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.
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.
Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) is a framework developed by Werner Ulrich in the 1980s, based on the work of C. West Churchman. It is a useful tool within the field of systems thinking that is particularly concerned with the ethical and political dimensions of decision-making and the boundaries within which those decisions are made. The approach is both reflective and discursive, offering a structured way to critically evaluate the assumptions and boundary judgments underlying any analysis or decision-making process.
CSH takes the form of a ‘reference system’ based on ‘boundary judgements’. These are arranged so that four sources of influence are mapped against three stakeholder attributes to make a 4×3 grid:
Taken from TB871 module materials (The Open University, 2020a)
This all seems a bit abstract before you have a particular focus. The case study in the module materials is of the ‘gig economy’ — something which was presented originally as allowing for ‘market flexibility’ but which has proved to be a lot more problematic and nuanced than perhaps first envisaged. While laws have been brought in to limit the negative impact of ‘zero-hour contracts’ on workers in the EU and the UK, that is not true in other countries.
Taken from TB871 module materials (The Open University, 2020b)
If I think about this from the point of view of my system of interest, ‘a system to support lifelong learning’ — which I’m conceptualising as being in a library setting — then we get something like the grid below. Note that the approach of ‘unfolding’ means going down row-by-row, starting with the ‘Stakes’ and moving to ‘Stakeholders’ before thinking about ‘Stakeholdings’.
9. Guarantor (assurance of resource quality and relevance)
The involved
Sources of Legitimacy Who suffers what?
10. Marginalised groups (people with limited access to education and opportunities)
11. Emancipation (ensuring equitable access to space and resources)
12. Worldview (commitment to inclusive education and lifelong learning)
The affected
CSH is a technique for helping decide what is in scope, or to use systems thinking language, where to draw a boundary. There will always be a balance between who is included and excluded, and the idea with CSH is to provide a way to do so with “ethical and political astuteness” (The Open University, 2020c).
As with other approaches, CSH can be used in descriptive mode (i.e. ‘what is the situation?’) or in normative mode (i.e. ‘what ought to be the situation?’). This means that we can either focus on how we understand the actual reality surrounding an intervention, or on the characteristics an intervention ought to have in the ideal world (Ibid.).
The above example of ‘a system to support lifelong learning’ in a library setting is an example of using CSH in a normative way, as it is focusing on what ought to be the situation. We’re outlining the ideal characteristics that the system should have to meet the needs of all stakeholders effectively and ethically.
For example:
The Stakeholders are identified based on their ideal roles in supporting lifelong learning (e.g., library users, librarians, educational experts)
The Stakes outline the key concerns these stakeholders should ideally focus on to ensure the system supports lifelong learning effectively.
The Stakeholdings column identifies the key problems or criteria that should be addressed to ensure the system functions optimally and equitably, reflecting the ideal characteristics of the system.
If we were to fill out the grid in a descriptive mode, the focus would shift to describing the current reality—what roles stakeholders currently play, what concerns they have in practice, and what the actual issues or challenges are within the existing system. The descriptions would be based on the current state of the system, rather than on an ideal or aspirational state.
Let’s have a go at how that grid might look different using a descriptive rather than normative approach, bearing in mind that I’m currently composing this post in the ‘study space’ of my local library. Not only does it have restricted opening hours, but it is taken over every Friday morning for a community event for older people.
Sources of Influence
Stakeholders (Social Roles)
Stakes (Specific Concerns)
Stakeholdings (Key Problems)
Groups
Sources of Motivation Who gets what?
1. Library (managers, council officials, administrators)
2. Purpose: (increase library footfall and community engagement due to funding pressures)
3. Measure of Success (measured by footfall and event participation, not necessarily by the quality of the study environment or educational outcomes)
The involved
Sources of Control Who owns what?
4. Library staff, event organisers
5. Resources: (limited space and budget constraints dictate how resources are allocated)
6. Decision Environment (decisions are driven by the need to justify funding through high attendance figures, often at the cost of providing quiet study spaces)
The involved
Sources of Knowledge Who does what?
7. Event coordinators, community engagement officers
8. Expertise (focus on community outreach and event planning, with less emphasis on the needs of students and quiet learners)
9. Guarantor (assurance of community engagement over the traditional library function of providing a conducive study environment)
The involved
Sources of Legitimacy Who suffers what?
10. Library users, particularly students and quiet learners
11. Emancipation (conflict arises between different user groups, such as elderly social groups vs. students needing study space)
12. Worldview (the library is seen more as a community hub than a study space, which undermines its traditional role as a learning environment)
The affected
We can then compare the normative and descriptive grids (“is versus ought”)
Taken from TB871 module materials (The Open University, 2020c)
Applying this to my system of interest:
Sources of Influence
Stakeholder (Social Role)
Stake (Role Concern)
Stakeholding Issue (Key Problem)
Sources of Motivation Who gets what?
‘Ought’: Library users, especially students and learners who need quiet spaces
‘Ought’: Provide equitable access to resources for lifelong learning
‘Ought’: Success should be measured by learning outcomes and user satisfaction, not just footfall
‘Is’: Library managers, council officials
‘Is’: Increase library footfall and community engagement due to funding pressures
‘Is’: Success is measured by footfall and event participation, not necessarily by the quality of the study environment or educational outcomes
Critique ‘is’ against ‘ought’: Funding pressures have shifted focus away from educational outcomes to sheer numbers, which might not align with the library’s original purpose.
Sources of Control Who owns what?
‘Ought’: Library staff should have the autonomy to allocate resources based on user needs, prioritizing study spaces
‘Ought’: Resources should be allocated to balance community engagement with the needs of learners
‘Ought’: Decisions should prioritize a quiet study environment and equitable resource distribution
‘Is’: Library staff, event organisers
‘Is’: Limited space and budget constraints dictate how resources are allocated
‘Is’: Decisions are driven by the need to justify funding through high attendance figures, often at the cost of providing quiet study spaces
Critique ‘is’ against ‘ought’: Resource allocation is currently driven by external pressures rather than the needs of all users, especially students.
Sources of Knowledge Who does what?
‘Ought’: Educational experts should guide the library’s focus towards supporting lifelong learning
‘Ought’: Expertise in educational resource management should be prioritized
‘Ought’: Assurance of resource quality and relevance for lifelong learning should be a priority
‘Is’: Event coordinators, community engagement officers
‘Is’: Focus on community outreach and event planning, with less emphasis on the needs of students and quiet learners
‘Is’: Assurance of community engagement over the traditional library function of providing a conducive study environment
Critique ‘is’ against ‘ought’: The current focus on community events detracts from the library’s role in supporting educational activities.
Sources of Legitimacy Who suffers what?
‘Ought’: Students and other quiet learners should have their needs met by the library’s environment
‘Ought’: Ensure equitable access to quiet study spaces and resources
‘Ought’: The library should be recognized as both a community hub and a place for learning, with balanced use of space
‘Is’: Library users, particularly students and quiet learners
‘Is’: Conflict arises between different user groups, such as elderly social groups vs. students needing study space
‘Is’: The library is seen more as a community hub than a study space, which undermines its traditional role as a learning environment
Critique ‘is’ against ‘ought’: The current environment fails to balance the needs of different user groups, leading to dissatisfaction among those who require a quiet study space.
To round off this post, let’s summarise the three core features of CSH enquiry as reflective practice (The Open University, 2020d):
Facilitating critical reflection: The enquiry process operates in two modes— a normative mode focused on what ought to be, involving value-based judgements, and a descriptive/analytical mode focused on what is, involving factual judgements. These modes interact to create an ongoing process of critique.
Applying a specific systems concept: Both the normative and descriptive modes are framed by 12 boundary judgements, which define the limits of a CSH reference system. These judgements are structured around four sources of influence and three stakeholder attributes, all of which are interconnected to form a coherent system.
Acting as a practical learning tool: The CSH reference system functions as a heuristic, or learning tool, by helping to understand the interrelationships within a situation of interest. It is also adaptable, allowing for adjustments in response to changing circumstances and diverse perspectives.
In my next post, I’ll compare and contrast CSH with the Soft System Methodology (SSM) in terms of how they deal with boundaries.
Tom Wujec has a TED Talk which focuses on systems thinking diagrams. The subject? Making toast. It doesn’t take long to watch, and there’s an accompanying website at drawtoast.com
Some of the key insights are around the importance of links and nodes, and also the ability to rearrange them, say by using cards or sticky notes. Wujec also comments on making systems models as a group, saying that we can handle more complexity because we talk things through, coming up with branches and ways to incorporate different perspectives on the fly.
From the course materials:
From my perspective, I consider the three STiP heuristic activities corresponding to Wujec’s explanation to be as follows:
Understanding interrelationships (uIR): the act of visualisation is key here, though it is of course also relevant to both eMP and rBJ. In order to ‘understand’ how things may connect, it is often helpful to visualise the components that comprise the situation. Various types of ‘pictures’ are one diagrammatic representation. Wujec uses more specific system models and employs the terms ‘nodes’ and ‘links’ to exemplify such component parts of a system.
Engaging with multiple perspectives (eMP): moving from individual to group exercise in systems thinking is exemplified by use of moveable sticky notes or cards to make rearrangements of, and additions to, the nodes and links of the system model.
Reflecting on boundary judgements (rBJ): the term ‘iteration’ comes up frequently, both in relation to initial individual diagramming and to collective group diagramming. The process of iteration is essential in STiP practice. Iteration signals the necessary flexibility required in making boundary judgements, and the need for ongoing reflection of such judgements.
(Open University, 2020)
Also, there’s an element of joy in working visually and gaining a bigger picture. It can also be genuinely interesting to see how others view the world, and to try and combine multiple perspectives — hence my interest in systems thinking!
