SYSTEMS THEORY FRAMEWORK�(PATTON & MCMAHON, 2014)

Marina Milosheva

Edinburgh Napier University

ECADOC 2021

SYSTEMS THEORY FRAMEWORK:��“ONE THEORY TO RULE THEM ALL?”

Practitioner version

The individual and practitioner as temporary co-authors of career guidance (Patton & McMahon, 2006)

​

Can be used for practitioner training or when working with clients, e.g. My System of Career Influences

MAIN TENETS

• Constructivist theory: reality is socially constructed & emerging rather than singular and static
• Integrates the individual, the social, and the environmental (easier to see this in the colour version – orange broken line = social; red broken line = environmental)

​

Think: the whole; the parts; the inter-relationships

​

​

​

​

BACKGROUND

What is a system?

Something that can be thought of as a bigger whole which consists of smaller parts

Meaningful arrangement of components and functions; a sequence of events which produces an effect

These smaller parts make up the system: the system cannot exist without the parts and the parts lose their function when not a part of the system

Even if we don’t understand what is going on inside a system, we can observe its inputs and outputs

​

​

BACKGROUND

What is systems thinking? An abstract and holistic way of thinking about entities that are too complex to fully understand

Originated in biology (Ludwig von Bertalanffy), also applied to management, sociology, philosophy, science and technology studies, and many more

Systems thinking underpins IT systems design

​

​

EVOLUTION OVER TIME: PATTON & MCMAHON

• 1995-1999: becoming interested in the applications of general Systems theory to careers
• 2004-2007 – first iterations of STF; the STF has changed little since then
• 2015-2018 – looking back on the success of STF

​

Where to next?

​

SO MANY STRENGTHS!

• Flexible and not too prescriptive – fits with many different theoretical approaches
• Holistic – helps us think about a wide range of influences between the individual and their environment
• Comprehensive – includes individual change, chance, temporal progression (past; present; future)
• Pragmatic – the individual is at the centre but it is not all about the individual; outcomes are not 100% in our control -> understanding career problems as something bigger and devising pragmatic solutions
• Integrates different levels of analysis – individual as well as context
• Culturally sensitive – understanding of identity as being influenced by a range of factors
• In my case – can accommodate interdisciplinary research perspectives

CRITIQUES, LIMITATIONS & THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND

• Too abstract? Too complex? Too constructivist?
• Encourages ‘zooming out’ vs ‘zooming in’?
• Lacks content – it gives you thinking tools, but says nothing in particular about career phenomena (e.g. time exists in the theory but it is not directly addressed by it)?

The big question is: Is the critique really oriented towards STF itself or the usefulness of meta-theories in general?

And following from that, what would be the solution?

• Cosmetic changes: Simplify the wording and visualisation of the theory?
• Fundamental changes: Add more features, remove some features? STF has been out for more than 20 years – is it as good as it’s going to get?

HOW I’M USING STF

The conundrum I had was, on the face if it, quite simple:

• My research is interdisciplinary; each of the disciplines I work in has its own point of view about the phenomena I want to study.
• Information literacy says: information literacy is a socially situated practice. We need to look at collective information literacy in context, what groups of people/communities do.
• Career decision-making says: career decision-making is all about the individual. There are external influences, but the individual is the primary unit of analysis.

So how should I integrate these two levels of analysis within the same PhD?

STF to the rescue: I chose it as my overarching theory that will guide the interpretation of all the other ones I end up using. It allows me to integrate theories, models, and frameworks from both of these disciplines.

I’m particularly interested in the systemic nature of career learning & the role of information in all parts of the career learning system; in learning as something bigger than the individual. STF accounts for this as well (McMahon & Patton, 2018, p.236).

​

SOME INTERESTING POINTS FOR DISCUSSION

• Is it a theory? Is it a framework? What can it tell us and not tell us? Can it be used on its own?
• How useful are metatheories such as STF? Do they successfully integrate other career theories?
• Practitioners sometimes struggle to apply it. Why? “Massive beast to try and remember”, though practitioners like the visual and use it as a reflection tool.

​

To go back to the beginning: Is STF the one theory to rule them all?

​

THANK YOU!

* Word cloud generated from various excerpts of Patton & McMahon’s STF publications