Boundary critique: Difference between revisions
Testedit to restored exact wording from source. I will have edit checked by MRG |
correcting quotation marks |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Boundary critique''' (BC) is the concept in [[critical systems thinking]], according to Ulrich (2002) that states that "both the [[meaning]] and the [[validity]] of professional [[proposition]]s always depend on boundary judgments as to what facts ([[observation]]) and norms (valuation standards) |
'''Boundary critique''' (BC) is the concept in [[critical systems thinking]], according to Ulrich (2002) that states that "both the [[meaning]] and the [[validity]] of professional [[proposition]]s always depend on boundary judgments as to what 'facts' ([[observation]]) and 'norms' (valuation standards) are to be considered relevant" or not.<ref>[[Werner Ulrich]] (2002). "Boundary Critique". in: ''The Informed Student Guide to Management Science'', ed. by H.G. Daellenbach and [[Robert L. Flood]], London: Thomson Learning, 2002, p. 41f.</ref> |
||
Boundary critique is among the array of general principles proposed for [[systems thinking]], with concepts like [[multiple perspective]]s, organization, and [[interconnectedness]]. Boundary critique is in a way identical to [[distinction making]] as both processes cause one to demarcate between what is in and what is out of a particular construct. Boundary critique may also allude to how one must be explicit (e.g., critical) of these boundary decisions. Distinction making, on the other hand, is autonomic—one constantly makes distinctions all of the time.<ref>Derek Cabrera (2006). [http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings50th/article/viewFile/403/161 "Boundary Critique: A Minimal Concept Theory of Systems Thinking"]. ISSS research paper.</ref> |
Boundary critique is among the array of general principles proposed for [[systems thinking]], with concepts like [[multiple perspective]]s, organization, and [[interconnectedness]]. Boundary critique is in a way identical to [[distinction making]] as both processes cause one to demarcate between what is in and what is out of a particular construct. Boundary critique may also allude to how one must be explicit (e.g., critical) of these boundary decisions. Distinction making, on the other hand, is autonomic—one constantly makes distinctions all of the time.<ref>Derek Cabrera (2006). [http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings50th/article/viewFile/403/161 "Boundary Critique: A Minimal Concept Theory of Systems Thinking"]. ISSS research paper.</ref> |
||
Revision as of 00:44, 10 October 2009
Boundary critique (BC) is the concept in critical systems thinking, according to Ulrich (2002) that states that "both the meaning and the validity of professional propositions always depend on boundary judgments as to what 'facts' (observation) and 'norms' (valuation standards) are to be considered relevant" or not.[1]
Boundary critique is among the array of general principles proposed for systems thinking, with concepts like multiple perspectives, organization, and interconnectedness. Boundary critique is in a way identical to distinction making as both processes cause one to demarcate between what is in and what is out of a particular construct. Boundary critique may also allude to how one must be explicit (e.g., critical) of these boundary decisions. Distinction making, on the other hand, is autonomic—one constantly makes distinctions all of the time.[2]
In 1970 C. West Churchman argued that what is to be included or excluded for any analysis of a situation is a vital consideration. Something that appears to be relevant to overall project improvement given a narrowly defined boundary, may not be seen as relevant at all if the boundaries are pushed out. Thus, he argues, as much information as possible should be 'swept in' to the definition of the intervention.[3]
In the 1980s Werner Ulrich extended this argument, and offered a detailed challenge to the idea that the boundaries of any system are given and linked to "social reality". They are social or personal constructs that define the limits of knowledge relevant to any particular analysis. From this position, pushing out the boundaries of an analysis, in the context of human systems, also involves pushing the boundaries of who may be considered a decision maker.[3]
In the practice of boundary critique, Ulrich in 2000[4] distinguished between different settings of BC within an action project:
- Self-reflective boundary questioning requires us to ask "What are my boundary judgements?".
- Dialogical boundary questioning requires us to ask "Can we agree on our boundary judgements?".
- Controversial boundary questioning requires us to ask "Don't you claim too much?".
References
- ^ Werner Ulrich (2002). "Boundary Critique". in: The Informed Student Guide to Management Science, ed. by H.G. Daellenbach and Robert L. Flood, London: Thomson Learning, 2002, p. 41f.
- ^ Derek Cabrera (2006). "Boundary Critique: A Minimal Concept Theory of Systems Thinking". ISSS research paper.
- ^ a b Carolyn Kagan, Sue Caton, Amisha Amin and Amna Choudry (2005). "Boundary critique' community psychology and citizen participation" Paper delivered to European Community Psychology Conference, Berlin, September 2004.
- ^ Werner Ulrich(2000). "Reflective Practice in the Civil Society: The contribution of critically systemic thinking". in: Reflective Practice;;, 1, (2) 247-268