Open Thinkering

Menu

Month: August 2024

TB871: The ‘eternal triangle’ of systemic triangulation in CSH

Posted on by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category. 

Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) is a systems thinking approach that contrasts ‘systems’ vs ‘reality’ and provides 12 boundary questions to help build a reference system. In this post, I’m going to discuss the ‘systemic triangulation’ involved in creating a reference system.

Triangle labelled as "The 'eternal triangle'" with the following at each of the three points: Factual judgements, Value judgements, Boundary judgements

We have thus three sets of judgements that condition the ways we conceive of situations and systems: factual judgements, value judgements and boundary judgements. Judgements of fact and judgements of value are often said to be interdependent, but it usually remains unclear what exactly that means and how it is to be explained. CSH gives us a precise explanation: ‘facts’ and ‘values’ depend on one another as both are conditioned by the same boundary judgements. For example, when we expand our boundary judgements regarding what belongs to the relevant situation (say, when we recognise a previously ignored condition of success), previously ignored facts may become relevant; but in the light of new facts, our value judgements may suddenly look different and need revision. Similarly, when our value judgements change, we will need to revise our boundary judgements accordingly, and in consequence new or different facts become relevant.

CSH refers to this triadic interplay of reference system, relevant facts and values as an eternal triangle that we need to think through, and to its methodological employment for critical purposes as systemic triangulation (Ulrich 2000, p. 251f; 2003, p. 334; 2005, p. 6; and 2017).

(Reynolds & Ulrich, 2020, p.296)

The idea with systemic triangulation is to gain a deeper understanding of the selectivity of various claims within a reference system. It’s a form of ‘stepping back’ from one’s reference system to appreciate other perspectives. Ulrich and Reynolds suggest that this ushers in what they call a “new ethos of professional responsibility” for systems practice, measuring claims “not by the impossible avoidance of justification deficits but by the degree to which we deal with such deficits in a transparent, self-critical and self-limiting way” (Ibid., pp.297-8).

Example: Curriculum development

Consider the process of developing a national educational curriculum. Those responsible for the curriculum may initially focus on achieving high academic standards and promoting social unity. Their decisions are guided by value judgements, such as academic excellence and the creation of a cohesive society.

The factual judgments made during this process are informed by research on educational outcomes and the effectiveness of various teaching methods. These ‘facts’ are not objective but are interpreted in the light of the developers’ values.

Boundary judgments also play an important role here. Initially, the curriculum might only consider its direct impact on students, such as improving test scores. However, if the scope is broadened to include wider societal impacts, such as cultural inclusivity and relevance, the picture changes. New facts then come to light, like the need to represent diverse cultural perspectives within the curriculum. This shift in boundaries can lead to significant revisions in both the content of the curriculum and the way it is delivered.

This example illustrates how changes in boundary judgments can alter the facts and values considered, ultimately shaping the outcomes of the curriculum development process.

What I, personally, like about CSH is that it clearly demonstrates the importance of context. For example, the ‘eternal triangle’ shows that the maps, diagrams, and other things we produce as a result of systems thinking, cannot be better than the understanding we have the context of a situation. We can be the most experienced and credentialed person in the world, but without that understanding, without being open and honest with ourselves and others about our assumptions and biases, we’re unlikely to be of help. As Ulrich and Reynolds put it, this encourages what they call “methodological modesty” (Ibid., p.299).

References

  • Reynolds, M. and Ulrich, W. (2020) ‘Critical Systems Heuristics: The Idea and Practice of Boundary Critique’ in Reynolds, M. and Holwell, S. (eds.) Systems Approaches to Making Change: A Practical Guide, 2nd edn, London: Springer-Verlag, pp. 255-300.

TB871: Systemic boundary critique in CSH

Posted on by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category. 

In my last post, I discussed Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) and the way that its originator, Werner Ulrich, explicitly contrasts ‘systems’ (maps, designs, models) with ‘reality’. In a post before that, I compared the way that CSH and Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) deal with boundaries.

In this post, I’m going to explore the notion of CSH as a ‘reference system’ and go a bit deeper into what we talk about when we talk about ‘boundary judgements’. Note that I’m going to avoid getting sidetracked into philosophical discussions about whether using CSH means taking a realist stance.

CSH as a reference system

A reference system is ‘the context that matters when it comes to assessing the merits and defects of a proposition’

(Ulrich, 2000, p.251, quoted in Reynolds & Ulrich, 2020, p.266)

Unlike SSM and other approaches where the focus is more on boundary setting, the purpose of CSH is on boundary surfacing and review. By asking the 12 questions that serve as the boundary critique, we can be more aware and reflect on boundary assumptions.

Black and white diagram showing stick figure with thought bubble "Reference system: "a context that matters (to me/us/others) in assessing a systems map or design". A arrow goes to and from the statement "Problem situation: a multiplicity of alternative contexts (conceptions of the relevant territory) that might matter (to me/us/others)
System and situation in ‘critical’ systems thinking (Reynolds & Ulrich, 2020, p.268)

Systemic boundary critique

Boundary critique is a process of ‘unfolding’ meaning that it involves making ourselves and others aware of the boundary judgements assumed in relation to the 12 boundary questions that I mentioned in my initial overview post about CSH. This is both a critical and self-critical approach (Ibid.).

In addition, questioning boundary judgements in a systematic way using the 12 questions helps highlight their adequacy in terms of relevance, justification, and ethical defensibility (Ibid., p.269). We’re required to analyse actual and possible consequences for all stakeholders and impacted groups, and to question what it means to ‘improve’ the situation. For whom? Based on what view of the world?

CSM makes explicit what are called four ‘sources of selectivity’ in a reference system: sources of motivation, control, knowledge, and legitimacy. Figuring these out helps answer the question “What exactly does the intervention claim to achieve and what are its built-in limitations, that is, the assumptions and conditions on which its ‘success’ depends?” (Ibid., p.271)

The idea isn’t to have a ‘perfect’ reference system with ‘correct’ boundary judgements. Rather, the aim of CSM is to highlight that boundary judgements are being made — and could be made differently.

Not unlike a good map, a good process of decision-making should make transparent the boundary judgements on which the claims to be decided upon rely. Likewise, it should shed light on how different these claims may look in the light of alternative boundary judgements. In short, when we subject
a claim to ‘boundary questioning’, we examine its consequences in the light of alternative sets of boundary judgements (those assumed in the claim as well as options).

(Reynolds & Ulrich, 2020, p.275)

Reference systems, with their boundary judgements, serve as a way to reflect and engage in dialogue with others. Where are the areas of agreement or discrepancy?

Black and white diagram with two stick figues. A thought bubble contains the words "Multiple reference systems: "different context that matter to you and me/us/them"." There is an arrow going to and from the words: "Consequences: a debated multiplicity of options for assessing and modifying a claim"
Boundary discourse: a form of boundary questioning (Reynolds & Ulrich, 2020, p.277)

There is likely to be some form of conflict or tension between reference systems which have been created by different individuals or groups. The reflection and discourse that arises from this is important. As West Churchman noted: “we have to maintain the contradiction or else we allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by the consistent” (Churchman 1968/79, p. 229/230, quoted in Reynolds & Ulrich, 2020, p.258).

Final thoughts

It’s important to note that boundary judgements are not set in stone. The whole point of them is to keep them under review and to see them as provisional and fluid. As such, we can talk about ‘systematic iteration’ of boundary judgements when new information comes along. Instead of merely trying to absorb this new information, and continue with our existing understanding of a situation, given the interdependence of boundary judgements, we may well need to revise our reference system entirely (Ibid., p.294)

References

  • Reynolds, M. and Ulrich, W. (2020) ‘Critical Systems Heuristics: The Idea and Practice of Boundary Critique’ in Reynolds, M. and Holwell, S. (eds.) Systems Approaches to Making Change: A Practical Guide, 2nd edn, London: Springer-Verlag, pp. 255-300.

TB871: Systems vs Reality in CSH

Posted on by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category. 

An intricate illustration depicting the transition from a detailed map on the left, through a simplified blueprint in the center, to an abstract 3D model on the right. The map shows natural features like rivers and mountains, the blueprint reduces these to lines and geometric shapes, and the 3D model further abstracts them into simple forms. The background transitions from a detailed terrain pattern on the left to a grid pattern on the right, symbolizing the increasing level of abstraction from reality.

The methodology I used for my doctoral thesis was Pragmatism, a philosophical tradition which asks questions such as what is “good in the way of belief” (William James) and considers ‘truth’ as being that which a community of inquirers would settle upon at the end of inquiry (C.S. Peirce).

As I explore Critical System Heuristics (CSH) it’s interesting to see that the originator, Werner Ulrich, was influenced by the same tradition:

[A]n important heuristic device of CSH [si] the idea of maintaining tensions between contrasting perspectives for critical purposes: “we have to maintain the contradiction or else we allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by the consistent” (Churchman, 1968/79, p. 229/230).

The second main tradition picked up in CSH is the tradition of practical philosophy. This comprises two largely independent strands of philosophical thought. On the one hand, there is the tradition of American philosophical pragmatism as rooted in the works of Charles Peirce (1878), William James (1907) and John Dewey (1925). On the other hand, there is the European tradition of critical social theory as found particularly in the works of Jurgen Habermas (e.g. 1972 and 1984/87). Both strands of practical philosophy are to an important degree rooted in Immanuel Kant’s (1787) critical philosophy, from which CSH derives many of its central concepts… The ‘American’ pragmatic perspective of CSH means that it is oriented towards practical rather than theoretical ends; accordingly, CSH employs an action-theoretical framework, that is, it looks at situations from the point of view of an agent rather than an observer. Its ‘European’ critical perspective means that CSH considers values – and value conflicts – as integral parts of all claims to rational practice; it relies on a discourse-theoretical (or ‘discursive’) framework to assist users in dealing openly and critically with the value implications of boundary judgements… The aim is to develop the two pillars of pragmatism and critique into an integrated framework of critical pragmatism, as a basis for a future ‘philosophy for professionals’ (Ulrich, 2006a, b, c, 2007/16).

(Reynolds & Ulrich, 2020, p.259)

I’m listening to Rory Stewart’s BBC Radio 4 series on The Long History of Ignorance at the moment, and it’s a perfect primer for people who want to take their very first steps into Systems Thinking. It explains why knowledge is useful, but opening the door to not-knowing, and ‘ignorance’ is useful for solving complex problems.

The point of departure for a critical systems approach as CSH understands it lies in the simple notion that the findings and conclusions of all approaches, methodologies, and methods, whether described in systems terms or not, are partial in the dual sense of (i) representing only a selection rather than the
whole of the total universe of possibly relevant considerations, and of (ii) serving some parties better than others (Ulrich 2002, p. 41; 2005, p. 2). No specific proposal, no decision, no action, no system can get a total grip on the situation and get it right for everyone (Reynolds 2008a). The implication is that using a ‘systems approach’ requires us (i) to consider systematically what our systems maps or designs may leave out and (ii) to always examine these maps or designs from multiple perspectives.

(Ibid.)

Without providing ready-made step-by-step guidelines, CSH nevertheless helps us avoid three ‘traps’ to thinking that I’ve written about elsewhere: reductionism (i.e. narrow mindedness), dogmatism (i.e. an inability to appreciate other viewpoints), and the combination of holism and pluralism (i.e. presuming complete comprehensiveness and tolerance of all views). CSH is particularly good at helping avoid the last of these (The Open University, 2020a).

Two modes: ‘is’ and ‘ought’

Just like the Viable System Model (VSM), it’s possible to use CSH to evaluate an intervention (no matter which methodology has been used) or to inform a methodology to be used for an intervention. We can compare and contrast these as ‘is’ mode and ‘ought’ mode:

  • ‘Is’ mode invites reflection and discourse about what the situation is. This is the descriptive analytical mode of questioning that relies principally on factual judgements.
  • ‘Ought’ mode invites reflection and discourse about what the situation should be. This is the normative design mode of questioning that relies principally on value judgements.

(The Open University, 2020b)

Systems vs Reality

One of the traps that I now see people making, and especially in my work with clients through WAO, is that they see things like org charts and workflows as real things that exist in the world. They are, of course, constructs. Power does not always work in the way that an org chart describes, and work does not always happen in the way that a workflow describes.

Ulrich & Reynolds put this quite starkly, explaining that:

Acknowledging the fundamental divide between systems and reality is basic to contemporary systems practice.

(Reynolds & Ulrich, 2020, p.263)

Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and CSH both view systems this way. However, they handle this idea differently. SSM encourages practitioners to create systems models and then compare these models to the real-world problem they are trying to solve. The goal is to reflect on the system and see how well it fits with reality. CSH, on the other hand, challenges the very idea of what we consider the ‘problematical situation’real-world problem’.

Instead of just comparing the system model to reality, CSH asks us to question our assumptions about the problem itself. It suggests that the distinction between the ‘system’ and the ‘situation’ isn’t a clear-cut difference between what we know (concept) and what actually exists (reality). Rather, both are ways of talking about reality, and both involve selecting certain aspects of reality while ignoring others. Therefore, both our system models and our understanding of the problem are shaped by our judgments and assumptions, and neither can fully capture reality in an objective way.

Ways of thinking about reality

Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) uses three terms—maps, designs, and models—to describe different ways of thinking about reality, each with varying closeness to the real world (Ibid.)

  1. Maps: closest to reality, representing real-world features, like road maps or diagrams in science. A good map accurately reflects a part of reality but also clearly states its limitations, such as its scale or symbols. Importantly, we should remember that a map is not the actual reality, just a representation of it.
  2. Designs: less direct than maps, focusing on how things could or should be in the future. They help us envision changes or improvements to reality, offering a critical view of the present. Designs show us alternative possibilities, often challenging the current state of things.
  3. Models: a broader term that includes both maps and designs. Models are tools for thinking about reality, emphasising the idea that they simplify and abstract from the real world. A model isn’t about being close to reality but about helping us understand or design it better. (CSH itself is a type of model used for reflective thinking.)

The key idea in CSH is that whether we’re talking about maps, designs, or models, we must remember they are all just ways of representing reality, not reality itself. Even our perception of reality is like a map —a representation, not the actual thing. CSH suggests that everything we know is essentially a form of mapping or designing, and these tools vary in how abstract or detailed they are.

In summary, maps are close representations of reality, designs are ideas for how reality could change, and models are general tools for thinking about reality. All of these are abstractions, and we must be careful not to confuse them with reality itself. Maps and designs can’t be validated or tested against ‘the situation’ because there is no objective reality of ‘the situation’ against which to test it. What can be done, however, is to use the differences between maps (or designs) to help us reflect on how underlying judgements have led to different models (Ibid., p.264).

References

Image: DALL-E 3

css.php