The Original Mission

The Journal was launched in 1990 with the following statement from the Editorial Board:

Human Systems is an entirely new international journal formed with the intention of fostering and extending systemic consultation. It was conceived out of a shared perception that emerged during discussions between the Kensington Consultation Centre and the Leeds Family Therapy and Research Centre. We discern radical changes taking place in the ways that practitioners conceptualise their work. There are two aspects to this: the areas of application, and the theoretical base.

Progressively, systemic family therapists have come to see themselves as systems consultants. In part this is a reconceptualising of the role that we play with families both in rejecting the label of therapy and in recognising that the system concerned is not necessarily the family. It may be a household; a family plus therapists; a part family with or without social worker etc. Then we see a progression to consulting directly with other systems. Initially this was most commonly with the professional systems that deal with families by calling this loosely connected system together in a format very similar to that used with families. Progressively, systems consultants have widened their scope to consult to all kinds of organisations and to subsystems within larger state, professional, commercial and industrial businesses.

Theoretical excitement has always been part of our field and it is interesting how close we have stayed to Bateson's inspiration by taking biological studies as sources of insight and metaphor. Recently other themes have been picked up: social constructionism is the most visible but sources as varied as the Frankfurt School, Foucault, the many approaches to analysing discourse, and a whole range of areas being tackled through artificial intelligence, are also being drawn on. This is not all a matter of systemic family therapists pulling in raw material from a widening range of sources. Most of these areas have come to recognise the necessity of a systemic perspective for progress within their discipline and so we are finding formulations which can be very readily incorporated into our own theoretical frameworks. One objective of the Journal is to make stronger reciprocal links with these areas so that benefits work in both directions and progress can be speeded by being cooperative.

We see a metaphor for what is happening within this field in an important aspect of the psychobiology of development. A key to understanding much about biological organisms, and brains in particular, is that they are constructed while, and as a result of, their functioning. The need to be viable (within a protective framework of womb, parenting, or society) produces forms of action and experience that guide the development of the organism in ways that extend its range of adaptations. In this way it becomes capable of thriving within, and influencing, (=transacting effectively with) ever wider contexts. Systemic consultation is undergoing a further extension of its range of application at precisely the time that a radical restructuring of its theoretical base, perhaps substantial enough to be called a paradigm shift, is also happening. If we can make ourselves aware of the ways that the two processes are interacting we can avoid the risk of short term adaptations which turn out to be blind alleys, and instead guide the process to achieve maximum long term benefit to both theoretical and practice developments.

One tendency that is emerging is to attempt to destroy the orthodoxies of the recent past. While the literature of other fields (psychotherapy, developmental psychology) is becoming positive in its evaluation of systemic consultation, the literature within our own field is becoming increasingly critical, often in negative ways. Biological organisms, as they develop, do not usually destroy their previous morphology and adaptations. These have been functional in the earlier life, and they become incorporated into the new system. The old orthodoxies of systemic family therapy also worked. There was much in them to value, and much that can usefully be incorporated into the next phase. Any polarisation into an old guard, resisting change, versus young turks who want a radical overthrow of everything to do with the past in which they did not participate, will inevitably weaken the venture.

Our objective in the Journal is to build constructively on the substantial past achievements of systemic understanding and practice to extend the range and credibility of the field. We believe that an essential requirement for further productive development is a solid research base. For a field that grew out of a variety of research ventures, there is a remarkable paucity of effective research reported in the family therapy literature. We have enough studies of outcome to support our personal experience that systemic consultation works, but beyond this the field seems to have failed to tackle the problem of developing a style of research which will give reliable form to its theoretical and practice prescriptions. Individual creativity, inspired by concepts developed in other fields has always been one of the strongest and most exciting features of systemic thinking. But research findings in their various forms can provide an important alternative kind of input, and Human Systems intends to provide a lead in making up the existing deficit.

We know that many practitioners are venturing into new areas of application, but as yet there is no established set of principles to guide them, and no forum in which to share experience. So in neither research nor application is the Journal tapping an existing and well developed body of material. Our intentions are much more reflexive than that. Through the success of the Journal in providing a forum for ideas, experiences, and rigorous study at the leading edge of developments in systemic consultation, we hope to play a role in fostering, coordinating and disseminating those developments. We have no plans for Human Systems to become a passive repository of information; it will become a fully interactive part of the system.

Concretely these objectives will be fostered by the kinds of material we publish. The core process for any journal is the selection of material. Refereeing will be rigorous but more interactive than in most journals. The stance we ask our referees to take is to place a high premium on the ability of the paper to open up new perspectives, excite curiosity, and be useful to the practitioner. As with our systemic consultation we will also be careful to ensure that we do not mislead, insult, confuse by unnecessary obscurity and so on. Prospective authors are invited to write and request the detailed instructions that we provide for referees.

As indicated, we are particularly keen to publish work which extends the range of systemic consultation, and research studies. The former may take the form of case reports; accounts of particular forms of practice; systemic analyses of aspects of management, or of the work of management consultants; illustration of the application of principles derived form other areas of systemic consultation; accounts of the particular requirements of specific kinds of system; issues raised by cross-national operation and so on. They may range from full-scale descriptions of practice to very brief vignettes or simple discoveries; we will particularly want to report indicators of outcome, whether this has been collected in a formally structured way or can be provided by simple external indicator ('the firm went bankrupt 6 months later' for example).

Systemic work has its own rhythms and it is unlikely that research paradigms, and research criteria, developed within linear, positivistic science will provide a suitable framework. Part of the task of the Journal will be to help develop an understanding of the needs and specifications of productive research within the systemic paradigm. Again the instructions to referees are a starting point but it is the Journal which will provide the forum within which the issues are explored and developed.

As already discussed, we see an essential contribution to healthy growth coming from the inventive development of existing ideas as well as the identification of new concepts. As we extend the range of systemic thinking and practice we want to stay securely in touch with our base in systemic family therapy, and to publish new ideas and information about issues that reach back to our roots as well as into the future.

In order to have a developing debate we will encourage responses to articles. These responses may or may not take issue with what has been published but the essential requirement is that they take the topic further. To increase topicality we will also commission commentaries to appear concurrently with the article and where possible we will give the original author a chance to reply in the same issue.

Human Systems is being launched at an exciting time of widening recognition of the practical utility of a systemic approach to consultation and management. We hope you will want to participate with us in its creation.

Peter Stratton, 1989.