Enhancing emancipatory systems methodologies within a
pluralistic critical systems framework for sustainable
development
Yiheyis Taddele Maru & Keith Woodford
School of Natural and Rural Systems Management
University of Queensland, Gatton College, QLD 4345
y-maru @mailbox.uq.edu.au, woodford@uqg.uq.edu.au
Abstract
Our interest lies in applying the principles of pluralistic critical systems thinking and
practice (CST/P) to human activity systems in developing countries where issues of
natural resource sustainability constrain the feasible set of long-term strategies. The
concept of sustainable development provides an expanded domain for the application
of CST/P. The fundamental values underpinning sustainable development are that
both intragenerational and intergenerational equity are important. As a
consequence, key stakeholders are often excluded from power-sharing within the
current social systems. Addressing these issues requires a renewed focus on
emancipatory commitment and methodologies. To date, Ulrich's critical systems
heuristics, is the only critical systems methodology that offers practicable tools for
emancipation. A case study analysis in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia provides insights in
relation to the application of critical system heuristics, and highlights the need to
extend the use of critical systems heuristics beyond planning situations to include
questioning of already existing institutions.
Introduction
Our interest in pluralistic critical systems arises from ongoing research into issues of
sustainable development in Tigray State in the northern Ethiopian highlands. The
research, through developing an initial set of indicators, aims at triggering community-
based monitoring for sustainable livelihoods at the village level. It also aims at
gaining insights about possible core indicators of sustainable development for the
region.
The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to a need for increased commitment to
the development of emancipatory systems methodologies. Such development can
enhance the use of a pluralistic critical systems framework for sustainable
development interventions.
The paper is organized in four sections. The first section provides the contextual
background. This background is important because our approach is essentially
inductive, with insights arising from case study analysis. The second section deals
with the weakening commitment to emancipation that has occurred within cal
systems thinking. The weakening has occurred despite the notion of emancipation
being central to the emergence of critical systems thinking. The third section
elaborates how the concept of sustainable development may provide an expanded
domain for pluralistic critical systems frameworks with a renewed emphasis on
emancipatory systems methodologies. The fourth section introduces two areas of
application for critical systems heuristics. The first application refers to the Tigrayan
approach to reflection and evaluation known as gem-gam. It does this by elaborating
how gem-gam may lend itself to accommodate tools of critical systems heuristics.
The second application relates to extending the use of critical systems heuristics
beyond plans to include the questioning of already existing institutions.
The contextual background
Livelihood in Tigray is mainly rural and strongly dependent on surrounding natural
resources. Of the 3.5 million population of Tigray, 84% live in rural areas practicing
rain fed ox-plow agriculture (Central Statistics Office 1995). Ox-plow technology is a
farming system that took root in Northern Ethiopia more than two thousand years ago
(McCann 1995: 5). Wooden implements for the ox plow, timber for construction of
houses, and more importantly fuelwood, are entirely derived from surrounding
biomass.
The livelihood situation has become progressively precarious for the majority of the
rural people since the late 19 a century (Gebru 1991: 75-76). Hoben (1995) argues
that the dominant narrative in relation to these trends is deficient in its failure to
recognise the importance of sociopolitical factors. Instead, it overemphasises rapid
population growth, environmental degradation, backward agricultural technology, low
awareness, and unwillingness of rural people to embrace change. Gebru (1991) in his
analysis of history of Ethiopian peasantry asserts that “ ... in the northern high lands
of Ethiopia demography alone is not to blame for the ecological degradation. Heavy
taxation, official venality by unscrupulous state functionaries imposed a serious
drainage on the productive capacity of the population, decades of interspersed
fighting and plundering ravaged much of the country side reducing some parts of it to
mere waste lands...” (Gebru 1991: 91-92)
Indeed Gebru (1991) identifies coercion as a mark of the monarchical state structure
that increasingly had become centralised since the late 19" century. The domination
manifested itself along lines of ethnicity, culture, class, gender and religion. Although
the monarchy was replaced in 1974, repression continued under the new military
government. In 1991 a transitional government led by a coalition of rebel movements
from different part of the country replaced the military regime. Subsequently,
Ethiopia has instituted a federal government of nine decentralised states, including
Tigray. The Tigray Peoples’ Liberation Front (TPLF) played a key role in these events
and has now become a political party that leads Tigray State. The federal and state
governments have also lifted impositions by the previous governments such as high
tax, production quotas, rigid below-market prices, forced collectivisation and
resettlement.
These sociopolitical changes have brought a relief from domination along ethnic lines
and repression of the peasants. However, there is a need for continuous non-violent
emancipatory engagement for at least four reasons. The first is that the recent
sociopolitical changes have led to a reduction but not an exhaustion of coercive
relationships. Indeed exhaustion is only an ideal. Some of the coercive relationships
are informally institutionalised such that they need continuous emancipatory effort.
For instance Ethiopian society still remains patriarchal. The second reason is the
danger of what Chambers called a revolutionary flip where those who represent the
dominated start to marginalise those alleged as dominating (Chambers 1997: 34). The
third is a possible reciprocal danger, where those who fought for and with the
oppressed are resurrected after the attainment of power as a new class that cares less
for those it represented (Young 1997). The fourth is related to rehabilitation and
development efforts in place now that the civil war is over. From an emancipatory
point of view, rehabilitation and development have their own premises, promises and
implications that need critical engagement.
The TPLF is of interest to this paper because of its prominent influence on the
sociopolitical organisation, institutions and livelihood activities of the people of the
case study in Tigray. This influence started during the military regime in areas
controlled by the TPLF. Organisationally, TPLF introduced a decentralised structure
of governance known locally as Baito. The TPLF has also organised mass
associations of the youth, women and farmers. Community members are organised for
collective action and reflection in teams of twenty adults (known locally as Gujile).
The collective actions include massive land terracing and tree planting programs held
every year, and the construction of schools, clinics and earth dams for irrigation.
Another influence of interest to this paper is a process of reflection and evaluation
locally known as gem-gam. Gem-gam is institutionalised into these local
organisations. It was developed by the TPLF as a stringent means of accountability
and transparency. It has its origins in different sources but mainly Maoism and
Tigrayan elderly evaluation tradition (Young 1997). It is introduced in this paper as a
process potentially capable of accommodating emancipatory engagement.
Establishing the weakening attention to emancipatory commitment
Critical systems thinking can be traced back to two separate origins in the early
1980’s. Both the origins and subsequent developments are important to the purpose
of this paper. One seminal influence is Ulrich’s (1983) attempt to find a critical and
practicable solution to the problem of how we can rationally identify and justify the
normative content inevitable in all plans. The second seminal influence is that
initiated by Mingers and Jackson (Spaul 1997). Mingers (1980), using critical theory
started questioning the theoretical underpinning of systems thinking. Jackson (1982)
then exposed the limitations of both hard and soft systems thinking in dealing with
problem situations mainly characterised by coercion.
Common to both of these origins of CST is the awareness that there are no systems
approaches for critical inquiry and intervention into problem situations characterised
by asymmetry of power, and resources. Ulrich developed critical systems heuristics
that are intended to provide both those involved in social planning and those citizens
affected by the plans with heuristic support for reflection and criticism of underlying
value assumptions and value implications.
Jackson and Key (1984) developed a typology of systems methodologies that
identified a gap in critical/emancipatory systems methodologies. In their typology
they recognised critical systems heuristics as the only critical systems methodology.
However, they also assigned it as only applicable to simple coercive problem
situations, leaving complex coercive situations unrepresented. Subsequently a call for
further development of emancipatory methodologies was made (Jackson 1991).
Although some authors including Ulrich have questioned whether critical systems
heuristics is limited to simple coercive situations (Ulrich 1993; Gregory 1996: 47),
Ulrich has himself (Flood & Ulrich 1991:203; Ulrich 1993) called for more
emancipatory systems methodologies to be developed. Ulrich has contrasted the
limited development of critical systems methodologies compared to hard and soft
systems methodologies, which are well developed, and extensively in use.
The quest for emancipation, fundamental to the inception of CST, became its central
commitment. According to Schecter (1991) the commitment to emancipation “is a
commitment to human beings and their potential for full development via free and
equal participation in community with others. It is also a commitment to recognising
the barriers to human emancipation - unequal power relations and the conceptual
traps, which perpetuate them - and incorporating this understanding into systems
thinking ” (Schecter 1991:212).
On occasions, knowledge and hence systems methodologies can be suppressed by
other dominant systems and thus require liberation (Flood 1991: 314). Indeed Oliga
(1991) associates the slow emergence of CST with its suppression by dominating hard
and soft systems thinking. He also asserts a probable slow future development of CST
for “... the cure it offers (the unmasking of ideological bias) is the very disease
dreaded by the patient” (Oliga 1991: 271).
In addition to emancipation, CST is committed to critical awareness and to pluralism.
Commitment to critical awareness is a never-ending attempt to uncover hidden
assumptions and conceptual traps of paradigms, methodologies, plans and practices
together with the conditions that give rise to them (Schecter 1991: 213). The
commitment to pluralism is a result of the critical awareness that all systems
approaches are partial and therefore have their own limitations and legitimacies
(Flood and Ulrich 1991). Thus, the commitment is to have a pluralistic framework
that resists a claim for a sole legitimacy of a particular systems approach (including an
emancipatory methodology) and instead allows the application and development of
multiple systems methodologies and their philosophical underpinning (Flood &
Jackson 1991: 323; Schecter 1991: 214).
A tendency to fragmentation within management science seems to have given
additional resolve to the CST commitment to pluralism. Pluralism has been used to
justify diversity of systems-based approaches in management science, as a mark of
competence and effectiveness in dealing with complex problem situations. The
commitment to pluralism has subsequently received a greater amount of attention than
that given to emancipation. Pluralism has taken a centre stage in CST in that a lot of
effort has been devoted to find sound philosophical underpinnings and theoretically
informed ways of implementation. A notable example is Total Systems Intervention
(TSI) developed by Flood and Jackson (1991). It was developed to pragmatise
without compromising the main principles and commitments of critical systems
thinking (ibid 1991: 321).
Criticisms leveled at the justification for the complementarism of TSI triggered
adjustments that further took away the focus from emancipatory commitment. Flood
and Jackson (1991) justify the need to complement the hard, soft and critical systems
methodologies in TSI due to the limitation of each to serve the three key human
cognitive interests theorised by Habermas. These interests according to Habermas
(1972) are the technical, the practical and emancipatory interests. Jackson and Flood
have subsequently abandoned using Habermas’s theory of cognitive interest in
response to critiques. However, the search to underpin pluralism continues, using a
wide range of theories and also influenced by postmodern thinking (Mingers & Gill
1997).
Criticism leveled at the philosophical underpinning of TSI seems to have also created
tension between commitments to emancipation and pluralism that have further
weakened attention at the former. These critiques question the possibility of
employing alternative and, indeed contradicting epistemologies at the same time,
unless the methodologies are considered as if they are mere heuristic devices with no
paradigmatic roots (Tsoukas 1993). This is particularly relevant to the critical systems
methodology in relation to other systems methodologies that serve or at best are
indifferent to coercive relations. It also raises the question of to what extent TSI and
an inquirer can remain radical (emancipatory) while the clientele in management are
largely those serving and maintaining the status quo (Brocklesby 1993).
Another related critique raises problems of complementarity in such a way as to
consequently lead to a de-emphasised allegiance to emancipatory commitment. This
critique is along the lines of the paradigm incommensurability debate. It poses Burrel
& Morgan’s (1979) thesis about the impossibility of synthesis of paradigms. This
thesis implies that there is no room to complement because paradigms are alternatives.
Creating a space for complementarism through the identification of a limitation of a
paradigm using the criteria of another paradigm is simply unacceptable. This critique,
together with the influence of postmodern thoughts, may have contributed to the shift
from earlier commitment of CST to complementarism to current pluralism. The
reason for such a shift is implied in Jackson's current position on pluralism in systems
practice (Jackson 1997). The reason is the fact that complementing is integrating
incompatible paradigms from a standpoint that can not be achieved without something
being lost. A more neutral position is to implement methodologies from different
paradigms simultaneously at every stage of an intervention (pluralism). This, Jackson
(1997) argues, can be achieved by managing paradigm diversity, rather than by
complementarity based on allocating different systems methodologies to their
respective tasks from a standpoint at the very start. Such justification of pluralism
neither declares a metaparadigmatic position nor allegiance to any systems paradigm
including to critical systems thinking, thus having no commitment to developing
emancipatory systems methodology.
The effort made to promote pluralism is commendable. However, it seems to have
been born at the expense of less attention to emancipatory commitment. Indeed
pluralism seems to be protected even at the expense of ceding commitment to
emancipation, the central reason why CST emerged and was committed to provide
methodical solutions. As Jackson (1997: 359) notes, the commitments to
emancipation and to critical awareness have been used only to buttress pluralism. It
has been a while since Jackson and Key (1984) identified the need to develop
emancipatory methodologies that are appropriate for complex coercive problem
situations. However, this methodological gap has never been adequately filled.
Indeed, what Oliga predicted for a slow development of CST seems to be particularly
well reflected in development of methodologies that embody its emancipatory intent.
Therefore, critical systems thinking needs renewed attention to be given to its
emancipatory commitment for the following three reasons. The first reason is to
adequately address the coercive problem situations, which it identified as a limitation
of hard and soft systems approaches. Otherwise the fundamental reason for an
epistemological break from soft and hard systems is threatened. The second reason is
the high level of challenge associated with developing and utilising emancipatory
systems methodologies. Emancipatory systems methodologies are risky and therefore
less supported, probably because they question dominant and established views. The
challenge contrasts to those other systems methodologies, which are already well
developed, and extensively in use. Within critical systems thinking, the challenge to
emancipatory commitment also contrasts with that to pluralism. While pluralism
implies diversity, and is thus concordant with postmodernism, emancipation, with its
old connotation, is considered as grand narrative that is out of tune with the spirit of
the times. However, emancipatory systems methodologies are required to counter
multiple and localised forms of domination. The third reason is that well-developed
emancipatory systems methodologies are needed to have a genuine pluralistic CST
framework
Sustainable development as an expanded domain for pluralistic systems
frameworks
The concept of sustainable development provides an expanded domain to pluralistic
application of various strands of systems thinking. This is because sustainable
development is concerned with both the natural and human systems. Conceptually it
argues for the possibility of complementary improvement of both the natural resource
base and the human condition. This expanded domain contrasts to the relatively
restricted domain of organisation and business management in which many of the
systems approaches have been developed.
Sustainable development requires the critical application of the systems approaches.
One of the fundamental reasons for the emergence of the concept of sustainable
development is the potentially undesirable effects of human interventions, be they
social, economic or technological in nature. By being critical of assumptions and
possible implications, undesirable effects can be recognised and thereby either
prevented or reduced.
In addition to being critical in the application of systems methodologies, inquiry into
issues of sustainable development requires a radical systems methodology for
emancipatory purposes. This is because redressing inequality is one of the major
principles of sustainable development. Inequality in sustainable development goes
beyond the classical view of coercive relations between classes. It includes gender,
wealth, authority, expertise and generation-related inequities. Beyond differences in
material conditions, it is also concerned with the liberation of suppressed knowledge
systems. This leads to power relations, which constrain the improvement of the
conditions of those affected, becoming one of the central issues of sustainable
development.
The principles of sustainable development are particularly relevant to situations where
there are significant differences in material conditions, and asymmetry of power and
access to decision making processes among citizens. This is because such differences
institutionalise coercion and inequality, thereby harbouring conflict and instability,
and hindering improvement.
Sustainable development not only addresses inequalities within the current generation,
but is also about improving the livelihood conditions of the present generation without
compromising the potential for future generations (World Commission on
Environment and Development 1987). In Tigray, where agriculture and associated
natural resources provide the livelihood basis for more than 80% of the population,
and where most people live a subsistence lifestyle, efforts for sustainable development
have to complement improvements in equity with an increase in agricultural
productivity and the maintenance of the resource bases.
Applying critical systems heuristics
Sustainable development as discussed in the previous section provides an expanded
domain for employing multiple systems approaches. This expanded domain is a result
of the concerns of sustainable development manifested in its guiding principles:
productivity, equity and sustainability. These guiding principles require engaging
systems methodologies for efficiency and effectiveness together with those for
emancipation. This section extends on the need for such a pluralistic approach to be
critical and contain an emancipatory systems methodology.
Applied inquiries or interventions to promote sustainable development have what
Ulrich (1993) calls a normative content that requires self-reflection. By normative
content Ulrich means all the value judgements that inevitably flow into practical
propositions such as recommendations for action.
Critical systems thinking allows a critical employment of systems methodologies in
two related ways. The first is by being critical of the normative content (assumptions
and implications) of any systems methodology (Flood & Ulrich 1991; Flood &
Jackson 1991). The second is by reflecting on the normative content of a proposed
intervention.
Ulrich’s (1983) critical systems heuristics provides tools for laying open the
normative contents of applied inquiries or proposed interventions, and a practicable
dialogical engagement between planners and concerned citizens. These tools are the
concept of boundary judgement and the polemical employment of boundary judgments
respectively (Ulrich 1993). Boundary judgment is a concept that represents inevitable
a priori assumptions that enter into applied inquires and the a posteriori implications
when they get implemented. While boundary judgments are crucial elements of the
systems concept that need critical attention, they are often ignored as if they are
objectively given. Boundary judgements are much more than the physical boundaries
of a system. They include temporal and social boundaries which all contribute to the
normative content of the inquiry or intervention.
The concept of boundary judgments provides a tool for tracing the normative social
and ecological implications of a system design. Ulrich worked out 12 categories of
boundary judgments that inevitably are contained within any systems design. He
organised them into four groups of three categories each to address four key issues of
critically normative design (Ulrich 1993:596)
1. The design’s value basis: what are (ought to be) the sources of motivation that
provide the necessary sense of direction and purposefulness? What purposes are
served? Whose purpose are they? And what is (ought to be) the decisive measure of
success?
2. The design’s basis of power: what are (ought to be) the sources of control built into
the design, i.e., who controls the necessary means and resources? Where does the
necessary decision authority reside? What is (ought to be) the environment to that
decision power, i.e. beyond its control?
3. The design’s basis of knowledge: What are (ought to be) the sources of expertise
that contribute the necessary information, practical experience and know-how,
organisational design skills? What is the role played by expertise?
4. The design’s basis of legitimisation: what are (ought to be) the sources of
legitimacy vis-a-vis those affected but not involved? Is there any sense of self-
reflection and responsibility built into the design? Who argues the case of those who
cannot speak for themselves, including nature and those not born?
The first three groups relate to the roles and concerns of those involved (having a say)
in the planning process, whereas the fourth group refers to those affected but not
involved (Ulrich 1993: 596).
The concept of boundary judgment is a tool for self-reflection, but Ulrich (1993)
argues that self-reflection is not guaranteed if it is entirely dependent on the good will
of planners. Ulrich (1983: 25) indicates that even if planners were willing to undertake
self-reflection the task involved in laying open the normative contents of plans are
sufficiently difficult that there is a need to have other heuristic support. Moreover,
self reflection of a planner removed from the constraints of experience and action, and
without involving those who will be affected by the plan, lacks democratic legitimacy.
For that to happen, reflection has to engage planners and affected citizens in equal
position competency, so that a reasonable dialogue can then occur to lay open the
boundary judgment of the plan at hand. A heuristic support for such engagement is
the polemical employment of boundary judgments which Ulrich (1983: 301-310) has
derived from Kant’s (1787: B767) concept of the “polemical employment of reason”.
The polemical employment of boundary judgments is an argument that is directed to
refute dogmatically or cynically asserted validity claims about boundary judgments
(Ulrich 1993). Those affected (not just those involved in planning) can advance
alternative boundary judgments with respect to the context of application of any
inquiry or proposition. This is because boundary judgments are personal value
judgements that do not entail any theoretical validity claim and hence do not require a
theoretical justification. Therefore, when it comes to bounding a context to be
considered (boundary judgments), Ulrich (1983) contends that ordinary citizens are no
more lay people than planners are.
The polemical employment of boundary judgments secures practicable inter-
subjective argumentation on normative validity claims of a plan because it meets two
divergent requirements. These requirements are a democratic participation by all
those concerned regardless of their power, expertise and argumentative skills, and of a
cogent argumentation on the part of everybody who participates (Ulrich 1993). This
is achieved by focusing the debate on boundary judgments of the plan to which the
concerned are no less expert than the involved. This creates what Ulrich (1993) calls
symmetry of critical competence among the involved and the affected so that the later
can bring in their personal concerns without being convicted of lacking rationality or
cogency. The symmetry of critical competence, although it does not guarantee
consensus, it implies any mutual understanding and legitimisation of a plan is by the
informed consent of the affected.
The practical discourse using the polemical employment of boundary judgment has to
have what Ulrich (1983: 313) calls a stopping rule. The rule is a criterion for deciding
when the debate ought to stop and action should begin. This rule has to be contained
in an institution associated with the participatory decision making process.
Gem-gam, a local institution for discursive engagement
At this juncture we introduce gem-gam, an existing institution that may support a
discursive engagement among planners and concerned citizens through the polemical
employment of boundary judgements. Gem-gam was developed by the TPLF during
the civil war (1975-1991) as a means to ensure accountability and democratic
decision-making in the TPLF army (Young 1997). Prior to 1991 it was introduced to
mass associations (Farmers, women and the Youth) and to the community through the
Baito system in those areas controlled by the TPLF. This institution was
subsequently introduced into all state bureaucracies in 1992.
Gem-gam is a mass meeting for reflection on objectives and means, for the purpose of
achieving a high level of agreement on collective action. It is also a process of
evaluating these collective actions and the performance of individuals, groups and
organisations to ensure accountability. In its extreme evaluative form, gem-gam
assumes what is locally called tsirier, literally meaning "cleansing". Cleansing usually
starts from within the TPLF and runs its course through the mass associations and
baitos. It is directed against corruption and any attitudes and tendencies that threaten
the collective actions. Nobody including the leadership is immune to cleansing. It is
believed that it creates transparency, closeness and renews the commitment, and sense
of responsibility for collective action. Nevertheless, gem-gam does suffer some
limitations and threats that would require change to make it a truly democratic
decision making process. The limitations include the lengthy time it takes and the
lack of consistency. The threats are possible orchestration and manipulation by those
who lead the process (Young 1997).
Gem-gam has faced another challenge since it was introduced to all government
structures in 1992. This challenge is a resistance by some experts and bureaucrats.
The resistance is directed against gem-gam's distinguishing feature that permits
evaluation and criticism of superiors by subordinates, teachers by students, and
experts by concerned ordinary citizens (Young 1997). Although it needs more work
to be an efficient and a fully democratic process, it remains a powerful means already
in place for ensuring accountability. The tools of critical systems heuristics can
enhance the critical competence of ordinary citizens in the case study in their
engagement in gem-gam. This enhanced competency can make experts and
bureaucrats accountable to reflect on the boundary judgments of their plans and deter
the tendency to technicalise or bureaucratise participatory decision making.
The need for critical dialogue beyond plans
Critical systems heuristics provide tools for both experts and citizens alike to be
critical of the normative contents of plans. However, there are areas beyond planning
that need emancipatory engagement. From our case study in Tigray, areas that need
emancipatory engagement include already existing institutions and different
explanations given to perturbations. Institutions here are defined broadly as the set of
rules, norms, and belief systems in a community that enable, constrain and enforce
rights and duties. Perturbations are disturbances and pressures on the natural resource
and livelihood systems of a community. Existing societal institutions and
interpretations of perturbations strongly influence the behaviour and livelihood
conditions of individual members of the community. Certain institutions such as land
tenure and dominant explanations of some perturbations such as famine may guide
planning and therefore, are accessible to the tools of critical systems heuristics.
However, there are other institutions such as patriarchal relationship, and explanations
given to perturbations such as drought, unquestioningly accepted by the community as
if they are predetermined that may need further methodological developments for
critical engagement.
Conclusion
The concept of sustainable development provides an expanded domain for inquiries or
interventions using pluralistic systems methodologies. It also requires the critical
application of such pluralistic frameworks. By critical it means laying open and
reflecting upon the normative content of the inquiries or proposed interventions. The
aim of a critical effort is not to seek objective justification of the normative contents,
rather to reach a critical solution by entering a dialogue with those who would be
affected by the inquiry or intervention. Boundary judgment and the polemical
employment of boundary judgments are tools for critical reflection through discursive
engagement. It is necessary to have institutions that enable citizens to use these tools
for discursive engagement about plans. In Tigray, gem-gam is such an institution that
has the potential to accommodate the tools for critical reflection. Whereas critical
systems heuristics can provide emancipatory engagement on planning, there are other
areas such as existing institutions that also need such engagement. Therefore, a
renewed attention has to be given to the emancipatory commitment of critical systems
thinking to develop emancipatory methodologies that enable citizens to engage on
issues beyond plans.
References
Brocklesby, J. (1993). The New Operational Research and Management Science:
integrating hard, soft and critical systems perspectives, Victoria University of
Wellington, Wellington.
Burrel, G. and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational
analysis, Heinemann, London.
Chambers, R. (1997). Paradigm shifts and the practice of participatory research and
development. In Nelson, N. and Wright, N. (eds), Power and Participatory
Development: theory and practice, Int. Tech. Pub., London , pp. 30-42.
Ethiopian Central Statistical Authority (1995). The 1994 Population and Housing
Census of Ethiopia: Result for Tigray Region, Central Statistical Authority, Addis
Ababa.
Flood, R.L. (1991). Redefining management and systems sciences. Jn Flood, R.L. and
Jackson, M.C. (eds), Critical Systems Thinking: directed readings, John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester, pp. 303-320.
Flood, R.L. and Jackson, M.C. (1991). Total Systems Intervention: a practical face to
critical systems thinking. In Flood, R.L. and Jackson, M.C. (eds), Critical Systems
Thinking: directed readings, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 321-338.
Gebru, T. (1991). Ethiopia: power and protest, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Gregory, W. (1996). Dealing with diversity. In Flood, R.L. and Romm, N.R.A. (eds),
Critical Systems Thinking: current research and practice, Plenum Press, New York,
35-59.
Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and Human Interests, Heinemann, London.
Hoben, A. (1995). Paradigms and Politics: the cultural construction of environmental
policy in Ethiopia, World Development 23 (6), 1007-1021.
Jackson, M.C. (1982).The nature of ‘soft’ systems thinking: the work of Churchman,
Ackoff and Checkland, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 9, 17-29.
Jackson, M.C. (1984). Towards a System of Systems Methodologies, Journal of the
Operational Research Society 35, 473-486.
Jackson, M.C. (1991). Social systems theory and practice: the need for a critical
approach. In Flood, R.L. and Jackson, M. C. (eds), Critical systems thinking: directed
readings, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 287-302.
Jackson, M.C. (1997). Pluralism in systems thinking and practice. In Mingers, J. and
Gill, A. (eds), Multimethodology: the theory and practice of combining management
science methodologies, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 347-378.
McCann, J.C. (1995). People of the plow: an agricultural history of Ethiopia, 1800-
1990, The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Mingers, J. (1980). Towards an appropriate methodology for applied systems
thinking, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 7, 41-49.
Mingers, J. (1997). Towards critical pluralism. Jn Mingers, J. and Gill, A. (eds),
Multimethodology: the theory and practice of combining management science
methodologies, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 407-440.
Oliga, J.C. (1991). Power-Ideology Matrix in Social Systems Control. In Flood, R.L.
and Jackson, M. C. (eds), Critical systems thinking: directed readings, John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester, pp. 269-286.
Schecter, D. (1991). Critical Systems Thinking in the 1980s: a connective summary.
In Flood, R.L. and Jackson, M. C. (eds), Critical systems thinking: directed readings,
John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 213-226.
Spaul, M. (1997). Multimethodology and Critical Theory: an intersection of interests?
In Mingers, J. and Gill, A. (eds), Multimethodology: the theory and practice of
combining management science methodologies, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp.
323-347.
Tsoukas, H. (1993). "By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them": a reply to Jackson,
Green, and Midgley, Systems Practice 6 (3), 311-317.
Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: a new approach to
practical philosophy, Haupt, Bern.
Ulrich, W. (1991). Critical Heuristics of Social Systems Design. In Flood, R.L. and
Jackson, M. C. (eds), Critical systems thinking: directed readings, John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester, pp. 103-116.
Ulrich, W. (1993). Some difficulties of ecological thinking considered from a critical
systems perspective - a plea for critical holism, Systems Practice, 583-611.
Mingers, J. and Gill, A. (eds) (1997). Multimethodology: the theory and practice of
combining management science methodologies, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Young, J. (1997). Development and change in post-revolutionary Tigray, The Journal
of Modern African Studies 35, 81-99.
