General Systems Theory: A Critique

Hudson (1999) understood the problems with GST are essentially "in many respects a reflection of a failure of social workers to move beyond the broad conceptual application of the theory, to use a range of practical techniques for investigating and simulating systems, such as those used in the field of system dynamics".

Hudson states that one of the most serious criticism of GST is the problem of "assumed equilibrium" which refers to the tendency to over-emphasise system maintenance functions and negative feedback loops (Leighninger, 1977). Although such an assumption is "by no means fundamental to GST" Hudson continues that "those that interpret theory to this extent have tended to look outside, rather than inside systems for the challenges and sources of change and growth".

For this reason Kahn stated that "proponents of decentralisation, community, and participatory control could find their activities in conflict with a systems emphasis" (1973). However, Hunter argues that one of the sources for this interpretation of GST, besides ideology, is a misunderstanding of positive feedback loops, those which amplify small changes for better or worse.

Another criticism of GST Hunter identified is that too much rationality is expected on the part of its users. For example, Drover and Schragge (1977) complained that in a relatively simple situation with 20 key systems, over a million possible relationships are created. Furthermore, "when each set of actors brings a different set of goals and values, the problem of optimising the common good becomes completely intractable". Others shared in the same concerns but point out that it becomes easier to consider subjective experiences, meanings and values within an eco-systems approach.

Hunter summarises that because most social work interpretations of GST are tainted with the problems of "assumed equilibrium" and a lack of operationalisation many complain of the limitations of the theory in dealing with change, growth as well as generating directions for practice.

Further, on the one hand some argue that GST promotes a technical practitioner role, depoliticising practice (thereby promoting conservative and individualistic tendencies). On the other hand, others see GST as reinforcing individual practice, promoting transactional, "goodness of fit" and equilibrium-based solutions between individuals and their social environments.

In the 1980s, Hunter argues that the above criticisms, from both the left and right, "undercut but failed to extinguish interest in the theory". In the mid 1980s a new version of systems theory emerged, which was an amalgamation of GST with concepts from human ecology. The establishment of ecosystems or ecological theory represents important advances for Hudson, especially as the problem of assumed equilibrium appears to have been improved. However, ecosystems focuses "not so much on change, but on individuals abilities to negotiate and compromise with their social environment" (DeHoyos and Jensen 1985).

In addition Hudson the theory has been "traced back by some to Social Darwinism". He explains this is because as long as "change is seen as external to the individual, the concept of social selection ("survival of the fittest")...will continue to underlie the thinking of some practitioners".

Further, GST and, to an extent ecosystems theory, has increasingly come to be seen as a way to expand the medical model to include social environment. The theories has been "co-opted by those whose primary interest is the stabilisation of individual dysfunction, rather than the facilitation of ongoing growth of individuals and communities" (Hunter, 1999).

Hunter concludes that despite these limitations the stage is set for important new theoretical developments in complexity and chaos theory which "have already been discovered in allied fields, but hardly in social work as of yet".

General Systems Theory: An Introduction

It makes sense to start the journey by briefly but critically exploring General Systems Theory (GST). GST is important to understand as its introduction to social work in the 1960s, and its amalgamation with the ecological approach in the 1980s, contributed to social work's limited progress to seek a unifying conceptual framework to guide practice (Hudson, 1999).

In the field of child protection, GST is further important as it informed the development of a UNICEF working paper in 2010 in adapting a systems approach to child protection across countries and cultures. In addition, as mentioned in the previous post, the Munro Review in England is using a systems approach to assess and plan the child protection sector in England.

Further, ecosystems theory is significant to social work practice in the field as it underpins a major approach to the Framework for Assessment of Children and their Families that was introduced in the UK during 2000. The assessment framework is now part and parcel of current child protection social work front-line practice with children in need of protection and support.

Hudson (1999) provides a good critical summary of GST in context of the development of chaos theory. GST integrated the perspectives of findings from social theories from the 19th Century, human ecology, information theory and cybernetics. A system is defined as "a complex of components in mutual interaction".

Hudson outlines that although the concept of GST was introduced in 1937, and first published in 1945, it was not until the 1950s that it was popularised in psychology and subsequently introduced to social work. In the 1960s GST "attained a level of popularity in social work" and the the 1970s saw "a substantial growth in the applications of GST in the profession as numerous social work texts began to include that perspective".

However, by the late 1970s a more critical approach was taken by the adoption of GST in social work, especially in the education of social work. Hudson outlines complaints that GST is far to abstract to inform practice, had no techniques for disentangling the plethora of feedback loops which typically link systems and problems in ideological assumptions. For this reason he explains "unintended and negative consequences have been too commonly the result of programmes of planned systematic change" (Siporin, 1980).

The critiques will be considered in more detail in the next post so for now, I suppose, this can suffice as an introduction to systems theory.

Introduction to Munro's Review

Following Laming's 2009 Progress Report of the Protection of Children in England, Professor Munro was asked by the Secretary of State in June 2010 to conduct an independent review of child protection in the country. Her first report was completed in October 2010. Munro's first aim was to "understand why previous well-intentioned reforms have not resulted in the expected level of improvements". Her final report is due in April 2011 with an interim report due in January 2011. The Munro review, in conjunction with other developments such as the Social Work Reform Board, is expected to fundamentally change child protection social work practice in England, if not also elsewhere.

It is clearly of interest, not only because of the kind of radical change that's anticipated but also because Munro uses a "systems approach" both to analyse what has happened in the past and also to design an improved approach in the future.

I can't say I understand all that's been written in the report but it definitely will feature in this blog primarily because concepts of complexity, uncertainty and unintended consequences (which are complexity theory concepts as far as I understand them which will be explored later) are featured in Mono's analysis of the child protection system.

So this journey begins.

Confidentiality, Respect and Copyright

In this blog I largely aim to relate theory to practice as it's happening on the ground. I write from my own perspective as a practitioner and not an academic. However, the first several posts are largely academic as I focus outlining what written about chaos theory, which is a developing field with some unique and relatively difficult concepts. Subsequent posts will focus on exploring the application and implication of these on practice from my perspective.

I actively invite other inter-disciplinary professionals (including academics) that I may find or that find me to contribute their knowledge and practice experiences by responding to posts and hopefully creating posts themselves. However, if you do share any practice examples or experiences, please fully anonymise as not to identify clients or vulnerable people you have worked with in any way.

In addition, responses should be expressed with respect for others, their viewpoints, lifestyles and more recognised forms such as ethnicity, gender or class. This is not an avenue to express derogatory or discriminatory sentiments.

Finally, this blog ultimately hopes to encourage a genuine learning environment away from the traditional academic restrictions and limitations. There's no fee in joining, contributing or sharing. You are welcome to freely share any ideas with other colleagues generated here if these are not for non commercial purposes, you do not need my permission to do this, but please acknowledge the source. By hopefully contributing your knoweldge to this blog, you are agreeing to the same.