Systems Methodologies and Intervention

The argument advanced in this chapter draws on elements of critical modernist as well as postmodernist views on the impact of “knowledge” in the social world and develops an ethic of responsibility that focuses on the notion of self-critical choice-making. The argument is that all too often proponents of (theoretical) approaches do not problematize as an issue of concern their predisposition to think-and-act along a certain route—which excludes other routes. Their research activities1 are legitimated to themselves and/or others in terms of a theory-practice cycle which is caught up in its own circle—unable or unwilling to embrace alternatives (see also the discussions by Flood and Romm, and by Gregory in this volume, of pragmatist, isolationist, and imperialist positions). Claims currently made often suggest that impartiality of judgment can be sought through a process of testing the implications of a theoretical approach as applied in practice. This chapter attempts to show that the view that theory is applied in practice and may be tested in that practice, can amount to an unreflected/unreflexive endorsement of a theoretical position. It is proposed that responsible action requires, first, admitting that there are choices to be made, and second, being able to defend choices in the light of a serious consideration of what other approaches may offer. It implies adopting a stance through having taken into account a range of (different) theoretical and moral concerns about the possible impact of one’s involvement.