Systems Community of Inquiry

@eepu Thanks for the thoughts on day one. You’ve raised an interesting issue of “systems thinking” and “systems science” … which are actually two different things, although related.

Science can be described as a “pursuit of knowledge”, so human beings observe patterns, develop hypotheses or conjectures, and then prove or disprove the validity of the inferred patterns. If things work out, we have theory. Kurt Lewin said “there’s nothing so practical as a good theory”.

Systems thinking can be more intuitive in how we use patterns. In particular, when we don’t have enough data, or the world has changed — I cite the Internet as a phenomenon that the systems thinkers of the 1970s could not have experienced — we’ve having to make decisions about system designs in which we haven’t established “scientific proof”. Over time, it may be possible to establish that proof, but we should have to wait for 99.9% certainty before taking action.

The major benefit of a systems approach is that it’s cross-disciplinary or trans-disciplinary. When we can solve a problem using disciplinary knowledge, the challenge is simple.

Of course, there needs to be a way to develop knowledge about systems that is repeatable … which is where the systems sciences come in.

@aslee Thanks for your what’s that? blog post. Your struggle to define a system is natural, as even experienced systems thinkers will often spend time negotiating that meaning with parties in and around the system to be studied.

You’re doing detailed work, and thus I’ll encourage you to think about whether you’re heeding Russell Ackoff’s definition of systems thinking as “synthesis before analysis”, where you look to the containing system first. In considering students, parents and institutions, I can’t be sure whether they’re the containing systems or the contained systems. The answer would come in determining function, because the part will have to contribute to the whole.

In reality, there aren’t hierarchies of systems, just networks of entities that get represented one way or another. Thinking rigourously about the definition of function(s) may help clarify things for you.

Hi,
here is my first blog post:

http://www2.uiah.fi/~mliimata/projects/First-day/

@mattiliimatainen I appreciate the scientific approach you’ve taken with data and methods, towards findings and conclusions. It’s unique in the class (although I’m not advocating that everyone should flock to this approach, as different people have different styles).

You seem to have captured the main ideas about defining the system to be (re-)designed, establishing a containing whole, and then analyzing the parts (through the idenfication of stakeholders).

You’ve also done a good job of showing an academic style in the writing. In the future, I assume that you’ll substitute references from the readings, as class notes generally aren’t well regarded as citable (since traditional research works off written works reviewed by peers and/or accepted by a publisher).

P.S. On technology, I notice that you’re using a Stacey, which describes itself as a content management system rather than a blog. The advantage of a blog is that permits comments by third parties, with the convention that trackbacks enable links (such as this one I’m writing right now) to be tracked. If Stacey supports trackbacks, you might turn them on, so that there’s a trail from there back to here. Otherwise you have to write your trackbacks manually.

@tismoedi It sounds as though your discussion on back to the land was expansive, and you managed to get some coherency by converging on the concrete location of Northern Finland.

I detect an emphasis on goals over the identification of stakeholders, which could be because you’re finding goals as common across the stakeholders … or maybe you haven’t written up that part of the discussion. The discussion on political movements may come back later in your (re-)design as a how, and you might make sure that you’ve got Russell Ackoff’s “why’s” (as functions between the system to be (re-)designed and the containing whole well thought-out first.

Hey Dave,
Here’s the link to my post: http://niamh.kapsi.fi/blog/
See you tomorrow,
Niamh

@brendavertiz I laughed when I saw the Masters of Reductionism title! Self-reflection into awareness of your true situation is a sign of personal development!

It sounds like you’re making some progress. The course has been designed as a whirlwind through the basics of systems. Near the end of the course, we should probably have a meta-discussion about whether this is an appropriate approach to pedagogy. I would hope that this (and the sister course in February) aren’t the last courses on systems that the students would ever see, so perhaps a follow-on option might be attractive.

@tiina As you were struggling to try to define a system, you were doing the right things: (a) talking it out with others, and (b) getting concrete when the abstract was becoming difficult.

I’m not familiar with Blowfield and Murray, so I’ll be curious as to your impressions on it while we’re in the mode of a systems approach. Clearly making the distinction between social systems and the ecology — there are other ways, in addition to Ackoff’s view that is just focused on purpose — may provide you with the foundations to develop your own view and enable you to clearly articulate your reasoning to others.