IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/jorsoc/v52y2001i1d10.1057_palgrave.jors.2600069.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Viable boundary critique

Author

Listed:
  • M Yolles

    (John Moores University)

Abstract

Issue-based problem situations can often be seen as conflicts that must be managed or resolved. Boundary critique theory, developed by Midgley as part of critical systems thinking, can be used to model conflicts. However, its utility can be enhanced when it is linked to the cybernetic theory of viable systems, therefore creating viable boundary critique analysis. Boundary critique can provide an ethical analysis that can explore the meanings and processes associated with conflicts. Viable boundary critique enables differentiable social pluralities to be better explored and provides a broader space for the consideration of political and ideological attributes of conflict that develop beyond Midgley's ethical analysis. It also provides for a new way of defining and measuring power. A number of the characteristics of boundary critique analysis are considered in the context of a case study relating to the recent Liverpool dock strike.

Suggested Citation

  • M Yolles, 2001. "Viable boundary critique," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 52(1), pages 35-47, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:jorsoc:v:52:y:2001:i:1:d:10.1057_palgrave.jors.2600069
    DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600069
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600069
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600069?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. J-R Córdoba & G Midgley, 2006. "Broadening the boundaries: an application of critical systems thinking to IS planning in Colombia," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(9), pages 1064-1080, September.
    2. Thomas Grisold & Markus F. Peschl, 2017. "Why a Systems Thinking Perspective on Cognition Matters for Innovation and Knowledge Creation. A Framework towards Leaving behind Our Projections from the Past for Creating New Futures," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(3), pages 335-353, May.
    3. R Ormerod, 2004. "A contribution to the discussion of Ulrich's paper," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 55(11), pages 1236-1238, November.
    4. Lowe, David & Espinosa, Angela & Yearworth, Mike, 2020. "Constitutive rules for guiding the use of the viable system model: Reflections on practice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(3), pages 1014-1035.
    5. Francesca Iandolo & Pietro Vito & Francesca Loia & Irene Fulco & Mario Calabrese, 2021. "Drilling down the viable system theories in business, management and accounting: A bibliometric review," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 738-755, November.
    6. Jorge Velez-Castiblanco & Diana Londono-Correa & Olandy Naranjo-Rivera, 2018. "The Structure of Problem Structuring Conversations: A Boundary Games Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 853-884, October.
    7. Hector, Donald & Christensen, Carleton & Petrie, Jim, 2009. "A problem-structuring method for complex societal decisions: Its philosophical and psychological dimensions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 193(3), pages 693-708, March.
    8. G Midgley & L A Pinzón, 2011. "Boundary critique and its implications for conflict prevention," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(8), pages 1543-1554, August.
    9. Gerald Midgley & Luis A. Pinzón, 2013. "Systemic Mediation: Moral Reasoning and Boundaries of Concern," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(5), pages 607-632, September.
    10. Thanos Papadopoulos, 2012. "Public–Private Partnerships from a Systems Perspective: A Case in the English National Health Service," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(4), pages 420-435, July.
    11. Ksenia Ivanova & Sondoss Elsawah, 2022. "Iterative Refinement of Multi-Method OR Workshop Designs through Boundary Critique: An Analytical Framework and Case Studies in Technology Utilisation," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 345-374, June.
    12. Daniel Ebakoleaneh Ufua, 2020. "Exploring the Effectiveness of Boundary Critique in an Intervention: a Case in the Niger Delta Region, Nigeria," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 485-499, October.
    13. Gerald Midgley & Erik Lindhult, 2021. "A systems perspective on systemic innovation," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(5), pages 635-670, October.
    14. Ufua, Daniel E. & Papadopoulos, Thanos & Midgley, Gerald, 2018. "Systemic Lean Intervention: Enhancing Lean with Community Operational Research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1134-1148.
    15. J Bryant, 2007. "Drama theory: dispelling the myths," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(5), pages 602-613, May.
    16. J L Foote & J E Gregor & M C Hepi & V E Baker & D J Houston & G Midgley, 2007. "Systemic problem structuring applied to community involvement in water conservation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(5), pages 645-654, May.
    17. W Ulrich, 2003. "Reply to the comments of Jackson," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(11), pages 1226-1229, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:jorsoc:v:52:y:2001:i:1:d:10.1057_palgrave.jors.2600069. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.