Annotated bibliography of methods, techniques and
concepts for living systems
Published online in 2011 by the Action Research Press
a wholly owned imprint of the Action Research Issues Association Incorporated,
2 Minona Street, Hawthorn,
Victoria 3122 Australia
LivingSystemsResearch.com
© Yoland Wadsworth and Action Research Press
1st Edition 2011
This is a companion volume to the book:
Wadsworth, Y. (2010) Building in Research and Evaluation: Human inquiry for living
systems, Action Research Press, Hawthorn and Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
______________________________________________________________________
Here I present some informal translations1 of the kind of discourse used in the areas covered
in this book that you might encounter if you had time to get to the literature.
All those tantalising books on stalls at conferences and online are so enticing at the time, but
if we bring them home they seem too much like work, but if we take them to work they seem
too much not like work?! So an annotated bibliography seemed a good thing to offer.
This section provides some thumbnail comments on a clutch of some of the major new
methods, theories and terms that seemingly are emerging by the minute from the minds of
constructivists, complex adaptive systems thinkers and critical and appreciative
postmodernists worldwide. I’ve steered clear of those not so accessible or not in the public
domain (often copyrighted and certified ones that require undergoing special training to use,
or which are overly dense and esoteric), and focused on those that can fairly easily be
followed up (especially online).
Questions to ask yourself about these might include:
 What ideas can I get from this?
 Is this going to suit me? (What do I need most at the moment?)
 What contribution could it make to building a ‘living system’ for me or our group,
organisation or community?
 Can I expand the value of my or our work by using it?
Remember when we just had interviews or questionnaires, a theory was a good idea and an
‘autocatalytic set’ would have been something you fitted to your car?!
Now - as we say cheerfully in these often sorry days - enjoy!
1
See also the lists of the methods and terminology covered in the two previous books, Everyday
Evaluation on the Run and Do It Yourself Social Research (both 3rd editions, 2011, Allen & Unwin,
Sydney). These have not been repeated.
Index
Note: This is an ongoing work in progress. It is not yet a comprehensive bibliography. It will
be filled out over time. Additionally, new methods and techniques are being named as we
speak! We will endeavour to fill in the gaps and keep adding to this over the years to come.
Action Learning (AL)
Action Science
Agora – local, linkage and steward
ANT – Actor Network Theory
Appreciative inquiry, Strengths-based
Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD)
Attractors, Strange attractors
Autocatalytic sets
Autoethnography
Autopoesis
Benchmarking
Butterfly effect
Capacity building, community building
Chaos theory
Charrette
Coaching
Co-intelligence
Communities of Practice
Complaints procedures
Complexity theory
Consultation/Public consultation
Consumer consultants, consumer advocates, community consultants
Co-operative inquiry
Critical reference group/Critical inquiry group/
Critical inquirers/Appreciative inquiry group/Appreciative inquirers
Cybernetic conversation, Sensitive interpersonal conversational exchange
Deliberative democracy, deliberative polling/Citizens juries
Design systems
Dialogue, multilogue, dialogic designs
Double (and single and triple) loop learning
Emergence, iterativity
Ethnography
Evidence-based
Facilitation
Forcefield analysis
Field theory
Fishbone causal diagram
Future Search (a.k.a. "search")
Gaia hypothesis
Holo–
Inquire/Inquiry
Irreversibility/‘wicked problems’
Learning organisations (LOs)/
Organisational development (OD)
Listening circles
Mapping, concept mapping, community mapping, mind mapping
Morphogenetic fields/Fields of morphic resonance
Most significant change (MSC) technique
Open space technology
Promising practice profile
Sociometric charts
Study Circles
World Café
Peer support or ‘supervision’ (individual and collective) or/and
Professional supervision
The entries
Action Learning (AL)
Reg Revans, the person who ‘fathered’ AL – noticed, a little like Etienne Wenger of
‘communities of practice’ fame, how fellow scientists shared their problems and received
support and help from each other in the group. He became convinced that for an organisation
to survive, its learning needed to match the rate of change in its external environment. His
work at the National Coal Board College – instead of just providing expert ‘programmed
knowledge’ worked on real-world coalfield problems with those experiencing them. From
first-hand observation down pits and later on hospital wards, he was able to show that pits in
which managers paid close attention to their men were safer and more efficient than others
(an average increase of 30% in output over those pits that did not participate), while patients
in hospital recovered faster when doctors listened to nurses. By the time he became the first
ever UK Professor of Industrial Administration (at Manchester University) in 1955 he had
learned two powerful but simple truths.
 Members of small workgroups – or what he called ‘sets’ - can learn very quickly
from each other, and
 Members of small workgroups will tend to support each other in achieving insights
and understanding necessary to achieve output targets
In facilitated ‘sets’ with co-workers (as ‘comrades in adversity’), people reflect on their
experience, problematise various elements and then ‘learn by doing’ how to achieve change.
Reg Revans expressed this in an algorithm: L = P + Q ---where:
L = Learning; P = Programmed Knowledge; and Q = Questioning Insights.
Typically an AL set might have six to eight managers from different professional or
functional backgrounds but of roughly equal status. Meetings are held on a regular basis,
perhaps a half-day once every three or four weeks for several months. Proceedings are
confidential to the group. A different group member presents a ‘live’ practical situation or
project each time. The other group members listen carefully and offer responses to help the
person (who is deemed the ‘problem holder’) review the situation in such a way that new
ideas, approaches and solutions begin to emerge. The process integrates inquiry into what is
initially obscure or puzzling, with learning and action to resolve the problem. Participants
benefit from the heterogeneity of the group, which acts as an antidote to the manager’s
isolation. Ideally the group grows in both individual self-awareness and in itself as a selfmanaging collectivity.
References:
A consultancy using AL in a particular procedural format:
http://www.symbiont.cc/Research/Action_Learning.htm
A paper covering some of the deeper elements of AL:
http://www.sba.oakland.edu/ispso/html/atkins.html
The Dutch AL Association website for a list of benefits to AL set members:
http://www.actionlearning.nl/general.html
Simon Caulkin’s obituary for Reg Revans (1907-2003)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0%2C3604%2C909895%2C00.html
References:
Revans, RW. (1989). Action learning. London: Brond & Brigg
Revans, R.W. (1980). Action Learning: New Techniques for Management. London: Blond
and Briggs Ltd.
Action Science
This is rapid action research at a micro scale which many call improvisation or action science, a
term widely attributed to Bill Torbert, the Boston College Emeritus Professor, and management
academic practitioner. It draws on a repertoire of activity that still has to get ‘all the way round’ a
full inquiry cycle in the same way as effort at a greater scale or slower speed, but which does so
quickly and more ‘in the moment’.
There is a tension between acting and observing acting. We have seen how difficult it is to stop
and think or fully register what we are thinking or feeling when we are busy doing. Busy action
precludes – at that moment of acting – the business of noticing and reflecting on that action. Yet
for some things, we need to be able to think in the moment. And a moment later may be too late.
Certainly we can’t stop and run a focus group in the middle of a fast-moving contact sport! – Or
use a questionnaire to get feedback at the scene of an accident from someone who has just been
hit by a car. A really rapid form of observational, evaluative and improvised ‘conversational’
research is needed instead. Often people will say they ‘acted without thinking’ – yet input was
received, registered, rapidly sorted, patterns interpreted and processed, then followed
imperceptibly in time by a new action selected from a repertoire of possibilities, now utilised in a
more or less novel way in a split second, possibly followed by yet more split second reviews,
analyses, conclusions and further experimental responses and actions.
Action science is an approach to organisational development also associated with Chris
Argyris (with important help in the past from the late Donald Schon and others) in Boston at
the MIT. Bill Torbert who studied with Chris Argyris was probably the first to use the term
‘action science’ in 1976, but he now calls his approach ‘action inquiry’ or ‘developmental
action inquiry’, possibly framing it more closely in relation to his long-time collaborator Peter
Reason’s ‘co-operative inquiry’. It has its roots in thinking such as that of John Dewey in
education (1859-1952) and Kurt Lewin in psychology and human services (1890-1947) and is
reflected also in the work of systems thinkers like Peter Senge (also from MIT). Related
terms are action research or organizational learning.
Core concepts in action science (as with related terms) include the idea of discrepant ‘mental
models’ or theories of action. These are a bit like the master programs, or patterns, designs or
propositions that people use to ‘design’ or image to carry out as action. They include values,
theories, beliefs, concepts, rules, attitudes, routines, policies, practices, norms or skills that
underlie action. Discrepancies are reflected in differences between intentions and actual
results, thoughts and actions, theories and practices. A shift from using mental Model I to
using mental Model II is seen as occurring when individuals in groups detect and correct the
gaps between their descriptive claims and practical outcomes, or what they do and what they
claim to. In action science, ‘single-loop learning’ and defensive reasoning processes make for
‘undiscussables’. Model II's main characteristic is double-loop learning, a productive
reasoning process that when unstressed involves minimal interpersonal defensiveness. Action
science tools that help make assumptions clear include the ‘ladder of inference’, and left-hand
column (‘what I’m thinking/feeling’) and right-hand column (‘what is actually said’) tables.
The overall goal of action science is to promote reflection-in-action or the ability to identify
the dynamics of a situation, comment on them as they unfold in a conversation, and respond
in a more self-aware, mindful and effective way. Living systems inquiry epistemology would
see intuition and flexible perception as key components of action science skill.
Resources:
The Action Science Network
http://www.actionscience.com
Organisation Studies course in the Carroll School of Management at Boston College
http://www.analytictech.com/mb021/action_science_history.htm
References:
Argyris, C., and Schon, D. A. (1974) Theory in practice: Increasing professional
effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. (1985) Action science: Concepts, methods, and skills for
research and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, Chris (1993) Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to
organizational change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Senge, P. 1990, The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation,
Doubleday-Currency, New York
Senge, P. 1994, The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, Doubleday-Currency, New York
Agora – local, linkage and steward
Nice name – from the ancient Greek word for ‘place of assembly, marketplace’ (note the
systems idea of space and place for dialogue across difference/distance. Agoras as an inquiry
method also involve the same valuable ideas that lie behind an AL ‘set’ or an AR ‘inquiry
group’ of bringing together the standard optimal 7-12 people in small groups, ‘stewarded’ (or
facilitated/resourced) at the local level to work on designing desired futures. The method also
connects to the ideas both of network and ‘scaling up’ (or transcending the current system
level) in that local agoras link both through stewards exchanging ideas with other stewards
from other local agoras (think constructivist version of a shop stewards conference :-), and
also through local agoras linking among themselves in cyberspace conversation (and
involving a website administrator). The agora movement explicitly identifies as systemsthinking and using participative dialogue, as well as drawing on traditions of open space and
LOs. Source literature includes that of Bela Banathy the systems thinker, education and
evolutionary science. It is at present primarily an intellectual method used in academic
settings, with an analogue in Foresight planning.
Resources:
The New Agoras project discussions:
http://www.gwu.edu/~umpleby/recent_papers/2003_reflections_on_new_agoras_project_ump
leby_espinosa.htm
For a breathtaking insight into the way in which some of these concepts are being taken up in
the world of computer technology design of a person-machine ‘ambient’ environment (truly
another ‘take’ on the idea of literally ‘building it in’!) - see especially the Gossip Wall, the
Community Wall, the InformAll and the SIAM-interface:
http://w5.cs.uni-sb.de/~butz/teaching/ie-ss03/papers/AmbientAgoras/
And for a creative visualisation of the ideas of systems thinking - from the world of Java
software makers – go to the PowerPoint tutorial (e.g. slides 5, 18, 21, 29,36 [take-home
point], 46, 49-50):
Using JavaSpace to Support Cooperative Agent Agoras
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/AS-Agent.ppt
(Specially see the description of loss of systems stability - ‘as agents fail the whole system
gracefully degrades’. [Could be the decline of Microsoft Empire, or me!] See the cute
depictions of ‘objects in space’, and try and ignore that ‘agents’ in this case are machines,
albeit operated by humans! Compare slide 15 with slide 63 - which indicates that hierarchical
memes can invade or exist, even in networked open space!)
References:
Banathy, B.H. (1996). Designing Social Systems in a Changing World. New York: Plenum
Publishing.
Banathy, B.H. (2000). Guided Evolution of Society: A Systems View. New York: Kluwer /
Plenum.
ANT – Actor Network Theory
A simple idea capable of being taken to breathtaking levels of complexity, actor network
theory is an approach to understanding how knowledge develops and is adopted and sustained
and changed. It had its origins in the sociology of science and history and philosophy of
ideas, and received theoretical input from Bruno Latour (subsequently distanced himself from
the idea) and Michel Callon in France in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
The key idea is that any action taken is simultaneously the result of many different bodies of
knowledge that are ‘real-ised’ in the taken-for-granted assumptions, practices, resources and
material structural realities that underpin that action. The interdependence of the social and
technical factors invokes both an idea like Lewin’s field theory and also some of Thomas
Kuhn’s ideas about scientific revolution moving between moments of ‘normal science’ and
puzzles reaching critical mass to overthrow a general worldview and replacing it with
another. ANT focuses somewhat on the taken-for-granted phase in which a network of
interactions stabilises a system of knowing, even while any individual actor is not fixed. Thus
it ‘decentres’ from e.g. ‘the scientist’ to seeing how the scientists, science and scientific
technology are all mutually co-constructing. ‘Actors’ in this sense may be people, test tubes
or written papers – elements called ‘socio-technical’. The development of the ‘actor network’
and the knowledge it bears or expresses, proceeds by sharing of ‘the problem’, mutual
enrolment/linkages, and cross-referencing until a point of ‘irreversibility’ is reached whereby
the ‘network’ carries itself irrespective of particular bearers. However this is not the same as
structural-functional determinism, or a way to deal with the old structure/agency debate,
given the (‘inscribed’) patterns of use may not ‘succeed’ because the actual use deviates.
Patterns may be weakly or strongly ‘inscribed’, e.g. in a large complex society word-ofmouth forms of transmission may be relatively weak while ‘engraved in stone’, in Work
Manuals or legislation may be strong.
Latour more recently defined it not as a theory of the social so much as about how we know
through ‘the spaces and the fluids’ and the circulating waves and particles. In this way it is
both post-modern and systemic, anti-engineering and dissolving also the idea of a hierarchy
of levels into a network of ‘the local’ – even for the hitherto ‘central’. It remains however
depersonalising and seemingly rather dissociated from human embodiment, although with
connections with a form of living systems theory.
Resources:
See practitioners’ varying definitions on Martin Ryder’s homepage:
http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/ant_dff.html
Reference:
Bruno Latour (1997) ‘On Recalling ANT’, published by the Department of Sociology
Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YN at
http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/latour-recalling-ant.pdf
Appreciative inquiry, Strengths-based
What it says is what it is. Appreciative inquiry (AI) as initially created by David Cooperrider
and associates, was a response to the deadly depressive questions that were characterising
much of social science and which he saw were – far from being unbiased and neutral –
actually creating a world which the social scientists would not have dreamed of ‘owning’: one
of disadvantage, lack, ignorance, weakness and absence. AI uses a simple cyclic fourfold
approach that asks appreciative questions in four steps around an action research cycle – the
characteristic ‘4D approach’:
Discovering - Appreciating. Identifying the best of what is – ask: What gives life?
Dreaming - Envisioning. Picturing desired futures – ask: What might be?
Designing - Co-constructing. Strategising to enact – ask: What should be the ideal?
Delivering - Sustaining. Delivering destiny – ask: How to learn, adjust, and improvise?
This formulation is one of a number of framings of the AR cycle but starting in the ‘research’
moment of the ‘action – research’ cycle, or in ‘Observe’ in the Plan – Act – Observe – Reflect
formulation; or at Level 1 questions of Fran Peavey’s strategic questions sequence, as does a
living systems epistemology.
There is a critique of it ignoring the negative (understandable given its most common
applications were where people had been overwhelmed by the negative and needed the energy
of the positive). My own way of seeing this is to relate it to the popularly recommended
"sandwich approach"...
1. appreciative inquiry – 2. negative evaluation – 3. what next positive vision
i.e. old success--plus new fear--plus new desire in that order
In my view the fear and observation of the negative discrepancy needs not to be ignored,
denied or suppressed in order that there be ‘accurate propulsion’, but the celebratory/old
success and new desire also need to be there for accurate attraction to shape the positive new
idea. In this way there can be less need for behaviourist sticks or carrots that lack the bigger
picture of context and seem more about rather mindlessly and non passionately replicate
putting one plodding foot in front of the other – rather than enabling running enthusiastically
towards a goal or away from a threatening tiger poised to pounce!
Strengths-based research or evaluation and practice (such as that of St Lukes in Bendigo
Australia) also focuses on optimistic questions which foreground the strong, the good, and the
positive, particularly in their case, with work with children, families and communities.
In systems’ terms the methods for ‘noticing the change’ ensure growth-augmenting feedback,
oftentimes reversing lifetimes of entropic, disorganising, weakening feedback. Thus, in no
longer seeing children, families and communities as ‘having a problem’ (or even as being
‘challenging’ – challenging to who? – to a self-defending, immune-responding other) but
instead in seeing that defences and self-organising have been constantly depleted and
damaged by other environment inputs, the approach moves away from both victim-blaming
and from stopping at environment-based justification of no change. This new ‘third way’ sees
the ‘cell’ or ‘sub system’ as both ‘innocent’ in its receipt of toxic inputs and potentially
capable once it is either able to self-organise around its remaining elements or/and get away
from the controlling toxic inputs (or experience an environment in which they cease.
These two approaches work on the basis of what I identified in 1991 in Everyday Evaluation
on the Run as the method of ‘positive evaluation’. That is, when you ask people (or your self)
about the lack of value, merit, worth and significance of any evaluand, it always involves
people observing comparatively the ‘bad, not working, poor’ implicitly in terms of frames of
reference, images or memories of ‘good, working, excellent’. Thus we can just as easily ask
after these positive states – hence reversing the comparisons. There are links here both to
Capacity-building and to Narrative, Narrative therapy, for example in the work of the late
Michael White with unhappy children and families, where the whole focus is on retrieving
even the small memory of a plus (a strength exhibited, a survival accomplished, a capacity
retained despite all).
The systems insight is that to ‘accentuate the positive’ (without losing touch with the negative
and risking losing the life-propelling energy for change coming from even a muted experience
of discrepancy) is to strengthen self-organising capacity (autopoesis) and the movement
towards growth/living, and away from accelerated entropy/dying.
There is a further point to be made here however about situations in which the organism
(person, organisation, etc.) is actually already fortified and the use of appreciative inquiry
leads to uncritical glossing over of important – even critically essential – negative feedback.
There is here a delicate matter of admission of ‘something wrong’ (as opposed to situations
where all is actually pretty well and it is a matter of simply moving to an even better state of
generative creative wholeness). In most cases where AI and narrative therapy are used the
participants are all too aware of the problematic weakness being suffered by them, so the
focus may be entirely on using the inquiry process to strengthen their organisms. In cases
where complacency or aggressiveness negatively shields, it is sometimes a matter of necessity
– as a prominent Australian evaluator has put it – to ‘turn the managers white’ as a first step
to action. Then of course the risk is double loop defensiveness!
References:
David Cooperrider and Diana Whitney. Appreciative inquiry: A constructive approach to
organization development and social change, Taos, New Mexico: Corporation for Positive
Change, n.d. – summary material available on the website of the International Institute for
Sustainable Development:
http://www.iisd.org/ai/
Cooperrider David L. and Suresh Srivastva ‘Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life’,
Research in Organizational Change and Development, 1987, Vol.1, pages 129-169.
McCashen, Wayne (2005) The Strengths Approach, St Luke’s Innovative Resources, Bendigo
Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD)
The classic book on this subject is John P. Kretzmann and John L. McKnight, Building
Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community's
Assets (Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, 1993; $15 from ACTA Publications
[800] 397-2282). Citizens can discover, map and mobilize assets hidden away in all the folks
who live in their community, as well as in associations and formal institutions, and bring
those resources them out of the closet and into creative synergy with each other, with
dramatic results. Asset-based community development has provided leaders and institutions
in all sectors with an approach that is relatively cheap, effective and empowering, and that
avoids paternalism and dependence – an approach that can be supported by all parts of the
political spectrum and initiated at any level of civic life. McKnight is adamant about not
putting attention on the community's needs, deficiencies and problems since it weakens them
and leads people to see themselves and others as clients or victims rather than as assets.
However, in preparing for neighbourhood collaborations or crises, you may want to map, as
well, where specific problems occur, so that neighbours can help – without overlooking the
gifts that the hitherto deemed "needy people" have to offer, as well.
References:
Source for this: http://www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_ComunityProcesses.html
See also the Asset Based Community Development Institute
http://www.nwu.edu/IPR/abcd.html
Attractors, Strange attractors
A term from physics and mathematics – and at the edge of my understanding (but I really love
it, just as much as the young postmodernists who turned it into the name of a comic strip!).
So I’ll just say it is in the territory of iterative systems, mapping attractors and repellers as
they form paths, surfaces, volumes, and their higher dimensional analogs. Highly dependent
on computing, the resultant visual images of for example, mapping or plotting complex and
imaginary numbers (e.g. the ‘impossible’ square root of a negative number) are stunning
swirling depictions of forces moving in strange ‘sync’ in both directions at once – towards the
centre and unity and outwards to infinity and diversity. Applications include depicting the
perturbations in asteroid orbits or, potentially, what happens when you restructure a complex
human services department repeatedly. One of the most famous is the Lorenz attractor -- a
three-dimensional object whose body plan resembles a butterfly or a mask, and which arose
from a mathematical model of the atmosphere.
See also Chaos.
Autocatalytic sets
Another term from the new physics, for which I am going to rely on Wikipedia’s succinct
definition, which is something along the lines of: an autocatalytic set is a collection of
entities, each of which can be created catalytically by other entities within the set, such that as
a whole, the set is able to catalyse its own production. In this way the set as a whole is said to
be autocatalytic. Autocatalytic sets were originally and most concretely defined in terms of
molecular entities, but have more recently been metaphorically extended to the study of
systems in sociology and economics. You can see why this might be the case when you
consider that autocatalytic sets are also seen as having the ability to replicate themselves if
they are split apart into two physically separated spaces. Computer models illustrate that split
autocatalytic sets will reproduce all of the reactions of the original set in each half, much like
cellular mitosis (or well socialised people!). In effect, using the principles of autocatalysis, a
small metabolism can replicate itself with very little high level organization. This property is
why autocatalysis is a contender as the foundational mechanism for complex evolution.
References:
Kauffman, S.A. (1995) At Home in the Universe–The search for the laws of self-organisation
and complexity, Oxford University Press, New York
Kauffman, S. A. (2000) Investigations, Oxford University Press, New York
Autoethnography
In the beginning, anthropologists did ethnographies of the different peoples they visited. After
50 years of new paradigm social science, the penny has dropped that the tribes can do their
own ethnographies – indeed they always have; but the new contribution of social science is to
assist sharpen their/our observations, record them for sharing, carve out time and space to
reflect more deeply both on the constitution of their/our existing cultures, and discern issues
or strengths, the desirable or the undesirable, and to consider alternative ways of being that
might be experimented with.
Autopoesis
Auto from the Greek autos meaning self and poesis from the Greek poeire meaning make or
create (same origins as poetry), this term refers to the ongoing creative self-managing
processes within all living systems. Thus autopoiesis means ‘self creating and re-creating.’
An autopoetic system is one in which, by continuous change, creation and adaptation both
within and in relation to what lies outside, maintains or sustains itself. That is it creates and
retains/reproduces its identity (within) and in relation to its environment or the medium in
which it lives. It is both self-organising and self-regulating – both bounded or closed with
regard to its internal operations, but also permeable or open in its connection to its (outside)
world. It is a paradox of necessary autonomy, at the same time as necessary ‘structural
coupling’ (to use Maturana and Verala’s term) to the outer environment.
Humberto Maturana, a neuro-biologist and professor from Santiago, Chile, co-developed the
idea and theory of autopoiesis with his student and colleague, Francisco Varela. Their work is
similar to that of Gregory Bateson and Fritjof Capra. While Bateson's work concentrated on
the overall pattern that connects all living things, Maturana and Varela's work focused on the
pattern to be found inside all living systems. The pattern connects both the parts and the
relationships between those parts; the boundaries that surround and contain the parts; how
information emerges within, and how external information ‘triggers’ (stimulates positively or
negatively) the structure of the overall system.
Applied to human systems the idea expresses a rationale for ‘capacity-building’ or
‘empowerment’, although in systems terms one element of a system cannot directly make
another powerful or build it – it can cede power or yield so as to cease preventing the other
receiving resources or sustaining inputs, and it can ‘scaffold’ or resource, but an organism’s
‘power’ stems ultimately from its own inner coherence or organ-isation that enables it to
maximise the use of energies for its own purposes.
That is, the structure of the internal response is what determines the experience for the living
system. Maturana has said that in this sense ‘the map is the territory’. Ultimately, the structure
of our internal experience of reality is the only map we'll ever know, and hence the critical
importance of the living organisms own experiential account – regardless of those of other
organisms. The experience will ultimately be determined by the history of the organism and
how it represents the world through its necessary perceptual filters.
In this way we can speak of reality as both interactive and mutually constructed. The world is
brought forth between self-organising organisms. Hence we cannot see our own reality as
superior to the other’s because they are living their reality (just as we are living ours) – indeed
theirs just as mine makes each others’ complete in the sense of the greater whole which
contains both of us. In the Jungian-Myers-Briggs psychology of inquiry preferences in my
living systems epistemology this idea emerges as the necessary diversity (‘it takes all types’)
that means that not only does the healthy unstressed mutual responsiveness build life, but
stressed reactivity also calls forth that of other as a way to try and achieve adjustment,
adaptivity or learning. It is a peculiarity of our current hegemony of rational logical
calculation that the embodied rationality of feeling that is being suppressed currently is to a
point that is taking our species far from dynamic equilibrium into the ‘dream of the machine’,
excluding the messiness and ‘enchantment’ of the natural world – a natural world even to the
scale of Gaia (in the James Lovelock sense of that concept) or the cosmos (in the Brian
Swimme sense of the term) that actually comprises the field of living systemicity necessary
for our own survival.
It is possible that these are some of the most important ideas of our time.
References:
Fritjof Capra (1996) The Web of Life, Anchor Books
H. Maturana and F. Varela (1980) Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living,
Boston: D. Reidel
Humberto R. Maturana, Francisco J. Varela, and Robert Paolucci (Translator) (1987) The
Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding, Shambhala Publications
Erich Jantsch (1980) Self Organizing Universe: Scientific and Human Implications
Pergamon
Lovelock, J.E.; Margulis, L. (1974). "Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere- The
Gaia hypothesis". Tellus 26 (1): 2–10.
Benchmarking
Benchmarking is mostly used in a contemporary to compare one organisation’s performance
against another’s, or against an industry average. It involves the detailed study of
productivity, quality and value in different divisions and activities in relation to performance
elsewhere. Benchmarking involves an ongoing search for best practices which bring superior
results. These practices attract a range of stakeholders, employees, suppliers, communities
and voters.
In a deeper sense of the term however, and even in the historic meaning of a working person
marking for example length literally on their bench, benchmarking is measuring a discrepancy
between an ideal and an actuality. In this way it is a systems concept expressing the
organism’s constant detection of difference or discrepancy that guides analysis, conclusions
and subsequent action.
Benchmarking techniques include:
 Best demonstrated practice, which compares units within one organisation (e.g.
comparing one service outlet with another)
 Relative cost position, which identifies the cost structure per unit of service compared
with that of other providers.
 Best related practice, which compares relevant organisations willing to cooperate to
make the necessary data available.
Benchmarking can focus on results, products or services; methods or practices that produce
results; or strategic thinking about where the organisation is going and how they intend to get
there. The practice of benchmarking can be simple or more complex. Examples of simple
benchmarking include direct information sharing about performance approaches and
practices. Examples of complex benchmarking include using clearing houses for access to
otherwise confidential information and conducting focus groups.
Benchmarking can be a powerful management tool because it can overcome ‘paradigm
blindness’ which can be summed up as the mode of thinking, "The way we do it is the best
because this is the way we've always done it." Benchmarking opens organizations to new
methods, ideas and tools to improve their effectiveness. It helps crack through resistance to
change by demonstrating other methods of solving problems than the one currently employed,
and demonstrating that they work, because they are being used by others. It is also often a
collaborative process (as collective comparisons between firms/orgs)
There is no single benchmarking process that has been universally adopted. The wide appeal
and acceptance of benchmarking has led to various benchmarking methodologies emerging.
The most prominent methodology is the 12 stage methodology by Robert Camp (who wrote
the first book on benchmarking in 1989)[1].
The 12 stage methodology consisted of 1. Select subject ahead 2. Define the process 3.
Identify potential partners 4. Identify data sources 5. Collect data and select partners 6.
Determine the gap 7. Establish process differences 8. Target future performance 9.
Communicate 10. Adjust goal 11. Implement 12. Review/recalibrate.
References:
Source: http://www.vpscin.org/?p=715
Victorian Public Sector Continuous Improvement Network
Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benchmarking
Butterfly effect
The name for the phenomenon of sensitive dependence, a defining feature of chaos theory,
came from a paper that Edward Lorenz gave called "Can the flap of a butterfly's wings in
Brazil stir up a tornado in Texas?" (The title was one that someone had given him, and he
thinks he probably would have picked a seagull instead of a butterfly!) By chance the
mapped mathematics of the phenomenon has a butterfly (or mask-like) appearance. The
outstanding implication for complex human ‘service’ systems is that, rather than change
always necessarily being very slow and evolutionary, change can be unexpectedly rapid if the
initial conditions are sensitive to tiny changes that lead, through amplification of multiple
causation, to immense change throughout a complex system. The unpredicted and rapid fall
of the Berlin Wall is a documented case where preconditions amplified (through feedback,
‘morphic resonance’ and autopoesis) to bring about a situation where the wall could literally
be broken down without the initially-existing and apparently stable/inevitable consequences
(of ‘boundary-infringers’ being killed). In my own experience the simple agreement by a
single manager to a new course of action can set off a cascade of change just as a single word
of discouragement or defensiveness can set in train a cascade of reification of an existing
cultural pattern, possibly preventing further change for decades.
Capacity building, community building
See Autopoesis
Chaos theory
Edward Lorenz ‘discovered’ chaos theory when he noticed that tiny alterations in
mathematical computer calculations of the weather could lead to large changes in outcomes,
rendering long-term weather forecasting unachievable. The implications of this first defining
feature of chaos theory – sensitive dependence on initial conditions – are enormous for all
complex, changing systems. As Glenn Elert puts it: ‘If you built your home using a meter
stick that was 999.7 millimetres long would your house collapse? Would it be askew? Would
you ever notice anything was wrong with it? When it comes to the weather, the answer to
that last question was "yes."’ After enough time elapses, the tiny error introduced in the
weather forecasting (by dropping the digits after the thousandths place), became an error as
large as the range of possible solutions to the system. Lorenz called this the Butterfly Effect.
A second defining feature of a chaotic system (morphogenic field) is its capacity to selforganise (autopoesis). Resulting from sensitive dependence, it can be depicted as a
geometric figure with an infinite level of detail. The conditions for chaos organise fractal
order.
Reference:
Remarkably, for an area as complex as complexity (!) there are some good and kind souls
who are able to make it more accessible for the external amateur. Glen Elert’s accessible
online text – which includes 8 different breathtakingly beautiful (to some of us!) coloured
views of the Lorenx attractor/fractal pattern: The Chaos Hypertextbook™ © 1995-2003 – is
at: http://hypertextbook.com/chaos/21.shtml
Charrette
A charrette is an intensely focused multi-day session that uses a collaborative approach to
create hopefully realistic and achievable designs. Charrettes have mainly been used in
architecture, urban planning and community design projects.
www.charetteinstitute.org/sharrette.html
Coaching
I hesitate to include this as it may appeal to a particular group of people and possibly be
anathema to others, however it is a major development, comparable to appreciative inquiry,
but with a massive reach due to its claims to increase personal wealth, end stress, etc. etc. It
has taken off where the Personal Development and Human Potential movements left off.
http://www.lifecoach.cwc.net/Life_coaching/life_coaching.html
Co-intelligence
The term "co-intelligence" refers to a shared, integrated form of intelligence that can be
identified in and around us when we're ‘most alive’. It is also seen as identifiable in cultures
that sustain themselves harmoniously with ‘nature and neighbour’.
Co-intelligence is seen as emerging whenever we pool our personal intelligences to produce
results that are more insightful and powerful than the sum of our individual perspectives.
Sometimes this happens when we simply listen well to each other. Most of us have noticed
welcome examples of this effect in our families, groups and communities, and sometimes in
organizations. But we have also seen more than enough co-stupidity! We've seen people
(including ourselves) acting less intelligently together than we are individually. It doesn't have
to be that way and while living systems epistemology offers continuous full inquiry processes
that we all have ability to access, co-intelligence is also seen as a capacity we all have,
individually and collectively. It is explicitly claimed not to be a method that can be sold e.g.
by The Co-Intelligence Institute or anyone else. It claims there is no one way to be cointelligent, and that most of us have already used co-intelligence at some time to improve
work and family relationships, to support our communities, and to help make a better world.
The Co-Intelligence Institute and the website below exist to help point out useful paths in our
shared journey. Like a living systems inquiry epistemology, it claims that the more we can
study the phenomena together, share stories of our experiences with it, develop positive
guidelines and methods for enhancing it, the more co-intelligence we can bring to our lives.
Reference website:
http://www.co-intelligence.org/index.html
Communities of Practice
Back on dry land after all that chaos – and just as Reg Revans in the UK was interested in the
conditions for workplace learning and problem-solving – Etienne Wenger in the USA was
interested in the conditions for workplace creativity. He observed closely how the most
brilliant new ideas derived not from the usual presumption of top-down managerially-selected
teams, perhaps in competition with other teams – but from small group collaborative, anydirectional, networked, self-selected, autonomously-organising friendship-based small
groups. These are the groups, as he has explained, in which there is a tremendous unleashing
of energy as people build on each other’s ideas quickly and exponentially without having to
keep explaining or defending the ‘building block’ thoughts. That is, there is a high level of
shared assumptions. In systems terms these are highly organic and self-organising (there’s
that bootstraps-autopoesis again) systems or sub systems, strongly bounded enough to ensure
a high level of unique identity (and the quality called ‘trust’ as a consequence2), while
permeable enough to allow selective incorporation of ‘like elements’ or ‘bodies’ (or ‘like
minds’). Their achievement could be seen as an epitome of ‘empowerment’, and hence tricky
in the subsequent efforts to mandate hundreds of communities of practice in some major USA
firms.
Reference:
A single excellent summary piece called ‘Communities of Practice’ by Etienne C. Wenger
and William M. Snyder, Harvard Business Review Jan-Feb 2000 can be accessed on:
http://www.peopleright.com.au/articles/Articles/Communities%20of%20Practice.htm
Complaints procedures
In systems terms complaints are examples of feedback which can potentially be negative or
positive – however 'positive' and 'negative' do not refer to desirability or undesirability in the
normal sense, but to their part in maintaining dynamic equilibrium. The negative feedback
loop tends to slow down a process, while the positive feedback loop tends to accelerate it. In
living biological systems, feedback and regulation are linked. Negative feedback helps to
maintain (convergent) stability in a system amidst external change (by alerting to unwanted
entropy). It is thus related to homeostasis. Positive feedback amplifies (divergent) change,
evolution, or growth. It gives a system the ability to find new points of equilibrium, but can
also alert to an unwanted ‘cancerous’ or exhausting kind of growth. For example, in an
organism, positive feedback stimulates the system (e.g. in stress response conditions). The
problem is if the organism mistakes either valuable negative feedback as an unwanted threat
(to a weakly coherent organism), or misleading positive feedback as a desirable input (to an
overly rigidified organism).
This means something of a paradoxical chicken-and-egg situation. The organism or system
needs to be ‘strong enough’ to receive ‘bad news’ – yet paradoxically most needs to receive it
when there is an endangering lack of that ‘intelligence’. Hence systemic approaches might:
 Input positive input to strengthen or speak to the stronger cohering elements first (e.g.
Appreciative inquiry, Narrative therapy)
 Intersperse resourcing/strengthening input first, then depleting input, then enhancing
(as in gentle slow-starting deep tissue massage that ‘relaxes’ the organism to accept
input without defensive reaction)
 Seek feedback from the organism or system regarding its own purposes and then
‘share’ (feed back) the aligned information, that led the ‘inputter’ to their conclusions
 Negative (undesired, entropic) feedback will do least damage if highly contained (e.g.
given privately, given in small amounts, given at particular pre-arranged times), while
In living systems terms ‘trust’ is not a prerequisite but a consequence of safety either in boundedness
(walls) or ‘inner strength’ (internal cohesion). ’Trust’ is a description of openness. It only appears to
be a pre requisite in a mechanistic model (in the same way as a cat’s head appears to be a causal
prerequisite to its tail as it walks by a window). That is, openness cannot be forced (e.g. ‘required’)
without the safety of either walls or internal cohesion, or else it would be like the Dilbertian managerial
fiat to increase communication by taking down office cubicle walls. A recipe potentially for disaster.
2

(desirable, augmenting) positive feedback can be given as extensively as possible
(e.g. publicly, in front of as large a community-of-interest as possible)
Surround negative (undesired, entropic) feedback with an environment of (desirable,
augmenting) positive feedback
Complexity theory
"You have to look at the way the various pieces support each other to know which side is in
the stronger situation. It's the interaction of the pieces from which the strength emerges. It's
the same in all complex adaptive systems. Interaction is the key" John Holland, Complexity
(2nd Edition), page 220
This concerns the way nature generates totally new phenomena through the co-evolution of
complex synergies.
References:
Complex Adaptive Systems Research (CASE) – A website of ‘fun links’ for complexity
thinkers (especially if you’re after an emergent particle swarm optimizer :-)
http://www.casresearch.com/
M. Waldrop (1992) Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos, Simon
& Schuster.
Roger Lewin (2000) Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos University of Chicago Press
Consultation/Public consultation
In a systems sense, this more familiar term might be understood as the co-inquiring
‘invitation’ between the questioner and an answerer. In practice the complex defences and
energies mean that the inquiring organism or the answering organism may find their
relationality compromised. Typically ‘public consultation’ may have various meanings
related to the extent and success of the exchange. It may be:
• A means of convincing the public of the value of decisions already taken (more like public
education)
• An activity undertaken at the discretion of decision-makers if warranted and resources are
available (public contribution)
• A contribution to project management in which public opinion is canvassed as certain stages
of the process (public consultation)
• A method of conflict management where there are conflicting views (reviews and public
enquiries), or
• An integral part of the decision-making process, where members of the public are regarded
as partners (public partnership).
Formal public consultation methods may include legislative requirements in statutes,
constitutional (elections), commissions of enquiry, negotiation (round table discussions and
arbitration), open public forums (advertised), joint data collection, strategic planning
processes, or local or regional partnerships.
Informal methods may include networking, person to person, teleconferencing, by phone or email, key informant interviews, phone-ins and write-ins, vision workshops, focus groups,
public rallies, festivals, social gatherings, or street meetings.
Reference:
Local Sustainability Project, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies & Deni Greene
Consulting Services. 1996. Getting ahead of the game: an anticipatory approach to
environmental management. Local Sustainability Project, Centre for Resource and
Environmental Studies, the Australian National University, Canberra
Consumer consultants, consumer advocates, community consultants
These systemic advocacy roles for dialogic facilitators were developed by the Australian
mental health consumer-staff project known as the ‘Understanding & Involvement’ project
(featured throughout the book). The action research project introduced this new concept of
clients facilitating dialogue between themselves and professional staff as part of continuous
quality improvement. The idea was taken up by many local councils and other settings and is
part of the genealogy for many other peer-to-peer and dialogue-across-distance initiatives.
Co-operative inquiry
This is the term for which Peter Reason and Alastair Heron are most credited for its
introduction in the field of participatory action research.
References:
Heron, J. (1996) Cooperative Inquiry: Research into the human condition, Sage, London
Reason, P. (ed.) (1988) Human Inquiry in Action, Sage, London
Reason, P. (ed.) (1994) Participation in Human Inquiry, Sage, London
Reason, P. and Rowan, J. (1981) Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research,
Wiley, London
Critical reference group/Critical inquiry group/
Critical inquirers/Appreciative inquiry group/Appreciative inquirers
This is the perspective of those primarily and ultimately to benefit from something or some
effort. In human services it might be patients, clients, students, or local community.
In a living systems inquiry epistemology the critical reference group is the critical inquiry group
or critical inquirers.
Additionally, now that the commonsense understanding of ‘critical’ has come to be seen as
negative in the sense of criticism, it may also be modified by the term appreciative inquiry group.
References:
Wadsworth, Yoland Do It Yourself Social Research, Allen & Unwin, 1984 p.8, 1997a p.9-10,
Wadsworth, Yoland Everyday Evaluation On The Run 1991 pp.7-12, 1997b pp.12-18
Cybernetic conversation, Sensitive interpersonal conversational
exchange
Identified as a particular kind of relating between people engaged in processes of change,
such as in therapy, primary medical care practice or participatory action research. (Stewart
1994), or in acute psychiatric services (Wadsworth & Epstein 1996 Vol 2). Based variously
on the proposition that ‘if a therapist, practitioner or facilitator of research engages with
individuals or groups on a basis of relational equality the outcomes can be unanticipated new
knowledge which leads to new actions’ (Stewart ibid.), or that this is a scaled-down one to
one version of a dialogic participatory action research process – or consumer feedback
method - that can achieve deep understanding and altered practice (Wadsworth and Epstein
ibid). In the latter work the method has been identified as both necessarily dialogic while
essentially about language as embedding relations of power (discourse).
Sources:
Alan Stewart ‘Cybernetic Conversation’, in Lloyd Fell, David Russell & Alan Stewart (eds)
Seized by Agreement, Swamped by Understanding published online at:
http://www.pnc.com.au/~lfell/convers.html
Wadsworth, Y and Epstein, M (1996) Understanding and Involvement (U&I) – a project
unfolds, Vol 2, VMIAC, pp. 176-187
Deliberative democracy, deliberative polling/Citizens juries
This is a method that is commercially registered ® and managed by Stanford University, but
in a commonsense everyday way it is simply the business of informing research participants
about the matter they are to speak about, whether by an explanatory introduction to a survey,
or more typically in deliberative polling, there may be stages to the process with people
nominating experts they would like to hear from, often about the pros and cons of an
argument, and then reaching new conclusions which they offer at the end.
It has been used in Australia with the effect of enhancing learning about democratic
governance, and in the UK with the effect of increasing support for building a fossil fuel
plant.
References:
A glossary of dialogue and deliberation terms and methods appears at:
http://thataway.org/index.html
A key online article is:
http://cdd.stanford.edu/polls/docs/summary/
Jefferson Center for New Democratic Processes (1998), The citizens jury: effective public
participation. Minneapolis: Jefferson Center.
Describes the citizens’ jury process and its key elements:
http://www.jefferson-center.org/citizens_jury.htm
http://www.deliberative-democracy.net/ebulletin/20080228.shtml
Design systems
Designers draw on systems thinking. Take for example the architect Christopher Alexander
and his famous piece ‘A city is not a tree’ in which he argues for recognition of some
essential ingredient/s missing from artificial cities. He sees the tree as a way of thinking about
how a large collection of many small systems goes to make up a large and complex system or
‘the structures of a set’. He sees a set as a collection of elements which for some reason we
think of as belonging together – such as a city as being a collection of elements such as
people, blades of grass, cars, molecules, houses, gardens, water pipes, the water molecules in
them etc. These ‘elements of a set’ are seen as belonging together because they ‘co-operate’
or work together somehow. He gives an example in Berkeley: ‘at the corner of Hearst and
Euclid, there is a drugstore, and outside the drugstore a traffic light. In the entrance to the
drugstore there is a newsrack where the day's papers are displayed. When the light is red,
people who are waiting to cross the street stand idly by the light; and since they have nothing
to do, they look at the papers displayed on the newsrack which they can see from where they
stand. Some of them just read the headlines, others actually buy a paper while they wait. This
effect makes the newsrack and the traffic light interactive; the newsrack, the newspapers on it,
the money going from people's pockets to the dime slot, the people who stop at the light and
read papers, the traffic light, the electric impulses which make the lights change, and the
sidewalk which the people stand on form a system - they all work together’.
From a designer's point of view he notes one part may be thought of as physically unchanging
– the newsrack, the traffic light and the sidewalk between them – or as an ‘unchanging
receptacle in which the changing parts of the system - people, newspapers, money and
electrical impulses - can work together’. He defines this fixed part as a unit of the city which
derives its coherence as a unit both from the forces which hold its own elements together and
from the dynamic coherence of the larger living system which includes it as a fixed invariant
part. Nor is it an ‘amorphous collection’ as relationships are established among the subsets
once the subsets are chosen, and thus the collection has a definite structure.
Reference:
http://www.patternlanguage.com/leveltwo/archivesframe.htm?/leveltwo/../archives/alexander
1.htm
Dialogue, multilogue, dialogic designs
Dialogue is shared exploration towards greater understanding, connection, or possibility.
Many forms of communication fit this definition. And many forms don't, including
arguments, posturing, holding forth, defensiveness, bantering discussions and other forms of
communication where we don't discover anything new or connect with each other.
Dialogue's spirit of exploration is useful when we want to understand something or someone
better. Dialogue is often needed to reach sufficient shared understanding to come to a decision
together. However, in decision-making situations, dialogue (inquiry) often needs to be
balanced with getting things nailed down in due time. Many grassroots groups develop strong
disagreements over this, and it is wise to create separate opportunities for both the exploratory
and the get-it-done energies to dominate.
Some basic guidelines for dialogue which can be discussed and agreed to by a group and
posted around a room to remind participants might comprise (Source:
http://www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_ComunityProcesses.html):





We talk about what's really important to us - but we also like to have fun together.
We avoid monopolizing the conversation. We don't talk overly long and we make
sure everyone has a chance to speak.
We really listen to each other. We see how thoroughly we can understand each other's
views and experience.
We respect ourselves and each other, making space for our differences. We say what's
true for us without making each other wrong.
We try not to get stuck in old thoughts and feelings. We see what we can learn by
being curious and exploring things together.
Reference:
Bohm, D., Garrett, P. and Factor, D. (1991), ‘Dialogue–A proposal’, paper accessed online 24
November 2009 at: http://www.david-bohm.net/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html
Double (and single and triple) loop learning
The organizational learning literature distinguishes four different levels of learning: zero
learning, single-loop learning, double-loop learning and triple-loop learning.
Zero-learning (Bateson 1972) takes place when an individual experiences an operational
surprise and may or may not report it to a learning agent. Without ‘zero-learning’ there is no
learning.
Argyris and Schön (1978) distinguish between single-loop and double-loop learning.
Single-loop learning answers to the question of how: “Are we doing things right?” It is about
incremental improvement in established procedures — “better of the same”. Underlying
theories, reasoning or assumptions are not under discussion. New skills and capabilities are
incorporated into existing structures.
Double-loop learning answers the question of what: “Are we doing the right things?” It is
called for when the same old structure does not work anymore, but the rules of business and
underlying assumptions need to be questioned. Double-loop requires changes in insights and
reframing the patterns of thinking.
Isaacs (1993) suggests that triple-loop learning is needed for true organizational change.
Triple-loop learning answers the question of why: “What is the right thing for us?” — to what
purpose does the organization exist. It is transformational learning requiring a shift in context
and addressing the very identity of the organization. The core principles of the organization
come under discussion, as the organization asks itself what it wishes to be.
These learning mechanisms apply to the real-time, operational, tactical, and strategic level of
an agile enterprise, respectively:
Zero-level learning transducts anomalies perceived within real-time operations to the
operational level, at which actions are modified in simple-loop learning according to the
difference between expected and obtained outcomes. This learning is internal to the systemic
structure. As the required behaviour change cannot be accomplished within the structure
alone, double-loop learning at the tactical level is required. Now the learning presumes
changes in the systemic organization to reframe thinking. Finally, when the learning requires
transformation in the very identity and purpose of the organization, strategic measures at the
top level, i.e. triple-loop learning, is called for. Not only the systemic organization needs to
be changed, but the agent function of the entire enterprise needs revision.
References:
‘Learning mechanisms in an agile enterprise’, posted by jjk under ‘Organization’ Tue 23 Jan
2007 – accessed 28 February 2008 http://blog.jannekorhonen.fi/?m=200701
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A theory of action perspective,
Addison-Wesley, Reading MA, USA.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chandler Publishing Co., San Francisco,
USA.
Isaacs, W.N. (1993). “Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational
learning”. Organizational Dynamics, 22(3), 24-39.
Emergence, iterativity
These systems concepts express how the field of systemic forms ‘calls forth’ what comes out
of that inter-relationality, said to be emergent. As this happens repeatedly – in living systems
epistemology, if inquiry cycles are repeated – this may be called iterative or recursive.
Ethnography
See Autoethnography
Evidence-based
Initially derived from medicine where e.g. unknown chemicals are combined in the laboratory
without certainty about effects, its application to human service systems was more an appeal to
ground experience-based theory and perceptual impressions in ‘reality’. It bears the same upside
and downside of its predecessor: ‘facts-based’ – viz who’d want to ground action in unreality?
But whose reality? And isn’t all ‘reality’ perceived? Plus if we stay only in ‘current reality’ how
will we ever change to anything new (which isn’t a current reality)? Evidence and experience
each has the same etiological meaning of surface appearance – from the Latin evidential meaning
‘see’ plainly and obviously and facere ‘do’ or ‘make’ meaning some thing that has been verified
as true. The terms sense, sensing and sensate have also come to refer to the way in which such
‘truthful realities’ or surface appearances are ‘picked up’ by the human organism’s five senses
(see, hear, touch, smell, taste). The ‘sixth sense’ of intuition is frequently invoked to do service to
the meanings that ‘make sense’ of sensing data – for example there may be a crucial difference
between ‘the facts of the matter’ and a person’s experience or knowledge of them. Yet in a way,
the ways in which people experience the evidence or ‘facts’ of their sensing constitute fact-like
evidence in their own right in terms of their consequences for action. Arguments over what
‘actually happened’ may be tempered by sensing interpretations3, but in the end it is the
meanings attached to them that become critical to people’s subsequent actions.
Facilitation
See dynamic facilitation:
http://www.tobe.net/
Forcefield analysis
This analysis allows a group to make decisions based on identifying which items, if actioned,
would most assist change to happen. A group conducts a force field analysis by brainstorming
all of the driving and restraining forces acting on a situation or problem. The group then
condenses these into ten key forces. Driving and restraining forces are ranked in order of
strength and plotted in two opposite columns. (It is arguable whether it is more effective to
reduce the restraining forces or to increase the driving forces.)
Source: http://www.vpscin.org/?p=714
Field theory
See for a good source: http://www.co-intelligence.org/CI-TheoreticalArticles.html
Fishbone causal diagram
3
Even the most adept at sensing evidence are unable to escape the human understanding that this is never a
direct experience of ‘reality’ but always mediated by the human organism, including through embodied
means which are already ‘value-adding’ e.g. chemical and electrical filters already valorised on the basis of
past experience.
The fishbone, ishikawa or cause and effect diagram is used to tap into a teams’ collective
knowledge and generate a consensus about a problem or issue.
It identifies, explores and graphically displays all major causes of a problem with the aim of
uncovering the root causes. It focuses on the content of the problem, rather than history or
personal interests, and on causes, not symptoms.
Source: http://www.vpscin.org/?p=738
Future Search (a.k.a. "search")
A good source for this concept is: http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-futuresearch.html
"A future search," write Weisbord and future search co-developer Sandra Janoff, "is a large
group planning meeting that brings a 'whole system' into the room to work on a task-focused
agenda.... In a future search, people have a chance to take ownership of their past, present,
and future, confirm their mutual values, and commit to action plans grounded in reality."
By "whole system" Weisbord and Janoff mean 30-64 diverse stakeholders -- a cross-section
of people concerned with the activities of the organization or community undertaking the
search. About one-third of them come from outside the system. For example, if a local
community is doing the future search, then the outsiders might include officials and citizens
from nearby cities, state and county officials, representatives of national organizations or
businesses involved in the community -- key people who don't normally work together.
Once the diverse stakeholders are gathered together, they begin exploring their shared past:
What are the patterns of the last several decades? What are the stories? What does it all mean?
Diverse participants often come up with clashing perspectives. In future search, differences
like this are simply understood and acknowledged, not "worked through." Like a meditator
who brings her wandering attention back to her rhythmic breathing, future search participants
continually return their attention to their common ground -- in this case, the shared milestones
in their history.
Moving to the present, participants explore the trends -- including global forces -- at work in
their lives. Together they create a detailed "mind map" of these trends on a giant sheet of
paper. They discuss concerns, prioritize the trends they've identified and explore common
ways of viewing the "mess" they've charted together. They tell each other what they're proud
of and what they're sorry about. Often their perspective on themselves and each other shift
dramatically during these exercises.
Diverse stakeholders then gather in subgroups to imagine themselves 5, 10 and 20 years in the
future. They generate concrete images and examples of what's going on in their chosen future,
and the barriers they imagine they've had to overcome to get there. After coming together to
share this information, participants develop lists of common futures (what they agree they
want), potential projects (how to get there) and unresolved differences. After some reflection
and second thoughts, each participant figures out what they personally want to work on. They
get together with others of similar passion to plan action. Follow-up has suggested that people
in such groups tend to continue working together.
Simply by changing the conditions under which people interact, future search procedures
enable participants to bridge barriers of culture, class, age, gender, ethnicity, power, status
and hierarchy to work together as peers on tasks of mutual concern. Unlike many community
organizers and organizational consultants, future search facilitators offer no diagnosis of
problems, no prescriptions for fixing things, no preconceived issues, frames of reference or
action ideologies. They "don't judge information as good or bad, complete or sketchy, useful
or futile, appropriate or redundant. Whatever people do or say -- their words, their behavior,
their wishes, and their reactions -- belongs to them," write Janoff and Weisbord. Not knowing
what issues and obstacles will arise, facilitators simply set a workable process in motion and
let the system come up with its own information, meanings and motivation. In short, they help
participants self-organize.
References:
Marvin Weisbord and Sandra Janoff, Future Search: An Action Guide to Finding Common
Ground in Organizations and Communities (Berrett-Koehler, 1995)
Marvin Weisbord & 35 International Coauthors, Discovering Common Ground: How Future
Search Conferences Bring People Together to Achieve Breakthrough Innovation,
Empowerment, Shared Vision and Collaborative Action (Berrett-Koehler, 1993)
http://www.futuresearch.net/
Gaia hypothesis
A systems concept that suggests that for any complex emergence, the conditions under which
phenomena may be created (e.g. the conditions for life to form) are particular (like Goldilocks
porridge – ‘not too hot, not too cold, but just right’). See also autopoesis.
Reference:
Lovelock, J. (2002) The Revenge of Gaia, Penguin, Harmondsworth, Middlesex
Swimme, B. and Berry, T. (1994) The Universe Story–From the Primordial Flaring Forth to
the Ecozoic Era: A Celebration of the Unfolding of the Cosmos, HarperOne, New York
Holo–
A Greek prefix meaning whole or integral, e.g. holism, holy, holarchy, holograms,
holography, wholism, wholly, wholesome, wholehearted
Inquire/Inquiry
A generic and rather gentle but more formal verb than enquire, for the basic act of seeking or
searching; in both research and evaluation, expressing the momentum of being propelled and
curious to ask and question to get to the bottom of something, to find out something, to explore
discrepancies or to know and understand more about something. Peter Reason has tended to use
the term ‘human inquiry’, and I acknowledge his legacy in choosing this more accessible term
than ‘research’ or ‘evaluation’ for the kinds of processes used by every living organism.
References:
Reason, P. (ed.), Human Inquiry in Action, Sage, London 1988
Reason, P. (ed.), Participation in Human Inquiry, Sage, London 1994
Rowan, J. and Reason, P. (1981), Human Inquiry, Wiley, Chichester, UK
Irreversibility/‘wicked problems’
A complex systems concept that points towards issues that arise out of the feedback loops and
e.g. vicious cycles that can build. Wikipedia puts it well saying that it was a phrase originally
used in social planning to describe a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because
of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize.
Moreover, because of complex interdependencies, the effort to solve one aspect of a wicked
problem may reveal or create other problems. This latter meaning is perhaps the most widely
held one since its origins in the systems thinking Churchman’s use of it in 1967.
References:
Churchman, C. West (1967) Guest Editorial, Management Science Vol. 14, No. 4
http://jurisdynamics.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html
Learning organisations (LOs)/
Organisational development (OD)
Peter Senge introduced the world to the idea of an organization that can learn. It was followed
by the The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook of strategies, tools and exercises to help build such
organizations. Sociologists retorted that ‘people learn, not organisations’, while other
sociologists have contributed enormously to understanding this field of organisational
‘behaviour’, action, practice, culture, change and institutionalisation.
References:
Morgan, G (2001) Images of Organisation, Newbury Park Calif., Sage Publications
Senge, Peter (1990) The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday Currency.
Listening circles
A process originally borrowed from tribal council circles, which now appears in many forms.
Participants' communication is mediated by a held object, often (but not necessarily) one with
some special significance to the participants. An aesthetic hand-sized stick or stone works
well. In the simplest versions, the circle's convenor holds the object, welcomes people, makes
some brief remarks about the process and spirit of the circle, and then makes his or her
personal statement. He or she then passes the object to the person on their left who speaks (or
can remain silent for a few moments), and then passes the object on to the next person (on
their left) -- and the object proceeds around the circle, with each person who holds the object
speaking while the others listen. The object can travel around the circle many times with great
benefit. In Maori hui the process may take many many hours. Unlike ordinary conversations,
there is no cross-talk or discussion, per se. In the most fruitful circles, all present "speak the
truth from their hearts," briefly and deeply sharing what they think and feel. There is no way
to command this quality of participation, but participants agree on the spirit of what they're
trying to do; the convenor can model a certain way of being, and the circle process, itself,
often invokes a reflective spirit.
There are many variations, among them:
 The circle can have an explicit theme, or not.
 Turns can be timed, or not. Timing can be done by the convenor, or by passing a watch or
clock right behind the stick or stone, so that the person who just spoke times the next
speaker.
 "Popcorn" - Anyone can speak, but no one can speak twice until everyone has spoken
once. Between turns the object is placed into the middle or is handed to whoever wants to
speak next.
 Scrip circles - Each person gets several special slips of paper (or pebbles or poker chips),
each representing an amount of time (usually 30 or 60 seconds). When they wish to
speak, they "buy time" for their turn (putting some of their "scrip" in a hat that is passed
to them) -- or they can give some or all of their scrip to someone else to use, at any time.
This process generates lively group dynamics and contains the total speaking time.
 Some groups enjoy opening rituals, such as placing something (a candle, personally
meaningful objects, etc.) in the middle of their circle to symbolize a shared centre. In
these groups, closing rituals usually involve putting the candle out, removing the centreobjects, and/or holding hands in the circle.
 Impromptu circles can be done by two or more people whenever they need or want, using
whatever's handy (such as a stapler or salt shaker) as an object to pass around.
References:
http://www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_ComunityProcesses.html
http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-listeningcircles.html
Mapping, concept mapping, community mapping, mind mapping
A Mind Map is a graphic technique which provides a visual means of tapping into the brain’s
potential. It harnesses the full range of cortical skills – word, image, number & spatial
awareness – in a single, one page document. The mind map can be applied to any situation
where better learning and clearer thinking will improve performance. Developed in the late
60’s by Tony Buzan, mind maps are now used by millions of people of all ages around the
world when they wish to use their minds more effectively. A Mind Map may:
 Give an overview of a large subject/area
 Help thinking in a radiating or networking, rather than linear fashion
 Gather and hold large amounts of data and information
 Encourage problem solving by showing new creative pathways
 Be an aid in study and memory through engaging the whole brain
 Let the whole picture and the detail be seen at the same time
Typically mind maps are hand drawn, however in recent times there have been some powerful
software packages developed that allow effective mind mapping on your PC or laptop
Reference:
http://www.vpscin.org/?p=745
Morphogenetic fields/Fields of morphic resonance
Morphogenetic fields may be thought of as non-physical blueprints that give birth to forms.
For the founder of this concept, the biologist Rupert Sheldrake, a morphogenetic field is an
equivalent to an electromagnetic field that carries information only, not energy, and they are
available throughout time and space without any loss of intensity after they have been created.
Morphogenetic fields are seen as created by the patterns of physical forms, and as helping
guide the formation of later similar systems where a newly forming system ‘tunes into’ a
previous system by having within it some micro form that resonates with a similar seed in the
earlier form. Morphogenetic fields is used to describe how human consciousness may be
shared and in which a shift may happen when a critical mass for form change is reached.
Mostly seen as a heuristic device to explain why different forms develop (when not genes,
etc.), most biologists still regard morphogenetic fields simply as a way of thinking about
morphogenesis rather than something that really exists
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_field
Most significant change (MSC) technique
An evaluator, Rick Davies, developed this narrative technique in Bangladesh to explicate
what was not being illuminated in complex rural development programs by counting and
measurement-type indicators. Jess Dart consequently worked on it with Rick and it has since
been extended to use by urban and western countries, including by agricultural,
environmental, health, community and human services. The authors have generously placed
the guidelines on open access on the internet (see reference below).
There are ten key steps of which 4, 5, and 6 are seen as central by its creators: 1.
Starting/raising interest by champions and small groups and among stakeholders of those
interested; 2. Defining ‘domains’ of change to be storied; 3. Identifying timelines and
frequency of monitoring the changes in the domains; 4. Collecting the stories from those field
staff and participants most directly involved; 5. Selection of the most significant of the stories
by regional or central committees; 6. Feedback about this selection process back to the field
staff and participants; 7. Verification of the stories by site visits; 8. Quantification either
within the story or across sites; 9. Meta analysis across sites for recurrent themes; and 10.
Revising the MSC process as a result of the learning that has emerged.
The characteristic MSC open inquiry question is of the nature: ‘During the last month, in your
opinion what was the most significant change that took place in… (domain)?’ – And the
characteristic filtering or selection question is: ‘From among all these significant changes,
what do you think was the most significant change of all?’ People are encouraged to report
the evidence or rationale for why they make their choices and this effectively assists
conversations about what is valued. Then the stories told are analysed (reflected on) and
filtered up the organisational hierarchies by a sequence of selection.
It is seen as a supplementary technique to standard Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E)
compliance methods such as LOGFRAMES, with an ability to focus on learning about
noticeable (valued or unvalued) effects rather than just general descriptive observation for
accountability.
Reference:
Davies, R and Dart, J (2005) The Most Significant Change (MSC) Technique–A guide to its use,
self-published, accessed on line 8 August 2008 at: www.clearhorizon.com
Open space technology
Open Space conferencing technology is designed to provide maximum opportunities for
participants to create and learn from their own agenda.
Essentially it is a self-organising conference about a topic about which all attendees have
passion. After an initial briefing, attendees create workshops, discussion groups, market stalls
or task groups according to their interests. Attendees are encouraged to let go of outcomes,
welcome the unexpected, and move around to find stalls or sessions where they can actively
learn or contribute. People do not need to stay with one topis or discussion, but can exercise
the ‘rule of feet’ and go between sessions.
The method can allow hidden issues to emerge and get dealt with, and ensure that a topic
raised will have someone to deal with it. It is not always the best method for relaying
information or controlling outcomes. But for involvement, shared exploration and community
self-organization it can be great. Nevertheless Open Space can be done after information
dissemination activities. For example, you could have morning presentations by experts,
followed by an afternoon of open space sessions. When time is short, one can try a modified
open space process: a certain number of rooms/spaces are made available for sessions and
anyone who wants to hold one announces it and makes a sign on which they stick a spaceassignment post-it note. Then they post their sign on a wall as the next person announces their
session, etc., until all the rooms/spaces are filled or there are no more proposed sessions.
In another powerful, simple variation created by Doug Carmichael for crisis situations (see
"Y2k week X week 65" at http://tmn.com/y2k ), a facilitator helps the group make a list of
crisis-related community issues and then makes those into breakout sessions, asking for a
volunteer to convene each one. The two tasks of each session are to get contact information
on everyone who comes and to schedule a time when they can meet again. Those meetings
are then announced in the local paper. The session convenors become leaders of community
preparedness task forces.
References:
Open Space: Open Space Technology: A User's Guide by Harrison Owen (BerrettKoehler 1997) $24.95, 175 pp.
http://www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_ComunityProcesses.html
An on-line intro to Open Space and its basic principles and method: http://www.co-
intelligence.org/P-Openspace.html
A full website about open space: http://www.tmn.com/openspace/index.html
Promising practice profile
This method constructs more contextualised narrative/autoethnography, and seems to have
come out of TQM best practice – but critiqued the ‘one size fits all’ move to evidence-based
‘scientific models’. That is, it proposes ‘promising practices’ rather than ‘best practice’ due to
the need to adapt generic practices for specific organizations. Hence promising practices can
be seen as emphasizing the need to customise practice according to the specific context the
organization finds itself in. A Promising Practice Profile (PPP) is a summary document that
explains a particular practice or set of practices (ways of working) that have helped to achieve
a project’s objectives. It comprises a description of the “key ingredients” of a
program/project, what was done, or what particular ways of working were important. It also
includes a summary of the existing evidence base about what is known about the
effectiveness or relevance of this practice, information about how a particular practice or set
of practices within a program worked on the ground (how it worked and what made it work),
and the evidence linking the practice to outcomes (evidence that it worked). These profiles
then become useful summary tools and guides to others who may be working to address
similar issues.
Reference:
http://www.aifs.gov.au/cafca/ppp/promising.html
What is a Promising Practice Profile?
Sociometric charts
A sociological technique which diagrammatically charts/draws the connections between people
(e.g. who know each other or work together) to indicate the networks of relationships and their
relative strengths. A precursor to network theory.
Study Circles
Study circles are voluntary, self-organizing adult education groups of 5-20 people who meet
three to six times to explore a subject, often a critical social issue. Each meeting commonly
lasts 2-3 hours and is directed by a moderator whose role is to aid a lively but focused
dialogue. Between meetings participants read materials they were given at the end of the last
meeting. These materials are used as springboards for dialogue (see VII above), not as
authoritative conclusions. The materials are usually compiled by the sponsor or organizer of
the particular study circle; but groups who want to form a study circle on a particular topic
can create their own materials or get ready-to-use packs from organizations like The Study
Circle Resource Center (see below).
By encouraging people to formulate their own ideas about issues and to share them with
others, the study circle process helps overcome people's lack of information and feelings of
inadequacy in the face of complex problems. They can be sponsored by civic organizations,
activists, businesses, unions, churches, discussion groups and governments
Resources:
Leonard P. Oliver, Study Circles: Coming Together for Personal Growth and Social
Change (Seven Locks Press, 1987)
The Joy of Conversation by Jaida N'ha Sandra (Utne, 1997). The Utne Reader-sponsored
guide to co-creative salons of all types. Excellent writeups on study circles, listening circles
(see VI above), etc. http://www.utne.com/
The Study Circle Resource Center, PO Box 203, Pomfret, CT 06258. Phone (860) 928-2616,
FAX (860) 928-3713, email scrc@neca.com. www.studycircles.org
Provides training materials, study circle packets, and guidance. Very helpful people. You can
ask for their study circle guide for "Building Strong Neighbourhoods" and the larger
Neighbourhood Kit, which has a plan for organizing whole cities and well as the dialogue
guide.
Source: http://www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_ComunityProcesses.html
World Café
This is a process in which a large group can have the intimacy and engagement of small group
dialogue without losing the broader understandings and connection possible in the full group.
It evolved out of conversations and experimentation one evening at the home of consultants
Juanita Brown and David Isaacs, with their friend Nancy Margulies.
A World Cafe is set up with space for groups of 4-8 people to sit in circles, preferably around
circular tables (although you can do it with no tables at all) and ideally with flowers, candles,
paper tablecloths and marking pens (for writing notes on the tablecloth).
A host/hostess welcomes participants and tells them (or reminds them of) the topic -- a
question worth asking or statement worth exploring -- something of real interest to those
present. He or she explains that after a set period of time (usually 30-45 minutes) people will
be asked to bring the conversation to a close and move to new tables. S/he encourages them to
record on the tablecloth (or note paper) any ideas, insights or questions that emerge.
When the first round is up, the host/hostess rings a bell or chime and says, "Each table should
decide who will be its host or hostess. That person will remain at the table for the whole
session. In a minute I will ask the rest of you to get up and move to different tables. When
everyone is seated in their new places, then the home table host or hostess can welcome the
new people and share with them key ideas and questions that emerged from their table's
earlier discussion. Then the others can share what occurred at their original tables."
At the end of the second round, the presiding hostess/host asks everyone to return to their
home tables to compare notes with their original companions. At the end of this third round
most people in the room will have heard the ideas generated by the others in the Cafe.
In longer Cafe's, people can just keep moving from table to table.
The method gives permission for a more organic and naturalistic space in busy people’s lives
that provides the time to hear a range of other views, experiences and perspectives they might
otherwise not be heard.
References:
Source: http://www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_ComunityProcesses.html
For more details and variations of World Cafe, see the official World Cafe website:
http://www.theworldcafe.com/
or http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-worldcafe2.html
Peer support or ‘supervision’ (individual and collective) or/and
Professional supervision
These are ways of providing individual or group support, debriefing, reflection, and ‘sounding
board’ for staff by staff (or for consumer workers by consumer workers). Andree L’Estrange and
Ana da Silva suggest it would be better understood if it had a different name – such as ‘structured
reflection sessions’. Part of the problem is perhaps resolved by separating peer
support/supervision from professional managerial/hierarchical or clinical support/supervision.
Both may be important at different points in the inquiry cycle. Andree and Ana also distinguish
between onsite and external sources. The U&I staff-consumer research project detailed a
consumer-only peer support site as essential to enable consumers to participate in services
development inquiry processes (along with two other sites: staff-consumer dialogue and ordinary
decision-making practice sites). But the project also identified what it called the ‘missing 4th site’
– a wide range of ways for staff to be supported, particularly in their efforts to work with
consumers (as quality improvement consultants and representatives within services), but they
also recognised the analogy with supporting staff to do their ordinary work. They also saw it as
resting on the assumption that people get systemically stressed in human services and that this is
normal and to be expected (not a matter of personal pathology or weakness), and thus that the
organisation needed to routinely build in co-inquiry support processes and require their use.
References:
L’Estrange Andree & da Silva Ana ‘Professional supervision’ New Paradigm (the Australian
Journal of Psycho-Social Rehabilitation), VICSERV December 2001 pp. 9-11
Wadsworth, Yoland (Ed.) in ongoing association with Merinda Epstein The Essential U&I
VicHealth, Melbourne 2002
__________________