A Thought Piece from the CSS communityHolistic Flexibility for Systems Thinking and PracticeMy book, Holistic Flexibility for Systems Thinking and Practice, was published last year by Routledge under the Systems Thinking book series, edited by Professor Gerald Midgley. In this book, I present an evolved version of Holistic Flexibility, a conceptual lens that I introduced in 2019 to give systems thinking a cognitive character.The five principles of Holistic Flexibility are as follows:System as becoming suggests a dynamic approach based on the negotiation of boundaries, appreciation of interrelationships and cognizance of emergence.Transformative flexibility based on the trilogy of flexibility in cognition, formulation and substantiation.Responsible practice aimed at addressing problems holistically, meaningfully and sustainably touching both human and non-human dimensions.Spiral of learning embraces single-, double- and triple-loop learning to enhance efficiency, effectiveness and value-centricity, respectively.Pragmatic artistry embraces pragmatism as necessary in dynamic situations and artistry, requiring understanding, elegance and poise.My latest book covers theories and selected case studies that have been developed through my research and practice in Holistic Flexibility. In my research journey, I typically adopted one of the three approaches as listed:Concept development: Concept development has been central to my work. Concepts contribute to direct one’s thoughts and understanding and in grasping complex ideas, and thereby they play an important role in cognition (Carey, 1991). I have relied on an interpretive model (Branch and Rocchi, 2015) of concept development through the collection and analysis of qualitative data – both primary and secondary. The concepts that I have presented, predominantly draw from the case studies that I have discussed in this and my previous book.Case study: The case studies narrate my experience of iterative problem- structuring and problem- solving. My own involvement in the projects, covered in the cases, helped me understand complex social and organizational dynamics in real- life situations and narrate them from a personal perspective. The style in which the case studies are written align with, what Ormerod (2014) would call, “mangle of OR practice” touching upon the dynamic intertwining of material, human and cultural factors leading to personal and experience- based insights.Action research: The case studies presented highlight an action research approach, where the distinction between research and action is overcome (Coghlan and Brannick, 2005). I adopted the nature of what Schön (1983, 1987) calls, a “reflective practitioner” capturing the characteristics of both knowing- in- action and reflection- in- action as a continual process. Action research led me to engage closely with stakeholders that enabled me to understand and document organizational/ social realities and sensitivities.I open the book by setting the context to the discussions presented. I talk about the journey of systems thinking and establish a position for Holistic Flexibility as a conceptual lens that pragmatizes the discipline. Holistic Flexibility takes systems thinking beyond methodologies, frameworks, and prescriptions to pragmatize systems practice. I go on to present a selection of case studies, from my first-hand experience, that demonstrates Holistic Flexibility in practice. The case studies highlight the creative and flexible application of frameworks and methodologies towards achieving systemic outcomes. The discussions help in building towards my argument that systems thinking can be regarded as a cognitive skill. The first three case studies demonstrate the evident application of systems methodologies. This is followed by three other case studies, where I argue for systems thinking to be considered a cognitive skill that does not need be methodology dependent. To demonstrate my argument, I present interventions that were influenced by a systemic mindset and where no systems methodologies are deployed. In the final part of my book, I present a critique of contemporary systems thinking and argue for the necessity of a possible future direction for systems research under the banner of what, I call, conscious systemic leadership (CSL). I highlight a set of research questions that emerge as a result of my auto- critique of the arguments that I have presented in this book.Holistic Flexibility can serve as an inspiration for practitioners to thread disparate strands with analysis and logic and yet transcend the same through lateral thinking and relationality. However, this will not be easy as practitioners are susceptible to the dominant worldviews that pressurize them to think and act with a reductionist and isolationist mindset. Considering the five principles of Holistic Flexibility for systems thinking as a cognitive skill, ten behaviors have been deciphered as a guidance for practitioners. A note on the impeding challenges that practitioners are most likely to face in this journey and how these can be overcome are also provided.Through my discussions, I have argued that the conceptual lens of Holistic Flexibility helps to deploy systems thinking as a cognitive skill, thereby pragmatizing the discipline. Drawing from the influence of the works of Alexander Bogdanov, Charles Sanders Pierce, William James, and John Dewey, among others, Jackson (2023) argues that systems thinking is founded on pragmatist thinking. Holistic Flexibility seeks to catalyze such conversations that argue for a pragmatic stance in systems thinking.I welcome systems thinkers and practitioners to read my book and engage with the possibilities of further research that I have articulated in the last chapter. New perspectives and advancements are particularly important at a time when we see a growing popularity of systems thinking.Rajneesh Chowdhury Rajneesh.Chowdhury@hull.ac.ukReferencesBranch, J. and Rocchi, F. (2015). Concept development: A primer. Philosophy of Management, 14(2), pp. 111– 133. https:// doi.org/ 10.1007/ s40 926- 015- 0011- 9Carey, S. (1991). Knowledge acquisition: Enrichment or conceptual change? In: Carey, S. and Gelman, R. (Eds.) The Epigenesis of Mind: Essays on Biology and Cognition, pp. 257– 291. London and New York: Routledge.Chowdhury, R. (2024). Holistic Flexibility for Systems Thinking and Practice. London and New York: Routledge.Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. (2005). Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization. London: Sage.Jackson, M. C. (2023). Pragmatism and critical systems thinking: Back to the future of systems thinking. Integration and Implementation Insights. https:// i2i nsig hts.org/ 2023/ 04/ 04/ pra gmat ism- and- criti cal- syst ems- think ing/ amp/ [accessed 10 May 2023]Ormerod, R. J. (2014). The mangle of OR practice: Towards more informative case studies of ‘technical’ projects. Journal of the Operations Research Society, 65(8), pp. 1245– 1260. https:// doi.org/ 10.1057/ jors.2013.78Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Hoboken (NJ): Jossey Bass. https:// doi.org/ 10.1002/ chp.475 0090 207Contribution from the CSS PhD communityStudent Thought Piece: A Social-Ecological-Technical Systems (SETs) approach? I have recently discovered Donella Meadows et al. (2004) and her book ‘Limits to Growth – the 30-year update’. As I am sure you will all know, the authors talk about the interconnectedness of social, ecological, and technological systems and how dynamic interaction influences global development, sustainability, and planetary limits. I thoroughly enjoyed discovering about the Gaia principles of James Lovelock in my undergrad work therefore the writing of Meadows et al. (2004) resonates with my thinking that Earth should, by and large, be considered a single living organism with multiple interacting and interconnected systems. Indeed, many systems researchers have evidenced this holistic approach in their own work (Rockström et al., 2009; Jackson, 2019).I am an early career researcher, and my research explores the use of Digital Agricultural Technology (DAT) to sustainably manage crops and soil carbon (University of Hull, 2023). My background is chemical testing, quality management systems and quality auditing but I was given complete autonomy about how to research my topic and quite frankly, like a kid in a sweetshop, I didn’t know where to start. I was drawn to the work of my close friend who was deep into systems thinking, after all, thinking in systems was second nature to me – everything was a system! So, I started to investigate some different approaches. Although my previous life was sat firmly in a positivist paradigm, my research was social science based and very much qualitative analysis in the interpretivist paradigm. Hence, I became very confused; until a lifeline was thrown my way.Someone suggested I should use a socio-technological systems (STS) approach. I thought this was a great idea and with further investigation it seemed to fit well. STS would look at the interactions between the humans and the technologies and the development of that working ‘relationship’ (Ropohl, 1999). As I progressed this line of reasoning, I couldn’t help feeling something was missing – a key component wasn’t considered! The literature review we completed looked at the adoption of DAT’s. It told me that DAT’s were not adopted for several reasons including Technological, Economic, Socio-demographic, political, cultural, and Environmental Factors. And there it was – the environment! An STS approach in my opinion and for my research failed to take the environment into consideration. Not only does the environment being the ‘thing’ that the farmer-DAT system would be working in, but as an interacting ‘thing’ that could assist and, in some cases, resist the interaction of the farmer and their DAT on the land, thereby affecting the desired output. I could only assume that this was the part that was missing for me.Further reading brought me to Social-Ecological-Technical systems (SETs) (Andersson et al., 2024; Barnes et al., 2024) and thence to Donella Meadows et al. (2004) and the interconnectedness of social, ecological, and technological systems. A SETs approach has been used by authors to explore human social and technological system activity and its impact on ecological systems, such as resource depletion, pollution, and biodiversity loss, and how these in turn feedback into social and economic systems. There is an emphasis on the importance of understanding these systems’ feedback loops and unsystematic behaviours to make informed decisions for a sustainable future. An approach like this would fit with my research approach into determining how farmers have implemented DAT’s into their soil management processes (Figure 1), however, as far as I can determine, this approach has mainly been used for urban ecosystem services.In summary, my question for this newsletter is: Could a SETs approach be useful for rural systems too?I welcome any comments and guidance from the CSS community as I explore this further in my PhD research. Please email contact me at:Louise Morton c.l.morton-2021@hull.ac.uk ReferencesAndersson, J., Lennerfors, T. T. C Fornstedt, H. (2024) Towards a socio-techno-ecological approach to sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 51, 100846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2024.100846Barnes, M. R., Friell, J., Runck, B. C., Soldat, D. J., Watkins, E. C Yue, C. (2024) Cultivating connections: Framing turfgrass as a thriving social-ecological-technological system. Crop Science. https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.21387Jackson, M. C. (2019) Critical systems thinking and the management of complexity. John Wiley & Sons.Meadows, D. H., Randers, J. C Meadows, D. L. (2004) Limits to growth: the 30-year update. Translated from English by, 3rd rev., expand and updated edition. Chelsea Green.Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin III, F. S., Lambin, E., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C. C Schellnhuber, H. J. (2009) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and society, 14(2).Ropohl, G. (1999) Philosophy of socio-technical systems. Society for Philosophy and Technology Ǫuarterly Electronic Journal, 4(3), 186-194.University of Hull (2023) RESEARCH: Environmental technologies and their implications (ETFS).https://www.hull.ac.uk/work-with-us/research/groups/environmental-technologies-and-foodsystems-etfs |
You must be logged in to post a comment.