Systems practice

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 25–41 | Cite as

Action research and critical systems thinking: Two icons carved out of the same log?

  • Morten Levin
Papers

Abstract

My intention in this paper is to make sense of the relationship between Action Research (AR) and Critical Systems Thinking (CST). On the surface, the two strands of thinking do not seem to have much in common. There is hardly any common reference in texts written within each tradition. Deeper down, however, there may be common concerns. The point of departure is to focus on how professionals interact with real-world problems and to clarify the underlying values for professional practice. To facilitate a discussion on the relationship between AR and CST, a frame of reference is developed based on analyzing the meaning construction process. Based on this platform, the relationship among theory, practice, and people shapes the ground for the discussion. Within this discussion three questions are raised: (1) Is the theory understood by the people and based on their interests? (2) Are the research questions relevant for the people? and (3) Are people emancipated to act in their own interests? The relationship between AR and CST can be examined based on these three questions. In concluding, I argue for the potential of a mutual and fruitful dialogue between AR and CST.

Key words

Action Research Critical Systems Thinking professional knowledge everyday knowledge theory practice 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1992). On the idea of emancipation in management and organization studies.Acad. Manage. Rev.,17(3), 432–464.Google Scholar
  2. Berger, P., and Luckmann, T. (1971).The Social Construction of Reality, Penguin, Harmondsworth, UK.Google Scholar
  3. Bråthen, S. (1973). Model monopoly and communication systems: theoretical notes on democratization.Acta Sociol. 16(2), 98–107.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, D., and Tandon, R. (1983). Ideology and political economy in inquiry.J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 19(3), 277–294.Google Scholar
  5. Checkland, P. (1981).Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  6. Checkland, P. (1985). From optimizing to learning: A development of systems thinking for the 1990s.J. Operat. Res. Soc. 36(9), 757–767.Google Scholar
  7. Checkland, P., and Scholes, J. (1991).Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Cristopersen, H. O. (1975).Elert Sundt Verker i utvalg (Eilert Sundt, Collected Works), Gyldendal, Oslo.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, L. E., and Taylor, J. (1972).Design of Jobs, Penguin, Harmondsworth, UK.Google Scholar
  10. Dewey, J. (1990).The School and Society/The Child and the Curriculum, University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
  11. Elden, M. (1979). Three generations of work-democracy experiments in Norway. In Cooper, G., and Mumford, E. (eds.),The Quality of Working Life in Western Europe, Associated Business Press, London.Google Scholar
  12. Elden, M. and Levin, M. (1991). Cogenerative learning. In Whyte, W. F. (ed.),Participative Action Research, Sage, Newbury Park.Google Scholar
  13. Emery, F. (1959).Characteristics of Socio-technical Systems, Document 527, Tavistock, London.Google Scholar
  14. Emery, F., and Thorsrud, E. (1976).Democracy at Work, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden.Google Scholar
  15. Fals-Borda, O. (1987). The application of participatory action research in Latin America.Int. Sociol. 2(4), 329–347.Google Scholar
  16. Fals-Borda, O., and Rahman, M. A. (1991).Action and Knowledge, Apex Press, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Flood, R. L. (1990a).Liberating Systems Theory, Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Flood, R. L. (1990b). Liberating systems theory: Toward critical systems thinking.Hum. Relat. 43, 49–75.Google Scholar
  19. Flood, R. L., and Jackson, M. C. (1991).Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention, Wiley, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  20. Freire, P. (1972).Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Penguin, Harmondsworth, UK.Google Scholar
  21. Gramsci, A. (1971). In Hoare and Nowell Smith (eds.),Selections from the Prison Notebooks, Lawrence and Wishart, London.Google Scholar
  22. Greenberg, E. (1975). The consequence of worker participation: A classification of the theoretical literature.Soc. Sci. Q. 56(2), 191–209.Google Scholar
  23. Greenwood, D. (1989). Paradigm-centered and client-centered research: A proposal for linkage. InProceedings of the Forty-Second Annual Meeting, Industrial Relations Research Association.Google Scholar
  24. Gustavsen, B. (1983). The Norwegian work environment reform: The transition from general principles to workplace action. In Crouch and Heller (eds.),Organizational Democracy and Political Processes, Wiley, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  25. Gustavsen, B. (1985). Workplace reform and democratic dialogue.Econ. Industr. Democ. 6, 461–479.Google Scholar
  26. Gustavsen, B. (1992).Dialogue and Development, Van Gorcum, Maastricht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  27. Gustavsen, B., and Engelstad, P. (1986). The design of conferences and the evolving role of democratic dialogue.Hum. Relat. 39(2), 101–116.Google Scholar
  28. Gustavsen, B., and Hunnius (1981).New Patterns of Work Reform: The Case of Norway, University Press, Oslo.Google Scholar
  29. Habermas, J. (1974).Theory and Practice, Heineman, London.Google Scholar
  30. Hall, B. (1978).Creating Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly-Research Methods, Participation and Development, Council for Adult Education, Toronto.Google Scholar
  31. Herbst, P. (1976).Alternatives to Hierarchies, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  32. Horton, M., and Freire, P. (1990). In Bell, B., Gaventa, J., and Peters, J., (eds.),We Make the Road by Walking, Temple University Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  33. Jackson, M. C. (1990). Beyond a system of systems methodologies.J. Operat. Res. Soc. 41(8), 657–668.Google Scholar
  34. Jackson, M. C. (1991). The origins and nature of critical systems thinking.Syst. Prac. 4, 131–149.Google Scholar
  35. Kuhn, T. (1962).The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  36. Latour, B. (1987).Science in Action, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, London.Google Scholar
  37. Ledford, G., and Mohrman, S. (1993). Self design for high involvement: A large scale organizational change.Hum. Rela. Vol. 46, No. 1, 143–173.Google Scholar
  38. Levin, M. (1983). Worker participation in the design of new technology. In Martin, T. (ed.),Design of Work in Automated Manufacturing Systems, Pergamon Press, New York.Google Scholar
  39. Lewin, K. (1943). Forces behind food habits and methods of change.Bull. Nat. Res. Council CVIII, 35–65.Google Scholar
  40. Lewin, K. (1951).Field Theory in the Social Sciences, Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
  41. Mills, C. W. (1970).The Sociological Imagination, Penguin, Harmondsworth, UK.Google Scholar
  42. NOU (1985).Videreutvikling av bedriftsdemokratiet (The continued development of industrial democracy); Norwegian Public Studies, No. 1.Google Scholar
  43. Pasmore, E., and Friedlander, F. (1982). An action-research program for increasing employee involvement in problem solving.Admin. Sci. 27, 343–262.Google Scholar
  44. Pateman, C. (1970).Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  45. Reason, P. (ed.) (1988).Human Inquiry in Action, Sage, London.Google Scholar
  46. Reason, P., and Rowan, P. (1981).Human Inquiry, Wiley, Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  47. Rice, A. K. (1958).Productivity and Social Organization: The Ahmedabad Experiment, Tavistock, London.Google Scholar
  48. Skjervheim, H. (1974).Objektivismen og studiet av mennesket (Objectivism and the study of the human being), Gyldendal, Oslo.Google Scholar
  49. Sundt, E. (1858).Om RØros og Omegn/Om Piberviken og RuselØkkbakken/Haram (About RØros and surroundings/About Piberviken and RuselØkkbakken/Haram), Georg S. Petersen, Trondheim, Norway.Google Scholar
  50. Susman, G., and Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research.Admin. Sci. Q. 23(4), 582–603.Google Scholar
  51. Trist, E. (1953).Some Observations on the Machineface as a Socio-Technical System, Tavistock Document Series, London.Google Scholar
  52. Trist, E. (1981). The Evolution of socio-technical systems. Occasional Papers, No. 2, Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre, Toronto, June.Google Scholar
  53. Trist, E., and Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the Longwall method of coal getting.Hum. Relat. 4, 3–38.Google Scholar
  54. Ulrich, W. (1991). Critical heuristics of social systems design. In Flood, R. L., and Jackson, M. C. (eds.),Critical Systems Thinking Directed Readings, Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp. 103–115.Google Scholar
  55. Whyte, W. F. (1984).Learning from the Field, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
  56. Whyte, W. F. (1991).Participatory Action Research, Sage, Newbury Park.Google Scholar
  57. Wirth, A. G. (1989).John Dewey as Educator. His Design for Work in Education (1894–1904), University of America Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Morten Levin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department for Organization and Work Science, The Norwegian Institute of TechnologyThe University of TrondheimTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations