Developing the methodology of TSI: From the oblique ... - Springer Link

Systems Practice, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1997

Developing the Methodology of TSI: From the Oblique Use of Methods to Creative Design Gerald Midgley 1

Received November 12, 1995; accepted November 31, 1996 During the last 13 years, a dialogue has been conducted in the Critical Systems literature on the subject of choice betwen methods. However, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, researchers went in two separate directions. One direction involved an exploration of the "creative design of methods." This is when the problem situation is understood in terms of a series of systemically interrelated research questions, each of which might need to be addressed using a different method, Or part of a method. A synthesis is generated that allows each individual research question to be addressed as part of a whole system of questions. The other research direction involved the development of "Total Systems Intervention" (TSI), a meta-methodology that, amongst other things, encourages the creative exploration of the problem situation prior to the choice of methods. One of the latest innovations in TSI is a theory of the "oblique" use of methods. This is the use of methods for purposes other than those they were originally designed for. However, it is argued here that all the case studies that have been subject to an "oblique" interpretation can be better explained if they are seen as examples of the creative design of methods. We can therefore bring together the two strands of research that have hitherto been pursued separately in the Critical Systems literature. It is suggested that TSI can be enhanced by an understanding of the creative design of methods because the latter allows us to explain the purposive, flexible, and responsive way in which TSI is most successfully used in practice. KEY WORDS: Critical Systems Thinking; Total Systems Intervention; systems methodology; multimethodology; choice of methods; creative design of methods; oblique use of methods; mixing methods; methodological pluralism; complementarism; Critical Systems Heuristics; Interactive Planning.

1. I N T R O D U C T I O N Critical S y s t e m s t h i n k e r s h a v e l o n g b e e n c o n c e r n e d w i t h the n o t i o n o f m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p l u r a l i s m (or " c o m p l e m e n t a r i s m " as it is s o m e t i m e s called). S i n c e the early 1980s, n u m e r o u s w r i t e r s h a v e a r g u e d that it is p o s s i b l e to c h o o s e b e t w e e n s y s t e m s m e t h o d s , o r take parts o f e x i s t i n g s y s t e m s m e t h o d s and c o m Centre for Systems Studies, Department of Management Systems and Sciences, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, U.K. 305 0894-9859/97/0600-0305512.50/0 9 1997 Plenum Publishing Corporation

306

Midgley

bine them into new forms. In the following pages I review some of the Critical Systems research on choice of methods, ending with a discussion of what Flood and Romm (1995a) call their "oblique" use. Flood and Romm define this as the use of methods for purposes other than those they were originally designed for. I intend to argue that, although they call this practice the oblique use of methods, it is better explained as a form of creative design. First, however, I need to clarify some terminology. During the 1980s and early 1990s, some Critical Systems thinkers used the words " m e t h o d " and "methodology" interchangeably. This caused a degree of confusion, as acknowledged by Flood and Romm (1995a). Here, I want to distinguish between a " m e t h o d , " meaning a series of techniques applied to some end, and a "methodology," meaning a theory of research practice that explains why a particular method(s) should or should not be considered valid or appropriate for given circumstances. However, when reviewing earlier works, I stick with the authors' original terminologies. 2. C H O I C E OF M E T H O D S Eady writers in the Critical Systems literature suggested that different systems methodologies make different assumptions about the problem situation being addressed (Jackson and Keys, 1984; Jackson, 1987). The task of the researcher is therefore to conduct an effective "diagnosis" of the problem situation and then choose an appropriate methodology. Following worries that this might be interpreted as a call for a "rule book" for the application of systems methodologies, Jackson (1990) made it clear that the diagnosis of a problem situation should not replace critical thinking about the reasons for intervention. It should simply be used as information so that the researcher can remain aware of the limitations of the methodology s/he is using and act appropriately.

2.1. The Creative Design of Methods In the late 1980s and early 1990s, several authors sought to extend this early work. Two directions were taken. 2 First, following reflection upon a particularly complex intervention, Midgley (1988) problematised the notion of simple methodology choice, arguing that many situations are so complex that a variety of methods are often needed to tackle them adequately. Therefore, it is more useful to think in terms of methodology design than simple choice between "off-the-shelf" methodologies. This line of research culminated in the introduction of the concept of creative methodology design (Midgley, 1990), which 2Since then, other directions have also opened up (see, e.g., Gregory, 1992; Midgley, 1992, 1997; Flood and Romm, 1995b, 1996; Mingers and Gill, 1997), but this paper is concerned only with the developments that occurred at the turn of the decade.

Developing the Methodology of TSI

307

involves understanding the problem situation in terms of a series of systemically interrelated research questions that express the purposes of the researcher (usually in dialogue with others), each of which might need to be addressed using a different method, or part of a method. These research questions are not necessarily determined as a complete set in advance but may evolve as events unfold and understandings of the situation develop. In line with the clarification of terminology provided earlier, I now wish to replace the phrase "creative methodology design" with the more appropriate creative design of methods. A particularly important idea in the creative design of methods is that the final method to be designed will be different from the sum of its chosen parts. It is not simply a matter of "stitching" methods together in an additive fashion: a synthesis is generated that allows each individual research question to be addressed as part of a whole system of questions. The precise meaning of the word " s y n t h e s i s " should become clear as the argument of this paper is explored through practical examples. The actual process of identifying research questions and designing appropriate methods may not be as formal as some reports of intervention using this approach might suggest. For example, Midgley and Floyd (1990) list a variety of situations they faced when evaluating a computer training service for people with disabilities, together with the choices of methods to which these situations gave rise. This kind of listing generates an impression of a meticulously preplanned approach. However, at times, the researcher can be faced with the need to make an instant decision on what intervention to make (say, when a strongly expressed disagreement surfaces during a workshop), and in such a circumstance the question " W h a t should I d o ? " might not be consciously articulated at all. The researcher may need to draw upon his or her knowledge and experience and act intuitively. However, when this happens, it is usually possible to reflect back on the situation and identify the connection between what was happening and the actions taken. This connection then tends to be described in reports as ifa question had been articulated. 3 Clearly, the final method that is implemented 31 havebeenjust as guiltyas other authors of writingreports of practice that hide the use of intuition. Upon reflection, I would now prefer to see the use of intuition made more visible so that we can begin to destroy the illusion so often created of flawlessly pre-planning interventions. To aid reflection on the choice of methods it is certainly useful to articulate those choices as questions, but in my view the retrospectivenature of their articulationshould be declared. If this suggestion is taken up, it could have several importanteffects. First, studentsof systems practice might feel less daunted by the prospect of interventionif they are encouragedto value their own intuitionas an importantresource. Second, if the explorationof theory comes to be seen (amongstother things) as a means to enhance learning to improve the individual's intuitive resource for the future, then theory will be perceived as less divorced from practice than is currentlythe case for many practitioners. Third, when people make mistakes based on erroneous intuitivejudgement they will be less likely to attempt to hide them with rationaljustifications.Everybodyknows that mistakes can be made in the heat of the moment, and it is importantto be able to acknowledgethese and reflect upon them so as to identify possible alternativeactions that couM have been taken. In this way, future intuitivejudgementsmay be made more successfully.

308

Midgley

in an intervention is a product of the choices made by the researcher, usually in interaction with others, but these choices may be the result of either conscious deliberation or intuitive reaction (or a mixture of both) depending on the circumstances. The term "choice", in this context, therefore takes on a wider meaning than its usual definition as "rational decision making between clearly expressed alternatives."

2.2. Total Systems Intervention The second line of research on methodology choice involved the development of Total Systems Intervention (TSI). The first version of TSI (Flood and Jackson, 1991) offered a meta-methodology to encourage the creative exploration of the problem situation prior to diagnosis of organisational problems and choice of methodology. It suggested (following Morgan, 1986) that systems methodologies all assume a particular "metaphor of organisation": that is, they view an organisation as if it were a machine, an organism, a brain, a coalition of interests, a political battlefield, etc. By exploring perceptions of the problem situation with organisational participants in terms of these metaphors, Flood and Jackson suggested that the process of methodology choice can be enhanced. This first version of TSI only touched upon the need to address complexity through the use of more than one methodology: it suggested that two or more metaphors may be identified during creative exploration, but one should be regarded as dominant and the other(s) as dependent. The result is that more than one methodology could be selected through TSI, but a single methodology would always dominate. 4 Following vigorous debate in the literature about the theory and practice of TSI [see Flood (1995a) for a review of various criticisms], F100d (1995b) produced a second version. To all intents and purposes, this has now replaced the first one. TSI(2), as we may call it, is much more flexible than the previous version: for instance, the creativity phase does not rely solely on metaphorical analysis. In fact, any number of methods may be employed to explore the problem situation. It also opens the door for the development of new methodologies that can become part of the TSI practitioner's repertoire. Methodology choice is thereby enhanced in two ways: by an improvement in the creativity phase leading to it and in the potential for expansion of the choices available. Although TSI(2) is a fairly recent innovation, new developments of it are already appearing in the literature. One such development is presented by Flood and Romm (1995a). They argue that methods can be used for many purposes: 4Interestingly, the issue of dealing with complexitywhenusing TSI has been raised by Dutt (1994). He criticises TSI for payinginsufficientattention to the need for a more flexible and dynamicuse of methods. As a result, he reaches similar conclusions to Midgley (1990) about the need for creative design.


309

every method has a " g i v e n and immediate p u r p o s e , " the one it was originally designed for, but may nevertheless be used in other ways. Flood and R o m m are particularly concerned to demonstrate that it is possible to use a diverse variety o f methods to tackle coercion, including many (such as those originating in the cybernetic and soft systems paradigms) that have actually been criticised for their inability to deal with coercive situations. According to Flood and R o m m (1995a), the key to using methods for purposes other than those for which they were originally designed is to operate them using the principles of a different perspective, This is what they call their " o b l i q u e " use. In their own words, When t h e . . , practitioner proceeds by operating a method obliquely, s/he operates it with knowledge drawn from his/her experience of, and insight into, what other theoretical positions can offer9(Flood and Romm, 1995a, p. 390) Taking coercion as an example, they argue that it is possible to address coercion obliquely using methods o f organisational redesign and participative p l a n n i n g - but only if the intervener employs emancipatory principles and retains an awareness that the main purpose of the intervention is to address power relationships. If awareness of the power issue is lost, the original theoretical assumptions o f the approach will resurface and dominate the intervention, resulting in an organisational redesign or plan that fails to address the coercion. Indeed, it may result in the further entrenchment o f coercion. 3. T H E

RESEARCH

PROBLEM

Flood and R o m m (1995a) show a good understanding o f some o f the risks inherent in dealing with coercion. However, they indicate that, when a method is used obliquely, its original principles are dominated by those o f another perspective: 9 The given and immediate purpose of any method can be dominatedby the given and immediate purpose of some other method so that, for example, with astute and careful handling a cybernetic or soft systems method can be employed to tackle emancipatory issues in a way which undercuts and redirects its theoretical underpinning. (Flood and Romm, 1995a, p. 378; original italics removed and mine added)

In contrast, my own view is that both sets o f purposes or principles are

synthesized so that the total method used is different from the sum o f its contributory parts. This synthesis is most clearly visible when aspects o f two previously distinct methods are integrated during an intervention. This was the case in m y own work with Claire Cohen on the North Humberside Diversion from Custody Project (Cohen and Midgley, 1994), which Flood and R o m m use as an example o f the oblique use o f a method. I describe this study below. I then detail Flood and R o m m ' s interpretation o f it before providing my own alternative interpretation, which is that the principles and methods drawn from two different meth-

Midgley

310

odologies were synthesized in a process of creative design. Finally, I argue that all the case studies offered by Flood and Romm that supposedly demonstrate oblique uses of methods involve such a synthesis, and are therefore also examples of the creative design of methods. The discussion in this paper therefore seeks to unite the two strands of research discussed earlier (the creative design of methods and TSI) by suggesting that the concept of the creative design of methods is essential if the purposive, flexible, and responsive use of TSI(2) in practice is to be explained. Let us then enter the argument by looking at Cohen and Midgley's (1994) work with the Diversion from Custody Project, which Flood and Romm use as an example of an oblique use of methods, but which I argue is an example of creative design. 4. T H E D I V E R S I O N F R O M CUSTODY P R O J E C T The North Humberside Diversion from Custody Project was launched in October 1992. A team of throe full-time employees was recruited to work with the various agencies in the criminal justice and mental health systems to try to prevent people with mental health problems and/or learning disabilities being remanded in custody or being given prison sentences. The rationale for diversion from custody is as follows. 9 People who have committed offences, and who also have mental health problems or a learning disability, require assessment, treatment and/or rehabilitation within a therapeutic environment. 9 Prisons cannot usually provide such an environment. Indeed, custody in prison can exacerbate the distress of somebody with a mental health problem or a learning disability. 9 Therefore non-custodial assessment, treatment, and rehabilitation is required. The Project had a Steering Group (made up of senior representatives of all the key agencies involved in the criminal justice and mental health systems) which made policy decisions and a Management Team (key individuals from the Steering Group) which took closer managerial responsibility for the activities of the employees. Claire Cohen and I were asked to provide process consultancy to the Project when it was first set up, and to evaluate it over a 1-year period. The results of this work are presented by Cohen and Midgley (1994). An aspect of our research [used by Flood and Romm (1995a) as an example of the oblique use of a method] involved the integration of parts of methods drawn from two previously existing methodologies: Critical Systems Heuristics (Ulrich, 1983) and Interactive Planning (Ackoff, 1981). Highly summarised accounts of both are provided below.


311

Because of the need for brevity, I recommend consulting the original sources for more information. 4.1. Critical Systems Heuristics Critical Systems Heurstics gives a list of 12 questions that can be used to generate debate during planning. These focus on various issues such as whose interests ought to be served by the development of a system, whose "expertise" should be accepted, what criteria of evaluation should be used, and who should participate in planning and management. In terms of its principles, Ulrich claims that there is a need to challenge the powerful when they do not take account of others affected by their activities. He suggests that Critical Systems Heuristics can have a useful role in confronting "pseudo-dialogue" (insincere communication). Indeed, this challenge to power is the "emancipatory principle" that Flood and Romm (1995a) emphasise when describing Ulrich's work. However, Ulrich also suggests that his 12 questions, if answered in meaningful dialogue with stakeholders, can help establish boundaries within which further systems interventions can take place that allow for the transcendence of narrow selfinterest so that everybody can benefit. There are therefore two principles lying behind Critical Systems Heuristics: the "emancipatory principle," which assumes that there is sometimes a need to challenge those with power because they pursue their own interests with little regard for the interests of others, and the "participative principle," which (in Ulrich's view) assumes that people can be supported by the use of boundary questions in gaining the competence needed to enter rational debate with others, using a common language, and reach accommodations so as to transcend narrowly defined interests. 4.2. Interactive Planning Having described Critical Systems Heuristics, let us now move on to Interactive Planning. This has several aspects to it (for full details see Ackoff, 1981), but a central concept is "idealised design." Idealised design involves the generation through participative debate of a list of "desired properties" of a system, followed by the production of a design that, if implemented, should make those desired properties a reality. While implementation in its complete form might not be immediately possible, the idealised design nevertheless offers a vision of the future to work towards. As with Critical Systems Heuristics, it is the participative principle that lies behind Interactive Planning--although Ackoff supports competent participation through the use of a "democratic" planning process rather than questions about boundary judgements. Ackoff (1981) actually claims that any issue, however large, can be addressed through participative planning, if everybody involved is willing to open themselves to dialogue and is also

312

Midgley

prepared to transcend narrowly defined interests. Here it is important to recognise Ackoff's acknowledgement that pseudo-dialogue will obstruct Interactive Planning. Indeed, the methods Ackoff offers are not designed to cope with it. The potential for debate and accommodation is essential if Interactive Planning is to be used effectively. 4.3. The Workshops In our research with the North Humberside Diversion from Custody Project, we decided to work with both service users (people with mental health problems caught up in the criminal justice system) and professionals involved in developing more appropriate alternatives. However, we were concemed about potential problems of open communication--not because we expected pseudodialogue on the part of professionals, but because we feared that people with mental health problems who depend on professionals for decent treatment (indeed, for their liberty) might be unwilling to contradict professional views. 5 In anticipation of such problems, we decided to conduct separate workshops with service users and professionals so that both groups could discuss relevant issues in confidence. We used the 12 questions from Critical Systems Heuristics to elicit the "desired properties" of an ideal diversion system. We then entered the second part of Interactive Planning: production of a creative design that embodies the desired properties. The output was two skeletal designs, one produced by service users and the other by professionals. We then reproduced the designs in the form of a report which highlighted the substantial similarities between them, but also indicated where significant differences lay that would require further discussion and accommodation. We would have liked to have facilitated further discussion ourselves, but we were subject to strict time constraints, so we had to leave it in the hands of those involved in, and affected by, the Project to take up the debate once we had left. 5. T H E " O B L I Q U E " I N T E R P R E T A T I O N Flood and Romm (1995a) suggest that what we did in this intervention was use Critical Systems Heuristics obliquely. That is, we operated it using the participative principle of Interactive Planning rather than its original emancipatory principle. Given the text of Cohen and Midgley (1994), which is a practical report giving scant details of methodology, their interpretation is quite understandable. Ostensibly, we did little more than use the 12 questions in Critical Systems Heuristics to kick off the idealised design. 5For more detailed discussions of communicationproblemsduring systemsinterventions in mental health services, see Midgley and Milne (1995) and Thompson (1995).


313

However, there was more to the intervention than this. Elsewhere (Midgley, 1997), I have argued that Critical Systems Heuristics is not really that effective in directly challenging coercion. This is because coercion is usually characterised by closure of debate. The pseudo-dialogue Critical Systems Heuristics can allow people to challenge is a very mild form of coercion indeed. However, this is not to say that the methodology does not embody emancipatory principles: the 12 questions it offers can help facilitate consciousness raising within an interest group, thereby allowing for the identification of forms of coercion that might otherwise have gone unnoticed or unmentioned. These forms of coercion can then be dealt with at a later date. It is with this understanding of emancipation in mind that we used Critical Systems Heuristics. By asking both service users and professionals, seen confidentially in separate groups, who should benefit from the design of an ideal diversion system, who should participate in its management, etc., we ensured that key power issues were highlighted and addressed so that they couM then be dealt with in the ensuing idealised designs. It would be equally possible to claim that Interactive Planning was operated through the emancipatory principle of Critical Systems Heuristics as to support Flood and Romm's assertion that Critical Systems Heuristics was operated through the participative principle of Interactive Planning. However, I would not want to simply reinterpret the intervention in this way, for the following reason. 6. T H E " C R E A T I V E D E S I G N " I N T E R P R E T A T I O N Earlier I said that Flood and Romm's (1995a) "oblique" interpretation of our intervention was understandable given the scant discussion of methodology provided by Cohen and Midgley (1994). It is also understandable because the total method used--the synthesis of methods drawn from Critical Systems Heuristics and Interactive Planning--looks very different from Critical Systems Heuristics alone. However, it is also very different from Interactive Planning. The latter seeks to "unshackle" the minds of participants in debate, to liberate them from unnecessary assumptions that limit creativity, but it does not do so with the specific intention of addressing power issues. By synthesising the principles and methods from the two methodologies into a new method, I wish to argue that we produced something that was different from the sum of its contributory parts. It was an example of the creative design of methods, not the oblique use of either Critical Systems Heuristics or Interactive Planning. Let me explain. To recap, the creative design of methods involves understanding the problem situation in terms of a series of systemically interrelated research questions, each of which might need to be addressed using a different method, or part of a method. A synthesis is generated that allows each research question to be addressed as part of a whole system of questions. The Diversion from Custody

314

Midgley

research was conceived in just such a manner. There were a number of questions addressed through the intervention, but those that are particulady relevant to this discussion were, What should we evaluate current practice against? If the answer to this is a vision of the ideal service, how do we ensure that service users have a meaningful say in its production? How do we address the issues of power and expertise that arise so frequently when dealing with the design and management of mental health services? And how do we go beyond the boundaries of the current service to address peoples' needs more systemically? Taken as a whole, the method that we designed addressed all these questions. If reflected a synthesis of the emancipatory principle from Critical Systems Heuristics (concentrating on the identification of power issues) with the participative principles from both Critical Systems Heuristics (supporting competence in participation through the use of boundary questions) and Interactive Planning (supporting competence in participation through the constitution of planning groups reflecting different needs and expertise). 7. R E F L E C T I O N S ON T H E " O B L I Q U E " USE OF M E T H O D S I have shown through my analysis of the Diversion from Custody intervention that what initially appeared to be an oblique use of methods can be reinterpreted as an example of their creative design. I now need to ask the question, Can other supposedly "oblique" uses be reinterpreted in this way? To answer this, it might prove instructive to reexamine the two main case studies that Flood and Romm (1995a) use to illustrate the oblique use of methods.

7.1. Viable System Diagnosis in a Tourism Company The first case study, originally presented by Flood and Zambuni (1990), was of a company in Africa specialising in tourism. Viable System Diagnosis (Beer, 1981, 1985) was used to diagnose various problems of communication and control that threatened viability. This led to proposals for restructuring the organisation. However, Flood and Romm (1995a) suggest that Viable System Diagnosis was also used as a vehicle for addressing power issues: restructuring the organisation would necessarily involve breaking down corrupt practices and challenging coercive relationships. Indeed, Flood and Romm claim that the organisation's viability was dependent on addressing these power issues. The principle of good design (that organisations should be structured in accordance with cybernetic laws to maintain their viability) was therefore dominated by the principle of emancipation. In their own words, We suggestthat in order to address the issue of coercionusing the VSM, it must be decided to proceed from an oblique angle in the knowledge, and through the principles, of an emancipatory approach. The method is the VSM. The principles and purposes are emancipatory. (Floodand Romm, 1995a, p. 392)


315

In my opinion, of the two case studies, this one provides the most convincing evidence for the oblique use o f a method. This is because there is no suggestion that any other method was drawn upon during the intervention. However, there is another possible interpretation. Perhaps both the principles o f good design and emancipation (drawn from cybernetic and emancipatory methodologies) were synthesized into a new form. The only method visibly used was Viable System Diagnosis, but the way in which it was used reflected a synthesis o f both principles. In other words, if we were to look " b e t w e e n the l i n e s " o f this application o f Viable System Diagnosis, we would find that aspects o f the intervention resembled other methods usually associated with the principle o f emancipation (perhaps in the form o f certain questions that were asked at certain times). It is impossible to verify this adequately in retrospect, but the plausibility o f this interpretation is evident when we seek an answer to the question, why Viable System Diagnosis? Flood and R o m m ' s answer is that in discussion with participants (managers included) the pressing and primary need became defined as installing an organisation that could provide necessary services and survive, and would be equitable. It would only survive if it were equitable. Hence a cybernetic method could be drawn in--which we suggest was operated through emancipatory principles. (1995a, p. 393) However, what would have happened if the " p r e s s i n g and primary n e e d " had been defined as the development o f a consensual vision? This would have suggested the need for a soft systems method. However, had a method based upon participative debate between participants been used, this would have given those who were practising coercion and engaging in corruption the chance to argue against change, or even to bribe or coerce others to maintain the status quo. It would have been much more difficult to have operated such a method " o b l i q u e l y . " I argue that Viable System Diagnosis was not only an appropriate choice because of the way people in the organisation were defining their problems, but also because the " e x p e r t d r i v e n " character o f the method facilitated the integration o f an emancipatory aspect to the intervention. In short, the principle o f emancipation had to be synthesized with the principle o f good design (whilst the principle o f participation had to be excluded) for the emancipatory purposes o f the researchers to be successfully operationalised. I argue that this is therefore an example o f the creative design o f methods, not their oblique use.

6

6It is worth highlighting one final issue in relation to this application of Viable System Diagnosis. Both my own analysis and that provided by Flood and Romm (1995a) are retrospective. None of us can claim that, when Flood and Zambuni (1990) conducted their original intervention, they were consciously engaging in either the oblique use of methods or their creative design. Both of these understandings have been generated outside the immediate context of the intervention and have been used to interpret what the authors did intentionally (in the sense that they set out to deal with coercion) but intuitively (in the sense that the methodological language we are now using to describe their activities was not then available).

316

Midgley

7.2. Interactive Planning with Community Volunteers The second case study presented by Flood and Romm (1995a) to illustrate the oblique use of methods is an example drawn from Magidson (1992). Magidson worked with grass-roots volunteers in an inner-city area of Philadelphia who were seeking to improve conditions in their local community. Flood and Romm focus on the use of Ackoff's (1981) Interactive Planning (see the earlier case study on the North Humberside Diversion from Custody Project for details), although they acknowledge in a footnote that System Dynamics was also used. However, when they begin their description of Magidson's approach, it becomes clear that this is by no means a " p u r e " use of Interactive Planning. The intervention started with an Obstruction Analysis, focusing on four areas for improvement: . . . the political-economic (scarcity of resources), the scientific (lack of relevant knowledge), the ethical-moral (areas of conflict), and the aesthetic (vision of a desirable state and belief in the possibility of its malisation). This exercise was conducted first so that solutions developed could be tested to determine whether they would remove the obstructions. This means that the outcome of the whole Interactive Planning exercise was subject to principles of an emancipatory sort. (Flood and Romm, 1995a, pp. 395-396)

This is very similar indeed to the method designed by Cohen and Midgley (1994) in their intervention with the North Humberside Diversion from Custody Project, only in that case Critical Systems Heuristics was used to guide the Interactive Planning rather than an Obstruction Analysis. Earlier, when we looked at that study, we found that Flood and Romm's (1995a) "oblique" interpretation was problematic, and their interpretation of Magidson's (1992) work is questionable for the very same reason: it would be just as easy to argue that the participative principle of Interactive Planning was replacing the emancipatory principle of the Obstruction Analysis as the other way around. In fact, I would argue that a more plausible interpretation is that Magidson's work is another example of the creative design of methods. He synthesises the emancipatory and participative principles, and his total method is likewise a seamless integration of the methods of Obstruction Analysis and Interactive Planning. It is different to the sum of its contributory parts (and the methodologies they were originally drawn from).

7.3. Problems with the "Oblique" Interpretation I believe I have now demonstrated that all the case studies Flood and Romm (1995a) use to illustrate the oblique use of methods can just as plausibly be interpreted as examples of creative design. Indeed, I would argue that they are m o r e plausibly interpreted in this way. The "oblique" interpretation presents two significant problems that can be resolved through an understanding of the creative design of methods. These are summarised below.


317

First, systems practitioners often find that they need to synthesise two or more principles, and this synthesis finds expression in an integration of two or more associated methods. For example, in the Diversion from Custody intervention, pursuit of a participative principle without an emancipatory one could have resulted in a design that ignored power issues. On the other hand, pursuit of an emancipatory principle without consideration of issues of participation could have resulted in an enhanced awareness of the needs of service users, but no commitment from stakeholders to plan to address them. A synthesis of the two principles was therefore required. The "oblique" interpretation does not properly account for the need for synthesis. It tends to assume that a single principle will dominate all aspects of the method, whether this method is "pure" (in the form its creator intended) or developed from parts of a collection of methods. In contrast, the "creative design of methods" interpretation assumes that synthesis at the levels of both principles and methods is an essential aspect of understanding purposive, flexible, and responsive intervention. Second, because the "oblique" interpretation acknowledges the possibility of using several methods together, but fails to recognise synthesis at the level of principles, it will tend to provide explanations of multi-method interventions that are easily contestable, and which cannot be adequately supported by empirical evidence. For example, when Critical Systems Heuristics and Interactive Planning are used together (as in the Diversion from Custody intervention), it is possible to claim that the methods are being driven by either the emancipatory or the participatory principle. Each of these claims is equally supportable. In contrast, by recognising synthesis at the level of principles, the "creative design of methods" interpretation allows for the inclusion (and transcendence by synthesis) of both claims. Having demonstrated that all Flood and Romm's (1995a) examples of "oblique" uses of methods can also be interpreted in terms of the creative design of methods, and having argued that the latter offers greater explanatory potential, we may now turn our attention to the implications of this argument for Total Systems Intervention (TSI)--particulady Flood's (1995b) second version, which I have called TSI(2).

8. REFLECTIONS ON T O T A L SYSTEMS INTERVENTION If we are to abandon the "oblique" interpretation as lacking sufficient explanatory detail, then TSI(2) needs a new theory of the use of methods. This is so that we can adequately understand the purposive, flexible, and responsive approach taken by so many of its proponents when they actually engage in interventions. Like Midgley (1990), many practitioners find that they cannot confine themselves to the pursuit of one " p u r e " principle through the enactment of one "pure" method. Flood (1995b) describes a number of successful appli-

318

Midgley

cations of TSI(2), a good proportion of which involve mixing methods drawn from different methodological paradigms to achieve ends that no " p u r e " method could have achieved on its own. I argue that the theory of the creative design of methods presented in this paper can enhance our understanding of the choice of methods in TSI(2). By focusing on the practice of critically considering the issues to be addressed (to derive research questions), and the flexible and dynamic synthesis of principles and methods in response, I suggest that it offers a more complete explanation than any previous theory of the actual uses of methods made by practitioners of TSI. 9. CONCLUSION In this paper I have sought to contribute to the on-going debate about choice of methods, arguing that what Flood and Romm (1995a) call the "oblique" use of methods is really their creative design. This argument allows us to bring together two strands of research in the Critical Systems literature that have hitherto been pursued separately: research on the creative design of methods and Total Systems Intervention (TSI). I have suggested that TSI is enhanced by an understanding of the creative design of methods because the latter allows us to explain the purposive, flexible, and responsive way in which TSI is most successfully used in practice. REFERENCES Ackoff, R. L. (1981). Creating the Corporate Future, Wiley, New York. Beer, S. (1981). Brain of the Firm, 2nd ed., Wiley, Chichester. Beer, S. (1985). Diagnosing the System for Organisations, Wiley, Chichester. Cohen, C., and Midgley, G. (1994). The North Humberside Diversion from Custody Project for Mentally Disordered Offenders, Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull, Hull. Dutt, P. K. (1994). Problem contexts--A consultant's perspective. Syst. Pract. 7, 539-550. Flood, R. L. (1995a). Total Systems Intervention: A reconstitution. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 46, 174-191. Flood, R. L. (1995b). Solving Problem Solving, Wiley, Chichester. Flood, R. L., and Jackson, M. C. (1991). Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention, Wiley, Chichester. Flood, R. L., and Romm, N. R. A. (1995a). Enhancing the process of choice in TSI, and improving chances of tackling coercion. Syst. Pract. 8, 377-408. Flood, R. L., and Romm, N. R. A. (1995b). Diversity management: Theory in action. Syst. Pract. 8, 469-482. Flood, R. L., and Romm, N. R. A. (1996). Diversity Management: Triple Loop Learning, Wiley, Chichester. Flood, R. L., and Zambuni, S. (1990). Viable system diagnosis I: Application with a major tourism services group. Syst. Pract. 3, 225-248. Gregory, W. J. (1992). Critical Systems Thinking and Pluralism: A New Constellation, Ph.D. thesis, City University, London.


319

Jackson, M. C. (1987). New directions in management science, In, Jackson, M. C., and Keys, P. (eds.), New Directions in Management Science, Gower, Aldershot. Jackson, M. C. (1990). Beyond a system of systems methodologies. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 41, 657-668. Jackson, M. C., and Keys, P. (1984). Towards a system of systems methodologies. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 35, 473-486. Magidson, J. (1992). Systems practice in several communities in Philadelphia. Syst. Pract. 5, 493-508. Midgley, G. (1988). A Systems Analysis and Evaluation of Microjob: A Vocational Rehabilitation and Information Technology Training Centre for People with Disabilities, M.Phil. thesis, City University, London. Midgley, G. (1990). Creative methodology design. Systemist 12, 108-113. Midgley, G. (1992). Pluralism and the legitimation of systems science. Syst. Pract. 5, 147-172. Midgley, G. (1997). Dealing with coercion: Critical Systems Heuristics and beyond. Syst. Pract. 10, 37-57. Midgley, G., and Floyd, M. (1990). Vocational training in the use of new technologies for people with disabilities. Behav. Inform. Technol. 9, 409-424. Midgley, G., and Milne, A. (1995). Creating employment opportunities for people with mental health problems: A feasibility study for new initiatives. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 46, 35-42. Mingers, J., and GiIl,:A. (eds.) (1997). Multimethodology: Towards Theory and Practice for Mixing and Matching Methodologies, Wiley, Chichester. Morgan, G. 0986). Images of Organisation, Sage, London. Thompson, J. (1995). User Involvement in Mental Health Services: The Limits of Consumerism, the Risks of Marginalisation and the Need for a Critical Approach, Research Memorandum 8, Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull, Hull. Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical Philosophy, Haupt, Berne.