Todd David Bowers, PhD | Universidad del Norte - Barranquilla, Colombia (original) (raw)
inproceedings by Todd David Bowers, PhD
This paper describes an investigation of the body of systems theory around the still unresolved i... more This paper describes an investigation of the body of systems theory around the still unresolved issue of incommensurability between theories of different onto-epistemological paradigms. It chronicles 19 developments in systems thinking which attempt to incorporate multimethodological approaches to systemic research and design into coherent theories with the aim of improving systemic practice. With the advantage of hindsight, this research explains how each newly developed theory helped to advance critical systems thinking, from the creation and evolution of the critical-emancipatory paradigm through the increase in our sophistication of understanding what it means to act multimethodologically, across paradigms. The paper concludes by describing yet another attempt to move toward the establishment of a coherent theory for pluralism in spite of the incommensurability problem. Our ultimate objective is to advance new theory which may lead in practical ways to improved outcomes for systemic practice.
Because it still lacks adequate theory needed to ground its multiparadigm multimethodologies, cri... more Because it still lacks adequate theory needed to ground its multiparadigm multimethodologies, critical systems practice has been derisively called "theoreticallycontradictory eclecticism". This paper is an introduction to and overview of the author's forthcoming Ph.D. dissertation which offers a new framework for research in critical systems thinking and proposes a new approach for the practice of critical systemic intervention. To underpin this framework an ontology of process-structure isomorphies is designed as a metaphysical interface through an abstraction called the critical moment to each of the conventional paradigms of critical systems thinking (functionalist, interpretivist, emancipatory and postmodern). The ontology is realised by a new epistemology (its raison d'être) that respects paradigm incommensurability and yet exploits all the advantages to be had from a multiparadigmatic perspectivity. The new methodology, (wherein each of the paradigmatic approaches is critically 'deployed') then operationalises and completes the new framework. This new approach calls for and directs the systemist's critically reflexive, axiologically transparent, multiparadigmatic appreciation of, and multimethodological engagement with, the problem situation and flux. The philosophy necessarily lays out the framework's foundational motives, rationale, intents and purposes and acts as a guide for its use. The principal advantage of this new approach is derived from its critically-grounded multiparadigmatic perspectivity and the consequent leveraging of the full gamut of existing systemic methodologies and best practices.
This paper is an introduction to and overview of the author's Ph.D. dissertation, in progress, wh... more This paper is an introduction to and overview of the author's Ph.D. dissertation, in progress, which offers a new approach towards a critical systems paradigm.
It can be argued that there are two thin spots in the philosophical-theoretical topology of Criti... more It can be argued that there are two thin spots in the philosophical-theoretical topology of Critical Systems Thinking and Practice (a multi-paradigmatic approach to Systems study, design and intervention) [MC Jackson, et al.; 1984-2008. The first concerns the assignment of the appropriate paradigm for purpose; the second when we hop from the subjective to the objective and back; e.g., for intervention and what we might call 'reality checks.' Regardless of those who say that here, Systems (writ large) does not have an ontological/ epistemological leg to stand on, we carry on pragmatically and leave it to the philosophers to reconcile the 'what' with 'why.' I examine this deficit in Systems Theory then outline, explain and propose an ontological base for CST&P taken from the current Social Philosophies of Structure and Process and a General System theory-A System of Systems Processes [Troncale,1978[Troncale, -2008. In this ontology, the universe is an abstract 'structure-process' or 'process-structure', which contains other process-structures recursively (and may be contained). They are abstract, epistemologically and methodologically adaptable. In this world, the objective epistemologies are taken as being objective; i.e., that 'things' have an existence independent of human perception. Subjective epistemologies are considered subjectively; i.e., that which one says 'is' is dependent on the process-structure of their own thinking-brain. This ontology thus represents reconciliation and coexistence of what heretofore have been considered dualities: objectivity-subjectivity, positivist-interpretivist, and fact-concept. It moves the emphasis of concern from the existential (our 'things') to the ever-changing present; a world of actions-embodied and embedded. We are reminded that Systems tries to influence the future but can only do so by intervening in the present.
This poster suggests an approach to the popular culture that could be used by systems scientists ... more This poster suggests an approach to the popular culture that could be used by systems scientists as a way to promote a general understanding of the domain and purpose of the field of systems science.
…the true method of philosophical construction is to frame a scheme of ideas, the best that one c... more …the true method of philosophical construction is to frame a scheme of ideas, the best that one can, and unflinchingly to explore the interpretation of experience in terms of that scheme… All constructive thought on the various topics of scientific interest is dominated by some such scheme, unacknowledged, but no less influential in guiding the imagination. The importance of philosphy lies in its sustained effort to make such schemes explicit, and thereby capable of criticism and improvement.
phdtheses by Todd David Bowers, PhD
This research identifies and focuses on two intractable problems in contemporary systems thinking... more This research identifies and focuses on two intractable problems in contemporary systems thinking: 1) That the fracturing of the systems community is a reflection of the fact that the underlying body of systems theory is itself fragmented by incommensurable paradigms. 2) That mixed methods, although they offer a powerful potential for precision and effectiveness in systemic intervention, have no legitimate systems theory to guide their informed use and from which they can be derived.
This paper is an introduction to and overview of the author's Ph.D. dissertation in progress whic... more This paper is an introduction to and overview of the author's Ph.D. dissertation in progress which offers a new framework for critical systems research, and a new approach to critical systemic intervention-the practice of which has been described as "theoretically-contradictory eclecticism" because it lacks theory needed to ground any multiparadigm multimethodology. An ontology of process/structure is designed as a metaphysical interface to each of the onto-epistemologies of the four conventional paradigms of critical systems thinking (functionalist, interpretivist, emancipatory and postmodern). The ontology is realised by an epistemology that respects paradigm incommensurability and yet exploits the advantages to be had from multiparadigmatic perspectivity. A metamethodology wherein each of the paradigmatic approaches are critically deployed then operationalises and completes the new framework. This new approach directs a critically reflexive, axiologically transparent appreciation by the systemist in a multiparadigmatic, multimethodological engagement with the 'problem' situation in flux. The philosophy lays out foundational motives, rationale, intents and purposes and acts as a guide for its use in practice. The principal advantage of this approach is derived from its critically-grounded multiparadigmatic perspectivity and the consequent leveraging of the full gamut of existing systemic methodologies.
articles by Todd David Bowers, PhD
AbstractThe multimethodological practice of systemic intervention has been described as ‘theoreti... more AbstractThe multimethodological practice of systemic intervention has been described as ‘theoretically contradictory eclecticism’ because it lacks a grounding theory that can accept Burrell and Morgan's principle of incommensurable paradigms and avoids ‘anything goes’ relativism between them. As a way forward, a new ontology of process–structure is proposed. It is designed as a metaphysical interface to the onto-epistemological paradigms of critical systems thinking and practice (which are, in this paper, functionalist–structuralist, interpretivist, critical–emancipatory and postmodern–poststructuralist). Next, the ontology is realized by an epistemology that respects paradigm incommensurability and yet exploits the unique perspective they each afford. Then, a methodology wherein each of the paradigmatic approaches is critically deployed operationalizes and completes the foundation of this new framework. It directs a critically reflexive, axiologically transparent appreciation by the systemist in a multiparadigmatic, multimethodological engagement with the ‘problem’ situation in flux. The philosophy lays out foundational motives, rationale, intents and purposes and acts as a guide for its use in practice. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This paper is an introduction to and overview of the author's Ph.D. dissertation, in progress, wh... more This paper is an introduction to and overview of the author's Ph.D. dissertation, in progress, which offers a new framework for critical systems thinking and research and a new approach to critical systems intervention-the practice of which has been described as "theoretically-contradictory eclecticism" because it lacks theory needed to ground multiparadigm multimethodologies. An ontology of process/structure is designed as a metaphysical interface to the onto-epistemologies of the four conventional paradigms of critical systems thinking (functionalist, interpretivist, emancipatory and postmodern). The ontology is realised by an epistemology that respects paradigm incommensurability and yet exploits the advantages to be had from multiparadigmatic perspectivity. A metamethodology wherein each of the paradigmatic approaches are deployed operationalises and completes the new framework. It directs a critically reflexive, axiologically transparent appreciation by the systemist in a multiparadigmatic multimethodological engagement with the 'problem' situation in flux. Its philosophy lays out foundational theory, motives, rationale, intents and purposes and acts as a guide for its use in practice. The principal advantage of this approach is derived from its critically-grounded multiparadigmatic perspectivity and the consequent leveraging of the full gamut of systemic methodologies.
Papers by Todd David Bowers, PhD
The conversation began with self-reflections on personal experiences leading each of the individu... more The conversation began with self-reflections on personal experiences leading each of the individuals to the systems sciences, acknowledging the influence of those trajectories on their perspectives on service systems. In recognition of this science of service systems as a potentially a new paradigm, much of the time together was spent in sensemaking about the intersection between ongoing services research and systems sciences perspectives. This sensemaking led the team to focus the dialogue more on posing the right questions to clarify thinking broadly, as opposed to diving deeply towards solutions that would be tied up as issues within a problematique. During the conversation, the progress on ideas was recorded on flipcharts. Nearing the end of our time together, the team cut up the flipcharts with scissors, and collated the discussion threads into five clusters: (i) philosophy; (ii) science; (iii) models; (iv) education; (v) development. With service systems as a new domain, the team found all five clusters underdeveloped. Recognizing that all five clusters are coevolving, the phenomenon of service systems was listed in order from the most concrete (i.e. development) through the most abstract (i.e. philosophy). Each of the five clusters was then summarized by a meta-question. 1. Development: How do we transition from the current paradigm? 2. Education: How do we help others learn about service systems? 3. Models: How do we understand and decribe service systems? 4. Science: What do we know about service systems? 5. Philosophy: Why do (or should) we care about services systems? Each of the meta-questions is described below, with some of the dialogue content associated with the question clusters.
Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 2011
The multimethodological practice of systemic intervention has been described as 'theoretically co... more The multimethodological practice of systemic intervention has been described as 'theoretically contradictory eclecticism' because it lacks a grounding theory that can accept Burrell and Morgan's principle of incommensurable paradigms and avoids 'anything goes' relativism between them. As a way forward, a new ontology of process-structure is proposed. It is designed as a metaphysical interface to the onto-epistemological paradigms of critical systems thinking and practice (which are, in this paper, functionalist-structuralist, interpretivist, critical-emancipatory and postmodern-poststructuralist). Next, the ontology is realized by an epistemology that respects paradigm incommensurability and yet exploits the unique perspective they each afford. Then, a methodology wherein each of the paradigmatic approaches is critically deployed operationalizes and completes the foundation of this new framework. It directs a critically reflexive, axiologically transparent appreciation by the systemist in a multiparadigmatic, multimethodological engagement with the 'problem' situation in flux. The philosophy lays out foundational motives, rationale, intents and purposes and acts as a guide for its use in practice.
The multimethodological practice of systemic intervention has been described as 'theoretically co... more The multimethodological practice of systemic intervention has been described as 'theoretically contradictory eclecticism' because it lacks a grounding theory that can accept Burrell and Morgan's principle of incommensurable paradigms and avoids 'anything goes' relativism between them. As a way forward, a new ontology of process-structure is proposed. It is designed as a metaphysical interface to the onto-epistemological paradigms of critical systems thinking and practice (which are, in this paper, functionalist-structuralist, interpretivist, critical-emancipatory and postmodern-poststructuralist). Next, the ontology is realized by an epistemology that respects paradigm incommensurability and yet exploits the unique perspective they each afford. Then, a methodology wherein each of the paradigmatic approaches is critically deployed operationalizes and completes the foundation of this new framework. It directs a critically reflexive, axiologically transparent appreciation by the systemist in a multiparadigmatic, multimethodological engagement with the 'problem' situation in flux. The philosophy lays out foundational motives, rationale, intents and purposes and acts as a guide for its use in practice.
This paper is an investigation of the still unresolved issue of onto-epistemologically incommensu... more This paper is an investigation of the still unresolved issue of onto-epistemologically incommensurable paradigms. It chronicles several developments in systems thinking which attempt to incorporate multimethodological approaches to systemic research, design and practice into theories which explain and justify them. With the advantage of hindsight, this research explains how each newly developed theory reflected an increased sophistication of what it means to act multimethodologically, across paradigms. Improvements result from active debates and rigourous criticism between members of the systems community laying open newly discovered shortcomings in contemporary Critical Systems theory.
Because it still lacks adequate theory needed to ground its multiparadigm multimethodologies, cri... more Because it still lacks adequate theory needed to ground its multiparadigm multimethodologies, critical systems practice has been derisively called “theoretically-contradictory eclecticism”. This paper is an introduction to and overview of the author’s forthcoming Ph.D. dissertation which offers a new framework for research in critical systems thinking and proposes a new approach for the practice of critical systemic intervention. To underpin this framework an ontology of process–structure isomorphies is designed as a metaphysical interface through an abstraction called the critical moment to each of the conventional paradigms of critical systems thinking (functionalist, interpretivist, emancipatory and postmodern). The ontology is realised by a new epistemology (its raison d'etre) that respects paradigm incommensurability and yet exploits all the advantages to be had from a multiparadigmatic perspectivity. The new methodology, (wherein each of the paradigmatic approaches is crit...
This paper describes an investigation of the body of systems theory around the still unresolved i... more This paper describes an investigation of the body of systems theory around the still unresolved issue of incommensurability between theories of different onto-epistemological paradigms. It chronicles 19 developments in systems thinking which attempt to incorporate multimethodological approaches to systemic research and design into coherent theories with the aim of improving systemic practice. With the advantage of hindsight, this research explains how each newly developed theory helped to advance critical systems thinking, from the creation and evolution of the critical-emancipatory paradigm through the increase in our sophistication of understanding what it means to act multimethodologically, across paradigms. The paper concludes by describing yet another attempt to move toward the establishment of a coherent theory for pluralism in spite of the incommensurability problem. Our ultimate objective is to advance new theory which may lead in practical ways to improved outcomes for systemic practice.
Because it still lacks adequate theory needed to ground its multiparadigm multimethodologies, cri... more Because it still lacks adequate theory needed to ground its multiparadigm multimethodologies, critical systems practice has been derisively called "theoreticallycontradictory eclecticism". This paper is an introduction to and overview of the author's forthcoming Ph.D. dissertation which offers a new framework for research in critical systems thinking and proposes a new approach for the practice of critical systemic intervention. To underpin this framework an ontology of process-structure isomorphies is designed as a metaphysical interface through an abstraction called the critical moment to each of the conventional paradigms of critical systems thinking (functionalist, interpretivist, emancipatory and postmodern). The ontology is realised by a new epistemology (its raison d'être) that respects paradigm incommensurability and yet exploits all the advantages to be had from a multiparadigmatic perspectivity. The new methodology, (wherein each of the paradigmatic approaches is critically 'deployed') then operationalises and completes the new framework. This new approach calls for and directs the systemist's critically reflexive, axiologically transparent, multiparadigmatic appreciation of, and multimethodological engagement with, the problem situation and flux. The philosophy necessarily lays out the framework's foundational motives, rationale, intents and purposes and acts as a guide for its use. The principal advantage of this new approach is derived from its critically-grounded multiparadigmatic perspectivity and the consequent leveraging of the full gamut of existing systemic methodologies and best practices.
This paper is an introduction to and overview of the author's Ph.D. dissertation, in progress, wh... more This paper is an introduction to and overview of the author's Ph.D. dissertation, in progress, which offers a new approach towards a critical systems paradigm.
It can be argued that there are two thin spots in the philosophical-theoretical topology of Criti... more It can be argued that there are two thin spots in the philosophical-theoretical topology of Critical Systems Thinking and Practice (a multi-paradigmatic approach to Systems study, design and intervention) [MC Jackson, et al.; 1984-2008. The first concerns the assignment of the appropriate paradigm for purpose; the second when we hop from the subjective to the objective and back; e.g., for intervention and what we might call 'reality checks.' Regardless of those who say that here, Systems (writ large) does not have an ontological/ epistemological leg to stand on, we carry on pragmatically and leave it to the philosophers to reconcile the 'what' with 'why.' I examine this deficit in Systems Theory then outline, explain and propose an ontological base for CST&P taken from the current Social Philosophies of Structure and Process and a General System theory-A System of Systems Processes [Troncale,1978[Troncale, -2008. In this ontology, the universe is an abstract 'structure-process' or 'process-structure', which contains other process-structures recursively (and may be contained). They are abstract, epistemologically and methodologically adaptable. In this world, the objective epistemologies are taken as being objective; i.e., that 'things' have an existence independent of human perception. Subjective epistemologies are considered subjectively; i.e., that which one says 'is' is dependent on the process-structure of their own thinking-brain. This ontology thus represents reconciliation and coexistence of what heretofore have been considered dualities: objectivity-subjectivity, positivist-interpretivist, and fact-concept. It moves the emphasis of concern from the existential (our 'things') to the ever-changing present; a world of actions-embodied and embedded. We are reminded that Systems tries to influence the future but can only do so by intervening in the present.
This poster suggests an approach to the popular culture that could be used by systems scientists ... more This poster suggests an approach to the popular culture that could be used by systems scientists as a way to promote a general understanding of the domain and purpose of the field of systems science.
…the true method of philosophical construction is to frame a scheme of ideas, the best that one c... more …the true method of philosophical construction is to frame a scheme of ideas, the best that one can, and unflinchingly to explore the interpretation of experience in terms of that scheme… All constructive thought on the various topics of scientific interest is dominated by some such scheme, unacknowledged, but no less influential in guiding the imagination. The importance of philosphy lies in its sustained effort to make such schemes explicit, and thereby capable of criticism and improvement.
This research identifies and focuses on two intractable problems in contemporary systems thinking... more This research identifies and focuses on two intractable problems in contemporary systems thinking: 1) That the fracturing of the systems community is a reflection of the fact that the underlying body of systems theory is itself fragmented by incommensurable paradigms. 2) That mixed methods, although they offer a powerful potential for precision and effectiveness in systemic intervention, have no legitimate systems theory to guide their informed use and from which they can be derived.
This paper is an introduction to and overview of the author's Ph.D. dissertation in progress whic... more This paper is an introduction to and overview of the author's Ph.D. dissertation in progress which offers a new framework for critical systems research, and a new approach to critical systemic intervention-the practice of which has been described as "theoretically-contradictory eclecticism" because it lacks theory needed to ground any multiparadigm multimethodology. An ontology of process/structure is designed as a metaphysical interface to each of the onto-epistemologies of the four conventional paradigms of critical systems thinking (functionalist, interpretivist, emancipatory and postmodern). The ontology is realised by an epistemology that respects paradigm incommensurability and yet exploits the advantages to be had from multiparadigmatic perspectivity. A metamethodology wherein each of the paradigmatic approaches are critically deployed then operationalises and completes the new framework. This new approach directs a critically reflexive, axiologically transparent appreciation by the systemist in a multiparadigmatic, multimethodological engagement with the 'problem' situation in flux. The philosophy lays out foundational motives, rationale, intents and purposes and acts as a guide for its use in practice. The principal advantage of this approach is derived from its critically-grounded multiparadigmatic perspectivity and the consequent leveraging of the full gamut of existing systemic methodologies.
AbstractThe multimethodological practice of systemic intervention has been described as ‘theoreti... more AbstractThe multimethodological practice of systemic intervention has been described as ‘theoretically contradictory eclecticism’ because it lacks a grounding theory that can accept Burrell and Morgan's principle of incommensurable paradigms and avoids ‘anything goes’ relativism between them. As a way forward, a new ontology of process–structure is proposed. It is designed as a metaphysical interface to the onto-epistemological paradigms of critical systems thinking and practice (which are, in this paper, functionalist–structuralist, interpretivist, critical–emancipatory and postmodern–poststructuralist). Next, the ontology is realized by an epistemology that respects paradigm incommensurability and yet exploits the unique perspective they each afford. Then, a methodology wherein each of the paradigmatic approaches is critically deployed operationalizes and completes the foundation of this new framework. It directs a critically reflexive, axiologically transparent appreciation by the systemist in a multiparadigmatic, multimethodological engagement with the ‘problem’ situation in flux. The philosophy lays out foundational motives, rationale, intents and purposes and acts as a guide for its use in practice. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This paper is an introduction to and overview of the author's Ph.D. dissertation, in progress, wh... more This paper is an introduction to and overview of the author's Ph.D. dissertation, in progress, which offers a new framework for critical systems thinking and research and a new approach to critical systems intervention-the practice of which has been described as "theoretically-contradictory eclecticism" because it lacks theory needed to ground multiparadigm multimethodologies. An ontology of process/structure is designed as a metaphysical interface to the onto-epistemologies of the four conventional paradigms of critical systems thinking (functionalist, interpretivist, emancipatory and postmodern). The ontology is realised by an epistemology that respects paradigm incommensurability and yet exploits the advantages to be had from multiparadigmatic perspectivity. A metamethodology wherein each of the paradigmatic approaches are deployed operationalises and completes the new framework. It directs a critically reflexive, axiologically transparent appreciation by the systemist in a multiparadigmatic multimethodological engagement with the 'problem' situation in flux. Its philosophy lays out foundational theory, motives, rationale, intents and purposes and acts as a guide for its use in practice. The principal advantage of this approach is derived from its critically-grounded multiparadigmatic perspectivity and the consequent leveraging of the full gamut of systemic methodologies.
The conversation began with self-reflections on personal experiences leading each of the individu... more The conversation began with self-reflections on personal experiences leading each of the individuals to the systems sciences, acknowledging the influence of those trajectories on their perspectives on service systems. In recognition of this science of service systems as a potentially a new paradigm, much of the time together was spent in sensemaking about the intersection between ongoing services research and systems sciences perspectives. This sensemaking led the team to focus the dialogue more on posing the right questions to clarify thinking broadly, as opposed to diving deeply towards solutions that would be tied up as issues within a problematique. During the conversation, the progress on ideas was recorded on flipcharts. Nearing the end of our time together, the team cut up the flipcharts with scissors, and collated the discussion threads into five clusters: (i) philosophy; (ii) science; (iii) models; (iv) education; (v) development. With service systems as a new domain, the team found all five clusters underdeveloped. Recognizing that all five clusters are coevolving, the phenomenon of service systems was listed in order from the most concrete (i.e. development) through the most abstract (i.e. philosophy). Each of the five clusters was then summarized by a meta-question. 1. Development: How do we transition from the current paradigm? 2. Education: How do we help others learn about service systems? 3. Models: How do we understand and decribe service systems? 4. Science: What do we know about service systems? 5. Philosophy: Why do (or should) we care about services systems? Each of the meta-questions is described below, with some of the dialogue content associated with the question clusters.
Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 2011
The multimethodological practice of systemic intervention has been described as 'theoretically co... more The multimethodological practice of systemic intervention has been described as 'theoretically contradictory eclecticism' because it lacks a grounding theory that can accept Burrell and Morgan's principle of incommensurable paradigms and avoids 'anything goes' relativism between them. As a way forward, a new ontology of process-structure is proposed. It is designed as a metaphysical interface to the onto-epistemological paradigms of critical systems thinking and practice (which are, in this paper, functionalist-structuralist, interpretivist, critical-emancipatory and postmodern-poststructuralist). Next, the ontology is realized by an epistemology that respects paradigm incommensurability and yet exploits the unique perspective they each afford. Then, a methodology wherein each of the paradigmatic approaches is critically deployed operationalizes and completes the foundation of this new framework. It directs a critically reflexive, axiologically transparent appreciation by the systemist in a multiparadigmatic, multimethodological engagement with the 'problem' situation in flux. The philosophy lays out foundational motives, rationale, intents and purposes and acts as a guide for its use in practice.
The multimethodological practice of systemic intervention has been described as 'theoretically co... more The multimethodological practice of systemic intervention has been described as 'theoretically contradictory eclecticism' because it lacks a grounding theory that can accept Burrell and Morgan's principle of incommensurable paradigms and avoids 'anything goes' relativism between them. As a way forward, a new ontology of process-structure is proposed. It is designed as a metaphysical interface to the onto-epistemological paradigms of critical systems thinking and practice (which are, in this paper, functionalist-structuralist, interpretivist, critical-emancipatory and postmodern-poststructuralist). Next, the ontology is realized by an epistemology that respects paradigm incommensurability and yet exploits the unique perspective they each afford. Then, a methodology wherein each of the paradigmatic approaches is critically deployed operationalizes and completes the foundation of this new framework. It directs a critically reflexive, axiologically transparent appreciation by the systemist in a multiparadigmatic, multimethodological engagement with the 'problem' situation in flux. The philosophy lays out foundational motives, rationale, intents and purposes and acts as a guide for its use in practice.
This paper is an investigation of the still unresolved issue of onto-epistemologically incommensu... more This paper is an investigation of the still unresolved issue of onto-epistemologically incommensurable paradigms. It chronicles several developments in systems thinking which attempt to incorporate multimethodological approaches to systemic research, design and practice into theories which explain and justify them. With the advantage of hindsight, this research explains how each newly developed theory reflected an increased sophistication of what it means to act multimethodologically, across paradigms. Improvements result from active debates and rigourous criticism between members of the systems community laying open newly discovered shortcomings in contemporary Critical Systems theory.
Because it still lacks adequate theory needed to ground its multiparadigm multimethodologies, cri... more Because it still lacks adequate theory needed to ground its multiparadigm multimethodologies, critical systems practice has been derisively called “theoretically-contradictory eclecticism”. This paper is an introduction to and overview of the author’s forthcoming Ph.D. dissertation which offers a new framework for research in critical systems thinking and proposes a new approach for the practice of critical systemic intervention. To underpin this framework an ontology of process–structure isomorphies is designed as a metaphysical interface through an abstraction called the critical moment to each of the conventional paradigms of critical systems thinking (functionalist, interpretivist, emancipatory and postmodern). The ontology is realised by a new epistemology (its raison d'etre) that respects paradigm incommensurability and yet exploits all the advantages to be had from a multiparadigmatic perspectivity. The new methodology, (wherein each of the paradigmatic approaches is crit...
Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Isss 2014 United States, Jun 12, 2014
Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Isss 2014 United States, Jun 12, 2014
Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the ISSS, 2010
Because it still lacks adequate theory needed to ground its multiparadigm multimethodologies, cri... more Because it still lacks adequate theory needed to ground its multiparadigm multimethodologies, critical systems practice has been derisively called "theoreticallycontradictory eclecticism". This paper is an introduction to and overview of the author's forthcoming Ph.D. dissertation which offers a new framework for research in critical systems thinking and proposes a new approach for the practice of critical systemic intervention. To underpin this framework an ontology of process-structure isomorphies is designed as a metaphysical interface through an abstraction called the critical moment to each of the conventional paradigms of critical systems thinking (functionalist, interpretivist, emancipatory and postmodern). The ontology is realised by a new epistemology (its raison d'être) that respects paradigm incommensurability and yet exploits all the advantages to be had from a multiparadigmatic perspectivity. The new methodology, (wherein each of the paradigmatic approaches is critically 'deployed') then operationalises and completes the new framework. This new approach calls for and directs the systemist's critically reflexive, axiologically transparent, multiparadigmatic appreciation of, and multimethodological engagement with, the problem situation and flux. The philosophy necessarily lays out the framework's foundational motives, rationale, intents and purposes and acts as a guide for its use. The principal advantage of this new approach is derived from its critically-grounded multiparadigmatic perspectivity and the consequent leveraging of the full gamut of existing systemic methodologies and best practices.