| A Thought Piece from the CSS community40 Years of Learning about Systems Thinking and PracticeMy new book ‘Critical Systems Thinking: A Practitioner’s Guide’, Wiley, 2024, sets out what I have learned and found most useful about systems thinking and practice over the past 40 years. Here are some of the main conclusions, elaborated more fully in the book of course.Systems Thinking (ST) can offer a complementary approach to science where science struggles because of the complexity of the real-world. This is especially the case in the human, social, political and environmental domains. Science has and must continue to play a significant role in helping create a better world. However, without ST it is blind and can potentially lead the human species to destruction. It needs to be complemented with systems approaches that give weight to interrelationships, organismic thinking, the imagination, creating fair and equal societies, and our natural environment.Systems Thinking has followed two routes in seeking to deal with the ‘organised complexity’ that defeats the scientific method. First, it has sought to establish general systems laws applicable to all forms of complexity, whether physical, biological, human or social. This is the route followed by ‘general systems theory’ and, more recently, complexity theory. It leads to failure. At higher levels of complexity, there are emergent properties which are only partially explainable using theories and models relevant to lower levels. The second route makes the best possible use of models relevant to lower levels of complexity while developing new systems approaches that take into account the emergent properties at higher levels. This route has proved much more fruitful. Systems Thinking has developed a range of systems methodologies – systems engineering, system dynamics, viable systems diagnosis, soft systems methodology, critical systems heuristics, etc. – that offer powerful ways of engaging with different aspects of organised complexity.At the forefront in charting and opening up the second route has been the Centre for Systems Studies and its research programme on Critical Systems Thinking. The last 40 years has seen it register four significant achievements:Providing a thorough critique of the variety of systems approaches and identifying their strengths and weaknessesEstablishing the argument for pluralism in ST (ending the ‘paradigm wars’) and developing guidance to enable multi-perspectival thinking and multi-methodological practiceDefining what ‘improvement’ means in systems terms and ensuring it highlights the interests of the marginalized and disadvantagedProposing ‘pragmatism’ as the philosophy upon which systems thinking and practice can be grounded and further developedThose who follow the second route accept that ST cannot replace experience and knowledge of context. It is not a panacea that can provide answers. It can, however, supply policy-makers and decision-makers with enhanced imaginative capability and some effective methodologies that can help them do better when confronted by situations where science has little to offer. That is contribution enough.More than ever people are recognizing the need for ST. There are barriers – cultural, institutional, educational – to its widespread acceptance and use but, with appropriate systems leadership, those barriers can be overcome.Professor Mike C JacksonM.C.Jackson@hull.ac.ukContribution from the CSS PhD communitySystems Students’ CommunityMy journey of understanding in Systems Thinking (so far): A call to the systems curious!Throughout my exploration of Systems Thinking, I have encountered a variety of perspectives that have both enhanced and occasionally hindered my comprehension of the field. This piece reflects my current understanding of select definitions found within the literature, recognising that numerous other interpretations exist. The variety of definitions speaks to the discipline’s expansiveness, which, though rich and multi-dimensional, has sometimes proved challenging to unify a singular viewpoint. Consequently, my perspective is very much personal and evolving, shaped by exposure to key contributions that underscore Systems Thinking’s complexity and breadth. My first experience of Systems Thinking came during my undergraduate thesis (in law!), wherein I analysed the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). During this process, I encountered Fritjof Capra’s The Ecology of Law, which first engaged me with holistic approaches to interconnected problems within legal frameworks. Although this work attracted my interest in systemic approaches, I lacked the tools/knowledge to articulate the patterns and connections I was observing. It was not until my PhD research that I came to appreciate Systems Thinking as a vast, multi-layered discipline, with multiple entry points and theoretical interpretations, which made my engagement with it both compelling and complex. Divergences in definitions:Examining definitions across several decades reveals the evolution of thought within Systems Thinking, with each perspective offering unique insights and emphasising different facets of the discipline. Below, I present selected definitions in chronological order, recognising that this selection is not exhaustive but reflective of the diversity within the field. Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a pioneer of General Systems Theory, framed Systems Thinking as an approach aimed at understanding and intervening in complex systems by focusing on the relationships among a system’s parts rather than treating components in isolation (Bertalanffy, 1968). His emphasis on interconnectivity marked an early divergence from reductionist thought, positioning Systems Thinking as a holistic analytical framework.Some literature suggests Richmond, coined the term “Systems Thinking” in 1987, described it as “the art and science of making reliable inferences about behaviour by developing an increasingly deep understanding of underlying structure” (Richmond, 1987). His definition extends Systems Thinking into a methodological approach, emphasising the value of structural insight in explaining complex behaviour. Moreover, a very prominent definition emerged from Senge’s contribution in The Fifth Discipline (1990) and positioned Systems Thinking as “a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns rather than static snapshots” (Senge, 1990). His interpretation has gained considerable traction, as it articulates Systems Thinking as a means to transcend the constraints of rigidly defined fields, fostering insight through interdisciplinary thinking.Aronson’s work on Systems Thinking (1996) defines the discipline by its distinction from reductionist thinking, underscoring how Systems Thinking diverges fundamentally from traditional analytical methods (Aronson, 1996). His view emphasises Systems Thinking as a radical departure from reductionism, favouring approaches that encompass wholes rather than disaggregated parts. Ramage and Shipp (2009) added further nuance to the discourse, portraying Systems Thinking as a means of understanding complexity by examining wholes and relationships rather than by isolating parts (Ramage & Shipp, 2009). Their perspective reinforces Systems Thinking’s holistic orientation, positioning it as a worldview that favours integration over fragmentation. As an entry point in my earlier studies, revisiting Capra’s work portrays the definition of Systems Thinking reflecting an ecological lens, with a focus on relationships, patterns, and context within living systems (Capra, 2015). He argued that “all problems are interconnected, and solutions must also be interconnected.” Capra’s ecological perspective encourages a shift from treating problems as discrete to recognising them as parts of larger, interwoven networks. Moreover, a notable source, especially from my own institution (Hull), Jackson (2020) provides a contemporary viewpoint. He defines Systems Thinking as “an approach to reasoning and treatment of real-world problems based on the fundamental notion of ‘system’” (Jackson, 2020). Jackson’s contribution underscores the role of Systems Thinking in practical problem-solving, bridging theoretical insights with real-world applications. His definition also emphasises the use of pragmatism as a foundational concept in addressing complex issues. In conclusion, these selected definitions, among others, have informed my evolving understanding of Systems Thinking, providing both grounding and challenges in formulating a cohesive perspective. The field’s diversity is, paradoxically, a strength that can complicate one’s attempts to define it. However, cultivating Systems Curiosity allowed me to engage with this multiplicity as a productive tension, supporting ongoing learning and insight within a dynamic intellectual landscape. Systems Curiosity:At a recent conference, I mentioned the term Systems Curiosity, which I believe represents a fundamental quality essential for meaningful engagement with Systems Thinking. This concept captures an openness to complexity, characterised by a willingness to accept and work with partial understandings. Such curiosity fosters an appreciation for the adaptability and depth of Systems Thinking, allowing one to move beyond static or definitive interpretations. Ackoff’s reflections on Systems Thinking resonate with this concept, particularly in his focus on equifinality—the principle that there are multiple routes to the same destination. Ackoff defines Systems Thinking as an approach that privileges relationships over isolated objects, processes over fixed structures, and the broader context over individual parts, seeing the patterns that arise within a system’s entirety. This perspective necessitates a shift in perception, leading to innovative ways of learning, teaching, and organising information. I believe that through Systems Curiosity individuals are encouraged to explore Systems Thinking from various entry points, whether academic or practical, and to foster insights that traverse traditional boundaries. This term, therefore, encompasses all those intrigued by Systems Thinking across disciplines, inviting a wide array of participants to engage with its complexity. References Ackoff, R.L (2010. Systems Thinking for Curious Managers. Triarchy Press.Aronson, D. (1996). An Overview of Systems Thinking. Retrieved from [https://community.mi.temple.edu/mis3534sec001spring2022/files/2021/12/Overview-of-Systems-Thinking.pdf]Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. George Braziller.Capra, F. (2015). The Ecology of Law. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Jackson, M. (2020). Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity. Wiley.Ramage, M., & Shipp, K. (2009). Systems Thinkers. Springer. Richmond, B. (1987). Systems Thinking: Critical Thinking Skills for the 1990s and Beyond. Pegasus Communications.Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday. I am open any comments or feedback on this opinion pieceGemma Smith, PhD student in the Centre for Systems StudiesPlease contact me by email: Gemma.Smith-2016@hull.ac.ukStudent CSS CommunityThe Student CSS CommunityWe think our student community is full of systems curious individuals. We hope to provide an environment where the curious can convene and explore their journey through the Systems Thinking literature and practice. If you are a student, apprentice of early career researcher, we would like to welcome you to our community. If you’d like to get involved, please contact the student organisers: Chris – c.n.abbott-2021@hull.ac.uk Gemma – gemma.smith-2016@hull.ac.ukJennifer – j.makar-2018@hull.ac.uk Matt – m.lloyd-2021@hull.ac.uk |
You must be logged in to post a comment.