Is it true that all human systems are divergent? Soft systems is the term given to human systems; not all divergent systems include human activity and so this is how I will understand the term; divergent human systems. Of course, there have been times, many times during history when people have tried to forge convergent systems out of human nations or organisations. This can be seen in companies and churches, in armed forces and nations. Sometimes it is possible to maintain an image of convergence for a while but always in time, their divergent nature becomes evident. For those leaders who do not understand how systems work, this can lead to tyranny and oppression.
So, what are the characteristics of soft systems? They are difficult to measure using quantitative measures. They are apprehended through stories, views and perspectives rather than things that can be measured. Neighbourhood regeneration identifies both outputs and outcomes. Outputs are things which can be measured. They are what the funding bodies pay for. They expect to see so many meetings or clients or people into work. Outcomes though are less tangible but more important. What has been achieved through the activity funded?
Qualitative data is difficult to analyse and consequently is difficult to use in planning. However, this is true only where qualitative analysis is constrained by the expectations of quantitative analysis.
Qualitative analysis is based upon making choices. Each choice generates more options for other choices but in doing this a picture of the consequences of making choices can be built up, from your own perspective or that of others.
This does mean any individual's analysis will include a subjective element but at the same time it can result in analyses of considerable subtlety and depth. We have to accept qualitative systems cannot produce objective pictures but it is possible to follow a thread of narrative; it is possible for the analyst to be open about the choice they have made and show how they have arrived at their conclusions.
A big advantage of qualitative analysis is that it allows us to glimpse the world through the eyes of others. A subjective approach does not constrain us to our own subjective choices but allows us to ask what choices others might make. It is an invitation to view the world from another's viewpoint. It is sad that so many formal talks focus on finding solutions rather than seeing from the perspective of others. The change likely to flow from this is quite different from our usual understanding of change.
Comments