The Over-arching idea in Part 2 of the TU812 module, Managing Systemic Change (inquiry, action and interaction), is of taking an inquiry process and turning it into a systemic inquiry.
As a part of this, there are two key questions to be answered in this section of the module (per the Study Guide, p. 51):
1. Why an inquiry process?
2. What is a systemic inquiry?
[Before proceeding, here are some of my reflections on this:
I think of a PROCESS as being a step-by-step and methodical action/activity – or set of actions/activities – and which causes something to change states (from a ‘before process’ state to an ‘after process’ state). Similarly, an INQUIRY PROCESS, I view as a step-by-step approach to gaining some knowledge about something, e.g. an event or a situation. So I as a practitioner (or we as a group of practitioners) undertake some actions or activities in a logical sequence which leads me/us to a better awareness and understanding of a given thing, event or situation.
I note that TU812 uses the term ‘inquiry’ as opposed to ‘enquiry’. To me, it helps distinguish this as a process which causes a changed awareness & understanding, rather than just an action verb meaning ‘to ask about something’
My reflections on why this distinction is important:
- it stresses the PROCESS aspect
- it suggests a deeper sense of ENGAGEMENT with the event or situation being inquired into (e.g. one enquires ABOUT something but inquires INTO it)
- this, in turn, implies that I/we are inside the event or situation we inquire about – and hence, as highlighted in this module, are in a relational dynamic with it, and capable of influencing it (even though we may not always be conscious of this last point)
So, why do we undertake an inquiry process into some situation of interest or concern?
My view is: in order to develop a clear picture of that situation, through undertaking a methodical assessment of it (and of our own, and other stakeholders’, part in it). This helps us understand all the different the aspects of the situation, and how they interact with one another and the environment, so that we can know in advance what effect a change-action might have on the situation and its parts. It also gives us a richer understanding of the history of the situation (what ideas and emotions are being brought into the situation) and the cultural norms which are currently playing out. These two will give us a better insight into what might or might not be possible to achieve in terms of changes (i.e. which changes will be culturally and politically feasible).
In terms of my own systemic inquiry into my developing practice as a systems practitioner, I bring a history of ideas, thoughts and emotions both about myself and how capable I might or might not be in developing myself in this new professional direction. Many of these thoughts, ideas and emotions are quite contradictory: I lack confidence; I am not a successful accountant [as judged by external definitions] therefore I need to change careers; I intuitively feel I am right for a systems approach and it is right for me; I am excited by the idea of studying a new discipline; I am daunted by studying formally at this level as it’s, officially, the first time in doing so; I am unsure how well I’ll fare.
But I am supplementing those ideas and feelings about myself with a framework of ideas as supplied by this module (and the wider O.U. systems approach) along with a range of tools and techniques. As this course progresses, I should be able to develop my understanding of the ideas and concepts as provided by the module, as well as my ability to apply them to specific situations of interest or concern to me (work needs; my career change program; progressing with my programming studies & extending this into software development; developing or enhancing software for business- and finance-specific functions; starting up a business).
[One concern I have at this stage: applying these ideas & tools to my own work/professional situation is complicated by current uncertainty around my role at work given the career change I am undertaking. (Will my current role continue into next year? If not, will I be able to get another part-time role and, if so, what will be the nature of that role & scope for me to apply learnings from this module?) This adds an extra layer of complexity that others on the course are unlikely to be experiencing. This may prove a rich seam of experience for me to mine wrt my ongoing practice.]
Tools and techniques are being applied as part & parcel of the various activities I undertake through the Study Guide. The Inquiry Process is also being undertaken in tandem with the authors and tutors on the course, together with my student co-conspirators (who each bring their own histories and perspectives on the process).
But why undertake this inquiry process in relation to this module? Well it helps me better understand my place in the study route (where I might best fit in in terms of systems history or approaches and where I might best take my studies and my practice) – i.e. my past, where I’ve come from, and my future, where I’m (hopefully) headed to. That is in itself important, because without that knowledge I cannot fully claim responsibility over my own learning & development process. I cannot claim agency and act autonomously unless I understand that trajectory or direction of travel from past to future.
And – further more – without that Inquiry Process, without stopping, pausing, stepping back and reflecting at various points as I go along, I will not stand any chance of tying together all the disparate strands of burgeoning awareness and understanding as they emerge to the surface (that is, emerge into my conscious awareness). Likewise, without timeout for reflection, I will be unable to assess my progress as I go along from a before-course, low-understanding state to an after-course higher-understanding state. My learning transformation can only be effected successfully through regular progress measurements & evaluations mid-process. The inquiry process throughout Part 2 of this module will – as I currently understand it – help me evaluate the progress I am making towards the stated course learning objectives.
[That in itself raises an interesting reflection on corporate objectives and measurement of an employee’s progress towards attainment of those objectives. If objectives are set out of context from all other staffs’ objectives and the wider company strategy then they cannot be truly effective. People like to have targets to aim for. But if one employee is given one target and another given another target, there may end up being a battle or competition inside the organisation. Each individual, by attempting to reach their own target (perhaps in anticipation of some financial reward such as bonus or pay rise) may passively and unconsciously – or worse, actively and consciously – act in ways which hamper other employees from reaching their own targets. The more that tangible financial rewards are tied to achievement of targets, the more likely it is that agency or self-interest will arise and drive this kind of internal competition. Even something as simple as control over or input into company strategy may be subverted by an individual for their own gain (perhaps for intangible benefits like perceived career enhancement and industry standing). Often one can see this happening – not necessarily consciously driven on the part of any one individual – but its destructiveness to the company as a whole can still be seen.]
Then, what is a systemic inquiry?
In my view, it is an inquiry process (as described above) which understands and acts in a relational way – i.e. seeing all the parts and their interactions and interconnectedness, and taking decisions and performing actions accordingly. The purpose of which is to design intelligent context-sensitive interventions, such as change management actions or process/system improvements, which are ‘systemically desirable’ and ‘culturally feasible’ (as per the two guiding forces of the Study Guide).
In this sense, then, turning an inquiry process (linear, systematic) into a systemic inquiry (non-linear, relational) is a process by which I, as practitioner, climb the ladder from the lower level (systematic) to the higher level (systemic) in Figure 1.4 shown on page 27 of the Study Guide (original source: Ison, 2010). The image I have chosen for this blog post suggests the same idea: moving from the linear (rope) to the relational (heart). And that rope/knot analogy works well on another level too: you need to make the rope double back on itself, to undertake a recursive action, if the knot (==heart) is to be formed. And that is a necessary action in my systemic inquiry too – doubling back and reflecting on my past experiences in light of new understanding and awareness – which helps me to go onwards with a new, clearer and more systemic perspective on the situation. The heart that is formed by this process is in itself also instructive, being representative of the whole me, the balanced and perfected me (both in terms of career and wider life). While I don’t for one minute believe studying/passing TU812 will achieve all that I desire in life, I do hold out the hope that it will help to renew my sense of self-confidence, self-worth and help steer me on a new course towards greater engagement, autonomy and agency within my own life. (Perhaps subconsciously the rope also reminds me of a sailing setting too, which helps reinforce this central organising idea of me navigating to new lands, creating a new destiny for myself.)]
References:
Open University (2010) Managing systematic change : Inquiry, action and interaction : TU812/Study guide, Open University, Milton Keynes.
Ison, R. (2010) Systems Practice : How to Act in a Climate-Change World, Springer, London.