Advertisement

Systemic Practice and Action Research

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 77–97 | Cite as

Science as Systemic Intervention: Some Implications of Systems Thinking and Complexity for the Philosophy of Science

  • Gerald MidgleyEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper sidesteps the usual starting points for debate about complexity and the philosophy of science, which tend to assume that science is primarily about observation. Instead, the starting point is intervention, defined as purposeful action by an agent to create change. While some authors suggest that intervention and observation are opposites, it is argued here that observation (as undertaken in science) should be viewed as just one type of intervention. We should therefore welcome scientific techniques of observation into a pluralistic set of intervention methods, alongside methods for exploring values, reflecting on subjective understandings, planning future activities, etc. However, there is a need to explicitly counter a possible pernicious interpretation of this argument: intervention could (erroneously) be viewed as flawlessly preplanned change based on accurate predictions of the consequences of action. This is the mechanistic worldview that systems thinking and complexity science seek to challenge. Therefore, having redefined scientific observation as intervention, the paper revisits insights from systems thinking and complexity to propose a methodology of systemic intervention. Some brief reflections are then provided on the wider social implications of this methodology.

boundary critique complexity critical systems thinking methodological pluralism philosophy of science systemic intervention systems methodology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alröe, H. F. (2000). Science as systems Learning: Some reflections on the cognitive and communicational aspects of science. Cybernet. Hum. Know. 7, 57-78.Google Scholar
  2. Bagby, J. W. (1957). A cross-cultural study of perceptual predominance in binocular rivalry. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 54, 331-334.Google Scholar
  3. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Jason Aronsonm, Northvale, NJ.Google Scholar
  4. Bohr, N. (1963). Essays 1958/1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, Interscience, Wiley and Sons, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, M. (1996). A framework for assessing participation. In, Flood, R. L., and Romm, N. R. A. (eds.), Critical Systems Thinking: Current Research and Practice, Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, M., and Packham, R. (1999). Organisational learning, critical systems thinking and systemic learning. Research Memorandum 20. Centre for Systems Studies, School of Management, University of Hull, Hull, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. Casti, J. L., and Karlqvist, A. (1996). (Eds.) Boundaries and Barriers: On the Limits to Scientific Knowledge, Perseus Books, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. Churchman, C. W. (1970). Operations research as a profession. Manage. Sci. 17, B37-B53Google Scholar
  9. Churchman, C. W. (1979). The Systems Approach and Its Enemies. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and Post-Modernism, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  11. Cordoba, J., and Midgley, G. (2003). Addressing organisational and societal concerns: An application of critical systems thinking to information systems planning in Colombia. In Cano, J. J. (ed.). Critical Reflections on Information Systems: A Systemic Approach, Idea Group, Hershey, PAGoogle Scholar
  12. Cordoba, J., Midgley, G., and Torres, D. (2000). Rethinking stakeholder involvement: An application of the theories of autopoiesis and boundary critique in IS planning. In Clarke, S., and Lehaney, B. (eds.). Human-Centered Methods in Information Systems: Current Research and Practice, Idea Group, Hershey, PAGoogle Scholar
  13. Darier, É. (ed.) (1999). Discourses of the Environment. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Delanty, G. (1997). Social Science: Beyond Constructivism and Realism. Open University Press, Buckingham, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Dewey, J. (1946). Problems of Men. Philosophical Library, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Einstein, A. (1934). The World as I See It. Covici Friede, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Engel, E. (1956). The role of content in binocular resolution. Am. J. Psychol. 69, 87-91.Google Scholar
  18. Fay, B. (1987). Critical Social Science, Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  19. Fitzgerald, L. A. (1999). Why there's nothing wrong with systems thinking a little chaos won't fix? A critique of modern systems theory and the practice of organizational change it informs. Syst. Pract. Act. Res. 12, 229-235.Google Scholar
  20. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977, Gordon, C. (ed.). Harvester Press, Brighton, UK.Google Scholar
  21. Foucault, M. (1984). What is enlightenment? In Rabinow, P. (ed.), The Foucault Reader. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Gare, A. (1996). Nihilism Inc.: Environmental Destruction and the Metaphysics of Sustainability, Eco-Logical Press, Como, NSWGoogle Scholar
  23. Gregory, W. J. (2000). Transforming self and society: A "critical appreciation" model. Syst. Pract. Act. Res. 13, 475-501.Google Scholar
  24. Habermas, J. (1971). Toward a Rational Society. Beacon Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  25. Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and Human Interests, Heinemann, London.Google Scholar
  26. Habermas, J. (1984a). The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume One: Reason and the Rationalisation of Society, Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  27. Habermas, J. (1984b). The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume Two: The Critique of Functionalist Reason, Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  28. Hastorf, A. H., and Myro, G. (1959). The effect of meaning on binocular rivalry. Am. J. Psychol. 72, 393-400.Google Scholar
  29. Jackson, M. C. (1991). Systems Methodology for the Management Sciences, Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Kant, I. (1933). The Critique of Pure Reason, 2nd ed. Smith, N. K. (trans.). Macmillan, Basingstoke (originally published 1787)Google Scholar
  31. Kelly, G. A. (1955.). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. Volume One: A Theory of Personality. W. W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  33. Latour, B. (1991). We Have Never Been Modern, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  34. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Hum. Relat. 1, 2-38.Google Scholar
  35. Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving Social Conflicts, Harper and Brothers, New York.Google Scholar
  36. Lewin, K. (1952). Field Theory in the Social Sciences, Tavistock, London.Google Scholar
  37. MacIntyre, A. (1985). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
  38. Maturana, H. (1988a). Ontology of Observing: The Biological Foundations of Self Consciousness and the Physical Domain of Existence. http://www.inteco.cl/biology/Google Scholar
  39. Maturana, H. (1988b). Reality: The search for objectivity or the quest for a compelling argument. Irish J. Psychol. 9, 25-82.Google Scholar
  40. Maturana, H. R., and Varela, F. J. (1992). The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding, Revised ed., Shambhala, Boston.Google Scholar
  41. Merkel, W. T., and Searight, H. R. (1992). Why families are not like swamps, solar systems, or thermostats: Some limits of systems theory as applied to family therapy. Contemp. Family Ther. 14, 33-50.Google Scholar
  42. Midgley, G. (1992). The sacred and profane in critical systems thinking. Syst. Pract. 5, 5-16.Google Scholar
  43. Midgley, G. (1994). Ecology and the poverty of humanism: A critical systems perspective. Syst. Res. 11, 67-76.Google Scholar
  44. Midgley, G. (1997a). Mixing methods: Developing systemic intervention. In Mingers, J., and Gill, A. (eds.), Multimethodology: The Theory and Practice of Combining Management Science Methodologies, Wiley, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  45. Midgley, G. (1997b). Dealing with coercion: Critical systems heuristics and beyond. Syst. Pract. 10, 37-57.Google Scholar
  46. Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology, and Practice. Kluwer/Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Midgley, G. (2001). Rethinking the unity of science. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 30, 379-409.Google Scholar
  48. Midgley, G., Munlo, I., and Brown, M. (1998). The theory and practice of boundary critique: Developing housing services for older people. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 49, 467-478.Google Scholar
  49. Miller, J. G. (1978). Living Systems, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  50. Northrop, F. S. C. (1967). The method and theories of physical science and their bearing upon biological organization. In Marks, R. W. (ed.), Great Ideas in Modern Science, Bantam Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Oliga, J. (1996). Power, Ideology, and Control, Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  52. Pam, A. (1993). Family systems theory—A critical view. New Ideas Psychol. 11, 77-94.Google Scholar
  53. Pepper, S. C. (1942). World Hypotheses: A Study in Evidence. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  54. Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Harper, New York (original German edition published 1935)Google Scholar
  55. Popper, K. R. (1966). The Open Society and Its Enemies, 5th ed., Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  56. Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective Knowledge. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  57. Popper, K. R. (1976). The logic of the social sciences. In Adorno, T. W., Albert, H., Dahrendorf, R., Habermas, J., Pilot, H., and Popper, K. R. (eds.), The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology, Heinemann, LondonGoogle Scholar
  58. Prigogine, I. (1989). The rediscovery of time: Science in a world of limited predictability. Beshara 9, 28-32.Google Scholar
  59. Reason, P. (1996). Comments on Midgley's paper, 'The Theory and Practice of Boundary Critique.' In Wilby, J. (ed.), Forum one: Transcripts and Reflections, Centre for Systems Studies, Hull, UKGoogle Scholar
  60. Reason, P., and Heron, J. (1995). Co-operative inquiry. In Smith, J. A., HarrÉ, R., and van Langenhove, L. (eds.), Rethinking Methods in Psychology, Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  61. Resnik, D. B. (1998). The Ethics of Science: An Introduction, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  62. Robertson, J. (1998). Transforming Economic Life: A Millennial Challenge, Green Books, Dartington.Google Scholar
  63. Romm, N. R. A. (2001). Accountability in Social Research: Issues and Debates, Kluwer/Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  64. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  65. Rosenblatt, P. C. (1994). Metaphors of Family Systems Theory: Toward New Constructions, Guilford, New York.Google Scholar
  66. Seidman, E. (1988). Back to the future, community psychology: Unfolding a theory of social intervention. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 16, 3-24.Google Scholar
  67. Stacey, R. D., Griffin, D., and Shaw, P. (2000). Complexity and Management: Fad or Radical Challenge to Systems Thinking? Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  68. Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical Philosophy. Haupt, BerneGoogle Scholar
  69. Ulrich, W. (1987). Critical Heuristics of Social Systems Design. European Journal of Operational Research, 31, 276-283.Google Scholar
  70. Ulrich, W. (1994). Can we secure future-responsive management through systems thinking and design? Interfaces 24, 26-37.Google Scholar
  71. Ulrich, W. (1996). A Primer to Critical Systems Heuristics for Action Researchers. Centre for Systems Studies, Hull, UKGoogle Scholar
  72. Vega-Romero, R. (1999). Health Care and Social Justice Evaluation: A Critical and Pluralist Approach, Ph.D. thesis, University of Hull, Hull, UKGoogle Scholar
  73. Vickers, G. (1972). Freedom in a Rocking Boat: Changing Values in an Unstable Society, Penguin, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
  74. von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General Systems Theory, Penguin, London.Google Scholar
  75. Weimer, W. B. (1979). Notes on the Methodology of Scientific Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Sunderland. MA.Google Scholar
  76. Wright, D. S., Taylor, A., Davies, D. R., Sluckin, W., Lee, S. G. M., and Reason, J. T. (1970). Introducing Psychology: An Experimental Approach, Penguin, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
  77. Yolles, M. (2001). Viable boundary critique. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 52, 35-47.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Systems Studies, Business SchoolUniversity of HullHullUK

Personalised recommendations