{"title":"关键系统启发式:系统回顾","authors":"Matthew Hutcheson, Alec Morton, Shona Blair","doi":"10.1007/s11213-023-09665-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Critical systems heuristics (CSH) has been influential in the development of critical systems thinking. However, it is a relatively underutilised method compared with soft systems approaches such as soft systems methodology (SSM) and cognitive mapping. This may be in part due to the complexity of ideas underpinning CSH. Core ideas with which users must feel confident include boundary critique, coercion, emancipation, and “is” vs “ought to be” framings. These ideas were the subject of the early discourse surrounding CSH, which considered the role of boundary critique in systems research, the extent to which CSH could meaningfully address coercion, and the claims of CSH as an emancipatory approach. The purpose of this review is to provide clarity on these key concepts by reflecting on how they have been addressed in the CSH literature to date. We find that CSH has been applied in a range of problem contexts and is most frequently applied to address coercion or power asymmetries. CSH research is frequently associated with advocacy for marginalised groups, and we believe this is a natural extension of the methodological emancipation to which CSH aspires. In providing an overview of the key ideas underpinning CSH, we hope to lower the barrier to application for systems researchers and practitioners.</p>","PeriodicalId":51694,"journal":{"name":"Systemic Practice and Action Research","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Critical Systems Heuristics: a Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Hutcheson, Alec Morton, Shona Blair\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11213-023-09665-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Critical systems heuristics (CSH) has been influential in the development of critical systems thinking. However, it is a relatively underutilised method compared with soft systems approaches such as soft systems methodology (SSM) and cognitive mapping. This may be in part due to the complexity of ideas underpinning CSH. Core ideas with which users must feel confident include boundary critique, coercion, emancipation, and “is” vs “ought to be” framings. These ideas were the subject of the early discourse surrounding CSH, which considered the role of boundary critique in systems research, the extent to which CSH could meaningfully address coercion, and the claims of CSH as an emancipatory approach. The purpose of this review is to provide clarity on these key concepts by reflecting on how they have been addressed in the CSH literature to date. We find that CSH has been applied in a range of problem contexts and is most frequently applied to address coercion or power asymmetries. CSH research is frequently associated with advocacy for marginalised groups, and we believe this is a natural extension of the methodological emancipation to which CSH aspires. In providing an overview of the key ideas underpinning CSH, we hope to lower the barrier to application for systems researchers and practitioners.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51694,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Systemic Practice and Action Research\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Systemic Practice and Action Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-023-09665-9\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systemic Practice and Action Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-023-09665-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
批判性系统启发式(Critical systems heuristics, CSH)对批判性系统思维的发展具有重要影响。然而,与软系统方法论(SSM)和认知映射等软系统方法相比,它是一种相对未被充分利用的方法。这在一定程度上可能是由于支撑CSH的理念的复杂性。用户必须确信的核心理念包括边界批判、强制、解放和“是”vs“应该是”框架。这些想法是围绕CSH的早期论述的主题,它考虑了边界批判在系统研究中的作用,CSH可以有意义地解决胁迫的程度,以及CSH作为一种解放方法的主张。本综述的目的是通过反思迄今为止在CSH文献中如何处理这些关键概念,从而澄清这些关键概念。我们发现CSH已被应用于一系列的问题背景,最常用于解决强制或权力不对称。CSH研究经常与边缘化群体的倡导联系在一起,我们相信这是CSH所渴望的方法解放的自然延伸。在提供支持CSH的关键思想的概述中,我们希望为系统研究人员和从业者降低应用的障碍。
Critical systems heuristics (CSH) has been influential in the development of critical systems thinking. However, it is a relatively underutilised method compared with soft systems approaches such as soft systems methodology (SSM) and cognitive mapping. This may be in part due to the complexity of ideas underpinning CSH. Core ideas with which users must feel confident include boundary critique, coercion, emancipation, and “is” vs “ought to be” framings. These ideas were the subject of the early discourse surrounding CSH, which considered the role of boundary critique in systems research, the extent to which CSH could meaningfully address coercion, and the claims of CSH as an emancipatory approach. The purpose of this review is to provide clarity on these key concepts by reflecting on how they have been addressed in the CSH literature to date. We find that CSH has been applied in a range of problem contexts and is most frequently applied to address coercion or power asymmetries. CSH research is frequently associated with advocacy for marginalised groups, and we believe this is a natural extension of the methodological emancipation to which CSH aspires. In providing an overview of the key ideas underpinning CSH, we hope to lower the barrier to application for systems researchers and practitioners.
期刊介绍:
Systemic Practice and Action Research is dedicated to advancing deeper understandings of issues that confront the contemporary world, and better means for engaging with these issues for the benefit of individuals, organizations, communities and their natural environments. To this end, a fundamental rethink of the purposes and methods of science is needed, making it more systemic and action-orientated. The journal therefore seeks to make a substantial contribution to rethinking science as well as to the reflective application of systemic practice and action research in all types of organizational and social settings. This international journal is committed to nurturing wide-ranging conversations around both qualitative and technical approaches for the betterment of people''s lives and ways of working together. It seeks to influence policy and strategy in its advocacy of action research as a primary means to gain vision and leverage in wicked problem areas. All forms of investigation and reasoning are considered potentially suitable for publication, including personal experience. There are no priorities attached to settings for studies and no greater significance given to one methodological style over another - as long as the work demonstrates a reflective and systemic quality. The journal welcomes manuscripts that are original, are well written, and contain a vivid argument. Papers normally will demonstrate knowledge of existing literature. Full papers are normally between 5,000 – 10,000 words (although longer papers will not be excluded if the argument justifies the word count) and short papers are about 2,000 words. Notes and letters are welcomed for publication in the ''notes from the field'' and ''letters'' sections. A rigorous mentoring-based refereeing system is applied in all cases. Officially cited as: Syst Pract Action Res