Search results

This study aims to explore the ideas of Husserl and Gadamer as a possible basis of future soft systems methods of enquiry.

In Part one, the author has taken up the argument that soft systems is underpinned by Husserl’s phenomenology. The implication of this contention is an acceptance of subjectivity, and that our understanding the world is based upon personal experience. A consequence of this thinking renders predetermined models of the world to be deficient because each situation is unique. Instead of seeking a “solution”, the soft systems investigator engenders a cycle of learning as a means of gaining greater understanding. This means that a soft systems inquiry involves exploring the situation with those involved as a means of reaching an informed way forward. In this second paper, the author continues to explore Husserl’s phenomenology and also consider Gadamer’s ideas on hermeneutics and the importance of the “cycle of learning” that is central to any soft systems inquiry. The study concludes with a summary of points that, the author suggests, should be considered when undertaking a “soft” systems inquiry and in the development of any methodology that may enable it.

Both papers explore the phenomenological ideas of Husserl and the relationship to soft systems. In paper one, the basis of this exploration was Checkland's assertion that phenomenology could be the basis of soft systems. In the second paper, the author takes this further by exploring Gadamer's ideas on hermeneutics and reflect upon the possibility of blending them with Husserl's thinking.

I had some difficulty in tracking down the published work relating to the development of soft systems, notably the Journal of Applied Systems Analysis. This journal was published by Lancaster University and covered more than 20 years of debate and provides an important record of its development. The author managed to find what might be the only compete set at the University of Southampton. This allowed the author to gain some understanding of the development of the thinking. Since the late 20th century, the number of publications on soft ideas has been severely limited, seemingly reflecting the dominance of reductionist science. It seems timely for such a paper as this to help initiate further debate.

As indicated above – the difficulty is finding early journal publications where the ideas and their relationship to the action research programme emerged. Checkland himself, with whom the author has always enjoyed a close relationship, has, at the age of 90, withdrawn from academic activity; the early papers in the Journal of Applied Systems Analysis are probably the only “evidence” of the developing ideas at that time. Checkland has summarised the development (see references in the author’s two papers), but these early documents have the advantage of being written by a variety of scholars at the time rather than a single source.

The current crisis of the corona virus demonstrates the strength and the limitations of reductionist thinking. It is appropriate at this time that other methods and ideas of thinking about complexity are “visible”. Whilst there are many ideas, techniques, methods and so on in systems, these come from a common base, namely, to accept a world as tangible and easily modelled; adopting and alternative way of thinking can be challenging and healthy.

Soft systems thinking is 50 years old, but there has been virtually no progress since the soft systems methodology (SSM) emerged of Husserl and Gadamer in the 1970-1990s; such is the dominance of this methodology. This paper attempts to revisit the early thinking and consider what soft systems thinking means rather than focus on SSM.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between Husserl’s phenomenology and soft systems. An important idea arising from the action research programme at the University of Lancaster is the notion of soft systems. The concept of soft systems, that distinguished it from other systems (holistic) thinking of the time, was the conscious link between soft systems thinking and phenomenology. Phenomenology is that the realm of intentional consciousness that enables the phenomenologist to develop a radically unprejudiced justification of his (or her) basic views of the world and of himself and explore their rational interconnections. Similarly, in soft systems, it is acknowledged that reality is formed by sensation and fashioned by experience. It is not exclusively a process of thought (although this may shape how we process our experience), for us the world exists as the result of a subjective appreciation of it. In Part 1, the author explores how phenomenology informs soft systems theory and practice through the work of Husserl and some of those that influenced him and were influenced by him. In Part 2, the author explores a possible relationship between Husserl and Gadamer as a possible intellectual grounding for organisational inquiry.

The research was conducted by examining published material relating to the development of soft systems ideas and Husserl's phenomenology.

An analysis of the ideas within the material suggests that phenomenology can be considered as a underpinning the notion of soft systems

There is difficulty tracking down important papers that recorded the development of soft systems (i.e. 1970–1990) as Lancaster University had disposed of all issues. However, the author tracked down a source and was able to use this material as part of the research. In addition to helping research the origins of the idea, it also provides a paper trail for other researchers interested in these ideas.

Tracing the published material relating to soft systems necessitated visits to several universities as many of the important papers where no longer held by the University of Lancaster library.

It seems apposite that the ideas behind soft systems are resurrected as they offer an alternative way of thinking about complexity – which the modern world seems increasingly creating

There is a lack of research into soft systems as the publications describing the Lancaster research programme have centred around soft systems methodology (SSM). Checkland remarked a decade or so ago that said SSM should be taken as given and other ideas explored. There is little evidence that the soft ideas have been explored outside variations of SSM, this paper is intended to encourage more research into ‘soft’ systems.

I examine Bogdanov’s notion of Tektology within the context of modern communication systems and political agendas.

The practicality of Tektology from the perspective of 21st century sensibilities.

I argue that, like the implications of creating a suitable environment in Red Star, the practicality of enabling tektology in the 21st century is unlikely.

Tektology was an idea created in the early 20th century and the social conditions of that era-especially in Russia. The work associated with it is Stafford Beers VSM – an idea of combining the two was suggested by Jackson in 2023. Clearly, the early ideas rely on the source material of that era which are taken within the context of now. A mixture of early 20th and 21st century references are referred to. To limit such a topic as this to the word limits of the journal necessitates reducing discussion, for example the link between Tektology and Happiness.

It is not possible to test these ideas in a practical sense. The discussion relies upon what Tektology proposes and the way in which ICT is used in the 21 century. The only practical attempt of using technology as a major control system is that of Beer’s Chilean project but Tektolgy was more ambitious; it was aimed at creating a new society. The paper can only relate to observations about the way ICTs are used and controlled presently

The paper highlights the way that communication platforms are used and controlled in western society and elsewhere.

While attempts have been made to link Tektology to modern communication technologies few consider it within the context of 21st century cultural, political and media experience.

This paper is written in response to the question “What developments are taking place in systems?” as a contribution to the November 2006 Cybernetics Conference. The paper is based upon the assumption that what is meant by the question relates to research in an area of systems known as soft systems.

The paper begins with clarification about “Systems” and then the reader is taken on a personal journey through what are considered to be important contributions to soft systems research. The account includes reference to philosophical treatise on aspects relevant to some of the difficulties facing subjective research and some outcomes from research germane to the development of these ideas.

The paper recounts lessons learnt from the practice about the nature of undertaking soft systems research and whilst acknowledging that this research continues suggests that because of these soft systems has an intellectual and practical foundation.

Systems has become more contemplative about the nature of the world and how each one makes sense of it. Systems thinking and practice is no longer based solely on biological models but has a greater emphasis placed upon understanding and learning. Systems thinking now makes explicit that what comprises the whole is subjective but rigorous. The paper is of value to soft systems researchers and practitioners especially those who are attempting research/practice in which the clients are encouraged to participate in the process of learning.

The authors aimed to explore how involvement in a creative development accelerator impacted participants. In particular, the authors considered the role of suffering in the acceleration process.

The authors conducted an ethnography of a rapid prototyping program in video game development. Data collection included participant observation (162 h before, 186 during and 463 h after the main prototyping), interviews (23 formal and 35 informal) and artifact analysis (presentations, documents, games).

Acceleration led to individual suffering via burnout, lack of sleep, overwork and illness. In turn, participants required varying periods of recovery after participation and diverged in their longer-term reaction to the experience. The authors make two contributions. First, the authors deepen empirical understanding of the embodied impact of participation in an organizational accelerator. Second, the authors develop a theoretical process model of suffering in an accelerator program based on time and initiation.

This paper focused on a single iteration of a program based out of an incubator in the United Kingdom (UK) Suffering was discovered as part of a larger study of the program.

Business and technology accelerators are becoming a popular way to organize work. This research suggests that accelerator structures might lead to unintended and negative participant experiences.

This research challenges the assumption that accelerators always benefit, or at least not hurt, participants. The authors add to the limited attention paid to suffering in organizations. The authors conclude the impact of an accelerator is more complex than usually portrayed.

The purpose of this paper is to develop an approach for investigating the impact of surveillance technologies used to facilitate security and its effect upon privacy.

The authors develop a methodology by drawing on an isomorphy of concepts from the discipline of Macroeconomics. This proposal is achieved by considering security and privacy as economic goods, where surveillance is seen as security technologies serving identity (ID) management and privacy is considered as being supported by ID assurance solutions.

Reflecting upon Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety, the authors conclude that surveillance policies will not meet espoused ends and investigate an alternative strategy for policy making.

The result of this exercise suggests that the proposed methodology could be a valuable tool for decision making at a strategic and aggregate level.

The paper extends the current literature on economics of privacy by incorporating methods from macroeconomics.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse data literacy in the new Digital Competence Framework for Citizens (DigComp 2.2). Mid-2022 the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission published a new version of the DigComp (EC, 2022). This new version focusses more on the datafication of society and emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence. This paper analyses how DigComp 2.2 defines data literacy and how the framework looks at this from a societal lens.

This study critically examines DigComp 2.2, using the data literacy competence model developed by the Knowledge Centre for Digital and Media Literacy Flanders-Belgium. The examples of knowledge, skills and attitudes focussing on data literacy (n = 84) are coded and mapped onto the data literacy competence model, which differentiates between using data and understanding data.

Data literacy is well-covered in the framework, but there is a stronger emphasis on understanding data rather than using data, for example, collecting data is only coded once. Thematically, DigComp 2.2 primarily focusses on security and privacy (31 codes), with less attention given to the societal impact of data, such as environmental impact or data fairness.

Given the datafication of society, data literacy has become increasingly important. DigComp is widely used across different disciplines and now integrates data literacy as a required competence for citizens. It is, thus, relevant to analyse its views on data literacy and emerging technologies, as it will have a strong impact on education in Europe.

The soft systems approach developed by Professor Peter Checkland and colleagues during more than 25 years is introduced here as a means of enquiry into organizational problems. Recursive and engineering participation, the methodology’s philosophy of trial‐and‐error learning, proposes logical models of viewpoints thought likely to clarify complex issues. Like earlier scientific approaches to problem solving, the models should be subjected to tough criticism, though any model is never an attempt to imitate part of the world (in scientific style) but merely to organize quality discussion.