Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Critical Systems Heuristics: The Idea and Practice of Boundary Critique

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Systems Approaches to Making Change: A Practical Guide

Abstract

Critical systems heuristics (CSH) is a framework for reflective professional practice organised around the central tool of boundary critique. This chapter, written jointly by the original developer, Werner Ulrich, and Martin Reynolds, an experienced practitioner of CSH, offers a systematic introduction to the idea and use of boundary critique. Its core concepts are explained in detail and their use is illustrated by means of two case studies from the domain of environmental planning and management. A particular focus is on working constructively with tensions between opposing perspectives as they arise in many situations of professional intervention. These include tensions such as ‘situation’ versus ‘system’, ‘is’ versus ‘ought’ judgements, concerns of ‘those involved’ versus ‘those affected but not involved’, stakeholders’ ‘stakes’ versus ‘stakeholding issues’, and others. Accordingly, boundary critique is presented as a participatory process of unfolding and questioning boundary judgements rather than as an expert-driven process of boundary setting. The paper concludes with a discussion of some essential skills and considerations regarding the practice of boundary critique.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Parts of the account of the NRUA-Botswana study in Sect. 6.4 have been adapted from an earlier publication by one of the authors (Reynolds 2007).

  2. 2.

    We are indebted to colleagues working with us on the ECOSENSUS project for some of the ideas expressed in Sect. 6.5. ECOSENSUS was supported by the United Kingdom’s Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Project Reference Number RES-149-25-1017.

References

  • Achterkamp, M. C., & Vos, J. F. J. (2007). Critically identifying stakeholders: Evaluating boundary critique as a vehicle for stakeholder identification. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 24(1), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff, R. L. (1981). Creating the corporate future: Plan or be planned for. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Algraini, S., & McIntyre-Mills, J. (2018). Human development in Saudi education: A critical systemic approach. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 31(2), 121–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berardi, A., Bernard, C., Buckingham-Shum, S., Ganapathy, S., Mistry, J., Reynolds, M., & Ulrich, W. (2006, June 28–30). The ECOSENSUS project: Co-evolving tools, practices and open content for participatory natural resource management. In 2nd international conference on e-social science, Manchester, UK. https://oro.open.ac.uk/2692/

  • Carr, S., & Oreszczyn, S. (2003, March 20–22). Critical systems heuristics: A tool for the inclusion of ethics and values in complex policy decisions. In Ethics as a dimension of agrifood policy, proceedings of the fourth congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics, Toulouse, France. Paper available in the website of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics (EurSafe). http://technology.open.ac.uk/cts/EURSAFE4-CSH-paper.pdf

  • Chambers, R. (1994a). The origin and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development, 22(7), 953–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. (1994b). Participatory rural appraisal: Challenges, potentials and paradigm. World Development, 22(10), 1437–1454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts? Putting the last first. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. B. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman, C. W. (1968/79). The systems approach. New York: Delta/Dell Publishing. Rev. and updated edn. 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman, C. W. (1971). The design of inquiring systems: Basic concepts of systems and organizations. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman, C. W. (1979). The systems approach and its enemies. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conklin, J. (2005). Dialogue mapping. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1925). The development of American pragmatism. Studies in the History of Ideas, 2(Supplement), 353–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fals-Borda, O. (1996). Power/knowledge and emancipation. Systems Practice, 9(2), 177–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York/London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gates, E. F. (2018). Toward valuing with critical systems heuristics. American Journal of Evaluation, 39(2), 201–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1984/87). The theory of communicative action, 2 vols. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, D., & Paucar-Caceres, A. (2014). Using critical systems heuristics to guide second-order critique of systemic practice: Exploring the environmental impact of mining operations in Southern Peru. Systems Research and Behavioural Science, 31(2), 197–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jagustović, R., Zougmoré, R. B., Kessler, A., Ritsema, C. J., Keesstra, S., & Reynolds, M. (2019). Contribution of systems thinking and complex adaptive system attributes to sustainable food production: Example from a climate-smart village. Agricultural Systems, 171, 65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. New York: Longman.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1787). Critique of pure reason (2nd ed., N. K. Smith, Trans.). New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1965 (orig. Macmillan, New York, 1929).

    Google Scholar 

  • Korzybski, A. (1933). A non-aristotelian system and its necessity for rigour in mathematics and physics. In A. Korzybski (Ed.), Science and sanity: An introduction to non-aristotelian systems and general semantics (pp. 747–761). Lakeville: International Non-Aristotelian Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunz, W., & Rittel, H. (1970). Issues as elements of information systems (Working paper no. 131). Berkeley: University of California, Institute of Urban and Regional Development. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.134.1741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin-Rozalis, M. (2014). Let’s talk program evaluation in theory and practice. Monterey: Samuel Wachtman’s Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin-Rozalis, M. (2015). A purpose-driven action: The ethical aspect and social responsibility of evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 146, 19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1878). How to make our ideas clear. Popular Science Monthly, 12(January), 386–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raza, S. A., Siddiqui, A. W., & Standing, C. (2019). Exploring systemic problems in IS adoption using critical systems heuristics. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 32(2), 125–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, M. (1998). ‘Unfolding’ natural resource-use information systems: Fieldwork in Botswana. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 11(2), 127–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, M. (2005). Churchman and Maturana: Enriching the notion of self-organisation for social design. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 17(6), 539–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, M. (2007). Evaluation based on critical systems heuristics. In B. Williams & I. Imam (Eds.), Systems concepts in evaluation: An expert anthology (pp. 101–122). Point Reyes: Edge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, M. (2008a). Getting a grip: Critical systems for corporate responsibility. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25(3), 383–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, M. (2008b). Reframing expert support for development management. Journal of International Development, 20(6), 768–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, M. (2014). Equity-focused developmental evaluation using critical systems thinking. Evaluation: The International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 20(1), 75–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, M. (2016). Towards praxis in systems thinking. In M. Frank, H. Shaked, & S. Koral-Kordova (Eds.), Systems thinking: Foundation, uses and challenges (pp. 3–33). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, M. (2020). List of publications. http://oro.open.ac.uk/view/person/mdr66.html. Last accessed Jan 2020.

  • Reynolds, M. & Schwandt, T. (2017, May 10–11). Evaluation as public work: An ethos for professional evaluation praxis. In UK evaluation society annual conference: The use and usability of evaluation: Demonstrating and improving the usefulness of evaluation. London: UK Evaluation Society. https://oro.open.ac.uk/50640/

  • Reynolds, M., & Wilding, H. (2017). Boundary critique: An approach for framing methodological design. In D. de Savigny, K. Blanchet, & T. Adam (Eds.), Applied systems thinking for health systems research: A methodological handbook (pp. 38–56). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, M., Berardi, A., Bernard, C., Bachler, M., Buckingham-Shum, S., Mistry, J., & Ulrich, W. (2007, May 1–2). ECOSENSUS: Developing collaborative learning systems for stakeholding development in environmental planning. In Curriculum, teaching & student support conference. Milton Keynes: The Open University. https://oro.open.ac.uk/8580/, http://oro.open.ac.uk/8580/

  • Reynolds, M., Gates, E., Hummelbrunner, R., Marra, M., & Williams, B. (2016). Towards systemic evaluation. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 33(5), 662–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, M., Sarriott, E., Swanson, R. C., & Rusoja, E. (2018). Navigating systems ideas for health practice: Towards a common learning device. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 24(3), 619–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwandt, T. A. (2015). Reconstructing professional ethics and responsibility: Implications of critical systems thinking. Evaluation, 21(4), 462–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Setianto, N. A., Cameron, D. C., & Gaughan, J. B. (2014). Structuring the problematic situation of smallholder beef farming in Central Java, Indonesia: Using systems thinking as an entry point to taming complexity. International Journal of Agricultural Management, 3(3), 164–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, A., Lewis, E. D., & Reddy, S. M. (2018). Inclusive systemic evaluation (ISE4GEMs): A new approach for the SDG era. New York: UN Women.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tirivanhu, P., Matondi, P. B., & Sun, D. (2016). Systemic evaluation of a comprehensive community initiative based on boundary critique in Mhakwe ward in Zimbabwe. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 29(6), 541–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical heuristics of social planning: A new approach to practical philosophy. Bern, Switzerland and Stuttgart, Germany: Haupt. Paperback reprint version. Chichester: Wiley, 1994 (same pagination).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W. (1987). Critical heuristics of social systems design. European Journal of Operational Research, 31(3), 276–283.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W. (1988a). Systems thinking, systems practice and practical philosophy: A programme of research. Systems Practice, 1(2), 137–163.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W. (1988b). Churchman’s ‘process of unfolding’ – Its significance for policy analysis and evaluation. Systems. Practice, 1(4), 415–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W. (1993). Some difficulties of ecological thinking, considered from a critical systems perspective: A plea for critical holism. Systems Practice, 6(6), 583–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W. (1996/2014). A primer to critical systems heuristics for action researchers. Hull: University of Hull, Centre for Systems Studies, 31 March 1996; rev. digital version, 10 Aug. 2014. https://wulrich.com/downloads/ulrich_1996a.pdf

  • Ulrich, W. (2000). Reflective practice in the civil society: The contribution of critically systemic thinking. Reflective Practice, 1(2), 247–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W. (2001/17). The quest for competence in systemic research and practice. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 18(1), 3–28. Expanded and updated version: If systems thinking is the answer, what is the question? Discussions on research competence. Ulrich’s Bimonthly, May–June 2017 (Part 1) and July–August 2017 (Part 2), https://wulrich.com/bimonthly_may2017.html and https://wulrich.com/bimonthly_july2017.html.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W. (2002). Boundary critique. In H. G. Daellenbach & R. L. Flood (Eds.), The informed student guide to management science (pp. 41–42). London: Thomson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W. (2003). Beyond methodology choice: Critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54(4), 325–342.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W. (2004). C. West Churchman, 1913–2004 (obituary). Journal of the Operational Research Society, 55(11), 1123–1129.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W. (2005). A brief introduction to critical systems heuristics (CSH). Milton Keynes: Open University, ECOSENSUS project web site. https://projects.kmi.open.ac.uk/ecosensus/about/csh.html; also available in the CSH section of Werner Ulrich’s Home Page, https://wulrich.com/csh.html and https://wulrich.com/downloads/ulrich_2005f.pdf

  • Ulrich, W. (2006a). Critical pragmatism: A new approach to professional and business ethics. In L. Zsolnai (Ed.), Interdisciplinary yearbook of business ethics, Vol. 1 (pp. 53–85). Oxford/Bern: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W. (2006b, September–October). A plea for critical pragmatism. Reflections on Critical Pragmatism, Part 1. Ulrich’s Bimonthly. https://wulrich.com/bimonthly_september2006.html

  • Ulrich, W. (2006c). Rethinking critically reflective research practice: Beyond Popper’s critical rationalism. Journal of Research Practice, 2(2), Article P1. https://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/64/63

  • Ulrich, W. (2007/16). Philosophy for professionals: towards critical pragmatism. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(8), 1109–1113. Rev. and extended version: Reflections on Critical Pragmatism, Part 7, Ulrich’s Bimonthly, March–April 2016. https://wulrich.com/bimonthly_march2016.html.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W. (2008, March–April). The mainstream concept of reflective practice and its blind spot. Reflections on Reflective Practice (1/7). Ulrich’s Bimonthly. https://wulrich.com/bimonthly_march2008.html.

  • Ulrich, W. (2012/13). Critical systems thinking. In S. I. Gass & M. C. Fu (Eds.), Encyclopedia of operations research and management science (3rd edn, Vol. 1, pp. 314–326). New York: Springer. Expanded version: CST’s two ways: A concise account of critical systems thinking. Ulrich’s Bimonthly, November–December 2012. https://wulrich.com/bimonthly_november2012.html

  • Ulrich, W. (2017, March–April). The concept of systemic triangulation: Its intent and imagery. Ulrich’s Bimonthly. https://wulrich.com/bimonthly_march2017.html

  • Ulrich, W. (2018, January–February). Reference systems for boundary critique. A postscript to ‘Systems thinking as if people mattered’. Ulrich’s Bimonthly. https://wulrich.com/bimonthly_january2018.html

  • Ulrich, W. (2020). List of publications. https://wulrich.com/publications.html

  • Venter, C., & Goede, R. (2017). The use of critical systems heuristics to surface and reconcile users’ conflicting visions for a business intelligence system. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 30(4), 407–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. (2015). Prosaic or profound? The adoption of systems ideas by impact evaluation. IDS Bulletin, 46(1), 7–16.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Žižek, S. (1989). The sublime object of ideology. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

    Werner Ulrich

  2. University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland

    Werner Ulrich

  3. School of Engineering and Innovation, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

    Martin Reynolds

Authors
  1. Werner Ulrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Reynolds
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Werner Ulrich .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Engineering and Innovation, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

    Martin Reynolds

  2. The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

    Sue Holwell (Retired)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Open University

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ulrich, W., Reynolds, M. (2020). Critical Systems Heuristics: The Idea and Practice of Boundary Critique. In: Reynolds, M., Holwell (Retired), S. (eds) Systems Approaches to Making Change: A Practical Guide. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7472-1_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7472-1_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-7471-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-7472-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation