DESIGN OF AN INQUIRY SYSTEM FOR SYSTEMIC GOVERNANCE
4.8 WEST CHURCHMAN’S “SWEEPING IN” AND CRITICAL UNFOLDING APPROACH 20
C. West Churchman (1979a, b, 1982) stressed the importance of consid- ering the social, political, economic and environmental factors when under-
derstanding the role of technology in a post-modern era. This analytical tool is useful because it teaches people to look not only at the dark figure in the foreground, but also the white space in the background. It encourages an ability to think not so much in terms of binary oppositions of right and wrong, black and white, but in terms of paradoxes.
Whatever “enhances” society in some way will have some “reversal” impact. Whatever is “retrieved” from one context may render other applications in other contexts obsolete.
This tool can be applied to analyzing other areas of policy and management. Think of an example of a new idea or technological. What could it improve? What could it make worse? What could it retrieve from the past? What could be rendered irrelevant by the change?
20 Churchman, West C., 1979, The Systems Approach and its Enemies, Basic Books, New York.
taking an analysis. “Sweeping in” a range of private, personal and public, political factors can help us to ensure that we do not leave out areas that are relevant in an analysis. He stresses that the categories of “religion, politics, ethics and aesthetics”, with a strong value basis are the challenges that we face. They are our “enemies”, but they are within every one of us, by virtue of our humanity.
Strategic questioning unfolds21 the implications of particular theories and methodologies for policy and practice. By asking what, how, why and in whose opinion critical thinking and better policy making can be assisted.
The iterative process has been applied to triple loop learning in managing diversity. Each part of the Venn diagram of overlapping iterative cycles cov- ers a particular issue. All three areas are of equal importance in problem solving. Flood and Romm (1996) stress that managers tend to concentrate on “what questions” and “how questions”, that are task and process ques- tions and less on “why questions”, that are rationale questions that get to the heart of issues.22
21 Ulrich, W., 1983, Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practi- cal Philosophy, Wiley, New York. Please read chapter 5. Ulrich poses 12 questions. He stresses that they should be asked in terms of reality (an is question) and in terms of normative ideals (an ought question). His questions drawn from the above chapter are as follows: “Who is the actual client of the systems design? What is the actual pur- pose of the systems design? What is its built in measure of success? Who is actually the decision maker? What conditions of successful planning and implementation of the system are really controlled by the decision maker? What conditions are not controlled by the decision-maker (for e.g. environmental)? Who is actually involved as planner?
Who is involved as expert, and of what kind is the expertise? Where do the involved seek the guarantee that their planning will be successful? Who amongst the involved witnesses represents the concerns of the affected? Who is or may be affected without be- ing involved? Are the affected given an opportunity to emancipate themselves from the experts and to take their fate into their own hands? What worldview is actually underly- ing the design of the system? Is it the worldview of some of the involved or some of the affected?” Ulrich uses questioning to unfold the implications of particular approaches:
“How do we know what to do? What is the best approach? Why is it the best approach?
Follow the questions with further questions to unfold the issues?”
22 They argue that in order to manage the diversity of challenges we face, we need to ask how (design and process questions), what questions (task and issue related questions) and why questions (in whose opinion is this a good idea and why do they think so and on what basis? How did they reach this opinion?). Why questions in their opinion should be asked often because they get to the heart of issues such as the link between might and right. Are the power dynamics such that some narrators are given more status that others? How does power shape the conversation and the decisions made?
104 Chapter 4 4.9 THINKING ABOUT THEORY AND METHODOLOGY:
BANATHY’S MAPS OF ONTOLOGY AND EPISTEMOLOGY
The other ever-present challenge the need for space for individualism, collectivism cultural diversity and some transcultural sharing, whilst ac- knowledging the need for a space for diversity. The danger of extreme forms of postmodernism or the multiple construct approach is that is does not have a normative component. Poststructuralism, however, appears to have more analytical potential (particularly when considered with less extreme forms of postmodernism) in that it accepts that the world is messy and complex and that neat structures do not provide the full story. The work of Banathy (1996, 2000) can perhaps be called post-structuralist. He emphasizes design- ing for social change, but he draws more on the idealism of critical thinking, (following Churchman and Checkland) than on the critical materialist and structuralist heritage of the Frankfurt School. His two maps are very useful to prompt asking:
1. What is the nature of reality (an ontological question)? In what direction are we headed as human beings?
2. How do we know what we know (an epistemological question)?
What are the implications of trying to think at a Meta level? What are the advantages and what are the pitfalls? Big picture views are always partial and we run the risk of trying to give totalizing or universal pictures. This is always problematic. Can you see why? We always need to retain humility and realize that what may appear to be the systemic overview is always partial and limited by our assumptions, values or knowledge. Explanations that seem to ‘sweep in’ and ‘unfold’ all the variables can be found to be more limited than we first thought. Explanations that are sensible based on what we know at the time can be rendered absurd by new information.
As an exercise in policy making and management we could consider how we could use these diagrams to design better solutions to problems such as: unemployment, world hunger, and management of pollution and toxic waste? What are the implications of ontological questions for policy and management? If we have different assumptions and values underpinning our theories of the world we will construct or make sense of reality differently.
What are the implications of epistemological questions for policy and man- agement? These maps are Banathy’s constructs of reality. As with the other tools you are encouraged to add your own ideas. Banathy (2000) also dis- cusses the qualities we need at an individual and community/organizational level, in order to foster creative and interactive designs for problem solving.
Table 4.2. Banathy’s historical overview of social changes. What is the nature of reality today?
Stage One Stage Two Stage Three Stage Four
Hunting gathering Agricultural society Industrial society Post-industrial society Half million years Ten thousand years Five hundred years Fifty years
Speech Writing Print Electronic
communication Wandering tribes Communities
city-states
Nation states Regional/global societies Magic-myth
paradigm
Logic-philosophical paradigm
Deterministic scientific paradigm
Cybernetics/systems paradigm
Survival technology Fabricating technology
Machine technology
Intellectual technology Source: Figure 4.1, Banathy, 1996: 91. Cited in McIntyre, 2004 with permission.
Table 4.3. How we study society? How do we know what we know?
Science Humanities Design
FOCUS The Natural World The Human
Experience
The Man-made World Problem Finding Understand the
Human Experience and
Solution Finding
Describe What “Is” Portray It What “Should Be”
PRIMARY Experimentation Analogy Modeling
METHODS Pattern Recognition Metaphor Pattern Formation
Analysis Criticism Synthesis
Classification Valuation Conjecture
Deduction Induction Abduction
WHAT IS Objectivity Subjectivity Practicality
VALUED Rationality Imagination Creativity
Neutrality Commitment Empathy
Concern for “Truth” Concern for
“Justice”
Concern for
“Goodness of Fit”
Source: Figure 2.2, The three cultures, Banathy, 1996: 34. Cited in McIntyre, 2004 with permission.
Now let us brainstorm and “heartstorm” (as per Banathy, 1996) the quali- ties we need to solve problems and design for a sustainable and socially just future. The following table compares approaches:
106 Chapter 4
Table 4.4. Comparing the old and new approaches to science and considering some of their implications for managers and policy makers
Comparison of approaches to thinking and practice based on closed and open approaches
Please compare and contrast Mode 1 and Mode 2 thinking and practice (derived from Gibbons et al., 1994; Banathy, 2000) and relate the table to examples from your own experience. How can Mode 2 thinking be aided by using Banathy’s ontological and
epistemological tables 4.2 and 4.3?
Old approach to science:
Compartmentalization and dualisms
New approach to science: systemic, integrated and systemic thinking that links the mind and body, thinking and practice and uses both qualitative and quantitative methods
Short term horizon Long term horizon
Profit and economic capital Environmental and social sustainability and social and environmental capital
Thinking in terms of the meanings of one culture or one interest group
Addressing multiple sets of meaning when undertaking development
“Either or” thinking in narrow terms i.e.
specifically about social or political or environmental issues
“Both and” thinking in social and cultural and political and environmental terms
Hierarchical structures for management, communication and program delivery
Weblike team approaches (matrices) that span sectors and disciplines in order to address issues
Citizenship models stress individual and family responsibility
Citizenship models stress social and environmental responsibility Expert driven by specialists working
within a single discipline
Community driven by a range of stakeholders, interest groups and Professionals
representing multiple disciplines and sectors who contribute to research, problem solving, the development content and process
Individual responsibility for problems Social and environmental responsibility for problems
Management stresses efficiency and outputs (number of items of service delivered)
Management stresses effectiveness and outcomes (the qualitative perceptions of the impact of a development intervention) Top down research and development Participatory action research based on learning from successes and mistakes
4.10 MINDFULNESS, POLICY MAKING AND