Systems Thinking has a good track record when applied to improve problem situations confronting decision-makers and other stakeholders. It has developed a range of well-formulated methodologies capable of garnering its various theoretical insights and translating them into successful practice. In some cases, these methodologies have evolved as part of explicit programmes of Action Research. Peter Checkland's use of the FMA framework to perfect Soft Systems Methodology is the best example. The paper seeks to demonstrate that the FMA framework can be used to throw light on the development of a range of systems methodologies. A case can then be made for those wedded to other methodologies to explicitly adopt and utilize the FMA framework to further improve their own theories and competences. This is not enough, however, to ensure a healthy future for Systems Thinking as a whole. To unify the field and make the best use of the resources it has to offer, Action Research must also be conducted under the guidance of Critical Systems Practice and the EPIC framework.

This is the fourth of a series of papers on the stages of critical systems practice. Critical systems practice is a multimethodology that seeks to employ the ideas of critical systems thinking to intervene in and improve complex real-world 'messes'. It has four stages-Explore (the problem situation), Produce (an intervention strategy), Intervene (flexibly), and Check (on progress)-called to mind as EPIC. The aim is to set out where thinking has reached on the best way to carry out each of these stages and to invite comment on what more needs doing. This paper discusses the fourth stage, Check. During Check, decision makers, and other stakeholders, evaluate the intervention, reflect on what has happened with a view to improving future interventions, and discuss next steps.

The systems approach continues to lack agreed philosophical foundations. As a result, it has become fragmented and offers numerous different theories and methodologies. This proliferation of perspectives makes it difficult for those in other disciplines to interact with and learn from systems thinkers and vice versa. It also puts practitioners off. They are confused and find it hard to believe that the systems approach has the special capacity it claims for helping them succeed in the volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous world in which they have to act. This paper argues that the systems approach needs rebooting on the basis of the work of Bogdanov and the pragmatists if it is to realize its full theoretical and practical potential. This task is less daunting than may at first appear. The systems approach has, often without realizing it, taken forward the tradition of thought initiated by Bogdanov and the pragmatists. This is true whether in the guise of general systems theory, cybernetics, complexity theory or systems methodologies. There is a bright future for the systems approach if it self-consciously embraces that philosophical tradition, further develops it and enhances its practice. A philosophically empowered systems approach, united in its aspirations, can play a leading role in improving life on our planet.

Systems Research and Behavioral ScienceVolume 40, Issue 4 p. 636-638 LETTER TO THE EDITOR In search of a golden mean for systemic evaluation: A response to Michael Quinn Patton Michael C. Jackson, Corresponding Author Michael C. Jackson [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0001-6837-7857 Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull, Hull, UK Correspondence Michael C Jackson, Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author Michael C. Jackson, Corresponding Author Michael C. Jackson [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0001-6837-7857 Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull, Hull, UK Correspondence Michael C Jackson, Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 10 February 2023 https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2938Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. REFERENCES Checkland, P. B. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley. Google Scholar Jackson, M. C. (2019). Critical systems thinking and the management of complexity. Wiley. Google Scholar Jackson, M. C. (2020). Critical systems practice 1: Explore—Starting a multimethodological intervention. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 37, 839–858. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2746 10.1002/sres.2746 Web of Science®Google Scholar Jackson, M. C. (2021). Critical systems practice 2: Produce—Constructing a multimethodological intervention strategy. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 38, 594–609. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2809 10.1002/sres.2809 Web of Science®Google Scholar Jackson, M. C. (2022a). Critical systems practice 3: Intervene—Flexibly executing a multimethodological intervention. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 39, 1014–1023. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2909 10.1002/sres.2909 Web of Science®Google Scholar Jackson, M. C. (2022b). Rebooting the systems approach by applying the thinking of Bogdanov and the pragmatists. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.10002/sres.2908 10.10002/sres.2908 Web of Science®Google Scholar Jackson, M. C. (2023). Critical systems practice 4: Check—Evaluating and reflecting on a multimethodological intervention. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 40, this issue. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2912 10.1002/sres.2912 Web of Science®Google Scholar Patton, M. Q. (2020). Blue marble evaluation: Premises and principles. The Guildford Press. Google Scholar Patton, M. Q. (2023). Letter to the editor. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 40, this issue. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2927 10.1002/sres.2927 Web of Science®Google Scholar Volume40, Issue4Special Issue: Systems thinking for creative and flexible practiceJuly/August 2023Pages 636-638 ReferencesRelatedInformation

AbstractThis paper is a transcript of the dialogue between Carlo Rovelli and Mike Jackson after Rovelli's delivery of the 2021 Annual Mike Jackson Lecture, hosted by the Centre for Systems Studies at the University of Hull. The dialogue covers a range of topics, including how Rovelli developed a sense of curiosity in his youth; the connection between his interests in science and politics; the pathology of disciplinary divisions in academia; the value of Bogdanov's transdisciplinarity; Rovelli's theory of quantum gravity; the notions of granularity, indeterminism and relationality underpinning quantum mechanics; the role of the observer; mistaken uses of quantum mechanics; relational and network views of the world; how the discipline of Physics is becoming more systemic; the concept of levels of analysis in relation to nature and human inquiry; and the future for humanity.

Alexander Bogdanov (1873-1928) was a Russian social theorist and revolutionary activist whose 'universal organizational science', or Tektology, is increasingly being recognized as offering stronger foundations for the systems approach than the later 'general system theory' of Ludwig von Bertalanffy. Had his thinking not been suppressed by Stalin, the course of Soviet history might have been different. Stafford Beer (1926-2002) was a British management scientist and consultant who was a pioneer in the development of 'organizational cybernetics'. His best-known engagement was with the government of Salvador Allende, in Chile, seeking to use his 'viable system model' to create a socialist society that did not rest on a command economy. This experiment was cut short by the Pinochet coup d'etat. I have found no evidence that Beer was familiar with the work of Bogdanov, and this makes the similarities in their thinking particularly striking. This paper explores the ideas they shared in common. The work of other writers who have drawn on the work of Bogdanov and Beer, in formulating contemporary visions of post-capitalism, is highlighted.

This is the third of a series of papers on the stages of critical systems practice. Critical systems practice is a multimethodology that seeks to employ the ideas of critical systems thinking to intervene in and improve complex real-world problem situations. It has four stages-Explore (the problem situation), Produce (an intervention strategy), Intervene (flexibly) and Check (on progress)-called to mind as EPIC. The aim is to set out where thinking has reached on the best way to carry out each of these stages and to invite comment on what more needs doing. This paper discusses the third stage, Intervene. It is concerned with executing a flexible multimethodological intervention in accordance with the agreement reached by decision makers, and other stakeholders, at the end of the previous stage. The theoretical and practical problems associated with multimethodological interventions are discussed, and solutions and ways forward are suggested based on the philosophy of pragmatism.

The paper sets out a range of challenges facing ministry in today's increasingly regulated church contexts. Noting the three foci of prophet, priest and king in the Christian's self-understanding as a disciple of Jesus Christ, the paper goes on to make the case for looking afresh at the prophetic role of the bishop as a member of the community of faith. The bishop, it is argued, speaks from within the community of the church, as the church seeks to engage fruitfully with the world outside the confines of the church. A reassessment of the use of the imagery of the rod and the staff from psalm 23 in the life of episcopacy is offered as the paper explores the sacramentality of ordination.

The paper considers general system theory, cybernetics, and other systems ap­proaches and argues that later systems thinking and cybernetics (systems/cyber­netics) can be seen as a part of the same tradition of thought. There is a prima facie case, therefore, the philosophy of Bogdanov and the Pragmatists can bring unity to the systems movement. Further, it can equip systems thinkers to participate more fully in the major intellectual debates of today. The paper shows the reso­nance of Bogdanov’s ideas with the basic philosophical foundations for the forma­tion and development of systems thinking and cybernetics. Wiener, usually seen as representative of first-order cybernetics, reaffirmed the importance of Bogdanov’s concept of the biregulator. In terms of second-order cybernetics, there is a similar­ity between Bogdanov’s thinking and “constructivism”. Bogdanov’s work is also associated with the concepts of autopoiesis and self-organization. Lepskiy’s pro­posed paradigm of third-order cybernetics, with its emphasis on social values in a self-developing environment, is in tune with the writings of Bogdanov and Dewey. Bogdanov, in his Tectology aimed to demonstrate how the most compli­cated organizational questions faced by humankind could be answered. The paper concludes that the self-conscious embrace of that philosophical tradition, together with its own methodologies and models, can help of the cybernetic movement turn the vague aspirations into the reality of a better future on Earth.

This is the second of a series of papers on the stages of critical systems practice. Critical systems practice is a multimethodology that seeks to employ the ideas developed in critical systems thinking to intervene in and improve complex real-world problem situations. It has four stages-Explore (the problem situation), Produce (an intervention strategy), Intervene (flexibly) and Check (on progress)-called to mind as EPIC. The aim is to set out where thinking has reached on the best way to carry out each of these stages and to invite comment on what more needs doing. This second stage, Produce, is concerned with the design of an appropriate multimethodological intervention strategy based on the outcomes of Explore. The first pass through the Produce stage concludes when it becomes possible to set objectives for the intervention and to structure and schedule its delivery.

This paper draws lessons from the Ebola Virus Disease epidemic to suggest how health systems research can be strengthened to assist better with preparedness for and mitigation of future public health emergencies The epidemic killed more than 11 000 people in West Africa between February 2014 and January 2016 The causes of the epidemic and the response to the outbreak harbour many lessons concerning how health systems were overwhelmed and need to be re-designed in order to cope with future public health emergencies and limit their escalation From these lessons, it is possible to identify the most significant systemic issues that must be addressed to ensure health systems can exhibit greater resilience in the face of similar events in the future The paper goes on to consider the current capacity of health systems research (HSR) to assist with the management of these issues and to suggest that critical systems thinking and practice could empower health systems researchers and practitioners in a manner that would give them much greater potency The research has additional importance now that Covid-19 has demonstrated that pandemics are not ‘black swan’ events © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Systems Research and Behavioral ScienceVolume 38, Issue 1 p. 3-4 EDITORIAL Bowing out … Michael C. Jackson, Corresponding Author M.C.Jackson@hull.ac.uk Search for more papers by this author Michael C. Jackson, Corresponding Author M.C.Jackson@hull.ac.uk Search for more papers by this author First published: 19 January 2021 https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2773Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume38, Issue1January/February 2021Pages 3-4 RelatedInformation

The International Council on Systems Engineering has long declared a wish to extend the scope of application of systems engineering from its traditional sphere of complex technical systems to more complex sociotechnical systems. The Segura River reclamation project was a successful systems engineering project, involving water treatment and management and environmental regeneration, which falls squarely into the latter category. Taking lessons from this project, the paper sets out to understand the circumstances in which systems engineering can be successful in guiding and managing interventions in nontraditional domains such as transportation, housing, infrastructure, health and environmental systems. This involves an analysis using critical systems thinking. The paper also seeks to suggest how systems engineering must change to ensure success in circumstances that are less propitious for its theory and practice than in the Segura case.

This is the first of a series of papers on the stages of critical systems practice. Critical systems practice is a multimethodology that seeks to employ the ideas developed in critical systems thinking to intervene in and improve complex real-world problem situations. It has four stages-Explore(the problem situation),Produce(an intervention strategy),Intervene(flexibly) andCheck(on progress)-called to mind asEPIC.The aim is to set out where thinking has reached on the best way to carry out each of these stages and to invite comment on what more needs doing. The first stage,Explore, is concerned with how to start a multimethodological study. If this is done well, it can bring to the fore opportunities for a full and in-depth systems intervention. If done badly, it can lead to practice that makes the problem situation worse.

Many authors have sought to summarize what they regard as the key features of “complexity”. Some concentrate on the complexity they see as existing in the world—on “ontological complexity”. Others highlight “cognitive complexity”—the complexity they see arising from the different interpretations of the world held by observers. Others recognize the added difficulties flowing from the interactions between “ontological” and “cognitive” complexity. Using the example of the Covid-19 pandemic in the UK, and the responses to it, the purpose of this paper is to show that the way we understand complexity makes a huge difference to how we respond to crises of this type. Inadequate conceptualizations of complexity lead to poor responses that can make matters worse. Different understandings of complexity are discussed and related to strategies proposed for combatting the pandemic. It is argued that a “critical systems thinking” approach to complexity provides the most appropriate understanding of the phenomenon and, at the same time, suggests which systems methodologies are best employed by decision makers in preparing for, and responding to, such crises.