Look at a situation. You see one thing. I see another.
Each offers justification. Each can cite sources of legitimacy. Each is conditioned by social identities — of belonging to groups that tend to perceive particular issues in particular ways.
“Whenever we propose a problem definition or solution,” writes Werner Ulrich, “we cannot help but assert the relevance of some facts and norms as distinguished from others.”
Computer scientist Steve Easterbrook offers a great example of boundary critique in the blog post, “Systems thinking and Genetically Modified food.”
Examining the debate over genetically modified foods, he finds the following systems — some complementing, some contending:
- A system of scientists doing research
- A system of research ethics and risk management
- A system of ecosystems and contaminants that weaken them
- A system of intellectual property rights and the corresponding privatization of public goods
- An economic system in which investment in R&D is expected to boost the economy
- A system of global food supply and demand
- A system of potential threats to human health and well-being
- A system of sustainable agriculture, with long time horizons
- A system of protest groups