Methodological foundations of systems methodologies

Abstract

In social systems science generally, and in management science particularly, recent developments in the variety of types of specific problem-solving methodologies (under the rubric of “hard” and “soft” systems approaches) have given an impetus to a line of inquiry, as well as debate on the nature of those methodologies. On the one hand, there has been the view that what we are witnessing is a form of “Kuhnian crisis.” On the other hand, a complementarist view of developments has been argued and a contingency approach proposed. But one thing has been common among the competing views: a belief that the prospects for further advances in the design and application of those methodologies, and in resolving the current controversies, lie in serious attempts to reconsider and clarify the underlying metatheoretical assumptions and concerns. This paper is an attempt to contribute to such an endeavor. A brief exposition of three methodological foundations (namely, empiricism, hermeneutics, and critique) is made, not only with the purpose of highlighting the nature as well as the limits of their epistemological and ethical claims, but also as a basis for illuminating both the nature of contemporary work on systems inquiry, design, and problem solving and the ongoing debate on what constitutes appropriate criteria for choice of specific methodologies.