Tag: CSLS

TB872: Advantages and disadvantages of CSLS

Posted on March 22, 2024May 1, 2024 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.

A human-centric illustration depicting diverse characters around a circular layout, with a vibrant tree at the centre, representing ideas and dialogue through symbols and soft colours.

I’ve written previously about Critical Social Learning Systems (CSLS) and how I’ve chosen this approach for my End of Module Assessment (EMA) over Communities of Practice (CoP). The CSLS approach involves critical reflection, participatory methods, and adaptive management, all within a systems approach.

What I haven’t done so far is outline the advantages and disadvantages of CSLS, which is what this post seeks to rectify.

Advantages of CSLS

Holistic understanding of complex issues: unlike more traditional, linear methods of problem-solving, CSLS encourages considering multiple perspectives and dimensions of a problem, leading to more comprehensive and adaptive solutions. This holistic approach helps address complex, real-world issues.
Enhanced adaptive learning: an emphasis on reflexivity and the inclusion of meta-learning and epistemic learning allows participants in a CSLS to not only learn about the “issue at hand” but also about the process of learning itself and the limitations imposed by their worldviews. This can enhance the system’s adaptive capacity in the face of changing contexts and challenges.
Empowerment through participation: promotes active participation and dialogue among all stakeholders, recognising the value of diverse approaches to knowledge. This is a democratic approach which can empower individuals and communities, and encourage a sense of ownership and commitment to both the learning process and its outcomes.
Sustainability of solutions: encourages the development of solutions that are sustainable in the long term by engaging deeply with the root causes of issues (rather than just symptoms). CSLS integrates ethical, ecological, and social considerations, and this helps address underlying systems that generate problems.

Disadvantages of CSLS

Complexity and resource intensity: engaging in a CSLS can make it a resource-intensive process, requiring significant time and effort from participants. This can be a barrier to implementation, particularly in “resource-constrained” environments.
Challenges in facilitation and management: skilled facilitation and management is required to successfully navigate the dynamics of a CSLS, with its emphasis on critical reflection, learning at multiple levels, and managing diverse worldviews. This can be challenging to achieve, especially in large or very diverse groups.
Risk of overemphasis on process: by focusing on learning processes, reflexivity, and the critical examination of worldviews, there is a risk that participants overemphasise process at the expense of actionable outcomes. This requires balancing reflection with action to avoid “analysis paralysis”.

I haven’t chosen CSLS over CoP because I necessarily think it’s a ‘better’ approach or more ‘suitable’, but rather because I want to spend time finding out more about it. As I’ve said in previous posts, I’ve spent a reasonable amount of time studying, participating in, and helping facilitate CoPs. While I think they’re a really useful approach, they’re not the best for every situation.

Questions and Reflections

I have some questions and reflections as I start planning my EMA, which involves designing a learning system to manage change in my situation of concern (see here):

Vulnerability: examining and challenging one’s own worldview requires vulnerability, as this plays a role in genuine learning and transformation within CSLS. How can I design a learning system that enables facilitators to create ‘safe spaces’ that encourage this vulnerability?
Cultural shifts: CSLS has the potential to catalyse broader cultural and organisational shifts towards more reflective, learning-oriented environments. What are some ways I can envision CSLS contributing to such systemic changes?
Ethics: the role of facilitator in a CSLS involves guiding the learning process, managing dynamics, and ensuring inclusivity. How can facilitators reflect on their ethical considerations and responsibilities to promote autonomy and empowerment among participants?

How can I find a way of balancing (i) the need for comprehensive, reflexive learning processes, with (ii) the practical realities of time, resources, and the urgency of action in my situation of concern?
Given power dynamics and disparities in knowledge/expertise, what strategies can I employ to encourage genuine participation and engagement across diverse stakeholder groups?
In what ways can the insights and approaches of CSLS be adapted/scaled to address issues of varying scope and complexity?

Image: DALL-E 3

TB872: Bawden and transforming worldviews

Posted on March 8, 2024May 1, 2024 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 abstract representation of a learning system visualized as a network of interconnected, glowing nodes, each signifying individuals or subgroups within a community. The nodes, varying in colors and sizes, represent diversity and are linked by both tense, sparking wires and harmonious lights, illustrating the dual nature of tensions and potential growth within the system. This metaphorical image captures the dynamic and complex relationships within critical learning communities.

This post focuses on the arguments made by Richard Bawden in his two chapters of the book Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice. As I will show, his understanding and foregrounding of ‘worldviews’ is central to this.

In Chapter 3, which was originally written in 1999, Bawden (2010) sets the stage by illustrating the journey that faculty at the Hawkesbury School of Agriculture underwent. Shifting from a production-centric to a focus on “responsible rural development,” they also moved from a teaching approach to one focused on learning, and from a paradigm they realised was reductionist to one much more holistic.

The chapter highlights the challenges involved in transformation at both the individual and community levels, with Bawden identifying the “tensions of difference” within the sub-systems making up the overall learning system. These tensions, he believes, are crucial to the effectiveness of critical learning systems in community development. Bawden criticises prevailing non-systemic models of development as being inadequate in addressing the complexities and uncertainties of modern life. Not only are they deterministic and materialistic, but they are individualistic, leading to community disintegration and a deficit of trust.

The way forward, Bawden argues, is to transform communities into learning systems which are capable of adaptive learning. He proposes a synthesis of ‘inspirational’ and ‘experiential’ learning to allow meaning to emerge, with an integrated model which weaves these elements together. Bawden then concludes the chapter with a list of practical considerations for those seeking to establish, develop, and/or evaluate learning communities.

Moving to Chapter 6, which was written specifically for the edited collection, Bawden (2010b) reflects on his experiences at Hawkesbury, focusing on the collective beliefs of the faculty. He discusses worldviews specifically and how they influence systemic action. This chapter is much more focused on issues around wellbeing, ethics, and the growing climate crisis.

Bawden transitions from talking about theoretical issues to more practical applications, ending with a discussion on the global and systemic nature of contemporary challenges. Whereas in the previous chapter, Bawden spoke of “critical learning systems” in this one he explicitly talks of “Critical Social Learning Systems” (CSLS), defining this as “a group of people that have decided to collaborate in order to seek systemic improvements to some messy complex situation that together they regard as critically problematic” (Bawden, 2010b, p.94). “In other words,” he says:

a CSLS is a collection of individuals who agree to act together as a coherent group of people who are prepared to ‘collectively learn their way through’ an issue that they all agree is problematic in some way or another to them all. They accept that in addition to learning all they can about that issue as ‘the matter to hand’ as the prerequisite for taking informed action to improve it, they will also address, and respond to two other ‘levels of learning’ as they proceed: In essence they will be learning in three dimensions concurrently. So even as they are investigating the matter to hand they will also be critically reflecting on the processes of learning that they are bringing to bear: their ‘meta-learning’. These
reflections will include (i) their own impressions on the actual processes that they are using to generate shared knowledge and understanding from their experiences, (ii) how they are testing the quality or validity of that knowledge, (iii) how they are designing plans for action in the face of the knowledge that they are generating and decisions that they are beginning to formulate in response, and (iv) how they might actually put those plans into action for change. In this manner, they are seeking improvements in the way that they are learning even as they go about that learning.
Bawden (2010b, p.94)

Central to Bawden’s argument is the concept of worldviews: mental models that shape our interactions with the environment, influence our sense-making processes, and serve as the context for our judgments and the foundation of our moral compass. He emphasises the transformative potential of worldviews, questioning whether our cultural perspectives leave us equipped to handle life’s complexity. In fact, he wonders whether we are even aware of our own worldviews.

Worldviews, according to Bawden, comprise “personal presuppositions” about the following:

(a) the nature of nature (or ontology, philosophically speaking),
(b) the nature and origins of the universe, of life itself and, especially, of the spiritual essence of mankind (or cosmology),
(c) the nature of knowledge (or epistemology) and
(d) the nature of human nature especially as it relates to motivations, dispositions
and values, especially ethics and aesthetics (or axiology).
Bawden (2010b, p.96)

By recognising and transforming our worldviews, Bawden believes that we can better address the “complex messiness” of today’s challenges. Although this transformation must take place on an individual level, it is also crucial that it happens collectively: a communal shift towards reflective, adaptive, and holistic learning systems.

References

Bawden, R. (2010). ‘The community challenge: the learning response’. In Blackmore, C. (ed.) Social learning systems and communities of practice. London: Springer. pp.89-101. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-133-2.
Bawden, R. (2010b). ‘Messy issues, worldviews and systemic competencies’. In Blackmore, C. (ed.) Social learning systems and communities of practice. London: Springer. pp.89-101. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-133-2.

Image: DALL-E 3

TB872: Reading about Critical Social Learning Systems (CSLS)

Posted on March 6, 2024May 1, 2024 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 abstract, minimalist concept art piece representing the journey of discovery in CSLS, featuring a path through interconnected circles towards enlightenment symbolised by a radiant sun, evoking progress and optimism.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I’ve chosen to use a Critical Social Learning Systems (CSLS) approach for the next stage of my studies as I move towards the End of Module Assessment (EMA).

In preparation for my EMA, I need to collate resources beyond the core text. I’m indebted to other students who have shared some of the following on the forums. I’ve augmented these with some that I’ve discovered through various searches.

Author(s)	Themes	Summary (based on abstracts)
Bawden, R. (2004)	Agriculture Australia Deliberative democracy Experimental pedagogies Public discourse Rural development Sustainability Systems Theories	This paper discusses over twenty-five years of effort by academics at Hawkesbury Agricultural College to foster public discourse on rural Australia’s development and the sustainable role of agriculture within it. It highlights the prioritisation of systems theories, experiential pedagogies, and participatory development within a deliberative democracy framework. Lessons from the Hawkesbury experience are offered for understanding the role of the agora in broader global transformation efforts.
Bawden, R. (2005a)	Agriculture Complexity Conflict Diverse stakeholders Intellectual devleopment Learning Moral development Natural resource management Participation Systems Thinking Sustainability	This paper is a reflection by Bawden, on the integration of participation, learning, and systems thinking in sustainable agriculture and natural resource management highlighted by three papers. These papers emphasise the complexity, inherent conflicts, and the importance of dialogue among diverse stakeholders. They collectively advocate for a critical learning systems approach, urging a shift in understanding natural resource development as a learning process rather than merely as systemic interventions. Bawden proposes an integrating conceptual map to frame these discussions within the broader context of intellectual and moral development among actors in natural resource systems.
Bawden, R. (2005b)	Epistemic growth Experiential strategies Sustainable development Systemic development	This paper reflects on the systemic development initiatives at Hawkesbury, emphasising the intrinsic link between concrete development actions and the epistemic growth of participants. It highlights the role of critical experiential strategies, which are both systemic and reflexive, in fostering this connection. As global calls for sustainable development increase, Bawden argues for the importance of collective, communicative, and experiential strategies to address systemic global challenges effectively.
Bawden, R. (2010)	Collective learning Experiential learning Social learning Systemic education Systemic praxis Value assumptions Worldviews	This chapter elaborates on the tradition of systemic praxis from Hawkesbury Agricultural College, focusing on the evolution of critical social learning systems. It traces the origins of this concept to early systemic education initiatives and highlights the development of critical learning systems highlighting social or collective learning. Bawden outlines five core beliefs integral to the initiative, focusing on the importance of experience, experiential learning, worldview influences on learning, the developmental potential of worldviews, and systemic action’s dependence on specific intellectual and value assumptions.
Blackmore, C., Sriskandarajah, N. and Ison, R. (2018)	Agriculture Co-creation Coordination Diverse stakeholders Environment Food Learning systems Systemic thinking Uncertainty	This paper reviews the evolution of systemic approaches to managing change and uncertainty in agriculture, food, and the environment, highlighting the transition towards learning systems that incorporate diverse stakeholder perspectives for co-creating knowledge. The authors reflect on their extensive experience in developing these systems across various contexts and discuss the dynamic interplay between theory and practice in learning systems, stressing the need for systemic thinking and co-innovation in times of uncertainty.
Boxelaar, L., Paine, M. and Beilin, R. (2006)	Australia Civil society Collaboration Decision making Government Natural resource management Private sector Reflexivity Stakeholder participation	This article examines a shift in Australian public policy towards a more collaborative model involving government, civil society, and the private sector to tackle complex policy challenges. Focusing on a Victorian government project in natural resource management, the research indicates that practices rooted in new public management hindered effective stakeholder participation in decision-making. The authors argue for a reflexive approach to public administration that genuinely facilitates stakeholder engagement beyond the rhetoric of collaboration.
Ison, R. and Russell, D. (2000)	Design Enthusiasm Learning systems Methodology Personal histories Traditions	This paper reflects on critical incidents in the authors’ lives to explore how making distinctions can inform the design of learning systems. It discusses the challenge posed by learners not embodying dualities, suggesting that exploring enthusiasm as theory, biological drive, and methodology can help individuals connect distinctions with their personal history and traditions, thus participating in creating purposeful learning systems.
Ison, R. and Straw, E. (2020)	Climate emergency Environment Governance Perspectives Systems Thinking	This piece highlights the deteriorating relationship between humans and the environment, a concern that dates back to early observations by explorers and scholars like Alexander von Humboldt. It discusses historical awareness of environmental changes and the greenhouse effect, emphasizing the need for systems thinking in addressing the climate emergency. The authors argue for a shift in perspective to include reflection on our thinking processes and actions in relation to environmental governance.
Ison, R.L. (2023)	Economic disruption Environment Governance Pandemic Reflexivity Systems science	This paper discusses the complex challenges faced by humanity since 2019, including the pandemic, economic disruption, and environmental changes, highlighting the inadequacy of traditional ways of thinking and acting in addressing these challenges. It advocates for innovative approaches in knowledge and practices, emphasizing the need for reflexivity among practitioners of knowledge and systems science to critically evaluate and update our understandings and governance systems for a sustainable co-evolution with the Anthropocene-Biosphere.
Jackson, M.C. (2006)	Creative holism Complexity Creativity Holism Systemic thinking	This paper proposes ‘creative holism’, a critical systems approach designed to help managers tackle complex problem situations in an era characterised by rapid change and diversity. Jackson argues that traditional solutions often fail because they lack holistic and creative perspectives. ‘Creative holism’ combines these elements to offer a more effective strategy for managing complexity, suggesting that systemic thinking could significantly benefit society by providing managers with the tools needed to navigate and address intricate challenges effectively.
Kitchener, K. (1983)	Cognition Epistemic cognition Framework Knowledge Metacognition Problem soliving	Kitchener proposes a three-level model for cognitive processing, addressing how individuals manage complex, ill-structured problems. The model includes cognition (basic problem-solving tasks), metacognition (monitoring one’s own cognitive processes), and epistemic cognition (considering the nature and limits of knowledge). This framework suggests that while cognitive and metacognitive abilities develop in childhood, epistemic cognition emerges in late adolescence and adulthood, influencing problem-solving strategies and the understanding of knowledge.
Korycki, T. (2022)	Collaboration Collective learning Cooperation Institutions Organisations Social learning	This work explores social learning, focusing on principles, activities, and behaviours facilitating collaboration and cooperation within various situations, particularly in institutional and organisational contexts. It also includes a case study on the application of social learning in a micro-enterprise environment, highlighting how individuals and small organizations engage informally for collective learning.
Kuhn, L. and Woog, R. (2005)	Complexity Description Ethnography Frameworks Interdependence Intervention	This paper introduces vortical postmodern ethnography, applying complexity science to social theorizing and research. It explores the intricate, dynamic interdependence of society and its theoretical frameworks, arguing that complexity in human society and its theories can offer novel descriptions and understandings. The authors note the evolving nature of discourse and the role of human actors as both observers and contributors. The focus is on alternative descriptions rather than prescriptive interventions.
McCarthy, D.D.P., et al. (2011)	Barriers Collaboration Complexity Environment Epistemology First nations Opportunities Perspectives Social learning	This paper introduces a heuristic tool for understanding the epistemological context of social learning within complex social–ecological systems. It foregrounds critical reflection, collaborative nature, and practice orientation of social learning through social interactions. The tool facilitates mapping perspectives across knowledge typology, reflection levels, and scale. Applied to environmental planning in southern Ontario and flood damage reduction in a First Nations community in northern Ontario, it helps identify barriers and opportunities for social learning.
Stephens, A., Jacobson, C. and King, C. (2010)	Critical systems thinking Feminism Inclusion Methodologies Perspectives Social change Sustainability	This paper merges Critical Systems Thinking and Cultural Ecofeminism to propose a feminist-systems theory, outlining five principles that emphasize gender sensitivity, inclusivity, environmental integration, methodological appropriateness, and sustainable social change. It critically engages with related literature to scrutinise these principles and offers theoretical recommendations for practitioners, aiming to enrich practice with these integrated perspectives.
Vickers VC, Sir G. (1972)	Communication Complexity Conflict Perspectives Subjectivity	This paper delves into the complex nature of conflict, exploring its origins, manifestations, and models used for its representation. It discusses how membership in various systems can both generate and mitigate conflict through the mechanisms of restraints and assurances. Special emphasis is placed on the significance of subjective perceptions and their interplay with communication, leading to insights on conflict resolution, containment strategies, and the conditions necessary for their success or failure.

References

Bawden, R. (2004) ‘Angst, agoras, and academe: reflections on an experience in conscious evolution’, World Futures, 60(1), pp. 53–66.
Bawden, R. (2005a) ‘A commentary on three papers.’ Agriculture and Human Values, 22, pp. 169-176.
Bawden, R. (2005b) ‘Systemic Development at Hawkesbury: Some Personal Lessons from Experience.’ Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 22, pp. 151-164.
Bawden, R. (2010) ‘Messy Issues, Worldviews and Systemic Competencies’ in Blackmore, C. (ed) Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice. Milton Keynes: The Open University / London: Springer, pp. 89-101.
Blackmore, C., Sriskandarajah, N. and Ison, R. (2018) ‘Developing learning systems for addressing uncertainty in farming, food and environment: what has changed in recent times?’, International Journal of Agricultural Extension, 6(3), pp. 03–15.
Boxelaar, L., Paine, M. and Beilin, R. (2006) ‘Community engagement and public administration: of silos, overlays and technologies of government.’ Australian Journal of Public Administration, 65(1), pp. 113-126.
Ison, R. and Russell, D. (2000) ‘Exploring some distinctions for the design of learning systems.’ Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 7(4), pp. 43-56.
Ison, R. and Straw, E. (2020) The hidden power of systems thinking: governance in a climate emergency. Abingdon: Routledge.
Ison, R.L. (2023) ‘Beyond covid: reframing the global problematique with stip (Systems thinking in practice)’, Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 32(1), pp. 1–15. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-023-5549-9.
Jackson, M.C. (2006) `Creative holism: a critical systems approach to complex problem situations’, Systems research and behavioral science, 23(5), pp. 647–657. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.799.
Kitchener, K. (1983) ‘Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition: a three-level model of cognitive processing.’ Human Development, 26(4), pp. 222-232.
Korycki, T. (2022) ‘Critical social learning systems: an inquiry, case study and some learning’. Systems and Complexity in Organisation. Available at: https://www.systemspractice.org/resources/critical-social-learning-systems-inquiry-case-study-and-some-learning
Kuhn, L. and Woog, R. (2005) ‘Vortical postmodern ethnography: introducing a complexity approach to systemic social theorizing.’ Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 22, pp. 139-150.
McCarthy, D.D.P., Crandall, D.D., Whitelaw, G.S., General, Z. and Tsuji, L.J.S. (2011) ‘A critical systems approach to social learning: building adaptive capacity in social, ecological, epistemological (SEE) systems’, Ecology and Society, 16(3): 18.
Stephens, A., Jacobson, C. and King, C. (2010) `Describing a feminist-systems theory’, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 27(5), pp. 553–566. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.1061.
Vickers VC, Sir G. (1972) ‘The Management of Conflict.’ Futures, 4(2), pp. 126-141.

Image: DALL-E 3