Systems Thinking - Revision history

Laouris: refs

2023-02-07T13:11:07Z

refs

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:11, 7 February 2023
Line 48:		Line 48:
	* Bertalanffy L von (1968) General system theory. Penguin, London		* Bertalanffy L von (1968) General system theory. Penguin, London
	* Boulding KE (1956) General system theory – The skeleton of science. Management Science, 2:197-208		* Boulding KE (1956) General system theory – The skeleton of science. Management Science, 2:197-208
			* Checkland P (1985) From optimizing to learning: A development of systems thinking for the 1990s. Journal of the Operational Research Society 36:757-767
			* Cabrera D, Colosi L, Lobdell C (2008) Systems thinking. Evaluation and Program Planning 31(3):299-310
			* Cabrera D and Cabrera L (2015) Systems thinking made simple: New hope for solving wicked problems. Odyssean Press, Ithaca
			* Cabrera D, Cabrera L, Powers E (2015) A unifying theory of systems thinking with psychosocial applications. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 32(5):534–545
	* Fuenmayor RL (1991a) The roots of reductionism: A counter-ontoepistemology for a systems approach. Systems Practice 4(5):419-448		* Fuenmayor RL (1991a) The roots of reductionism: A counter-ontoepistemology for a systems approach. Systems Practice 4(5):419-448
	* Fuenmayor RL (1991b) The self-referential structure of an everyday living situation: A phenomenological ontology for interpretive systemology. Systems Practice 4(5):449-472		* Fuenmayor RL (1991b) The self-referential structure of an everyday living situation: A phenomenological ontology for interpretive systemology. Systems Practice 4(5):449-472
Line 59:		Line 63:
	* Jackson, Michael C (1985). "Social systems theory and practice: the need for a critical approach". International Journal of General Systems. 10: 135–151.		* Jackson, Michael C (1985). "Social systems theory and practice: the need for a critical approach". International Journal of General Systems. 10: 135–151.
	* Ulrich W (1983) Critical heuristics of social planning: A new approach to practical philosophy. Haupt, Berne		* Ulrich W (1983) Critical heuristics of social planning: A new approach to practical philosophy. Haupt, Berne
			* Vickers G (1983) Human systems are different. Harper and Row, London

Laouris: Added refs

2023-02-07T13:06:54Z

Added refs

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:06, 7 February 2023
Line 12:		Line 12:
	\|-		\|-
	\|style="padding: 10px" \|'''Systems Thinking'''		\|style="padding: 10px" \|'''Systems Thinking'''
	\|* <u>Transdisciplinary:</u> Focus is on defining and redefining systems without conforming to disciplinary boundaries (von Bertalanffy 1968, Bailey 2001, Midgley 2001a).		\|
			* <u>Transdisciplinary:</u> Focus is on defining and redefining systems without conforming to disciplinary boundaries (von Bertalanffy 1968, Bailey 2001, Midgley 2001a).
	* <u>Avoids reductionism:</u> Focuses attention on interrelationships, how parts interact to form whole systems, how those systems are defined by boundary distinctions, and what these interrelationships, systems and boundary distinctions might look like from different perspectives (Cabrera et al 2008, 2015; Cabrera and Cabrera 2015).		* <u>Avoids reductionism:</u> Focuses attention on interrelationships, how parts interact to form whole systems, how those systems are defined by boundary distinctions, and what these interrelationships, systems and boundary distinctions might look like from different perspectives (Cabrera et al 2008, 2015; Cabrera and Cabrera 2015).
			* Subject/object dualism and mechanism are both challenged, as the agency and inter-subjectivity of human beings is acknowledged (Fuenmayor 1991a,b,c).
	* <u>People seen as interactive parts of larger socio-ecological systems:</u> Can both change those systems and be changed by them (Gregory 2000).		* <u>People seen as interactive parts of larger socio-ecological systems:</u> Can both change those systems and be changed by them (Gregory 2000).
	\|}		\|}
Line 42:		Line 44:

	==References==		==References==
			* Bailey KD (2001) Towards unifying science: Applying concepts across disciplinary boundaries. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 18:41-62
			* Bertalanffy L von (1956) General system theory. General Systems 1:1-10
			* Bertalanffy L von (1968) General system theory. Penguin, London
			* Boulding KE (1956) General system theory – The skeleton of science. Management Science, 2:197-208
			* Fuenmayor RL (1991a) The roots of reductionism: A counter-ontoepistemology for a systems approach. Systems Practice 4(5):419-448
			* Fuenmayor RL (1991b) The self-referential structure of an everyday living situation: A phenomenological ontology for interpretive systemology. Systems Practice 4(5):449-472
			* Fuenmayor RL (1991c) Truth and openness: An epistemology for interpretive systemology. Systems Practice 4(5):473-490
			* Gregory WJ (2000) Transforming self and society: A “critical appreciation” model. Systemic Practice and Action Research 13(4):475-501
	* Jackson, Michael C (1982). "The nature of soft systems thinking: the work of Churchman, Ackoff and Checkland". Journal of Applied Systems Analysis. 9: 17–28.		* Jackson, Michael C (1982). "The nature of soft systems thinking: the work of Churchman, Ackoff and Checkland". Journal of Applied Systems Analysis. 9: 17–28.
			* Midgley G (2001a) Rethinking the unity of science. International Journal of General Systems 30:379-409
	* Midgley G (2008) Systems thinking, complexity and the philosophy of science. Emergence: Complexity and Organization 10(4):55-73		* Midgley G (2008) Systems thinking, complexity and the philosophy of science. Emergence: Complexity and Organization 10(4):55-73
	* Midgley, G., & Rajagopalan, R. (2020). Critical systems thinking, systemic intervention, and beyond. Handbook of Systems Sciences, 1-51.		* Midgley, G., & Rajagopalan, R. (2020). Critical systems thinking, systemic intervention, and beyond. Handbook of Systems Sciences, 1-51.

Laouris at 12:59, 7 February 2023

2023-02-07T12:59:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:59, 7 February 2023
Line 7:		Line 7:
	\|		\|
	* Informed by a single disciplinary perspective; i.e., restricted by relatively arbitrary disciplinary boundaries (von Bertalanffy 1956, Boulding 1956).		* Informed by a single disciplinary perspective; i.e., restricted by relatively arbitrary disciplinary boundaries (von Bertalanffy 1956, Boulding 1956).
	* ~~Apply~~ reductionist methods, which break phenomena into component parts so they can be studied or addressed independently (von Bertalanffy 1968).		* Uses reductionist methods, which break phenomena into component parts so they can be studied or addressed independently (von Bertalanffy 1968).
	* Ignores the importance of appreciating the interactions between the parts, and between phenomena.		* Ignores the importance of appreciating the interactions between the parts, and between phenomena.
	* Ignoring interactions can bring about systemic resistance to reductionist 'solutions'.		* Ignoring interactions can bring about systemic resistance to reductionist 'solutions'.

Laouris: /* Reductionist scientific and management methods embody potentially pernicious assumptions */

2023-02-07T12:58:51Z

Reductionist scientific and management methods embody potentially pernicious assumptions

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:58, 7 February 2023
Line 27:		Line 27:
	\|-		\|-
	\|style="padding: 10px" \|'''Subject/object dualism'''		\|style="padding: 10px" \|'''Subject/object dualism'''
	\|* Conceptual splitting of the ‘subject’ (who observes things and is the holder of knowledge about them) from the ‘object’ (which is observed and known).		\|
			* Conceptual splitting of the ‘subject’ (who observes things and is the holder of knowledge about them) from the ‘object’ (which is observed and known).
	* If, following this split, the subject comes to be hidden, the illusion of perfect objectivity is created, as if we can have knowledge without a knowing subject (Fazey et al 2018).		* If, following this split, the subject comes to be hidden, the illusion of perfect objectivity is created, as if we can have knowledge without a knowing subject (Fazey et al 2018).
	\|}		\|}
Line 39:		Line 40:
	# [[Critical Systems Thinking]] developed by Mingers and Jackson in the 80s.		# [[Critical Systems Thinking]] developed by Mingers and Jackson in the 80s.
	# [[Systemic Design]]		# [[Systemic Design]]


	==References==		==References==

Laouris at 12:58, 7 February 2023

2023-02-07T12:58:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:58, 7 February 2023
Line 5:		Line 5:
	{\|class=wikitable		{\|class=wikitable
	\|style="padding: 10px" \| '''Classical approach'''		\|style="padding: 10px" \| '''Classical approach'''
	\|* Informed by a single disciplinary perspective; i.e., restricted by relatively arbitrary disciplinary boundaries (von Bertalanffy 1956, Boulding 1956).		\|
			* Informed by a single disciplinary perspective; i.e., restricted by relatively arbitrary disciplinary boundaries (von Bertalanffy 1956, Boulding 1956).
	* Apply reductionist methods, which break phenomena into component parts so they can be studied or addressed independently (von Bertalanffy 1968).		* Apply reductionist methods, which break phenomena into component parts so they can be studied or addressed independently (von Bertalanffy 1968).
	* Ignores the importance of appreciating the interactions between the parts, and between phenomena.		* Ignores the importance of appreciating the interactions between the parts, and between phenomena.
Line 16:		Line 17:
	\|}		\|}

	===Reductionist scientific and management methods embody ~~two other~~ potentially pernicious assumptions===		===Reductionist scientific and management methods embody potentially pernicious assumptions===
	Mechanism and subject/object dualism often walk hand in hand, as the former involves the denial of agency to human beings, which is consistent with removing the knowing subject (who has agency) from the picture.		Mechanism and subject/object dualism often walk hand in hand, as the former involves the denial of agency to human beings, which is consistent with removing the knowing subject (who has agency) from the picture.

	{\|class=wikitable		{\|class=wikitable
	\|style="padding: 10px" \| '''Mechanism'''		\|style="padding: 10px" \| '''Mechanism'''
	\|* Viewing the world as a predictable machine (Prigogine 1987), where human beings are regarded as mindless cogs within it instead of self-conscious actors whose choices (based on subjectively or inter-subjectively relevant purposes and values) may be different to those that a supposed 'expert' might make.		\|
			* Viewing the world as a predictable machine (Prigogine 1987), where human beings are regarded as mindless cogs within it instead of self-conscious actors whose choices (based on subjectively or inter-subjectively relevant purposes and values) may be different to those that a supposed 'expert' might make.
	* Value conflicts may therefore confound supposedly 'optimal' or 'objectively rational' solutions (Vickers 1983, Checkland 1985).		* Value conflicts may therefore confound supposedly 'optimal' or 'objectively rational' solutions (Vickers 1983, Checkland 1985).
	\|-		\|-

Laouris: Added: Reductionist scientific and management methods embody two other potentially pernicious assumptions

2023-02-07T12:56:59Z

Added: Reductionist scientific and management methods embody two other potentially pernicious assumptions

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:56, 7 February 2023
Line 5:		Line 5:
	{\|class=wikitable		{\|class=wikitable
	\|style="padding: 10px" \| '''Classical approach'''		\|style="padding: 10px" \| '''Classical approach'''
	\|*Informed by a single disciplinary perspective; i.e., restricted by relatively arbitrary disciplinary boundaries (von Bertalanffy 1956, Boulding 1956).		\|* Informed by a single disciplinary perspective; i.e., restricted by relatively arbitrary disciplinary boundaries (von Bertalanffy 1956, Boulding 1956).
	* Apply reductionist methods, which break phenomena into component parts so they can be studied or addressed independently (von Bertalanffy 1968).		* Apply reductionist methods, which break phenomena into component parts so they can be studied or addressed independently (von Bertalanffy 1968).
	* Ignores the importance of appreciating the interactions between the parts, and between phenomena.		* Ignores the importance of appreciating the interactions between the parts, and between phenomena.
Line 11:		Line 11:
	\|-		\|-
	\|style="padding: 10px" \|'''Systems Thinking'''		\|style="padding: 10px" \|'''Systems Thinking'''
	\|.		\|* <u>Transdisciplinary:</u> Focus is on defining and redefining systems without conforming to disciplinary boundaries (von Bertalanffy 1968, Bailey 2001, Midgley 2001a).
			* <u>Avoids reductionism:</u> Focuses attention on interrelationships, how parts interact to form whole systems, how those systems are defined by boundary distinctions, and what these interrelationships, systems and boundary distinctions might look like from different perspectives (Cabrera et al 2008, 2015; Cabrera and Cabrera 2015).
			* <u>People seen as interactive parts of larger socio-ecological systems:</u> Can both change those systems and be changed by them (Gregory 2000).
	\|}		\|}

			===Reductionist scientific and management methods embody two other potentially pernicious assumptions===
	*

	Reductionist scientific and management methods ~~often~~ embody two other potentially pernicious assumptions:

	~~Mechanism~~

	Viewing the world as a predictable machine (Prigogine 1987), where human beings are regarded as mindless cogs within it instead of self-conscious actors whose choices (based on subjectively or inter-subjectively relevant purposes and values) may be different to those that a supposed 'expert' might make.
	~~Value conflicts may therefore confound supposedly 'optimal' or 'objectively rational' solutions (Vickers 1983, Checkland 1985).~~

	~~Subject/object dualism Conceptual splitting of the ‘subject’ (who observes things and is the holder of knowledge about them) from the ‘object’ (which is observed and known).~~
	~~If, following this split, the subject comes to be hidden, the illusion of perfect objectivity is created, as if we can have knowledge without a knowing subject (Fazey et al 2018).~~

	Mechanism and subject/object dualism often walk hand in hand, as the former involves the denial of agency to human beings, which is consistent with removing the knowing subject (who has agency) from the picture.		Mechanism and subject/object dualism often walk hand in hand, as the former involves the denial of agency to human beings, which is consistent with removing the knowing subject (who has agency) from the picture.

			{\|class=wikitable
			\|style="padding: 10px" \| '''Mechanism'''
			\|* Viewing the world as a predictable machine (Prigogine 1987), where human beings are regarded as mindless cogs within it instead of self-conscious actors whose choices (based on subjectively or inter-subjectively relevant purposes and values) may be different to those that a supposed 'expert' might make.
			* Value conflicts may therefore confound supposedly 'optimal' or 'objectively rational' solutions (Vickers 1983, Checkland 1985).
			\|-
			\|style="padding: 10px" \|'''Subject/object dualism'''
			\|* Conceptual splitting of the ‘subject’ (who observes things and is the holder of knowledge about them) from the ‘object’ (which is observed and known).
			* If, following this split, the subject comes to be hidden, the illusion of perfect objectivity is created, as if we can have knowledge without a knowing subject (Fazey et al 2018).
			\|}

	The following are Frameworks and methodologies for systems thinking:		The following are Frameworks and methodologies for systems thinking:
	# [[System Dynamics]] (SD) developed originally in the late 1950s by [[Jay Forrester]].		# [[System Dynamics]] (SD) developed originally in the late 1950s by [[Jay Forrester]].

Laouris: added table with classical approach

2023-02-07T12:49:29Z

added table with classical approach

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:49, 7 February 2023
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Systems thinking is a way of making sense of the world's complexity by looking at it <u>in terms of wholes and relationships rather than splitting it into parts</u>. It has been used to explore and develop effective action in complex contexts, <u>enabling systems to change</u>. Systems thinking draws on and contributes to [[Systems Theory]] and the [[System Sciences]].		Systems thinking is a way of making sense of the world's complexity by looking at it <u>in terms of wholes and relationships rather than splitting it into parts</u>. It has been used to explore and develop effective action in complex contexts, <u>enabling systems to change</u>. Systems thinking draws on and contributes to [[Systems Theory]] and the [[System Sciences]].

			{\|class=wikitable
			\|style="padding: 10px" \| '''Classical approach'''
			\|*Informed by a single disciplinary perspective; i.e., restricted by relatively arbitrary disciplinary boundaries (von Bertalanffy 1956, Boulding 1956).
			* Apply reductionist methods, which break phenomena into component parts so they can be studied or addressed independently (von Bertalanffy 1968).
			* Ignores the importance of appreciating the interactions between the parts, and between phenomena.
			* Ignoring interactions can bring about systemic resistance to reductionist 'solutions'.
			\|-
			\|style="padding: 10px" \|'''Systems Thinking'''
			\|.
			\|}


			*

			Reductionist scientific and management methods often embody two other potentially pernicious assumptions:

			Mechanism

			Viewing the world as a predictable machine (Prigogine 1987), where human beings are regarded as mindless cogs within it instead of self-conscious actors whose choices (based on subjectively or inter-subjectively relevant purposes and values) may be different to those that a supposed 'expert' might make.
			Value conflicts may therefore confound supposedly 'optimal' or 'objectively rational' solutions (Vickers 1983, Checkland 1985).

			Subject/object dualism Conceptual splitting of the ‘subject’ (who observes things and is the holder of knowledge about them) from the ‘object’ (which is observed and known).
			If, following this split, the subject comes to be hidden, the illusion of perfect objectivity is created, as if we can have knowledge without a knowing subject (Fazey et al 2018).

			Mechanism and subject/object dualism often walk hand in hand, as the former involves the denial of agency to human beings, which is consistent with removing the knowing subject (who has agency) from the picture.

Laouris at 12:38, 7 February 2023

2023-02-07T12:38:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:38, 7 February 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Systems thinking''' refers to the practical application of systems ideas to address or prevent complex environmental, social and organisational issues. It is as much about dialogue and collaboration as what happens in our minds (Ulrich 1983), and it takes place in contexts of action (Midgley 2008). (Source: Midgley & Rajagopalan, 2020).		'''Systems thinking''' refers to the <u>practical application of systems ideas to address or prevent complex environmental, social and organisational issues</u>. It is as much about dialogue and collaboration as what happens in our minds (Ulrich 1983), and it takes place in contexts of action (Midgley 2008). (Source: Midgley & Rajagopalan, 2020).

	Systems thinking is a way of making sense of the world's complexity by looking at it in terms of wholes and relationships rather than splitting it into parts. It has been used to explore and develop effective action in complex contexts, enabling systems to change. Systems thinking draws on and contributes to [[~~systems theory~~]] and the [[~~system sciences~~]].		Systems thinking is a way of making sense of the world's complexity by looking at it <u>in terms of wholes and relationships rather than splitting it into parts</u>. It has been used to explore and develop effective action in complex contexts, <u>enabling systems to change</u>. Systems thinking draws on and contributes to [[Systems Theory]] and the [[System Sciences]].

Laouris at 08:16, 7 February 2023

2023-02-07T08:16:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:16, 7 February 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Systems thinking''' refers to the practical application of systems ideas to address or prevent complex environmental, social and organisational issues. It is as much about dialogue and collaboration as what happens in our minds (Ulrich 1983), and it takes place in contexts of action (Midgley 2008).		'''Systems thinking''' refers to the practical application of systems ideas to address or prevent complex environmental, social and organisational issues. It is as much about dialogue and collaboration as what happens in our minds (Ulrich 1983), and it takes place in contexts of action (Midgley 2008). (Source: Midgley & Rajagopalan, 2020).

	Systems thinking is a way of making sense of the world's complexity by looking at it in terms of wholes and relationships rather than splitting it into parts. It has been used to explore and develop effective action in complex contexts, enabling systems to change. Systems thinking draws on and contributes to [[systems theory]] and the [[system sciences]].		Systems thinking is a way of making sense of the world's complexity by looking at it in terms of wholes and relationships rather than splitting it into parts. It has been used to explore and develop effective action in complex contexts, enabling systems to change. Systems thinking draws on and contributes to [[systems theory]] and the [[system sciences]].
Line 17:		Line 17:
	* Jackson, Michael C (1982). "The nature of soft systems thinking: the work of Churchman, Ackoff and Checkland". Journal of Applied Systems Analysis. 9: 17–28.		* Jackson, Michael C (1982). "The nature of soft systems thinking: the work of Churchman, Ackoff and Checkland". Journal of Applied Systems Analysis. 9: 17–28.
	* Midgley G (2008) Systems thinking, complexity and the philosophy of science. Emergence: Complexity and Organization 10(4):55-73		* Midgley G (2008) Systems thinking, complexity and the philosophy of science. Emergence: Complexity and Organization 10(4):55-73
			* Midgley, G., & Rajagopalan, R. (2020). Critical systems thinking, systemic intervention, and beyond. Handbook of Systems Sciences, 1-51.
	* Mingers, J (1980). "Towards an appropriate social theory for applied systems thinking: critical theory and soft systems methodology". Journal of Applied Systems Analysis. 7: 41–49.		* Mingers, J (1980). "Towards an appropriate social theory for applied systems thinking: critical theory and soft systems methodology". Journal of Applied Systems Analysis. 7: 41–49.
	* Jackson, Michael C (1985). "Social systems theory and practice: the need for a critical approach". International Journal of General Systems. 10: 135–151.		* Jackson, Michael C (1985). "Social systems theory and practice: the need for a critical approach". International Journal of General Systems. 10: 135–151.
	* Ulrich W (1983) Critical heuristics of social planning: A new approach to practical philosophy. Haupt, Berne		* Ulrich W (1983) Critical heuristics of social planning: A new approach to practical philosophy. Haupt, Berne

Laouris: added Midgley's def and refs

2023-02-07T08:15:12Z

added Midgley's def and refs

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:15, 7 February 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Systems thinking''' is a way of making sense of the world's complexity by looking at it in terms of wholes and relationships rather than splitting it into parts. It has been used to explore and develop effective action in complex contexts, enabling systems to change. Systems thinking draws on and contributes to [[systems theory]] and the [[system sciences]].		'''Systems thinking''' refers to the practical application of systems ideas to address or prevent complex environmental, social and organisational issues. It is as much about dialogue and collaboration as what happens in our minds (Ulrich 1983), and it takes place in contexts of action (Midgley 2008).

			Systems thinking is a way of making sense of the world's complexity by looking at it in terms of wholes and relationships rather than splitting it into parts. It has been used to explore and develop effective action in complex contexts, enabling systems to change. Systems thinking draws on and contributes to [[systems theory]] and the [[system sciences]].


Line 14:		Line 16:
	==References==		==References==
	* Jackson, Michael C (1982). "The nature of soft systems thinking: the work of Churchman, Ackoff and Checkland". Journal of Applied Systems Analysis. 9: 17–28.		* Jackson, Michael C (1982). "The nature of soft systems thinking: the work of Churchman, Ackoff and Checkland". Journal of Applied Systems Analysis. 9: 17–28.
			* Midgley G (2008) Systems thinking, complexity and the philosophy of science. Emergence: Complexity and Organization 10(4):55-73
	* Mingers, J (1980). "Towards an appropriate social theory for applied systems thinking: critical theory and soft systems methodology". Journal of Applied Systems Analysis. 7: 41–49.		* Mingers, J (1980). "Towards an appropriate social theory for applied systems thinking: critical theory and soft systems methodology". Journal of Applied Systems Analysis. 7: 41–49.
	* Jackson, Michael C (1985). "Social systems theory and practice: the need for a critical approach". International Journal of General Systems. 10: 135–151.		* Jackson, Michael C (1985). "Social systems theory and practice: the need for a critical approach". International Journal of General Systems. 10: 135–151.
			* Ulrich W (1983) Critical heuristics of social planning: A new approach to practical philosophy. Haupt, Berne