T306- B

Block Five

The systemic practitioner

Being reflective, Becoming aware

  • Part One: Systems practice and the systems practitioner

Q: What is meant by Reflective practice?

A: It is a capacity to reflect on your practice, and your part in it, will give you access to a wide range of insights, to an ability to recognize traps that you may find yourself getting stuck in and to an ability to get out of these traps.

Q: Write about your experience as a system practitioner and draw a systemic diagram for learning from engaging with a complex situation?

  • In figure 1 the situation is represented by a spiky, irregular shape. I understand this to represent the messiness of the complex situation I encounter and the irregularity of their boundaries. Although there are some element of the situation that are clearly inside the boundary of the systems-of-interest, there are other parts of the situation where it is less obvious whether they are inside or outside the boundary I use to think about the issue.
  • Figurer 3, used by of the other distinguished lectures, the complex situation was represented by a wobbly-blob shape, which conveys a similar sort of idea. I have reproduced this variant of the diagram in Figure 3.
  • The main component in the diagrams is the practitioner. By contrast with the situation, the practitioner is represented by regular shape. This suggests to me that, unlike the situation, the practitioner is rational, uncomplicated and full describable. The regularity of the shape suggests that unlike the stakeholders in the situation-of-interest, the practitioner is uniquely rational and has a clear agenda about any action he or she might choose to take.

Q: In what ways does the practitioner as drawn in Figures 1 & 3 not represent your understanding of what it means to be a systems practitioner?

A: This practitioner was nothing like me. My experience of engaging with complex situations is:

  1. I do not feel very rational.
  2. The initial experience is of being confused, puzzled and sometimes even overwhelmed by the situation.
  3. I experience sometimes a sense of the impossibility of ever understanding the situation enough to be able to do something useful within it.
  4. For me one of the exciting features of systems thinking and practiced is that I know I can begin to make sense of what I initially experience as overwhelming complexity as I identify systems of interest within it.

Q: What is meant by a Systemic practitioner?

  1. The concept of systemic practitioner draws attention to the location of the systems practitioner with respect to the situation-of-interest.
  2. It means that the aware systems practitioner must not only think systemically about the situation-of-interest and their approach to it, but must also pay attention to their own part in a system of inquiry which includes herself or himself as well as their systems approach and the situation-of-interest.
  3. This is illustrated by the systems map in Figure 4 (p. 13) –important-.
  4. The systemic way in which the systems practitioner is an integral part of the system of inquiry can also be illustrated by an influence diagram. This is shown in Figure 5 (p. 13) –important-.

Q: Critically explain the concepts of 'system of inquiry' and 'system of interest' and 'situation of interest'. Use relevant business examples to explain them. Final 2010

A: To discuss such framework, I've to draw the suitable diagrams showing the situation of that and its improvement.

  • Diagram in figure 4 (system map)  showing how the system of inquiry in which a system practitioner uses a system approaches to address a situation of interest.
  • Diagram in figure 5 (influence diagram)  showing the system of inquiry in which the systemic role of the system practitioner is explicitly recognized.

I have to explain each type as following:

  1. System of Interest: where stakeholder interested their perspective (individual, group of individual) in a system.

For example: in our university the system of interest will be the education system which includes the tutors, students, study materials, assignments and other supporting items.

  1. System of Inquiry: where it can be explained in how you proceed and inquiry about your system and how you inquire for the part of system.

For example: in the same example of university how to inquire about the following (Class, PC, Network, Rules and Regulations).

  1. Situation of Interest: where in that issue is to find the sum total of system of Interest involved in the situation, so they named as situation of interest.

Q: How beliefs become self-reinforcing?

A: Recognizing that what I think of as the 'real world' is a self-constructed model, based on signals which cannot be verified, can be disconcerting, even when I am used to the idea. When my beliefs are strong enough to generate certainty, I no longer question them. When I no longer question my belief then I become self-reinforcing.

Q: Draw a multiple-cause diagram to show how strongly held beliefs become self reinforcing?

  • Self reinforcing belief is a system because they are purposive.
  • Self reinforcing belief is problematic because it prevents SP seeing important features of the situation of interest.

Q: Draw a control-model diagram illustrating the phenomenon of self-reinforcing belief systems?

  1. A suitable starting point is a transformation model which can be thought of as a system to make a belief stronger. This gives the control model a goal and a transformation which, when it is working, transforms a belief into reinforced belief.
  1. The goal of this system acts to make the system work by regulating the evidence that is accepted. This leads to the full control model.

Q: In what way can self-reinforcing beliefs be regarded as systems?

A: Self-reinforcing beliefs can be said to be systems because they are purposive. It is as if they had the purpose of sustaining themselves.

Q: Identify the main characteristics of practice, of whatever kind, that might be implied by the term professional?

  1. Professional: having or showing great skills or a skilled practitioner or person who works in a skilled occupation, specialist.
  2. Professionalism: Assumes the practitioner will endeavor to set aside purely personal preferences in favor of achieving good resolutions in problematic situation.

Q: Indicate which characteristics might be thought of as common to all uses of the professional practice, and those which may only apply in some contexts?

Concerning the practitioner / Concerning the client, or recipient of the practice / Concerning the practice or the domain of practice
  1. Having high level of expertise, competence and knowledge.
  2. Being efficient.
  3. Being qualified.
  4. Being paid.
  5. Being committed to professional development.
/
  1. Having a relationship with the client that respects their autonomy and that of other stakeholders.
  2. Acting in ways appropriate to the client's needs.
  3. Acting responsibly towards other.
  4. Putting the client's interests first.
/
  1. Being thorough, doing everything necessary to do a good job.
  2. Acting in ways appropriate to the situation.
  3. Being thoughtful in the use of one's expertise.
  4. Taking responsibility for one's own actions and their consequences.
  5. Knowing and operating within, the boundaries of own expertise and competence.
  6. Practicing ethically.
  7. Recognizing and respecting the expectations of practice.

Q: Explain the “Requisite Variety”?

A: The world is interesting because it is complex. We don’t understand it all, so, we have space to wonder at it. We perceive it as being capable of almost infinite variety and display a density of interconnectedness that defies understanding.

For example: The variety and interconnectedness of the human organism and the human brain allows people to survive and thrive in a variety of environment, including those generated by human activity. This interconnectedness makes the human organism and its relationship to its environment problematic to understand but not problematic in itself – quite the reverse.

Q: Explain the “Law of Requisite Variety”?

  1. Variety and interconnectedness is what enables us to deal with the world. Ross Ashby, one of the founding fathers of cybernetics, recognized their importance in adapting to circumstance and proposed his now famous Law of Requisite Variety.
  2. According to Ashby: The formal statement of this law is: “only variety can destroy variety” OR “if you can describe complexity, then it’s not complex any more’.
  3. To understand the law:

a) To describe variety and interconnectedness in something, we need at least as much variety and interconnectedness our self, otherwise cannot make the distinctions that describe the complexity we perceive.

b) By extension, I we have to have variety and interconnectedness our self to manage variety and interconnectedness.

c) By extension again, to adapt and survive, a system must be capable of at least as much variety as the environment that it has to respond to.

d) When a system, such as a human being, is exposed to perturbations in its environment, it may have a number of responses. These responses lead to a number of possible outcomes. Of all the possible outcomes, only some will be ‘acceptable’ in terms of the system’s purposes and survival. In practice, the law says that, in order to fulfill its purposes and survive, the system must be capable of a greater variety of responses than the variety of perturbations in its environment.

e) To short, the fewer the number of acceptable outcomes, then the more the variety of possible responses must exceed the variety of perturbations. The system then has requisite variety – the variety it requires to survive and fulfill its purpose.

f) So I need to be capable of variety in my thinking, actions and emotions to respond appropriately to the complexity I perceive in the situation-of-interest.

Q: Why do the author claims that complexity, perceived in a situation-of-interest, should not Automatically be perceived as problematic?

  1. The perception of complexity is often accompanied by a perception that something is problematic to understand, or problematic to describe. This is not the same as being inherently problematic.
  2. The perception of complexity may also be perceived as a capacity for a variety of adaptive responses to the environment – particularly in human beings.

Q: There are two obstacles to asking questions about the practitioner’s role in their own systems practice. What are these obstacles?

  1. The suspicion that there is something unwholesome, self-indulgent or self centered about thinking deeply about oneself.
  2. The suspicion that asking questions about oneself and one’s systems practice might reveal unwelcome answers.

Q: how did the author think they could be overcome?

  1. The first obstacle be addressed by recognizing the suspicion as a cultural one; by:

a) Recognizing that asking such questions are necessary for systemic coherence;

b) And by recognizing that the inquiry has a practical purpose.

  1. The second obstacle can be addressed by:

a) Recognizing that a unwillingness to deal with particular questions signals a preexisting recognition of something that needs attention, and which it is easier to address than to avoid.

b) Recognizing that insights gained will also be positive and welcome.

Q: What are the questions asked by systems practitioners about the situation and the systems practitioner's action in it?

  1. What actually happened in this situation, after I engaged with it?
  2. Did the situation improve?
  3. Were there negative outcomes that could have been avoided?
  4. How do I provide for unintended consequences?
  5. How much consent do I need from others to act in the problem situation? Where does my action get its legitimacy?

Q: What are the questions asked by systems practitioners about problem owners and stakeholders?

  1. Who am I trying to help? (The person who asks me to do the job? the problem owner? my colleagues? the recipient of the report? the organization? someone else? me?)
  2. Did I avoid buying into the stakeholders' possibly unrealistic expectations of my role, and their expectations of my capacity to help?
  3. How did I deal with the mismatch between the other stakeholders’ expectations and my own?
  4. What is the nature of my psychological contract1 with other stakeholders?
  5. How did I handle the inequities in power in my engagement with the person I am trying to help? These go both ways: my expertise; access to systems-language and outside view; and on the other side the client's money; capacity to fire me; capacity to act in the situation; etc.

Q: What are the questions asked by systems practitioners about the systems approaches used?

  1. How do I avoid my preferred systems approaches, methodologies and methods becoming traps?
  2. Can improvement be achieved more quickly, efficiently and painlessly using some other approach? (This has to include the uncomfortable question of whether the situation might improve more effectively without me.)
  3. Was X the right systems approach to use?
  4. What would have happened if I had used the Y approach rather than the X approach?
  5. Why is that I find influence diagrams so hard to draw?

Q: What are the questions asked by systems practitioners about the systems approaches used?

  1. Did I have the necessary expertise for this task?
  2. Did I buy into pre-existing definitions of the problem or opportunity?
  3. How do I evaluate my performance?
  4. How are my presuppositions limiting my view of the problem?
  5. How do I become more aware of myself and my practice?
  6. What are my motivations in engaging in this activity?
  7. How do I deal with my dysfunctional motivations to avoid them getting in the way?

Q: who do you Responding to the questions about practice?

a) Questions, 1, 3 & 4 seem to address difficulties. That is to say, although I do not necessarily know the answers to the questions, I know what the answers might look like and how I might set about finding those answers.

b) Questions 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 & 18 seem to address areas on the boundary between difficulties and messes. Of course, this boundary is not very sharply defined in any case but the side the questions fall on seems to depend on the circumstances of the particular situation the practitioner is engaged with.

c) Questions 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21 & 22 seem to be having some of the characteristics of messes. They each contain elements of uncertainty, are difficult to bound; there are multiple stake holdings, values, and there is a problem in deciding what would be recognizable as an answer.

d) Questions 19, 21 & 22 also have some of the characteristics of messes. They are questions about me and the sort of person I am. They are therefore unbounded, uncertain, and are influenced by my values. My values influence not only the answers, but the way the answers are formed.

Q: What is meant by Reflective practice?

A: It is a group of activities that allow the system practitioner to move towards achieving the goals to becoming more aware and of improving his practice. A fuller picture of reflective practice needs to include self-evaluation and self-knowledge. Learning, self-evaluation and self-knowledge are necessary features of the juggling act performed by the ideal system practitioner.

Q: Discuss based on your understanding and through suitable illustrations the concepts of reflection-in-action, reflection-on-action and reflection-before-action. Final May, 2010.مهم جدا جدا جدا

  1. Reflection before action:
  • It is where the practitioners stop to think about what they intend to do and how they intend to do it before they actually do it.
  • It might include game playing, simulations, process design, mental rehearsal and anticipatory thinking, as well as planning.
  • Also, somewhere between reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action is the practice of stop and think. Time for stopping and thinking is rarely allowed in project planning.
  1. Reflection-in-action:
  • This is the kind of reflection that occurs whilst a problem is being addressed, in what Schon calls the ‘action-present’. It is a response to a surprise – where the expected outcome is outside of our knowing-in-action.
  • The reflective process is at least to some degree conscious, but may not be verbalized. Reflection-in-action is about challenging our assumptions (because knowing-in-action forms the basis of assumption). It is about thinking again, in a new way, about a problem we have encountered.
  • It takes place when something unexpected happens and the practice is not going as planned. When this happens, the practitioner calls on their existing knowledge and experiences and formulates the next step.
  • Reflection-in-action takes place simultaneously with practice action, braiding theory-in-use, knowledge-in-use and practice, in a seamless whole. It may take place as pre-verbal thinking.
  • Knowledge-in-use pre-existing knowledge and experience used to formulate the next step.
  • Espoused knowledge  knowledge base held by practitioner.
  1. Reflection-on-action:
  • This is reflection after the event. Consciously undertaken, and often documented.
  • It involves:

a) Verbalization and representation.

b) Reflection on previous practice experience.

c) Interprets action in terms of espoused theory.

Example: My T306-Project:

  • Reflection before action:

Before I proceed on working on it, I think about the complexity that I will chose, collect information about it, think about how to organize my work and the style and methods that I will use, set a time schedule to be able to meet the project deadline without delay. This phase will help to reduce errors and organize my work more and focus on my goals.

  • Reflection-in-action:

I start the actual work on the project and start analyzing the situation. During my work, I faced a difficulty on applying a system method that I chose, I stopped and re-think again the suitability of the method and I found that I it is not suitable for the complexity that I am working on, so I had to redo my analyses again and try with another method. This situation was not expected and required an immediate action from me to be able to face it and move on to the next levels of working on my project.

  • Reflection-on-action:

After I will finish my project, this is when I will review all my work done and reflect on it, evaluate it and decide if my work and practice have helped me to reach my goal.

Q: Distinguish between reflection-before-action, reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action.

Reflection-before-action / Reflection-in-action / Reflection-on-action
Not a distinction made by Schon. / A distinction made by Schon. / A distinction made by Schon.
Takes place before action. / Takes place simultaneously with action as in-action reflection make in the heat of practice. / Retrospective reflection on previous action.
Includes scenario planning, simulation, etc. as forms of mental rehearsal / May take place as pre-verbal thinking; steers the course of action when action is not going according to plan. / Involve verbalization and representation of action.
Braids theory-in-use with practice. / Interprets action in terms of espoused theory.

Q: When learning from practice only becomes apparent?