Critical systems thinking and practice

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00067-9Get rights and content

Abstract

Critical systems thinking and the methodologies associated with it were developed precisely to allow analysis of complex societal problems and intervention to resolve such problems. Early approaches employing systems ideas, such as operational research, systems analysis and systems engineering, were suitable for tackling certain well-defined problems, but were found to have limitations when faced with complex problems involving people with a variety of viewpoints and frequently at odds with one another. Systems thinkers responded with approaches such as system dynamics and organisational cybernetics to tackle complexity; soft systems methodology (SSM) and interactive planning to handle subjectivity; and critical systems heuristics to help the disadvantaged in situations involving conflict. There was a corresponding enlargement of the range of problem contexts in which they felt competent to intervene. It has been critical systems thinking, however, which has supplied the bigger picture, has allowed systems thinking to mature as a discipline and has set out how the variety of methodologies now available can be used together in a coherent manner to promote successful intervention in complex societal problem situations. This paper outlines, at the request of the editor of this special issue, my involvement in developing critical systems thinking and practice, describes its origins, nature and use, and sets out a programme for future research in the area.

Introduction

The ideas that have inspired critical systems thinking derive from two sources – social theory and systems thinking itself.

Of particular importance, in the social sciences, has been work that allows an overview to be taken of different ways of analysing and intervening in organizations. For example, Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) book on sociological paradigms and organizational analysis, and Morgan’s (1986) examination of `images' of organization, have enabled critique of the assumptions different systems approaches make about social science, social reality and organizations. Critical social theory, from Marx through to Habermas and Foucault, has also had a significant role to play. From Marx came recognition of the inequalities in capitalist society and exploitative relationships in many enterprises. Habermas, 1970, Habermas, 1975 theory of three human interests, the technical, practical and emancipatory, and his warnings about the dominance of instrumental reason (wedded to the technical interest) informed reflection on the role of the various systems methodologies and provided justification for early attempts to conceptualize them as complementary since they could be seen as addressing different interests. His later work (Habermas, 1984) on `communicative competence' and `the ideal speech situation' permitted critique of the aspirations of SSM in particular. The work of postmodernists such as Lyotard and Foucault (see Jackson, 1991), focusing on the operation of the power/knowledge nexus, has led to a questioning of the legitimacy of all `systematising' and `totalizing' endeavours, and has demanded a response from critical systems thinking.

From systems thinking itself, critical systems thinking inherited a set of powerful concepts, such as system, element, relationship, boundary, input, transformation, output, environment, feedback, emergence, communication, control, identity and hierarchy. If the systems movement had failed in its early aspirations (see von Bertalanffy, 1968) to create a `general system theory' setting out the laws governing the behaviour of all systems, whatever their type, it did manage to give birth to a range of methodologies, based upon the systems concepts, for intervening in and seeking to improve problem situations. It is arguable that there are two reasons why these methodologies should have proved so successful. First, problems in the real-world do not correspond to traditional disciplinary boundaries and the systems concepts encourage interdisciplinary or, at least, multidisciplinary practice. Secondly, the systems concepts enshrine a commitment to `holism' – to looking at the world in terms of `wholes' that exhibit emergent properties, rather than believing, in a reductionist fashion, that insight comes from breaking wholes down into their fundamental elements. Holism has proved a useful antidote to reductionism when tackling real-world problem situations.

Critical systems thinking recognises that social theory and systems thinking possess complementary strengths and weaknesses. The social sciences are strong on theory, on thinking about the ontological and epistemological assumptions that go into gaining knowledge, but they are weak on practice. It seems clear that the theoretical presuppositions used for studying the social world will also have implications for how one might intervene in social reality. However, social scientists rarely seem to draw out these implications in terms of specific guidance for what should be done in changing organizations and society. Applied systems thinkers, on the other hand, are dedicated to practice but often neglect theory. It is equally obvious that any attempt to change the world rests upon taken-for-granted assumptions about the nature of that world. Hidden in the commonsense or craft knowledge of the systems practitioner are ontological and epistemological presuppositions. In not exploring these, systems thinking has failed to take full advantage of opportunities to learn from practice and to develop as a discipline.

Critical systems thinking seeks to draw on the respective strengths of social theory and systems thinking. Social theory provides material for the enhancement of existing and the development of new systems approaches. Not all the fine theoretical distinctions drawn by social scientists make a difference when applied in the real-world, but some are of considerable importance and must be regarded as crucial for systems practice. Social theory also provides the means whereby systems practitioners can reflect on and learn from their interventions. From the other side, systems thinking can assist in the task of translating the findings of social theory into a practical form and encapsulating those findings in well-worked out approaches to intervention. The success of systems thinking in linking theory and practice provides a model which, I have argued (Jackson, 1997a), can be used in information systems and, indeed, in the applied disciplines generally.

In retrospect, and the rules of this special issue require that we give some personal details, I can see that my background and inclinations fitted me to be a critical systems thinker. I originally went to Oxford to study history but during the first year changed my degree course to Politics, Philosophy and Economics. By the third year I was studying the maximum number of sociology courses available at Oxford and had become a social scientist. After my first degree, I entered the civil service, as a tax inspector, for four years, picking up my first practical experience of working in an organization. The job offered me plenty of time for study and I engaged on an intensive reading programme, immersing myself in the Marxist classics and becoming acquainted with the early work of Habermas and Foucault. I was particularly influenced by Althusser and his notion of society as a structured totality in which the various parts assumed relationships of dominance and dependence. There are echoes of this in `total systems intervention' (TSI) (Flood and Jackson, 1991a). During this period, I also continued a peripheral involvement (which had begun in school, around 1968) with various left-wing groupings and causes.

By 1977 I had had enough of life in an archetypical bureaucracy and also wanted to continue my study of social systems more formally. I joined the MA Systems in Management course, which had been developed by Peter Checkland at Lancaster University. It was an interesting time to be at Lancaster. The Burrell and Morgan book was about to go to press and Checkland’s `soft' systems methodology was maturing into the form it took in his 1981 classic Systems Thinking, Systems Practice (Checkland, 1981). I took a kind of detached interest in applied systems thinking always viewing the methodologies available through a social theory lens. My 1978 dissertation `Considerations on Method' was an analysis of applied systems thinking from the point of view of social science and argued for a critical systems approach. Full appreciation of the practical value of systems methodologies did not come until I began to teach them myself, and use them in the real-world, some years later.

After Lancaster I moved to Warwick University to study for a Ph.D. in organizational behaviour. I abandoned Warwick after one year, however, to take up appointment as a lecturer in the Department of Operational Research at the University of Hull. This department, at the time, was moving away from `hard' operational research and seeking students in management. There was space for new thinking and a new research programme. The ideas that we have seen as crucial to critical systems thinking had started to come together in my mind. Circumstances had contrived to allow me to make my contribution to the development of critical systems thinking and practice.

Section snippets

Origins

Until the 1970s systems thinkers, whether theorists or practitioners, operated from within the same paradigm. Summarizing, it was assumed that systems of all types could be identified by empirical observation of reality and could be analyzed by essentially the same methods that had brought success in the natural sciences. Systems could then, if the interest was in practice, be manipulated the better to achieve whatever purposes they were designed to serve. Systems thinking until the 1970s,

Contemporary character

I will now address, from a contemporary perspective, some further questions about how critical systems thinking can be operationalised in order to realise its full potential. These can be posed at the level of methods, models and techniques (call all these ‘tools’), at the level of methodology and at the level of meta-methodology.

It is a legitimate criticism of TSI (see Mingers and Brocklesby, 1996) that it is inflexible because it emphasises the use of ‘whole’ methodologies. Once an

Uses

The point of critical systems practice is that it brings appropriate methodologies and tools to bear on problem situations whatever their nature. Just looking at the examples in the original account of TSI (Flood and Jackson, 1991a,b), I can see that the approach was used in interventions to improve quality, in project management, in encouraging participation, in visioning, in crisis management, in planning, in marketing, in organizational restructuring and in policy analysis. In each case, TSI

Conclusions

I have elsewhere (Jackson, 1995) favourably compared the research approach used to develop critical systems thinking and practice with that which brought quality management, business process reengineering, and the learning organization to the market. Critical systems researchers do not claim to know the answer in advance or peddle the same solution to all problems in all circumstances. Critical systems researchers seek to be holistic and to ensure that theory both underpins practice and is

References (37)

  • M.C. Jackson

    Present positions and future prospects in management science

    Omega

    (1987)
  • R.L. Ackoff

    Redesigning the Future

    (1974)
  • S. Beer

    Brain of the Firm

    (1972)
  • G. Burrell et al.

    Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis

    (1979)
  • P.B. Checkland

    Systems Thinking, Systems Practice

    (1981)
  • P.B. Checkland et al.

    Soft Systems Methodology in Action

    (1990)
  • C.W. Churchman

    Operations research as a profession

    Management Science

    (1970)
  • C.W. Churchman

    The Design of Inquiring Systems

    (1971)
  • R.L. Flood

    Solving Problem Solving

    (1995)
  • R.L. Flood et al.

    Creative Problem Solving, Total Systems Intervention

    (1991)
  • Flood, R.L., Jackson, M.C. (Eds.), 1991b. Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings. Wiley,...
  • Gass, S.I., Harris, C.M. (Eds.), 1996. Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science. Kluwer Academic...
  • S.M. Green

    Total systems intervention: A trial by jury

    Systems Practice

    (1993)
  • Habermas, J., 1970. Knowledge and interest. In: Emmet, D., MacIntyre, A. (Eds.), Sociological Theory and Philosophical...
  • J. Habermas

    Legitimation Crisis

    (1975)
  • J. Habermas

    Reason and the Rationalization of Society

    (1984)
  • R.J. Harnden

    The languaging of models

    Systems Practice

    (1990)
  • M.C. Jackson

    The nature of soft systems thinking: The work of Churchman, Ackoff and Checkland

    Journal of Applied Systems Analysis

    (1982)
  • Cited by (132)

    • Measuring the motivational climate in an online course: A case study using an online survey tool to promote data-driven decisions

      2022, Project Leadership and Society
      Citation Excerpt :

      It is clear that those traditional approaches are inadequate in explaining educational phenomena, which are by definition complex, dynamic, and nonlinear. CDS theory is one of several systems approaches—including complexity theory (Kauffman and Kauffman, 1995; Poupore, 2018), complex adaptive systems (Holland, 2006), critical systems thinking (Jackson, 2001), and system dynamics (Groff, 2013)—that offer promising and inspiring alternative ways of thinking and tackling systemic phenomena within different disciplines (Schwaninger, 2009). We chose to use CDS as the theoretical framework in the present study because it has been used by educational researchers to align theory and methodology in educational psychology and because it lays out a theoretical perspective to better capture the nature of complexities over time within educational settings (Hilpert and Marchand, 2018).

    • The outcomes of directionality: Towards a morphology of sociotechnical systems

      2021, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, by developing interfaces to, on the one hand innovation studies as outlined above, and on the other, assessment studies, the presented conceptual ideas could form a link in a chain of analysis connecting intervention in sociotechnical systems to desirable and undesirable consequences (Andersson and Jacobsson, 2000; Sandén and Karlström, 2007; Schot and Rip, 1996). Even though such an ambition may sound like an overly rationalistic social engineering project, that kind of analyses could just as well be used as a critical tool (Jackson 2001, Stirling 2019), in particular given the appreciation of uncertainty and agency in the innovation literature. Such an endeavor could thus open (Stirling 2008), rather than close, debates on technological pathways, risks and opportunities, and appropriate technology policy, firm strategy and citizen action.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text