International Society for the Systems Sciences: Journals ISSS
Not a member yet
1073 research outputs found
Sort by
Action Research as a Research Method in Architecture and Design
No full textSummary This paper discusses the use of action research as a research method in architecture and design. It addresses the question of how academic work in the fields of architecture and design can pursue research through methods that are appropriate to the nature of design processes. This question is relevant to much research work done in architecture and design, which tends to revert to conventional research methods oriented either towards the sciences or to the humanities in order to be academically acceptable. Action research is introduced as a research method that has much in common with applied design processes, and which allows designers to develop research in the spirit of designing. This paper aims to inform those seeking to preserve the applied nature of designing and the involved nature of the observer/designer while pursuing a higher level of academic rigour. Extended Abstract Action Research as a Research Method in Design-based Fields Design-based fields are strongly practice-oriented in that designing typically involves the inception and development of ideas as well as their manifestations. Acting (making) thus goes hand in hand with reflection in design processes. In contrast to many other fields, studying design is always linked to practicing design – designing cannot be learned from books and without applied practice. This characteristic distinguishes departments of architecture or product design from other departments within universities, and has been a constant source of debate as to whether these fields can be considered properly “academic”. Among designers working academically, this generates challenging questions regarding the validity of their methods of inquiry in the wider academic context. In particular in research-based degree programmes, this often means that academics as well as their Master or PhD students choose to shift to research methods considered more formal and defensible. Typically, such methods are taken from either the humanities or the sciences. Only rarely however does academic work in these fields acknowledge and employ design as a research method. While I focus on the field of architecture in the following, the insights developed are to a large extent generalizable to other design-based fields. Research methods employed in the field of architecture vary considerably depending on the particular aspect of architecture under investigation, and range from scientific methods used in areas such as building physics and construction to qualitative methods of inquiry common in areas such as housing research or history. The nature of design related research, however, remains subject to an ongoing debate: Groat and Wang (2002), reviewing diverse research methods available to researchers in architecture, clearly distinguish research from applied design. Laurel (2003) emphasizes the synergy of both domains, while Downton (2003) argues that design can be a form of research and refers to the descriptions put forward by Archer (1981) and Frayling (1993) of three areas of investigation: “research for design”, “research about design” and “research through design”. In Downton’s (2003) view, the process of designing can be regarded as form of investigation that produces individual knowing as well as shareable knowledge and thus qualifies as research. Glanville (1998) even holds that scientific research is a restricted form of designing. More recently, designers working academically have increasingly emphasized the necessity of including designing in the methodological canon of academic inquiry. These efforts have been developed to a large extent in the context of the Design Research Society and its Special Interest Group on Experiential Knowledge (EKSIG). In addition to this, action research as well as design-based approaches are also discussed in fields such as management and business, which, like design-based fields, are strongly practice-oriented (Fendt and Kaminska-Labbe 2011). In the following, I discuss the potential role of action research in this ongoing discourse, with a particular focus on employing it in the writing of a postgraduate thesis. I introduce and examine in detail a case study (Herr 2008) that demonstrates how action research may be integrated into academic work that involves applied designing. The case study is a PhD thesis in architecture written by the author. Case Study: An Action Research Thesis in Architecture The positions outlined above indicate the importance of both design and research in the field of architecture as well as their complementary nature. In the context of architectural design, is widely agreed that design research is difficult to contain for empirical research purposes (Lawson 1997, p. 39) and may require flexible modes of investigation. For this reason, the case study discussed in the following employs a mixed methods approach (Creswell 2003) as it combines an initial proposition developed from a literature review with an explorative action research process. The aim of the study was to explore how cellular automata (CA) – an established method of mathematical modelling and investigation in scientific fields of inquiry such as mathematics or biology – can support the conceptual architectural design process. In the first stage of the study, a review of previous work in the field was conducted. This led to the creation of a preliminary extended CA model that was then subjected to a design process that simultaneously constituted the research inquiry. The testing and further development of the initial CA model required applied design, which in the context of the study was understood as the process of developing software implementations based on initial assumptions, and applying (testing) them in architectural design processes. Results from five successive software implementations were used throughout the study to inform further developments of the initially proposed CA model as well as subsequent software implementations. This iterative research process is primarily qualitative in nature, with both research questions and the type of collected data subject to changes from one software implementation to the next. Moreover, the nature of results in this type of design-based research process is open-ended, as design processes cannot easily be predicted. For this reason, the study focused primarily on collecting qualitative data, as quantitative data collection is restricted to data of a predefined nature. The purpose of this applied phase of research was to allow for open-ended development of initial assumptions to capture unexpected results as they are commonly found in design processes. Data collection methods however changed over the course of the five software implementations this study. Choosing Action Research as a Design-oriented Research Method In order to choose a formal method of inquiry for the case study, the following criteria were initially identified as essential characteristics: The research method should allow for an actively involved researcher and be flexible enough to accommodate various modes of action. It should furthermore accommodate unexpected results as well as changing or emergent variables during the research process. Finally, it should allow for the research process to be based on initial assumptions. According to these criteria, action research was found to be the research method most appropriate to the case study. Groat and Wang (2002, p. 111) characterize action research as construction of knowledge through the process of change, with a focus on developing practical results through improving specific situations. While not the same (McMahon 1999), action research is closely related to Schön’s (1983) approach to reflective practice, who grounds his approach to an epistemology of practice on a close examination of practitioners, including architects. Schön (1983, p. ix) argues that reflection-in-action “is susceptible to a kind of rigor that is both like and unlike the rigor of scholarly research and controlled experiment”. Swann (2002) argues that the design process can be considered a research process, with a clear focus on action. He suggests “…that action research and the action of designing are so close that it would require only a few words to be substituted for the theoretical frameworks of action research to make it applicable to design” (Swann 2002, p. 56). The similarities between the process of design and action research are further emphasized by Stapleton (2005), who regards both approaches as "activities for changing social reality": “Both are cyclical and emergent, with action research having a plan-act-observe-reflect cycle and design a problem-analysis-synthesis-evaluation cycle. Action research, as a qualitative methodology, can also successfully combine both qualitative and qualitative approaches that are necessary to investigate the craft of game design.” (Stapleton 2005) The emergent nature of action research in Stapleton’s (2005) description refers to the flexibility of action research to accommodate insights resulting from unexpected outcomes of action. If necessary, even the research approach itself may be modified: new variables may only emerge during the process of investigation through action. The full paper will extend the above as follows: Action research will be discussed in further detail, in particular those aspects that are most relevant to applied designing. Implications of demands for academic rigour will be discussed in the context of action research as well as design-based research. Links between cybernetics and design will be discussed and analysed for their mutually enhancing potential. An analysis and summary of insights gained from the case study and literature review will list challenges and opportunities likely encountered by researchers when employing action research as a research method in design-based fields
Causality and Reponsibility
No full textSystems theory developed within the cybernetics movement as an enriched understanding of causal connections, but most people still make decisions on the basis of simple lineal connections between actions and desired outcomes. Decisions made on this basis are at the root of todays environmental crisis, which is only intelligible in systems terms. As we look ahead at the anthropocene, it is essential to shift from lineal to systemic decision making and reshape our "common sense" about the nature of responsibility, intention and causation. When and how is such a change possible in the life cycle?
MIND MAPPING SYSTEMS THINKER’S ATTITUDES FACING A SEPSIS PROBLEM
No full textBy thinking about systems thinking, our aim was to provide other system thinkers with a mind map for the key elements of the thinking that took place. The sepsis problem is highly complex and spans not just the biological system, but also the healthcare enterprise. Sepsis is the context in which systems thinking has been applied and examined. Sepsis is an emergency situation that if left unrecognised and untreated in its early stage leads to multiple organ dysfunction and death. It is also the most expensive condition treated in U.S. hospitals. Stays with septicaemia (sepsis) have the highest aggregate hospital costs in comparison to all other conditions (US 2011 $20.3 billion) and these costs have more than quadrupled since 1997. A systems thinking mind map was examined while relating the story of a systems thinker, Paul, who attempted to deal with the sepsis problem. Paul wanted to better understand sepsis in order to recognise potential leverage points for prevention, treatment and recovery. This case study highlights the attitudes; comments on the system approach, and puts forward the cognitive concepts. All these concepts are integrated in an overall mind map looking like a tree: the branches of the tree represent the systems thinker's attitudes; the roots of the tree represent features of systems that are commonly considered when systems’ thinking. By examining the systems thinking applied in an unfamiliar domain this has facilitated new perspectives on systems thinking and systems science
Leadership for Sustainability of Socio-Ecological Systems: Unity in Diversity, Humanity in Technology
No full text<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 134217746 0 131231 0;} @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;} @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} --> Most forecasts agree that we have exciting times ahead. But the world is facing a number of crises, and systems do not change smoothly – they pass through phases of decline and reorganization that might be quite troubling. Success may depend, as Andy Stirling said the first day of this conference, on our ability to be responsive to the opportunity inherent in crisis; that is, to see the systemic nature of our circumstances and alternative pathways that make up a complex roadmap with more than one road, as Andy also said. One thing we can do in a crisis, is to always ask “what can we learn from this.” That’s “Crisis Science”, and its lessons can tell us how to do “Sustainability Science”. 
P2P in the anthropocene with the Convergence gathering as a case study
No full textThere are many threats as we move deeper into the anthropocene age. The dominance based hierarchies that have become an unquestioned part of 21st century life are a reflection of the linear profit driven paradigm that fails to see the interconnectedness between us, and between us and the world we inhabit. In order to find a pathway out of the looming dystopic futures that appear to be unfolding, a new paradigm that recognises the connectedness within nature and the social world is necessary to generate new social structures that can lead to more sustainable, thriving futures. One weak signal on the horizon that might foreshadow a change in paradigm towards a more healthy way of seeing the world and interacting in it is the peer to peer movement. The peer to peer movement creates ways for people to interact without intervening controlling hierarchies that build value for those involved. There are a number of forms from digitally based platforms like Wikipedia, Linux, couch surfing and ride sharing through to the Arab Spring and occupy Wall Street. There are also links to the co-operative movement and community initiatives like transition towns and permacultural living. A case study is presented examining one type of peer to peer group in more detail to reveal practical issues of operating within this new paradigm. The Convergence gathering is a group of people interested in alternative lifestyles that has met for five or six days over the New Year in North Canterbury, New Zealand for almost thirty years. It has developed an organisational style with no ongoing structured leadership
Disaster Management for Boiling Globe by World’s 441 Nuclear-heated Water
No full textThe present research reviews, firstly outlines the ‘unstoppable’ nature of nuclear power generation as exemplified by the system lifecycle of ageing nuclear reactors, the decommissioning of reactors, and the nuclear waste disposal problem, which stakeholders find difficult to understand. Secondly, it highlights the sea-temperature rise in the northern hemisphere, specifically the North Pacific and North Atlantic, as a result of the thermal effluent water from nuclear power plants which is a product of today’s nuclear industry. Thirdly, it presents the hypothesis of the ‘Boiling Globe’ caused by this thermal effluent water, whereby the overheating of whole oceans compounds CO2–based atmospheric warming and accelerates the spread of infectious tropical diseases to the northern hemisphere. The research points to the unsustainability of this global boiling caused by the world’s 441 nuclear plants with an average lifespan of 30 years. The traumatic experience of the Fukushima disaster has become a ‘disaster anchor’ based on psychological and cultural aspects, comparable to the career anchors of Edgar Schein (1978), and is a cultural function forming the premise of decision-making. From the standpoint of Japan, which has experienced Fukushima and other frequent disasters, it is therefore important to make the world aware of the necessity of disaster management for our sustainable future
Systemic Design Panel - (inter)actors’ Pecha Kucha
No full texta conversation It is undeniable that systemic design approaches almost all disciplines and hence offer potential for a similar understanding (a general system) of how to design, which behavioral, technical or structural rules to follow, to take on board or to create. The panel takes on the role of a ‘crisp’ conversation between a variety of ‘design’ perspectives in different disciplines, driven by and focusing on the challenges the anthropocene brings. Aim is to present short varying pitches ranging from innovation to material resilience, the relevance of geo-tagging or the necessity for education in design thinking. Pitches are to clarify and to confuse, to trigger and to embrace, to innovate, to criticize and to shake up. The format of the panel acts as interface and as systemic design methodology in itself. 5x15 slides, presented for 20 seconds each describe the blueprint for an agile construction
Systems Philosophy and its relevance to Systems Engineering
No full textSystems Philosophy is the branch of the philosophy of science informed by the systems paradigm. The INCOSE Systems Science Working Group is exploring how Systems Philosophy can be used to support expansion of the theoretical foundations of Systems Engineering (SE). This workshop will present a basic introduction to Systems Philosophy, and use it to explore: Perspectives on SE as a discipline and the place of SE in the systems disciplinary field; How Systems Philosophy can help SE and other systems disciplines work together to develop
mutually beneficial foundations; How Systems Philosophy and SE can support the development of a General Systems Theory (GST),
and how working with a GST can help unify and expand the theoretical foundations of SE; How SEs could leverage expanded theoretical foundations to address increasing complexity of
engineered systems; Key programs and projects under way to improve/expand the systems sciences; Emerging opportunities for richer engagement between Systems Engineering, Systems Science
and Systems Philosophy.
The day will consist of seven presentations preparing the ground for four breakout sessions in which participants can explore and develop ideas and plans for strengthening SE using Systems Philosophy. For more details about the upcoming workshop, please visit our workshops webpage at: https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/meetings/workshop-2015-july For more details about the "Systems Philosophy for SE" project, please visit our webpage at: https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/projects/o-systems-philosoph
A Communication System for Socio-Ecological Processes
No full textThis article outlines a unified Communication Theory linking cyber-systemic, and cyber-semiotic perspectives. The objective is explaining communication as an emergent system from the interaction process between socio-ecological systems. The emergent communication system seen from a unified perspective is applied as a participative integral transformation process toward the harmonic relationship between human communities and their dynamic social and natural environment. It includes the description of an evolutionary communication process between social and environmental leaders of organizational networks under real conditions. It describes the evolutionary stages of the communication system between different social and environmental leaders who have been working in social organizational networks of Mexico in the last thirty years. The last stage of this emergent communication process among social organizational networks leaders began in 2009, is called: the Ecosystemic Dialogues, it is communication system with qualitative complexity and critical awareness. It is a social laboratory of change under real conditions, through a participative action-research cybernetic process, for a harmonic and sustainable relationship between human and natural systems, through a complex communication dynamic. It is a process toward the sustainable systemic health of the planet