See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330909705

Critical Systems Thinking and Practice

Article  in  European Journal of Operational Research · February 2001

CITATIONS READS
58 3,234

1 author:

Michael C Jackson
University of Hull
169 PUBLICATIONS   7,009 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Critical Systems Thinking View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael C Jackson on 04 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244
www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

Critical systems thinking and practice

Mike C. Jackson *

The Business School, University of Hull, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK

Abstract

Critical systems thinking and the methodologies associated with it were developed precisely to allow analysis of
complex societal problems and intervention to resolve such problems. Early approaches employing systems ideas, such
as operational research, systems analysis and systems engineering, were suitable for tackling certain well-de®ned
problems, but were found to have limitations when faced with complex problems involving people with a variety of
viewpoints and frequently at odds with one another. Systems thinkers responded with approaches such as system
dynamics and organisational cybernetics to tackle complexity; soft systems methodology (SSM) and interactive
planning to handle subjectivity; and critical systems heuristics to help the disadvantaged in situations involving con¯ict.
There was a corresponding enlargement of the range of problem contexts in which they felt competent to intervene. It
has been critical systems thinking, however, which has supplied the bigger picture, has allowed systems thinking to
mature as a discipline and has set out how the variety of methodologies now available can be used together in a co-
herent manner to promote successful intervention in complex societal problem situations. This paper outlines, at the
request of the editor of this special issue, my involvement in developing critical systems thinking and practice, describes
its origins, nature and use, and sets out a programme for future research in the area. Ó 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All
rights reserved.

Keywords: Systems; Complexity; Cybernetics; Management; Philosophy

1. Introduction of di€erent ways of analysing and intervening in

The ideas that have inspired critical systems
thinking derive from two sources ± social theory
and systems thinking itself.
Of particular importance, in the social sciences,
has been work that allows an overview to be taken
*
Tel.: +44-1482-466309; fax: +44-1482-466097.
E-mail address: m.c.jackson@hubs.hull.ac.uk
organizations. For example, Burrell and MorganÕs
(1979) book on sociological paradigms and orga-
nizational analysis, and MorganÕs (1986) examin-
ation of `images' of organization, have enabled
critique of the assumptions di€erent systems ap-
proaches make about social science, social reality
and organizations. Critical social theory, from
Marx through to Habermas and Foucault, has
also had a signi®cant role to play. From Marx
came recognition of the inequalities in capitalist
society and exploitative relationships in many en-

0377-2217/01/$ - see front matter Ó 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 7 - 2 2 1 7 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 6 7 - 9
234 M.C. Jackson / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244
terprises. HabermasÕ (1970, 1975) theory of three
human interests, the technical, practical and
emancipatory, and his warnings about the domi-
nance of instrumental reason (wedded to the
technical interest) informed re¯ection on the role
of the various systems methodologies and pro-
vided justi®cation for early attempts to conceptu-
alize them as complementary since they could be
seen as addressing di€erent interests. His later
work (Habermas, 1984) on `communicative com-
petence' and `the ideal speech situation' permitted
critique of the aspirations of SSM in particular.
The work of postmodernists such as Lyotard and
Foucault (see Jackson, 1991), focusing on the op-
eration of the power/knowledge nexus, has led to a
questioning of the legitimacy of all `systematising'
and `totalizing' endeavours, and has demanded a
response from critical systems thinking.
From systems thinking itself, critical systems
thinking inherited a set of powerful concepts, such
as system, element, relationship, boundary, input,
transformation, output, environment, feedback,
emergence, communication, control, identity and
hierarchy. If the systems movement had failed in
its early aspirations (see von Bertalan€y, 1968) to
create a `general system theory' setting out the
laws governing the behaviour of all systems,
whatever their type, it did manage to give birth to
a range of methodologies, based upon the systems
concepts, for intervening in and seeking to im-
prove problem situations. It is arguable that there
are two reasons why these methodologies should
have proved so successful. First, problems in the
real-world do not correspond to traditional dis-
ciplinary boundaries and the systems concepts
encourage interdisciplinary or, at least, multidis-
ciplinary practice. Secondly, the systems concepts
enshrine a commitment to `holism' ± to looking
atthe world in terms of `wholes' that exhibit
emergent properties, rather than believing, in a
reductionist fashion, that insight comes from
breaking wholes down into their fundamental
elements. Holism has proved a useful antidote to
reductionism when tackling real-world problem
situations.
Critical systems thinking recognises that social
theory and systems thinking possess complemen-
tary strengths and weaknesses. The social sciences
are strong on theory, on thinking about the on-
tological and epistemological assumptions that go
into gaining knowledge, but they are weak on
practice. It seems clear that the theoretical pre-
suppositions used for studying the social world
will also have implications for how one might in-
tervene in social reality. However, social scientists
rarely seem to draw out these implications in terms
of speci®c guidance for what should be done in
changing organizations and society. Applied sys-
tems thinkers, on the other hand, are dedicated to
practice but often neglect theory. It is equally ob-
vious that any attempt to change the world rests
upon taken-for-granted assumptions about the
nature of that world. Hidden in the commonsense
or craft knowledge of the systems practitioner are
ontological and epistemological presuppositions.
In not exploring these, systems thinking has failed
to take full advantage of opportunities to learn
from practice and to develop as a discipline.
Critical systems thinking seeks to draw on the
respective strengths of social theory and systems
thinking. Social theory provides material for the
enhancement of existing and the development of
new systems approaches. Not all the ®ne theoret-
ical distinctions drawn by social scientists make a
di€erence when applied in the real-world, but some
are of considerable importance and must be re-
garded as crucial for systems practice. Social the-
ory also provides the means whereby systems
practitioners can re¯ect on and learn from their
interventions. From the other side, systems
thinking can assist in the task of translating the
®ndings of social theory into a practical form and
encapsulating those ®ndings in well-worked out
approaches to intervention. The success of systems
thinking in linking theory and practice provides a
model which, I have argued (Jackson, 1997a), can
be used in information systems and, indeed, in the
applied disciplines generally.
In retrospect, and the rules of this special issue
require that we give some personal details, I can
see that my background and inclinations ®tted me
to be a critical systems thinker. I originally went to
Oxford to study history but during the ®rst year
changed my degree course to Politics, Philosophy
and Economics. By the third year I was studying
the maximum number of sociology courses avail-
 M.C. Jackson / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244
able at Oxford and had become a social scientist.
After my ®rst degree, I entered the civil service, as
a tax inspector, for four years, picking up my ®rst
practical experience of working in an organization.
The job o€ered me plenty of time for study and I
engaged on an intensive reading programme, im-
mersing myself in the Marxist classics and be-
coming acquainted with the early work of
Habermas and Foucault. I was particularly in¯u-
enced by Althusser and his notion of society as a
structured totality in which the various parts as-
sumed relationships of dominance and depen-
dence. There are echoes of this in `total systems
intervention' (TSI) (Flood and Jackson, 1991a).
During this period, I also continued a peripheral
involvement (which had begun in school, around
1968) with various left-wing groupings and causes.
By 1977 I had had enough of life in an arche-
typical bureaucracy and also wanted to continue
my study of social systems more formally. I joined
the MA Systems in Management course, which
had been developed by Peter Checkland at Lan-
caster University. It was an interesting time to be
at Lancaster. The Burrell and Morgan book was
about to go to press and ChecklandÕs `soft' systems
methodology was maturing into the form it took in
his 1981 classic Systems Thinking, Systems Prac-
tice (Checkland, 1981). I took a kind of detached
interest in applied systems thinking always viewing
the methodologies available through a social the-
ory lens. My 1978 dissertation `Considerations on
Method' was an analysis of applied systems
thinking from the point of view of social science
and argued for a critical systems approach. Full
appreciation of the practical value of systems
methodologies did not come until I began to teach
them myself, and use them in the real-world, some
years later.
After Lancaster I moved to Warwick Univer-
sity to study for a Ph.D. in organizational beha-
viour. I abandoned Warwick after one year,
however, to take up appointment as a lecturer in
the Department of Operational Research at the
University of Hull. This department, at the time,
was moving away from `hard' operational research
and seeking students in management. There was
space for new thinking and a new research pro-
gramme. The ideas that we have seen as crucial to
235
critical systems thinking had started to come to-
gether in my mind. Circumstances had contrived
to allow me to make my contribution to the de-
velopment of critical systems thinking and prac-
tice.
2. Origins
Until the 1970s systems thinkers, whether the-
orists or practitioners, operated from within the
same paradigm. Summarizing, it was assumed that
systems of all types could be identi®ed by empiri-
cal observation of reality and could be analyzed by
essentially the same methods that had brought
success in the natural sciences. Systems could then,
if the interest was in practice, be manipulated the
better to achieve whatever purposes they were
designed to serve. Systems thinking until the
1970s, therefore, was dominated by positivism and
functionalism. This was true of strands of work as
otherwise diverse as general system theory, con-
tingency theory, socio-technical systems theory,
operational research, systems analysis, systems
engineering, system dynamics and management
cybernetics.
During the 1970s and 1980s, however, this
traditional systems thinking became the subject of
increasing criticism, particularly from those who
felt that it was proving unable to deal with ill-
structured and strategic problems, and so was
holding back the development and in¯uence of the
discipline. One outcome of this was that some
ÔhardÕ systems approaches, such as RAND style
systems analysis (see RAND in Gass and Harris,
1996), underwent development in a `softer' direc-
tion. Another reaction was to create alternative
systems approaches building on di€erent founda-
tions. So, for example, organizational cybernetics
(Beer, 1972), soft systems thinking (Churchman,
1971; Acko€, 1974, and Checkland, 1981), and
critical systems heuristics (Ulrich, 1983) came to
the fore. Very roughly, organizational cybernetics
was a response to the failure of the traditional
approach when confronted with extreme com-
plexity; soft systems thinking a response to its in-
ability to handle human and social aspects of
problem situations; and critical systems heuristics
236 M.C. Jackson / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244
a reaction to its innate conservatism. Not sur-
prisingly these new tendencies in systems thinking
found themselves at war not only with the tradi-
tional approach but also with each other, for they
rested upon di€erent philosophical and sociologi-
cal assumptions, and were opposed on funda-
mental matters concerning the nature and purpose
of the discipline.
Critical systems thinking draws heavily upon
both traditional systems thinking and the newer
systems approaches, methodologies, models and
methods developed, in the 1970s and early 1980s,
by those who found hard systems thinking (as the
traditional approach is often called) too limiting.
It has taken note of the contributions of the great
pioneers of applied systems thinking and, in the
1980s and 1990s, has made of these e€orts more
than the sum of their parts. The goal it has set
itself is to reconstitute systems thinking as a uni-
®ed approach to problem management so that it
can again stand at the leading edge in the devel-
opment of the management sciences. This involves,
®rst, showing the complementary role that the
various systems methodologies can play in the
overall task of managerial decision-making and
problem management (thus it can be recognized
that diversity is a sign of strength in the systems
movement and not an indication of weakness);
and, second, demonstrating the power of systems
thinking as a source of theoretical support and
practical guidance in the management sciences ±
support that has been reinforced rather than
threatened by the establishment of alternative
systems approaches such as soft systems thinking,
organizational cybernetics and critical systems
heuristics.
Progress towards realising the goal of critical
systems thinking has involved many people. Two
books are recommended to readers who want to
understand the broader context of its development
and the contributions of others such as Flood,
Fuenmayor, Mingers, Oliga and Ulrich. These
books are Critical Systems Thinking: Directed
Readings (Flood and Jackson, 1991b) and Multi-
methodology (Mingers and Gill, 1997). The ac-
count I shall give here necessarily concentrates on
the role played by myself and my collaborators in
the Department of Operational Research (later
Management Systems and Sciences) and Centre
for Systems Studies, both University of Hull.
Critical systems thinking and practice has been
consistently developed, matured and re®ned in
these environments, over a period of 18 years,
since my appointment in Hull in 1979. We can
trace this process by considering how critical sys-
tems thinking and practice came to embrace four
related elements: speci®c criticisms aimed at par-
ticular systems approaches; the explicit call for a
systems approach that recognised `coercive' con-
texts; the attempt to reconstruct systems thinking
upon pluralist foundations; and the preliminary
operationalising of critical systems ideas in a meta-
methodology called TSI. Each of these elements is
discussed separately in what follows.
The ®rst step on the road to critical systems
thinking was to undertake a thorough and in-
formed (by social theory) examination of existing
systems approaches. Taking ChecklandÕs (1981)
demolition of the pretensions of hard systems
thinking as a lead, I embarked upon a similar
critique of the ambitions of soft systems thinking
(Jackson, 1982a) as expressed in the work of
Churchman, Acko€ and Checkland. Using Burrell
and MorganÕs framework, I argued that soft sys-
tems thinking is situated within the interpretive
paradigm in that its guiding assumptions are
`subjective' and `regulative'. These assumptions
constrain the ability of soft systems practitioners
to intervene, in the manner intended, in many
problem situations. Soft systems thinking, as hard
systems thinking, has a limited domain of appli-
cation. In particular (for those adopting a radical
perspective) in situations of fundamental con¯ict
or unequal access to power resources, soft systems
thinking either has to walk away or ¯y in the face
of its own philosophical principles and acquiesce
in proposed changes emerging from limited de-
bates characterised by distorted communication.
It was now obvious that all systems methodol-
ogies had their limitations, their weaknesses as well
as their strengths. A series of critiques of di€erent
systems approaches followed (e.g. Jackson
(1988a), on organizational cybernetics; and Jack-
son (1989a) on Ôstrategic assumption surfacing and
testingÕ), culminating in my (1991) review of ®ve
strands of systems thinking ± Ôorganisations as
 M.C. Jackson / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244
systemsÕ, hard, cybernetic, soft and emancipatory
± from the point of view of relevant social theory.
Another avenue to be explored by critical sys-
tems thinking now opened up. Once the strengths
and weaknesses of existing systems methodologies
were better understood, it was possible to ask
whether there were problem situations for which
no currently existing systems approach seemed
appropriate. The most obvious candidates were
ÔcoerciveÕ contexts, de®ned as situations where
there is little common interest shared between
stakeholders, there is fundamental con¯ict, and the
only consensus that can be achieved arises from
the exercise of power. Recognition that such con-
texts were important for management science led
to the ®rst explicit call (Jackson, 1982b; 1985) for a
Ôcritical approachÕ, in systems thinking, which
would take account of them. Thus a concern with
ÔemancipationÕ and the ethics of intervention,
which for me was the continuation of a political
agenda, came to be a de®ning characteristic of
critical systems thinking.
A third element of critical systems thinking
stemmed from the insight that, if all systems ap-
proaches have di€erent strengths and weaknesses,
it is sensible to use them, in combination, to ad-
dress di€erent problem situations and di€erent
purposes. To explore the potential of this, Paul
Keys and I, during 1983/84, initiated a research
programme, within the Department of Manage-
ment Systems and Sciences, University of Hull,
aimed theoretically at explaining the relationship
between di€erent systems-based methodologies,
and practically at discovering the ecacy of par-
ticular approaches in various problem contexts. I
have described the research programme, some
early practical examples of interventions, and its
pedagogical impact, elsewhere (Jackson, 1989b).
The theoretical tool at its heart was the Ôsystem of
systems methodologiesÕ (Jackson and Keys, 1984).
The system of systems methodologies rests upon
an Ôideal-typeÕ grid of problem contexts that can be
used to classify systems methodologies according
to their assumptions about problem situations.
The grid is made up of two dimensions; one de-
®ning the nature of systems, on a continuum from
ÔsimpleÕ to ÔcomplexÕ, and the other the nature of
the relationship between participants as ÔunitaryÕ
237
ÔpluralistÕ or ÔcoerciveÕ. Combining these classi®-
cations yielded a six-celled matrix of problem
contexts: simple±unitary, complex±unitary, sim-
ple±pluralist, complex±pluralist, simple±coercive
and complex±coercive. Hard systems approaches
were said to assume that problems are set in sim-
ple±unitary contexts; socio-technical, contingency
and cybernetic approaches were related to com-
plex±unitary contexts; various soft systems ap-
proaches were related to simple±pluralist and
complex±pluralist contexts; and it was hard to ®nd
systems methodologies which were based on co-
ercive assumptions.
The system of systems methodologies o€ered a
way forward from the prevailing Ômanagement
science in crisisÕ debate, which saw di€erent
problem-solving approaches in competition, be-
cause it presented the di€erent methodologies as
being appropriate for di€erent types of problem
context. It established ÔpluralismÕ as a central tenet
of critical systems thinking. A 1987 article of mine
was explicit in declaring for a ÔpluralistÕ develop-
mental future for systems thinking as opposed to
the ÔisolationistÕ, ÔimperialistÕ and ÔpragmatistÕ
tendencies also in the ®eld. Pluralism would re-
spect the strengths of the various trends in systems
thinking, encouraging their theoretical develop-
ment and suggesting ways in which they could be
appropriately ®tted to the variety of management
problems that arise. In these circumstances, a di-
versity of theory and methods could be seen to
herald not a crisis but increased competence and
e€ectiveness in a variety of di€erent problem sit-
uations. The same article established HabermasÕ
work as a signi®cant philosophical and sociologi-
cal foundation for pluralism in management sci-
ence. In terms of his anthropologically based
cognitive interests of the human species, hard and
cybernetic approaches could support the technical
interest, soft approaches the practical interest, and
critical approaches what Habermas de®ned as an
emancipatory interest (Habermas, 1970). Plural-
ism, it was stated, ``o€ers the best hope of re-es-
tablishing management science as a cohesive
discipline and profession ± and on ®rmer founda-
tions than those which supported the traditional
version'' (Jackson, 1987). A recent book, edited by
Mingers and Gill (1997), on multimethodology,
238 M.C. Jackson / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244
documents the current high level of interest in this
aspect of critical systems thinking.
The fourth element in the maturation of critical
systems thinking was the operationalising of its
key ideas in a practical meta-methodology which
was called TSI ± a product of an intellectual
partnership with Bob Flood. TSI was successful in
providing guidelines for the use of critical systems
ideas in practice, in that it employed critique of
di€erent systems approaches, respected the possi-
bility of ÔcoerciveÕ contexts and was based upon a
sophisticated form of pluralism in which method-
ologies adhering to di€erent paradigms were to be
used in the same intervention on the same problem
situation.
TSI (Flood and Jackson, 1991a,b) was built
around three phases ± creativity, choice and im-
plementation. The creativity phase gave recogni-
tion to the many di€erent views that were possible
of organizations and their problems, and encour-
aged managers and analysts to explore these
through the use of MorganÕs (1986) ÔimagesÕ; par-
ticularly the machine, organism, brain, culture and
coercive system metaphors. The aim was to take
the broadest possible critical look at the problem
situation but gradually to focus down on those
aspects most crucial to the organization at that
point in its history. Worthy of note is the attention
paid in ÔcreativityÕ to the possibility that the
problem situation could be perceived as coercive.
Having identi®ed the crucial problems for the or-
ganization, a ÔchoiceÕ had to be made of a suitable
systems methodology or methodologies to address
the problem situation. This was done on the basis
of a review of the strengths and weaknesses of the
di€erent methodologies conducted using the Ôsys-
tem of systems methodologiesÕ. ÔImplementationÕ
of change could then proceed by employing ap-
propriate methodologies singly or in combination.
As intervention proceeded the problems that had
earlier seemed to be crucial might fade into the
background and new ones emerge. This could be
catered for by continually cycling around the three
phases of TSI, with di€erent systems methodolo-
gies assuming the role of ÔdominantÕ and Ôdepen-
dentÕ in leading the intervention at particular
times. The whole meta-methodology was said to
be governed by an emancipatory commitment,
which was broadly de®ned to include improving
the human condition by increasing eciency and
e€ectiveness as well as ÔliberatingÕ individuals from
subjugation.
TSI has attracted a lot of comment both fa-
vourable (e.g. Green, 1993) and unfavourable (e.g.
Tsoukas, 1993). Flood (1995) has reacted to this
by seeking to further systematise and mechanise
the employment of critical systems thinking. I be-
lieve that a more fundamental recasting is neces-
sary. The result of this recasting, and the reasons
for it, are discussed in the next section of this pa-
per.
Critical Systems Thinking is a relatively recent
development in management science and has a
number of proponents. Attempting a de®nition of
the approach must, therefore, carry certain risks.
Nevertheless, the account I have provided suggests
that critical systems thinking is essentially about
putting all the di€erent management science
methodologies, methods and models to work, in a
coherent way, according to their strengths and
weaknesses, and the social conditions prevailing,
in the service of a general project of improving
complex societal systems. This ÔgeneralÕ project
embraces eciency and e€ectiveness at the same
time as giving attention to ethics, to empowerment
and to emancipation. Critical systems thinking,
today, continues to provide theoretically informed
critiques of systems approaches and management
models; continues to explore how to act in Ôcoer-
civeÕ contexts; and continues to debate the nature
of an appropriate pluralism for management sci-
ence. The emphasis of this special issue is, how-
ever, on methodology, and we shall therefore
concentrate on the contemporary guidelines pro-
vided for critical systems practice.
3. Contemporary character
I will now address, from a contemporary per-
spective, some further questions about how critical
systems thinking can be operationalised in order to
realise its full potential. These can be posed at the
level of methods, models and techniques (call all
these ÔtoolsÕ), at the level of methodology and at
the level of meta-methodology.
 M.C. Jackson / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244
It is a legitimate criticism of TSI (see Mingers
and Brocklesby, 1996) that it is in¯exible because it
emphasises the use of ÔwholeÕ methodologies. Once
an interpretive rationale is chosen as dominant.
For example, it seems that you must employ the
particular methods and techniques set out in
ChecklandÕs SSM or Acko€Õs interactive planning.
This lack of ¯exibility needs addressing. There is
nothing wrong with using a wide selection of tools,
as long as they are employed according to an ex-
plicit logic. This allows a much greater respon-
siveness to the peculiarities of each problem
situation as it evolves during an intervention.
The ¯exibility that can be gained by using
methods, models and techniques (perhaps nor-
mally associated with di€erent methodologies) in
combination, now seems to me to be essential to
critical systems practice. Methodologies can and
should be ÔdecomposedÕ if this seems appropriate.
Mingers and Brocklesby (1996) provide the ex-
ample of a system dynamics model, which would
usually be part of a ÔhardÕ methodology, being
used as a detailed cognitive map for the purposes
of enhancing debate in an interpretive framework.
Systems practitioners should be allowed the
greatest freedom possible to tailor their use of
tools to the complexities of the problem situation
they are seeking to intervene in and the exigencies
of that situation as it changes.
We have to be careful, however, to resist a re-
lapse into ÔpragmatismÕ. We cannot, as researchers,
allow the theoretically uncontrolled employment
of tools that seems common in management con-
sultancy. At any moment during an intervention
the use of the tools in combination should be in-
vested with a particular theoretical rationale
guaranteed because they are employed according
to the rules of a methodology serving a particular
paradigm. The maintenance of a conscious link
between methodology (as the study of the princi-
ples of method use) and the employment of the
tools, allows us to learn about the tools. The e-
ciency and e€ectiveness of methods, models and
techniques for servicing particular rationales can
be tested over time. We can ®nd out, for example,
if system dynamics models developed originally to
serve a hard methodology are indeed useful in the
context of an interpretive approach.
239
We have reached the level of the methodologies
which provide principles for the coherent use of
di€erent methods, models and techniques. Just as
at the level of ÔtoolsÕ, the complexity, heterogeneity
and turbulence of problem situations, requires that
systems practitioners operate in a pluralistic
manner, using di€erent methodologies based upon
alternative paradigms. We should seek to bene®t
from what each has to o€er. Critical systems
thinking can provide its greatest bene®ts only in
the context of paradigm diversity. This is not to
dismiss the usefulness of sometimes employing just
one methodology, embodying a particular para-
digm, to guide the use of a variety of methods,
tools and techniques. Such an approach needs to
be followed self-consciously, however, and to
permit changes of paradigmatic orientation. If it
occurs without due consideration, it degenerates
into ÔisolationismÕ or ÔimperialismÕ (see Jackson,
1987) and critical systems thinking is deprived of
the vitality it gains from that form of pluralism
which encourages the deployment of a variety of
methodologies, based upon di€erent paradigmatic
assumptions, to their full potential.
To ensure paradigm diversity it is essential to be
explicit about the link back to paradigms. We can
loosen the link between methodologies (like SSM)
and the tools usually associated with them, but we
must not loosen the link between methodologies
and the paradigms they represent. This requires
precise understanding of the theoretical under-
pinnings of di€erent methodologies. If such theo-
retical understanding is neglected then proper
paradigm diversity cannot be guaranteed. Meth-
odologies owing their allegiance to the same par-
adigm could be employed together in the mistaken
belief that ÔgenuineÕ pluralism was being observed.
A particular danger is that critical systems think-
ing would lose its radical edge. Because systems
practitioners often work in a paid capacity, for
powerful clients, there will be a tendency to restrict
the methodologies chosen for use. Paradigm di-
versity demands that pluralism be buttressed
against this by requiring it to give proper attention
to the development and employment of alternative
methodologies based on radical paradigms.
Another signi®cant point is that unless we un-
derstand the relationship between methodologies
240 M.C. Jackson / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244
and their theoretical underpinnings we cannot do
research which would allow us to operationalise
better the hypotheses of particular paradigms and
test the conclusions of these paradigms in real-
world interventions. Theoretically, informed
methodologies are essential for ensuring a healthy
link between theory and practice in critical systems
thinking.
All these arguments require that attention be
given to specifying the essence of methodologies
representing, at a minimum, functionalist, inter-
pretive and radical paradigms. Something like
Checkland and Scholes' (1990) constitutive rules
for the use of SSM are needed. These particular
rules are, however, overly restrictive for our pur-
poses, because they require adherence not only to
the underlying interpretive paradigm which guides
SSM but also to many of the speci®c tools which
Checkland has developed over time to support his
methodology. While paying the greatest respect to
the SSM research tradition, we would wish to
maintain an open mind on the usefulness of other
methods, models and techniques that might de-
liver, given sucient methodological care, for the
interpretive paradigm. Table 1 sets out some pre-
liminary constitutive rules for generic systems
methodologies serving, in Burrell and MorganÕs
(1979) terminology, the functionalist, interpretive
and radical paradigms. Readers should be able to
relate their own favoured OR/systems methodol-
ogy to it and, in the process, discover something of
the taken-for-granted assumptions of that ap-
proach as well as learning how the table can be
re®ned. More work needs to be undertaken to
explore the consequences of employing a larger
range of paradigmatic positions (postmodern, for
example), and perhaps adopting ®ner distinctions;
to clarify further the meaning of the rules in the
case of each paradigm; and to evaluate the success
of the rules in transferring the propositions of the
di€erent paradigms into practice and allowing
learning from practice which leads to adjustments
in particular paradigms.
At the level of meta-methodology, critical sys-
tems practice requires a di€erent theoretical prop
to that which supported TSI. It is no longer ten-
able to believe that paradigm incommensurability
can be resolved by reference to some meta-theory
such as HabermasÕ account of di€erent anthropo-
logically based human interests. MidgleyÕs (1995)
tactic of declaring methodological pluralism part
of a new paradigm is no solution, however. One
paradigm pluralism is simply not pluralism. I
prefer a modi®cation of TSI rather than its aban-
donment; although I prefer to call the modi®ed
approach Ôcritical systems practiceÕ, rather than
TSI, to underscore that it must be a research ve-
hicle for critical systems thinking and not simply a
consultantsÕ charter. In critical systems practice, a
meta-methodology is required which encourages
and protects paradigm diversity and handles the
relationships between the methodologies, based on
alternative paradigms, in order to address the
complexity and heterogeneity of problem situa-
tions at all stages of an intervention. The meta-
methodology accepts that paradigms are based
upon incompatible philosophical assumptions and
that they cannot, therefore, be integrated without
something being lost. It seeks to manage the
paradigms not by aspiring to meta-paradigmatic
status and allocating them to their respective tasks,
but by mediating between the paradigms.
Paradigms are allowed to confront one another on
the basis of Ôre¯ective conversationÕ (Morgan,
1983).
Critique is therefore managed between the
paradigms and not controlled from above the
paradigms. No paradigm is allowed to escape un-
questioned because it is continually confronted by
the alternative rationales o€ered by other para-
digms. How such a conversation between para-
digms can best be orchestrated needs further
research.
I need to be clearer about how to proceed at the
meta-methodological level. Here I would like to
draw attention to a somewhat neglected aspect of
TSI (Flood and Jackson, 1991a,b). In TSI an ex-
plicit choice of ÔdominantÕ methodology is made to
run an intervention, with ÔdependentÕ methodolo-
gies, re¯ecting alternative paradigms, in the back-
ground. The relationship between dominant and
dependent methodologies is, however, allowed to
change as the intervention proceeds in order to
maintain ¯exibility at the methodology level to set
alongside the ¯exibility we have sought at the level
of methods and tools.
 M.C. Jackson / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244 241

Table 1
Preliminary constitutive rules for generic systems methodologies based on functionalist, interpretive and radical rationales (expanding
on Checkland and Scholes, 1990)
(1) Systems methodologies are structured ways of thinking, related to di€erent theoretical rationales, focused on improving
some real-world problem situations
(2) Systems methodologies use systems ideas (system, boundary, emergence, hierarchy, communication, control, etc.) during
the course of intervention and frequently employ systems methods, models, tools and techniques, which also draw upon
systems ideas
(3) The claim to have used a systems methodology according to a particular rationale must be justi®ed according to the
following guidelines
Hard (functionalist) methodology Soft (interpretive) methodology Emancipatory (radical) methodology
(a) An assumption is made that the No assumption that the real-world An assumption that the real-world can
real-world is systemic is systemic become systemic in a manner alienating
to individuals and/or groups
(b) Analysis of the problem situation Analysis of the problem situation is Analysis of the problem situation is
is conducted in systems terms designed to be creative and may not designed to reveal who is disadvantaged
be conducted in systems terms by current systemic arrangements
(c) Models aiming to capture the Models are constructed which Models are constructed which reveal
logic of the situation are represent some possible Ôhuman sources of alienation and disadvantage
constructed enabling us to gain activity systemsÕ
knowledge of the real-world
(d) Models are used to learn how best Models are used to interrogate Models are used to ÔenlightenÕ the
to improve the real-world and for perceptions of the real-world and alienated and disadvantaged about their
the purposes of design to structure debate about changes situation and to suggest possible
which are feasible and desirable improved arrangements
(e) Quantitative analysis is useful Quantitative analysis is unlikely Quantitative analysis may be useful
since systems obey mathematical to be useful except to clarify especially to capture particular biases in
laws implications of world views existing systemic arrangements
(f) The process of intervention is The process of intervention is The process of intervention is systemic,
systematic and is aimed at systemic, is never-ending, and is is never-ending, and is aimed at
discovering the best way to aimed at alleviating unease about improving the problem situation for the
achieve a goal the problem situation alienated and/or disadvantaged
(g) The intervention is conducted on The intervention is best conducted The intervention is conducted in such
the basis of expert knowledge on the basis of stakeholder partici- a way that the alienated and/or
pation disadvantaged begin to take
responsibility for the process
(h) Solutions are tested primarily Changes that might alleviate Changes designed to improve the
in terms of their eciency and feelings of unease are evaluated position of the alienated and/or
ecacy primarily in terms of their disadvantaged are evaluated primarily
e€ectiveness, elegance and ethicality in terms of ethicality and emancipation
(4) Since each generic type of methodology can be used in di€erent ways in di€erent situations, and interpreted di€erently by
di€erent users, each use should exhibit conscious thought about how to adapt to the particular circumstances
(5) Each use of a systems methodology should yield research ®ndings as well as changing the real-world problem situation.
These research ®ndings may relate to the theoretical rationale underlying the methodology, to the methodology itself, to
the methods, models, tools and techniques employed, to the system to use each methodology, or to all of these

There remains the question of initial choice of
ÔdominantÕ methodology and how to e€ect changes
in status between methodologies once an inter-
vention has started. For various reasons, explored
elsewhere (Jackson, 1997a), there is a strong case
for always choosing an interpretive methodology
as initially dominant. Considering this in terms of
the phases of TSI, creativity will be conducted on
the basis of open discussion employing such tech-
niques as Ôrich picturesÕ. If models are introduced,
at the choice phase, they will be acting as Ôherme-
neutic enablersÕ (Harnden, 1990) to help structure
242 M.C. Jackson / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244
debate about particular issues, rather than being
taken as representations of the real-world. If eth-
ical issues arise during implementation they will be
for discussing among those involved, not insisted
upon as moral imperatives that cannot be ¯outed.
Of course there will be occasions when the models
introduced seem to ÔcaptureÕ so well the logic of the
situation and its problems that a shift to a func-
tionalist position will seem justi®able; the models
will be taken as representations of reality and a
shift made which establishes a functionalist meth-
odology as dominant. Similarly, if paradigm di-
versity is worth a candle, there will be occasions
when the ethics of the analyst, or relevant stake-
holders, will be so o€ended that the shift to an
emancipatory rationale becomes clearly necessary.
It is the language of moral imperatives that is then
talked, not the Ôbusiness ethicsÕ of making man-
agers more aware.
Making explicit the rationality underpinning
the methodology with which we are operating, and
being ready to switch rationality and methodolo-
gy, makes the initial choice of ÔdominantÕ ap-
proach less committing. The Ôhistoric compromiseÕ
with interpretive systems thinking is however, not
entirely without dangers. Embracing an interpre-
tive rather than a functionalist logic, as initially
dominant, is not so hard to take. Interpretive
thinking is attractive because it suggests we have
the freedom to design our own futures. Embracing
an interpretive rather than an emancipatory logic,
as initially dominant, is more dicult to stomach.
Enough horrors occur in organisations, in our own
society, and at the world level, to give us pause.
The emancipatory option must remain on the
agenda. As Churchman (1970) argued, the pro-
fessional management scientist sometimes needs to
consider whether it is desirable to help organisa-
tions commit suicide.
4. Uses
The point of critical systems practice is that it
brings appropriate methodologies and tools to
bear on problem situations whatever their nature.
Just looking at the examples in the original ac-
count of TSI (Flood and Jackson, 1991a,b), I can
see that the approach was used in interventions to
improve quality, in project management, in en-
couraging participation, in visioning, in crisis
management, in planning, in marketing, in orga-
nizational restructuring and in policy analysis. In
each case, TSI served the purpose of co-ordinating
the intervention and enabling learning to take
place. In later books (e.g. Jackson, 1991; Flood,
1995) more examples have been provided and
these have been in many types of organisation; big
and small, co-operative, voluntary, public and
private, as well as in multi-agency situations. An
information systems strategy project, with North
Yorkshire Police, has been written up with the
speci®c purpose of highlighting key occasions in
the intervention when critical systems practice
found ways forward where it is dicult to see how
other approaches could have been as successful
(Jackson, 1997b).
In keeping with its ÔinclusiveÕ orientation, and
my own political leanings, critical systems thinking
has played a signi®cant role in the development of
Community Operational Research (COR). In 1986
the Operational Research Society in the UK, in-
spired by its then President, Jonathan Rosenhead,
launched the COR initiative. The aim was to ex-
pand the range of ORÕs clients beyond the man-
agements of large organisations and, on the basis
of the challenges arising in assisting ÔalternativeÕ
clients, to develop available theories and method-
ologies to make them more appropriate to new
problem situations. OR Society funding allowed
the establishment of a Community OR Unit
(CORU) at the Northern College and the Centre
for Community OR at Hull University. At Hull it
was the Ôsystem of systems methodologiesÕ and
early work on critical systems thinking which
guided the COR research programme. The work
involved demonstrating how the theory and
methodological procedures advanced in critical
systems thinking could be utilised in COR prac-
tice. Examples are provided by Jackson (1988b,
1991). COR continues to ¯ourish in Hull, and as a
widespread activity, through the COR network, in
the U.K.
Today there are critical systems practitioners all
over the world ± in Australia, New Zealand, the
Far East, India, China, the Middle-East, South
 M.C. Jackson / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244
Africa, Tanzania, Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia
etc., as well as in Europe and the United States.
The journals Systems Research and Behavioral
Science (Wiley) and Systems Practice and Action
Research (Plenum), in particular, carry many ar-
ticles on the approach. The greatest concentration
of researchers, in one grouping, taking critical
systems thinking and practice forward, is now in
the Centre for Systems Studies, the Business
School, University of Hull, in the U.K. Within this
Centre are a group concerned with business sys-
tems, a Centre for Organisational Learning, a
Centre for Sustainable Development and the
Centre for Community OR. Current projects in-
volve Anglian Water, European Gas Turbines,
Humberside Training and Enterprise Council,
many community organisations and groups in
developing countries. Particular attention is being
given to the use of critical systems ideas in
creativity management, organisational learning,
information systems design, evaluation, sustain-
ability and social change.
5. Conclusions
I have elsewhere (Jackson, 1995) favourably
compared the research approach used to develop
critical systems thinking and practice with that
which brought quality management, business
process reengineering, and the learning organiza-
tion to the market. Critical systems researchers do
not claim to know the answer in advance or peddle
the same solution to all problems in all circum-
stances. Critical systems researchers seek to be
holistic and to ensure that theory both underpins
practice and is tested in practice. Finally, they are
clear that they should ask, as part of their project,
who bene®ts from the knowledge and advice pro-
vided? Ethical issues are put ®rmly on the agenda.
If this is a good start, there still remains much to
be done. This includes testing the diversity of tools
available, from the systems approach and the
management sciences generally, in the service of
di€erent rationalities; clarifying the constitutive
roles for functionalist, interpretive, emancipatory
and other forms of intervention; and learning how
to facilitate re¯ective conversation at the meta-
243
methodological level. Another vital element is the
establishment of more educational and training
programmes that embrace the challenges of critical
systems thinking and practice. If management
scientists are genuinely to become competent in
analysing complex societal problems and inter-
vening to resolve them, then the road marked out
by critical systems thinking and practice is one of
the few on which our discipline can progress.
References
Acko€, R.L., 1974. Redesigning the Future. Wiley, New York.
Beer, S., 1972. Brain of the Firm. Allen Lane, London.
Burrell, G., Morgan, G., 1979. Sociological Paradigms and
Organisational Analysis. Gower Press, Aldershot.
Checkland, P.B., 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice.
Wiley, Chichester.
Checkland, P.B., Scholes, J., 1990. Soft Systems Methodology
in Action. Wiley, Chichester.
Churchman, C.W., 1970. Operations research as a profession.
Management Science 17, B37±54.
Churchman, C.W., 1971. The Design of Inquiring Systems.
Basic Books, New York.
Flood, R.L., 1995. Solving Problem Solving. Wiley, Chichester.
Flood, R.L., Jackson, M.C., 1991a. Creative Problem Solving,
Total Systems Intervention. Wiley, Chichester.
Flood, R.L., Jackson, M.C. (Eds.), 1991b. Critical Systems
Thinking: Directed Readings. Wiley, Chichester.
Gass, S.I., Harris, C.M. (Eds.), 1996. Encyclopedia of Opera-
tions Research and Management Science. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht.
Green, S.M., 1993. Total systems intervention: A trial by jury.
Systems Practice 6, 295±299.
Habermas, J., 1970. Knowledge and interest. In: Emmet, D.,
MacIntyre, A. (Eds.), Sociological Theory and Philosoph-
ical Analysis, Macmillan, London, pp. 36±54.
Habermas, J., 1975. Legitimation Crisis. Beacon Press, Boston.
Habermas, J., 1984. Reason and the Rationalization of Society.
Beacon Press, Boston.
Harnden, R.J., 1990. The languaging of models. Systems
Practice, 289±307.
Jackson, M.C., 1982a. The nature of soft systems thinking: The
work of Churchman, Acko€ and Checkland. Journal of
Applied Systems Analysis 9, 17±29.
Jackson, M.C., 1982b. Verifying social systems theory in
practice: A critique. In: Troncale, L., (Ed.), A General
Survey of Systems Methodology, SGSR, Louisville, pp.
668±673.
Jackson, M.C., 1985. Social systems theory and practice: The
need for a critical approach. International Journal of
General Systems 10, 135±151.
Jackson, M.C., 1987. Present positions and future prospects in
management science. Omega 15, 455±466.
244 M.C. Jackson / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244
Jackson, M.C., 1988a. An appreciation of Sta€ord BeerÕs
Ôviable systemÕ viewpoint on management practice. Journal
of Management Studies 25, 557±573.
Jackson, M.C., 1988b. Some methodologies for community
OR. Journal of Operational Research Society 39, 715±724.
Jackson, M.C., 1989a. Assumptional analysis: An elucidation
and appraisal for systems practitioners. Systems Practice 2,
11±28.
Jackson, M.C., 1989b. Which systems methodology when?:
Initial results from a research programme. In: Flood, R.L.,
Jackson, M.C., Keys, P. (Eds.), Systems Prospects, Plenum
Press, London, 235±241.
Jackson, M.C., 1991. Systems Methodology for the Manage-
ment Sciences. Plenum Press, New York.
Jackson, M.C., 1995. Beyond the fads: Systems thinking for
managers. Systems Research 12, 25±42.
Jackson, M.C., 1997a. Pluralism in systems thinking and
practice. In: Mingers J., Gill, A. (Eds.), Multimethodology,
Wiley, Chichester, pp. 345±378.
Jackson, M.C., 1997b. Critical systems thinking and informa-
tion systems research. In: Mingers, J., Stowell, F. (Eds.),
Information Systems an Emerging Discipline, McGraw-
Hill, London, pp. 201±230.
View publication stats
Jackson, M.C., Keys, P., 1984. Towards a system of systems
methodologies. Journal of Operational Research Society 35,
473±486.
Midgley, G., 1995. What is this thing called critical systems
thinking? In: Ellis, K. et al. (Eds.), Critical Issues in Systems
Theory and Practice, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 61±71.
Mingers, J., Brocklesby, J., 1996. Multimethodology: Towards
a framework for critical pluralism. Systemist 18 (3), 101±
132.
Mingers, J., Gill, A. (Eds.), 1997. Multimethodology: The
Theory and Practice of Integrating OR and Systems
Methodologies. Wiley, Chichester.
Morgan, G. (Ed.), 1983. Beyond Method. Sage, Beverley Hills,
CA.
Morgan, G., 1986. Images of Organisation. Sage, Beverley
Hills, CA.
Tsoukas, H., 1993. The road to emancipation is through
organisational development: A critical evaluation of total
systems intervention. Systems Practice 6, 53±70.
Ulrich, W., 1983. Critical Heuristics of Social Planning. Haupt,
Bern.
von Bertalan€y, L., 1968. General System Theory. Penguin,
Harmondsworth.