application of systems thinking in the design of social systems, systems analysis, soft systems, the management sciences, the information sciences, and operational research, among others. It addresses the notion that different systems methodologies have different strengths and weaknesses, making them suitable for application in different circumstances. So by applying SOSM, the researcher strives to recognize the type of the problem context being examined and understand what systems methodology might be most appropriate for applying to the problem context. It is important to note that the SOSM is not meant to be used as a rulebook to be followed systematical-ly, and rather that it should be regarded as a framework that facilitates critical reflection on methodology choice in systems research and practice (Midgley, 1997).

SOSM has been explained in a number of different ways, but Flood and Jackson’s (1991) SOSM is the most widely utilized. By examining the varied systems approaches, each informed by their own theoretical influences and phenomenological perspective, Flood and Jackson (1991) illustrate what view of problem contexts each takes. The systems problem contexts are categorized through two different categories: System and Participant. System refers to the perspectives on complexity of the problem situation. Participant refers to the perspectives of the relations between participants in the problem situation.

The Participant category is categorized into three different groups, and is grouped by the relations of participants being unitary, pluralist, or coercive. In the case of participants in unitary relations, participants have shared interests, values, common agreement on ends and means, and engage in participatory decision making. Referring back to our example situation, a unitary example would be a context where the medical staff reach consensus on issues through a democratic decision-making process. In the case of the pluralist relations, participants have compatible interests among them. There are differences of opinion in values and means, but with a possibility of compromise in between, and some participants are excluded from decision-making process. In the case of coercive relations, participants do not have any common goals or interests, have conflicting values, and have strong disagreement on the ends and means without the room for compromise. Clearly, many are coerced to accept the decisions made by those in power. A good example would be the case of our hypothetical nurses in competition for keeping their jobs.

WATSON & WATSON

12

Table 1. Examples of Problem Situations

Simple Complex

Unitary

An automated factory assembly line seeking to improve efficiency and quality ratings.

A volunteer chaplain group at the hospital dividing up counsel-ing hours through a democratic

decision-making process.

Pluralistic

Members of a union-ized janitorial staff who must determine which members will change

from day to night shifts for a new client.

A small group of nonmedical and medical staff working

together to find a solution for improving customer satisfaction

in order to meet the hospital authority’s request.

Coercive

Factory assembly line or fast-food chain

workers and admin-istration in conflict over

wage cuts.

Hospital administration cutting benefits of nonunionized

hospital staff already working overly long hours with no

compensation due to the down economy.

The second category, System, includes only two states: simple or com-

plex. Simple systems have a small number of elements and interactions between them that is easy to comprehend. These simple systems are highly structured and organized, with well-defined laws and highly structured interaction. They do not change over time. Complex systems are not highly structured, and have a great number of elements with complicated interac-tions between them; these interactions are loose, and the system changes constantly over time (Flood & Jackson, 1991).The SOSM comes to a cross-referencing of the two categories and three different groups, and therefore groups the problem contexts into six categories: simple-unitary, complex-unitary, simple-pluralist, complex-pluralist, simple-coercive, and complex-coercive.

The first category, simple-unitary methodologies, includes methods such as systems engineering, systems analysis, or operational research for ma-chines or highly structured teams. This problem group assumes that the system analyst or researcher can establish the goals of a system and accom-plish those goals by using new operational conditions, which are often


13

quantitative or highly structured. Second, complex-unitary methodologies are for addressing situations that are generally supported by all participants in the system. This problem group views systems as if they were organic or ecological systems and works with methods such as general systems theory, sociotechnical-systems thinking, and viable system diagnosis. Third, the simple-pluralist methodologies assume that systems can be dealt with as machine-type approaches once the existing disagreement is resolved. Therefore this problem group focuses on overcoming the conflict by using methods such as group formation, stakeholder analysis, assumption rating, dialectical debate, and synthesis. Fourth, the complex-pluralist methodolo-gies are for tackling problem situations where participants have differences of opinion in values and means but with a possibility of compromise. Examples of methods of this problem group include interactive planning and soft-systems methodology. Finally both simple-coercive and complex-coercive methodologies consider problem situations where the participants have diverse interests, objectives, and values, and are likely to use any kind of power they have to force their preferred perspectives on others (Flood & Jackson, 1991).A number of CST approaches have arisen out of attention to knowledge-powers issues, such as critical systems heuristics, community operational research, and action research methodologies. In the following section, we will discuss the methodologies grounded in power issues and how through their application in a CST-driven approach, they can inform qualitative research.

Critical Systems Heuristics Critical systems heuristics (CSH) is a practical critical systems methodology tool that brings an emancipatory systems approach to coercive contexts (Flood & Jackson, 1991). It systematically exposes the assumptions of decision makers and planners to reveal whose interests are being served by encouraging critical thinking about the value judgments that underlie planning decisions. It seeks to help people, particularly those not included in the design process, reflect on the system design and how it affects them (Ulrich, 1983).

The basic idea of CSH is to support a systematic effort of handling boundary judgments critically with boundary critique. A system is a concept, not a concrete entity. While the boundaries of a system may be influenced by such attributes as physical or geographical boundaries, ultimately it is defined by the preconceptions of the designers within the system or the lens the researcher brings to her view of the system. Boundaries therefore are

WATSON & WATSON

14

inherently an issue of judgment. Any view of a system requires boundary judgments about the scope of the system or system design effort and what is included or excluded. Design participants, experts, and researchers can all have inherent prejudices or biases — including what data is important and what is not — that must be identified through a systematic and critical process. Boundary critique makes boundary judgments explicit by applying twelve concepts divided into four groups, which question the current state of the system (what is) with the just or desired state of the system (what should be). It facilitates the examination of the limits or boundaries of decision making. So in the nonunionized nursing workforce example we mentioned earlier, CSH can work as a tool to facilitate the understanding of which groups of people and what kinds of information have been considered related or important to a decision-making process and which have been considered unrelated and therefore excluded or marginalized. Using our previous example, who among these stakeholders has a voice in decision making: patients, doctors, nonmedical staff, pharmaceutical companies, pharmacies, insurance companies, or family members of the nurses? This understanding could then be contrasted with what information or who should be involved in the process and therefore inform the decisions on what kind of interventions should be beneficial.

Specifically, the twelve boundary categories focus on people and their social roles in the decision-making process, as it is the people who determine what is an improvement. Ulrich (1993) groups the categories around four different social roles, three of them regarding the people involved in the decision process and the fourth regarding people who are affected but not involved. The first group examines sources of motivation (client, purpose, measure of success); the second, sources of control (decision maker, re-sources, environment); the third, sources of expertise (designer, expert, guarantor); and, the fourth, sources of legitimation (witnesses, emancipation, world view).

For each column in the table, there are three questions to consider. And for each question, there are to realities to consider: what is and what should be. The first question is about who occupies or ought to occupy what role. So it is necessary to ask who is or ought to be the client, decision maker, designer, or witness.

The second question is about what these roles contribute to establishing what is considered an improvement, and what concerns must be considered: what is and what should be the system’s purpose; what resources or condi-tions are or should be controlled by the decision maker; who is or should be


15

the expert; and what is or should be the level of emancipation of the witness-es?

The third question considers issues that arise if there is conflict with oth-er social actors about the key concern associated with that role: what is or should be the measure of success, system environment (not controlled by decision maker), guarantee of success, and underlying system world view? The way such conflicts are handled contributes to the establishment of what is considered to be “improvement.”

Table 2. Twelve Boundary Categories and Questions of CSH

Social Roles/ Stakeholder Major Concern Main Difficulty Sources of:

1. Client 2. Purpose 3. Measure of Success Motivation

4. Decision Maker 5. Resources 6. Environment Control /

Power

7. Designer 8. Expert 9. Guarantee Expertise / Knowledge

10. Witnesses 11. Emancipation 12. World View Legitimation

By answering each of these questions, hidden boundary judgments can

be recognized and stakeholders can be empowered (Ulrich, 1993).CSH argues that participants and researchers need to be self-critical and open themselves to external critique from witnesses or nonparticipants in the system in order to ensure that critique of boundary judgments has occurred. For example, whether we were considering a context where a researcher is brought in to improve the efficiency and quality of an automated assembly line, or a context where hospital administration is cutting benefits from a nonunionized work staff that consistently works overly long hours with no additional compensation due to their fear of job loss in a down economy, in order to ensure a systematic critique of the boundary judgments, these twelve questions should be asked and answered in terms of what is and what should be. Furthermore, these answers should be shared and open to further critique from all stakeholders in order to ensure that a proper critique has occurred and all hidden boundary judgments have been recognized and addressed. By asking these questions, hidden bias about the goals of the redesign of the

WATSON & WATSON

16

assembly line or about what resources are available for change might be uncovered in the first example. Likewise the role of the hospital staffs’ world views and desire for emancipation, or the hospital administration’s obfusca-tion of accurate data that they do not want to acknowledge might emerge in the second example.

Ulrich claims that CSH can and should be applied to any given situation and can guide researchers and participants with boundary critique. However, criticisms of CSH argue that while CSH makes it possible to reveal the system design and all that implies, it is not evident how to integrate these findings in intervention. They argue that the liability or weakness of CSH methodology is that it makes an assumption that communication between various interest groups is possible, or at the least that mediation by an external authority is possible if communication process is broken down (Midgley, 1997). Midgley (1997) discusses how “coercion, by definition, involves people disengaging from debate and exhibiting dogmatic intransi-gence, or even violence. Once people have taken a coercive path, they are unlikely to submit to negotiation or arbitration as long as their interests are satisfied through the continuation of coercive activity” (p. 38). Some CST researchers argue that, while CSH proves to be effective in its ability to deal with simple cases of coercion, this assumption of CSH makes it difficult to address complex forms of coercion and needs to be complemented with multiple, pluralistic methodologies that address the problems of false consciousness (Jackson, 1985), along with political action and active campaigning in the larger society (Midgley, 1997).

Despite such criticisms, CSH continues to be applied in systems re-search. Ulrich and Reynolds (2010) discuss two examples of the application of CSH to natural resources planning and management in Reynolds’ (1998) examination of rural development in Botswana, and Berardi et al.’s (2006) and Reynold et al.’s (2007) look at environmental decision making in Guyana.

Action Research and Critical Systems Methodology Action research comes from the roots of the work of Kurt Lewin in the 1940s, attempting to understand how to go about changing social systems based on a scientific methodology. Although the two traditions do not share a common-ground-based literature, the complementary relation between action research and critical systems thinking is a strong one (Levin, 1994; Flood, 1998). Researchers from both disciplines consider that the value systems and practice of the professionals within both research areas are similar, as both


17

strands of thinkers are highly committed to solving practical and useful problems that will assist in the larger project of progressive social change. Both disciplines also seek to support liberation and emancipation through theory and knowledge construction based on a critical dialogue between participants and researchers. There are several strands of emancipatory action research approaches that focus on understanding systems of knowledge-power dynamics with a purpose of bringing fairer practice: cooperative inquiry and self-reliant participatory action research. Cooperative inquiry. Cooperative inquiry, also known as collaborative inquiry, is a good example of a systems research methodology inspired by critical theory and concerned with emancipation. First proposed by Heron (1971) and expanded in the 1980s within the area of action research, cooper-ative inquiry’s main notion is to research “with” rather than “on” the people. It puts an emphasis on having all active participants fully involved in the research process as co-researchers. Researchers and participants design, manage, and draw conclusions from the inquiry, and they go through the experience and action that is being explored.

So for example, returning to our previous example of a nonunionized hospital, perhaps a dysfunctional atmosphere in the hospital has prompted a study of the problems in the workforce. In the case of an outsider coming to study the people and processes within the hospital, it could be quite possible the researcher is viewed by suspicion by some groups, particularly those not used to being asked their opinion, such as the nurses and medical assistants who are working long hours in an uncertain job market. By applying cooper-ative inquiry, the researcher collaborates with participants in the research process rather than conducting research on the participants, so the nurses and medical assistants come as co-researchers to explore the problems in the hospital. This can gain trust while also encouraging future participation by these marginalized groups.

Cooperative inquiry researchers collaborate with individuals to develop communities with an eye towards future participation (Flood, 1998). Heron (1988a, 1988b, 1996) describes the iterative cycle of four phases of reflection and action in cooperative inquiry: (a) as co-researchers share knowledge, ideas, and goals, problematize power, and come to consensus on actions; (b) record their process and outcomes; (c) immerse themselves in their experi-ence; and (d) continue the cycle of action and reflection until questions are answered in practice.

In the first phase, a group of co-researchers come together and agree to explore a certain topic of human activity and agree on a focus of their

WATSON & WATSON

18

inquiry. Co-researchers present knowledge and ideas as well as their view of the purpose of the inquiry; this involves problematizing power (Flood, 1998). Then together they develop a set of questions they wish to investigate and plan a methodology for exploring this idea through practical action. In the second phase, the co-researchers, now working together as co-subjects, engage in the agreed-upon practical actions and observe and record the process and findings of their experience. They seek to observe the subtleties of the experience so that they are able to see how practice does or does not conform to their original conceptual ideas (Heron, 1988a, 1988b, 1996; Flood, 1998). This is followed by further engagement in the third phase, where co-subjects become fully immersed in their experience, so that ideas are further elaborated or developed into unpredicted actions or creative insights. In the final phase, the co-researchers reassemble and reconsider the original propositions and consider modifications and questions. Action and reflection continue until they feel questions are fully answered. They further develop or revise these ideas or reject them and put forward a new set of questions or inquiry methods. Through this process, cooperative inquiry strives to discover better and fairer ways for people to live together in human social systems (Flood, 1998).

Co-operative inquiry methods have been utilized in a variety of research contexts, from social work research involving older lesbians and gay men (Fenge, 2010), to exploring how black women managers learn to thrive as well as survive in the workplace (Douglas, 2002), to studies on in the medical field such as nurses in the mental health field (Tee et al., 2007), and diabetes in a midwestern American Indian community (Mendenhall et al., 2010).

Self-reliant participatory action research. Another good example of the emancipatory systems methodology in action research family is self-reliant participatory action research (Flood, 1998). Focusing on disadvantaged populations (Flood, 1998), the main idea of self-reliant participatory action research is to stimulate and raise awareness of the capacity to transform the relations of knowledge and consciously “shift patterns of power that are buttressed by forms of knowledge creation” (p. 85).

The process involves challenging top-down forms of knowledge rela-tionship. Self-development of participants and researchers begin by engaging in socioeconomic activities that help to transform relations of traditional knowledge relationship and production. This process involves challenging the ways in which support is obtained from other powerful organizations. The ultimate goal of self-reliant participatory action research is to defend


19

“multiple and cherished ways of life” (pp. 85–86), and in doing so, resist against homogenization (Flood, 1998).

Fals-Borda (1996) suggests four techniques of self-reliant participatory action research that may develop people’s countervailing power: (1) collec-tive research, (2) critical rediscovery of history through collective memory in defense of the interests of the oppressed, (3) valuing and applying folk culture, such as art, music, drama, myths, storytelling, etc., and (4) produc-tion and diffusion of new knowledge within the concept of knowledge ownership, arguing for a systematic way of returning the knowledge to the community so they can maintain the ownership. Rahman (1991) argues for Friere’s notion of conscientization, a process of self-awareness raising for empowerment through collective self-inquiry and reflection taking forms of dialogues, investigations, and knowledge generation. Ultimately, the goal of participatory research methodology is to defend against the monopoly and domination of science and culture led by upper-class elites. Through this process of collective research, people’s movements for progress are support-ed, their influence in sociopolitical systems are increased, and popular knowledge, which they call “a knowledge of life,” is stimulated and devel-oped (Rahman, 1991).

For example, perhaps in our hospital situation, the medical staff is seeing a trend of miscommunication between a local ethic minority group and the hospital’s doctors, which is resulting in misdiagnoses. This method could be used to work with the minority community in order to help them gain access to the information they need to be better empowered and to understand what information they will need to possess that could help the hospital better serve them. Through the process of the minority group gaining ownership of a knowledge base on health issues and also having their culture better reflected in the hospital, the community could become more empowered and self-reliant while improving the hospital’s understanding of their needs and culture, thereby improving the community’s overall health and ability to operate effectively within the health system. In literature, self-reliant partici-patory research methods have been used for training development staff who work with rural poor in developing nations (Burkey, 1993; Rahman, 1990).

Community Operational Research Schecter (1991) discusses how emancipatory practice in critical systems thinking has mainly centered on community operational research in the United Kingdom. Community operational research method has been a response to Rosenhead (1986, 1987) and Keys’ (1987) argument that the

WATSON & WATSON

20

classical operational research traditions are largely unsuitable for use in the “community” context. In their view, classic operational research supports the interests that managers have in control, centralization, and de-skilling. In contrast, community organizations are usually smaller, lack resources, do not have a clear administrative hierarchy, and often possess participative decision-making processes (Jackson, 1987). So the unique characteristic of community operational research is the clients or beneficiaries. Community operational research is a movement to serve these untraditional groups, for example, trade unions like the nursing workforce union that we discussed in the previous examples, tenant unions, nonprofits, women’s and other social groups as opposed to the traditional clientele of businesses, the military, and government populations (Rosenhead, 1986).

So for example, a systems researcher might come in to the previously described hospital system in order to address the issue of the nursing work-force seeking to unionize. As an unempowered group, the nurses may be doubtful of the systems analyst’s motives or of her being able to represent their views accurately and bring meaningful change. By involving all participants actively in the entire process of community operational research, and promoting a reflective, transparent, and participatory decision-making process, the analyst and client relationship can develop into an emancipatory relationship that can transform an oppressive social system.

These groups typically have far fewer resources, are impatient with tech-nical solutions, make decisions using consensus decision making and democratic debate, and are likely to be suspicious and untrusting of expert opinion (Schecter, 1991). They favor a participatory approach to solving problems, are surrounded by complex situations, and usually have to com-pete for resources that are made available by other powerful organizations (Jackson, 1987).

Within the process of engaging in community operational research, Jack-son (1987) notes that no autocratic decision maker can enforce an analyst’s recommendation on the rest of the organization, and Schecter (1991) cites Spear (1987, 1989) in pointing out “emancipatory practice must demystify the analytical process and constrain the use of expert power by the analyst” (p. 219), explaining that the analyst and client relationship must develop into an overtly emancipatory relationship. He further argues for having explicit goals for liberation and social justice, supporting those who are directly concerned with problematic situations, not just professional consultants; and being relevant to the task of transforming oppressive social systems, as the requirements for an emancipatory operational research. Finally, Rosenhead (1986, 1987) proposes re-skilling, decentralization, liberation, nonoptimiz-


21

ing, use of analysis to support but not replace judgment, treatment of people as active subjects, acceptance of conflict over goals, bottom-up problem formulation, and acceptance of uncertainty as requirements of community operational research.

Community operational research methods have been employed in a vari-ety of contexts as well. Herron and Bendek (2007) reflect on their experienc-es working with a framework on active learning for active citizenship in the U.K. Walsh and Hostick (2005) describe two different applications of community operational research to improving health services. Ritchie, Taket, and Bryant (1994) review 26 case studies that utilize community operational research.

Conclusion

This chapter examined critical systems theory and its methods as applied to and informing qualitative research. The chapter looked at the history, development, and epistemological perspectives of CST, presented the core principles and finally examined some of the practical application of CST in research and practice. Although CST’s developmental history has largely been within the management sciences, its core commitment to the concepts of critique, emancipation, and pluralism have a strong connection with qualitative researchers in many disciplines. CST offers tools for evaluating boundaries, recognizing relations, and involving all stakeholders when conducting critical and emancipatory qualitative research. Furthermore, CST provides guidelines and a commitment to deep pluralism to help the qualita-tive researcher critically reflect on the best tools. With such shared episte-mologies and core commitments, we believe that qualitative researchers have much to gain in incorporating CST and its lens of systems thinking into their research practices, and that the field of qualitative research as a whole can be strengthened by incorporating CST and its systemic viewpoint. As Ulrich (2003) argues: “Critique without systems thinking is boundless, and ulti-mately empty, in that its object and context of valid application remain arbitrary” (p. 327).

References Ackoff, R. (1981). Creating the corporate future: Plan or be planned for. New York: Wiley. Bertalanffy, L. V. (1968). General systems theory. New York: George Braziller. Berardi, A., Bernard, C., Buckingham-Shum, S., Ganapathy, S., Mistry, J., Reynolds, M., &

WATSON & WATSON

22

Ulrich, W. (2006). The ECOSENSUS project: Co-evolving tools, practices and open content for participatory natural resource management. Proceedings from the International Conference on e-Social Science. Manchester, U.K. Retrieved from: http://www.ncess.ac.uk/research/sgp/ecocensus.

Burkey, S. (1993) People First: A Guide to Self- reliant, Participatory Rural Development. London: Zed Books.

Carspecken, P. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge.

Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley. Checkland, P. (1985). From optimizing to learning: A development of systems thinking for

the 1990s. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 36, 757–767. Churchman, C.W. (1970). Operations research as a profession. Management Science,

17(2),37–53. Douglas, C. (2002). Using co-operative inquiry with black women managers: Exploring

possibilities for moving from surviving to thriving. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 15(3), 249–262.

Fals-Borda, O. (1996) “Power/Knowledge and Emancipation” systems. Practice 9(2), 177–181.

Fals-Borda, O. (1998) People’s participation: Challenges ahead. New York: Apex Press/Intermediate Technology Publications.

Flood, R. L. (1990). Liberating systems theory: Toward critical systems thinking. Human Relations, 43(1), 49–75.

Flood, R. L. (1998). Action research and the management and systems sciences. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 11, 79–101.

Flood, R. L.,& Jackson, M. C. (1991). Creative problem solving: Total systems intervention. New York: Wiley.

Freire, P. (1986). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Habermas, J. (1973). Theory and practice (J. Viertel, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of

society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Lifeworld and system. A critique of

functional reason (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon. Heron, J. (1971). Experience and Method. Guildford: University of Surrey. Heron, J. (1988a).Validity in co-operative inquiry. In P. Reason (Ed.), Human inquiry in

action (pp. 40–59). London: Sage. Heron, J. (1988b). Impressions of the other reality: A cooperative inquiry into altered states of

consciousness. In P. Reason (Ed.), Human inquiry in action (pp. 182–198). London: Sage.

Heron, J. (1996).Co-operative inquiry: Research into the human condition. London: Sage. Herron, R., & Bendek, Z. M. (2007). Take part: Active learning for active citizenship

contributing to community O.R. reflections and practices. Operational Research Insight, 20(2), 3–7.

Jackson, J. (2006). Reaching the hard to reach: The challenges of a community operational researcher! Operational Research Insight, 19(2), 4–10.


23

Jackson, M. C. (1982). The nature of soft systems thinking: The work of Churchman, Ackoff, and Checkland. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 9, 17–29.

Jackson, M. C. (1985). Social systems theory and practice: The need for a critical approach. International Journal of General Systems, 10, 136–151.

Jackson, M. C. (1987) Community operational research: Purposes, theory, and practice. Dragon 2, 47–73.

Jackson, M. C. (1991a). The origins and nature of critical systems thinking. Systems Practice, 4, 131–149.

Jackson, M. C. (1991b). Post-modernism and contemporary systems thinking. In R. C. Flood, & M. C. Jackson (Eds.), Critical systems thinking (pp. 287–302). New York: Wiley.

Jackson, M. C. (2001). Critical systems thinking and practice. European Journal of Operational Research, 128, 233–244.

Keys, P. (1987) Management and management support in community service agencies. Dragon 2, 19–45.

Levin, M. (1994): Action research and critical systems thinking: Two icons carved out of the same log? Systemic Practice and Action Research, 7(1), 25–41.

Mendenhall, T. J., Berge, J. M., Harper, P., GreenCrow, B., LittleWalker, N., WhiteEagle, S., et al. The Family Education Diabetes Series (FEDS): Community-based participatory research with a midwestern American Indian community. Nursing Inquiry, 17(4), 359–372.

Midgley, G. (1997). Mixing methods: Developing systemic intervention. In J. Mingers & A. Gill (Eds.), Multimethodology: The theory and practice of combining management science methodologies. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.

Mingers, J. (1980). Towards an appropriate social theory for applied systems thinking: Critical theory and soft systems methodology. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 7, 41–49.

Oliga, J.C. (1991). Power-ideology matrix in social systems control. In Flood, R. L., & Jackson, M. C. (Eds.), Critical systems thinking: Directed readings (pp. 269–286). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.

Rahman, M. A., (1990), The case of the third world: People’s self-development.Community Development Journal, 25(4), 307–314.

Rahman, M. A. (1991). The theoretical Standpoint of PAR. In O. Fals-Borda, & M. A. Rahman (Eds.), Action and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participatory action research (pp. 13–24). New York: Apex.

Reynolds, M. (1998). “Unfolding” natural resource-use information systems: Fieldwork in Botswana. Systemic Practice and Action Research 11(2), 127–152.

Ritchie, C., Taket, A., & Bryant, J. (1994). Community works: 26 case studies showing community operational research in action. Sheffield, U.K.: Pavic Publications.

Rosenhead, J. (1986). Custom and practice. Journal of Operational Research Society, 37, 335–343.

Rosenhead, J. (1987). From management science to workers’ science. In R. Flood, & M. C. Jackson (Eds.), New directions in management science (pp. 109–13). Aldershot, U.K.: Gower Press.

Schecter, D. (1991). Critical systems thinking in the 1980s: A connective summary. In R. L. Flood, & M. C. Jackson (Eds.), Critical systems thinking: Directed readings (pp. 213–

WATSON & WATSON

24

226).Chichester, U.K.: Wiley. Spear, R. (1987). Towards a critical systems approach. In Proceedings (supplement) of the 31st

Annual Meeting of the International Society for General Systems Research, Budapest, Hungary.

Spear, R. (1989). Some issues in a critical systems approach. Paper presented at the 33rd annual meeting of the International Society for Systems Science, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Tee, S., Lathlean, J., Herbert, L., Coldham, T., East, B., & Johnson, T. J. (2007). User participation in mental health nurse decision-making: A co-operative enquiry. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(2), 135–145.

Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical heuristics of social planning a new approach to practical philosophy. Berne, Switzerland: Paul Haupt.

Ulrich, W. (1987). Critical heuristics of social systems design. European Journal of Operational Research 31(3), 276–283.

Ulrich, W. (1993) Some difficulties of ecological thinking, considered from a critical systems perspective: A plea for critical holism. Systems Practice, 6(6), 583–611.

Ulrich, W. (2003). Beyond methodology choice: Critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54, 325–342.

Ulrich, W. (2006). Rethinking critically reflective research practice: Beyond Popper’s critical rationalism. Journal of Research Practice, 2(2), Article P1. Retrieved from http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/64/63.

Ulrich, W. & Reynolds, M. (2010). Critical systems heuristics. In Reynolds, M. and Holwell, S. (Eds.), Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide. (pp. 243–292). London: Springer.

Walsh, M., & Hostick, T. (2005). Improving health care through community OR. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 56, 193–201.

Documents

Critical Systems Theory for Qualitative Research Methodology