5 transdisciplinarity as transformation...margarine, snack food, packaged baked goods and frying...

5TransdisciplinarityastransformationAcybersystemicthinkinginpracticeperspective

RayIson

Beyondourcurrentdoings

Basedonitsetymologytheprefix‘trans’,isusuallytakentomean‘over’or‘across’or‘ontheothersideof’,butitalsomeans‘surpassing’or‘transcending’and‘intoanotherstateorform’(Brown1993).Wordsandthemeaningswegivetothemaretricky;justlikeourworld,nothingaboutthemisreallystable.1Sointhesefewascriptionsofmeaningfromthedictionarythereare,atleast,twocompetingconceptions–onealinearconceptioninvolvingashiftfromoneside to another, as is classically understood with the linear, systematic paradigms ofknowledgeand/ortechnologytransferfromonepersonorgrouptoanother(IsonandRussell2007).Theother isasystemicconceptionmoreakin to the ideaofemergence from systemstheory–theconceptionthatthepropertiesofawholearedifferenttothesumofthepartsasin,Iwillclaim,‘transform’and‘transdisciplinary’(TD).At thismoment inhistoryboth ‘transformation’ and ‘transdisciplinary’ arepopularwords

and/orconcepts.2Ontheotherhand‘trans-fats’,unsaturatedfatsthatareuncommoninnaturebut which have been ‘commonly produced industrially from vegetable fats for use inmargarine,snackfood,packagedbakedgoodsandfryingfastfoodstartinginthe1950s,’3aresomething tobeavoided.Theword ‘transgenic’ refers to something that isvilifiedby someand idealised by others; it can be understood as a new organism that combines both thesystematic(i.e. thetransferofgenesfromoneorganismtoanother)andthesystemic(i.e. theproperties of a transgenic organism are different to the sum of its parts). I will argue thatconceptually and methodologically it is important to be aware of the distinctions betweensystemic and systematic and the implications each has for how practice is understood andenacted(i.e.systemicorsystematicpractice).InthischapterIwanttoinviteyoutoengageinplaywiththewordsthatyouuse,andtodo

soinawaythatisopentoexploringthehistoryofwords,theiretymologies,andthedifferentwaystheyareusedbydifferentindividualsandgroups.Iamnotoftheschoolthatconsiderswordstocarrymeaningsinandofthemselves,andnordoIbelievethatdefinitionalclarityisessential;Iammoreconcernedwithhowweeachtakeresponsibilityforthewordsweuseandhowtheiruseaffectsunderstandingsandpracticesinourrelationaldynamicswithothers(seeIsonetal.2014).ThetwowordsIwanttoplaywitharetransdisciplinary(obviouslybecausethisiswhatthisbookisabout)andtransformation.Mypreferencewillbetoplaywiththesewordsfromacyberneticsandsystemstheoryandpracticebackground,afieldIwillhenceforthcall ‘cybersystemics’. I use this term because I consider these lineages to have more

Transdisciplinary Research and Practice for Sustainability Outcomes, edited by Dena Fam, et al., Routledge, 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uts/detail.action?docID=4741910.Created from uts on 2018-08-09 16:06:29.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. R

outle

dge.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

Figure5.1a

commonalitiesthandifferences,althoughsomepeopleconsidercyberneticsandsystemstobetwoseparateintellectuallineages(seeRamageandShipp2009;IsonandSchlindwein2015).Thewordcybernetics,derivedfromtheGreekkybernetes,meaninghelmswomanorsteersman(Figure5.1a), is lesscommonineverydaylanguagethantheword‘system’; infact theword‘system’hasgone‘feral’.Justaswehavedoneforother‘ferals,’mostofushavelostsightofthe pedigree of ‘systems’ and the ways the word or concept, or its derivatives, are used(Figure5.1b).I have nowused the terms ‘systematic’ and ‘systemic’ several times. Figure 5.2 explains

howIunderstandtheseterms.Whilst‘systematic’isatthebottomoftheladderinmyfigure,itisreallyontopinmostofwhatwedointoday'sworld–wedoseemtototallyundervaluethesystemic(relational,interdependent,joined-up)and,asmyfigureindicates,Iseektogivethesystemicgreaterprominenceinourthinkinganddoing.However,Idonotwanttodiscardthesystematicaltogether– ithas itsplace,butat themomentfar toobigaplace.Lookingat therelationships between systemic and systematic in the way depicted in Figure 5.2 creates atotalitycalledaduality, just likeyinandyangor theconceptspredatorandprey inecology.Understanding theworld in terms of dualities is a key to practical holism.However,whenconceptualpairsnegateeachother,likesubjective/objectiveorsocial/biophysical,wecreateadualism–aninvidiouschoiceofoneortheother.Extendingmyarguments,Iwouldclaimthatin our research practices in particular there is too much tendency towards dualisms. Forexample, is it a question of transdisciplinarity or disciplinarity, or is transdisciplinarity ananalogueforsystemicanddisciplinarityforsystematic,asinFigure5.2?

The core constituents of ‘cybersystemics’: cybernetics understood through thesailinganalogyisahumanactivitythatinvolvesrespondingtofeedbackinrealtimefromthesocialandbiophysicaldomainsaswellastheirinteractions–itisonewayofunderstandingtheprocessofgoverning


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. R

outle

dge.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

Figure5.1b Theword‘system’has‘goneferal’–therehasbeenafailuretoinstitutionalisenarratives,conceptionsandpraxisexceptas‘things’(e.g.ecosystems);notethegrammaticalformsshownindifferentformats:asnounphrases(boxes);asnouns(underlined)andadjectives(systemicandsystematic)

Mysuggestiontoplaywiththetermstransdisciplinaryandtransformationbringsmetothemain purpose of this chapter. I wish to explore how, from a cybersystemic theoreticalperspective, transdisciplinarityasafieldofpraxiscouldenhancefuture transformations.Mytransformationsofinterestareinourwaysofgoverning,thinking,acting,institutionalisingandinvestingwithinanepochwhichwecouldchoosetoframeastheAnthropocene(Figure5.3).Weareinaperiodnewtohumanhistorythroughourcollectiveimpactsonthebiosphere,so

a business-as-usual approach built on current foundations of governing, thinking, practice,institutionalising and investing will fail – the transformations we seek are to build newfoundationsforwhatwethinkanddo.Figure5.3summarisesmuchofwhatIandmycolleagueshaveattemptedtotransforminthe

last20yearsorso.4Sometimeswehavecritiquedthecurrentfoundations;mostofthetimewehave tried to use and deploy new cybersystemically informed practices such as inquiring,modelling, researching, learning, participating, scenarioing, evaluating, designing, consultingandappreciating.Amajorfocusofourworkhasbeenonunderstandinghowsocial learningcan operate as an effective process within complex, uncertain, ‘wicked’, multi-stakeholdercontextsaswellasexistasagovernancemechanismthatcanattractinvestmentandtakeonaninstitutionalform(e.g.Blackmoreetal.2007;Colvinetal.2014;Isonetal.2015).Alongthisjourney, transdisciplinarity has been of significant interest in both practical and theoreticalways(e.g.IsonandAmpt1992;Isonetal.1997;MaitenyandIson2000;Ison2008)butinallhonestyithasnotbeennamedastheconcernthathasbeenatthecoreofourwork,althoughithasalwaysbeenpresentascontext,giventhecontributionsmadebysystemstheoristssuchasErichJantschtotheearlyframingdebates(seeJantsch1970;Bernstein2015).Therearetwoprincipalreasonswhytransdisciplinarity isbackgroundrather thanforegroundinourpraxis:


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. R

outle

dge.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

Figure5.2

Figure5.3

(i)As developed at theOpenUniversity, taking a systems approachmeans recognising thateachpersononlyeverhasapartialperspectiveofagivensituationandthusitisimportant,inattemptstotransform,tovalueandenablearticulationofmultiple,partialperspectivesofthesituation.and(ii)Sincetheearly1970sithasbeenrecognisedthatmostsituationsthatareofconcern,orwarranttransformation,arebestunderstoodas‘messes’or‘wickedproblems’(seeMaitenyandIson2000;Isonetal.2014).InotherwordswewouldarguethatourpraxisisTDormeta-disciplinary,eventhoughwedonotoftenrefertoitassuch.

Systems-thinking-in-practice involves being both systemic (thinking in terms ofrelationships anddynamics) and systematic (linear, step-by-step thinking);whenengagingwith complex, uncertain,multi-stakeholder contexts it is preferable tostartoutsystemically

Source:AdaptedfromIson2010.

Cancybersystemictransdisciplinarypraxisfacilitatetransformation?


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. R

outle

dge.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

Source:Drawntoauthor'sspecificationsbySimonKneebone.

In the next part of this chapter I explore how transdisciplinarity and transformation havecometobeunderstoodwithincybersystemictraditions.Indoingthismyambitionis tomakethese twoconceptspracticalorusableasvehicles forpraxis,which Iunderstandas theory-informedpracticalaction.Thenin thefollowingsectionI illustratecybersystemicTDpraxisthroughexemplarconcepts,methodsandpracticesdrawnlargelyfromourownwork.TDworkisdoneforapurpose;thatpurpose,Iwillargue,istransformationwhichisaddressedinthepenultimatesection.InthefinalsectionIoffersomeconcludingremarks.

Transdisciplinarityandtransformation:apartialhistory

ConstructinghistoriesManycontemporaryscholarsmakeclaimsforandabouttransdisciplinarityandtransformation;inmostcasesthesescholarslinktheirwork,implicitlyorexplicitly,tonotionsofsustainability–whichisanotherimportantconceptinthe‘wordgame’ofthischapter!Forexample,Arora-Jonsson (2016, 99) claims that: ‘resilience researchers … (… see articles in the journalEcologyandSociety)increasinglycallfortransdisciplinarity,thatis,acknowledgingmultipleviewpoints, cultures, forms of knowledge and epistemologies. The concept of resilience isconsideredbymanyasoneofthemostimportantconceptsinresearchonsustainabilitytoday’.This field of scholarship is not without its critics. Whilst having less to say about‘transformation,’ Arora-Jonsson (2016, 99) adopts a critical perspective, noting that‘resiliencethinking'sdisregardforculture, in its impositionofageneralizedandpositivisticviewoftheworldoncomplexandunpredictablesocio-naturalrelationshasbeenatthecentreofmanydebates.’My purpose in pointing to this scholarly background is that I want to introduce some

important departure points from this literature5 by briefly reviewing how the field ofcybersystemics has dealt with transdisciplinarity and transformation. To do this well, andachievemypurpose,itwillbenecessaryforyou,thereader,toacceptmyinvitationtoalwaysconsiderwhat it is that we do when we do what we do6 whenever we claim to be doingtransdisciplinarity or doing/effecting transformation. Arora-Jonsson's paper is a gooddeparturepointforthedistinctionsIwishtomakebecauseitgivesanaccountofthehistoricalconnectionsbetweenresiliencethinkingandsystemstheory(2016,99).Animportantaspectforthehistoryofresilienceandtransdisciplinaryscientificpracticesin

the Western world is the introduction of the idea of a General Systems Theory [GST] byLudwig vonBertalanffy (1968) that had considerable influence in Europe in the 1970s and1980s. Inaddition to the technicalaspectsand its influenceonorganizational theoryasgoalorientedsystems,GeneralSystemsTheoryformulatedanewwayoflookingatscientifictopicsandintroducedtheinterdependenceofanobjectanditsenvironment(Balsiger2004),aspectscentraltobothresilienceandtransdisciplinaryapproaches.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. R

outle

dge.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

Figure5.4 A heuristic for exploring and discussing different lineages of cybersystemicthinkingandpractice:arangeof,butnotall,contemporaryapproachesisontheright-handside

Source:AdaptedfromIsonandSchlindwein2015.

BasedonmyexperienceIwouldclaimtheaboveaccount isanaccuratehistoryas faras itgoes.ToexplorewhatImeanbythisclaim,Iturntomyinvitationalquestionandask:Whatdowedowhenweprovideahistoricalaccountofanintellectuallineagewhenwewriteapaper?Letusconsider theArora-Jonssonpaper. Itattributes theemergenceof resilience thinking

informed by GST to Buzz Holling (1973), as is usually the case. Building on the work ofHolling and colleagues it is possible to claim that a new scholarly lineage emerged in the1970s, which I will claim to be the creation, re-creation and conservation of a particular‘resilience’ conversation; this enables us to point toEcology and Society, a journal which‘houses’thisconversationanda‘resiliencealliance’whichinvestsincreatingandre-creatingandconserving(somemaysayprotecting)aresiliencediscourse/conversation.IntermsofTDpraxis ‘the ambition is to “integrate”’ (Arora-Jonsson 2016, 105). But what Arora-Jonsson(2016)doeswiththehistoricalaccountistodescribethestatusofsystemsthinking/scholarshipthatinfluencedHollinginthe1960sand‘70s,andwhichhasbeenmoreorlessconservedinitshistorical(i.e.1970s)formwithintheresiliencediscourseeversince.WhatismissingfromArora-Jonsson's (2016) account, and from many other accounts in the resilience andsustainability discourses, is an explanation of what has happened within cybersystemicscholarshipitselfsincethe1970s(Figure5.4).Whatisalsooftenmissingisacknowledgementthat cybersystemic scholarship has never been homogenous (as is typical ofmost academicfields)andthatHolling'sperspectiveonthefieldisatbestpartial.Whatisatstakehere,fromaTDperspective,isthesamesetofissuesthatarisewhenoneis

concerned with the differences between TD knowledge production (seeing knowledge asreified and its products as ontologies, and seeing the praxis issue as that of integration of


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. R

outle

dge.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

differentknowledges)andTDknowing(apraxis-basedconcernwithmultipleepistemologiesi.e., anappreciation that all knowing isdoing).Thedistinctionsused inFigure5.4 betweensystemsasontologiesandsystemsasepistemologiesmirrorthepraxisandpowerissuesthatconcernTDscholars.Truthandthuspowerclaimsaccompanyontologicalcommitments,aboutwhichArora-Jonsson(2016)isrightlyconcerned,butherconcernsmightextendtoanyfieldofdisciplinary scholarship, especially those that are tightly controlled by disciplinarygatekeepers. In contrast, seeing systems as epistemological devices for engaging withsituationsofconcernhasmuchmorepotentialtoorchestrateTDwaysofknowing.Forexample,writingnotlongafterHolling(1973),Checkland(1976,127)arguedthat:

thecall for ‘interdisciplinary teams’ to tacklesocialproblems isapopularone,but30years'experienceinManagementSciencehasemphasizedthatthisisnotasuccessfulwaytotacklesuchproblems,ratherthefactthatitisquiteremarkablydifficultforspecialistsfromonedisciplinetounderstandtheconceptsandlanguageofanother.Whatweneedisnotinterdisciplinaryteamsbuttransdisciplinaryconcepts,conceptswhichservetounifyknowledge by being applicable in areas which cut across the trenches which marktraditionalacademicboundaries.7

AscanbeseenfromFigure5.4,ChecklandandHollingoccupydifferentplacesinmymappingof cybersystemic lineages; their different histories give rise to different understandings oftransdisciplinarityandthemeansforitsenactment.SoforFrançois(1997)transdisciplinarityis‘thegeneralcharacteristicofcyberneticandsystemicconcepts,methodsandmodelswhichprovidespecialistswithametalanguageforthestudyofcomplexsituations’(376).Hegoesontoarguethat‘thecreationofa…”meta-tools”boxispossiblyoneofthemostimportantgoalofsystemicsandcybernetics’(376).Incontrast,Arora-Jonsson(2016)arguesthat:

resilienceinitstranscendentandintegrativeformstendstowardsjustthat[knowledgeasuniversal,explanatoryandproven].In-depthcomplexityissacrificedtotheimperativeofpainting the larger picture and commitment to integration, often throughmodels. In thatsense resiliencemodeling does not inadvertently exclude questions of power, but is infactdesignedtodoso.

ThisisnottheplacetounpackmanyoftheissuesArora-Jonsson(2016)raises,includingwhatmodelling,asa formofpraxis,mayormaynotentail.Howeverwhatherhistory,andmanyotherhistoriesofcybersystemicapproachesmiss,iswhathashappenedwiththeacademicandpracticefieldsofcybersystemicsbeyondthe1970sor‘80s.Whatsuchhistoriesmissarethe‘paradigmwars’withinthecybersystemicfieldwhichwerebasedondifferingepistemologicalcommitmentsaroundthenotionsystem(seeFigure5.4);thiswasaperiodwhendebatesaboutpower,agency,framingandlearningwereveryactive.Inthisway,thecybersystemicfieldisnotunlikeanthropologyandpsychology,eachofwhichhashadasimilar‘paradigmconflict’.AsoutlinedinIson(2010andFigure5.4)cybersystemistsintheirpraxisstartwithtwochoices– to see systems as ontologies or things in the world which can be studied, modelled anddescribed, or to beginwith a situation of concern and engagewith it through deploying theconcept system as an epistemological device, a way of knowing about or transforming a


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. R

outle

dge.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

situation. A TD scholar faces the same choices – to see TD practice as producing TDknowledge, or to see TD practices as producing TDways of knowing – or as I suggest inFigure5.2, to hold these two choices in creative tension from a position of awareness andresponsibility.Iwillsaymoreaboutthisinrelationtopracticalexampleslaterinthischapter.Inowwant to turnattentionaway from transdisciplinarity towards transformation; it is in

taking this turn, I will argue, that cybersystemic praxis is able to generate a ‘situatedknowing/knowledgeproduction’, rather than ‘integrated’ formsofknowledgeproduction thathavebecomethefocusofmanyintheTDfield.8

TransformationaspraxisGregoryBateson's famous aphorism ‘thedifference thatmakes adifference’ (Bateson1972)couldbe takenasastatementabout transformation.Hesays: ‘what is transmittedaround thecircuitistransformsofdifferences.Andasnotedabove,adifferencewhichmakesadifferenceisanideaorunitofinformation’(1972,318).Toappreciatethisquoteonehastoseeitwithinitsfullcontextaswellasapplysomere-interpretationfromtoday'sperspective.Intheoriginal,Bateson is expanding upon an example of practice – a person chopping down a tree. Hisargumentisthatsomepeopledoitwellandsomedonot,mainlybecauseofthedifferencesintheperceptionsofindividualswhoexperiencedifference;thosewhodoitwelltransformthisperception into effective action. In many ways effective living could be understood as theunfolding transformation of difference that makes a difference. Put another way, withoutdifference there isnoexperience(Ison2010).9All experience is situatedandembodiedandhighlygovernedbythehistoryofhumans,individuallyandculturally,livinginlanguage(Ison2010).BuildingonBateson(1972)itispossibletoclaimthattransformationiscentraltowhatwe

do in our living, an integral part of consciousness that is arising continuously in ourrelationshipwiththeworldaroundus.Withoutdifference,andthuswithoutexperience,therewould be no feedback, learning, adaptation and change. Thus forme, cybersystemic praxis,within its epistemologically aware tradition, purposefully seeks to use systems concepts,methods,toolsandtechniquestogenerateunderstandingandchange.Inasituationofconcern,thispraxiscanbringnewsofdifferences to thosewhoagree touse themasepistemologicaldevicessoas toappreciatewhat is systemicallydesirableand/orculturally feasible in theirsituationofconcern.Thechoicetodeploycybersystemicunderstandingsasameanstoengagewith a situation of concern is a purposeful choice within which framing, theoretical andmethodologicalchoiceshavetobemade;employingacybersystemicapproachdoesnothavetobeaclaimtotranscendentaltruthaboutsystemsintheworld.Asaninquiryparadigmitisopen to any concerns – including those of gender, politics, power, structures and concepts.FromthisperspectivetransformationthroughappreciatingandvaluingdifferenceiskeytoTDwaysofknowing.Within the epistemologically aware tradition of cybersystemics, as exemplified in the

lineagefromC.WestChurchmantoPeterChecklandandTheOpenUniversity(Figure5.4),theconcept of transformation has become central to praxis associated with using systems asepistemologicaldevices(Figure5.5).Withinthistraditionasystemisunderstoodassomething


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. R

outle

dge.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

Figure5.5

formulatedbypeoplewithaninterestinasituationwhowishtounderstand,changeorimprovethesituation;theirpraxisofteninvolvesconceptualisingasystemthatmightbeausefuldevicefor learningabout thesituationbymakingaboundary judgement (what is insideandwhat isoutsidethesystemofinterest)recognisingthatasystemcanbeunderstoodaspurposeful,andthat the transformation process is central to what a system does. As Figure 5.5 shows, theprocessoftransformationhascometobeunderstoodandusedinapracticalwaybasedonthelearningsfrom over 30 years of action research that gave rise to soft systemsmethodology(SSM)(ChecklandandPoulter2010).

Guidelines for how to use the concept ‘transformation’ within soft-systemsmethodology;T,transformation

Source:PeterCheckland,NotesforMScinInformationManagement(IM),UniversityofTransdisciplinary Research and Practice for Sustainability Outcomes, edited by Dena Fam, et al., Routledge, 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uts/detail.action?docID=4741910.Created from uts on 2018-08-09 16:06:29.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. R

outle

dge.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

Lancaster,usedwithpermission.

Withinthecybersystemictradition,systemsconcepts,methods,toolsandtechniquescanbeusedwithothersfromanybackground,academicornon-academic,tosurfaceandbringintoacommon conversation their different theories of change, worldviews, models of causality,framingchoicesandappreciationsofpowersoastoarriveataccommodationsofdifferencethat enable some next steps towards improvement in the situation (as understood by thoseengagedinit).Theconceptoftransformationiscentraltothispraxis,butithasapracticalandsituated formwhich is, Iwouldclaim,central tobuildingeffectiveTDpraxis,and isnotanabstract‘hand-waving’formasisclaimedinmuchrecentliteratureonthesubject.10

Transdisciplinarypraxis:acybersystemicperspective

In this section Iwant to exemplify, drawingbriefly frommyownwork, howcybersystemicapproachescanbeeffectivelydeployedinwaysthatgiverisetoTDpraxis.

TransformingknowingthroughcybersystemicpraxisAtthetimeofwritingIaminvolvedinanon-goingsystemicco-inquirywithaboutfortyothersconcerned with natural resources management (NRM) governance in the state of Victoria,Australia.TheexperienceIdrawuponisthusfresh,anditistooearlytomakeanyclaimstoparticular outcomes, or successes with any confidence (other than to say those who areparticipatinghavecommittedtotheprocessoverthebestpartofayearandareverypositiveabouttheirexperiences).Iamusingthiscasebecauseitexemplifieswhatcanresult, inpart,fromthedeploymentofasuiteofcybersystemicconceptsand techniqueswithinafacilitatedmulti-stakeholder co-inquiry process. The co-inquiry has involved a group from diversedisciplinary and organisational backgrounds engaging in a purposefully designed co-inquiryoperating at two levels of concern–onebeing the experienceof persistent failureofNRMgovernancetofunctioneffectivelyacrossdifferentjurisdictionallevelsnamelylocal,regional,state and national, and the other being specific exemplars ofwhat participants consider on-going systemic failure that warrants innovation and change, and which have emerged, forexample,fromtheco-inquiryprocessintofailuresintheurbanbiodiversitydomain(seeSI1inFigure5.6).Itisnotnecessaryheretoexplicateallthefactorsgivingriseto,andoperatingin,the systemic co-inquiry process (see Ison 2010; Ison and Blackmore 2014 for accounts ofsystemicinquiry).The praxiswhich emerged is in part a response toCheckland's (1976, 127) claim, cited

earlier, that ‘whatwe need is not interdisciplinary teams but TD concepts, conceptswhich[are] applicable in areas which cut across the trenches which mark traditional academicboundaries’. We have deployed TD cybersystemic concepts such as ‘systemic co-inquiry’,multiple-cause diagramming, activity modelling, systems mapping (Figure 5.6), boundary(Figure5.6),systemdescription, layeredstructure (i.e.systemandsub-system–Figure5.6),connectivity,interdependenceandtransformation(seeFrançois1997).InourfacilitatedeventsweadaptedSSMtoworkwithothers tobuildactivity/conceptual


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. R

outle

dge.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

Figure5.6

models (epistemological devices) as possible means for enacting a transformation in oursituationsofconcern.InSI1(Figure5.6)webuiltamodeltoenactanotional‘systemtoinvestinpilotstoco-designcollaborativeapproachesforgovernmentagenciesandurban/peri-urbangroupsactiveinnurturingnatureinordertoinvolveVictoriansinconnectingwithandtakingcareofnature’.Thekeytransformationofconcernhere,followingthelogicdepictedinFigure5.5, is from‘pilotsnotbeing invested in’ to ‘pilotsbeing invested in’.What is important inprocess termsis thatasetofactivitieshasbeenidentified that togetherhavethepotential torealise the transformation of concern. Building on this model, a dialogue can be had as towhethertheseactivitiescurrentlyexist(andwhethertheyarebeingdonewell)orwhethersuchactivitiesneedtobeinstitutionalised.

A key aspect of cybersystemic praxis is the capacity to operate at differentsystemiclevels,includingdifferentlevelsofabstraction;thisexampleisanestedset of systemic co-inquiries – one operating at a meta-level, informed by fourcomponent co-inquiries operating in different exemplar issue domains. SI =systemicinquiry

Source:Unpublishedresearch.

Inour facilitationweoperatewith epistemological awareness– recognition that there is no‘real’ systemwe are trying to describe ormodel, butwe remain aware that there are validexperiences and multiple perceptions of a situation, and that by engaging in the act ofdiagramming,orconceptual/activitymodelbuilding,differentperspectivesorappreciationsofcausality can be articulated, heard and built into a common understanding of a situation ofconcernexpressedsystemically.Theendofthislearningprocessisastrategyforactionthatisseenby those involvedassystemicallydesirable.Whether it isculturallyfeasible isanothermatter,asitdependsverymuchonwhoparticipates,institutionalissuesandassociatedpowerdispositions.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. R

outle

dge.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

OurpraxisdiffersfromCheckland's(1976)admonitioninacoupleofimportantways–wedonotclaimtobeengagedinaprocessofgeneratingunifiedknowledge;insteadweclaimtobeengagedinaninquiryprocesswhich,followingC.WestChurchman(1971),is‘reflectivelearning in the literal sense … it is the thinking about thinking, doubting about doubting,learning about learning, and (hopefully) knowing about knowing’ (Churchman 1971, 17).Importantly, models or diagrams that are produced are not ‘maps’ of the real territory butmanifestations of learning and, potentially, heuristic devices to mediate conversations withothers–forexamplepolicymakersfromthestategovernmentwhowereunabletoparticipatein the systemic inquiry despite invitations to do so. As Figure 5.6 shows, we are alsoresearchinganalternativemeanstodoNRMgovernance,ourmeta-inquiry,throughinnovationsinpraxisandinstitutionalform–thatis,systemicco-inquiryratherthanaprojectorprogram.Someofthemostinsightfulunderstandingsthatarisewhenengagingincybersystemicpraxis

arethosearisingfromthinkingintermsoflevelsorlayeredstructures:thisconceptilluminatesan important aspect of cybersystemic practice, the conscious movement between differentlevels of abstractionwhich equips practitioners to contribute to transformations inmultipledomains–asdescribedinSI1–4inFigure5.6,aswellasatthelevelofthemeta-inquiry.

TransdisciplinarityastheexplorationofdifferenceThe next example comes from a European project involving a research team of about 30academics from different disciplines and cultural contexts (Blackmore et al. 2007). Thisproject,whichlasted3.5years,wascarriedoutinaTDmanner,buttowardstheconclusionaparticulardilemmaemerged, thedynamicsofwhicharedescribed inFigure5.7.This figurewas used to guide the production of a journal special issue reporting the main researchoutcomes;indoingthiswesoughttoactwiththeawarenessthateachindividualand/orgroupactsoutof theirowntraditionsofunderstanding,fromwhichit followsthatunderstandingisnotsomethingthatcanbefully‘shared’.ThusBlackmoreetal.arguethat:

when a comparison between cases is under consideration (a) control is not possible –ethically and situationally; (b) case control comparisons do notwork – these are non-randomsamplesandeachishistoricallyandsociallysituated(asaretheresearchers),so(c)thereisaneedforameta-levelprocessofco-learningwhichcreatesanemergentcoreof commonunderstanding (whatwe can claim thatwehave in common) butwhere thedifferencesareequallyvaluedandarticulated.

(Blackmoreetal.2007,496)

Aco-learningmethodologicalapproachwasadoptedbyourproject–thatis,constituentworkpackagesconstructedastheoreticallyandmethodologicallyframedsituatedcasestudieswereundertakenbyallratherthanbeingallocatedtoparticulargroupsordisciplines.Tomanageourresearchaseriesofcommonworkshopsweredesignedandfacilitatedandtheygaverisetoanevolvingcommonheuristicmatrix(representedasasimplegridinFigure5.7)builtaroundthe


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. R

outle

dge.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

Figure5.7

project's initial design (see Ison et al. 2007). Tensions emerged in the final phases of theproject.Forexample,wasitappropriateresearchpracticetoattemptameta-synthesisacrossallofourcase studies toproduceacommonsetof findingsor results?AsBlackmoreetal.(2007,498)outline:

Aheuristicusedtounderstandtherelationshipbetweenresearchteams(differentculturalanddisciplinarytraditions)which(a)recognisesthedifferenthistoriesofeachgroup(closedblobs)and the relationship toacorecomparisonmatrixand(b) the methodological and praxis dilemma of whether to attempt case studycomparisons to produce a unified (synthesised) set of results fromour commonmatrix(TDasknowledgeproduction)ortorecognisethehistoricityofcasesandresearchers,andtovalueanon-goingdialecticalprocessthatexploresdifferenceas a means to generate differences that make a difference (TD as knowingorchestration);t1andt2refertodifferenttimes;SLIMwastheprojectacronym

Source:Blackmoreetal.2007.

In our experience this is what mostly happens in large multi-and interdisciplinaryprojects, and, often as not, the final synthesis is limited to one or two people. Thealternative was to stabilise what was common through our joint inquiry process (theSLIMdiagnosticframeworkdescribed inSteyaertandJiggins2007)and tomaintainanopenandevolvingengagementfromourdifferentbackgrounds–tovalueourdifferencesandactmethodologicallytoappreciateourdifferences.

As depicted in Figure 5.7, appreciating difference is a dialectical process andwill changeovertime(seeSteyaertandJiggins2007).Amajorimplicationofourpositionisthatweneedmethodologies for sense making, not comparison and unifying as if there were a set ofobjectivesocial‘truths’waitingtoberevealed.Our research offers only a very partial view of what is possible through adopting an


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. R

outle

dge.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

epistemologicallyawareapproachtoTDpraxiswithinacybersystemictraditionortraditions(Figure5.4).Ourlivedexperienceisthatengaginginthispraxisasparticipants,designersandfacilitators is usually personally and situationally transforming. At the same time ourexperienceisthatTDpraxisispoorlyappreciatedasanintellectualfield,ormisinterpreted,ormisapplied (i.e., praxis can be poor, which is of course true of many fields) but mostimportantly it is poorly institutionalised and attracts too little investment at a timewhen thedemandsfortransformationstowardssustainability(howevertheyareunderstood)areurgent.

Thequestionoftransformation

In the opening section of this chapter I pointed to two underpinning conceptions associatedwith ‘trans’. One can be understood as the business-as-usual approach that is depicted inFigure5.3andcapturedbytheideathatatthishistoricalmomentweinvestindoingthewrongthingsrighter.Intheotherconceptionare-imaginingandre-buildingoffoundationsisenactedsuch that new buildings or edifices emerge. Bate (2000, 258) notes that ‘for Heidegger,languageisthehouseofbeing,itisthroughlanguagethatunconcealmenttakesplaceforhumanbeings’. With apologies to Bate, it is by disclosing the being of entities in language andbringing reflexivity to our doings that we create the possibilities for transformation. Butunfortunately, this is not enough. As I have argued elsewhere (Ison 2010) in the context ofcybersystemic praxis there aremajor impediments to buildingwidespread capability.Theseimpedimentsinclude:

lack of epistemological awareness amongst researcherswhich generates an absence ofepistemologicalandthus,ethicalresponsibilityfortheworldswecreate;pervasivegoalsettingandseekingplusatargetsmentalitythatexistsinmanycountriesandcontextsandwhichunderminescontextualorsituatedinnovationandtransformation;living in a ‘projectifiedworld’ – the project is a pervasive institutionwhich assumescertaintyaspartofitsinitialstartingconditions;cybersystemicco-inquiryisanantidote–becauseitstartsbyacceptinguncertainty;‘situation framing’ failure – failure to recognize we have agency in making framingchoices about situations, including decisions to bring forth systems in situations asdevicesforlearningand/ortransformation;living andworkingwith an historical, but continuing, apartheid of the emotionswithinresearchpraxis–thatis,therehasbeenafailuretorecognizethatwhatwedowhenwedowhatwedoismoreoftenthannotanemotionallydrivenresponse/action;institutional complexity, institutional lock-in and failure to develop institutions thatincorporatecybersystemicdesignfeatures;rhetorical exhortations that perpetuate the dualism of theory and practice, rather thanembracingthedualityofpraxis–Iwouldincludemuchthatiswrittenaboutpowerandtransformationhere.

Letmeconcludethissectionbymakinganimportantpoint.ItisnotcybersystemicsthatisTD,but theengagementbyapractitioner,orgroupofpractitioners,eachwith theirowncultural,


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. R

outle

dge.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

biologicalandintellectualhistories,whoinagivencontextchoosetoengagewithoneormorelineages of doing cybersystemics (e.g. the field as characterised in Figure 5.4), and who,throughtheirpraxis,realiseasetofactionsthatthey,orothers,wouldclaimtobeTD.Wedonotneedrulesordefinitions tosaywhatTDpractice is,buta richnetworkofconversation,suchastheconversationsinthisbook,totalkintoexistenceandsustainformsofpraxisthatwewouldbehappytoagreeareTD!MypreferenceistoprivilegepraxisthatIexperienceasTDknowingoverTDknowledgeproductionpraxis,whilerecognisingthatbotharerelevantwheninthehandsofareflexivelyawarepractitioner.Anaccompanyingneedistoconstantlyinquireintotheeffectivenessofourownandothers'TDpraxisinbringingabouttransformation.Suchreflexivity ought not pursue introspective scholarship, but should rather form a basis toinnovate, whether to remove constraints, or to create the new praxis forms that ourcontemporarycircumstanceswarrant.

Concludingcomments

ThefieldofcybersystemicscholarshipcharacterisedinFigure5.4hasmanypractitionersthatengageinwhatreadersofthischapterwouldrecogniseasTDpractice;theydothisbydoingtheir practice with others who are from different epistemological, cultural and disciplinarybackgrounds,ortheymaydoitbydeployingcybersystemicconcepts,methodsandtechniquesthatactintheserviceofothersasameta-languageormeta-wayofdoing.Myownpraxis,andthatofmycolleagues,spansbothofthesepossibilitiesandisthusalwaysTD–henceforusitisnotaquestionofwhatisorisnottransdisciplinarity–it iswhatwedo!Butwecanonlyspeak for ourselves, and it is a futile exercise to make a claim, for instance that allcybersystemicpraxisisTD.Alotisclearlynot,inmyview.However,anypractitionerwithexperience of the different cybersystemic lineages is well placed to engage in TDcybersystemicpraxis,andtodeploytheconceptstheyusetogiverisetonewwaysofknowinganddoing(i.e.,totransform).Inourdoingsweregularlymoveupanddownlevelsofabstraction,inhabitingthedualityof

thesystemicand/orthesystematic(Figure5.2).Putanotherway,TDpraxiswillbeenrichedbythoseabletoactwithanawarenessofthedistinctionbetweenTDknowledgeproductionandTDknowingenactment,andtousetheseasadualityratherthanadualism.Atthismomentinhistorythereisaneedtoinvestmoreinthesystemicratherthanthesystematic,andtotreatcybersystemics as both a transdiscipline (i.e. systemic praxis) and/or as a discipline (i.e.addingsystematicallytothecybersystemicfieldofinquiry).11

Acknowledgements

Ithanktheeditorsfortheinvitationtocontribute,therefereeswhocontributedtoimprovingthechapter and the many collaborators (co-inquirers) on whose work and efforts I draw. Myspecial thanks toPilleBunnellandSimonKneebonefor theirexcellentworkonFigures 5.3and5.4,respectivelyandtoPeterChecklandforpermissiontouseoneofhisteachinghandouts(Figure5.5).


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. R

outle

dge.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

1

2

345

678

9

10

11

Notes

In feedback on this chapter Peter Checkland said ‘as a devotee ofKarl Popper [KP] I am quite unable to accept aninvitationto“playwithwords”.KPhadapowerfuleffectonmewhenIread:‘Neverargueaboutthemeaningofwords.If you find yourself doing so accept your opponent's definitions and get onwith the argument –whichmust be aboutconceptsnotlabels'(pers.comm.16February2016).WhilstappreciatingthisperspectiveIhavecometounderstandthetheoretical (or conceptual) entailments that come with particular metaphors, and which result from the ways in whichwordsstructureourcognition–seeIsonetal.2015.Myconcernforwordsismorethanaconcernfordefinitionalclarity.Forexample,seethe‘Transformationstosustainability’programofFutureEarthathttp://www.futureearth.org/news/tran-sformations-sustainability(Accessed17December2015)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat(Accessed15December2015)PleasenotethatIamusing‘transform’hereinitseverydaysense–asintochange,makebetterordifferentIuse‘departurepoint’inthesenseofatimeorplacewherelinesonatrack(asinatrackofexplanationorargument)partcompany,oratimewhenarelationshipissevered.ForthisquestionIamgratefultoHumbertoMaturana–IexplicatetheimplicationsofthisquestioninIson(2010).UnlikeChecklandIwouldnotrefertounifyingknowledge,buttoorchestratingknowing.IaminagreementwithmanyofthepointsmadebyArora-Jonsson(2016)butnotwiththewayinwhichtheaccountofthehistoryoftheuseofcybersystemicideasisopentomisinterpretationbeyondthespecificcontextofherconcerns.It is unfortunate that Bateson referred to the phenomenon he was concerned with in terms of the language of‘information’; he wrote this at a time when there was semantic confusion about the concept ‘information’ due to thedisplacementofconversationalexplanationsofhumancommunicationswithconceptsof‘signaltransfer’fromphysiology(nerveimpulses)andelectronics.Thecircuithereferstoisthatcomposedofperson,tree,axeandcontext.Scholarly concern with transformation has grown in recent years; it can be understood as being due to a growingfrustrationwiththelackofchangeinrelationtosustainability,climatechange,governancereformetc.,andinthisregarditis awell-placedconcern.However inmyviewmuchof the scholarshipuses transformation in averygeneralwayanddoesnotdealwithapraxisoftransformationwhichhasbeenahistoricalconcernofcybersystemicscholarship.Theturntotransformation is also a response to an entailment of the term ‘resilience’ and concerns that the biophysical focus ofresiliencelosestouchwithwhathastotransform.ThishasledtoinitiativesinFutureEarthdescribedearlier.Mathematicsandstatisticscanbeunderstoodinthesameway.

References

Arora-JonssonS. (2016) ‘Does resilience have a culture?Ecocultures and the politics of knowledge production’EcologicalEconomics12198–107.

BalsigerP.W.(2004)‘Supradisciplinaryresearchpractices:history,objectivesandrationale’Futures36407–421.BateJ.(2000)ThesongoftheearthPicador,London.BatesonG.(1972)StepstoanecologyofmindUniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago.Bernstein J.H. (2015) ‘Transdisciplinarity: a review of its origins, development and current issues’ Journal of ResearchPractice111.

BertalanffyL.V.(1968)Generalsystemtheory:foundations,development,applicationsBraziller,NewYork.BlackmoreC.P.,IsonR.L.andJigginsJ.(2007)‘Sociallearning:analternativepolicyinstrumentformanaginginthecontextofEurope'swater’EnvironmentalScienceandPolicy106493–498.

BrownL.ed,(1993)ThenewshorterOxfordEnglishdictionaryonhistoricalprinciplesClarendonPress,Oxford.ChecklandP.B.(1976)‘Scienceandthesystemsparadigm’InternationalJournalofGeneralSystems32127–134.ChecklandP.B.andPoulterJ.(2010)‘Softsystemsmethodology’inReynoldsM.andHolwellS.edsSystemsapproachestomanagingchange:apracticalguide’SpringerandTheOpenUniversity,London191–242.

ChurchmanC.W.(1971)Thedesignofinquiringsystems:basicconceptsofsystemsandorganisationsBasicBooks,NewYork.

Colvin J.,BlackmoreC.,Chimbuya S.,CollinsK.B.,DentM.,Goss J., IsonR.L.,Roggero, P.P. and SeddaiuG. (2014) ‘Insearchofsystemicinnovationforsustainabledevelopment:adesignpraxisemergingfromadecadeofsociallearninginquiry’ResearchPolicy43760–771.

FrançoisC.ed,(1997)InternationalencyclopediaofsystemsandcyberneticsKGSauer,Munich.HollingC.S.,(1973)‘Resilienceandstabilityofecologicalsystems’AnnualReviewofEcologyandSystematics41–23.Ison R.L. (2008) ‘Methodological challenges of trans-disciplinary research: some systemic reflections’ Natures SciencesSociétés16241–251.

IsonR.L.(2010)Systemspractice:howtoactinaclimate-changeworldSpringerandTheOpenUniversity,London.Transdisciplinary Research and Practice for Sustainability Outcomes, edited by Dena Fam, et al., Routledge, 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uts/detail.action?docID=4741910.Created from uts on 2018-08-09 16:06:29.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. R

outle

dge.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

http://www.futureearth.org/news/transformations-sustainability

https://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat

Ison, R.L. and Ampt, P.R. (1992) ‘Rapid rural appraisal: a participatory problem formulationmethod relevant to Australianagriculture’AgriculturalSystems38363–386.

IsonR.L.andRussellD.B.eds,(2007)Agriculturalextensionandruraldevelopment:breakingoutofknowledgetransfertraditionsCambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,UK.

Ison R.L. and Schlindwein S. (2015) ‘Navigating through an “ecological desert and a sociological hell”: a cyber–systemicgovernanceapproachfortheAnthropocene’Kybernetes446/7891–902.

Ison R.L. and Blackmore C. (2014) ‘Designing and developing a reflexive learning system formanaging systemic change’SystemsEducationforaSustainablePlanetSpecialIssue,Systems22119–136.

Ison R.L., Maiteny P.T. and Carr S. (1997) ‘Systems methodologies for sustainable natural resources research anddevelopment’AgriculturalSystems55257–272.

IsonR.L.,RölingN.andWatsonD.(2007)‘Challengestoscienceandsocietyinthesustainablemanagementanduseofwater:investigatingtheroleofsociallearning’EnvironmentalScienceandPolicy106499–511.

IsonR.L.,BlackmoreC.P. and IaquintoB. (2013) ‘Towards systemic and adaptive governance: exploring the revealing andconcealingaspectsofcontemporarysocial-learningmetaphors’EcologicalEconomics8734–42.

Ison R.L., Collins K.B. and Wallis P. (2014) ‘Institutionalising social learning: towards systemic and adaptive governance’EnvironmentalScienceandPolicy53B105–117.

IsonR.L.,AllanC.andCollinsK.B.(2015)‘Reframingwatergovernancepraxis:doesreflectiononmetaphorshavearole?’EnvironmentandPlanningC:GovernmentandPolicy331697–1713.

JanschE. (1970) ‘Inter- and transdisciplinary university: a systems approach to education and innovation’Policy Science 1403–428.

MaitenyP.T.andIsonR.L.(2000)‘Appreciatingsystems:criticalreflectionsonthechangingnatureofsystemsasadisciplineinasystemslearningsociety’SystemsPracticeandActionResearch164559–586.

RamageM.andShippK.(2009)SystemsthinkersSpringerandTheOpenUniversity,London.Steyaert P. and Jiggins J. (2007) ‘Governance of complex environmental situations through social learning: a synthesis ofSLIM'slessonsforresearch,policyandpractice’EnvironmentalScienceandPolicy10575–586.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

6. R

outle

dge.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

5 transdisciplinarity as transformation...margarine, snack food, packaged baked goods and frying...

Documents