This post is unashamedly a dumping ground for useful stuff from the TB871 Block 6 Tools Stream about Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) that I might want to come back and reference at some point — potentially in an upcoming assignment.
But then [a systems thinking practitioner], when he becomes very serious about his own models, in which ‘all’ of the objectives are represented and a ‘proper’ compromise is created, is also deceived. In the straight-faced seriousness of his approach, he forgets many things: basic human values and his own inability really to understand all aspects of the system, and especially its politics.
(Churchman, 1968, p. 227, quoted in The Open University, 2020a)
Increasingly detailed constituents of a critical systems heuristics reference system (The Open University, 2020b)
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.
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.
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?
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.
