Using Soft Systems Thinking to Confront the Politics of Innovation in Engineering Education

  • Henk Eijkman
  • Obada Kayali
  • Stephen Yeomans


Engineering curriculum innovators face a range of formidable barriers which, singly or in combination, have thwarted countless attempts at sustainable curricular quality improvement initiatives regardless, of their educational efficacy. The often ignored elephant in the room of programmatic quality improvement is the politics of change. The essential point of this chapter is this: a whole-of-programme curriculum innovation demands an intervention strategy capable of effectively responding to multiple stakeholder perspectives and therefore to the politics of change. It is argued that Soft Systems Methodology embedded within a Systemic Action Research approach will give engineering educators that capability.


Engineering Education Participatory Action Research Curriculum Change Soft System Methodology Curriculum Innovation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ackoff, R. L. (1981). Creating the corporate future. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, G. B. (2004). Symbolic politics and institutional boundaries in curriculum reform: The case of National Sectarian University. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(5), 572–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bocock, J. (1994). Curriculum change and professional identity: The role of the university lecturer. In J. Bocock & D. Watson (Eds.), Managing the university curriculum: Making common cause (pp. 116–126). Bristol, PA: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brodeur, D., Crawley, E., Ingemarsson, I., Malmqvist, J., & Ostlund, S. (2002). International collaboration in the reform of engineering education. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Google Scholar
  5. Checkland, P. B. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Checkland, P. B., & Howell, S. (1998). Information, systems and information systems. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Checkland, P. B., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systemsmethodology in action. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Crawley, E. F. (2002). Creating the CDIO syllabus, a Universal Template for Engineering Education. Paper presented at the 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, November 6–9, 2002, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  9. Crosthwaite, C., Cameron, I., Lant, P., & Litster, J. (2006). Balancing curriculum processes and content in a project centered curriculum in pursuit of graduate attributes. Reprinted from Education for Chemical Engineers, 1, 39–48, Trans IChemE, Part D, 2006.Google Scholar
  10. Daenzer, W. F. (ed). (1976). Systems engineering. Cologne: Peter Hanstein.Google Scholar
  11. Eijkman, H. (2008). Web 2.0 as a non-foundational network-centric learning space. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 25(2), 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eijkman, H., Backhouse, J., & Holgate, C. (2005). Quality as a homely place for the subaltern: The promise of post-colonial action research in transcultural universities. Workshop for the International Practitioner Research Conference & Collaborative Action Research Network Conference, 4–6 November, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  13. Flood, R. L. (2001). The relationship of ‘systems thinking’ to action research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 133–144). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Flood, R. L., & Jackson, M. C. (1991). Creative problem solving: Total systems intervention. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Froyd, J., Penberthy, D., & Watson, K. (2000). Good educational experiments are not always good change processes. 30th ASEE/EEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 18–21, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
  16. Gruba, P., Moffat, A., Sondergaard, H., & Zobel, J. (2004). What drives curriculum change? In Conferences in Research and Practice in Information. Paper presented at the Sixth Australasian Computing Education Conference, Dunedin, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  17. Hall, A. D. (1974). Three dimensional morphology of systems engineering. In F. Rapp (Ed.), Contributions to a philosophy of technology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  18. Jackson, M. C. (1990). Beyond a system of systems methodologies. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 39, 715–724.Google Scholar
  19. Jones, E. A. (2002). Transforming the curriculum: Preparing students for a changing world. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 29(3), 124.Google Scholar
  20. Kemmis, S., & Grundy, S. (1997). Educational action research in Australia: Organisations and practices. In S. Hollingsworth (Ed.), International action research: A casebook for educational reform (pp. 40–48). London: Falmer press.Google Scholar
  21. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Geelong: Deakin University.Google Scholar
  22. Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  23. Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. (1981). Challenging strategic planning assumptions. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. McWilliam, E., Hearn, G., & Haseman, B. (2008). Transdisciplinarity for creative futures: What barriers and opportunities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 247–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Merton, P., Clark, C., Richardson, J., & Froyd, J. (2001). Engineering curricular change across the foundation coalition: Potential lessons from qualitative research. Proceedings, Thirty-First ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 3, Reno, NV, F4B15–20.Google Scholar
  26. Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic intervention: Philosophy, methodology, and practice. New York, NY: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  27. Millar, S. B., & Courter, S. S. (1996). From promise to reality: How to guide an educational reform from pilot stage to full-scale implementation. Prism, 6, 31–34.Google Scholar
  28. Morecroft, J. D., & Sternman, J. D. (Eds.). (1994). Modeling for learning organizations. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.Google Scholar
  29. National Academy of Engineering. (2005). Educating the engineer of 2020. Adapting engineering education to the new century. Washington, DC: The National Academies.Google Scholar
  30. Newble, D., & Cannon, R. (2001). A handbook for medical teachers (pp. 89–108). London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  31. Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1996). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  32. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Rosenhead, J. (1989). Rational analysis for a problematic world. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London; Temple Smith.Google Scholar
  35. Sunal, D. W., Sunal, C. S., Whitaker, K. W., Freeman, L. M., Odell, M., Hodeges, J., et al. (2001). Teaching science in higher education: Faculty professional development and barriers to change. School Science and Mathematics, 101(5), 246–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wadsworth, Y. (1998). What is participatory action research? Action Research International. Paper 2. Available online at
  37. Zeichner, K. (2001). Educational Action Research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 273–283). Sage: London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of New South Wales at The Australian Defence Force AcademyCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations