3.3 The nature and type of human systems
3.3.2 Ontological and philosophical underpinning of systems thinking
Different views of systems have various philosophical foundations, which cannot be exhausted in this limited study. A distinction is made by Flood and Jackson (1991) between hard and soft thinking systems. On the other side, Burrell and Morgan (1979) in the social sciences focus on the assumptions related to ontology, epistemology, human nature and methodology. A decade later, Jackson (2001) acknowledged the influence of this work on the development of critical systems thinking. The same can also be said of Hirschheim and Klein (1989) who followed more or less the same trend of thinking when they defined the
80
four paradigms of information system development. It can be observed that their ideas concur with Burrell and Morgan (1979) who bring another dimension in understanding the assumptions regarding the fields of epistemology, ontology, human environment and methodology. These co-authors categorise the two dimensions of understanding as objectivism–subjectivism and order–conflict dimension. Burrell and Morgan (1979) discussed at length the differences in assumptions that lead to what they categorise as functionalism, social relativism, radical structuralism and neo-humanism. By functionalism Burrell and Morgan (1979) meant the application of objective predetermined tests. Secondly, by social relativism, is meant a move towards acknowledging the existence of other parties in the co-formulation of objectives. Thirdly, neo-humanism in its application means collaboration and understanding and emancipation can lead to change in the environment.
Lastly, the radical structuralism reflects the challenge that is made against the status quo which ends up in conflict (Burrell & Morgan, 1979).
Systems ontology answers the ‗what‘ question, that is, what things are, what a person or a society is and what kind of world we live in (Banathy, 2000). The ontological task is therefore the formation of a systems view of what is or, in other words, a systems view of the world (Banathy, 2000). Systems ontology is difficult to define as systems take different forms, e.g. a cell, a human being, an organisation are all systems (Bertalanffy, 1968). With regard to critical realist ontology, reality is also argued to be not quite accessible to immediate observation (Banathy, 2000). However critical realism accepts this position and argues that theories of social studies may be wrong and may change as new discoveries are made. It explicitly recognises the fallibility of knowledge, depth ontology and causality in open systems (Banathy, 2000). This study examines the use of systems thinking to school development using the former as both the ontological frame and epistemological perspective.
Systems epistemology deals with general questions of how we know what we know (Banathy, 2000). The other focus area is the investigation of organised wholes (Bertalanffy, 1968). In research what is considered as knowledge is what the researcher considers as what he or she knows from his or her perspective. In a system such as school development there are multiple human agencies involved where the researcher interprets reality from his or her own perspective (Banathy, 2000). Most of the time what is considered as knowledge is subjective since it involves the interpretation of reality from the perspective of the knower
81
(Banathy, 2000). Systems epistemology is therefore based on social constructivism in which reality is believed to be a social construct (Banathy, 2000). In order to apply the systems thinking concepts and their efficacy to school development which is the core of this study, it is important to understand the philosophical underpinnings of systems thinking. There are general points of convergence in understanding the key concepts around systems thinking.
Some of these have been shared in this study, such as reflective practice and understanding of systems. As part of the conceptual framework for understanding systems, Morgan (2005) bases the assumptions of variety of concepts in relation to understanding the field of systems thinking. Amongst those assumptions is that feedback loops consists of linked patterns which end up in outputs from one major part influencing input to that same part (Morgan, 2005). This cyclical flow results in delays, large amplification and dampening effects which affects the entire behaviour of the system (Morgan, 2005).
Complex social systems exhibit counterintuitive behaviour (Morgan, 2005). This concept embodies the adoption of systems thinking, whereby intuitive methods are used to solve difficult complex social system problems (Morgan, 2005). This is a common flaw and arguably only analytical methods using tools that fit the problem will solve difficult complex social systems problems (Green, 2013). Systems thinkers are in agreement regarding the idea of holism, which is based upon the principle that wholes are greater than the sum of the parts (Jackson, 2003; Flood, 2010). There is general concurrence amongst systems thinkers that this means the properties of each part are dependent upon the context of the part within the whole in which they operate (Gilbert & Sarkar, 2001; Flood, 2010). A system is always more than the sum of its parts. According to Weinberg (1975) a system‘s emergent properties are those that do not exist in the parts but are found in the whole. A system forms part of a larger whole or system. Systems thinking shifts away from the approach whereby the parts are broken down and isolated during the process of investigation. The other idea closely related to holism is the concept emergence (Banathy, 1997). Banathy (1997) in his understanding of systems believes the joined and integrated matrix of relationships between parts creates emergent properties of the whole. The dilemma is that it is difficult to see the properties of the whole by means of looking at the parts.
82
Many systems scholars concur that systems thinking is an epistemology and a way of viewing systems from a broad perspective including seeing interrelationships between components of the system and their relationship to the broader environment (Togo & Lotz- Sisitka, 2013; Beerel, 2009; Togo, 2009; Krasny & Tidball, 2008; Reed, 2006; Webster, 2004; Sterling, 2003). In this way the fragmentary and piecemeal approaches to school development cannot accomplish the envisaged systemic reforms that are incumbent to develop the whole education system. The next paragraph focuses on the justification for the use of systems thinking in this study.