Write a reflection about what you learned about analyzing education/learning systems from the in-class activities and readings. How do you feel about the complexity? Are you starting to see a different picture of your own and other systems and what makes them up? Are you seeing any inherent challenges to understanding even small systems like those of an individual student?
I recognize that I am familiar with systems thinking from developing a critical approach through a bachelors in English; I had no idea at the time I would use rhetorical analysis, critical approaches, and deconstruction skills as much as I do today. The moment I crossed the threshold of known knowledge was the first instance of applying this thinking to mico, meso, and macro level systems.
Checkland helped me understand the relationship between hard and soft systems thinking is like that between apples and fruit (Checkland, 1985), because HSM is indeed a subset of SSM (Khisty, 1995). Khisty’s article helped me understand the dichotomy in the two paradigms of inquiry and research approaches between hard systems methodology (HSM) and soft systems methodology (SSM). The main difference as I see it is that HMS adheres to the "simplicity" paradigm as it takes a systematic goal seeking approach. While SSM adheres to the "complexity" paradigm as it focuses instead on systemic learning. These two systems are opposed as HMS uses quantitative methods to “solve” problems and SSM is defined as an inquiring system used for tackling ill-structured, messy problem situations in engineering and planning. Warren’s article expanded my understanding further by refining the critique of using HMS is that “it is also assumed that the process of inquiry into the problematic situations that make up the world can be organized as a system” (Warren, 2019, p. 2). He also introduced established criticisms of SSM including 1) slow speed, 2) difficulty in using it with stakeholders during analysis, or 3) to implement suggested solutions. All of these criticisms were smartly summarized as thus: “Since system changes may have been done quickly where acute problems exist, without consideration of the consequence of a decision, there may be many ways for the system to be improved to perform more effectively” (Warren, 2019, p. 4).
My personal conclusion to this understanding is that the problem of using the approach of HSM as a tool to “solve problems”, especially system of systems problems, is that the researchers are unable to foresee, imagine, or predict secondary outcomes from “solving” the original problem. I often run into these planning and operational systems barriers as my work engages in all three systems at different times in order to teach English 104 (micro), direct The Writing Lab and The Studio (meso), and connect to student success through our Learning Commons to main campus’ Academic Success Center (macro).
Khisty, C. J. (1995). Soft-Systems Methodology as Learning and Management Tool. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 121(3), 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(1995)121:3(91)
Warren, S. J., Sauser, B., & Nowicki, D. (2019). The historic impact of soft systems methodology on academic research and theory. Systems, 7(10), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems7010010
Comments