Governing in the Anthropocene: What Future Systems Thinking in Practice?

The revealing and concealing features of the metaphor ‘earth as Anthropocene’ are explored in an inquiry that asks: In the Anthropocene what possible futures emerge for systems thinking in practice? Framing choice, so important yet so poorly realised, is the starting point of the inquiry. Three extant conceptual pathway-dependencies are unpacked: governance or governing; practice or practising and ‘system’. New data on the organisational complexity within the field of cybersystemics is presented; new ‘imaginaries’ including systemic co-inquiry and institutional recovery are proposed as novel institutions and practices to facilitate systemic transformations within an Anthropocene setting. The arguments of the paper are illustrated through a research case study based on attempts to transform water and/or river situations towards systemic water governance. It is concluded that future systems research can be understood as the search for effective ‘imaginaries’ that offer fresh possibilities within an Anthropocene framing

On boundaries and disciplines: constructing a set of key systems thinkers

Over the past four years, the Open University has been working on an internal project of systems scholarship, called 'Systems Thinkers'. We have examined the life and work of fifty key thinkers, held discussions on their significance, and are in the process of writing a book and a postgraduate course about these thinkers. This work has raised many interesting questions about the boundaries of systems as an intellectual and practical discipline. In this paper, we will discuss some of these questions, asking what it means to be a discipline and how to establish its boundaries

Fruits of Gregory Bateson’s epistemological crisis: embodied mind-making and interactive experience in research and professional praxis

Background: The espoused rationale for this special issue, situated “at the margins of cybernetics,” was to revisit and extend the common genealogy of cybernetics and communication studies. Two possible topics garnered our attention: 1) the history of intellectual adventurers whose work has appropriated cybernetic concepts; and 2) the remediation of cybernetic metaphors. Analysis: A heuristic for engaging in first- and second-order R&D praxis, the design of which was informed by co-research with pastoralists (1989–1993) and the authors’ engagements with the scholarship of Bateson and Maturana, was employed and adapted as a reflexive in-quiry framework.Conclusion and implications: This inquiry challenges the mainstream desire for change and the belief in getting the communication right in order to achieve change. The authors argue this view is based on an epistemological error that continues to produce the very problems it intends to diminish, and thus we live a fundamental error in epistemology, false ontology, and misplaced practice. The authors offer instead conceptual and praxis possibilities for triggering new co-evolutionary trajectories

Systems thinking and practice for action research

This chapter offers some grounding in systems thinking and practice for doing action research. There are different traditions within systems thinking and practice which, if appreciated, can become part of the repertoire for practice by action researchers. After exploring some of these lineages the differences between systemic and systematic thinking and practice are elucidated – these are the two adjectives that come from the word 'system', but they describe quite different understandings and practices. These differences are associated with epistemological awareness and distinguishing systemic action research from action research. Finally, some advantages for action research practice from engaging with systems thinking and practice are discussed

On the design of systems-oriented university curricula

This paper proposes a tool called the Systems Education Matrix (SEM) for use in informing the work of developers of systems-oriented curricula at colleges and universities around the world. The SEM was developed by Team 1 at the 2008 IFSR Fuschl Conversation held at Fuschl am See in Austria. In order to manage the complex problems we are dealing with today, systems thinking is essential. It is clear that systems education should be acknowledged as an important 'scientific method' that can help today's society to deal with the complexities of contemporary issues. To serve this role effectively, systems education needs to be focused towards the various needs that exist. The members of Team 1 have focused on the nature of systems education that will be required to not only train systems specialists, but to make systems thinking and analysis an integral part of discipline focused research and management

Communication in organizations: the heart of information systems

We propose a theory characterizing information systems (IS) as language communities which use and develop domain-specific languages for communication. Our theory is anchored in Language Critique, a branch of philosophy of language. In developing our theory, we draw on Systems Theory and Cybernetics as a theoretical framework. "Organization" of a system is directly related to communication of its sub-systems. "Big systems" are self-organizing and the control of this ability is disseminated throughout the system itself. Therefore, the influence on changes of the system from its outside is limited. Operations intended to change an organization are restricted to indirect approaches. The creation of domain-specific languages by the system itself leads to advantageous communication costs compared to colloquial communication at the price of set-up costs for language communities. Furthermore, we demonstrate how our theoretical constructs help to describe and predict the behavior of IS. Finally, we discuss implications of our theory for further research and IS in general. Keywords: Language Critique, language communities, communication, self-organization, IS researc