Critical Systems Heuristics
Critical systems heuristics (CSH) is a framework for reflective professional practice organised around the central tool of boundary critique. This paper, 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.
- Ackoff, R.L. (1981). Creating the Corporate Future: Plan or Be Planned For. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Berardi, A., Bernard, C., Buckingham-Shum, S., Ganapathy, S., Mistry, J., Reynolds, M., Ulrich, W. (2006). The ECOSENSUS project: co-evolving tools, practices and open content for participatory natural resource management. 2nd International Conference on e-Social Science, 28-30 June, Manchester, UK. Presentation and full paper available in the website of the National Centre for e-Social Science (NCeSS) of the Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC), http://www.ncess.ac.uk/research/sgp/ecocensus. Also available in the Open University’s Open Research Online site, http://oro.open.ac.uk/2692/.
- Carr, S. & Oreszczyn, S. (2003). 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, 20-22 March 2003. 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. (1997). Whose Reality Counts? Putting the Last First. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.Google Scholar
- Checkland, P.B. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester, UK, Wiley.Google Scholar
- Churchman, C.W. (1968). The Systems Approach. New York: Delta/Dell Publishing.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, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Dewey, J. (1925). The development of American pragmatism. Studies in the History of Ideas 2(Supplement), 353-377.Google Scholar
- Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York and London: Continuum.Google Scholar
- Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and Human Interests. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
- Habermas, J. (1984/87). The Theory of Communicative Action. 2 Volumes, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Kant, I. (1787). Critique of Pure Reason (2nd ed). Transl. by N.K. Smith, 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, Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics, Lakeville, CT: International Non-Aristotelian Library, pp. 747-761.Google Scholar
- Peirce, C.S (1878). How to make our ideas clear. Popular Science Monthly 12(January), 386-302.Google Scholar
- Reynolds, M. (2007). Evaluation based on critical systems heuristics. In B. Williams and I. Imam (eds.), Systems Concepts in Evaluation: An Expert Anthology, Point Reyes, CA: Edge Press, pp. 101-122.Google Scholar
- Reynolds, M., Berardi, A., Bernard, C., Bachler, M., Buckingham-Shum, S., Mistry, J., Ulrich, W. (2007). ECOSENSUS: developing collaborative learning systems for stakeholding development in environmental planning. Curriculum, Teaching & Student Support Conference, The Open University, Milton Keynes, 1-2 May 2007. Paper available in the Open University’s Open Research Online site, http://oro.open.ac.uk/8580/. Also available through the site of the Knowledge Media Institute, http://oro.open.ac.uk/view/faculty_dept/kmi.html.
- Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical Philosophy. Bern, Switzerland, and Stuttgart, Germany: Haupt. Paperback reprint version, Chichester, UK: Wiley, 1994 (same pagination).Google Scholar
- Ulrich, W. (1996). A Primer to Critical Systems Heuristics for Action Researchers. Hull, UK: University of Hull, Centre for Systems Studies.Google Scholar
- Ulrich, W. (2002). Boundary critique. In H.G. Daellenbach and R.L. Flood (eds.), The Informed Student Guide to Management Science, London: Thomson Learning, pp. 41-42.Google Scholar
- Ulrich, W. (2005). A brief introduction to critical systems heuristics (CSH). Paper available in the Open University’s ECOSENSUS project web site, http://projects.kmi.open.ac.uk/ecosensus/about/csh.html, or in the CSH section of Werner Ulrich’s Home Page, http://wulrich.com/csh.html.
- Ulrich, W. (2006). Critical pragmatism: a new approach to professional and business ethics. In L. Zsolnai (ed.), Interdisciplinary Yearbook of Business Ethics, Vol. 1, Oxford, UK, and Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang, pp. 53-85.Google Scholar
- Ulrich, W. (2007b). The greening of pragmatism (three reflections on the past, present, and future of critical pragmatism). Ulrich’s Bimonthly, March-April, May-June, and September-October 2007, http://wulrich.com/bimonthly_march2007.html.
- Ulrich, W. (2008). The mainstream concept of reflective practice and its blind spot. Ulrich’s Bimonthly, March-April 2008, http://wulrich.com/bimonthly_march2008.html.
- Žižek, S. (1989). The Sublime Object of Ideology. London: Verso.Google Scholar