Boundary critique
Encyclopedia
Boundary critique is the concept in critical systems thinking
, according to Ulrich (2002) that states that "both the meaning and the validity
of professional proposition
s always depend on boundary judgments as to what 'facts' (observation
) and 'norms' (valuation standards) are to be considered relevant" or not.
Boundary critique is a general systems thinking
principle similar to concepts as multiple perspectives, and interconnectedness. Boundary critique according ot Cabrera (2006) is "in a way identical to distinction making as both processes cause one to demarcate between what is in and what is out of a particular construct. Boundary critique may also allude to how one must be explicit (e.g., critical) of these boundary decisions. Distinction making, on the other hand, is autonomic—one constantly makes distinctions all of the time."
Boundary critique is based on Churchman's (1970) argument, "that what is to be included or excluded for any analysis of a situation is a vital consideration". According to Kagan et al. (2004) "Something that appears to be relevant to overall project improvement given a narrowly defined boundary, may not be seen as relevant at all if the boundaries are pushed out. Thus, he argues, as much information as possible should be 'swept in' to the definition of the intervention".
This argumentation was extended by Werner Ulrich
in the 1980s. According to Kagan et al. (2004) he "offered a detailed challenge to the idea that the boundaries of any system are given and linked to "social reality". They are social or personal constructs that define the limits of knowledge relevant to any particular analysis. From this position, pushing out the boundaries of an analysis, in the context of human systems, also involves pushing the boundaries of who may be considered a decision maker".
In the practice of boundary critique, according to Ulrich (2000) different kind of boundaries can be set based on different questions:
Critical systems thinking
Critical systems thinking is a recent systems thinking framework, that wants to bring unity to the diversity of different systems approaches and advises managers how best to use them....
, according to Ulrich (2002) that states that "both the meaning and the validity
Validity
In logic, argument is valid if and only if its conclusion is entailed by its premises, a formula is valid if and only if it is true under every interpretation, and an argument form is valid if and only if every argument of that logical form is valid....
of professional proposition
Proposition
In logic and philosophy, the term proposition refers to either the "content" or "meaning" of a meaningful declarative sentence or the pattern of symbols, marks, or sounds that make up a meaningful declarative sentence...
s always depend on boundary judgments as to what 'facts' (observation
Observation
Observation is either an activity of a living being, such as a human, consisting of receiving knowledge of the outside world through the senses, or the recording of data using scientific instruments. The term may also refer to any data collected during this activity...
) and 'norms' (valuation standards) are to be considered relevant" or not.
Boundary critique is a general systems thinking
Systems thinking
Systems thinking is the process of understanding how things influence one another within a whole. In nature, systems thinking examples include ecosystems in which various elements such as air, water, movement, plants, and animals work together to survive or perish...
principle similar to concepts as multiple perspectives, and interconnectedness. Boundary critique according ot Cabrera (2006) is "in a way identical to distinction making as both processes cause one to demarcate between what is in and what is out of a particular construct. Boundary critique may also allude to how one must be explicit (e.g., critical) of these boundary decisions. Distinction making, on the other hand, is autonomic—one constantly makes distinctions all of the time."
Boundary critique is based on Churchman's (1970) argument, "that what is to be included or excluded for any analysis of a situation is a vital consideration". According to Kagan et al. (2004) "Something that appears to be relevant to overall project improvement given a narrowly defined boundary, may not be seen as relevant at all if the boundaries are pushed out. Thus, he argues, as much information as possible should be 'swept in' to the definition of the intervention".
This argumentation was extended by Werner Ulrich
Werner Ulrich
Werner Ulrich is a Swiss social scientist and practical philosopher, and a former professor of the theory and practice of social planning at the University of Fribourg...
in the 1980s. According to Kagan et al. (2004) he "offered a detailed challenge to the idea that the boundaries of any system are given and linked to "social reality". They are social or personal constructs that define the limits of knowledge relevant to any particular analysis. From this position, pushing out the boundaries of an analysis, in the context of human systems, also involves pushing the boundaries of who may be considered a decision maker".
In the practice of boundary critique, according to Ulrich (2000) different kind of boundaries can be set based on different questions:
- Self-reflective boundary relating to the question "What are my boundary judgements?".
- Dialogical boundary relating to the question "Can we agree on our boundary judgements?".
- Controversial boundary relating to the question "Don't you claim too much?".