Developments in Critical Systems Theory: On Paradigms and Incommensurability (original) (raw)
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.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
Related papers
Bowers 2014 ISSS Developments in Critical Systems Theory: On Paradigms and Incommensurability
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.
Towards a framework for multiparadigm multimethodologies in systems thinking and practice
2012
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.
Burrell and Morgan (2000) claimed that knowledge is paradigmatic, encompassing a distinct worldview and rationality governing research strategies and methods for which they identified four sociological paradigms to locate them based on “metatheoretical assumptions about the nature of reality, knowledge, and human behavior” (Cunliffe, 2010). They regard the competing theories developed from different paradigms as incommensurable—those working in one paradigm are not understood by those committed to another. Moreover, “there can be no measure, outside of the paradigms, which can be used as a basis for comparing and adjudicating between the claims to knowledge of theories produced from within different paradigms” (Jackson, 2000). This new theory states that because the problem of paradigm incommensurability begins at the level of ontology the solution lies there as well. Rather than supporting just one or a few paradigms, a different type of ontology is needed to explain ontological variety. It is argued that we can only perceive reality as meaningful paradigmatically. Solving the incommensurability issue is the theoretical key needed to properly underpin pluralist approaches to systems theory, design and intervention. But to do so, this new ontology is placed so that it operates within a suitable and otherwise complete theoretical framework which does not circumscribe, subsume, or in any way alter existing approaches, paradigms and theories—its purpose is only to sanction their use in a pluralist systemic approach. Such a framework is described in this thesis.
Testament to conversations on critical systems thinking between two systems practitioners
Systems Practice, 1990
This is a testament to conversations held in Berne and Fribourg, Switzerland, in late 1988. The main theme that we present concerns seeking to find an adequate epistemology for systems practice, to find a "truly" critical approach, by shifting our interests from "systems science" to "systems rationality" (i.e., by "reaching out" toward a systems epistemological ideal) and by dealing with sociological phenomena such as the "effects of material conditions" and false consciousness and inequalities associated with these. Social rationalities relating to positivism, interpretivism, and critique are considered. Limitations and legitimacies of these rationalities in social contexts are made explicit in these discussions.
Theoretical Pluralism in Systemic Action Research
Systemic Practice and Action Research, 2011
It is now largely accepted as uncontroversial amongst systemic action researchers that there is practical value in theoretical pluralism: seeing through multiple theoretical 'lenses' that bring different (sometimes contradictory) assumptions into play. However, the practice of theoretical pluralism is paradoxically often justified with recourse to a single foundational epistemological theory: i.e., a theory of the nature of knowledge, accepted as universally true, which explains how it is that human beings can accept multiple theoretical perspectives. Justifying theoretical pluralism through the use of a foundational theory carries two risks. First, because the foundational theory is viewed as such a basic truth, it can become hard to accept other theories that may contradict it. Therefore, researchers may slip from an initial, strong commitment to theoretical pluralism to a more limited version that eliminates the use of theories that contradict the foundational one. The second risk is that the researcher's understanding of his or her practice may come to be both constructed and evaluated using a single theoretical lens, so disconfirming evidence of the utility of that lens is never seen. Following an explanation of these risks, an alternative systemic approach to the philosophical justification of theoretical pluralism is advanced, and it is argued that this is less likely to introduce unwitting theoretical restrictions into action research practice than establishing a foundational epistemology.
An ontology for a critical systems paradigm
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.
The paper reviews paradigm incommensurability issues and possible ways of overcoming it. One of the open problems of pluralist systemic intervention theory, on which there is no uniform understanding in the literature, is whether work across paradigms represents some kind of a meta paradigm or whether it belongs to a completely new paradigm itself or should it be grounded within the theory of existing paradigms. Another issue that requires additional investigation is the use of methods within different paradigms from those for which they were created originally. Our understanding of those issues was informed by the developments in Critical Systems thinking in the past decade. It was further developed through by our involvement in three interventions in the fields of rural telecommunications and software development. They involved mixing of techniques from several soft systems approaches and multi-criteria decision analysis. We justified mixing of methods using the theory of the thre...
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.