KNOWING DIFFERENTLY IN SYSTEMIC COMMUNITY OPERATIONAL RESEARCH

Towards a dialectic between the epistemologies in

Indian handicraft traditions and

epistemological traditions in Systemic Community Operational Research

PhD formal assessment Submitted by Raghav Rajagopalan

Centre for Systems Studies, Hull University Business School March 2013

i

Contents

1. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Structure of the research proposal ............................................................................. 2

1.2 Introducing Systemic Community Operational Research (SCOR) ............................... 2

1.2.1 Community Operational Research ....................................................................... 2

1.2.2 Action Research ................................................................................................... 4

1.2.3 Systemic Intervention .......................................................................................... 5

1.2.4 Developing the idea of Systemic Community Operational Research (SCOR) ...... 9

1.3 Deepening SCOR by application of an extended epistemology ................................ 12

1.3.1 A gap in current SCOR ........................................................................................ 12

1.3.2 Two frameworks that address the gap .............................................................. 12

1.3.3 ‘Knowing Differently’: An Extended Epistemology ............................................ 15

1.3.4 ‘Knowing Differently’ and SCOR – the scope for additional research ............... 16

1.4 The context of inquiry – handicrafts in India ............................................................ 17

1.4.1 Marginalised livelihoods – the handicraft artisans ............................................ 17

1.4.2 Development planning and livelihoods interventions ....................................... 19

2. RESEARCH TOPIC: A dialectic between SCOR and Indian handicrafts ........................ 21

2.1 Purpose of the Research ........................................................................................... 22

2.1.1 Research Questions ........................................................................................... 24

3. RESEARCH PROPOSAL ............................................................................................. 27

3.1 Research Design ........................................................................................................ 27

3.2 Research Evaluation .................................................................................................. 31

3.3 Research Validity, Reliability and Adaptability ......................................................... 32

3.4 Research Project Work Breakdown .......................................................................... 33

4. OUTCOMES ............................................................................................................. 34

5. ETHICAL ISSUES ....................................................................................................... 36

6. Concluding remarks ................................................................................................ 38

Abbreviations and foreign terms used ................................................................................ 39

References ........................................................................................................................... 40

1

1. BACKGROUND

This research proposal aims to explore aspects related to the practice of community

development and its related theoretical discourse. Because it deals with complex and

sometimes hazily bounded scenariosi, the work of community development has not

corresponded to the neat compartments of academic discipline. Instead, several

‘communities of practice’ii (Lave and Wenger, 1991) with varied levels of theory

development have emerged. Two significant theoretical strands related to community

development are Community Operational Research (COR hereafter) and Systemic

Intervention (SI). One other significant strand is Action Researchiii (AR). I say that these

are particularly significant because they provide deep explorations of methodological

issues concerning intervention in communities.

As knowledge systems and disciplines that have emerged from practitioner

communities, each of these three strands involves areas of agreement and divergence in

theoretical formulation amongst adherents. There are also considerable areas of overlap

between the three strands, with members belonging and contributing to two or all three

of theseiv. This section provides a very brief discussion of these three strands, and

locates the proposed research within a rough subset that has been posited and

described here as Systemic Community Operational Research (SCOR).

Much literature on community development falls outside these disciplinary boundaries.

Some of these writings constitute landmark contributions adding significant new

understanding to the dimensions of theory and practice in community development.

Among these, there are a few notable influences on my own development as a

practitioner. These include Herrigel (1953), Fromm (1960, 1974, 2000), Friere (1970,

1972), Chomsky (1975), Srinivas (1980), Chambers (1983), Chambers and Conway (1992),

Department for International Development (1999), Baumgartner and Hogger (2004), and

Kurien (2005).

2

1.1 Structure of the research proposal

What follows in this section is a brief discussion of the three fields – COR, SI and AR. The

idea of SCOR is developed thereafter. An apparent gap in the current epistemological

thinking/practice of SCOR is identified. Two frameworks from related disciplines are

introduced which provide a basis for an appropriate extension of SCOR epistemology.

Afterwards, a context for application of an inquiry into this mooted

development/extension of SCOR is presented: the handicrafts sector in India

(‘handicrafts’ is used interchangeably with ‘crafts’ throughout this proposal).

In the next (second) section, a case for a SCOR intervention into the crafts sector is

assembled by linking up the ideas in the first section. The proposed research inquiry and

intervention will address the introduction of an extended epistemology in SCOR by

locating the search for methods and practices in the teaching/learning applied within the

Indian handicraft tradition. The aims of the research and its primary questions are

specified.

In the third section, a research design is proposed that addresses the research goals and

questions within the rubric of SCOR as elaborated earlier. The fourth section discusses

possible outcomes while the fifth considers the ethical issues involved in the research.

1.2 Introducing Systemic Community Operational Research (SCOR)

1.2.1 Community Operational Research

Community Operational Research (COR) is an offshoot of Operational Research, focusing

on applications to Community Development (CD) issues and contexts. Operational

research (OR) (in American usage, ‘operations research’) is a discipline that deals with

the application of advanced analytical methods to help make better decisionsv. It is often

considered to be a sub-field of mathematics, although OR practitioners who specialize in

facilitated, qualitative modelling would strongly dispute this classification (see, for

example, Rosenhead, 1989; Parry and Mingers, 1991; and Mingers, 1992). Currently, the

3

terms management science and decision science are sometimes used as synonyms for

ORvi.

Operational Research is often concerned with determining the maximum (of profit,

performance or yield), minimum (of loss, risk or cost) or optimal (best balance of various

parameters) of some real-world objective(s). Originating in military efforts in World War

II (Trefethen, 1954; Mar Molinero, 1992), its techniques have grown to concern

problems in a variety of industries and sectors. During the 1970s and 80s, the field of OR

entered a paradigm crisis (see, for example, Tomlinson and Kiss, 1984; Rosenhead, 1989,

1 - 11; Midgley and Ochoa-Arias, 2004). The crux of the crisis was dissatisfaction with the

strong focus on mathematical techniques in some quarters, paired with a wave of

closures of OR departments in industry. This led to the identification of CD as an arena

for application that would broaden the scope and enrich the discipline of OR. Jonathan

Rosenhead is widely credited with initiating COR in 1986, although similar work without

this identifying tag had been in existence since the 1960s in the USA and since the 1970s

in the UK (Midgley and Ochoa-Arias, 2004).

Community Operational Research refers to the application of the basic operational

research approach of building models to the design and implementation of programmes,

projects and institutions that serve community development purposes. Sometimes, the

initiator or primary client may be a voluntary, statutory or private organization, or client

systems may be multiple and diffuse. Nevertheless, meaningful engagement with the

community is critical to the classification of a project as COR (Midgley and Ochoa-Arias,

2004). Models serve as transitional objects that provides a focus for dialogue (Eden,

1995; Franco, 2007) to iteratively achieve more detailed and nuanced representations

(there may be several) of reality, and greater agreement on the posing of solutions or

ways forward. Several compendia of case studies and theory elements have been

published (Rosenhead, 1989; Keys, 1991; Ritchie et al, 1994; Bowen, 1995; Taket and

Whitevii, 2000; and Midgley and Ochoa-Arias, 2004), but no authoritative definition has

been put forward because practitioners inevitably have varied perspectives. In a recent

4

book introducing COR, Midgley and Ochoa-Arias identify two features common to COR

participants in their network:

…“a desire to make a contribution to change in communities” …”a concern with the design of methodologies, processes of engagement, methods and techniques.” (2004, 1-2)

1.2.2 Action Research

Action Research (AR) refers to the joint conduct of social research by professional

‘action researchers’ and the representatives or members of an organisation or

community that seeks to improve their situation (adapted, with slight modification, from

Greenwood and Levin, 2007, 4). Together, they “…cogenerate relevant knowledge about

them [the problems to be examined], learn and execute social research techniques, take

actions and interpret the results of actions based on what they have learned”

(Greenwood and Levin, 2007, 4). Reason and Bradbury offer the following working

definition in their introduction: “Action research is a participatory, democratic process

concerned with developing practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human

purposes, grounded in a participatory worldview which we believe is emerging at this

historical moment.” (2006, 1)

It is clear that the participative injunction – the necessary participation of community

representatives in the research – is central to this approach. Action research above all

privileges practical knowledge that leads to action for improvement in the communities’

situations. (Reason and Bradbury, 2006, 2 and 7-9)

Greenwood and Levin (1998) trace the roots of AR to Kurt Lewin in the 1940s. They

follow its sweep through the Tavistock Institute in London, the Industrial Democracy

Project in Norway, and then through Sweden and Japan, eventually to encompass work

across the globe in community developmentviii, ix. Some of the arguments presented by

Greenwood and Levin (1998) about the epistemological basis of AR are compelling and

are briefly reviewed here. These resonate with the central reasons for the focus of this

research on COR (and more specifically, as the argument is developed, SCOR). However,

there are reasons for privileging COR over AR, which will be set forth later.

5

Greenwood and Levin locate AR as a scientific practice, stating that, “Science is a way of

behaving …good scientific practice centres on constant cycles of thought and action”x

(1998, 63). They link the epistemological foundations of AR to General System Theoryxi

(Bertalanffy, 1968) and to the pragmatic philosophy schoolxii, a case they explore being

the thought of John Deweyxiii. AR practitioners believe that

“AR does not generalize through abstraction and the loss of history and context… [rather,] meanings created in one context are examined for their credibility in another situation through a conscious reflection on similarities and differences between contextual features and historical factors”xiv (Greenwood and Levin, 2007, 84).

They concede that conveying the credibility of such knowledge to outsiders is a difficult

challenge. Over time, AR engagements shifted from the process of an expert researcher

engaged with a client to a more participative analysis with fuller stakeholder and

community engagements (Whyte, 1989).

Although Greenwood and Levin (1998) locate AR in a systemic view, this is not true for

all varieties of AR practice (the systemic view is elaborated in the following paragraphs).

While the participative injunction calls for making explicit the methodology used, there

is no compulsion to build models and apply these as a basis to test assumptions and

evaluate the possible consequences of future actions.

1.2.3 Systemic Intervention

Systemic Intervention (SI) is an example of Systems Thinking, and it is an umbrella term

for the use of systems theory to support understanding and/or action (Midgley, 2003).xv

The value of a systemic approach to community development has been pointed out in

the literature. Midgley (2000), Midgley and Ochoa-Arias (2004) and Foote et al (2007)

specifically argue for the value of systemic community interventions, and support this

using theory and case studies.

Systems theory originated as a response to mechanism, reductionism and

subject/object duality: the ideas underlying the Enlightenment approach to science and

the industrial revolutionxvi. Against these, systems theory postulates a wider set of

undercutting principles through an interdisciplinary study of systems. Concepts are

6

developed and introduced by scientists and thinkers from various disciplines (for

example, von Bertalanffy, Parsons, Luhmann, Bogdanov, Laszlo, Forrester, Maturana,

Fuenmayor, and Prigogine). The attempt is often to explain complex phenomena in

terms of self-regulating systems that are nested into progressively higher levels of

organisation (Emery and Trist, 1965); although there are some systems paradigms that

reject this approach (Midgley, 2003).xvii

Systems Thinking, described as a ‘trans-discipline’ (because its ideas apply across several

disciplines in the same way that statistics does), is a vast body of theory, methodology

and practice. It can best be described as the application of systems concepts to frame

our understanding of the world and it is as also about possible future action - what ought

to be or could be (Ulrich, 1983; Fuenmayor, 1991a, 19991b, 1991c). It is important to

note that systems theory and models are applied to develop an appreciation of

phenomena; there is not necessarily an assumption that the systems exist in the real

world (Checkland, 1981; Midgley, 2000). It applies a range of methodologies that aim for

an adequate comprehensiveness in the understanding of extant phenomena, and seek

to produce more widely acceptable transformations (Jackson and Keys, 1984; Flood and

Jackson, 1991). For a reasonable contemporary introduction to the canvas of Systems

Thinking, see Flood (undated).xviii

In brief, ‘systems thinking’ refers to ways of thinking about the world in terms of systems

that influence one another within a whole, and it describes networks, webs and cycles of

relationships rather than linear cause-effect relationships (Checkland, 1981; Senge,

1990; Forrester, 1994; Anderson and Johnson, 1997). Systems thinking, therefore, helps

in the exploration and definition of the scope of analysis and the reach and focus of

possible action.

A milestone attempt to pull together the many (then) diverse strands of thought and

application into a single coherent discipline was the work pursued individually and

jointly from the mid-1980s by Mike Jackson, Robert Flood, Paul Keys, Gerald Midgley,

Wendy Gregory and Norma Romm, amongst others – all working at the Centre for

Systems Studies at Hull University (although some have moved on). The research

perspective called Critical Systems Thinking (CST) (example, Flood and Romm, 1996), the

7

Total Systems Intervention (TSI) framework as a sort of meta theory (example, Flood and

Jackson, 1991) and the System of Systems Methodologies (SoSM) (developed as a tool

within TSI) represent significant attempts to create a coherent overarching framework,

although there has been subsequent critique and further development in the field. The

principal arguments against CST include the universalization of morality and inadequate

conceptualisations of power, inequality and coercion (for a brief review of systems

approaches, including CST, and their critics up until 2000, the reader is referred to

Midgley, 2000, pages 187 – 211). There have also been many arguments in the literature

over the various integrative methodological frameworks proposed by CST writers,

especially the SoSM (again see Midgley, 2000, for a review).

In a further development called Systemic Intervention (SI), Midgley (2000) attempts to

integrate the various strands of systems thinking and reconcile their underlying

philosophical differences. He builds a convincing argument that the concept of a

boundary (Churchman, 1968a, 1968b, 1971, 1979; Ulrich, 1983, 1986; Midgley, 2000,

2011) is at the heart of systems thinking. Next, he builds up a perspective that he terms

a process philosophy. By this approach, he shows that both the objects (under

consideration) and the subjects (researching them) are identified in terms of an identical

process of judgement about their boundaries. He thus claims to overcome a key

philosophical riddle - the problem of subject-object dualism.

Midgley (2000, 2011) extends this methodologically in terms of an approach he terms

the theory of the boundary critique. Essentially, this is a conceptual treatment of the

social process of marginalization, whereby some stakeholders and/or issues may be

devalued and even made invisible.xix

To my mind, his explanation more readily fits the boundary judgement process for the

object but does not provide adequate detail to explain the boundary processes of the

subject. This point will be developed in a later section.

In applying systemic intervention to COR practice, Midgley’s logic is that well-developed

methods alone will not guarantee effective COR practice: boundary critique is needed to

reflect on the complexities of the situation and sweep in relevant stakeholders and

8

viewpoints, especially when marginalisation processes are active. A systemic

intervention, in his view, should encompass three explicit aspects: boundary critique;

pluralism in the theories and methods that are applied; and an action orientation

towards an improvement of the situation. While the latter two goals have been the

subject of much discussion and are largely accepted in COR and systemic practice circles,

the first is an extension of the previous work of both Churchman (1968a, 1968b, 1970,

1971, 1979), for whom the term ‘systemic’ implied reflection on the boundaries of

inclusion and exclusion in analyses; and Ulrich’s Critical Systems Heuristics (1983, 1986),

which provided a practical basis for examining the boundaries.

Midgley’s extension of previous work is through the new offering of the theory of

boundary critique partnered with his advocacy of methodological pluralism (mixing

methods in response to the situation at hand). He defends the epistemological

soundness of his process philosophy by explaining how it escapes the paradox of

creating a single foundational epistemology as the basis for theoretical pluralism

(Midgley, 2011). Previous epistemological approaches postulate a generic model of the

‘knowledge generating system’ (the agent producing knowledge) as the single point of

reference for the application of multiple theories to generate knowledge of the world. If

this ‘theory of the knowledge generating system’ is foundational, then other forms of

knowledge are inevitably selected for consistency with the foundation, thereby limiting

theoretical and methodological pluralism. By recognizing that the process of making

boundary judgements always impinges on our understanding of both our ‘knowledge of

knowledge generating systems’ and our ‘knowledge of the world’, Midgley’s perspective

(Midgley, 2000, 2011; Boyd et al, 2004) provides room for an iterative deepening and

enriching of both of these with multiple theoretical lenses. He calls this a systemic

approach to epistemology, and this is illustrated by Figure 1.

9

It is my suggestion that the capacity for critical reflection on boundary judgements,

especially those regarding our knowledge of knowledge generating systems, can be

enhanced through new ways of knowing. My own past experiences with the significance

of cultural dimensions to the creation of meaning show that there are possibilities both

for alternate ways of knowing and for enabling shifts in attitude. These ideas fit well with

boundary critique and can help extend the application of this theory. More on this later.

1.2.4 Developing the idea of Systemic Community Operational Research (SCOR)

Having outlined COR and SI, I will now discuss the reasons for their preferential

selection, leading to the concept of SCOR. Then, I will point to some of the gaps still

remaining and introduce a model of multiple epistemologies, drawn by mixing two

sources, which can address this gap. Finally, I will explain how the intended research

proposes to contribute to the theory and methodology of SCOR.

Both COR and AR advocate a praxis built on cycling between theory and action.

However, some schools for the practice of community development favour action over

theory. Some variants of AR hold as valid only theory which emerges from the

Figure 1 Systemic

Approach to

Epistemology (from

Midgley, 2011)

10

immediate action (Anderson and Goolishian, 1992), or which is already accepted by

participants, making it illegitimate for the practitioner to import theory from elsewhere.

I am not in favour of this stance because it removes some of the emancipatory potential

of COR, in the sense that insight can potentially be developed in practice if the COR

practitioner (and other participants for that matter) are free to introduce new forms of

theory into their active model building as a way to test assumptions about the existing

situation and future possibilities. Limiting theory to just that which is already accepted

or emerges from the practice itself seems to me to be overly restrictive and makes

challenges to ‘groupthink’ very difficult. This is why I choose to locate myself within the

COR research community. It is not for the purpose of drawing any hard lines between

the various schools of CD. It is also not an attempt to discredit much effective work that

has been conducted under other labels, including AR, or under no labels. In short, I

believe there is value in consciously building models of the features (elements,

structures, qualities, ideas, effects, dynamics and processes) obtaining in the situation or

imagined in the future and testing these assumptive models against previously held

assumptions, to constantly improve our understanding.

Another issue, linked to the above, is that some AR practitioners believe that CD should

only be undertaken by the community itself with the intervening agent solely assisting

them with the tools for this process, but not indicating her or his own preferences or

influencing any choices (for example, Reason, 1996). I believe that there are situations

where the agent might need to take positions and play a role in the action chosen to

improve the situation – for example, where the power relationships between two sets of

stakeholders is imbalanced, as often obtains in developing country contexts (for

example, when artisans are marginalised in the development process - described in

section 1.3).

I agree with Midgley’s (2000) position, considered earlier, that the analysis of the

situation is not complete without examining the boundaries for identifying or

characterising the problem that different stakeholders elect to set. Unless boundaries

are critically examined, and the views of marginalised stakeholders or those

stakeholders not previously in view are considered (including stakeholders that cannot

11

speak for themselves, such as ecosystems or future generations), the resultant analysis

and actions may produce new and unforeseen consequences and/or the outcomes may

be open to legitimacy challenges. Ulrich’s (1983) Critical Systems Heuristics and

Midgley’s (2000) theory of the boundary critique are thus important, as both take these

issues seriously. Therefore, in my view, a systemic perspective is an important

concomitant to effective COR, as Boyd et al (2004) have already argued. When the

conscious use of models of the context is combined with a systemic effort to critically

examine the boundaries of analysis (including, of course, reflection on the processes of

boundary identification), there is a powerful synergy to engage the various actors in

apprehending the situation and shaping it deliberatively towards improvement.

To sum up, the use of the word ‘systemic’ implies the application of systems thinking to

community operational research. Thus, a ‘systemic community operational research

(SCOR)’ project is an interventionxx that seeks to model the extant social phenomenon

under study and/or possible future scenarios, and seeks to improve the situation by

reaching agreementxxi on actions to take things forward, such that it hopefully produces

a widely acceptable transformation.

Why do we need a systemic COR? I would invoke Bateson, who reflects on the gap

between heuristic and fundamental science (1972, introduction, xxvi and xxix). While his

observation refers to scientific research rather than OR, it could apply equally to CD. He

argues that failing to subject impromptu theorising about phenomena based on heuristic

reasoning to deeper scientific-theoretical scrutiny risks the easy acceptance of

delusional ideas. Systemic thinking could infuse into the patterning and modelling of

COR that understanding of logical levels of nested reality and patterns of recursion that

would promote the ecological epistemology that Bateson sought to develop - one that

privileges the network of relationship between ideas as opposed to a materialistic

analysis. (This is exemplified in the quotation from Bateson reproduced early in the next

section). To draw a link to Midgley’s epistemology, we might say that it would privilege

processes over content.

12

1.3 Deepening SCOR by application of an extended epistemology

1.3.1 A gap in current SCOR

While these elements defined for SCOR are necessary, I believe they are not yet

sufficient. I borrow an explanation from Bateson. Worried about the inadequacy and

dangers of good intentions, he wrote,

“…mere purposive rationality unaided by such phenomena as art, religion, dream and the like, is necessarily pathogenic and destructive of life; and that its virulence springs specifically from the circumstance that life depends upon interlocking circuits of contingency, while consciousness can see only such short arcs of such circuits as human purpose may direct” (1972, 146).

1.3.2 Two frameworks that address the gap

It seems to me that an appreciation of what makes for a holistic understanding requires

the inclusion of relevant forms of knowledge that might be available among the human

actors around the situation. I will now provide a brief sketch of what constitutes a

holistic perspective, drawing on Malhotra’s interpretation of Koestler’s ideas, and I will

visit the extended epistemology of Heron and Reason, building some tentative

connections between these two models. Their relevance to the directions this research

will take will be established afterwards.

My application of these concepts is intended to bring in at least two additional process

details: knowledge of actors that is not of a conceptual (or propositional) nature; as well

as a process to apply boundary critique to the subjective understandings of the actors in

the situation.

Koestler proposes the idea of a holon (essentially another word for ‘system’): “Every

holon has the dual tendency to preserve and assert its individuality as a quasi-

autonomous whole; and to function as an integrated part of an (existing or evolving)

larger whole” (1967, appendix). Malhotra (undated) argues that, in the case of sentient

human beings, both of these aspects discussed by Koestler can be viewed from two

locations – within or without (internal and external), yielding the following perspectives:

13

Inquiry

agent’s

location of

perspective

Location of

object of

inquiry

INTERNAL EXTERNAL

INSIDE SELF CONCEPT WORLD VIEW

OUTSIDE PATTERNS OF RELATEDNESS

(of the self to external

phenomena as seen from an

outside perspective).

OBJECTIVE CONTEXT

(adapted with some modification from Malhotra, undated)

He elaborates,

“ The essence of holism lies in the simultaneity of these four quadrants, their interplay with each other, and identification of leverages that can facilitate the movement of the holon to another level of existence …a holistic perspective is not problem centric. The assumption being that what may appear as a ‘problem’ at one level, may in fact be a necessary and even useful part of a larger whole. Thus, mere elimination of the so-called ‘problem’ can inadvertently destroy the fabric of the larger whole.” (Malhotra, undated, 2-3)

There is an interesting correspondence between these four quadrants yielding varied

perspectives and the four epistemological types proposed by Heron and Reason (1997),

which are illustrated below by re-arranging them into an identical four quadrant picture

to Malhotra’s (--) above. It is useful to apply Midgley’s (2000) distinction between

content and process, and note that Malhotra’s (--) types are content descriptors while

Heron and Reasons’s are process descriptors. It can also be argued that each of the four

perspectives in Malhotra’s (--) diagram can be informed through each of the four

epistemological types provided by Heron and Reason (1997). This needs to be the

subject of further inquiry.

14

EXPERIENTIAL PRACTICAL

PRESENTATIONAL PROPOSITIONAL

(Ways of knowing from Heron and Reason 1997, adapted for presentation in table form)

To give more detail of Heron and Reason’s ideas, they argue that there are four basic

forms of knowing which are interdependent. They describe these as follows:

Experiential knowing “articulates reality through inner resonance with what there is and through perceptually enacting (Varela et al, 1993) its forms of appearing.”

“Presentational knowing emerges from experience and intuitively grasps this in the metaphors of aesthetic creation – symbolizing it in graphic, plastic, musical, vocal, and verbal art forms. These forms symbolize both our felt attunement with the world and the primary meaning embedded in our enactment of its appearing.”

Propositional knowing is knowledge in conceptual terms ...expressed in statements and theories of language based concepts and classes (1997, 281, abridged). Propositions are carried by “presentational forms – the sounds or shapes of the spoken or written word – and ultimately grounded in our experiential articulation of the world.”

Practical knowing is “knowing how to do something, demonstrated in a skill or competence. We would argue that practical knowledge is in an important sense primary (Heron, 1996). It presupposes a conceptual grasp of principles and standards of practice, presentational elegance, and experiential grounding in the situation within which the action occurs. It fulfils the three prior forms of knowing, brings them to fruition in purposive deeds, and consummates them with its autonomous celebration of excellent accomplishment.”

(Heron and Reason, 1997, 281)

It is important to note that Heron and Reason (1997) describe action as consummating

the prior forms of knowing and also as being grounded in them. Thus, the

interdependence and interaction between these four can be traced as a grounding

relationship – the validation of truth-values, tracing clockwise from practical to

experiential, and a consummating relationship – celebration of being-values, going in the

reverse direction (Heron and Reason, 1997).

Heron and Reason (1997) make the case for a “critical subjectivity” that attends to both

the grounding and the consummating relations between these four forms of knowing.

15

They say this is very similar to Torbert’s (1991) “consciousness in the midst of action”

and elaborate that an awareness of our perspective – its authentic value and its

restricting bias – echoes Torbert’s (1987) “refraining mind”, Bateson’s (1972) “Learning

III” and other similar ideas in the literature (Heron and Reason, 1997, 282).

Unlike the tortuous problems that a solely rational (propositional) philosophy presents

in attempting a more holistic understanding (see, for example, discussions of various

philosophical perspectives in Midgley, 2000, 21-28) the extended epistemology provides

a natural basis to apprehend the aspects covered in the last paragraph. The significance

is in realizing that the differing perspectives or modes are not patterned in an

oppositional or dyadically recursive relationship, but are held as simultaneous. It is the

limitation of conscious knowing (especially in modern western cultures) that we can

usually be consciously aware of only one or two of these modes at any moment in time.

In contrast, practical knowing and acting affords a synergistic and aligned flow across all

the three prior other modes too. Traditions such as yoga, practices developed by human

inquiry, certain action research paradigms and some communities of practice like

Sumedhas in India (www.sumedhas.org), specifically promote a conscious increase of

simultaneous awareness, and the capacity for alignment and a conscious cycling flow

across the four modes of knowing.

In sum, training practices in arts, crafts and some other bodily practices promote

attunement to and reflective regulation of these processes. This involves fostering the

ability to attain a temporary suspension between the process of experience and its

crystallized content of knowing. Thus, a ‘space’ to ‘occupy’ liminal zones in between

contradictory ideas (or ‘knowings’) is generated. Such conscious liminality involves an

existential tension, the creative resolution of which can facilitate the move to a more

comprehensive view.

1.3.3 ‘Knowing Differently’: An Extended Epistemology

Having established the need for knowing differently in SCOR and the usefulness of the

extended epistemology of Heron and Reason (1997) to this project, I will draw upon the

extensive application of similar ideas in other intervention settings brought together in

16

Liamputtong and Rumbold (2008). They draw upon the growing body of work reflecting

the ‘reflexive turn’ in methodology, and situate their theorizing in what they refer to

simply as arts-based and collaborative methods.xxii

They characterize arts-based inquiry as a “mode of research, reflective practice,

education, therapy, art-making and community-building” (2008, 10). While the

collaborations they have reported take many forms, my specific interest is in uncovering

principles for collaboration that may bridge the ‘culture of silence’ of the oppressed,

marginalized and profaned social groups (Friere, 1972), and the obviously concomitant

process of examination of the subjective boundaries of the inquiring agents who

maintain this culture of silence.

As Liamputtong and Rumbold have reported, these new methods:

Access experiential learning

Are suited for non-literate participants

Provide a rich way to blur the researcher/practitioner boundary

Constitute a “radical ethical aesthetic” that enhances the potential for ethical relationships and social change (Liamputtong and Rumbold, 2008, summarised from 3-4)

The reading selections here provide rich discussion on the forms of knowing. Seeley and

Reason (2008, 25 – 46) offer a new epistemology of presentational knowing, and other

chapters base their discussions on previous works, such as Garman and Piantinada

(1996) and Barone and Eisner (1997). These ideas constitute a deep mine of resources

that will be drawn upon for this study.

1.3.4 ‘Knowing Differently’ and SCOR – the scope for additional research

The case for the application of an extended epistemology (after Heron and Reason,

1997) to SCOR can now be summarized. Midgley’s (2000, 2011) argument for the

centrality of boundary critique to systemic thinking, and its criticality of application in

COR, have been endorsed. However, the detailing of the process to examine the

boundaries of agents and/or knowledge generating systems is inadequate. Moreover,

the methodological development of the basic philosophy of boundaries (in Chapter 7 of

Midgley, 2000, and elsewhere) has been explained in cultural and anthropological terms

17

– the stabilization of a marginal zone by means of ritual and through processes of

assigning it either a sacred or a profane status. Now, Bateson (1972) has argued

forcefully that a purely rational analysis in such matters is bound to mislead, and the

place of art, religion, and culture needs to be engaged with and comprehended. My own

experiences confirm Bateson’s writings, which show that these phenomena can be

interlinked and complicated in ways that are highly counter-intuitive and often

apparently paradoxical. Hence, some new approaches are needed for the application of

the boundary analysis to the subject.

Secondly, the context that obtains in several developing country scenarios is one of high

levels of political and social marginalization, stabilized sometimes over centuries of

social habit and ritual, which can neither be apprehended nor resolved through purely

propositional models. In fact, the very use of literacy-based tools and recourse to

language fluency for analysis can exclude the central stakeholders from participation in

any engagement to improve such situations. I will refer hereafter to this challenge as the

‘propositional challenge’. (This is described in some detail in Section 1.4.1).

In my view, the arguments summarised in the two preceding paragraphs constitute two

very strong reasons to explore the expansion of SCOR (theory, methodology and

practice) in terms of an extended epistemology.

1.4 The context of inquiry – handicrafts in India

I will now move on to elaborate the context in which these theoretical reflections about

SCOR are to be examined – the handicrafts sector in India. My white paper on the sector

that initiated significant reform in the National Accounting Statistics in India also

provides a fairly comprehensive recent overview of all these aspects (Rajagopalan,

2011).

1.4.1 Marginalised livelihoods – the handicraft artisans

The accelerated growth following economic liberalisation in India has brought in its wake

attention to the corresponding immiserisation of many communities and segments of

18

the population. This needs to be addressed. One such segment is the handicraft sector.

Handicrafts arexxiii

“products or services provided by artisans, working primarily with their hands. The artisan very often uses traditional knowledge and her/his direct manual contribution forms a substantial or distinctive part of the end product or service. Usually, there are minimal or limited inputs from machines. The distinctive nature of handicraft comes from the fact that these goods or services can be identified with certain cultural traditions or geographies” (Rajagopalan, 2011).

“An artisan is a person with special hand skills, often handed down traditionally across generations, and often linked to a complex traditional knowledge system encompassing the material, technological and/or design aspects” (Rajagopalan, 2011).

The livelihood context for the handicraft artisans in India poses critical challenges.

Reliable data for the sector is unavailable. Estimates place employment figures at

between 40 – 200 million persons, and the contribution to the Gross Domestic Product

(GDP) is estimated to have reached US$17.6 billion in 2012 (Chatterjee, 2010;

Rajagopalan, 2011). The sector is the largest single export earner and the second largest

employer after agriculture (Chatterjee, 2010). The handicrafts sector has grown steadily,

especially in the two decades after economic liberalisation. Yet the benefits of market

expansion have not accrued to the artisans, who are in crisis (Liebl and Roy, 2004, 5366).

Historical developments have forced artisans to depend on traders and other players for

market facing activities.xxiv Capability and information asymmetries keep them from

negotiating for better prices (Liebl and Roy, 2004, 5373-4).

Looking ahead, the new markets bring further challenges. Artisans now have to meet

challenges of global standards, rapidly evolving trends in tastes, threats to Intellectual

Property Rights (IPR), and mass copies from China, in addition to improving logistics and

costs (See, for example, Liebl and Roy, 2004; Chatterjee, 2010).

As systemic complexity grows, simplistic solutions, assuming a unitary understanding

across stakeholders, need to yield to more complex and nuanced articulations (Flood

and Jackson, 1991; Midgley, 2000; and Boyd et al, 2004). A wider range of support

institutions and stakeholders, some of whom may bring different values and

perspectives, are needed to develop the sector’s potential. To ensure a central focus on

19

viability for the artisans, the new ‘ecosystem’ (as we may call it) must be designed with

the artisan at its centre, with agents offering diverse services, such as new market-facing

arrangements, sophisticated support in information, market research, promotion,

legal/IPR input, etc. These stakeholders need to work together with a mix of

interdependence and autonomy, formal roles and informal trust. To accomplish this, it is

necessary that external stakeholders (to the crafts system) appreciate the complex

practical and presentational knowledge systems involved in crafts, and also the value of

the sector to the larger development of the nation.

The challenge of organising Indian artisans towards vibrancy in their craft practise and

improved incomes is seldom understood. The underlying ethos of craft traditions is

rooted in sacred idioms of ecological, cultural and social significance. Frequently,

modern market systems can operate in opposition to these value frameworks

(Rajagopalan, 1999). Integration into market systems, far from being a rational or

logistical challenge, manifests as a threat to the very identity of artisanal communities.

The fact that the craft communities and traditions are vast repositories of knowledge

and skills that potentially offer deep value in addressing critical contemporary challenges

is often overlooked. There is limited recognition of this sector’s contributions to modern

manufacture, various design applications, sustainable resource use, systematising

innovation capabilities, and in the teaching of problem finding, life skills education and

character building. Sennett (2008), through his painstaking analysis of craftsmanship,

and Crawford (2009), with his seminal testimony and research of crafts and trades, have

both established in detail precisely how crafts and trades contribute in all of the above

respects.

1.4.2 Development planning and livelihoods interventions

While India has been home to a very important hub of participatory research, and has a

vast ecology of community interventions using a wide spectrum of approaches, not all of

this work can be said to fall within the category of COR, as identified in this paper.

Certainly, there has been very good model building work in the efforts of Non

20

Government Organizations (NGOs)xxv like PRIA and the Aga Khan network, which would

well come under the rubric of COR.

However, the application of systems thinking to the design of development

interventions (what we have called SCOR) appears to be sporadic and limited. Scattered

examples in the global literature refer to areas such as Natural Resource Management

(NRM) and healthcare.xxvi Although some contributions from India to Systems Thinking

philosophy and theory are evidenced in the literature (see, for example, Murthy, 1993,

1994a, 1994b, 19944c, 1996; Dash and Murthy, 1994; Sudhir and Murthy, 2001). I could

not trace literature about applications to craft development interventions anywhere, or

to livelihood planning in India.

21

2. RESEARCH TOPIC: A dialectic between SCOR and Indian handicrafts

Reviewing interventions in the handicraft sector in India, we find that problem situations

tend to be treated rather simplistically, with a classical economics approach that treats

artisanal production as primitive, and in need of replacement or modification through

the incorporation of modern technology, design, or marketing practices. Government

policy and programmes remain far less progressive than in many other sectors; and are

usually highly patronizing and inimical to the real challenges (Liebl –Roy, 2004;

Chatterjee, 2010; Rajagopalan, 2011). The methods employed do not adequately seek to

accommodate the perspectives of the primary stakeholders (the artisans), nor do they

accommodate the complexity of the situation; standard blueprints are applied at the

national scale with little scope for adjustment to local realities (Jena, undated).

Most interventions continue to depend on trial-and-error and dedicated efforts over

long periods to arrive at working models. The question arises as to whether the hazards

and inefficiency involved in optimising interventions through a long process of learning

and trial and error can be minimised through the application of SCOR. Certainly, Flood

(1990) argues persuasively that Critical Systems Thinking offers more effective learning

processes than trial and error pragmatismxxvii. The handicrafts sector poses a peculiar

challenge indeed. There is a ‘collective national or social schizophrenia’ represented in

the attitudes of modernising elites and the planning bureaucracy. This can variously be

referred to as a deep divide between ‘modernity’ and ‘tradition’; between/‘industry’ and

‘artisanry’; and between ‘urban’ and ‘rural’. The dominant economic discourse of

progress and development (wherein the voice of the silent majority is unheard) holds to

a model of urban and industrial growth wherein traditional sectors, skills, and artisanal

modes of production are held in contempt (made profane, in Midgley’s, 2000, terms) as

an archaic legacy to be jettisoned in the rush to modernise and sup at the high tables of

the ‘developed economies’. The realities of the immense scale, robustness and

contribution of the sector to the GDP are thus deliberately overlooked (Rajagopalan,

2011). Nevertheless, the elites in India who champion modernity still pay lip service to

the value of artists, often supporting cultural events and sponsoring prize giving. This

22

peculiar schizophrenia, where the rhetoric in elite society is contradicted by its support

for the wider, continued drive for modernity, explains the deep rooted inability of even

well-meaning interventions to overcome the propositional challenge and spawn real and

robust developmental models for the sectorxxviii.

The challenge to policy planners and the rural development sector, in terms of reliable

modelling and dependable design of interventions, is to really secure improved

livelihood standards and ameliorate poverty (Chatterjee, 2010) in the face of the

institutional schizophrenia described above. To help respond to this challenge we need

to demonstrate that SCOR can be applied fruitfully to this problem domain. Thus, the

need is for a robust intervention that would overcome the ‘national schizophrenia’ as

well as the propositional challenge.

Handicrafts (a domain with magnified cultural diversity across stakeholders) hold

special promise to reorder meanings of work, productivity and sustainable

development in an era of critical global challenges to these ideas (Sennett, 2008).

2.1 Purpose of the Research

One underpinning question within the proposed research is whether a deep inquiry into

the practical and presentational aspects of knowing in the Indian handicrafts sector will

help reinstate it within Indian developmental planning. The counterpart of this

dialectical enquiry is about how such a research experiment might help extend the

epistemologies and practices underpinning SCOR, as SCOR professionals include practical

and presentational ways of knowing in developing a more systemic understanding of

situations.

The validity of practical and presentational knowing has been rather thoroughly

established for several traditions of teaching and transmission of the fine or creative arts

and crafts in various social contexts. For example, many Eastern traditions that

represent well documented complex knowledge systems (for example, Indian traditions

in Hindustani khayal and dhrupad music, Carnatic music, Bharatanatyam dance,

Ayurveda and Siddha medicine, Vaastu architecture – please see glossary for a brief note

23

on these) clearly involve forms of learning that inculcate a practiced knowing, as well as

reference to vast libraries of practices and symbolic forms that mediate critical-creative

choices of what to apply in various specific contexts.

The validity of such knowing is also now being established in numerous contexts of

qualitative research, as evidenced in several recent books (Minkler and Wallenstein,

2003; Irwin and Cosson, 2004; Finley 2005; Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2006; Reason and

Bradbury, 2006; Greenwood and Levin, 2007; Knowles and Cole, 2008; Liamputtong and

Rumbold, 2008).

In this proposal, I am considering the deployment of an extended epistemology into an

ongoing educational practice to capacity build in the handicraft sector - a newer

(although not altogether untried type of) proposition. The reconciliation of the various

challenges presented in the preceding sections would require a concerted ongoing

dialogue across social segments that are usually distinctly divided. The objective is to

foster solutions to these developmental challenges that can bridge these gaps in critical-

creative new ways. Accordingly, my proposed research seeks to design an institutional

framework - the ‘Crafts University’, described in detail later - to promote an exchange of

learning between master craftspersons and SCOR (and other community development)

professionals (involving a dialectic between propositional learning for the handicraft

artisans and practical and presentational learning for SCOR professionals). It is hoped

and believed that this experiment will generate additional synergies for the

development of both communities of practice. This is also intended to create a space

and opportunity for the artisans to become active contributors and shapers of the

discourse and the solution to problems in the larger, ‘educated’ and ‘modern’

community outside. Thus, a new dialectic and understanding of the problem of

development is sought.

Societies which marginalise specific communities and realities within their system into

sacred or profane spaces could lose some of their diversity and creative cultural

potential (UNESCO, 2005a, 2005b; Ghai and Kumar, 2008; UNDP-UNCTAD, 2008;

UNESCO 2009; Jena, undated). The issue of development is better seen as one of mutual

or simultaneous emancipation, rather than a simplistic question of these marginalised

24

and profane elements being ‘brought up to speed’ and embraced into the mainstream

social standards of development. The need then is to usefully reincorporate into

mainstream society some of those aspects of its social and cultural legacy which it has

sought to shed or jettison through processes of exclusion, segregation and profaning.

In the case of the Indian handicrafts, this marginalization has been shown to involve the

mainstream modernising elite ascribing a profane status to elements or aspects treated

as ‘traditional’, ‘artisanal’ and/or rural, masking the roots of many ‘competitive modern

technologies’, which often owe their existence to previously practiced artisanal crafts

(Ghai and Kumar, 2008; Jena, undated). My research-intervention seeks to heal this rift -

to blur this rather absurd line between the ‘modern’ and ‘traditional’, the ‘artisanal’ and

‘industrial’, and the ‘rural’ and ‘urban’. It seeks to bring out those cultural strengths and

elements which can form a robust basis for the development, not only of a specific local

community, but also of the larger society which has retrojected valuable aspects of its

heritage into the marginalised artisanal handicraft communities and spaces.

The central aim of this research is to create a basis for the re-inclusion of marginalised

segments into their parent communities and mainstream developmental processes.

This is to be accomplished through the establishment of an ongoing dialectic which

premises a distinct role for practical and presentational knowing, and provides an equal

platform for such epistemologies to participate in the shaping of a new social paradigm.

It is hoped that the intervention in the form of a dialogue towards the establishment of a

new institution called the ‘Crafts University’ would stabilise as a long term platform that

holds the space for such a continued dialogue. This approach is to be developed by

applying the framework developed by Heron and Reason (1997) to the extension of the

epistemology of SCOR practice.

2.1.1 Research Questions

A good question to ask therefore is how the ‘profaned’ practical and presentational

knowledge of marginalised communities can be appropriately comprehended so as to be

input into developmental planning using a SCOR framework. Pertinent sub questions

and the research objectives they would generate include:

25

Research Question Linked Research Objective

1. How is practical knowing accomplished

in the Indian handicrafts sector? More

specifically, what is the system of

practical learning within the specific

craft tradition under study?

To apprehend the process of transmission of

practical knowledge and skills. To identify

the existing explicit knowledge about its

principles; to identify the tacit dimensions it

is embedded/shrouded in, and record the

teaching practices and the special language

used in the entire process. (To further

record, if possible by contrasting two

geographically distant examples of the same

craft, the similarities and the variations in

approach)

2. How is presentational knowing

accomplished in the handicrafts

sector? Specifically, what are the

presentational aspects (symbolic

knowledge dimensions) within the

craft tradition under study and how

are they taught?

Similar to 1 – applied to presentational

knowledge.

3. How and for what purposes can these

methods be applied to train SCOR

practitioners? Specifically, how would

practical and presentational

knowledge be relevant to a SCOR

practitioner looking at the

improvement of the artisan

community in terms of (i) her/his

appreciation of the situation and (ii)

extending her/his capacity for SCOR

thinking in general.

To identify issues of mutual relevance to

both communities of practice – handicrafts

and SCOR practice, and to visualize the

dialectic between them.

26

4. How can we design an institution that

would facilitate an ongoing exchange

and dialectic between such knowledge

systems (as in the handicraft under

study) and the propositional

methodologies of SCOR to benefit both

communities?

To design a rough institutional form (for now

titled the ‘Crafts University’) that would

facilitate an ongoing dialectic between the

two communities, and address the learnings

from that to the developmental challenges

of the nation.

27

3. RESEARCH PROPOSAL

The proposed research aims to investigate the relevance of practical and presentational

knowing to the design of community development interventions, and also its relevance

to the education of community development practitioners using a SCOR approach.

I seek to uncover and construct the “craft” (emphasis on learnt practise, technique,

templates, reflection and reliability of aimed for outcomes) of development planning

and intervention, rather than the ‘art’ (as a mystical ability inhering in the talents of a

master practitioner) or ‘science’ (techno-managerial solutions, where cause [method] is

linked to effect [social change] in a quasi-law-like manner, making invisible participant

agency and choice). Mystical ‘art’ based interventions will impede effective participation

by over emphasizing the talents of the facilitator, while ‘scientific’ approaches could

hamper systemicity (Bateson, 1972) and limit participation by promoting an over-

reliance on technical manipulations of the social realm. To achieve mastery as a SCOR

agent, the practitioner needs to focus on her/his craftsmanship as the integrating

element between philosophy, methodology and the use of tools. As a systemic

intervention, the value of pluralism in theory and method is recognised (Midgley, 2000),

which further calls for learning from practice and the reflexive skills of a craftsperson.

The proposed research provides a unique opportunity to apply SCOR and to derive

learning that will have a significant impact specifically upon handicraft sector policy as

well as developmental intervention planning (that employs a SCOR approach) in general

(against the specific challenges elaborated previously).

3.1 Research Design

The research will proceed in two stages. In the first, the transmission of practical and

presentational knowing within the Indian handicraft tradition will be investigated in the

context of a specific craft. The findings will then be employed in the second stage. The

second stage will involve varied sections of Indian society in a dialogue towards a design

for a learning institution that for now I will refer to as a ‘Crafts University’. This university

28

will promote an ongoing dialectic that will focus on strengthening the crafts systems on

one hand; and developing pedagogy for SCOR practice that involves presentational and

practical learning on the other.

For the first phase, I will offer myself as the subject upon whom research is to be

conducted. I shall apprentice with a Crafts Masters in India for 6 months, and learn the

craft within the full rigour and discipline of its tradition. There will be an attempt to

access through deep contemplation and the employment of arts-based research

methods, the secular knowledge and skills being developed, especially through practical

and presentational knowing.

The attempt is to reverse the long gaze of the researcher in the Western tradition upon

his subjects and recover some of the sacred ethic of knowledge seeking as it is in Eastern

traditions. It is my speculation that an orientation to ‘receiving’ knowledge might

perhaps enable a more holistic understanding to emerge; in contrast to an attempt to

tease and tear it out with logical discourse alone (which I would term knowledge

flogging or milling). This will be redeployed into a new pedagogy for SCOR practitioners

and a new approach to the design of community development.

In the second phase, a dialogue will be established across several levels of Indian society

towards designing the Crafts University. There is a long history behind this idea, which

has been discussed by myself and others at several levels of government, including the

Planning Commission of India, during the two years of my study of the sector

(Rajagopalan, 2011). Briefly, there are two considerations:

1. The idea is part of a wider effort to institute 15 completely new innovation

universities outside the current administrative structure. (These have been

sanctioned by the Indian Parliament; and one has already commenced operation.)

2. I see that some form of intervention with a dialectical learning process as central to

resolving the collective national schizophrenia mentioned earlier. It is necessary to

incorporate ‘findings’ or ‘data’ of the sort generated in the first phase to create a

window of opportunity for artisans to be involved in the deliberations. Their

participation as equals needs to be positioned in a perspective that respects their

29

possession of some knowledge and values of relevance to the contemporary

challenges of modernization that entirely grip the planners.

The design of this institution will be an emergent process. It is planned that the design

has to be fundamentally simple in its pedagogic principles, of which two are identified at

the present stage as:

1. An effective mechanism to strengthen the tradition of the crafts system by

honouring its knowledge traditions and adding learning from other spaces;

2. A pedagogy for systems/COR practice that involves systems and community

practitioners being immersed in a pool of presentational and practical learning.

The design process will involve an iterative series of consultations across many

stakeholder groups, to be organised in the following manner. There will be an initial

exercise in sharing the aims of the project, inviting comments and critiques, and

generating a wide list of stakeholders from different segments of the country for

involvement in the detailed planning. The selected representatives will be called the

Working Group towards the Craft University. Numbers will be restricted to between 15

and 40 representatives, to make participation manageable. Simultaneously, a smaller

group of up to 5 people will be identified to deliberate on the resources to be identified

or generated and made available to the working group, and to provide input to the

possible design for the wider stakeholder consultations.

The final outputs of the first stage, among other documents, will be circulated to the

Working Group as a run up to a first series of ‘twin’ workshops (each will consist of two 2

day workshops scheduled consecutively with a gap of 1-2 weeks between them). The

two workshops in the first series will consult and consider a wide variety of documents

and inputs to arrive at a diagnostic description of what is unsatisfactory with the present

context of development of the artisan communities across India (elaboration of the

challenge). The broad themes and descriptions of the challenge formulated at the end of

the first workshop will be circulated to a wider set of artisanal groups, master

craftspersons, and NGOs working with the craft sector. Their critical comments and

suggestions will be input into the second workshop. This will incorporate the feedback

30

and then proceed to identify themes and design elements into a prototype design for

the Crafts Universityxxix.

The preliminary design prototype for the University will then be widely circulated for

critical inputs according to a scheme that the Working Group will have identified. Over 2-

3 months, this will be followed up through a number of offline surveys, consultations,

focus groups, workshops and hearings to generate widespread and deep participation in

the discussions on the proposed Crafts University.

After the above, a repeat twin workshop series will be organised within three months.

The first will focus on general agreement on a broad design of the Crafts University and

the second will work on steps to its operationalization and rollout with the identification

of resources and responsibilities for this. (Although beyond my PhD, it will be suggested

that the twin workshop format is repeated annually until the University achieves a

reasonably satisfactory form, and there is a flow of anticipated outcomes).

These interventions will include the use of mixed theory and methods according to

SCOR principles and approaches already discussed. A framework such as VSM (Beer,

1979, 1981, 1985) and/or Interactive Planning (Ackoff, 1970, 1974) will underpin the

entire intervention. The toolkit will also include the application of methods from

amongst - Scenario planning (Schoemaker, 1995; and Bradfield et al, 2005); SEDAC

(Fukuda, 1997); Metaplan (Schnelle and Thiersch, 1979) and theatre based activities

(Rajagopalan, 2006). Previous designs for universities such as Ackoff’s design of an ideal

university (Ackoff, 1968), Indian experiences with institutions such as Kala Raksha,

Mavim, Sewa Bank, Accord, the National Institute of Design and the Institute of Rural

Management, Anand and relevant country experiences on craft sector policies (for

example, from the UK, Mexico, Korea, and Germany) could be used as inputs. Specific

and relevant data and/or experiences of successful interventions will also be accessed

from the UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics (FCS), the World Crafts Council

(WCC) and the Crafts Council of the UK (CCUK).

Stakeholder access will be organised through personal contacts (given that I am well

connected in the sector) and through the Crafts Council of India (CCI), government

31

departments and other craft NGOs. It is also envisaged that several government

departments, craft activists and key master craftspersons would be consulted and

involved as part of the research, since the idea is to generate ownership of the possible

solutions among all these stakeholders. Of course, there will be limitations in terms of

time and seasonality that affect work cycles and make people difficult to access at

certain periods in the year; and business pressures internal to the various stakeholder

systems that might impinge on their free availability and access during the project

timeframe. My past efforts have involved discussions with all these stakeholders, and

the necessary entry into these stakeholder systems therefore exists.

3.2 Research Evaluation

Each of the two phases of the project will need to be evaluated using criteria that

correspond to the objectives and methods already set out in this document, identified

subsequently, or during early stages of the research (Eden, 1995, discusses the

importance of keeping evaluations of interventions open to emerging issues).

The first phase of the research (described above) employs arts-based research methods.

As they are all relatively new, the frameworks for their evaluation are also evolving. I

have visited three frameworks so far, all of which essentially consider the qualities of

representation and experience (aesthetic, emotional) that promote deeper knowing. I

need to experiment a little with these to see which one makes sense and works for me

in the context; and also consider the framework used within the craft tradition itself.

Tentatively, I am inclined to apply the framework provided by Piercy et al, 2005, as it

seems more parsimonious (than those developed by Garman and Piantinada, 1996 and

Barone and Eisner, 1997). Piercy et al’s approach encompasses questions in five key

areas: resonance; understanding; making worlds accessible to the viewer; allowing

multiple interpretations; and supporting action and empowerment.

The second stage employs a mix of systems methods and participatory techniques in a

cascaded series of investigations, dialogues and inquiries, structured through a series of

workshops with offline consultations and preparations in between. The framework

32

developed by Midgley et al (2013) will be used for its evaluation. Although this tool is in

its nascent stages of development, it is preferred because it reviews the entire process

across the four necessary foci of context, purposes, methods and outcomes. Within each

of these four foci, it examines the boundary processes of both the intervening agent and

the object of inquiry. Further, it also addresses the relationships between the four foci.

The accompanying instrument (a questionnaire for the participants to fill in) has been

tested for practicality in use and the authors claim it offers a possibility for both locally

meaningful evaluation and a longer term comparison between methods – in this case, I

am recommending that one aspect of my intervention, the twin workshops, be repeated

annually over the next five years.

The significance and value provided by the application of an extended epistemology to

SCOR will be further reviewed at the end of the research through personal reflection,

dialogue with my supervisory team and desk-based, written inquiry (writing as a craft

being an integral part of the generation of new ideas).

3.3 Research Validity, Reliability and Adaptability

Validity, reliability and adaptability are factors that determine whether the research will

stand up to external scrutiny. The meaning of these factors is affected by the

philosophical viewpoint adopted by the researcher. Greenwood & Levin (1998, 81)

contrast the conventional social researcher’s belief that credibility is created through

generalising and universalising propositions with their preferred action research model,

believing instead that only knowledge generated and tested in practice is credible.

Ultimately, the test of the value of models and frameworks is in their applicability and

the artisans own view of where it has helped them move, over a period of time. These

key stakeholders could well comment on all the three aspects of validity, reliability and

adaptability.

33

3.4 Research Project Work Breakdown

Work Breakdown (assuming 3 year project duration)

Activity Dates Location

1. Apprenticed study of one craft – recording practical and presentational learning aspects

July 2013 – December 2013

India

2. Extended literature review Continued up to March 2015; then scanning of

current journals for additions only

Hull and India

3. Compilation and analysis leading to design of next stage

January 2014 – March 2014

Hull

4. Dialogues and consultative processes leading to design of new learning institution (‘Crafts University’)

April 2014 – December 2014

India

a. first twin seminar series: elaboration of challenge April / May 2014

b. offline consultations and preparatory June / July 2014

c. second twin seminar series: design and rollout of Crafts University

August / September 2014

d. consolidation , clarifications, documentation October to December 2014

5. Interpretation of overall research findings in relation to the overarching research objectives and refinements

January 2015 – March 2015

Hull

6. Building learning models – 6 months January 2015 – June 2015 India / Hull

7. Write up and submit research thesis April 2015 – June 2015 India / Hull

8. Formal assessment leading to research degree July 2015 – September 2015

Hull

Total 3 years October 2012 – September 2015

34

4. OUTCOMES

A large part of the reporting of arts-based research in the literature refers to therapy

situations; dealing with individuals in need of support, such as traumatised persons. This

project makes two departures – first, it will apply arts-based research to understand the

processes, epistemology and learning experience of the art (specifically, a selected

Indian handicraft); and secondly, it will then input the outcomes to a dialectical design of

a cross-cultural learning programme, which involves two communities that are in a

schizophrenically divided situation (this is probably not at present consciously accepted

or recognised as such by all their members who may participate in this learning

experiment). There is, therefore, a focus on both myself as knower-and-agent and action

in the world. As such, this is fraught with several hazards of data capture and attribution

of outcomes. Fortunately, Midgley et al’s (2013) evaluation framework provides some

conceptual language and questions to ask in a reflective mode about the relationship

between the self and others, and different aspects of the context. Data capture and

attribution may never be perfect, but it can be improved over unaided self-reflection

using an evaluative framework such as this.

Some of the outcomes anticipated include:

1. Some additional understanding of the value of practical and presentational learning to

both a specific craft practise as well as to the secular growth and maturation of the

learner. There will be an attempt to capture and present some of this in terms of a

description of the knowledge and skills involved. It is hoped that some early inferences

can be hazarded about the value of the application of such knowledge and skills to

extend the SCOR practitioner’s capacity for systemic inquiry.

2. A design for a ‘learning institution’ – a Crafts University, which seeks to propel

learning from two distinct contexts into each other – the craft system and the SCOR

practitioner system. While it cannot be predicted whether a ‘successful design’ (in terms

of implementation) can be accomplished, the interactive process of consultations and

dialogue across these two communities should be of some significance to (i) the issues

35

of designing community development; (ii) the extension of epistemologies that inform

such efforts; and (iii) the nature of marginalisation processes within developmental

contexts.

3. It is hoped that the process of setting up the Crafts University can be initiated; but this

is fraught with a lot of uncertainties that presently cloud the political climate, with

elections looming around the corner. There is also currently a policy paralysis in national

planning circles, reflected in strongly entrenched stalemates and an absence of critical-

creative thinking. Such stalemates persist on all relevant foci of planning including higher

education; rural livelihoods; cultural heritage; manufacturing policy; and the place of

arts, aesthetics and design in all of these. An attempt to bring these aspects together in

one creative endeavour might be rather difficult to pull off in practice.

36

5. ETHICAL ISSUES

The research will be guided by a statement of ethical considerations developed in

consonance with the “Ethical Principles for Researchers and Lecturers in the Hull

University Business School” and the University’s “Ethical Approval Policy”. Prior to all the

interviews participants will be asked to give their consent for the conversation to be

recorded, and when declined no recordings will be made. Names of interviewed persons

and organizations will be kept confidential, and modifications of names or organization

descriptions will be made to guarantee anonymity.

The issues of field research in India have their own special characteristics (see, for

example, Shah, 2006). Written consent is not a common practise. Respondents are quite

used to students, researchers and others seeking to interview them. In such a climate,

written consent does not translate into informed consent. To mitigate this, I usually

discuss the proposal and support this with handing over a printed one page summary

that describes the background, purpose, and scope of the research. I also provide

contact information and information about the outputs that will be shared with the

stakeholders. This provides for illiterate or disempowered participants to independently

consult trusted persons, verify details and actively decide on participation or withdrawal

at any stage. Printing and sharing (in local translation) a summary of the final report,

and other useful outputs such as maps, diagrams or data compilations, is another device

to provide participants some recompense for their role.

Moreover, my research envisages ethical considerations as an intrinsic and integral

aspect of the process and its outcomes; not a separate ratificatory scheme. The finally

planned emergent output is an institutional design arrived at through a (participatory)

SCOR inquiry. Again, as action research, the eventual anticipated outcome is the

enactment of this design into the creation of the new institution, and this will have been

widely accepted as an improvement on the existing situation by the participant

stakeholders. The ethics of participation are thus central to my inquiry.

37

In the case of handicraft artisans, there is a huge amount of accumulated resentment

since handicraft products and traditional designs have been endlessly exploited by

traders, design students and exporters. The research project seeks, among other things,

to start to remedy this. The ethics framework for the intervention needs to

operationalise respondent evaluation of the ethics of the research to ensure it is staying

true to its aim. For example, while academic concerns might strongly centre on concerns

about consent, confidentiality, and protection of respondent identity; it is possible in a

scenario such as this one that respondent concerns may actually be about the manner of

relay or transmission of respondent community opinions or ideas to agencies in power

such as the government departments or planners, as any insensitivity or carelessness

about such sharing could well worsen an already hostile developmental process.

38

6. Concluding remarks

In conclusion, it might be pertinent to consider how the situation of systems thinking

and Indian handicrafts are similar. Systems thinking has arguably obtained

disproportionately low recognition in management theory and practice. Handicrafts are

similarly disregarded in contemporary Indian development thinking and practice. For the

latter, this is in part a result of the embrace of modern Western thinking. Systems

thinking, on the other hand, has attempted to overcome the limitations of mechanism

and reductionism, strongly associated with the history of Western thought (Fuenmayor,

1991), but it nevertheless remains epistemologically anchored in rationalism and logical

thinking (propositional knowing). A large number of systems thinkers, such as Bateson

(1972), have apprehended the need to go further. Numerous ancient civilizations and

cultures, including many in India, have apprehended and accepted systemic ideas very

naturally, from reflection on practical lived experience. They have found it worthwhile to

embody their transmission in practical and presentational teaching. However, the

inadequacies of their theoretical foundations have been their undoing in the process of

global modernization. Therefore, both communities (systems and Indian development)

seem to be in need of an exploration of what they have profaned and marginalized

within their own approaches. While being audacious, such an exploration could not

really bring any harm to the two disciplines; and I argue is very much worth pursuing.

39

Abbreviations and foreign terms used

AR Action Research Ayurveda Bharatanatyam Carnatic CCI

An Indian system of medicine A school of classical Indian dance A school of classical Indian music The Crafts Council of India (the premier crafts 'NGO', it is affiliated to the World Crafts Council)

CCUK CD COR CST

Crafts Council of the United Kingdom Community Development Community Operational Research Critical Systems Thinking

Dhrupad DfID-SLM

A school of classical Indian music Department for International Development (of the UK Government) - Sustainable Livelihoods Model

FCS Framework for Cultural Statistics 2009 of the UNESCO GDP Gross Domestic Product Hindustani Khayal INR IPR

A school of classical Indian music Indian Rupees Intellectual Property Rights

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation (an Indianism for voluntary organisations or charities)

NID The National Institute of Design in India - located at Ahmedabad NRM Natural Resource Management OR Operations Research PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal SCOR Systemic Community Operational Research SEDAC Siddha SI SL

Structure to Enhance Daily Activities With Creativity An Indian system of medicine Systemic Intervention Sustainable Livelihoods

SoSM TSI

System of Systems Methodologies Total Systems Intervention

UK UNCTAD UNDP UNESCO

United Kingdom United Nations Commission on Trade and Development United Nations Development Programme United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organisation

USA USD, or $

United States of America US Dollars

Vaastu VSM

A sophisticated Indian science of spaces encompassing architectural and sculptural design Viable Systems Model

WCC World Crafts Council

40

References

Ackoff, R. L. (1968). Toward an idealized university. Management Science, Vol. 15, No.

4, December (Guest editorial).

Ackoff, R. L. (1970). A black ghetto’s research on a university. Operations Research, 18,

761-771.

Ackoff, R. L. (1974). Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to Societal Problems.

Chichester: Wiley

Anderson, H. and Goolishian, H. (1992). The client is the expert. A view of human

systems as linguistic systems: some preliminary and evolving ideas about the

implications for clinical theory. Family Process, 27, 371-393.

Anderson, V., & Johnson, L. (1997). Systems Thinking Basics. Pegasus Communications.

Barone, T. and Eisner, E. (1997). Arts-Based Educational Research. In: R.M. Jaeger (ed.),

Complementary Methods for Research in Education. Washington D.C.:

American Education Research Association.

Bateson, G. (1999). Steps to An Ecology of Mind (with a new foreword by Mary

Catherine Bateson), Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (original 1972)

Baumgartner, R. and Hogger, R. (2004). In Search of Sustainable Livelihood Systems:

Managing Resources and Change. London: Sage.

Beer, S. (1979). The Heart of the Enterprise. Chicester: Wiley

Beer, S. (1981). The Brain of the Firm, 2nd edition. Chicester: Wiley

Beer, S. (1985). Diagnosing the System for Organizations. Chicester: Wiley

Bertalanffy, L. Von (1968). General Systems Theory. London: Penguin.

Bowen, K. (1995). In at the Deep End: MSc Student Projects in Community Operational

Research. Barnsley: Community Operational Research Unit.

41

Boyd, A.; Brown, M.; and Midgley, G. (2004). Systemic intervention for Community OR:

Developing services with young people (under 16) living on the streets; In:

Gerald Midgley and Alejandro E. Ochoa-Arias (eds.), Community Operational

Research: OR and Systems Thinking for Community Development, New York:

Kluwer/Plenum.

Bradfield, R.; Wright, G.; Burt, G.; Cairns, G.; Heijden, K.V. D. (2005). The origins and

evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning. Futures.

Online article accessed 16/03/2013 from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.01.003 .

Chambers, R. (1983). Rural Development: Putting the Last First. London: Longman.

Chambers, R. and Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts

for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296. Brighton: Institute for

Development Studies.

Chatterjee, A. (2010), "The Crafts sector - crisis and opportunity" (pp. 76 – 89) In:

Business Standard India 2010. New Delhi, Business Standard Books.

Checkland, P. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: Wiley.

Checkland, P. (1998). The Case for “Holon”, Systems Practice Vol. 1, Number 3 (guest

editorial).

Checkland, P.B. and Poulter, J. (2006). Learning for Action: A Short Definitive Account of

Soft Systems Methodology and its use for Practitioners, Teachers and Students.

Chichester: Wiley.

Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.

Churchman, C. W. (1968a). Challenge to Reason. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Churchman, C. W. (1968b). The Systems Approach. New York: Dell.

42

Churchman, C. W. (1970). Operations Research as a profession. Management Science,

17, B37-53.

Churchman, C. W. (1971). The Design of Inquiring Systems. New York: Basic Books.

Churchman, C. W. (1979). The Systems Approach and Its Enemies. New York: Basic

Books.

Crawford, M. (2009). The Case for Working with Your Hands. Viking (an imprint of

Penguin).

Dash, D. P. and Murthy, P. N. (1994). Boundary judgement in systems dynamics

modelling: an investigation through the science of complexity. Systems

Practice, 7, 4, 465-475.

Department for International Development, UK (DfID). (1999). Sustainable Livelihoods

Guidance Sheets. Accessed from the DfID website 2 March 2007.

Eden, C. (1995). On evaluating the performance of ‘wide-band’ GDSS. European Journal

of Operational Research, 81, 302 -311.

Emery, F.E. and Trist, E.L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments.

Human Relations, 18, 21-32.

Finley, S. (2005). Arts-based inquiry: Performing revolutionary pedagogy. In: N. K.

Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd

Edition, 681-694. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Flood, R. L. (1990). Liberating Systems Theory. Plenum, New York.

Flood, R. L. (Series Ed.). (undated: ongoing book series) Contemporary systems

thinking. Kluwer Academic/Plenum. ISSN: 1568-2846.

Flood, R. L. and Jackson, M. C. (1991). Creative Problem Solving, Total Systems

Intervention, Chichester: Wiley.

43

Flood, R. L., & Romm, N. R. (Eds.) (1996). Critical Systems Thinking: Current Research

and Practice. New York: Plenum.

Foote, J.L., Gregor, J. E., Hepil, M. C., Baker, V. E. Houston D. J. and Midgley, G. (2007,

May). Systemic problem structuring applied to community involvement in

water conservation, The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 58,

No. 5, Special Issue: Problem Structuring Methods II, pp. 645-654. Palgrave

Macmillan Journals on behalf of the Operational Research Society. Article

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4622741

Forrester, J. W. (1994), System dynamics, systems thinking, and soft OR. System

Dynamics Review, 10: 245–256. doi: 10.1002/sdr.4260100211

Franco, L. A. (2007). Assessing the impact of problem-structuring methods in multi-

organizational settings: an empirical investigation. Journal of the Operational

Research Society, 58, 760 – 768.

Friere, P. (1970). Cultural Action for Freedom (2nd edition). Harvard Educational

Review: monograph series (Volume 1). Harvard: Harvard Educational Review

(original from University of Texas)

Friere, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (trans. By Myra Bergman Ramos). New

York: Herder and Herder

Fromm, E. (1960). The Fear of Freedom. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Fromm, E. (1974). The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness London: Jonathan Cape.

Fromm, E. (2000). The Art of Loving: The Centennial Edition. Continuum.

Fuenmayor, R.L. (1991a). The roots of reductionism: A counter-epistemology for a

systems approach. Systems Practice, 4, 419-448.

44

Fuenmayor, R.L. (1991b). The self-referential structure of an everyday living situation:

A phenomenological ontology for interpretive systemology. Systems Practice, 4,

449-472.

Fuenmayor, R.L. (1991c). Truth and openness: An epistemology for interpretive

systemology. Systems Practice, 4, 473-490.

Fukuda, R. (1997). Building Organization Fitness: Management Methodology for

Transformation and Strategic Advantage. Productivity Press.

Garman, N. and Piantinada, M. (1996). Criteria of Quality for judging qualitative

research. In: P. Willis and B. Neville (eds.).Qualitative Research Practice in Adult

Education, pp. 17-28. Melbourne: David Lovell Publishing.

Ghai, R. and Kumar, S. (2008, March). Cultural perspectives on sustainable rural

livelihoods: situating cultural practices of marginal communities in India, a

position paper. New Delhi: Deshkal Society.

Greenwood, D. J. and Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to Action Research: Social

Research for Social Change. California: Sage Publications.

Heron, J. And Reason, P. (1997). A Participatory Enquiry Paradigm. Qualitative Enquiry,

3(3), 274-294.

Herrigel, E. (1953). Zen in the Art of Archery. Arkana.

Hesse-Biber, S. N. And Leavy, P. (2006). Emergent Methods in Social Research.

Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Irwin R. L. and de Cosson, A. F. (Eds.) (2004). A/r/tography: Rendering Self through

Arts-Based Living Enquiry. Vancouver, BC: Pacific Educational Press.

Jackson, M.C. and Keys, P. (1984). Towards a system of systems methodologies.

Journal of the Operational Research Society, 35, 473-486.

45

Jena, P. K. (undated) Globalization of Indian handicrafts: A human development

approach: paper privately circulated. Available on request from author of this

proposal.

Keys, P. (1991). Operational Research and Systems: The Systemic Nature of Operational

Research. New York: Plenum.

Knowles, J.G. and Cole, A.L. (eds.) (2008). Handbook of Arts in Research: Perspectives,

Methodologies, Examples and Issues. London: Sage Publications.

Koestler, A. (1967). The Ghost in the Machine.

Kurien, V. 2005. I Too Had a Dream (as told to Gouri Salvi). Delhi: Lotus Collection.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning – Legitimate Peripheral Participation.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003 reprint.

Liamputtong, P. and Rumbold, J. (2008). Knowing Differently – Arts Based and

Collaborative Research Methods. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Liebl, M. and Roy, T. (2004). Handmade in India: Preliminary analysis of crafts

producers and crafts production. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 38, No.

51/52 (Dec. 27, 2003 - Jan. 2, 2004), pp.5366-5376

Malhotra, A. (undated). Understanding People: A holistic and evolutionary perspective.

Bangalore: Cognan consultants (privately circulated)

Mar Molinero, C. (1992). Operational Research: From War to Community. Socio-

economic Planning Sciences, 26, 203-212.

Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology, and Practice. New

York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Midgley, G. (ed.) (2003). Systems Thinking (Volume 1 of SAGE Library in Business and

Management). California: SAGE Publications.

46

Midgley, G. and Ochoa-Arias, A. E. (Eds.) (2004). Community Operational Research: OR

and Systems Thinking for Community Development. New York: Kluwer

Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Midgley, G., Robert Y. C., Brocklesby, J., Foote, J. L., Wood, D. R. R., Ahuriri-Driscoll, A.

(2013) (in press) Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem

structuring methods. European Journal of Operational Research.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.01.047

Mingers, J. C. (1992). Technical, practical and critical OR – Past, present and future? In:

Critical Management Studies. Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (eds.). London:

sage.

Minkler, M. and Wallenstein N. (2003). Community-based Participatory Research for

Health. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Murthy, P. N. (1993). Science, scientist and human purpose – a way for integration.

Systems Practice, 6, 4, 421 - 428.

Murthy, P. N. (1994a). Systems thinking and practice in India. Systems Practice, 7, 4,

347 – 350 (guest editorial).

Murthy, P. N. (1994b). Systems practice in consulting. Systems Practice, 7, 4, 419 - 438.

Murthy, P. N. (1994c). Inquiry systems of Upanishads. Systems Practice, 7, 4, 457 - 463.

Murthy, P. N. (1996). Paradigm shift in management. Systems Research, 13, 4, 457 -

468.

Parry, R. and Mingers J. (1991). Community Operational Research: Its context and its

future. Omega, 19, 577-586.

Piercy, F.P., Mcwey, L.M., Tice, S., James, E.B., Morris, M., Arthur, K. (2005). It was the

best of times, it was the worst of times: doctoral students experiences of family

therapy research training through alternative forms of data representation.

Family Process, 44(3), 363-378.

47

Rajagopalan, R. (1999). Designing organizations for craft development: Reflections

from the FACES experience. Paper presented at the seminar, Maker and

Meaning: Craft and Society. Chennai, 24 January 1999. The Canadian Museum

of Civilizations and the Madras Craft Foundation (unpublished).

Rajagopalan, R. (2006). Management and Theatre. (unpublished).

Rajagopalan, R. (2011 April). The Craft Economics and Impact Study, Volume 1.

Chennai: Crafts Council of India.

Reason, P. (1996). Comments on Midgley’s paper, ‘The Theory and Practice of

Boundary Critique’. In: Wilby J. (ed.), Forum One: Transcripts and Reflections.

Centre for Systems Studies, Hull.

Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (eds.) (2006). Handbook of Action Research (paperback).

London: Sage.

Ritchie, C., Taket, A., Bryant, J. (eds.) (1994). Community Works: 26 Case studies

showing Community Operational Research in Action. Sheffield: Pavic Press.

Rosenhead, J. (Ed.). (1989). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World: Problem

Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict. Chichester:

Wiley.

Schnelle, E., & Thiersch, M. (1979). The Metaplan-Method: Communication tools for

planning & learning groups. Metaplan GmbH.

Schoemaker, P. J. (1995). Scenario planning: a tool for strategic thinking. Sloan

Management Review, 36, 25-25.

Seeley, C., and Reason, P. (2008). Expressions of energy: an epistemology of

presentational knowing; In: Pranee Liamputtong and Jean Rumbold (eds.),

Knowing Differently: Arts-based and Collaborative Research Methods, New

York: Nova Science Publishers.

48

Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The art and science of the learning organization.

New York: Currency Doubleday.

Sennett, Richard (2008). The Craftsman. Paperback. Yale University Press.

Shah, A.M. (2006). Ethics in sociological and social anthropological research: A brief

note, ICSSR, eSS Conference.

Srinivas, M. N. 1980. The Remembered Village. No. 26. University of California Press,

Sudhir, N. and Murthy, P. N. (2001). Ethical challenge to businesses: the deeper

meaning. Journal of Business Ethics, 30, 197 – 210.

Taket, A. and White, L. (2000). Partnership and Participation: Decision-making in the

Multi-agency Setting. Chichester: Wiley.

Tomlinson, R. C. and Kiss, I. (1984). Rethinking the Process of Operational Research and

Systems Analysis. Oxford: Pergamon.

Torbert, W. R. (1987). Managing the Corporate Dream: Restructuring for Long-term

Success. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.

Torbert, W. R. (1991). The Power of Balance: Transforming Self, Society, and Scientific

Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Trefethen, F.N. (1954). A History of Operational Research. In: McCloskey, J.F. and

Trefethen, F. N. (eds.), Operations Research for Management, Volume 1.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Trist, E. and Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of

the longwall method of coal getting. Human Relations, 4, 3 – 38.

Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical

Philosophy. Berne: Haupt.

Ulrich, W. (1986). Critical Heuristics of Social Systems Design. Working Paper # 10,

Department of Management Systems and Sciences, University of Hull, Hull.

49

UNDP – UNCTAD. 2008. Creative Economy Report 2008: The Challenge of Assessing the

Creative Economy: Towards Informed Policy Making

UNESCO. 2005a. Asia Pacific Creative Communities: The Jodhpur Initiative (commonly

called Jodhpur Consensus).

UNESCO. 2005b. Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of

Cultural Expressions. 2005. UNESCO.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001429/142919e.pdf

UNESCO. 2009. The 2009 UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics

http://www.uis.unesco.org/template/pdf/cscl/framework/FCS_2009_EN.pdf

Venkatesan, S. (2009). Craft Matters – Artisans, Development and the Indian Nation.

New Delhi: Orient Black Swan.

Whyte, W. F. (Ed.). (1989). Action Research for the Twenty-first Century: Participation,

Reflection, and Practice. Sage Publications.

i Complexity and issues of boundary definition are defined and addressed in a later section.

ii This is a term coined by cognitive anthropologists Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger in 1991 (Lave and Wenger, 1991)

and refers to a group of people who share a craft and/or a profession. The group can come together naturally

because of the members' common interest in a particular domain or area, or it can be specifically created with the

goal of sharing and advancing professional knowledge related to their field.

iii The term Action Research is used here to refer to a broad set covering several schools which might be found

under the rubric of other nomenclature such as participatory action research, action inquiry, human inquiry,

southern participatory research, feminist research, action science, organisational learning, cooperative inquiry,

participatory evaluation, participatory rural appraisal, etc.

50

iv There are significant and well nuanced arguments that locate such praxis and related theory in a space which

need not adhere to the requirements of a positivist science or the conventional disciplinary neatness. See, for

example, Greenwood and Levin (1998) and Midgley and Ochoa-Arias [eds.] (2004).

v Near identical definition as provided by MIT OR Centre, the OR Society, Institute for OR and the Management

Sciences, websites accessed on 11/12/2012 at 10.28 GMT (http://www.mit.edu/~orc/ ,

http://www.learnaboutor.co.uk/ , http://www.informs.org/About-INFORMS/About-Operations-Research )

vi “Employing techniques from other mathematical sciences, such as mathematical modelling, statistical analysis,

and mathematical optimization, operations research arrives at optimal or near-optimal solutions to complex

decision-making problems. Because of its emphasis on human-technology interaction and because of its focus on

practical applications, operations research has overlap with other disciplines, notably industrial

engineering and operations management, and draws on psychology and organization science”. Wikipedia, sourced

11/12/12 1600 hours GMT.

vii Ann Taket and Leroy White, have reviewed various approaches to CD and offered their own approach labelled

PANDA as a “pragmatic pluralism” approach to specifically dealing with problems of CD in a multi-agency setting.

Although it is not apparent in all of their writings, they were involved in all the main COR debates, and did self-

identify as COR.

viii Greenwood and Levin (1998) have emphasized that theirs is only one version of the history of AR, as they have

come to be acquainted with, and there are many histories.

ix The following is a brief paraphrasing of their account. In 1943, Lewin thought about experimentation in natural

settings, conceptualised social change as a 3-stage process, and experimented with group dynamics through the T-

group design. For example, as a social psychologist, he set up an experiment to gauge the extent that American

housewives could be encouraged to use tripe instead of beef when the latter was scarce during the war and needed

to be sent to the troops. As Greenwood and Levin (1998) put it, Lewin set the stage for knowledge production based

on solving real-life problems. After World War II, the Tavistock Institute in London was commissioned to conduct a

study on productivity in the coal mines, resulting in the now famous study by Trist and Bamforth (1951), which

showed that production technology and work organization are inextricably linked. Einar Thorsrud from Norway

contacted the Tavistock Institute and they collaborated on what is now known as the Norwegian Industrial

Democracy Project. Aimed at improving shop floor democracy, semi-autonomous groups were created to generate

increased worker motivation and participation in decisions, through what was called the ‘sociotechnical

reorganization of work’. Three major concepts emerged through this research programme –

sociotechnical thinking (building direct links between technology and work organization – now a

standard design criterion)

psychological job demands (providing an optimum variety of tasks within the job role, so as to

provide a sense of job satisfaction)

51

the creation of semi-autonomous groups, minimum critical specifications for technology and

organisational structures and redundancy in functions rather than in tasks (which gives more

freedom to the workers to design their own working conditions)

The core ideas of this industrial democracy project – semi-autonomous working groups and work designed

according to psychological demands – were picked up by a major national industrial development project in

Sweden, and also inspired a group at the University of California in Los Angeles. Two US scholars, JM Juran and WE

Deming, played an important role in the reindustrialisation process in Japan, which is now known widely as the

quality revolution.

x Through a narrative about a lecture on the scientific method by a Nobel prize winning chemist, Greenwood and

Levin (1998) convey a view of science “as a form of human action involving complexity, ambiguity, creativity, group

dynamics, and many pragmatic concessions to the limits imposed by the time and resources available” (page 63).

They stress the social and cultural dimensions of scientific activity, pointing out that it “involves social systems with

teamwork and divisions of labour, and group problem solving which they term cogenerative. Science is also a highly

iterative and dynamic activity involving repeated action-reflection-action cycles” (Greenwood and Levin, 1998, 65).

However, they find that academic social science does not concord with this view; rather, it severs the relationship

between thought and action.

xi They state the relevant tenets of the systems approach shared by AR as “both rely heavily on a holistic view of the

world. Humans are understood to exist only within social systems, and these systems have properties and processes

that condition human behaviour and are in turn conditioned by that behaviour. Social systems are not mere

structures, but processes in continual motion. They are dynamic and historical. They are also interlinked, entwining

the individual social structures and the larger ecology of systems into complex interacting macrosystems”

(Greenwood and Levin, 1998, 71).

xii They make particular reference to the work of Charles Pierce, William James, Stephen Toulmin and Bjorn

Gustavsen. They go on to describe in later sections the positioning of their preferred approach to AR, which they

call pragmatic AR, in terms of Rorty’s view of neo-pragmatism, as an attempt to ‘keep the conversation going’.

xiii From Dewey, they take the thinking that “all humans are scientists, that thought must not be separated from

action, that the diversity of human communities is one of their most powerful features (if harnessed to democratic

processes), and that academic institutions in general and academic social research in particular promotes neither

science nor democratic social action” (Greenwood and Levin, 1998, 74).

xiv Greenwood and Levin (1998) detail the structure of thinking underlying Max Weber’s work, through the case

study of his rarely cited research on cities, and arrive at their clarifications through this comparison with what they

consider an example of good social science research.

52

xv There is competition for use of the systems thinking label, with some authors applying it to just one methodology

or subset of the systems enterprise. However, Midgley’s (2003) definition is the broadest and is widely accepted.

xvi Mechanism is the view that nature is like a machine and phenomena can be explained on the basis of immutable

universal laws which make them predictable. Reductionism is the method that follows from such a view, based on

the principle that you can understand anything by breaking it down into its component parts and analysing these;

reducing phenomena to simple, objective, causal relationships. Subject/object dualism is the perspective that the

observer (subject) can be completely independent of the phenomenon (object) that s/he is observing, and the latter

can therefore be studied or recorded without the observer influencing it in any way, thus producing totally

‘objective’ results.

xvii Some of the basic building block ideas include: nesting of hierarchies (atoms form molecules form structures

that are part of cells which organise into tissues that form organs which assemble into an organism which is a

member of a community, which is part of an ecosystem... and so on), feedback and control (by which, say

temperature and heart rate in a mammal is managed), complexity of information processes (complexity and chaos

theories are incorporated in systems thinking), emergent properties (which emerge from the interactions amongst

the parts whole system taken together and not in isolation, or from interaction of a whole system with its

environment; thus these may not always be predictable). Contribution to theory ranges from philosophical tenets to

complex mathematics and cybernetics. Notable contributions are Bertalanffy's general system theory, the action

theory of Talcott Parsons and the social systems theory of Niklas Luhmann. Other contributors include Bogdanov,

Bunge, Bahm, Laszlo, Mesarovic, Klir, Jay Forrester, Maturana, Fuenmayor, Hofstader, Kelly, and Prigogine.

xviii Examples of system thinkers might include W. Ross Ashby, Russ Ackoff, Bela H. Banathy, Gregory Bateson,

Stafford Beer, Fritjof Capra, Peter Checkland, C. West Churchman, Robert L. Flood, Jamshid Gharajedaghi, Mike C.

Jackson, Paul Keys, Donella Meadows, Gerald Midgley, John Mingers, Isaac Munlo, Alejandro Ochoa-Arias, Martin

Reynolds, Norma Romm, Peter Senge and Werner Ulrich.

xix He explains that when there is conflict among stakeholders as to where the boundary for defining a problem

situation under consideration should be set, two groups of stakeholders may identify different boundaries - a

narrower (primary) and a wider (secondary) boundary. Such a social process then spawns a liminal region between

these two boundaries. This liminal region then holds marginalised elements (peoples, issues). This conflictual

process can maintain a dynamic stability by assigning a ‘sacred’ or ‘profane’ status to these marginalized elements.

This status in turn highlights either one of the two boundaries (the primary or the secondary one), leading to the

effective effacement or disregarding of the other one. The whole situation is overlaid with social ritual as a way of

symbolically expressing these stereotypes (and possibly affording a safety valve mechanism that diffuses the

tension inherent in its continued maintenance).

xx An intervention can be described as “purposeful action by an agent to create change”, according to Midgley, 2000

(see discussions on pages 113 to 128 for comparisons with other views).

53

xxi While seeking a consensus appears ideal, it may often be impractical and even oppressive. It is possible, instead,

to achieve what Checkland and Poulter (2006) calls an ‘accommodation’ – an agreement about how to move

forward, even as people continue to have different perspectives.

xxii Liamputtong and Rumbold (2008) are not using these two labels of ‘arts-based’ and ‘collaborative’ research

methods in the conventional academic spirit of territory marking. They seek to use the most open and easily

understood of the various labels available and use these to embrace a plurality of approaches, the bridging of gaps

between disciplinary boundaries, and the bridging of gaps between researchers and participants. Autoethnography

is another term used for arts-based methods, and various Action Research approaches are identical to the

perspectives they label as ‘collaborative’.

xxiii For a detailed discussion on definitional issues for the two terms, handicrafts and artisans, see Rajagopalan

(2011). For a historical perspective, see Venkatesan (2009) and Crawford (2009).

xxiv This condition has come about, however, due to several socio-psychological and political realities and

developments over the decades – see detailed account in Rajagopalan (2011); also see Venkatesan (2009), pp. 8,

paragraphs 2-3.

xxv The term NGO is used in India to refer to development organizations and charities.

xxvi For example, a search using terms like ‘*craft*’, ‘livelihoods’, and ‘off-farm’ within the journal Systemic Practice

and Action Research generated 48, 24 and about 30 listings, but none of them actually related to handicrafts. On

the other hand, search for ‘natural resource management (NRM)’ and ‘health’ drew 2 and 312 results – the latter

included many extraneous articles but roughly 50% related to public or community health issues. A more assertive

statement or further data is not presented at this stage pending a thorough literature review on this aspect.

xxvii It could be argued that the best interventions would approximate the goals and standards of SCOR practice,

although the practitioners or agents/leaders of such programmes might be unaware of these theoretical labels and

sophistries. However, I would observe that the even best extant practices do not afford marginalised communities

the possibility of truly owning and shaping the design of projects for their own development, because of the

propositional challenge.

xxviii These processes are fairly complex and, in my opinion, involve a socially sanctioned majoritarian duplicity,

which pays lip service to many cultural and social traditions, often including a ritual of their invocation in public

political discourse and the conferment of awards and prestige to artistes and luminaries. In reality, these actually

conceal a sophisticated pattern of active marginalization of these livelihoods from the developmental mainstream

through several other state policies and the practices and social preferences of the elite. In India, the ruling elite

effectively holds up the living social and cultural traditions of the poorer rural majority as sacred in public posturing,

but effectively treats these with contempt in their practice.

54

xxix The first workshop will be anchored by an expert in scenario planning from within the government, and the next

will be anchored by a Master Craftsperson, both previously included in the Working Group.