Announcing the SySTEAM mini-conference: August 14-15, 2025!
SySTEAM’s free, two-day online mini-conference is back by popular demand! Registration is now open for all who’d like to attend this two-day Zoom event, featuring a mix of conference-style talks and group discussion related to systems education and interdisciplinary STEM/STEAM education. Sign-up today as an attendee, volunteer to be a peer reviewer for the mini-conference, or send in an abstract for consideration!
Are you interested in complexity and its relevance for leadership, management and consultancy? Are you feeling dissatisfied with the tools, techniques, maps and frameworks which only take you so far? The Complexity and Management Group at the University of Hertfordshire is offering a one-off opportunity to study for an MA by research in complexity and organisational dynamics, starting in October 25. The subject and object of your research will be what’s going on for you at work. You will be part of a group of other researchers meeting every three months for two years, 16 days a year, and learning experientially, where the dynamics of the research group are also material for study. After the MA stage there is a pathway to go on to complete the doctorate for those who want to, further developing the research that you will have done.
You will need to be prepared to read exhaustively, write reflexively, and talk with others in the group about your work until your head hurts.
The Complexity and Management Group at UH has over 25 years of experience and an international reputation for interdisciplinary research informed by insights from the complexity sciences.
Contents Preface Editor-in-Chief Editorial 4 Professor Frank Stowell 5 Articles Rethinking Boundaries to unite 11 Fragmented Schools: Systems Thinking as a Meta-School in Project Management for Addressing Existential Risks 8 Prof. Nigel Williams Processes. A View from Inside Prof. Lucia Urbani Ulivi & Primavera Fisogni 18 The Importance of Methods of Inquiry in the Digital age – a soft Systems perspective 31 Prof. Frank Stowell Living Systems and Systems Living Dr Daune West 46 Systems Thinking Applied to Environmental and Social Justice Ian Roderick 57 Mapping situations and interactions: reflections on a professional lifetime of systems thinking in practice 65 Prof. Andy Lane
What happens when we refuse the neat divisions that shape our worlds: body/mind, male/female, Black/white, professional/personal, human/AI??
The Spring 2025 issue of Murmurations: Journal of Transformative Systemic Practice gathers writing, poetry, video, and images that challenge the binaries that split our identities, our institutions, and our imaginations. Embedded in systemic, feminist, decolonial, and narrative practice, this issue speaks to the urgent need to rethink how we story race, gender, power, and possibility.
Murmurations: Journal of Transformative Systemic Practice
2025 Conference2025 Cornell University International Systems Thinking ConferenceConference Dates: May 1-2, 2025 OnlineConference Theme: Connect the Dots
I included the full main text here as I couldn’t work out where to cut it and it’s not long – responses please at the link and to Cameron]
I saw this diagram in my feed while thinking about Brian Marick’s recent Oddly Influenced podcast – https://lnkd.in/gSAHBmvP – about the way in which Winston Royce unwittingly misdirected his argument by the way he diagrammed what was then taken to be the ‘waterfall’ development process. I hassled Brian on Mastodon by saying that the problem is not diagrams, but diagramming without the expert help of an information designer. When non-designers, or non-expert or overly ‘modernist’ designers, diagram – in ways better than Bruno Latour https://lnkd.in/g3xNbTQB – they tend to fetishize symmetry. This ‘theory of change’ diagram made me wonder how many ‘theories’ have aspects that are a bit gratuitous but included to ensure the symmetry of the resulting diagram. Perhaps not every one of the three points in each of the three segments had to have two opposing dynamics? Perhaps one of the segments should actually only have one or two points in it, or five? To what extent has the diagram designed the theory rather than than diagram being designed to illustrate the theory?It made me wonder if anyone has ever seen a good ethnographic account of researchers developing diagrams of their research without using (expert) designers? I feel like there should have been something in the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge or STS world?Do also let me know if you see a well-designed conceptual diagram that looked like it was on the way to symmetry but then is conspicuously not symmetrical given the actual concepts being diagrammed.
[Toby Lowe mentioned this to me today and I notice that Tony Korycki is covering the same topic in the ‘warmup’ session at the SCiO open day on Monday:
https://www.systemspractice.org/resources/critical-social-learning-systems-inquiry-case-study-and-some-learning
Critical Social Learning Systems: an inquiry, case study and some learning
September 2022
Tony Korycki
https://thebrentc.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-hawkesbury-model-critical-social.html
Sunday, January 22, 2017
The Hawkesbury model: critical social learning systems
At Hawkesburg College in Australia, Bawden et al. explored rural issues experientially while studying these theoretically, in parallel. This is an example of praxis, and developed the critical social learning tradition (CSLS). They “synthesised many systems-related ideas”, demonstrating a multi-perspective approach (Blackmore, 2010, p. 35).
Key characteristics of the Hawkesbury tradition;
“Essentially”, a systemic approach (Bawden, 2009, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 39).
(see also “deeper structural causes”, Woodhill, 2002, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 58).
An explicit epistemology; valuing different kinds of knowledge and ways of knowing
An ethical dimension, based on a critical focus (cf. critical theory)
Systemic praxis; systemic being
(Blackmore, 2010, p. 36).
[and] “wholeness” and “complex messiness”; holistic “systemic well-being” (Blackmore, 2010, p. 97); including “wholeness through ‘tensions of difference'” (Blackmore, 2010, p. 41).
[and] “self-referential”; a learning process that appreciates itself (as well as the matter at hand); the “systemic development of systemic development” ((Bawden, 1999, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 43, 40).
[and] “meaning as an emergent property”; from the interactions of different ways of knowing / processes of learning (Bawden, 1999, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 44-)
[and] emphasis on social or collective learning (Bawden, 2009, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 89).
[and] self-transformation (of our worldviews, our “epistemes” aka Foucalt) (cf. Bawden, 2009, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 95-); self-critical ability (Bawden, 2009, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 93).
development of “systemic competencies” (Bawden, 1999, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 91);
https://www.academia.edu/36917658/An_introduction_to_Critical_Social_Learning_Systems
An introduction to Critical Social Learning Systems
Ras Albert Williams
This briefing paper is written for the attention of Ambassador Edward Lambert, who is the senior advisor to the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Dominica, Hon Dr Roosevelt Skerrit (Dominica, G. (2016). Ambassador Lambert is Dominica’s non-resident ambassador to the Holy See (Dominica News Online. 2015). He also sits on the Climate Resilience Execution Agency of Dominica’s (CREAD) transitional committee launched on March 12th, 2018 to oversee the reconstruction efforts (Dominica, G. 2018). My aim in this work, is to introduce the concept of Critical Social Learning Systems to you Ambassador Lambert as a tool the organisation may utilize to assist the country to ‘build back better’ and to share the principles of managing systemic change through action, interaction and systemic inquiry, and how these can improve the capabilities of all concerned. And perhaps more importantly, write these principles into the underlying meta-narrative of the country’s crusade to build back more resiliently.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299419360_Transforming_systems_The_Hawkesbury_initiatives_in_systemic_development
Transforming systems: The Hawkesbury initiatives in systemic development
January 2016South African Review of Sociology 47(1):99-116
DOI:10.1080/21528586.2015.1131192
Richard Bawden, Western Sydney University
Over a period of little more than 15 years, starting in the late 1970s, a small group of academics in the School of Agriculture at the Hawkesbury Agricultural College in Richmond, Australia developed and sustained a unique participative systemic experiential approach to rural development. Their approach came to identify the significance of the transformation of prevailing worldviews as the pre-requisite for transforming systems in the material and social worlds. From this perspective, participative research directed at social development was recognised essentially as a social critical and systemic learning process that represented the transformation of shared experiences (both real and imagined) into collective knowledge to inform responsible, consensual action. In this article, the writer, who was the designated leader of the group through that period, discusses the context, genesis, structure and potential significance of its multi-functional and multi-modal systemic learning approach to transformative development which is systemically inclusive of people and the rest of nature alike.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226053417_Messy_Issues_Worldviews_and_Systemic_Competencies
Messy Issues, Worldviews and Systemic Competencies
January 2010
DOI:10.1007/978-1-84996-133-2_6
In book: Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice (pp.89-101)
Richard Bawden, Western Sydney University
This chapter continues the story of the tradition of systemic praxis that emerged from Hawkesbury Agricultural College in Australia from the late 1970s. While critical social learning systems (CSLS) best describes this ongoing tradition at this present time of writing (2009), the concept of a critical learning system did not appear explicitly in the Hawkesbury literature until the mid nineties (Bawden, 1994). The seeds of this powerful notion however can be traced right back to the seminal papers describing the logic and organisation of the foundations of the initiatives in systems education at that institution (Bawden et al., 1984; Macadam and Bawden, 1985). Details of developments of the Hawkesbury initiatives over subsequent years appear in Bawden (2005) in which an extensive list of references to other publications that trace and describe intermediate developmental stages of the Hawkesbury endeavours, can also be found. While the word ‘social’ is not explicitly included in descriptions of the nature and development of critical learning systems in this endeavour, a strong emphasis on social or collective learning has been an essential feature of the initiative from the outset.
What this shows is perhaps (with views here from 1,211 to 205) this isn’t super widely read – though a couple hundred at least get it by email. Views are down 18% year-on-year, possibly fewer updates, most likely due to the ability to automate posting in various Facebook groups having been taken away (Facebook still the biggest referrer). Makes me regret that – and the same for LinkedIn groups, gone many years ago!
And if you look at these and the ‘bubbling under’ list:
…then what you see is a bunch of people googling for ‘classics’, and just a touch of me (and m’colleague @daviding) – which is probably as it should be…
[As a result of two rather messy Syscoi pieces on Kurt Lewin, here:
The myth of Kurt Lewin and the rhetoric of collective memory in social psychology textbooks – Billing (2015)
Is there an actual source for the Kurt Lewin quote “You cannot understand a system until you try to change it”?
…I was contacted by someone interested in Lewin and this topic to enquire about him, his influence, and how his legacy is now perceived. Lewin is quite a towering figure for me but these two (somewhat) misattributions do stand out, along with many misunderstandings and another (sort of ) misattribution of ‘unfreeze – change – refreeze’, covered by m’colleague @David Ing here:
I did my best to answer the query, but also got ChatGPT ‘deep research’ to do an overview and survey, based largely on the two first pieces above and other things I fed it. It’s ‘not bad’, so I thought I would share it below]
Kurt Lewin is often remembered through a handful of well-worn aphorisms, among them: “There is nothing so practical as a good theory” and “You cannot understand a system until you try to change it.” These phrases have taken on lives of their own, appearing in psychology, management, systems thinking, and organisational development. But their origins and uses reveal a more complex, nuanced—and often misunderstood—figure.
### The story of two famous quotes
The aphorism “There is nothing so practical as a good theory” was indeed used by Lewin in the 1940s. However, as Arthur Bedeian (2016) has shown, Lewin did not coin it. He first cited it as a saying of “a businessman” in a 1943 lecture, and only later adopted it more freely. The saying itself predates him by decades, appearing in German educational theory in the 19th century (Friedrich W. Dörpfeld, 1873) and in a 1920s General Electric advertisement (Daily Nebraskan, Nov. 1920).
Despite this, the quote resonated with Lewin’s deep belief that theory and practice must inform each other. His field theory, action research, and work on group dynamics were all premised on the idea that theoretical insight must be practically tested, and that real-world problems are sources of scientific innovation.
The second quote, “You cannot understand a system until you try to change it,” is even more ambiguous. No direct source ties it to Lewin, and it appears to have circulated informally before surfacing in a 1996 volume of *Problems of Theoretical Psychology*. There, it is attributed to Lewin by Charles Tolman (p. 31), but without citation. Henderikus J. Stam also quotes it in the same volume, suggesting it reflects Lewin’s ethos. Variants have been attributed to others: Edgar Schein, Russell Ackoff, Urie Bronfenbrenner. Yet its popularity points to how powerfully Lewin’s legacy shapes systems thinking.
### Lewin’s broader intellectual legacy
Far more than just a source of slogans, Lewin was a foundational thinker whose ideas helped shape social psychology, organisational behaviour, and educational practice. His intellectual contributions include:
**Field theory**: Human behaviour is understood as a function of the total psychological field (or “life space”) in which the person exists. This is often summarised by his formula: *B = f(P, E)*—behaviour is a function of the person and their environment.
**The life space**: The psychological environment, including both objective and perceived elements, that surrounds an individual. It includes needs, goals, memories, and social pressures—all existing as dynamic vectors.
**Force field analysis**: A model for understanding change processes, particularly in organisations. Lewin identified driving forces and restraining forces that either push change forward or hold it back. Change requires unfreezing the status quo, moving to a new state, and then refreezing to stabilise the new conditions.
**Gatekeeping**: Introduced in Lewin’s 1943 study on food habits, this concept describes how decisions (originally about what food reached the family table) are made through “gates” controlled by individuals—gatekeepers—who filter options. This was later extended to mass communication (e.g. David White, 1950) to describe how editors select what becomes news.
**Aufforderungscharakter (demand quality)**: Lewin’s concept refers to the inherent affordance or invitation that an object or situation presents to an individual. A chair invites sitting; a staircase, climbing. He emphasised that these were not mere subjective projections but features of the environment dynamically perceived.
**Action research**: A method developed by Lewin for social experimentation that involves iterative cycles of planning, action, and reflection, typically in collaboration with practitioners. The aim is to solve real-world problems while simultaneously contributing to theory.
**T-groups (Training groups)**: Lewin’s workshops on group behaviour evolved into the first T-groups, where participants explore interpersonal relations in real time. These later influenced encounter groups and much of the organisational development field. Though Lewin died in 1947, his colleagues—Lippitt, Bradford, Benne—developed the National Training Laboratories (NTL) approach based on this foundation.
### Gestalt roots and holistic psychology
Lewin was heavily influenced by Gestalt psychology, which emphasised that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Rather than treating behaviour as the result of isolated stimuli and responses, Lewin viewed it as arising from a dynamic field of tensions and forces. This led to his insistence that psychological events must be understood in their total context.
His influence extended into psychotherapy via Gestalt therapy, developed by Fritz and Laura Perls, who integrated Lewin’s field theory and emphasis on the “here and now”. Lewin’s concepts of life space, tension systems, and dynamic fields became key underpinnings of later therapeutic approaches.
### Myth, memory, and distortion
Over time, much of Lewin’s work has been oversimplified. His three-stage change model—unfreeze, change, refreeze—is frequently cited in management literature. Yet Bridgman, Cummings, and Brown (2016) have shown that this triad was never presented by Lewin in such a formulaic way. It was a post hoc abstraction by later authors such as Schein and French & Bell, and arguably a distortion. Lewin saw change as iterative and context-dependent, not a linear mechanical process.
Similarly, slogans like “there is nothing so practical as a good theory” and “try to change it to understand it” have become mantras, cited without context or interrogation. Michael Billig (2015) has argued that social psychology textbooks often present Lewin in mythic terms, using such quotes to legitimise a particular vision of applied science, while ignoring Lewin’s own critical and philosophical concerns.
Leendert P. Mos, in the same *Problems of Theoretical Psychology* volume (1996), adds his own gloss: “Good theory is practical (Kurt Lewin), but practical theory enables change!” He also revisits Lewin’s concept of “demand quality” in that chapter. Mos’s essay illustrates how Lewin’s ideas are sometimes updated or extended in contemporary theoretical discourse.
### Forgotten ideas with current relevance
Many of Lewin’s most powerful concepts—demand quality, gatekeeping, the tension system, quasi-stationary equilibrium—are underused today. His holistic, contextual approach has been overtaken in some quarters by behaviourism, cognitive psychology, or modular models of mind. Yet his insights remain highly relevant:
In a time of complexity and interdependence, Lewin’s field theory offers a way to think about systems as dynamic, interpenetrating fields.
His demand quality anticipates ecological psychology and has implications for human-centred design.
Gatekeeping remains vital for understanding media, institutional filters, and decision bottlenecks.
His iterative, participatory action research approach is increasingly vital for real-world inquiry in education, health, and organisational change.
### Implications
What can we learn from this? The story of Lewin’s quotes and concepts is a parable about the dangers of simplification and the power of myth. Quotes attributed to him are not necessarily his, and the ones he did use may not mean what we now assume. Yet the persistence of these ideas reflects our need for practical wisdom that links theory and action.
Lewin remains a model of what it means to be a scholar-practitioner: rigorous, engaged, creative, and always testing theory in the field. To understand him properly, we must do what he did—look at the whole field, challenge received wisdom, and not be afraid to interfere with the system in order to learn how it works.
### References
Billig, M. (2015). The myth of Kurt Lewin and the rhetoric of collective memory in social psychology textbooks. *Theory & Psychology*, 25(6), 703–718.
Bedeian, A. G. (2016). A note on the aphorism “There is nothing as practical as a good theory.” *Journal of Management History*, 22(2), 236–242.
Bridgman, T., Cummings, S., & Brown, K. G. (2016). Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management. *Human Relations*, 69(1), 33–60.
Stam, H. J. (1996). Theorizing health and illness: Problems with the problematizing of psychology. In C. W. Tolman et al. (Eds.), *Problems of Theoretical Psychology*. Captus Press.
Mos, L. P. (1996). Psychology and the logic of the sacred. In C. W. Tolman et al. (Eds.), *Problems of Theoretical Psychology*. Captus Press.
Tolman, C. W. (Ed.). (1996). *Problems of Theoretical Psychology*. Captus Press.
Daily Nebraskan (1920). Advertisement by General Electric Company.
Dörpfeld, F. W. (1873). *Grundlinien einer Theorie des Lehrplans*.
White, D. M. (1950). The “Gatekeeper”: A case study in the selection of news. *Journalism Quarterly*, 27, 383–390.
Systems Community of Inquiry 
You must be logged in to post a comment.