Systemic Practice and Action Research

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 127–152

“Unfolding” Natural Resource-Use Information Systems: Fieldwork in Botswana

  • Martin Reynolds
Article

Abstract

My research examines the performance of natural resource-use information systems. I question why such systems, despite receiving substantial financial and human investment, appear to have a weak impact on projects, programs, and policy intended for rural poverty alleviation in developing countries. Drawing on my understanding of the “process of unfolding” introduced by C. West Churchman, and its particular relationship to Habermasian constitutive interests, I reflect on my experiences of using the concept during fieldwork undertaken in Botswana. The concept is found useful on two fronts: first, it provides a purposeful guide for gathering and processing information/knowledge—what I have termed an epistemological intent; second, it provides a useful template for evaluating other information systems; in particular, the role of expertise—what I have termed an ontological intent. The process of unfolding, as I understand it, also provides an invitation for constructive (rather than self-indulgent) personal reflection: what might be termed a constitutive reflexive intent. By making information gathering and knowledge generation less mystical and a more transparent social activity, the conceptual and practical application of the process of unfolding can help toward retrieving inquiry as being a purposeful, openly political, and thereby less deceptive engagement: features which I believe are found particularly wanting in the business of rural development information gathering.

natural resource use information systems process of “unfolding” Botswana 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Bell, S. (1994). Methods and Mindsets: Towards an understanding of the tyrrany of methodology. Public Admin. Dev. 14(4), 323–338.Google Scholar
  2. Biggs, S. (1995). Participatory Technology Development: Reflections on current advocacy and past technology development. Paper prepared for PTD workshop, The Limits of Participants, organized by Intermediate Technology, Institute of Education, Bedford Way, London.Google Scholar
  3. Caplan, P. (1988a). Engendering knowledge: The politics of ethnography—Part 1. Anthropol. Today 4(5), 8–12.Google Scholar
  4. Caplan, P. (1988b). Engendering knowledge: The politics of ethnography—Part 2. Anthropol. Today 4(6), 14–16.Google Scholar
  5. Chambers, R. (1992). Rural appraisal: Rapid, relaxed and participatory, IDS Discussion Paper No. 311.Google Scholar
  6. Chambers, R. (1993). Challenging the Professions: Frontiers for Rural Development, Intermediate Technology, London.Google Scholar
  7. Chambers, R. (1997). Whose Reality Counts? Putting the Last First, Intermediate Technology, London.Google Scholar
  8. Chambers, R., et al. (eds.) (1989). Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research, Intermediate Technology, London.Google Scholar
  9. Checkland, P. B. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  10. Checkland, P. B. (1991). Towards the coherent expression of systems ideas. J. Appl. Syst. Anal. 18, 25–27.Google Scholar
  11. Checkland, P. B., and Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  12. Cherrett, I. (1995). Redefining the roles of environmental NGOs in Africa. Dev. South. Africa 5(1).Google Scholar
  13. Churchman, C. W. (1971). The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organizations, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Churchman, C. W. (1979). The Systems Approach and Its Enemies, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Devault, M. J. (1990). Talking and listening from women's standpoint: Feminist strategies for interviewing and analysis. Soc. Problems 37(1), 96–116.Google Scholar
  16. Drinkwater, M. (1992). Visible actors and visible researchers: Critical hermeneutics in an actor-oriented perspective. Sociol. Ruralis 32(4), 367–388.Google Scholar
  17. Farrington, J. (1995). Book Review: Beyond Farmer First (Scoones & Thompson, 1994). Agr. Res. Extens. Newslett. 31, 15–21.Google Scholar
  18. Finch, J. (1984). “It's great to have someone to talk to”: The ethics and politics of interviewing women. In Bell, Co., and Roberts, H. (eds.), Social Researching Politics, Problems and Practice, Routledge & Keegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  19. Flood, R. L. (1995). What is happening when you problem solve? A critical systems perspective. Syst. Pract. 8, 215–228.Google Scholar
  20. Flood, R. L. (1998). C. West Churchman. In Warner, M. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Business Management, Thomson, London.Google Scholar
  21. Flood, R. L., and Jackson, M. C. (1991a). Critical systems heuristics: Application of an emancipatory approach for police strategy towards carrying offensive weapons. Syst. Pract. 4, 283–302.Google Scholar
  22. Flood, R. L., and Jackson, M. C. (1991b). Total systems intervention: A practical face to critical systems thinking. In Flood, R. L., and Jackson, M. C. (eds.), Critical Systems Thinking, John Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  23. Flood, R. L., and Romm, N. R. A. (1996). Contours of triple loop learning. In Forum One: Action Research and Critical Systems Thinking, University of Hull, Hull.Google Scholar
  24. Flood, R., and Romm, N. R. A. (1995). Enhancing the process of methodological choice in Total Systems Intervention and improving the chances of tackling coercion. Syst. Pract. 8, 377–408.Google Scholar
  25. Flood, R. L., and Ulrich, W. (1990). Conversations on critical systems thinking. In Flood, R. L. and Jackson, M. C. (eds.), Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 185–206.Google Scholar
  26. Galliher, J. F. (1980). Social scientists ethical responsibilities to superordinates: looking upwards meekly. Soc. Problems 27(3), 298–308.Google Scholar
  27. Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and Human Interests, Heinemann, London.Google Scholar
  28. Harvey, C. (1992). Botswana: Is the economic miracle over? IDS Discussion Paper 298 (Sussex University).Google Scholar
  29. IIED (1988-present). RRA Notes: Sustainable Agriculture Programme, International Institute for Environment and Development, London.Google Scholar
  30. Ison, R. (1993a). Changing community attitudes. Rangeland J. 15(1), 154–166.Google Scholar
  31. Ison, R. L. (1993b). Soft systems: A non-computer view of decision support. In Stuth, J. W., and Lyons, B. G. (eds.), Decision Support Systems for the Management of Grazing Lands: Emerging Issues, UNESCO & Parthenon, Paris.Google Scholar
  32. Levin, M. (1997b). The quest for quality in participatory inquiry—A critical reflection on quality. In Wilby, J. (ed.), Forum Two: Action Research and Critical Systems Thinking; Contributions to a Discussion Organised by the Centre for Systems Studies. June 23–25, 1997, University of Hull, Hull.Google Scholar
  33. Long, N., and Long, A. (eds.) (1992). Battlefields of Knowledge: The Interlocking of Theory and Practice in Social Research and Development, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  34. Marshall, J. (1986). Exploring the experience of women managers: towards rigour in qualitativeGoogle Scholar
  35. Mosse, D. (1994). Authority, gender and knowledge: Theoretical reflections on the practice of participatory rural appraisal. Dev. Change 25(3), 497–525.Google Scholar
  36. Oakley, A. (1992). Social Support and Motherhood: The Natural History of a Research Project, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  37. Oliga, J. C. (1988). Methodological foundations of systems methodologies. Syst. Pract. 1, 87–109.Google Scholar
  38. Oliga, J. C. (1990). Power-ideology matrix in social systems control. In Flood, R. L., and Jackson, M. C. (eds.), Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings, John Wiley, Chichester, pp. 269–286.Google Scholar
  39. Russell, D. B., and Ison, R. L. (1991). The research-development relationship in rangelands: An opportunity for contextual science. In Proceedings of IVth Congress International des Terres de Parcours, Montpellier, France, pp. 1047–1054.Google Scholar
  40. Schecter, D. (1990). Critical systems thinking in the 1980s: A connective summary. In Flood, R. L., and Jackson, M. C. (eds.), Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings, John Wiley, Chichester. pp. 213–226.Google Scholar
  41. Scoones, I., and Thompson, J. (eds.). (1994). Beyond Farmer First: Rural People's Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice, Intermediate Technology, London.Google Scholar
  42. Stadler, J. (1995). Development, research, participation: Towards a critique of PRA methods. Dev. South. Africa 12(6), 805–814.Google Scholar
  43. Tripp, R. (1989). Farmer participation in agricultural research: New directions or old problems? IDS Discussion Paper 256 (Sussex University).Google Scholar
  44. Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical Philosophy, Haupt (John Wiley, paperback version), Stuttgart (Chichester).Google Scholar
  45. Ulrich, W. (1988a). Churchman's “process of unfolding”—Its significance for policy analysis and evaluation. Syst. Pract. 1, 415–428.Google Scholar
  46. Ulrich, W. (1988b). Systems thinking, systems practice, and practical philosophy: A program of research. Syst. Pract. 1, 137–163.Google Scholar
  47. Ulrich, W. (1993). Some difficulties with holistic thinking. Syst. Pract. 6(6), 583–608.Google Scholar
  48. Ulrich, W. (1996). A Primer to Critical Systems Heuristics for Action Researchers, University of Hull, Hull.Google Scholar
  49. UNDP (1991–1996). Human Development Reports, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  50. Webber, L., and Ison, R. (1995). Participatory rural appraisal design: Conceptual and process issues. Agr. Syst. 47(1), 107–131.Google Scholar
  51. White, S. (1996). Depoliticising development: The uses and abuses of participation. Devel. Practice 6(1), 6–15.Google Scholar
  52. Wilby, J. (ed.). (1996). Forum One; Action Research and Critical Systems Thinking; Contributions to a Discussion Organised by the Centre for Systems Studies (April 29–May 1, 1996), University of Hull, Hull.Google Scholar
  53. Wilby, J. (ed.). (1997a). Forum One: Action Research and Critical Systems Thinking; Transcripts and Reflections on a Discussion Organised by the Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull, Hull.Google Scholar
  54. Wilby, J. (ed.) (1997b). Forum Two: Action Research and Critical Systems Thinking; Contributions to a Discussion Organised by the Centre for Systems Studies. June 23–24, 1997, University of Hull, Hull.Google Scholar
  55. Woolgar, S. (1988). Reflexivity is the ethnographer of the text. In Woolgar, S. (ed.), Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge, Sage, London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Reynolds
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Development Policy & ManagementUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations