The Concept of Contradiction in Soft Systems Practice — An Illustration
Basically, this chapter addresses the question of whether the explicit thinking in contradictions can be a useful supplement to Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland, 1981). The idea is by Mathiassen who examines system concepts and their implications and limitations (Mathiassen, 1987) by a comparison with the dialectics of Israel (1979). A more detailed version of the arguments in this chapter is given in Nielsen (1988).
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Checkland, P. B., 1980, Primary task and issue-based root definitions, J. App. Sys. Anal., 7 : 51.Google Scholar
- Checkland, P. B., 1981, “Systems Thinking, Systems Practice”, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
- Checkland, P. B., 1980, Soft systems methodology as process: a reply to M. C. Jackson, J. App. Sys. Anal., 9 : 36.Google Scholar
- Israel, J., 1979, “The Language of Dialectics and the Dialectics of Language”, Munksgaard and Humanities Press and Harvester Press, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
- Jackson, M. C., 1982, The nature of “soft” systems thinking: the work of Churchman, Ackoff and Checkland, J. App. Sys. Anal., 9 : 17.Google Scholar
- Jackson, M. C., 1983, The nature of “soft” systems thinking: comments on the three replies, J. App. Sys. Anal., 10 : 109.Google Scholar
- Mathiassen, L., 1987, Systems, processes and structures, in: “Systems Design for Human Development and Productivity: Participation and Beyond”, P. Docherty, ed., North-Holland, Amsterdam: 49.Google Scholar
- Mingers, J., 1984, Subjectivism and soft systems methodology — a critique, J. App. Sys. Anal., 11 : 85.Google Scholar
- Nielsen, P. A., 1988, “The Emergence of Contradictions in Soft Systems Practice”, Report R-88-22, Institute of Electronic Systems, Aalborg University Centre, Denmark.Google Scholar