Explore the vast range of titles available.

This article investigates the relationship of systems thinking to action research by reviewing the main developments in systems thinking and relating these to action research. There are two main lines of thought in systems thinking that lead to wholly different conceptions about action research. The first (systems thinking) advocates thinking about real social systems that it assumes exist in the world. The second (systemic thinking) supposes only that the social construction of the world is systemic. Greater emphasis is placed on systemic thinking consistent with its greater importance to contemporary action research. The article concludes that systemic thinking when taken to its practical conclusion from a critical perspective offers to action research a somewhat unique liberating praxis. Concern that any liberating praxis could remain hollow is addressed through a certain kind of ‘spiritual’ awareness that is suggested by wholeness.

The practical orientation of action research, together with its embedded and participative principles, means it is particularly suited to complex, interconnected questions and ‘real life’ systemic issues. In the realm of first-person action research, Judi Marshall’s (1999) influential article “Living Life as Inquiry” described how such research can extend to one’s whole life whereby professional and personal questions can be set within politically relevant frames. Over the past two decades, many students and researchers have worked with and drawn much imaginative inspiration from the idea of living life as inquiry (LLI). However little has been written to describe how the practice develops and the many forms it can take. This article draws on our extensive experience as inquirers ourselves and as educators, working with students and change agents motivated to address social and environmental concerns. Twenty years after the original article we have conducted a reflective review that included surveying the literature, and working in depth with a range of stories and current practices. From this comes a textured expansion of the language and practice of living life as inquiry as it is approached from the specificity of people’s lives. Through narrative and visual textures, we present views into the many different ways LLI is developed through day-to-day practices of experimentation, data gathering, artistic exploration, intervention and reflection. We explore what this means for quality in the enactment of inquiry. The article draws particular attention to the embodied nature of inquiry and seeks to capture its fleeting, processual quality.

Purpose An appreciative inquiry process was collaboratively undertaken with an inner city local authority and personal advisors where systemic social work practice was embedded. The purpose of this study is to explore how systemic social work principles could be integrated into the support of young adults leaving the care system, especially when safeguarding concerns exist. Design/methodology/approach Three fortnightly, reflecting team-style, appreciative inquiry workshops explored the integration into practice of systemic concepts under the themes of safeguarding, uncertainty and new possibilities. Findings Within the contexts of the organisation, other agencies and the relationship, six paired themes emerged: learning and navigating; positioning and risk-taking; and feeling and engaging. Core systemic concepts, such as self-reflexivity and mutual influence, can enable personal advisers to use themselves and their relationship with care leavers as a context for change. Considering responses to risk from different family member positions may support holding greater levels of uncertainty. Seeing resilience as a process rather than a personal attribute enabled personal advisors to think about how they connected with care leavers through shared life experiences, fostering narratives of hopes and dreams where new possibilities abound. Research limitations/implications Appreciative inquiry is generally seen as a defined model for implementing large organisational changes; this study comprised a small sample group, and the model’s application was less defined. Originality/value A gap exists in the extensive care leaver research, addressing safeguarding and working systemically. A conceptual model for practice is offered, with potential utility in developing further systemically informed training and supervision for practitioners. A less structured and more relationally engaged model for appreciative inquiry is presented.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to set out the role Communities of Practice (CoPs) can play in empowering and enabling practitioners and managers to lead on improvements to the delivery of interventions to children and young people leaving custody. Design/methodology/approach This paper is based on a review of the relevant theories in the field and how these may be practically applied to the field of youth resettlement. Findings CoPs are a helpful way to engage, enable and, most importantly, empower, practitioners and managers, thus unlocking the wealth of knowledge and experience that exists across the workforce. Originality/value The originality of the piece is in its exploration of the theory and its application to the practice of youth resettlement and associated practices.

Hauptintention dieses Beitrages ist es, Lesende zu einem Verständnis von Literatur-Reviews aus einer systemischen und dialogischen Perspektive einzuladen: Angeregt durch die Lektüre eines Beitrags von MONTUORI (2005) beschäftigte ich mich damit, wie solche Reviews situiert und wie Bezüge zwischen Menschen und Ideen hergestellt werden könnten. Transformative Potenziale erschlossen sich mir, indem ich einen Prozess, den ich zuvor positivistisch gedacht hatte, systemisch re-positionierte (BARGE 2006). In diesem Beitrag zeige ich, wie ich Literatur-Reviews aus einer solchen systemischen Perspektive durchführe: Die Texte \"sprechen\" miteinander wie in einem Gespräch, neue Themen und Bezüge werden identifiziert und es entsteht neues Wissen. Das Konzept \"sprechender\" Texte entlehne ich einem dialogischen Ansatz, und ich diskutiere, welche systemischen, dialogischen und ethischen Aspekte beachtet werden sollten.URN: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs150352

In this article I re-examine the tenets of the transformative paradigm as explained by Mertens in various publications. Mertens suggests that the transformative paradigm (as she names it) encapsulates the positions of researchers who question positivist/postpositivist- and interpretivist/constructivist-oriented approaches, which to date have been ascendant in the field of social research. She argues (following critical theorists) that researchers embracing a transformative paradigm as an alternative explicitly bear social justice issues in mind so that their inquiries become intertwined with a political agenda and are action-oriented towards generating increased fairness in the social fabric. In the article I consider her arguments and I add additional angles to them with reference to a number of authors (including myself) advocating critical systemic thinking-and-practice and advocating Indigenous systemic approaches. I consider some implications of the revised understanding of the transformative paradigm (and its relationship to “other” paradigms) for operating as a researcher.

Managerialism is now commonplace in the voluntary sector. While its adoption has helped nonprofit organisations to survive severe economic turbulence, critics contend that its neoliberalist assumptions have caused 'values incongruence', which in turn has led to mission drift, a loss of idealism and disillusionment among staff, volunteers and supporters. This paper introduces systemic practice and workplace as community as alternative narratives, which appear more congruent with the values of many voluntary organisations.

Local governments are increasingly navigating accelerating change and escalating complexity caused by interconnected crises, commonly referred to as a global polycrisis. These crises, including climate change, lack of affordable housing, declining mental health, and geopolitical instability, both shape and are shaped by local conditions. Cities face growing pressure to equitably provide services that are responsive to evolving community needs while contending with the systemic nature of contemporary challenges. However, local governments are often constrained by conventional management frameworks and practices that do not match the complexity of today’s challenges. The purpose of this conceptual paper is to explore how systems science can be leveraged to define and characterize a transformative new type of management designed to enable local governments to more adequately address emerging complexity. To this end, the authors review the literature on contemporary management practice and explore how management for local government can be reframed in alignment with the insights from systems science, using a service ecosystem lens. The findings point to a needed shift toward systemic management practices that are integrative, collective, and adaptive. The authors illustrate the practical relevance of these three characteristics and conclude with recommendations for research, policy, and practice aimed at building the institutional capabilities required to transition toward systemic management frameworks and practices that match the complexity of the polycrisis.

Our purpose in this paper is to contribute to the field of systemic practice by sharing a process of professional learning based on meta-action research. The process emerged as we engaged with evaluation data from a leadership development program (LDP). The aim of this LDP had been to help leaders design their team projects on poverty reduction through action research methods in six African countries. As facilitators of the program we discuss our experiential learning based on critical reflection. We explain how meta-action research can transform understandings of ways to improve professional practice in future applications. We present three process models: (1) a model of reflection on action, (2) a meta-action research model, and (3) a model for lifelong learning through meta-action research. These models may be of benefit and interest to readers who facilitate systemic practice and action research in education, higher education, communities, industry and government.