LC 00492

CSH kan het best worden opgevat als een methodologie waarmee 1) grensoordelen van belanghebbenden in kaart worden gebracht en 2) grensoordelen kritisch met belanghebbenden onder de loep worden genomen. CSH schrijft niet voor hoe deze twee stappen worden uitgevoerd, ook niet in welke volgorde, maar geeft wel handvatten. Een onderzoeker kan zelf bepalen welke specifieke methoden en technieken worden gebruikt. Bijvoorbeeld: voor het boven water halen van grensoordelen kunnen interviews worden afgenomen met belanghebbenden en kan brononderzoek worden uitgevoerd. Een andere optie is dat belanghebbenden elkaar bevragen met de specifieke opdracht oordelen uit te stellen. Voor het kritisch beschouwen van elkaars grensoordelen kan een constructieve dialoog worden gevoerd met de verderop besproken eternal-triangle-techniek. Met de LoF-concepten van distinctie en eerste- en tweede-ordeobservanten zijn we in een positie om de grensoordelen die belanghebbenden over een situatie hanteren nader onder de loep te nemen. CSH maakt hierbij gebruik van twaalf grensoordelen, onderverdeeld in vier aandachtsgebieden die op hun beurt zijn ondergebracht in twee belanghebbendencategorieën (zie tabel 1). Met deze aandachtsgebieden wordt vanuit diverse perspectieven, volgens Ulrich, een compleet holistisch beeld geschetst van hoe belanghebbenden kijken naar een situatie en welke aannames ze daarover hebben gedaan. De twaalf vragen kunnen op twee manieren worden toegepast op de huidige situatie (de is-modus) en de gewenste situatie (de zou moeten zijn-modus).

• Betrokkenen zijn belanghebbenden die invloed kunnen uitoefenen:
  • motieven
  • macht
  • kennis
• Getroffenen zijn belanghebbenden die geen invloed hebben:
  • Legitimiteit

CSH can best be seen as a methodology in which 1) boundary judgements of stakeholders are identified and 2) they are critically examined with stakeholders. CSH does not determine how these two steps are to be executed, not even the order in which it should take place, but it does provide tools. Researchers can decide for themselves which specific methods and techniques are deployed. For example: interviews can be conducted with stakeholders, or source research can be performed to find boundary judgements. Another option is for stakeholders to question each other – with the specific instruction to postpone judgement. In order to critically view each other’s boundary judgements, a constructive dialogue can be held by means of the eternal triangle technique which we will explain later on. With the Laws of Form (LoF) concepts of distinction and first and second order observers, we are in a position to examine the boundary judgements stakeholders use in certain situations. CSH uses twelve boundary judgments (subdivided into four focus areas – which in their turn are placed under two involvement categories (see Table 1). With these focus areas, a complete holistic overview of how stakeholders regard a situation and what assumptions they have made in this respect, is created from various perspectives according to Ulrich. The twelve questions can be applied to the current situation in two ways: the as-is modus and the as-it-should-be modus.

• The involved are stakeholders that have influence:
  • Motives;
  • Power;
  • Knowledge.
• The affected are stakeholders that have no influence:
  • Legitimacy.

Statement: A constructive dialog can take place on the basis of first and second order boundary judgments.

Aspect: Critical Reflection, Principle: Create room for change, Principle page: Principles and Ground Rules

Statement page	Statement
Determining Boundary Judgements with CSH	A constructive dialog can take place on the basis of first and second order boundary judgments.
Self-observation	Concentrate on how to look, instead of what to see.
Self-observation	You need someone else to point out your blind spots to you.

Principles, aspects and statements overview

• Create room for change, defined in page: Principles and Ground Rules
• Systems Thinking, defined in page: Principles and Ground Rules
• Hard Systems Thinking – System Dynamics (A system comprised of a number of interacting feedback loops is a complex system whose behavior can surprise us.)
• Systems Thinking (A system as a whole is comprised of parts. Systems thinking is about understanding the interactions between the parts.)
• Critical Reflection, defined in page: Principles and Ground Rules
• Determining Boundary Judgements with CSH (A constructive dialog can take place on the basis of first and second order boundary judgments.)
• Self-observation (Concentrate on how to look, instead of what to see.)
• Self-observation (You need someone else to point out your blind spots to you.)
• Diversity in opinions, defined in page: Principles and Ground Rules
• Worldview, defined in page: Principles and Ground Rules
• Model Building - Human Activity Systems (A worldview (Weltanschauung) captures the beliefs, desires and intentions of a person.)
• Model Building - Human Activity Systems (The PQR formula (what, how, why) is pivotal for capturing worldviews.)
• Soft Systems Thinking – Soft Systems Methodology (People differ in worldviews, but nevertheless they typically adhere to aspects of multiple worldviews, which provides room for accommodation.)
• We got to move, defined in page: Principles and Ground Rules
• Reflexive Domain, defined in page: Principles and Ground Rules
• Exploring Change (The constant factor in life is movement.)
• Self-Reference in a Three-Valued System (Embrace the paradox, i.e., a difference in what was previously stated and therefore contradicting what was said before. Differences keep setting things in motion. Without differences we cease to exist. Therefore, change is inevitable, in fact, it is a necessity for living.)
• The Autopoietic Turn (Humans and social systems operate autonomously and my react when irritated.)
• Tradition, defined in page: Principles and Ground Rules
• Exploring Change (A system has to become what it is not, and yet remain the same.)
• Some-thing from No-thing (The relationship between things, including humans, is what matters. Something or someone cannot stand or be taken on its own.)
• Determine the right direction, defined in page: Principles and Ground Rules
• Cultural Identity, defined in page: Principles and Ground Rules
• Investigating Identity (Group identity refers to a person’s sense of belonging to a particular group.)
• Research Philosophy and Process (Research approach must be “for you, and with you”, instead of “for you, but not with you”.)
• Right Things, defined in page: Principles and Ground Rules
• Co-dependency, defined in page: Principles and Ground Rules
• Ethics of Care, defined in page: Principles and Ground Rules
• Investigating Identity (Ethics of Care is a retreat to first principles to be part of a group to protect and to provide meaning.)
• Responsible Setting for Social Innovation (Each stakeholder facilitates other stakeholders in addressing a societal challenge.)
• Some-thing from No-thing (We rely on each other and therefore we should care for each other.)

Sources of influences	Social roles (Stakeholders)	Specific concerns (Stakes)	Key problems (Stakeholder issues)
Sources of Motivation	Benificiary Who is (ought to be) the client? That is, whose interests are (should be) served?	Purpose What is (ought to be) the purpose? That is, what are (should be) the consequences?	Measure of improvement What is (ought to be) the measure of improvement? That is, how can (should) we determine that the consequences, taken together, constitute an improvement?	The involved
Sources of Power	Decision maker Who is (ought to be) the decision-maker? That is, who is (should be) in a position to change the measure of improvement?	Resources What resources are (ought to be) controlled by the decision-maker? That is, what conditions of success can (should) those involved control?	Decision environment What conditions are (ought to be) part of the decision environment? That is, what conditions can (should) the decision-maker not control (e.g. from the viewpoint of those not involved)?
Sources of Knowledge	Experts Who is (ought to be) considered a professional? That is, who is (should be) involved as an expert, e.g. as a researcher, planner or consultant?	Expertise What expertise is (ought to be) consulted? That is, what counts (should count) as relevant knowledge?	Guarantor What or who is (ought to be) assumed to be the guarantor of success? That is, where do (should) those involved seek some guarantee that improvement will be achieved - for example, consensus among experts, the involvement of stakeholders, the experience and intuition of those involved, political support?
Sources of Legitimation	Witness Who is (ought to be) witness to the interests of those affected but not involved? That is, who is (should be) treated as a legitimate stakeholder, and who argues (should argue) the case of those stakeholders who cannot speak for themselves, including future generations and non-human nature?	Emancipation What secures (ought to secure) the emancipation of those affected from the premises and promises of those involved? That is, where does (should) legitimacy lie?	Worldview What worldview is (ought to be) determining? That is, what different visions of `improvement’ are (ought to be) considered, and how are they (should they be) reconciled?	The affected

Table 1: Boundary questions (Ulrich, Reflective Practice in the Civil Society - The Contribution of Critically Systemic Thinking, 2000).

• Lees hiervoor:
  Exploring and Pushing Boundaries with CSH
• Lees hierna:
  Changing Insights

Dit is een beveiligde pagina.