Advertisement

Systemic Practice and Action Research

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 1–15 | Cite as

Theoretical Pluralism in Systemic Action Research

  • Gerald MidgleyEmail author
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

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. Finally, five consequences of this systemic perspective on theoretical pluralism are proposed: (i) knowledge cannot be regarded as universal and cumulative; (ii) theories are more or less useful depending on the purposes of intervention that are being pursued; (iii) we can think pluralistically about the agency and choices of the researcher; (iv) while it is impossible to produce universal standards for choice between theories, it is nevertheless still possible to generate standards of relevance to particular contexts; and (v) given that different theories inform different methodologies and methods, methodological pluralism (drawing upon methods from different paradigms) becomes a useful partner to theoretical pluralism.

Keywords

Boundary critique Epistemology Methodological pluralism Philosophy of action research Process philosophy Theoretical pluralism Systemic intervention Systems philosophy 

References

  1. Ackoff RL (1981) Creating the corporate future. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Argyris C, Schön DA (1985) Strategy, change and defensive routines. Ballinger, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateson G (1972) Steps to an ecology of mind. Jason Aronson, Northvale, NJGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateson G (1979) Mind and nature: a necessary unity. Wildwood House, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhaskar R (1986) Scientific realism and human emancipation. Verso, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Bilson A (1997) Guidelines for a constructivist approach: steps toward the adaptation of ideas from family therapy for use in organizations. Syst Pract 10:153–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bohm D (1980) Wholeness and the implicate order. Ark, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Burrell G, Morgan G (1979) Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. Heinemann, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Checkland P (1981) Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  10. Churchman CW (1968) The systems approach. Dell, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Churchman CW (1970) Operations research as a profession. Manage Sci 17:B37–B53Google Scholar
  12. Córdoba J-R (2002) A critical systems thinking approach for the planning of information technology in the information society. PhD thesis, University of Hull, HullGoogle Scholar
  13. Fals-Borda O, Rahman MA (1991) Action and knowledge: breaking the monopoly with participatory action research. Apex Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Flood RL (1990) Liberating systems theory. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Flood RL, Jackson MC (eds) (1991) Critical systems thinking: directed readings. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  16. Flood RL, Romm NRA (eds) (1996) Critical systems thinking: current research and practice. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Fodor JA (1974) Special sciences (or: the disunity of science as a working hypothesis). Synthese 28:97–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freeden M (1991) Rights. Open University Press, Milton KeynesGoogle Scholar
  19. Georgiou I (2000) The ontological constitution of boundary-judging in the phenomenological epistemology of Von Bertalanffy’s general system theory. Syst Pract Action Res 13:391–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gergen KJ (1991) The saturated self: dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Gergen KJ (1994) The limits of pure critique. In: Simons HW, Billig M (eds) After postmodernism: reconstructing ideology critique. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Greene B (2004) The fabric of the cosmos: space, time, and the texture of reality. Vintage Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Gregory WJ (1992) Critical systems thinking and pluralism: a new constellation. PhD thesis, City University, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Hacking I (1999) The social construction of what? Harvard University Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  25. Jackson MC (1990) Beyond a system of systems methodologies. J Oper Res Soc 41:657–668Google Scholar
  26. Jackson MC (1991) Systems methodology for the management sciences. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Jackson MC (2000) Systems approaches to management. Kluwer/Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Jackson MC, Keys P (1984) Towards a system of systems methodologies. J Oper Res Soc 35:473–486Google Scholar
  29. James W (1907) Pragmatism: a new name for some old ways of thinking, 1975 edn. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kelly GA (1955) The psychology of personal constructs. volume one: a theory of personality. W.W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Kuhn T (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  32. Luhmann N (1986) Ecological communication. 1989 trans. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  33. Maturana H (1988) Reality: the search for objectivity or the quest for a compelling argument. Irish J Psychol 9:25–82Google Scholar
  34. Maturana HR, Varela FJ (1992) The tree of knowledge: the biological roots of human understanding, revised edn. Shambhala, BostonGoogle Scholar
  35. Merleau-Ponty M (1962) The phenomenology of perception. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Midgley G (1992) Pluralism and the legitimation of systems science. Syst Pract 5:147–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Midgley G (2000) Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology, and practice. Kluwer/Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Midgley G (2003) Science as systemic intervention: some implications of systems thinking and complexity for the philosophy of science. Syst Pract Action Res 16:77–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Midgley G (2004) Five sketches of post-modernism: implications for systems thinking and operational research. J Organ Transform Social Change 1:47–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Midgley G (2008) Systems thinking, complexity and the philosophy of science. Emergence Complexity Organization 10(4):55–73Google Scholar
  41. Midgley G, Ochoa-Arias AE (2001) Unfolding a theory of systemic intervention. Syst Pract Action Res 14:615–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Midgley G, Foote J, Ahuriri-Driscoll A, Wood D (2007a) Towards a new framework for evaluating participative and systemic methods. In: Proceedings of the 51st annual conference of the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS), Tokyo, Japan, July 2007Google Scholar
  43. Midgley G, Ahuriri-Driscoll A, Baker V, Foote J, Hepi M, Taimona H, Rogers-Koroheke M, Gregor J, Gregory W, Lange M, Veth J, Winstanley A, Wood D (2007b) Practitioner identity in systemic intervention: reflections on the promotion of environmental health through Māori community development. Syst Res Behav Sci 24:233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miller JG (1965) Living systems: basic concepts. Behav Sci 10:193–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mingers JC (1992) Criticising the phenomenological critique: autopoiesis and critical realism. Syst Pract 5:173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mingers JC (1995) Self-producing systems: implications and applications of autopoiesis. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Mingers J (2006) Realising systems thinking: knowledge and action in management science. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Mingers J, Gill A (eds) (1997) Multimethodology: the theory and practice of combining management science methodologies. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  49. Morgan G (1986) Images of organization. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  50. Oliga JC (1988) Methodological foundations of systems methodologies. Syst Pract 1:87–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Popper KR (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. Originally published as Logik de Forschung, 1935. Harper, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Popper KR (1972) Objective knowledge. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  53. Prigogine I (1987) Exploring complexity. Eur J Oper Res 30:97–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Prigogine I (1989) The rediscovery of time: science in a world of limited predictability. Beshara 9:28–32Google Scholar
  55. Prigogine I, Stengers I (1984) Order out of chaos: man’s new dialogue with nature. Fontana, LondonGoogle Scholar
  56. Rahman MA (1993) People’s self-development: perspectives on participatory action research—a journey through experience. Zed Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  58. Reason P (ed) (1988) Human inquiry in action: developments in new paradigm research. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  59. Romm NRA (1996) Inquiry-and-intervention in systems planning: probing methodological rationalities. World Futures 47:25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Seidman E (1988) Back to the future, community psychology: unfolding a theory of social intervention. Am J Community Psychol 16:3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Selvini-Palazzoli M, Cecchin G, Prata G, Boscolo L (1978) Paradox and counterparadox. Jason Aronson, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. Taket A, White L (2000) Partnership and participation: decision-making in the multiagency setting. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  63. Ulrich W (1983) Critical heuristics of social planning: a new approach to practical philosophy. Haupt, BerneGoogle Scholar
  64. Ulrich W (1996) A primer to critical systems heuristics for action researchers. Centre for Systems Studies, HullGoogle Scholar
  65. Von Bertalanffy L (1968) General system theory. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  66. Von Glasersfeld E (1985) Reconstructing the concept of knowledge. Arch Psychol 53:91–101Google Scholar
  67. Walker RJ (2007) Social auditing as social learning: a theoretical reconstruction. PhD thesis, University of Hull, HullGoogle Scholar
  68. Watzlawick P, Beavin J, Jackson DD (1968) Pragmatics of human communication: a study of interactional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes. Faber and Faber, LondonGoogle Scholar
  69. Whyte WF (ed) (1991) Participatory action research. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  70. Willmott H (1993) Breaking the paradigm mentality. Organ Stud 14:681–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) Ltd.ChristchurchNew Zealand
  2. 2.Centre for Systems Studies, Business SchoolUniversity of HullHullUK
  3. 3.Victoria Management SchoolVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand
  4. 4.School of Integrative SystemsUniversity of QueenslandQLDAustralia
  5. 5.School of Social and Political SciencesUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations