Project philosophy and theoretical basis:

... The proposed network takes its theoretical basis from the learning through 'teaching' experience at the Open University that the development of systems theory can lead to the development of systems practice skills, which in turn, can lead to new systems theory. The Computer and Information Systems Department at De Montfort University teach systems theory and practice in their undergraduate and postgraduate Information Systems courses. However the recursive relationship between Systems theory and systems practice which would seem to need to operate to develop further systems thinking and practice is constrained in a number of contexts. Based on our experience we would argue that the constraints are largely: (i) situational (i.e. the situations in which students find themselves at work or home are not conducive to building new communities of systems practice - following Wenger 1998) and (ii) cognitive e.g. Salner 1988).

The mutual development of theory and practice can be stimulated by testing systems theory in new contexts and against new problem situations and by grounding the experience of new contexts in broader conceptualisations of systems theory. A number of renewed activities emerge from the dynamic interaction of developing theory and skills. These emergent activities are indicated in Figure 1. Increasingly technology acts - or could act - as a mediator of these experiences (see Ison 2000). This gives rise to the first 'big' question:

What constrains/enhances the translation of systems thinking into systems practice and new systems thinking?

Figure 1

Systems practice informs and renews systems thinking which in turn, renews systems practice. Systems practice also informs and renews systems theory, which stimulates new systems skills by stimulating systems thinking and thus systems practice. The cycle stimulates researching, participating, learning, modelling and designing activities in the domains in which it is embedded.

New sites for development and renewal of systems theory are likely to emerge from moving beyond the first-order cybernetic models upon which current systems theory are mostly based. Including not only problem owners and other stakeholders but the 'epistemologically aware' systems practitioner as well, will lead to new, second-order cybernetic models. This will mean that new practices emerge which are theoretically grounded in inclusive models (e.g. Open University 2000; Ison & Russell 2000). It is from these considerations that the second and third 'big' questions arise:

To what extent does the reification of current 'first-order' conceptions of knowledge, information and 'effective communication' constrain organizational change, precipitate failure, particularly in IT and IS related developments and restrict the evolution of new communities of systems practice?
Is it possible to manage for 'self-organization' and emergence and if so how?

David Robertson, in a presentation to the Society for Research into Higher Education in late 1998 entitled 'What employers really, really want' reported that: " research on employers in a number of English-speaking countries (an elite survey) with senior corporate people showed that the traditional skill set doesn't go far enough if graduates want to be employable internationally." What's missing, he claimed are 'complexity skills'. "Graduates must understand that the world is not linear (broken play, broken field). They need the ability to manage ambiguity and connectivity and to be comfortable with provisionality (making decisions when you don't really know what is going to happen as for example with e-commerce). They must also be comfortable with emergence. In response to a question David said he had seen "no serious attempt to capture the complexity skills in competency statements, noting that in any case competency statements tend to over formalise things when in fact they are still emerging."

If learning is considered a prerequisite for the emergence and evolution of systems which are "complex and adaptive", then a theory of learning is required which makes sense of our actions in the world. It is also essential to track current on-going efforts to develop and teach concepts about systemic complexity. This is because it is known (Perry 1981; Salner 1975; 1986) that personal change in epistemic assumptions is absolutely essential to any major breakthroughs in decision making based on understanding and application of emerging theories to practical problems. If, as Salner has found, many people are not able to fully grasp relatively simple systemic concepts (such as non-linear processes, or self-reflexive structures), they will not be able to rethink organizational dynamics in terms of "managing" complexity without substantial alteration in the worldviews (their "applied epistemology). The Centre for Systemic Development (University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury) (e.g Macadam & Packham 1989; Bawden 1992; 1995) as well as the Systems Discipline at the OU has tried to incorporate what is known about making epistemic change happen for people, and it has been done with encouraging short term results as far as we know (e.g. Peters 1979; Clarke, Costello & Wright 1985; Wright 1999; Ison 1994; Blackmore et al 1998; Blackmore & Ison 1998; Maiteny and Ison 1997 ; 2000). What is lacking is any longer term (and longitudinal) check on the degree to which learning that we can "see" is being utilized and further developed in practical situation improvement in organizations.

Salner (1986) drawing on earlier work by Perry (1970,1981) and Kitchener (1983) describes the prevailing theory on epistemic learning as involving the deliberate breaking down and restructuring of mental models that support worldviews. Prigogine provides an additional lens on this theory in his discussion of "dissipative structures". This theory provides a model of the dynamics of epistemic learning; each learner goes through a period of chaos, confusion and being overwhelmed by complexity before new conceptual information brings about a spontaneous restructuring of mental models at a higher level of complexity thereby allowing a learner to understand concepts that were formally opaque.

To understand and deliver a pedagogy which enables and provokes students to move across levels of epistemic competence is in itself challenging. To do so requires an awareness on the part of the curriculum designer and personal tutor so that they can facilitate the emergence of these changes. As Salner (1986) points out it is not always clear that academics and tutors have these competencies themselves. What is more, awareness, and curriculum design which flows from this awareness, may still be insufficient to achieve epistemic change in a "learning system" in which students are concurrently members of families and firms. The structural dynamics of these settings may preclude the types of conversations which further trigger the necessary knowledge acquisition and learning that leads to changes in the student's world view. In this sense a course or a curriculum is a macro level response to micro-processes. If this phenomenon is better understood, it may be possible to contribute to the emergence of new models of course and curriculum design based around self-organizing principles not dissimilar to that which has occurred in the emergence of Linux as an "open system" challenge to the dominant Microsoft "closed system" of software innovation (Open University 2000). This however would require an appreciation of, and possible challenges to, prevailing modes of organisation in Universities from which the curriculum is "managed". In studying these phenomena we would draw on the distinctions made by Maturana and Varela (1988; 1992) between organization and structure of a system. Professor Ison has drawn on this work in a recent book (Ison & Russell 2000). In addition he has experience of curriculum design and innovation ranging from radical student centred and self-organising curricula to traditional linear modes of didactic delivery. This experience gives rise to our fourth and fifth 'big' questions:

What constitutes an effective pedagogy for building capacity in systems thinking and practice?
What constitutes ethical systems practice particularly in relation to the issues of global sustainable development and the threats of enclosure of the 'knowledge/information commons'?

The fourth 'big' question seems to have been neglected to date; given the emerging discourses around life-long learning and the expectation that professionals will have several careers, this seems very unfortunate and is a deficiency we aim to redress. We seem uniquely positioned to do so.
The fifth and final question has at its heart issues around which there are multiple perspectives, no clear 'community of discourse' and which, in some circles are hardly yet being spoken about. Education for sustainable development will enter the UK national curriculum in 2001 - it is recognised that managing for sustainable development is a systemic issue, yet it is still unclear how individuals, organisations and nations can embark on this trajectory. Threats to the closure of the 'knowledge and information commons' via, possibly regulation of the internet, partnerships with University consortia and international media conglomerates etc pose ethical and practical problems. For example what is the ethically defensible social role of the University in such a scenario? (see Ison 1999). These issues are leading us to consider how we build new global communities of academic practice via the net and other mechanisms and informed for example, by the copyleft' (as opposed to copyright) ethic of the open source movement (see Naughton 1999).