Describing a feminist-systems theory

& ResearchPaper

Describing a Feminist-systems Theory

Anne Stephens*, Chris Jacobson and Christine King

School of Integrated Systems Management, The University of Queensland, Gatton 4343, Queensland, Australia

This paper provides the first detailed discussion of a set of principles developedwhen twoepistemologies (Critical Systems Thinking and Cultural Ecofeminism) where system-atically compared. There are five principles themed around gender sensitivity; valuingvoices from the margins; no longer regarding the environment as ‘outside’ the realm oftheoretical research; selecting appropriate methodologies; and promoting the achieve-ment of plurally desirable and sustainable social changes. The analysis subjects theprinciples to scrutiny from broader literature on direct and indirectly related concepts.The analysis also provides sets of theoretical recommendations for practitioners to embedsingle or multiple principles in their own repertoires of practice. Copyright # 2010 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords critical systems theory; ecofeminism; grounded theory; systemic intervention;feminist participatory action research

INTRODUCTION

Systems theorists have engaged in and advancedfundamental questions in the nature, role andmethods of the social sciences for over 50 years,offering a major alternative to mainstream socialtheory and methodology (Barton et al., 2004).Critical Systems Thinking (CST) is an evolvingset of developing themes that provides atheoretical foundation and practical frameworkfor reflective research and practice. It is in thisevolution that involving a feminist discourse insystems thinking can embellish and sharpen theanalytical tool kit of the participant/observerresearcher. Challenges to power structures and

ideology in social contexts is a political act andwhere justified ought to compel researchers to acttowards ending ecological and social injusticesand exclusions.

A recent publication Towards a Feminist SystemTheory (Stephens et al., 2009) documented a set ofFeminist Systems Theory (FST) principles. Theprinciples emerged from a process of systematiccomparison of texts, drawn from the culturalecofeminist tradition (CEF) and Gerald Midg-ley’s (2000) text Systemic Intervention: Philosophy,Methodology and Practice. A detailed frameworkfor guiding practice however, counterbalancedby broader linkages to other systems, includingfeminist and inquiry-based discourses has notyet been detailed. The objective of this paper is tosummarize those principles, subject them tofurther scrutiny, and develop an understandingof how they could be applied in practice.

SystemsResearch andBehavioral ScienceSyst. Res.27, 553^566 (2010)Published online inWiley Online Library(wileyonlinelibrary.com)DOI:10.1002/sres.1061

*Correspondence to: Anne Stephens, School of Integrated SystemsManagement, The University of Queensland, Gatton 4343, Queens-land, Australia.E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Received 31 July 2010

Accepted 5 August 2010

Therefore, the emerging theory can be appro-priately entitled, a feminist systems theory. Whilstthe principles found their origin in both CEF andCST, FST should not be limited to ecofeminist orCST epistemology. A brief argument for the needfor FST theory is provided. FST is political andcalls for explicit challenges to ideology thatsustain power and privilege imbalance. The goalis to emancipate collectives, individuals andecologies from injustices and exclusions. Anexposition of the key concepts within eachprinciple to the extant literature is provided.Guidance on how to apply a principle withreference to an expanded set of methodologiesincluding Community Operations Research(COR) and Participatory Action Research(PAR) as well as Systemic Intervention (SI) isalso included.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL BACKGROUND—FEMINISM AND ECOFEMINISM

Feminism

Feminism refers to a political, cultural andeconomic movement aimed at establishinggreater gender equality, often in the form oflegal recognition of women’s rights and legalprotections. As a movement it is commonlydivided into three waves. The first wavetranspired in the 19th and early 20th centuries,the second occurred in the 1960s and 1970s andthe third extends from the 1990s to the present. Itsinfluence extends well beyond the law however,challenging traditional perspectives throughoutcultures and societies on issues including sex,gender, reproduction, sexuality, violence, class,race, the workforce, education, psychoanalysis,religion, globalization, economy, peace andmilitarism, environment, animal welfare andmore. Feminism can be said to be ‘schooled’ intodifferent traditions. The most prevalent of theseare liberal feminism, radical feminism, Marxistand socialist feminism, psychoanalytic andgender feminism, existentialist, postmodern,multicultural and global feminisms, and ecofe-minism (Tong, 1998). These are not exclusivecategories and whilst the labelling of it has

fragmented feminism (Hanson, 2001), categoriesprovide helpful demarcations between signifi-cant differences signalling that feminism is not amonolithic ideology that all feminists do notthink alike. Like all other time-honoured modesof thinking, feminist thought has a past as well asa present and a future (Tong, 1998).

Ecofeminism

Ecofeminism was coined in 1974 from the Frenchfeminist Francoise d’Eaubonne’s work, ‘Le fem-inisme ou lamort’ (Tong, 1998: p. 251). Accordingto King, ‘nature is the central category of analysis.An analysis of the interrelated dominations ofnature—psyche and sexuality, human oppres-sion and non-human nature—and the historicposition of women in relation to those forms ofdomination, is the starting point of ecofeministtheory’ (Ynestra King, in Uhls, n.d.). Ecofemin-ism can be broadly aligned into two schools ofthinking. ‘Nature ecofeminists’ perceive thatthere is an essential link between woman andnature that is primarily biological and psycho-logical. Generally, women can be closer to naturebecause of their positions as mothers, home-makers and carers. This view is thought to beempowering aswomen’s uniqueway of knowingmight save human beings and the environmentfrom men’s domination of nature (Tong, 1998).

‘Cultural ecofeminist’(s) (CEF), by contrast,seek to de-emphasize the nature–woman connec-tion, which they see as degrading and imposed bya socially constructed patriarchal order. Somemenwill continue to exploit women and nature whilstwomen are culturally subordinated to men, andnature is subordinated to culture. Attempts to savetheplanet are undermineduntil an ethic that is freefrom androcentric and anthropocentric distortionis adopted (Tong, 1998). FST is aligned with thework of the cultural school of ecofeminism.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL BACKGROUND—SYSTEMS THEORY

Until the late 1970s systems researchwas dominatedby the positivist, functionalist and conservative

Copyright � 2010 JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Syst. Res.27, 553^566 (2010)DOI:10.1002/sres

554 Anne Stephens et al.

RESEARCHPAPER Syst. Res.

‘hard’ methodologies (Checkland, 1980; vonFoerster, 2003). Cybernetics arose from empiricalobservations in the 19th and 20th centuries ofcommunication, performance and feedback pro-cesses in machines and animals. Cyberneticsaims to improve the efficiency and outcome ofthese processes. It highlighted circular forms ofcausality which moved conventional sciencebeyond the linear causal modes of traditionalmechanistic thought. It led to discoveries incomplex systems such as chaotic dynamics, withapplications across the biological, technologicaland social systems. Attempts to apply cyberneticprinciples to society, however, were mechanisticand conservative.

Critical Systems Theory

Over the last half a century CST has changed inemphasis from practice within the ‘hard’ to ‘soft’systems and is now in its ‘third wave’. By the1970s, CST thinkers were beginning to applyinterpretive models, subjectivity and participa-tory concepts to research (Oliga, 1995). Many hadan interest in the nature of knowledge processesi.e. second order cybernetics (von Foerster, 2003),and later linked the study with ethics and parti-cipatory practices. They contested hierarchicalpower structures and the conventional, narrowapplications of science. The third wave of CSTpromoted the need to build shared understand-ings and participatory decision making. Newresearch methods included Checkland’s SoftSystems Methodology (SSM) (Checkland, 1985)and Flood and Romm’s Critical Systems Meth-odology (CSM) (R.L. Flood, 1995; R.L. Flood andRomm, 1996). These developments were paral-leled by that of PAR within education anddevelopment studies, and were theoreticallylinked from themid 1990s onwards (Levin, 1994).

CST’s third wave has built on the democraticgoals inveigled in the work of Jurgen Habermas’theory of Knowledge Constitutive Interests andhis model of the ‘ideal speech situation’ (Midg-ley, 1996b, 2000; Pollack, 2006). Other influencesincluding post-modernism and relativism con-tinue to stimulate debate. Pollack (2006) states,‘as yet there is no consistently supported philoso-

phical position for the field . . .Determining whatshould take the place as ‘‘the’’ philosophicalposition for CST and how it relates to thephilosophical frameworks of other paradigmswould then be a contentious matter, highlydependant upon the specific interpretation ofCST’ (p. 393). CST does now appear to resideupon three central themes:

(1) undertake deliberate action towards socialimprovement,

(2) engender emancipation or liberation fromoppression, with a commitment to achievingmutual understandings and

(3) addressing issues of power and coercion inresearch practice (Oliga, 1995; Midgley,1996b, 2000; Hammond, 2003).

CST addresses these central themes throughapplication of participatory research methods.Examples of the application of CST principles topractice include SI, PAR and COR traditions.Concerned with issues around boundaries,interdisciplinary dialogue, design and imple-mentation, COR has been deployed along withclosely associated systems research, as an inter-disciplinary approach to address industrial,organizational management and local com-munity issues (Midgley and Reynolds, 2004).

FEMINISM AND GENDER IN THEBROADER SYSTEMS THEORYLITERATURE

Feminist discourse around concepts or issuesrelating to women’s oppression are lacking incurrent and historical literature pertaining toCST. Despite the very few examples by Cohen(1996), Forrest (1993), Gregory (1996), Hanson(2001) and Taket (1995, 2008; Taket and White,1993) more can be done to build the ‘compatible,even inseparable’ (Hanson, 2001: p. 546) connec-tions between systems theory and feminism. Anyoccasion where female specific forms of margin-alization are overlooked is a form of exclusionarypractice, yet gender specific or feminist researchis very nearly absent in systems theory. FSTargues that the central themes of CST cannot befully realized if feminist theory and its transfor-


Describinga Feminist SystemsTheory 555

Syst. Res. RESEARCHPAPER

mative possibilities are sidelined or ignored.Thus, FST with its explorations and greaterunderstandings of the links between feministthinking and CST are both timely, and likely toyield valuable insights.

‘ENVIRONMENT’ AND ‘NATURE’

According to Luckett (2004), the term ‘environ-ment’ in systems thinking refers to ‘that which isoutside the boundary of a system. . . and which isable to impact on the dynamics/operation of thesystem’ (p. 512). Humans are a part of theenvironment and a part of nature; therefore, theterms are used synonymously. The juxtaposition‘human vs. nature’ misleadingly suggests thathumans are not part of nature and reflects apositivist realist epistemology and effort to gainan objective understanding of phenomena. Aclear separation is often made between natureand humans where humans are viewed as agentsof (unsustainable) change in nature. Under thisassumption, impacts are assessed, problems arearticulated and systems are managed in terms ofa rarefaction between the biophysical and socio-economic (Luckett, 2004). This thinking isresponsible for ecological exclusion, destructionand injustices born about through a rationalistculture that values objects and a research agendathat can be harnessed in the service of meetingsome pre-defined end (Midgley, 2000). It hasresulted in a natural world which has beensubjected to much the same abuse and ambiva-lent behaviour as certain groups of humans,including women.

A FOURTH WAVE OF CRITICAL SYSTEMSTHEORY? A POLITICAL FEMINISTSYSTEMS THEORY

CST recognizes that constraining effects ofexisting power structures and ideology in socialcontexts can be challenged where justified (Shenand Midgley, 2007). Midgley writes that ‘systemicintervention can take a variety of forms: as well asactivities of information production and debate. . .,there is a need for the explicit inclusion within

systemic intervention of political action andcampaigning’ (Midgley, 2000: p. 210, his italics).FST throws light upon the political dimension ofCST, which at the very least strengthens the thirdwave of CST. Examining the justifications ofexplicit power structures promotes challenges tothem that emancipate collectives and individ-uals. It provides a potential tool to end ecologicaland social injustices and exclusions.

FST is inherently political. Power relationsinhabit all aspects of life, conjuring the emble-matic feminist mantra ‘the personal is political’.The pervasive presence of the political inrelationships, daily life and in the home revealsthe nature and exercise of power and the pointsthrough which empowerment from systemicexploitation can be exerted. Thus, the ‘feminist’aspect of FST argues that any philosophy isalready political. Philosophy and ideology issaturated with power relations. Engenderingagency to all is the central task of any movementfor social change. FST also has an ‘ecological’dimension, drawn from CEF perspectives. Itexamines the interrelated power relations thatextend between human and non-human nature,thereby including nature in the categories ofthose unjustly dominated and oppressed. Politicsis the space (or spaces) that have particularqualities and experiences of collectivity, inter-locution, translation, interpretation, contestation,negotiation, discussion (Mallory, 2008).

FEMINISTS SYSTEMS THEORYPRINCIPLES

From an undertaking that systematically com-pared texts of writers from both the third wave ofCST and CEF (Stephens et al., 2009), five princi-ples evolved and are listed in Table 1. It becameapparent that both CST and CEF have things tooffer one another. More explicit attention to thespecific circumstances where sexual oppressionmaybe present could enhance SI practice withinCST, while CST’s commitment to theoretical andmethodological pluralism presents opportunitiesfor feminists to set aside epistemological differ-ences within feminism itself. The epistemes werefound to share some mutual goals to:




� operate beyond a positivist framework;� challenge the ‘ontological divide’ between

‘man’ and ‘nature’ and� achieve lasting social changes through the

application of theory in practice.

The principles presented in Table 1 are bynecessity, brief. Further elaboration, drawing onrelevant literature demonstrates how the prin-ciples can be applied in practice.

Gender Sensitivity

According to the Beijing Platform of Action(1995), gender describes those characteristics ofwomen and men that are socially determined.Gender refers to the economic, social, politicaland cultural attributes and opportunities associ-ated with being biologically male or female. Inmost societies, men and women differ in theactivities they undertake, in access to and controlof resources, and in participation in decisionmaking. As a group, women commonly have less

access to opportunities and decision making(Judd et al., 2009). Gender sensitivity can be seenas a continuity and reflexivity of attending togender in research practice (McNamara, 2009).Incorporating gender implications must beintrinsic to all research processes, from developingthe research question(s); exploring the implicationsof the findings, and embedding it in any advocacyfor change based on those researchfindings (p. 165).Gender sensitivity should also include examiningissues that impact upon gender, that the partici-pants themselves may be unaware. As Midgleysays, ‘If the intervener wishes to be conscious of thewider political consequences of systemic inter-vention, then . . . ideological analysis is essential’(Midgley, 2000). Incorporating the impact ofgender in contextual ideologies extends theemancipation commitment of CST.

‘Gender neutral’ approaches must be incorp-orated with discernment. Gender neutral text canmask power imbalance. It can imply that thenecessary reference to the distinguishing featuresof women’s experiences has been addressed. Forexample, well meaning gender neutrality in

Table 1 Summary of the principles and their meanings adapted from Stephens et al. (2009)

Principle Meaning

Adopt a gender sensitive approach Gender sensitivity is a vital consideration to help prevent writers overlookingwhat is distinctive about women’s experience in studies. It can be implicitlyassumed that the experiences of women are either unimportant and or parallelto those of men (Forrest, 1993). Albeit its well meaning intentions, the use ofnon-gender specific language, conceals oppression when the underlyingparadigmatic influences are not addressed (Plumwood, 2002)

Value voices from the margins Practitioners can seek to hear from and gain insight from the perspective ofnon-‘expert’ others. Harmful or naıve dualisms are challenged, as are claims of‘value-free’ science, which is often rooted in rationalist patriarchal ideology,and serves to naturalize and sustain the political interests of privileged groups

Incorporate the environmentwithin research

The human-centric nature of research needs to be reviewed so that interwovenand intrinsically connected oppressive states can be addressed. FST calls forthe political engagement of the non-human realm

Select appropriate method/ologies Pluralism requires researchers to use tailored and responsive methods toaddress multifarious problems. To deal adequately with multiply diversepeople and contexts requires a commitment to communication and criticalreflection. It is not a superficial approach to methodology (Midgley, 1996a)

Undertake research that promotesplurally desirable and sustainablesocial change

Practice and its outcomes should seek to avoid instances of decontextualizedand inappropriate change coming down ‘from above’ or led by outside‘experts’. Research is enhanced when it is responsive, grounded and locallyembedded




language has led to the unique treatment needs ofwomen in the Australian health system beingneglected (Judd et al., 2009). The causes andexperience of poverty are not gender neutral andmen and women are exposed to poverty indistinctive ways (Bastosa et al., 2009). Thoughpower relations can be revealed in concreteinstitutional analysis, overlooking gender speci-fications can obscure the true nature of powerrelations (Perkins et al., 2005). A gender-sensitiveresearch approach acknowledges the importanceof contextualizing the research practice andoutcomes in relation to the social, cultural andeconomic situation of the women participantsand the recipients of the research. Table 2contains strategies to guide interventions apply-ing a gender sensitive approach.

Value Voices from the Margins

A crucial finding of the original comparativestudy (Stephens et al., 2009) was the criticalperspective on the subject object dualism (SOD),and the moral imperative to challenge harmful or

naıve SODs. The late Val Plumwood’s workrevealed that the danger of niave SODs lies inthat much of what is devalued in society can befound to be on the underside of dichotomies. It isa point of contrast to what is deemed rational andof value. The ‘masculine/feminine’ dualismoperates with great strength in many culturesand societies to effectively silence and subordi-nate women and minorities (Plumwood, 1993,1996, 2002). A revaluation of this perspective isstymied by a particular ideology within therationalist doctrine—patriarchy which Hart(2005) suggests can be seen in this century tobe ‘fatherless’ although the ‘ghost of the oldpatriarchal order’ continues to linger. Differentpatriarchies structure ‘gender’ in complex,multiple ways which intertwine with other socialorderings. Patriarchies, claim Hart (2005), areintrinsic to, the formation of and changes within,the categories of class and caste. Patriarchalpractices and regulations are not superimposedto, but interrelate with, political economy,religion, law and culture. Western patriarchyinterrelates with neo-liberalism on a global scaleand is often wedded to a Cartesian dualistic

Table 2 Guidelines for applying a gender sensitive approach

� The process of engagement must be afforded paramount importance in the establishment of SI, PAR or COR,requiring considerable input of ‘self’ on the part of the co-researchers

� Once trust and credibility are established, these must be solicitously maintained. The role of the participants,who are considered co-researchers in some forms of participatory research (e.g. co-operative inquiry) should becontinuously affirmed. Researchers must collaborate with participants, from the outset and throughout theresearch process including being involved in determining what is reported and how the findings might bedisseminated (Heron and Reason, 2001; McNamara, 2009)

� Maintaining vigilance for themes of oppression and marginalization on the basis of gender is intrinsic to FSTapproach. Participants should consider utilizing professionally developed facilitation skills, especially in caseswhere women participants are likely to be hesitant in the face of possibly ‘getting it wrong’ and overwhelmedby the invitation to challenge aspects of their lived realities

� Presenting findings largely through the voices of participants themselves is by far the most effective form ofevidential reporting. Using the researcher’s own voice as expressed in the first person also engendersimmediacy and strengthens the credibility of the research act (McNamara, 2009)

� ‘Seizing the moment’ to influence public opinion based on research is vital. Appropriately de-identified books,opinion pieces and letters to the editor in newspapers and magazines can be delivered forcefully andeconomically in the vernacular and presenting the raw data as much as possible (McNamara, 2009)

� As a collaborative form of investigation, SI, COR and PAR are open to placing both the researched and theresearcher in a relationship of some intimacy. Due care must be taken to ‘anticipate’ and ‘name the end’ of theresearch relationship. In some cases it is important to ritualize the significance of its ending for all concerned(McNamara, 2009)




framework where the old pater familias mergeswith the head of household (Hart, 2005). TheChilean feminist Margarita Pisano relates theimpact of Western patriarchy on the world’spowerless people. She states ‘Whoever arguesthat the patriarchy has been humanizing itselfdoes not see . . . the thousands of third worldpeople terrorized by and trying to escape famine,drought andwar without being able to jump overthe invisible wall the First World has mounted tomaintain its privileges’ (quoted in Perkins et al.,2005: p. 115).

CST and feminists are wary of claims of ‘value-free’ science. Research driven by political inter-ests is likely to assume the positions of theprivileged group, which in turn naturalizes andsustains their privilege (Midgley, 2000; Sprague,2005; Ison and Schlindwein, 2006; Ravetz, 2006;Greenwood and Levin, 2007). Scientists com-monly have more social power than those whomthey study due to their relatively privilegedpositions. They exercise power in how theycontrol the research process, the findings andhow these are represented to others. Representa-tions of science are constructed in the discourseof natural science which is often masculine, andshapes nature as a bountiful mother, wild‘harridan’ or ‘shy maiden’ (Sprague, 2005). Inconsideration of the consequences of experimen-tation and research, Midgley (2000) writes thatmany people schooled in the traditional sciencesmay be affronted when their objectivity ischallenged, ‘. . .yet it is an inevitable consequenceof wishing to take account of the systemic effectsof an intervention (rather than refusing to eventhink about, let alone take responsibility for, howknowledge might be used)’ (Midgley, 2000: p.180). The practice of engaging with those whomay be affected by the scientific endeavour willgive rise to many more (scientific and non-scientific) paths of inquiry.

This principle encourages researchers to seekto hear from, and gain insight into the perspect-ive of people outside of the paradigm, disciplineor realm of the ‘expert’. Conventional scientificmethods should no longer be privileged asuniversal and guarantors of truth (Angen,2000). It must no longer be regarded as the onlyway to approach inquiry. A critique of positivism

and its assumptions expressed in scientificresearch, however, should not be interpreted as‘an attack’ (Ravetz, 1999), rather as an assistance.The implications of the lack of epistemologicalawareness in systems and complexity practicesare far reaching (Ison and Schlindwein, 2006).Ravetz (1999) describes the nature of themanage-ment of complex natural and social systems, ashaving produced a present mixture of ‘triumphand peril’ and argues that training in positivistconventional scientific method is too limiting.People with no formal qualifications who attemptto participate in the processes of innovation,evaluation or decision making, should not beviewed with scorn or suspicion (Ravetz, 1999).

The Environment is IncorporatedWithin Research

Acknowledging difference and including con-tinuity between human and non-human natureshould be achieved in research methodology.King (2000) emphasizes the human-centricnature of even the most participatory systems-based interventions such as Social Learning andPAR. She calls for a new basic metaphor of anadapting and self-renewing people-environmentsystem. Structural coupling through mutualperturbation, intention and appreciation wouldbe prominent qualities of the system. Secondly,King promotes a social learning theory thatwould include a diagnostic system. Perception,action and emotion would be valued andcontribute mutually and consistently to results.A people–environment analysis and synthesiswould promote renewal and regeneration andthe capacity for effective action (King, 2000).

FST extends King (2000) and Midgley’s (2000)notion of boundary critique. Accounts of the self,relative to the boundaries of others, enablesagents to reject harmful dualisms and keep theindependence or distinguishability of others. Tore-examine and reconceptualize the dualisticallyconstrued categories themselves, is a reflectionupon the arbitrarily constructed boundariesaround our social and personal knowledgedomains.




This principle urges thinkers to reveal inter-woven and connected philosophical categoriesbuilt on exclusions of women, nature andsubordinated non-humans, making visible hid-den political dimensions. An analysis of non-human concerns can be achieved by incorporat-ing a moral philosophy which re-values and re-integrates what rationalist culture has split apart,denied and devalued (Brown, 2006). Plumwood(1996) proposed that humans’ connection tonature (and place) is through a continuitybetween genuine human virtues and nature,and can be seen in some cultures’ relationshipswith nature. Western thought, however, main-tains a false distance between humans and natureby rejecting and denying humans’ links to theanimal e.g. the body, sexuality, reproduction,emotionality, the senses and agency. The arche-typal ideal human aspires to mastery over nature(Plumwood, 1996). Midgley (2000), CEF andother feminists (see MacGregor, 2004) are criticalof nature ecofeminists adoption of deep ecolo-gists’ attempt to blur the distinction betweenwhat is human and what is nature by expanding‘nature’ or selecting an alternative lifestyle closerto the natural environment of their choice(Plumwood, 1996, 2002; Midgley, 2000; Luckett,2004). Deep ecologies concept of ‘indistinguish-ability’ contains costs that erode the indepen-dence and distinctiveness of nature from thehuman realm; and women’s self-distinction.Human self-development and ability to ade-quately distinguish oneself from others is essen-tial to avoid personal failures in self-develop-ment. Care for someone or something else,requires distance, and not a holistic self-merger,offered as the only solution in deep ecology(Plumwood, 1993, 1996, 2002).

A reconceptualization of the ‘self’ allows for aframework in which we can find a place foremotion, subjectivity, particularity, and animal-ity in moral philosophy. Understanding the‘voices’ of the non-human realm lies in humansrecognizing that non-human animals are presenton the margins and are often, active participantsin shared and co-constituted value experiences.Rich relationships with pets for example aredismissed as sentiment but they play a role in co-constructing human experience. Animals are co-

witnesses to the world and respond to dailyphysical and moral phenomena; tragedy, suffer-ing and vulnerability, reinforcing our own moralexperiences just as other humans do (Brown,2006). Plumwood (2002) described the sophisti-cated higher-order intentionality of animals atplay with humans—feigning disinterest beforemounting a surprise attack; learning differentmethods of approach; sulking if the animal doesnot win a game. She stated that ‘there are somanyexamples of this kind, which so many peopleexperience, that one has to wonder whethertheorists who strive to dismiss them have anyknowledge of animals outside the laboratory’(Plumwood, 2002: p. 182). Agents are interrelated,but not indistinguishable from each other.

FST in calling for greater consideration ofanimals is opening the phenomenological mean-ing of politics itself. Mallory (2008) contends thatthe political is not limited to the human; themore-than-human world too, is capable ofpolitical agency, action or speech, and can assertclaims that human beings are capable of recog-nizing (Mallory, 2008). The traditional politicalcategories and assumptions about who or whatcounts as political subjects can be revised. FSTrejects the instrumentalist view of politics infavour of a view that considers politics as a spacewhere ecological subjectivities are formed, con-tested, destabilized and re-formed (Sandiland,1999, quoted in Mallory, 2008).

Bonnie Mann (2008) offers an approach tobuilding a politics that acknowledges the inter-dependency between people and ecological places.Freedom is conditional upon one’s locatedness inan eco-social world and not freedom from therealm of nature in the rationalist fashion. Mannurges humans to think about their dependencyupon the planet and to see one’s relationship to itas a political question. She suggests that humans’relations with nature would entail a fundamentalobligation to protect and support it (Mann, 2006,quoted in Mallory, 2008).

Pluralistic Methodology

Researchers face a choice of standpoint to workwith a theory and defend it, or work with




multiple theories, each of which privilegeparticular insights (Midgley, 2000). The questionof the philosophical ‘soundness’ of working withmultiple paradigms and methodologies, or‘paradigm commensurability’ has been debatedsince Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of ScientificRevolutions in the early 1960s. CST and feminismdevelop responses to problems using approachesfrom other paradigms. This raises questions ofhow to legitimately combine approaches (Pol-lack, 2006).

The practice of using an approach from oneparticular paradigm, but operated under thedirection of a different paradigm, is referred to as‘oblique’ (R. L. Flood and Romm, 1997). Methods,tools and techniques can be applied in the serviceof a paradigm other than the one informing theirdevelopment, or with which they are customarilyassociated. For example, qualitative research canbe done with a positivist, interpretive or criticalstance. Moving across hard and soft paradigmsinvolves learning and unlearning new rules, in aprocess that resembles the acquisition of a secondlanguage and culture (Kotiadis and Mingers,2006).

Effective methodological selection entails bothchoices and responsibilities. SI, PAR or CORpractitioners havemoral responsibilities if selectedmethods bring discordant viewpoints together.Those choices must be defended in the light of aserious consideration of what other approachesmay offer (Romm, 1996). Researchers’ trainingand comfort with methods and their root para-digms are also important considerations. Person-ality type and previous experience matter indetermining a researcher’s propensity to managea mix of hard and soft methods (Kotiadis andMingers, 2006).

The application of pluralism embraces an ethicof valuing commonality, difference and diver-sity, and can avoid the ‘identity politics’ trap.Identity politics assumes that all persons who fallinto a particular category share a common pers-pective. To overcome this, Pryse (2000) advocatesfor multi-methodology, interdisciplinary andcross-cultural teaching in the academy to enablestudents to learn to ‘shift’ and ‘pivot’ acrossdisciplines whilst being ‘rooted’ within another(Pryse, 2000). Theorizing from particular stand-

points is an important practice within CST(Midgley, 2000).

Pryse addresses relativist concerns which alsosurface in the CST literature with academics oftenkeen to avoid the ‘anything goes romp’ (R. L.Flood and Romm, 1997). The notion of ‘situatedknowledges’ is, according to Donna Harraway,‘feminist objectivity’ (Pryse, 2000: p. 115; DaviesandDodd, 2002). Pluralism helps researchers andstudents to ‘situate’ the assumptions, limitationsand political and social influences of any parti-cular research or creative project. This opensresearch to exploring gaps in the researchquestions and representational techniques ofthe traditional disciplines; learning alternativecultural reading and viewing strategies andcentralizing questions concerning epistemologyas they have emerged with critiques of science(Pryse, 2000).

FST can adopt an interpretivist notion ofvalidity. Positivist expectations of objectivityrender ‘rigour’ a poor instrument for evaluatinginterpretivist research. Rethinking rigour involvesdeveloping purposeful research criteria thatreflects qualities of responsibility, accountability,partiality and subjectivity (Davies and Dodd,2002). A legitimate research effort will demon-strate its quality and worth in terms of purpose-ful criteria, determined by the researcher’srelationship with the contexts in which theyare embedded.

Whilst methodology and philosophical pos-itions can be ‘fragmentary wholes’, that is theproduct of taking in and interpreting ideas fromother people’s philosophies (Midgley, 2000), acommitment to maintaining a ‘sympatric’approach may be necessary to avoid a disciplin-ary subsumption—a fear expressed by somefeminists (Houston, 1999; Greenwood and Levin,2007). Table 3 contains strategies to guideinterventions applying the fourth principle.

Undertake Research Towards Social Change

Applying FST works towards achieving valuedsocial change. Social philosophy must extendsocial critique and utopian visioning into action.Action-orientated philosophy must engage




methods that are viewed by the researcher andstakeholders as appropriate to the circumstancesor context of the intervention. Feminist-actionresearchers (Brydon-Miller et al., 2004) are criticalof scholars who ‘rail against injustice but onlyfrom within the protected rooms of the academyand the quiet pages of journals’ (p. 13).

The COR tradition, with its strong social actionfocus, addresses industrial, organizational man-agement and local community issues (Midgleyand Reynolds, 2004). The imperatives of environ-mental management are increasingly concernedwith social and environmental issues, andsustainable development. COR could perform akey role in planning for sustainable developmentfor both government and industry (Midgley andReynolds, 2004). A major challenge for CORpractitioners will be to develop methodologiesand methods that are capable of dealing withcomplexity and uncertainty.

The World Commission on Environment andDevelopment (1987) introduced a widelyaccepted definition of ‘sustainable development’but it falls short of an integrated approach toviewing life on earth, and human’s interdepen-dency with nature. Sustainable development’sdefinition has been narrowed to refer to thecarrying capacity of natural resources to supporthuman activity. The Commission’s reportacknowledged that securing agreement on what

people take sustainability to mean, for a givenenvironment, will be a difficult problem toresolve (World Commission on Environmentand Development, 1987; Roling and Wage-makers, 1998).

Agreement around the meaning of sustain-ability is a fundamental premise within a work-able definition. This definition is always politi-cized. The soft system definition of sustainabledevelopment by Roling and Wagemakers (1998),however, does several things. Firstly, it recog-nizes that sustainability is an emergent propertyof a soft system; that is it is the outcome of thecollective decision-making that arises frominteraction among the stakeholders of naturalresources (Roling and Wagemakers, 1998). Sec-ondly, this definition problematizes sustainabil-ity as an expert-led, externally applied solution.When actions are resolved by the stakeholders—a dynamic, systemic intervention process, theanswers will be grounded within the context oftheir unique sets of issues or concerns. Sustain-able development, as stated above, can provide aspace where ecological subjectivity can beformed, contested, destabilized and re-formed.It is a democratic process. A soft systemsapproach to sustainability makes explicithumans’ relations with nature, and fundamentalobligations of resource managers to protect andsupport nature. As stated in the discussion

Table 3 Guidelines for applying the fourth principle, pluralist methodology

� The ‘system’s need’ may be difficult to identify. Stakeholders and decision-makers need to be identified andengaged. Environmental, social, and economic constraints as well as the constraints placed upon potentialsolutions by differing cognitive and ethical perspectives also need to be taken into account (Hector et al., 2009)

� A boundary critique is important in determining the extent of the problem, and to identify interests which aremarginalized, so as to include them (Hector et al., 2009)

� ‘Messy’ problems often contain many different worldviews or ‘lenses’ through which the particular problem isperceived. One must engage with the problem at the fundamental philosophical level in order to understandand accommodate the underlying beliefs and values of these worldviews (Hector et al., 2009)

� SI, COR and PAR techniques may be mindful of the need to educate participants about such world views.Romm (1996) states that individuals are responsible for the way various modes of cognition, or world views,may influence outcomes. Ethical practice requires relinquishing the neutralist claim that one’s impact upon theworld is decided in a realm separate from one’s mode of cognition

� Consider adopting a ‘discordant pluralism’ approach. Radical differences between perspectives can be boughttogether in a dialectical model where issues are framed in a manner that allows perspectives and respectiveviewpoints. Discordant pluralism facilitates a transformation process through understanding of self and othersby critiquing both similarities and differences between perspectives (Gregory, 1996)




above, thinking about humans’ dependencyupon the planet and relationship with nature isto engage in political questions.

The principle inherent in the soft systemsdefinition of sustainability is collective decisionmaking. This principle can, therefore, be appliedto sustainability projects that are not immediatelyconcerned with natural systems management oragriculture, as is the original intent of Roling andWagemakers (1998). Effective and sustainablesocial change can be achieved by the sameprocess. The soft systems definition of sustaina-blilty dovetails with FST principles and methods.A great benefit of using CST methodologies suchas COR, SI and PAR, is that there is nomechanical rulebook for practice (Midgley andReynolds, 2004). Practice is heuristic andgrounded in the context of the problem beingaddressed. Crucial to this process is the moralresponsibility researchers have to reflectivepractice. This will mean that practice is undercontinual reconceptualization. Research, withinFST paradigm attempts to be holistic. This bydefinition means incorporating research prac-tices that involve questioning the purpose ofresearch and includingmultiple agents in definingproblems, drawing upon and mixing multiplemethods, and embracing environmental issuesalongside social ones (Midgley and Reynolds,2004). Critical reflection questions should be posed

by researchers. Table 4 contains strategies to guideinterventions applying the final principle.

CONCLUSION

The original set of FST principles recentlyemerged from work documenting the systematicsimilarities and differences of two epistem-ologies: CEF and CST (Stephens et al., 2009). Itwas found that ecofeminism and CST sharedmutual goals, including challenging the ration-alist paradigm; naıve SODs and the ‘ontologicaldivide’ between ‘man’ and nature. The principlesvalue and call for researchers to:

� adopt a gender sensitive approach;� value voices from the margins;� incorporate the environment within research;� select appropriate method/ologies; and� undertake research towards social change.

This paper exposes the principles to literaturebeyond the gambit of the original study. Theliterature is included from a range of feminist andsoft systems schools to illustrate the issuescontained within each principle. Recommen-dations for application were provided.

FST encourages questioning of how ‘reality’ issocially constructed through a series of chrono-logical interactions and political episodes. FST

Table 4 Guidelines for applying the fifth principle; undertake research towards social change

� How are concepts like ‘nature’ and ‘the natural’ deployed to justify relations of exclusion and inequality,relations that particularly affect women, people of colour, gay, the people who experience the effects ofimpairment, and non-human life? What is the political status ‘nature’; ‘the environment’ and/or ‘the non-human life’?

� How is nature ‘itself’ excluded from the domain of the political and what would it mean to regard non-humanlife and entities as political subjects, deserving of political inclusion?

� Can nature have political subjectivity?� How are discourses about both the environment and politics suffused with gendered ideology? How do we

address problems related to all three issues?� How are liberatory theories such as critical race theory, postcolonial theory, queer theory and feminism

contributing to philosophical and ecological projects that seek to overcome anthropocentric domination of thenatural world?

� How are liberation theories [and CST] failing to recognize the environmental movement as a conjoined site ofliberation struggle, and how can this be corrected?

� What is the relationship between theory and praxis, and what is gained when both include considerations ofgender identity and gender analysis? (Mallory, 2008: pp. 6–7).




advocates both a political awareness and con-sciousness at the theoretical level, and a commit-ment to taking action (intervention) on issues ofmutual concern. The list of issues is unfortunatelyextensive and some of the issues include: sexism,racism, classism, heterosexism, naturism, environ-mental abuse, environmental pollution and theeffects on women/children/poor, dislocatedindigenous peoples, anti-environmental exploi-tation alternatives, women’s and indigenouspeoples’ experiences with the non-human world.

FST encourages research activities that con-tribute to preventing the perpetuation of harmfulSODs. This includes preventing unchallengedhierarchical thinking and to have a morallydefined purpose for doing any intervention. Thischallenge is not always to dismiss SODs,however, but rather examine the values that gointo making SODs. If the status of concepts on theinferior side cause detriment to groups withinhuman societies it must be challenged. FSTpromotes methodologies that encourage vigi-lance in an attempt to overcome and prevent thereinforcement of social inequities that cause harm.

FST reproaches attempts to ‘study down’others. Objectifying and looking for homogen-eity, places researchers in danger of justifyingexploitation. Selecting integrated, holistic meth-odologies challenges social science to conceive ofsocial phenomena within a relational web, asmultiple oppressions are commonly rooted in thesame sets of power relations. Power can beviewed as an omni-directional flow; therefore,powerlessness is no longer considered a featureof all women, but may pertain to many womensome of the time or to a minority of women mostof the time (Baxter, 2003).

An ethic of connectedness to and caring fornon-human life is urgently required. A shift fromrationalist, self-interested egotism, to an ethicthat recognizes and can empathize with trauma,suffering and loss of species and social networksis within range. Understanding suffering anddisplacement of actions that result in speciesextinction, is not that great a mind shift when oneconsiders the morality shared between peopleand their companion animals.

Theprinciples behindFSTare oriented inpracticeto the building of long-term relationships between

people and communities and environments. Reach-ing cross-cultural, inter-agency and inter-speciesaccommodation or negotiation of mutual needs, isessential if achieving a real sense of sustainability, isto be achieved. Critical reflection upon these issues,and generic issues concernedwith FST practice, is apolitical act. FST by embedding the soft systemsdefinition of sustainability into a more expansiveframework, gives researchers the space to askdeeper questions, to ensure that their workwithin the social and environmental realmsmove beyond a superficial or inadequate notionof sustainability.

REFERENCES

Angen MJ. 2000. Evaluating interpretive inquiry:reviewing the validity debate and opening the dia-logue. Qualitative Health Research 10(3): 378–395.

Barton J, Emery M, Flood RL, Selsky JW, Wolsten-holme E. 2004. A maturing of systems thinking?Evidence from three perspectives. Systemic Practiceand Action Research 17(1): 3–36.

Bastosa A, Casacab SF, Nunesc F, Pereirinhad J. 2009.Women and poverty: a gender-sensitive approach.Journal of Socio-Economics 38(5): 764–778.

Baxter J. 2003. Positioning Gender in Discourse: A Fem-inist Methodology. Palgrave Macmillan: New York.

BrownCS. 2006. The intentionality and animal heritageof moral experience: what we can learn from dogsabout moral theory. Paper presented at the ISEE2.Retrieved 2 August, 2009, from http://www.cep.unt.edu/ISEE2/2006/Brown.pdf

Brydon-Miller Maguire P, McIntyre A (eds). 2004.Traveling Companions: Feminism, Teaching, and ActionResearch. Praeger Publishers: Westport, CT.

Checkland P. 1980. The systems movement and the‘‘failure’’ of management science. Cybernetics andSystems: An International Journal 11: 317–324.

Checkland P. 1985. From optimizing to learning: adevelopment of systems thinking for the 1990’s.Journal of the Operation Research Society 36: 757–767.

Cohen C. 1996. Two perspectives in a voluntary organ-isation. In Critical Systems Thinking: Current Researchand Practice, Robert LF, Norma RAR (eds). Plenum:New York and London; 235–249.

Davies D, Dodd J. 2002. Qualitative research and thequestion of rigor. Qualitative Health Research 12: 2.

Flood RL. 1995. What is happening when you problemsolve? A critical systems perspective. Systemic Prac-tice and Action Research 8: 215–221.

Flood RL, Romm N. 1996. Critical Systems Thinking:Current Research and Practice. Plenum Press:New York.




Flood RL, Romm N. 1997. From metatheory to ‘‘multi-methodology’’. In Multimethodology: The Theory andPractice of Combining Management Science Method-ologies, Mingers J, Gill A (eds). John Wiley & Sons:Chichester; 291–322.

Forrest A. 1993. Women and industrial relationstheory: no room in the discourse. Relations Indus-trielles/Industrial Relations 48(3): 409–430.

Greenwood D, Levin M. 2007. Power and socialreform. In Introduction to Action Research: SocialResearch for Social Change, (2nd edn). Sage Pulblica-tions: USA; 151–167.

Gregory W. 1996. Dealing with diversity. In CriticalSystems Thinking, Current Research and Practice,Robert LF, Norma RAR (eds). Plenum: New Yorkand London; 37–59.

Hammond D. 2003. The Science of Synthesis: Exploringthe Social Implications of General Systems Theory. Uni-versity Press of Colorado: Boulder, Colorado.

Hanson B. 2001. Systems theory and the spirit offeminism: grounds for a connection. Systems Researchand Behavioural Science 18: 545–556.

Hart M. 2005. Women, migration, and the body-lessspirit of patriarchal capitalism. Journal of Inter-national Women’s Studies 7(2): 1–16.

Hector D, Christensen C, Petrie J. 2009. A problem-structuring method for complex societal decisions:Its philosophical and psychological dimensions.European Journal of Operational Research 193: 693–708.

Heron J, Reason P. 2001. The practice of co-operativeinquiry: research ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ people. InHandbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry andPractice, Bradbury PRH (ed.). Sage Publications Ltd.:London; 179–188.

Houston R. 1999. Self-organising systems theory:historical challenges to the new sciences.ManagmentCommunication Quarterly 13: 119–134.

Ison R, Schlindwein SL. (2006, 3rd-6th December).History repeats itself: current traps in complexitypractice from a systems perspective. Paper presentedat the 12th ANZSYS Sustaining Our Social and NaturalCapital. Katoomba, NSW Australia.

Judd F, Armstrong S, Kulkarni J. 2009. Gender-sensi-tive mental health care. Australasian Psychiatry 17(2):105–111.

King CA. 2000. Systemic processes for facilitatingsocial learning: challenging the legacy. UnpublishedDoctoral Thesis, The Swedish University of Agricul-tural Sciences.

Kotiadis K, Mingers J. 2006. Combining PSMs withhard OR methods: the philosophical and practicalchallenges. The Journal of the Operational ResearchSociety 57 (7, Special Issue: Problem StructuringMethods): 856–867.

Levin M. 1994. Action research and critical systemsthinking: two icons carved of the same log? SystemsPractice 7: 25–41.

Luckett S. 2004. Environmental paradigms, biodiver-sity conservation, and critical systems thinking.Systemic Practice and Action Research 17(5): 511–534.

MacGregor S. 2004. From care to citizenship: callingecofeminism back to politics. Ethics and the Environ-ment 9(1): 56–76.

Mallory C. 2008. What is ecofeminist political philos-ophy? nature, gender, and the political. Paper presen-ted at the ISEEIAEP Papers. Retrieved 2 August, 2009,from http://unjobs.org/authors/val-plumwood

Mann B. 2006.Women’s Liberation and the Sublime: Femin-ism, Postmodernism, Environment. Oxford UniversityPress: New York.

Mann B. 2008. Manhood, secuality, and nation in post-9/11 United States. In Security Disarmed: CriticalPerspectives on Gender, Race, and Militarization,Sutton B, Morgen S, Novkov J (eds.). RutgersUniversity Press: Piscataway.

McNamara P. 2009. Feminist ethnography: storytellingthat makes a difference. Qualitative Social Work 8(2):161–177.

Midgley. 1996a. The ideal of unity and the practice ofpluralism in systems science. In Critical SystemsThinking: Current Research and Practice, Flood RL,Romm NRA (eds). Plenum: New York; 25–35.

Midgley. 1996b. What is this thing called CST? InCritical Systems Thinking: Current Research and Prac-tice, Flood LR, Romm NRA (eds). Plenum Press:New York; 11–22.

Midgley. 2000. Systemic Intervention: Philosphy, Meth-odology, and Practice. Kluwer Academic: New York.

Midgley G, Reynolds M. 2004. Systems/operationalresearch and sustainable development: towards anew agenda. Sustainable Development 12: 56–64.

Oliga JC. 1995. Power, Ideology, and Control. PlenumPress: New York, London.

Perkins E, Kuiper E, Quiroga-Martınez R, et al. 2005.Introduction: exploring feminist ecologicaleconomics/gender, development, and sustainabilityfrom a latin american perspective/african peasantsand global gendered class struggle for the com-mons/ecofeminist political economy: integratingfeminist economics and ecological economics/habits of thought, agency, and transformation: aninstitutional approach to feminist ecologicaleconomics/the network vorsorgendes wirtschaften/engendering organic farming. Feminist Economics11(3): 107–150.

Platform of Action. 1995. Paper presented at the 4thWorld Conference on Women, Beijing.

Plumwood V. 1993. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature.Routledge: New York.

Plumwood V. 1996. Nature, self and gender: feminism,environmental philosophy and the critique of ration-alism. In Ecological Feminist Philosophies, Warren KJ(ed.). Indiana University Press: USA; 155–176.

Plumwood V. 2002. Environmental Culture: The Ecologi-cal Crisis of Reason. Routledge: London.




Pollack J. 2006. Pyramids or silos: alternative repres-entations of the systems thinking paradigsms.Systemic Practice and Action Research 19: 383–398.

Pryse M. 2000. Trans/feminist methodology: bridgesto interdisciplinary thinking. NWSA Journal 12(2):105–118.

Ravetz J. 1999. What is post-normal science. Futures 31:647–653.

Ravetz J. 2006. Post-normal science and the complexityof transitions towards sustainability. Ecological Com-plexity 3: 275–284.

Roling NG, Wagemakers MAE. 1998. A new parctice:facilitating sustainable agriculture. In FacilitatingSustainable Agriculture, Roling NG, WagemakersMAE (eds). Cambride University Press: Cambridge;New York; Melbourne; 3–22.

Romm N. 1996. Systems methodologies and interven-tion: the issue of researcher responsibility. In CriticalSystems Thinking, Current Research and Practice,Robert LF, Norma RAR (eds). Plenum Press: NewYork and London; 179–193.

SandilandC.1999.TheGood-NaturedFeminist:Ecofeminismand the Quest for Democracy. University of MinnesotaPress: Minneapolis.

Shen CY, Midgley G. 2007. Toward a buddhist systemsmethodology 1: comparisons between buddhism

and systems theory. Systems Practice and ActionResearch 20: 167–194.

Sprague J. 2005. Feminist Methodologies for CriticalResearchers: Bridging Differences. Altamira Press: Cali-fornia.

Stephens A, Jacobson C, King C. 2009. Towards afeminist-systems theory. Systems Practice and ActionResearch. DOI:10.1007/s11213-009-9164-6.

Taket A. 1995. Ethics in practice–continuing the debate.Journal of the Operational Research Society p. 548. Fromhttp://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=9505181113&site=ehost-live

Taket A. 2008. Researching the vulnerable: a guide tosensitive research methods. Australian & New Zeal-and Journal of Public Health 32(2): 195–196.

Taket A, White L. 1993. After OR: an agenda forpostmodernism and poststructuralism inOR. Journalof the Operational Research Society 44(9): 867–881.

Tong RP. 1998. Feminist Thought: A More ComprehensiveIntroduction, (2nd edn). Allen & Unwin: Sydney.

von Foerster H. 2003. Cybernetics of cybernetics. InSystems Thinking, Midgley G (ed.). (Vol. 3). Sage:London.

World Commission on Environment and Develop-ment. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford UniversityPress: Oxford, England; New York.




Documents

Describing a feminist-systems theory