Lost in the wilderness: when the search for identity comes up blank

At the commencement of a research project about socio-cultural identity in language learners, the author attempted to examine and acknowledge his own identity. The method used was an autoethnographic reflection upon a number of key markers that are commonly used to denote identity such as race, class and gender. This reflexive exercise proved extremely frustrating, because the author felt uncomfortable with any of the commonly used markers of identity as labels to describe himself. Rather than helping him discover who he was, they served only to demonstrate who the author was not: not Black, not a woman, not elderly, not socially disadvantaged, and so on. This led the author to feel that he was lost in a wilderness. Upon reflecting on this seeming inability to locate his own identity, the author acknowledged that on all of these binary markers of identity, he would be on the side of the powerful and privileged, causing a feeling of embarrassment and angst. This led the author to consider other ways of exploring identity, selecting an approach based on Bakhtinian dialogism. The chapter concludes with an acknowledgement by the author that the wilderness was not a wasteland, but rather a place in which important discoveries were made about himself as a researcher which have served to guide him in the design of his research project

Four domains of complexity

In this short paper, which reflects on one of my contributions to the systems literature in 1992 (Pluralism and the Legitimation of Systems Science), I discuss the context at that time. Systems scientists were embroiled in a paradigm war, which threatened to fragment the systems research community. This is relevant, not only to understanding my 1992 contribution, but also because the same paradigms are evident in the complexity science community, and therefore it potentially faces the same risk of fragmentation. Having explained the context, I then go on to discuss my proposed solution to the paradigm war: that there are four domains of complexity, three of which reflect the competing paradigms. The problem comes when researchers say that inquiry into just one of these domains is valid. However, when we recognise all four as part of a new theory of complexity, we can view them as complementary. The four domains are natural world complexity, or “what is” (where the ideal of inquiry is truth); social world complexity, or the complexity of “what ought to be” in relation to actual or potential action (where the ideal of inquiry is rightness); subjective world complexity, or the complexity of what any individual (the self or another) is thinking, intending or feeling (where the ideal of inquiry is understanding subjectivity); and the complexity of interactions between elements of the other domains of complexity in the context of research and intervention practice. Following a discussion of the relevance of this theory for complexity scientists, I end the paper with a final critical reflection on my 1992 paper, pointing to some theoretical assumptions and terminology that I would, in retrospect, revise

Systemic intervention

This paper describes the practice of systemic intervention, emphasizing (1) the need to explore stakeholder values and boundaries for analysis; (2) responses to the challenges of marginalization processes; and (3) a wide, pluralistic range of methods from the systems literature and beyond to create a flexible and responsive systemic action research practice. After presenting an outline of systemic intervention, the author discusses several other well-tested systems approaches with a view to identifying their potential for further supporting systemic intervention practice, and action research more generally. Two practical examples of systemic intervention are provided to illustrate the arguments

What is Community Operational Research?

Community Operational Research (Community OR) has been an explicit sub-domain of OR for more than 30 years. In this paper, we tackle the controversial issue of how it can be differentiated from other forms of OR. While it has been persuasively argued that Community OR cannot be defined by its clients, practitioners or methods, we argue that the common concern of all Community OR practice is the meaningful engagement of communities, whatever form that may take – and the legitimacy of different forms of engagement may be open to debate. We then move on to discuss four other controversies that have implications for the future development of Community OR and its relationship with its parent discipline: the desire for Community OR to be more explicitly political; claims that it should be grounded in the theory, methodology and practice of systems thinking; the similarities and differences between the UK and US traditions; and the extent to which Community OR offers an enhanced understanding of practice that could be useful to OR more generally. Our positions on these controversies all follow from our identification of ‘meaningful engagement’ as a central feature of Community OR

Moving beyond value conflicts : systemic problem structuring in action

Value conflicts can become entrenched in a destructive pattern of mutual stigmatization, which inhibits the emergence of new understandings of the situation and actions for improvement. In extreme cases, such patterns can even lead to violence. This paper offers a new systems theory of value conflict, which suggests the possibility of three different strategies for intervention using problem structuring methods: supporting people in transcending overly narrow value judgements about what is important to them; seeking to widen people’s boundaries of the issues that they consider relevant; and attempting to challenge stereotyping and stigmatization by building better mutual understanding. Each of these three strategies is illustrated with practical examples from operational research projects on natural resource management in New Zealand

Knowing differently in systemic intervention

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This paper makes the case for extended ways of knowing in systemic intervention. It argues that the deployment of formal (even reflective) thinking and dialogue methods are inadequate, on their own, to the critical tasks of comprehending larger wholes and appreciating others' viewpoints. Theory and techniques need to go further and access other forms of knowing, held in experiential, practical or symbolic ways. This could offer a better basis to incorporate marginalized people and other phenomena that are affected by interventions but do not have a voice, such as ecosystems and future generations

Moving beyond value conflicts : systemic problem structuring in action

Abstract: Value conflicts can become entrenched in a destructive pattern of mutual stigmatization, which inhibits the emergence of new understandings of the situation and actions for improvement. In extreme cases, such patterns can even lead to violence. This paper offers a new systems theory of value conflict, which suggests the possibility of three different strategies for intervention using problem structuring methods: supporting people in transcending overly narrow value judgements about what is important to them; seeking to widen people’s boundaries of the issues that they consider relevant; and attempting to challenge stereotyping and stigmatization by building better mutual understanding. Each of these three strategies is illustrated with practical examples from operational research projects on natural resource management in New Zealand

Community and Environmental OR: Towards a New Agenda

About the book: Community Operational Research: OR and Systems Thinking for Community Development sets out the current concerns of Community Operational Research (Community OR for short) and explores new possibilities for its continued development. Leading Community OR writers, with international reputations in operational research and systems thinking, have contributed chapters that illuminate different aspects of Community OR theory and practice. There is a focus on the value of systems approaches, and other significant perspectives are also represented. The result is a rich mix of theories, methodologies and case studies that will be a significant resource for both practitioners and academics engaged in community development

Calculation of subdominant solutions of linear differential equations

Calculation of subdominant solutions of linear differential equation