TB871: Making Strategy with Systems Thinking in Practice - The Open University

Project Report: “A Systemic Approach to Making Strategy for Improvement of Student Wellbeing at The Open University” (2025)

Abstract

As part of my study of Systems Thinking in Practice (STiP) on the TB871 module at The Open University (OU), I iterated between theoretical learning and practical use of five systems approaches—System Dynamics (SD), Viable System Model (VSM), Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA), Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH)—to develop my systems practice capability. I evaluated the effectiveness of each tool for engaging with aspects of STiP—understanding interrelationships (uIR), engaging with multiple perspectives (eMP), and reflecting on boundary judgements (rBJ). This allowed me to select appropriate tools for further inquiry towards the design of a systemic process for improving a situation of interest. I categorise my initial explorations and findings through TB871 as Systemic Inquiry 1 (SI1), and the iterative developments for this report as Systemic Inquiry 2 (SI2).

I am personally invested in the area of practice (AoP) relating to managing student wellbeing at the OU, and I have focused on situations within that AoP to experiment with the five systems tools in making strategies for improvement. The OU has stated that a strategic move towards a systemic approach to student wellbeing is needed, and this is supported by advisory organisations such as Universities UK (The Open University, 2020; Universities UK, 2023). However, the application of specific systems approaches appears to be lacking.

I used SSM and CSH to learn about the situation of interest, critique my thinking and processes, and design a model of purposeful activity to improve the situation. I lacked capacity to engage with multiple perspectives in ongoing discourse which limited my learning in terms of uIR and rBJ. I therefore recommend action that involves stakeholders in using STiP to collectively learn about the situation and, through their practice, develop STiP capability over time—essentially, I recommend the purposeful development of inclusive, critical learning systems. In this report, I embed critical systems practice and development of STiP capability and competence in a proposed conceptual activity model, use CSH to identify leverage points for ethical and inclusive change, and discuss the potential limitations and opportunities of the selected approach.

Introduction

As a student at OU that has health issues and professional experience in Education, I am interested in the AoP relating to managing student wellbeing at the OU. ‘Wellbeing’ is broad, complex, sensitive to change and heavily impactful at the level of the individual and their communities. Many sectors, entities and individuals interact to improve student wellbeing (e.g. students, tutors, support staff, OU leadership, external services), contributing to the complexity of situations in this AoP. Mental health, which is used almost interchangeably with wellbeing throughout many of the cited sources, is shown to greatly impact learning and overall performance, likelihood of underachieving or withdrawing from education (Universities UK, 2023). Change over time adds to uncertainty, with mental health potentially declining if not addressed (Hughes and Spanner, 2019). Additionally, distance learning provides its own unique stressors (Stone and O’Shea, 2019). Mental health of university students is an increasing issue (Hughes and Spanner, 2019; The Open University, 2020) and universities have a duty of care to students by law (Office for Students, 2024).

The Open University (2025) ‘Access and Participation Plan’ (APP) states an intention to adopt a systemic approach, ‘working across functional ‘boundaries’ to address barriers to student success and equity of outcome’. This is in line with the ‘whole university’ approach promoted in the Stepchange mentally healthy universities model that informs institutional strategy across four areas: learn, support, work, live (The Open University, 2020; Universities UK, 2023). The APP and institutional wellbeing strategies generally appear to be well-informed, carefully considered and designed for practical application. However, in discussion with Nicole Lotz (2025), Deputy Director of STEM EDIA at the OU (Lotz, 2025), no specific systems experts have been consulted in the development of the OU strategy.

This report outlines some of the ways in which my learning throughout TB871 and its TMAs, which I will refer to as SI1, informed my process for designing a system to improve a situation of interest in my AoP (referred to as SI2).

My goals for SI1 and SI2 have been to:

Gain understanding of the situation of interest with consideration of limitations
Maintain a critically reflective mindset
Develop STiP capability by using the available information and resources creatively to make strategy with STiP
Make strategy towards systemically desirable, culturally feasible and ethically defensible change.

A diagram of a system to demonstrate ability to make strategy in a situation of interest using STiP — *Figure 1: A system to demonstrate ability to make strategy in a situation of interest using STiP*

Systemic Inquiry 1:
Informing methodological selectivity

In my design of a system for the improvement of my situation of interest, I considered the factors that are necessary for effective STiP such as those outlined in the STiP heuristic (Reynolds et al., 2020, 1.3.3), and aspects that had given me trouble in my own inquiries. In SI1, I used SSM to define a system of interest for the exploration and improvement of a problematic situation. Using SSM Analyses 1-3 and CATWOE aided my thinking about interrelationships, but later use of CSH provided further critique on the reference system underlying my definition and prompted me to identify emancipatory, accommodating actions for improvement—crucial for systemically desirable and culturally feasible change.

Facilitating critical learning in a situation of interest

Due to my lack of access to stakeholders for critical discourse, and my limitations as a practitioner, my ultimate recommendation would be an activity model of a critical learning system—a transitional object that facilitates the various levels of social learning alongside the changing situation. The ‘transformation’ not only supports the making of strategy for desirable and feasible change, but potentially the formation of purposeful Critical Social Learning Systems (as described by Bawden in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 39-56, 89-101) that develop competence and capability over time for improved enactment of STiP beyond any initial recommendations for improvement. As such, my situation of interest for SI2 relates to my current concerns regarding the improvement of student wellbeing at the OU through the design and enactment of a critical learning system.

The capability of the individual and their community to engage in critical reflection can open up the possibility for systemically desirable change (see Figure 2) and is therefore a priority in my own practice and in my recommendations for others. This is supported by development of certain skills, and attributes underpinned by capacity for critical reflection (Reynolds et al., 2020, P6.3.3; Reynolds et al., 2020, P6.4.2).

Systematic application of tools such as CSH supports critical reflection in the form of boundary critique, and other aspects of STiP (engaging with different perspectives or ‘reference systems’, and understanding interrelationships) until relevant skills are adopted as regular practice. Additionally, compared to approaches like SODA, CSH is more accessible and does not require professional facilitation to be effective in a variety, and can be adapted to accommodate individual differences (Marrington et al., 2020). Both CSH and SSM provide an adaptable, organised process of inquiry that may be beneficial to the development of organisational and individual STiP capabilities over time.

I personally enjoyed using SSM as a systematic process for defining the boundaries of a system of interest to explore, and for designing activity models so that is what I have chosen for modelling my recommended learning system for stakeholders to undertake.

A diagram of Levels of learning for systemic development over time — *Figure 2: Levels of learning for systemic development over time*

Systemic Inquiry 2:
Application of SSM & CSH

A system to develop a critical learning system to improve student wellbeing at the OU through systemically desirable, culturally feasible and ethically defensible change (Figure 3).

During SI1 and SI2, my understanding of the situation deepened as I researched perspectives such as those expressed by Hughes and Spanner, 2019; Stone & O’Shea, 2019; The Open University, 2020, 2025; Worsley et al., 2020; Universities UK, 2023; Lister et al., 2024; Office for Students, 2024. I critiqued my understanding through boundary reflection using CSH questions (see Appendix A) which allowed me to identify potential leverage points and make specific recommendations for strategic action to improve the situation of interest.

A diagram of a system to develop a learning system to improve student wellbeing at the OU (v1) — *Figure 3: A system to develop a learning system to improve student wellbeing at the OU (v1)*

Strategic recommendations

Recommendations from CSH boundary critique

(See Appendix A for CSH Q&A)

Motivation

Co-inquiry into interventions to accommodate all stakeholders
Preventative, culturally influential action to remove systemic barriers
Adapt existing systems for monitoring and evaluating performance to inform and support collective decision-making
Institutional support for localised strategic change by stakeholder groups or representatives, allowing speedier experimentation and development cycles.

Control

Transparency of resource management, building trust and accountability
Collaboration with external health and social services to balance pressures on institutions
Purposefully employ and collaborate with people representative of student and staff interests
Provide resources to student and staff representatives such as unions and support groups to enact localised change.

Expertise

Support stakeholders to utilise existing research capacity and form communities of practice rather than relying on individual ‘experts’
Increase feasibility of transition to more democratic processes of decision-making by merging traditional management with systemic inquiry and design processes
Adapt existing technological infrastructure to simplify and promote community engagement
More clarity regarding reasoning for strategy, sources of information and expertise, to maintain transparency and accountability.

Legitimacy

Develop individual and collective STiP literacy, sensibility, capability
Embed STiP in strategy, policy, curricula, and staff training
Standardise learning and adaptability in the design of institutional processes and interventions
Continue building stakeholder relationships
Show initiative and innovation in institutional co-creation, and inclusive practice
Explore options collaboratively to accommodate a variety of needs
Clarify how different worldviews are accommodated, and the weight different worldviews have in the development of strategy
Promote visibility of support communities, unions and representatives for students and staff.

Specific to ongoing development of the learning system:

Utilise existing technological systems, but be aware of new technologies that could improve processes
Develop accessible systems for co-inquiry and ongoing communication, promoting collaborative relationships amongst stakeholders
Automate transparency of feedback and development, showing how different worldviews are used to make improvements
Embed STiP, learning, and adaptation in all processes to support long-term STiP development.

Defining the system of interest

Following boundary critique and my learning from SI1, I feel that my PQR statement is appropriate and would support the wider system for student wellbeing (see Figure 4):

A system to develop a critical learning system to improve student wellbeing at the OU through systemically desirable, culturally feasible and ethically defensible change.

A diagram of a system to develop a systemic approach to making strategy to fulfil the purpose of a system to support student wellbeing — *Figure 4: A system to develop a systemic approach to making strategy to fulfill the purpose of a system to support student wellbeing*

As a root definition:

Decision-makers: A system for OU stakeholders to collectively develop a systemic approach to making strategy for improvement of wellbeing... (SSM Analysis 1, CSHq4, ‘control’)

Worldview: ...in the belief that STiP supports the making of strategy that is systemically desirable, culturally feasible and ethically defensible... (PQR, CSHq12, ‘legitimacy’, The Open University, 2020; Universities UK, 2023)

Transformation: ...transforming management and strategy-making processes from a target-based approach to a systemic approach through the development of STiP over time... (PQR, CSHq2, ‘motivation’; Ison, 2017a, pp. 223-250)

Those affected: ...primarily focussing on the wellbeing of students, but with consideration of all stakeholders affected, including teaching and support staff, and local health and social care services that may be adversely affected by changes... (SSM Analysis 1, CSHq1, CSHq10, ‘motivation’, ‘legitimacy’)

Actors: ...as all stakeholders participate in making strategy that is systemically desirable, including expertise on systems thinking and group workshop facilitation, teaching and learning, wellbeing and mental health, institutional structures, functions, resources, roles, and capacity to enact change at various levels... (CSHq7, ‘expertise’)

Environmental constraints: ...with consideration of environmental constraints such as legal and ethical guidelines, cultural support, consumer choice, capacity of services and interventions to meet stakeholder needs (CSHq6, ‘control’).

A model for action

I outline the logical steps needed to enact the learning system, and include tool recommendations that are appropriate in social learning settings:

Define performance measures
- Analyse aspects of situation as defined by CATWOE or CSH questions
Evaluate impact of current processes for making strategy regarding wellbeing interventions
- SODA workshops to discuss perceived issues and strategic options
- SD CLD to identify causal relationships
- CSH questions to review ethical / political issues
- VSM to review viability of system
Identify leverage points for strategic action to improve processes
- SODA analyses to identify ‘potent’ options for next actions
- SD CLD to identify problematic influences
- VSM to identify how requisite variety can be met
- VSM to identify where necessary system functions are not being fulfilled
- CSH questions to evaluate the reference systems underlying strategic recommendations
Embed STiP in strategy, activity, and assets to facilitate 1st, 2nd and 3rd order conversation
- SSM to design activity systems
Use STiP to evaluate impact of wellbeing interventions
- SODA workshops to discuss perceived issues and strategic options
Use STiP to plan wellbeing interventions
- SSM to design activity system
- VSM to design viable recursive systems
- CSH questions to ensure accommodation of various stakeholders
Enact interventions
Monitor and evaluate
- VSM to review viability of system
- SSM(p) to evaluate and redesign process
- STiP heuristic to evaluate process in regard to effectiveness of enacting and developing STiP
Take control action

These steps can be seen as points to discuss emergent outcomes and cumulative learning from the learning cycle (Figure 5).

*Figure 5: A conceptual activity model of a system for OU stakeholders to collectively develop a systemic approach to making strategy for improvement of student wellbeing*

I have focused on a level of activity currently most accessible to individuals in OU leadership and management to collaborate on. However, with the introduction of purposeful activities that utilise STiP tools, I believe that (like in my own inquiries) the importance of eMP, uIR and rBJ will become apparent. There will undoubtedly be challenges in enacting desirable and feasible change within the existing institutional structure, but there is a greater chance of finding where barriers and opportunities to change are when the combined knowledge of all stakeholders is utilised. Embedding monitoring and evaluation as a key part of the inquiry process should help to develop STiP capability and competence over time (Ulrich and Reynolds, 2020 in Reynolds and Holwell, 2020, pp. 295-7), improving capacity to make systemically desirable change (Bawden in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 39-56, 89-101; Ison et al., 2014, pp. 623-640).

The steps may be introduced transitionally as a systematic process, whilst developing capacity for iteration—it would require suitable resources, including sufficient time for stakeholders to collaborate. For efficiency, stakeholder discussions at each stage of the process can be structured by asking questions about activities in the model, and their dependencies (Checkland and Poulter, 2006, p. 52, Figure 2.12).

Performance measures can be defined from aspects of the situation referenced by CATWOE or CSH questions. Examples of performance measures to consider include:

Efficacy: Does the system support both the development of interventions to improve student wellbeing, and improvement of organisational practice? Are processes accessible, accommodating stakeholders’ individual differences, preferences, perspectives, and practices?
Efficiency: What are systemic barriers to the improvement of student wellbeing, and to the systemic process of making strategy? Are monitoring and evaluation processes providing enough relevant information for making strategy with STiP?
Effectiveness: Are all stakeholders able to participate in making strategy using STiP? Are all viewpoints given equal value? To what extent is wellbeing improved across all demographics of students and staff?

A diagram of a system to develop a learning system to improve student wellbeing at the OU (v2) — *Figure 6: A system to develop a learning system to improve student wellbeing at the OU (v2)*

Evaluating SI2 methodology

Although the specific tools I select may vary depending on the situation of interest, my methodology of designing a system of learning would be appropriate for any complex situation. For the purposes of this report, I reflect on my use of systems tools and approaches as a means of developing my STiP and potentially improving the situation of interest.

Making strategy

I refined my method for SI2 (see Figure 3 and 6) during the process of describing it in this report and realising that certain activities such as the SSM analyses were not as relevant as the CSH questions for this particular inquiry. The method could be refined further to be more efficient in similar use cases, but I found it useful nonetheless as it helped me to explore my situation of interest and develop my STiP within the current limitations of my practice. The systematic process simplified what can be a confusing process for inexperienced practitioners such as myself (Asby et al., 2020, 5.2.1; Checkland and Poulter in Reynolds and Holwell, 2020, p. 206, 223-4, 226; Reynolds et al., 2020, 6.2.1, 6.2.3).

To evaluate my recommendations, I have assessed the strategy in relation to the defined system of interest and have found that the main aspects are addressed in the activity diagram and the recommendations resulting from CSH boundary critique. I found combining SSM and CSH to be reasonably accessible with some adjustments such as rephrasing of CSH questions.

uIR, eMP, rBJ

I have found that eMP, supported by rBJ, is how a ‘bigger picture’ of a situation is gained. I was therefore limited in my understanding of interrelationships as they may be conveyed from different stakeholder perspectives. CSH questions provided insight through ‘1st order conversation’ on how different aspects of the situation are related and may impact different stakeholder groups (Reynolds et al., 2020, 6.1.3, 6.2.7, 6.4.3). If I had more time to iterate the process using the resources available to me at the moment, I could explore further hypothetical perspectives or design more alternative reference systems using information from OU reports or academic research about the institution as I have done in my inquiries so far.

Ideally, greater input from stakeholders could help to develop understanding of both the structural interrelationships, that can be explored through approaches such as System Dynamics (SD) or Viable System Model (VSM), and the soft system aspects through SSM and CSH. SODA workshops with an experienced facilitator would be valuable for gaining critical input from stakeholders, identifying potent options for strategic change, and shifting the boundaries of systems of interest in order to accommodate others (Reynolds et al., 2020, Block 4).

The presentation of proposed strategy would need to be made more accessible to people of varying levels of understanding and different ways of working. Simplified language, or supporting information may be used to facilitate productive encounters. With existing practices and infrastructure, statistical data, consultations and questionnaire feedback can be utilised to make strategy with STiP.

Avoiding thinking traps

I found that purposefully utilising systems tools mitigated reductionism and dogmatism (Reynolds et al., 2020, 1.3.2, 6.2.1). For example, SSM and CSH helped me to avoid reductionist thinking through critical reflection, as the process of defining the system of interest and thinking through associated activities revealed the necessity of social learning in the making of desirable, feasible strategy. The direct prompts to consider different aspects of the situation helped me to understand interrelationships in the situation and thus be more holistic. However, my opportunities for second-order conversations, and therefore pluralistic practice, was lacking and potentially creating a risk of dogmatic thinking. I do think that SSM and CSH combined provide several opportunities to reflect on boundary judgements, mitigating some of the concerns I have about my own potential biases and projection whilst making strategy. I really appreciated the systematic processes of my chosen approaches for critical reflection, and development of my STiP capability.

Practitioner Statement

Learning about myself and others

My inexperience as a systems thinking practitioner brings with it a humility that serves me well as a student—openness to critique and emergence supports effective systems thinking. However, lack of confidence drives me to seek comfort in systematic thinking. During the inquiries described in this report, I enjoyed the systematic approach that could be taken with CSH and SSM. However, this does not reflect ‘a certain dash, a light-footedness, a deft charm’ that characterises the mature, internalised, non-linear STiP that comes with experience (Checkland and Scholes, 1990, p. 302). Perhaps my confident experimentation with modelling and creative application of systems tools conveys ‘a certain dash’, and my reflectiveness about my assumptions shows potential for ‘light-footedness’ in complex situations. Gaining experience in working directly with others in the ‘mess’ and persistently challenging my discomfort with ambiguity may help me to have more ‘grace under pressure’ and flexibility in my practice (Checkland and Poulter, 2006, p. 169).

I have already found myself being more empathetic to very different worldviews and thinking more holistically as a result of using systems tools in TB871. Reflecting on my judgements can feel uncomfortable as I reveal my own ‘thinking errors’ and contradictions between my self-perception and inevitable partiality. However, finding greater acceptance of others’ and my own ‘flaws’ brings some relief and hope. Developing STiP capability through praxis is transformative (see Figure 7), changing perception of situations, influencing our choices and interpretations of outcomes, and shaping the environment through emergence (Ison, 2017b; Shah et al., 2020, P5.1.4). This is why the development of my own learning through SI1 directly inspired the design of the learning system for improving the situation of interest—my own STiP opened me up to greater possibilities of change, and I would like to share this experience with others.

A diagram showing relationship between 1st-, 2nd- and 3rd-order conversation and transformation through engagement with STiP — *Figure 7: 1st-, 2nd- and 3rd-order conversation and transformation through engagement with STiP*

Learning about tools and the situation

To make strategy in my situation of interest, I had to get an understanding of the situation, using systems approaches for uIR, eMP, and rBJ (Reynolds et al., 2020, 1.3.3). Critical reflection was particularly important given my limitations with eMP, as I had to interpret my own and others’ value judgements and factual judgements about the situation without critical or clarifying feedback.

SSM and CSH met my criteria well and gave me better insight into how the situation can be improved in a way that is desirable and feasible. CSH exposed the partiality of different ways of framing the situation, surfacing ethical questions about whose wellbeing is prioritised, and gave me language to express the limitations of my judgements and engage with alternatives. My iterations of conceptual activity models led me to the design of a learning system that builds upon collective knowledge which I then believed would be the ideal option for systemically desirable strategy.

Communicating about systems

It was challenging to communicate my process—there was a lot that was changed or discarded to fit into the scope of the report. I have attempted to balance the ‘mess’ with clarity of communication about the more useful and relevant aspects of my learning experience. With more experience, I will be more adept and efficient in my choices of approach, and communication of my processes.

Conclusion

Experimenting with different tools expanded my toolbox, giving me options to pull from when dealing with different situations. For example, I recognise the strengths of ‘hard’ systems approaches like SD and VSM for understanding, evaluating, and designing system structures. ‘Soft’ systems tools, including SODA, SSM, and CSH have given me confidence to accept and make sense of the complexity of human existence, as well as broaden my own worldview. I have learnt that learning is the key, as a practitioner, as a stakeholder, as an advocate for change—I cannot be ethical, inclusive, and confident in my decision-making without first being humble, hearing others, and questioning my assumptions. I am driven to continue learning, so that I can have skills and experience to contribute when I am able to facilitate change alongside others, and be able to learn from those experiences too.

Asby, R. et al. (2020) TB871: Block 5 Tools stream, The Open University. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=2438604 (Accessed: 1 August 2025).
Bawden, R. (2010) ‘Messy Issues, Worldviews and Systemic Competencies’, in C. Blackmore (ed.) Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice. London: Springer, pp. 89–101. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-133-2_6.
Bawden, R. (2010) ‘The Community Challenge: The Learning Response’, in C. Blackmore (ed.) Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice. London: Springer, pp. 39–56. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-133-2_3.
Checkland, P. and Poulter, J.D. (2006) Learning for action: a short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use for practitioner, teachers, and students. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 52, 169.
Checkland, P. and Poulter, J.D. (2020) in M. Reynolds and S. Holwell (eds) Systems Approaches to Making Change: A Practical Guide. London: Springer London, pp. 206, 223–224, 226. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7472-1.
Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (1990) in Soft systems methodology in action. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., p. 302.
Hughes, G. and Spanner, L. (2019) The University Mental Health Charter, Leeds: Student Minds. Available at: https://hub.studentminds.org.uk/university-mental-health-charter/ (Accessed: 27 May 2025).
Ison, R. (2017a) ‘Four Settings That Constrain Systems Practice’, in R. Ison (ed.) Systems Practice: How to Act: In situations of uncertainty and complexity in a climate-change world. London: Springer, pp. 223–250. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9_9.
Ison, R. (2017b) Systems Practice: How to Act (2017). London: Springer London. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7351-9.
Ison, R., Grant, A. and Bawden, R. (2014) ‘Scenario Praxis for Systemic Governance: A Critical Framework’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(4), pp. 623–640. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1068/c11327.
Lotz, N. (2025) ‘Email with A. Magombe, 13 February.’
Marrington, P. et al. (2020) TB871: Block 4 People stream, The Open University. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=2438599 (Accessed: 22 July 2025).
Office for Students (2024) The Office for Students mental health analytics project, Jisc. Available at: https://beta.jisc.ac.uk/reports/the-office-for-students-mental-health-analytics-project (Accessed: 23 May 2025).
Reynolds, M. and Holwell, S. (eds) (2020) Systems Approaches to Making Change: A Practical Guide. London: Springer London. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7472-1.
Reynolds, M. and the module team (2020a) TB871: Block 1 Tools stream, The Open University. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=2438584 (Accessed: 20 May 2025).
Reynolds, M. and the module team (2020b) TB871: Block 6 Tools stream, The Open University. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=2438608&printable=1 (Accessed: 24 August 2025).
Shah, R., Walker, M., and the module team (2020) TB871: Block 5 People stream, The Open University. Available at: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=2438605 (Accessed: 18 August 2025).
Stone, C. and O’Shea, S. (2019) ‘Older, online and first: Recommendations for retention and success’, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3913.
The Open University (2020) ‘Student and Staff Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2020-2023: Promoting and institutional approach’. Available at: https://help.open.ac.uk/students/_data/documents/helpcentre/mental-health-wellbeing-strategy.pdf.
The Open University (2025) ‘Access and Participation Plan’. Available at: https://university.open.ac.uk/widening-participation/sites/www.open.ac.uk.widening-participation/files/files/The%20Open%20University_APP_2025-26_V1_10007773.pdf.
Universities UK (2023) Stepchange: mentally healthy universities. Available at: https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/what-we-do/policy-and-research/publications/stepchange-mentally-healthy-universities (Accessed: 23 May 2025).
Worsley, J., Pennington, A. and Corcoran, R. (2020) Student mental health interventions: state of the evidence. What Works Centre for Wellbeing. Available at: https://whatworkswellbeing.org/resources/student-mental-health-review-of-reviews/ (Accessed: 23 May 2025).

Appendix A:
CSH reference system

Normative mapping 'what ought to be' based on SI1 vs Value judgements and factual judgements on 'what is'

PQR:

A system to develop a critical learning system in order to improve student wellbeing at the OU by supporting a systemic approach of critical social learning and strategic design towards systemically desirable, culturally feasible and ethically defensible change.