Systemic Change through Praxis and Inquiry (Praxiology) (Volume 11)

SYSTEMIC CHANGE THROUGH PRAXIS

and INQUIRY

THE LEARNED SOCIETY OF PRAXIOLOGY

PRAXIOLOGY: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology Vol. 11

EDITOR-1N-CH1EF Wojciech W. Gasparski The Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences Nowy Swiat Str. 72, 00-330 Warsaw, Poland [email protected]

INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD: Timo Airaksinen, Finland Victor Alexandre, France Josiah Lee Auspitz, U.S.A. Mario Bunge, Canada

Arne Collen, U.S.A. Friedrich Rapp, Germany Leo V. Ryan, U.S.A. Ladislav Tondl, Czech Republic

SYSTEMIC CHANGE THROUGH PRAXIS and INQUIRY Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology

Volume 11

Arne Collen

Transaction Publishers New Brunswick (U.S.A.) and London (U.K.)

Copyright © 2003 by Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey. All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. All inquiries should be addressed to Transaction Publishers, Rutgers—The State University, 35 Berrue Circle, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854-8042. This book is printed on acid-free paper that meets the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials. Library of Congress Catalog Number: 2003040992 ISBN: 0-7658-0194-9 Printed in Canada Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Collen, Arne. Systemic change through praxis and inquiry / Arne Collen. p. cm. — (Praxiology: the international annual of practical philosophy and methodology ; v. 11) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-7658-0194-9 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Organizational change. 2. Praxeology. 3. Inquiry (Theory of knowledge) I. Title. II. Praxiology (New Brunswick, N. J.); v. 11. HD58.8.C638 2003 302.3'5'01—dc21

2003040992

Contents

Editorial, Wojciech W. Gaspar ski

5

Introduction

13

Change as a Systemic Idea

25

Distinguishing Systemic from Non Systemic

51

Hierarchy and Control

83

Disciplinarity

113

Es of Praxiology in Inquiry

13 3

Emergent Forms of Praxiology

147

Systemic Change Through Praxiology

175

Research Process

193

Developing Human Inquiry for Systemic Change

213

Complexification

239

Conclusion

277

References

283

List of Figures and Tables

295

Index

297

About the Author

303

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgments

No book can be written without the support, encouragement, and critical feedback of others. This book is no different. My exposure to the Polish praxiology tradition began in 1991 with my first visit to the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw. This occasion was the invitation to present to the Academy my thinking about research methodology, which Professor Wojciech W. Gasparski suggested had much in common with praxiology. Although I believed my generalist approach to research benefited from cybernetics, pragmatics, and systemics, I was unaware of the richness awaiting me in praxiology. My visits catalyzed fruitful exchanges with Gasparski. He introduced me to the writings of Espinas, Kotarbihski and those who followed them. The importance of the praxiology tradition in Poland quickly became apparent in furthering my interests to advance research methodology for human inquiry. Therefore, my foremost appreciation is expressed to Professor Gasparski as clearly the greatest single influence responsible for this book. But also, I wish to thank the Academy and the Learned Society of Praxiology for their kindness, hospitality, and support. Distinguishing systemic from non systemic method is an elaboration of my paper in the 1997 Proceedings of the World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informaties. Grateful acknowledgment is given to Professor Nagib Callaos for his interest and permission to draw generously upon it. After an invited address in 1997 before the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and the Section for Philosophical Sciences

of the Union of Scientists in Sofia, Dr. Magdalena Kalaidjieva requested my address on hierarchy and control be published in Complex Control Systems. Grateful acknowledgments are extended to Dr. Magdalena Kalaidjieva, the Academy, and Section for their interest in the work and kind permission to present its essentials, even though this chapter has been developed substantially beyond its earlier presentation. Writing on disciplinarity derives from my fruitful collaboration with Professor Gianfranco Minati, leading to our coauthored book, Introduction to Systemics (1997). It has prompted me to elaborate my work further, as well as provide a complementary version under the title, "Disciplinarity in the pursuit of knowledge" for Minati and Pessa (2002). Grateful acknowledgements are given to Professor Minati, Eagleye Books, and Kluver Academie/Plenum Publishers. As evidenced in the majority of chapters, systemic change is a theme pervasive in my writings, presentations and workshops, and from 1989 to 1998 in my annual Human Science Research Seminars (HSRS), particularly the summers of 1993 and 1995. During the decade, several visiting professorships brought many opportunities to discuss systemic change in research methodology for human inquiry with close colleagues and their students. My gratitude is extended for the interest, exchanges, and support from Professors Kristo Ivanov (Umea University, Sweden), Stig Holmberg (Mid-Sweden University), Massimo Negrotti (University of Urbino, Italy), and Mieczystaw Bazewicz (Wrociaw University of Technology, Poland). With deepest appreciation, I wish to acknowledge the many HSRS participants, who in their way have pushed and advanced my thinking. And finally, I am most grateful for the editorial feedback provided by Professors Wojciech W. Gasparski and Leo V. Ryan to complete this volume for the Praxiology series. Arne Collen

Editorial

Wojciech W. Gasparski Editor-in-Chief

The twentieth century has been given many "nicknames" because of the dramatic, even tragic events that occurred in it, because of unbelievable development of science and technology during the period, and quite a few other reasons. The century deserves also one more nickname — the age of praxiology because of intensive development of human action theories whether praxiological of their nature and name or covered under different names and approaches. What was characteristic for human action theories that flourished in the recent past? First and foremost it was an attempt to identify the feature characteristic for human understanding what human action is about. To understand that humanities and social studies (or sciences, if you wish) are about entities already captured by regular humans, not scientific but just human understanding. It was a Polish sociologist and social philosopher Florian Znaniecki, well known in the USA where he was involved in social research and university education, who identified the discriminant of social studies. He named it as the "humanistic coëfficient" defined in the following way:

6 Systemic Change This feature of cultural objects of humanistic studies, their principal characteristics that as subjects of theoretical reflection they already are given as subjects of one's experience or one's conscious activities, may be named as humanistic coefficient of the phenomena. Myth, a piece of art, a word of a speech, a tool, a legal scheme, a social system are that what they are only as conscious human endeavors; we study them only in relation to known or hypothetically constructed complex of experiences and activities those empirically limited, historically and socially conditioned human beings or collections of conscious human beings who created them and who use them in their actions .... All the objective reality of the phenomena ... are to be missing when we remove the humanistic coefficient, when the phenomena are to be considered not as subjects of somebody's experience or complexes of one's conscious activities but as "nobody's" reality of the type postulated by (nature) science. (Znaniecki, 1988, p. 25).

Znaniecki elaborated an action theory, a humanistic one, based on a concept of activity, which is human and only human. It is not a behavior of any technological system (device or machine) or biological system (vascular or nervous). The activity is what we humans experience when we perform it. Such understood activity is not an entity given, given are changes in contents and meanings made by the activity performed, i. e. an act. Every activity is performed on the basis of its ideal course which is a mental course. So, quoting after Znaniecki, each activity is a thought, and each thought is an activity, for every ideal act causes immediate real consequences. Tools are the factors that strengthen real consequences of activities. Among tools are those which multiply consequences quantitatively, e. g. machines, others give possibilities to receive qualitatively different consequences, e. g. aircrafts, yet other ones make it possible to move from one real system to a different system; they are human beings serving roles in social systems. The most important tool is the tongue which enables active humans to leave their areas of experience and to influence other areas. Tongue not only as a language or speech, but also as meaning is a universal tool existing thanks to cooperation of great number of individuals. But the most fundamental tool is the organism of an active human

Editorial 7

through which he or she acts and reacts both mentally and physically, for material symbols are so important for social understanding and agreement. Every activity as a product of thought is an ideal course and each activity causes real effects. Therefore each activity is creative, for the effect of an activity is not a follow up of former states of the world but of what is added by the ideal course to the external world. Being creative does not mean to be original, since so many activities are similar. This similarity is named a form of an activity, which conditioned both the content and the meaning of results of the given activity. According to Znaniecki mutual influence of activities and conditions in which the activity is performed is carried on in such a way that an active human chooses one condition ignoring others, thus creating a practical prohlem as a task to be solved through the activity. Therefore what really exists objectively in the limits of our experience exists for us practically, influences our activity, and is (in each case) introduced to the actual practical problem by the actual activity. Repetition of activities in similar conditions leads to habits which play an important role in human science, especially in relation to causality of human action. One may not claim that conditions by themselves caused activities . . . . But conditions together with the activity creating them form a complex of experience which is a relatively constant part of changeable and fluent humanistic world to the degree of habitual character established spontaneously by the activity within the limits of that part, an all changes within it have to be regular taken from the regularities of the system, as in any nature system. Thus if a habitual activity is forced to change by unignorable external conditions then the activity will change in the way defined by both the habit and the conditions. This is the base for causal explanation of habitual activities change — not just the activity — considering the change as a consequence of change of the conditions imposed upon the original activity. The later is a necessary coëfficiënt of the emergence of a new activity, for it receives practical m e a n i n g in r e l a t i o n to the a c t i v i t y and its c o n d i t i o n s . It is understandable that regularity of that causal relation depends on the

8 Systemic Change degree of uniformization of the original activity and its conditions. In general, we have to remember that activity is a mainspring of all regular mechanism we find in the humanistic world, and because of that causal explanation within the world has to be hypothetical provided the real fact is based on the ideal factor thanks to which the fact may be considered as a manifestation of the causal law. (Znaniecki, 1988, p. 96).

Activities are not performed individually and independently of other activities but in an objective relation with many other activities with which they create ideal systems. Dependence between activities is not of causal character, its character is logical, for one activity needs another activity to be performed in a defined form. This type of systemic interdependence of activities is named by Znaniecki functioning of activities which means that a given activity plays a defined function within the system. Znaniecki differentiates three types of activity systems: (i) an act, (ii) a normative course, and (iii) a raising of an ideal. An act is any activity system which may be fmished, i. e. which receives such effects that might be considered as a solution, whether satisfactory or not, of a practical problem formulated at the beginning. Finishing the course of an action is the main characteristic of an act. Those acts that have not logical termination are norms, e. g. a norm "don't steal" is unfinishable while publishing this book has its final state. An act is performed within a systematic composition of object named a situation which is a complex of existing values having positive or negative meaning for performing the intent. The situation is defined not by an observer but by an active subject. The essential element of the situation is an object of activity, that is such an object the act create or modified giving it new content and meaning, i. e. new features which are the goal of anact. If acts are accompanied with ideal patterns we deal with customs. Znaniecki's understanding of customs is close to Espinas' concept of techniques.

Editorial 9

A normative course is a limitless system of acts performed under the requirement of a norm. lts essential activity is a normative activity. lts functioning consist of causing a given type of actions. The normative activity shapes activities equipping them with a common form. A norm demands that the acts it defmes are to be perform unconditionally. It tends to eliminate obstacles preventing the activity creating general scheme of a situation. Raising of an ideal is the most complicated activity system. An ideal is an ideal complex of activities as an object of human aspirations projected to the future. It may be a chaos of creative acts (anarchy) or a system of normative courses (systems of norms). Anarchy is not impossible locally and for shorter periods of time, otherwise it would be contradictory, so a system of norms is possible only as the ideal. lts essence is tendency to expand the ideal upon all kinds of activities: moral, religieus, intellectual, political, ideological, aesthetic systems, etc. which are good examples. In the extreme cases ideal enforcement may lead to a practical dogma (e. g. class war in communism, political correctness in the US, constitutional systems of law in strong countries, tenets of science, religious fundamentalism, etc.). But: No an ideal established, even the most perfect in its construction and the most powerful in its action, is not able to subordinate whole human activity in a given area; activities different from requirements inevitably grow up greater in number and types . . . . As long as they are dispersed and rest without continuous and unified intent their influence on a dogmatic system may be ignored as passing. But since they become unified in a normative course, when a norm contradictory to the existent one emerges and start to act on the dogma, then modification of a dogma inevitable leads to the ideal change. (Znaniecki 1988, p. 127)

Activities, as forms and functions, exist ideally in the sense that being elements of a system interrelated with other activities are carried out of the course of actual subjects performing the activities in question. Activities divide, new ones emerge from

10 Systemic Change

older ones, sometimes — but rather seldom they union. It gives us a possibility, writes Znaniecki, to consider known activities as developing in time and creating one ideal world that emerges out of them. It is, however, impossible for a theoretician to state whether the course, unique and irreversible, which is the evolution of culture is the progress. It would need introducing of values for which there is no room in science. One may notice differences between contemporary and past systems, present ones are defmitely more complex, more developed so as it is possible to teil about the development if we accept wider scale of creativity, systems complexity as positive values. Znaniecki's theory of action is a theory situated in sociology, particularly in the fourth chapter of his Introduction to Sociology, a book published in Polish. Although the theory differs from action theories like: praxiology situated in philosophy by Tadeusz Kotarbihski and Mario Bunge, or praxiology located in social science by Louis Bourdeau or Alfred Victor Espinas, or praxiology considered as a foundation of economics by Ludwig von Mises, or — finally — other action theories like one developed by Donald Davidson situated in the crossroads of philosophy and psychology, it belongs to the same family of human action theories praxiologists were interested in what may be proved by praxiologists' interest in the Parsons' general theory of action, a theory of sociological and systemic background. This book on human science is a good bridge between the Znaniecki's approach to study human action and classical praxiology. lts author, Professor Arne Collen, tries to enlarge the scope of inquiry through his systemic methodology.

References Alexandre, V. (ed) (2000). The Roots of Praxiology: French Action Theory from Bourdeau and Espinas to Present Days. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

Editorial 11

Bunge, M. (1989). Ethics, Treatise on Basic Philosophy. Vol. 8. Dordrecht: Reidel. Davidson, D. (1980). Essays onActions and Events. Oxford:Clarendon Press. Kotarbihski, T. (1999). Prakseologia (Praxiology). Wrociaw: Ossolineum, p. 1. In Polish. Parsons, T. and Shils, E. A. (1951). Toward a General Theory ofAcüon. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, von Mises, L. (1998). Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute. Znaniecki, F. (1988). Wstep do socjologii (Introduction to Sociology). Warsaw: PWN. In Polish.

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

1. Perspectives and Confluent Streams Our personal interests in change are endemic to daily living, while humanity is evidently undergoing globalization. Systemic change lies below the surface of transparent change. The movement of a hand, the breeze moving through swaying branches of a tree, and the wetness of the street with a misty rain are easily recognized transparent changes. In comparison, the complexity of conducting a day of living is intangible. Our contributions to globalizing trends in production, consumption, and pollution occur invisibly in the performance of daily activities. Local and global changes provide us with contrasting sources of complexity. The contrasts and the gradations connecting them draw us to studying systemics through praxis and inquiry. Systemic change implies certain intricacies, a quality beyond mere change. Delving into the intricacies adds intrigue and puzzlement to the study and understanding of change in human affairs. It is the nature of systemic change for human beings that is the central preoccupation of this book. Two perspectives are woven through out the text: praxis and inquiry. Their importance to systemic change are explicated at various levels of application — the personal, small group, and human organization — all taken to be kinds of human activity

14 Systemic Change

systems (Checkland, 1981). As later chapters will reveal, this activity-as-action emphasis is an essential ingrediënt that brings praxiology to praxis and inquiry (Gasparski, 1993). This introductory chapter is an orientation to the concepts praxis and inquiry, as they shall influence the development of all subsequent chapters. By praxis is meant the practices of persons who go about their daily work and private lives. Their practices bring a degree of concreteness to what may seem abstract concepts, like boundary, perspectivism, and isomorphy associated with general systems theory (Bertalanffy, 1968). Observing human beings in action over a range of activities, from those one might classify as routine to those collectively executed in the human organization, is the praxis that makes this theoretical concept real. As we shall see, it is the executing, witnessing, and articulating praxis (actions, activities, practices) that help us to make human systems visible. In fact, praxis constitutes the life blood of human systems. Knowing this, we can better position ourselves to detect and observe systemic change. There is another side of praxis captured in the term praxiology. Though praxiology may have a variety of meanings (Collen, 1999; Gasparski, 1993; Kotarbinski, 1965; Ulrich, 1998), the one emphasized throughout this book is simply the study of praxis. Specifically, the practices of persons and small groups that defme and describe the processes of human activity. Such an activity can be completing a task by oneself. And it can be collective forms of action, such as common interest groups, committees, task forces, and collaborative research teams. Praxiology brings focus to understand practices. Praxiology reveals the effectiveness, efficiency, effïcacy, and ethicality of human action. For the researcher, the intention is to describe those practices that bear critically upon systemic change. The text oscillates between praxis manifesting two thematic cords. One cord is the praxiology of praxis. It draws on the

Introduction 15

Kotarbinskian notion of praxiology as the general study of research methodology with particular interests in the efficiency and effectiveness of practices. The other cord is the systemics of praxis. It examines the interrelationships within and among various practices that comprise human activity (action) systems. Over the course of the book, both cords are turned closely together and bound to human inquiry. It is through human inquiry, namely processes of discovery, investigation, observation, and questioning that the nature and substance of change are revealed to us. Further, it is through the intentional formulation and implementation of defined rules and procedures that research can be undertaken. Research and inquiry are taken and used as synonymous concepts. Inquiry is one avenue to examine systemic change. It is important to keep in mind that the definition of research, in terms of human inquiry, has broadened remarkably over the course of twentieth century (Collen, 1995a). Accompanying the proliferation of specialized research traditions are bold moves to articulate general concepts and principles that cut across the variegated forms of human inquiry. It is the more general insights that may allow us to witness, experience, and comprehend systemic change. It is the challenge of this book to nurture this endeavor. At this point, it is instructive to add that this treatment of systemic change should not be taken to mean passive non engagement, that is to say, being only the attentive witness to and the observer of human events. Contemplating human activity at a distance is certainly an essential aspect of human inquiry, but the action emphasis means immersion and participation in the process of inquiry, whereby the inquirer must confront the human side of doing research. Such confrontation may necessitate paradigmatic shifts to forms of research where the inquirer becomes more central to the process of inquiry. Such forms may mean knowing what it is to be subject to one's own research

16 Systemic Change

procedures (being the participant), as well as proactively collaborating with others to bring about systemic change through collective action. The former has its association with research traditions derived from auto-inquiry (Reed-Danahay, 1997), while the latter is rooted in action research (Argyris et al., 1985). Most forms of human inquiry are better understood in terms of an ongoing interactive process between action and reflection that shall become most evident when we look at forms of the Kolb leaming cycle in the latter portion of the book. Action means doing what is necessary to move, alter, and transform present states to those more adaptive to what one envisions, whether executed in a solo or collective fashion. There is an ongoing tinkering, experimentation, and innovation within a viable human activity system. Variations from routine today help us to see the way to what may well become the efficiënt and effective practices of tomorrow. Circumstances and situations continuously challenge and demand the changing of the system to sustain the system. Predominant in thinking earlier in the twentieth century (Buckley, 1968) was the classic emphasis on working within and returning to stability points within an equilibrious homeostatic system. Such stability points or states serve today as informative though transitory points of reference, not permanent anchors. In this century, chaotic, designerly, planful, action oriented, and pragmatic perspectives are guiding our efforts toward systemic change. This integrative formulation of a praxiology for systemic change reflects a prevalent shift in thought within systems and cybernetics oriented communities. In ambitious renditions of systemic perspectives (Jantsch, 1980; Laszlo, 1991; Miller, 1978; Prigogine and Stengers, 1984), dynamic principles based on physical and biologically based processes have been applied to all kinds of systems. As controversial as isomorphic inferences can be, the shift involves provocative transdisciplinary applications and theoretical extrapolations that attempt to unify into one arena for human inquiry

Introduction 17

all kinds of systems — biological to social, local to global, natural to artificial, physical to psychological, real to virtual, and simple to complex — to transcend conventional dichotomies. This volume of Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology brings together three overlapping and interdependent realms: systemic change, praxis, and human inquiry. Weaving them altogether is the challenge of this book. The key term in this endeavor is through. It is through the interplay of forms that an emergent realm becomes a lens to study, describe, understand, and bring about systemic change. This emergent realm may be experienced in conducting the Activities and Exercises described at the end of each chapter. The questions posed in the remaining sections of this introductory chapter are also to highlight the impending convergence of the three realms.

2. Systemic Change The idea of systemic change alludes to the property of a systemwide alteration. It refers to our expectation of the same. In hindsight, what was, is not what is now. It means the human activity that constitutes the system is different in some profound way. But what does this mean exactly? It may mean that people in the organization communicate differently than before, for example, face-to-face meetings have been substantially replaced by email Communications and teleconferences. Telephone purchase orders, formerly routed through the company warehouse, are now filled by a separate distribution company. The teacher used to be entirely in the classroom, executing lesson plans and delivering prepared lectures. Now the instructional material is to be found in web sites with online participation. Two years ago, a middle manager of a large trans-

18 Systemic Change

national corporation worked simultaneously on several projects under the supervision of one department head and the lines of authority were clear. But today, she has three superiors at any given time for the same variety of projects, and she reports to each one of them. These examples suggestive of systemic change raise some fundamental questions. The following kinds of questions give direction to inquiry: What catalyzes systemic change? From where does it originate? How much change must occur to label it systemic? What distinguishes systemic from non systemic change? When does it occur? How long need a certain change occur to bring about effectively a system-wide change? Can one see such change coming before it occurs? Where does it occur first, second, third, and so on? What characterizes its progression and process? Who makes it happen? What is it exactly, since the definition and boundaries of a system are often elusive, and themselves changing? What means can we use to detect, measure, experience, cope with, and manage a system-wide change? Beyond the more fundamental and obvious questions, other intriguing questions arise, such as: In what ways can systemic change be created? What nourishes it? What sustains it? In what ways can it be predicted and controlled? What is the nature of its complexity? Are such changes cyclic, transformative, evolutionary? What is the dynamic in system-environment relations that can account for the system-wide change?

Introduction 19

3. Praxis Praxiology can provide a means to answer the questions posed that pertain to systemic change. The focus is on human practices, specifically those forms of action taken to bring about systemic change. Paradoxically, it is those practices that, by their very execution, come to defme and manifest systemic change. The praxiological emphasis brings focus to particular aspects of the conduct of practice, such as the effectiveness of a specific act, the efficiency of executing a procedure, and the efficacy of a result of collective action. Street signs that state "one way" defme traffic flows within the downtown area of many cities in the United States. Placement of an island sink and counter top in the middle of the kitchen of many homes structures the flow of human activity in food preparation and consumption. The sequence of agenda items influences the course of decision making in corporate business meetings. Reading to one's child at bed time may instill an attitude for the book relevant to the child's cognitive development and engagement in the school. These examples suggest more specificity may be brought to the questions raised earlier in regard to systemic change. Some refining type questions illustrative of praxis are: What constitutes an effective systemic change? In what ways are current practices effectively bringing about systemic changes? In what ways do current practices need to be changed to effect a systemic change? What makes this action more efficient than that action? Which practice is the more efficacious and on what grounds is it so? What are the ethical issues to be considered in regard to a systemic change?

20 Systemic Change

What are the ethical issues associated with specific practices? What are the positions taken on the ethicality of a systemic change? What is it about the innovation on practice that is more economical than the current and Standard practice? What is the economical impact system-wide of this systemic change? The above questions become very practical through inquiry, thereby illustrating what happens when a more general question posed about systemic change is reformulated in more concrete terms praxiological.

4. Human Inquiry The doers of inquiry are typically presumed to be the human beings that comprise the human activity system. It is frequently assumed that humans are the responsible agents studied and the key constituents of the system acting to bring about systemic change. Hence, usage is made prevalent in this book of the phrase "human inquiry," in conjunction with such phrases as "disciplined inquiry," "research," research process," and "human activity systems." Human inquiry brings the discipline, healthy skepticism, curiosity, and open-mindedness of science to the pursuit of systemic change. In a positive and constructive fashion, it is important to question and query. A wide range of rules and procedures are available for research with human beings. To mak e use of rules and procedures for inquiry, as feasibly and humanely as possible, is to be self-evident, conscientious, and ethical in our praxis. The process of inquiry can begin with the posing of questions, such as those given earlier. But underlying research questions are taken-for-granted type questions, hiding many assumptions made

Introduction 21

about a social system and the very nature of human inquiry itself. These questions are intended to surface implicit assumptions and foster a more reflective, critical, and profound exploration of systemic change. Ironically, it may be through the answering of the hidden type questions that we become cognizant of systemic change, emphatic in the through in the phrase, "systemic change through praxis and inquiry." Some taken-for-granted type questions prompted by acts of inquiry are: What characteristics and properties of human inquiry are relevant to systemic change? What forms of human inquiry can be applied with the expectation of a systemic change? Under what circumstances does human inquiry contribute to systemic change? At what points in the inquiry process can we find evidence of systemic change? What can we do through inquiry to provide selfcorrective actions to steer systemic change? But the questions may center on those conducting inquiry rather than the process of inquiry. Some illustrations are: What patterns of interactions among inquirers foster and sustain systemic change? What skills and talents among inquirers are necessary to implement mis systemic change? Are there unintended biases in our inquiry with system-wide consequences? Finally, questions stemming from the perspective of human inquiry may also help us reflect on the system of which we are part and change. Some questions of this kind are: What information flows in our inquiry are also those inherent in system-wide changes? In what ways can our inquiry guide systemic change?

22 Systemic Change

What shall we do to accommodate our inquiry when systemic change of external origin effects our inquiry? In what ways does the diversity of those who defme the system manifest the system-wide changes? What can be done to sustain inquiry as an inherent and effective process of monitoring systemic change?

5. Focus In the context of this book, the phrase "through praxis and inquiry" means that one brings presence-to-action. In so doing, one embodies a praxiological engagement in systemic change. Such engagement means cultivating systemic change by means of a proactive, designerly, planful, action oriented, and pragmatic praxiology. Although tempting to stretch bidirectionally, to both macro and micro levels relative to the human being, this treatment of the subject remains as much as possible about the person and persons at the level of the small group. Special interest is given to research teams, working through collaborative and cooperative means to bring about macro level changes. However, a critical concern must remain whether we can examine, speculate, and extrapolate our actions as well as our personal experiences of presumed system-wide change to levels more macro than ourselves. Globalizing trends represent one such macro level concern acutely illustrating this inferential dilemma. The focus on systemic change through praxis and inquiry will unearth numerous questions reflective of the critical concern about inference. It is perhaps one of the chief dilemmas every researcher must confront, sooner or later, to engage in systemic change through praxis and inquiry. Some of the questions likely to surface that convey this concern are:

Introduction 23

Can the inferences inquirers make close the gap between the perceptions of individual human beings and the changes of their system as a whole? Do such inferences, in fact any inference, hold verticality, and if so, to what degree and in what ways? What sources of evidence are admissible for inferential purposes? Is a particular inference justifiable through various sources of evidence? Does the evidence validate emergent system-wide change? At what point, and under what conditions and circumstances, can we know whether the evidence can be taken as reliable and valid of systemic change? Herein lies both the Herculean arm and the Achilles heel of our work. The evidence of systemic change germinates from human activity. Whether the evidence sterns from the macro, personal, or micro levels, it is critical to our detection of systemic change that we be able to perceive it. The evidence as perceived enables us to construct and bring to visibility the system to which we attribute change. In the study of human activity systems, even though the person (oneself) is the constant point of reference, the system is typically very much more macro, namely, families, clubs, associations, agencies, firms, businesses, schools, communities, corporations, networks, ethnic groups, societies, cultures, geographical regions, and their related detectable globalizing trends. Our inferences are only viable to the extent that our evidence, and our means to obtain and use it, serve our quest to understand, explain, and better the system. In short, our research methodology has to be effective and efficacious to engage successfully in systemic change through praxis and inquiry.

24 Systemic Change

6. Activities and Exercises At the end of each chapter, a small number of activities and exercises are given brief description. Readers are encouraged to do them in solo and small groups to bring the concepts and ideas discussed in the chapter to life. In this fashion, it is intended that this book be used in various applied settings. The author invites those who do them to create their own activities, exercises, and variations from those described. The author welcomes evaluative feedback and to be informed of the results. 1. Describe the key constructs of this chapter (systemic change, praxis, and human inquiry) as relevant to an applied setting familiar to you, such as your home, neighborhood, school, or work place. Deflne the key words chosen to describe the three constructs. The body of terms form a conceptual system to think about what may be done in the form of an inquiry to bring about a systemic change. As three overlapping circles may create a center, use the three key constructs to describe a focus that unites the three overlapping realms discussed in the chapter. 2. Select one question among those found in the chapter that sparks your imagination. Generate a focus to answer this question by defïning systemic change, praxis, and human inquiry relevant to this question. 3. Discuss the problem of inference in the study of systemic change. What is the place of research methodology to close the inferential gap? Define the inferential dilemma as you see it. Deflne the inferential gap. Apply your defïnitions to a human organization that would make them relevant and illustrative of the challenge researchers face in engaging systemic change through praxis and inquiry.

Change as a Systemic Idea

1. Introduction To refer to change as systemic change is to expect detectable altercations within and between all parts of the whole. It is to anticipate the presence of something different in many locations throughout the whole. It is to expect expansive contrasts between what was, what is, and what could be. It is also to expect that one can attain a comprehension of the complexity of the system which one observes and is part. It is to anticipate the ability to exercise a means, that is a research methodology, which makes wholistic comprehension possible. By necessity this chapter is a broad stroke of the brush. To sharpen contrasts between any change and systemic change, it is helpful to relate change to two other general ideas: development and evolution. Change must also be given preliminary definition in regard to space and time, as these two constructs determine much about what change is taken to be. After doing that, these considerations are connected to praxiology. Near the close of this chapter, a conceptual frame for human inquiry is given to set the stage for the subsequent chapters. The coverage may be viewed as an initiative to contextualize the confluence of systemic change, human inquiry, praxis, and praxiology.

26 Systemic Change

2. To Change, Develop, or Evolve? The Heraclitean phrase "you cannot step into the same river twice" and von Baer's Law "ontology is the recapitulation of phylogeny" are two of many extensively repeated expressions about change. Though aphoristic in nature, such expressions often convey multiple meanings of relationship among the constructs change, development, and evolution. Their denotations reveal great overlap of meanings (Collen, 1998a). However, their connotations caution us to be careful in scientific contexts. One basis of distinction is longevity, while another basis is permanence. One can define change as the shortest lived, and development as that which lasts longer than change. In this vein, evolution is that which takes longest to occur. However, it is not just the span of time that is used to distinguish them, but also the length of time of an apparent stasis that defines their longevity and permanence in regard to a system. A topographical and semantic comparison is useful before connecting systemic change to praxis and human inquiry. Figure la, based on Collen (1998a), depicts change in a nested relationship with development and evolution. The lower half of the figure embeds change in terms of micro level unfoldings that give rise to macro level development, which in turn may be distinguished firom more macro level evolution. In contrast, shown in the upper half of the figure, change is the overarching rubric for the conceptualization of all entities in regard to their longevity and permanence. Some of these entities by their very nature develop, and fewer still evolve. In other words, the latter perspective views development and evolution to be specialized cases of change. To comprehend fully, Figure l is to be seen in dynamic terms. It is the flip-flop between the two sets of nested figures — a verisimilitude of the familiar Gestalt figure-ground object of our perception, such as the Necker cube (Figure l b) — that reveals this wholistic conceptual system. The two arrows

Change as a Systemic Idea 27

are meant to invite the meld and interplay of the upper and lower portions of Figure la that are to be comprehended as one entity. The intent is to experience Figure l a as one would with prolonged attention to Figure l b. Figure l a. Nestedness of meanings among change, development, and evolution

28 Systemic Change

3. Point of Reference In every day conversation, we speak mostly from immediate and past experience. Coupling time and space, we convey what we come to know more (macro) and less (micro) than our self, even though occasionally we convey imaginatively what we could experience (the future) in time and space. Fundamental to our ontology is the fact that human being is living an experientiallybased existence. As an inquirer, we are both recipients and agents of change. It is difficult to escape from this basic given. It is the personal challenge of the inquirer to discover the marmer in which inquiry enables not just change, but systemic change. The inherent subjectivity and intersubjectivity of existence imbues all attempts to comprehend phenomena both micro and macro to our self (Figure 2). Central to our comprehension of the system is that the human observer is the chief point of reference (Foerster, 1984). Collecting the points of view of multiple observers certainly complexifies our attempts to comprehend a system, but it exemplifies the perspectivism at the heart of Ludwig von Bertalanffy's general theory of systems (1968). Importantly, it provides the fulcrum to leverage numerous innovations in research methodology for human i n q u i r y (Collen, 1993. 1994). Both the philosophical and practical challenges of this basic given arise upon the admission of multiple points of reference. In the case of human inquiry that is systemic, typically, there are multiple inquirers. Each inquirer brings potentially some evidence and measure of veridicality to the comprehension of the system. It is essential to know the placement of the human observer in space and time in any description of systemic change. One would expect any method, whose practitioner makes a claim that it is systemic, would make careful use of multiple observations contributed by various human observers of the system. Further, the resultant description would be a synthesis of their views.

Change as a Systemic Idea 29

Thus, understanding the centrality of the observer will be critical to understanding any professed wholistic comprehension of system-wide change. Figure 2 The human being as point of reference

To observe a system, there are three dimensions (scales) to consider. They set the stage for inquiry with known referents (observers). Each dimension defmes a point of reference. The first is our conceptual focus from local to global. The second is our actual geographical location in space. The third is our chronological marker in the arrow of time. Actual determinations, in contrast to conceived or imagined, using these scales certainly complicate and complexify our considerations of systemic change. But for now, let us define them simply in Figure 2.

30 Systemic Change

Another version of this flgure can be found in Collen (1998b). Finally, our point of reference is personal, that is, it is private until effectively communicated to fellow human beings. It is from our self that we attempt to comprehend everything. Our comprehensions (private, public, and collective) stem from not only unassisted experiences, but also experiences extended by technological invention to levels more micro and macro than our natural being (Espinas, 2000). Our abilities to project beyond our immediate perceptions are fantastic, thanks largely to coupling our ingenieus capacity to imagine and design with technologies that extend our natural sense systems. As extended eyes, the microscope and telescope are perhaps the two most obvious and outstanding examples to make the micro and macro levels, respectively, of OUT physical being and existence visible to us. It is from the capacity to imagine and comprehend a whole greater than our self that such contributors as Kenneth Boulding (1985), Eric Jantsch (1980), Ervin Laszlo (1987, 1991), and James Miller (1978) have gained recognition for their transdisciplinary schema communicating the complexity of systems. Each scheme conveys a big picture of the interlocking levels of systems complexity. Each level of systems organization may be associative, conceptual, isomorphic, relational, symptomatic, and causal of another. Misunderstood, these schema have been taken only in terms of analysis, reductionism, and individuation. But just as informative, they are to be received in terms of synthesis, holism, and integration. Similar to depictions in Figure l, interlocking levels of organized complexity is a dynamic that is inherently a systemic idea characteristic of systemic change. Such schema are organizing frameworks for the study of systems. But a particular wholistic description of a system may be taken as a snapshot, when defined according to the three dimensions stated earlier (Figure 2). It is a frozen composition for our conceptual convenience. It is a mere momentary glimpse of a dynamic whole in flux, co-evolving with its environment (context).

Change as a Systemic Idea 31

From technological invention, projecting our never-ending curiosity and innovation, we can expect continued applications of science to better our pursuits of daily life. We may move among many levels of abstraction from the microscopic to the macroscopic, and from the local to global levels. By means of orbiting technology, for example, we can detect and subsequently monitor the presence of specific chemical compounds in the air and soil that are toxic to life. Specifically, the study of aerial photographs have made it possible for us to see evidenced on a regional to global scale widespread changes in the patterns of mantle ecosystems now extensively impacted by human activities.

4. Thinking Micro Using the organizing principle commumcated in Figure l, Figure 3 reveals another aspect of change as a systemic idea. The figureground reversal stimulates an inversion of relations in meanings among the three constructs (Collen, 1990b). Whether body is taken as encompassing mind and spirit, or the converse, the systemic view stresses the dynamic interactive process that brings the two extremes into oscillation and reversibility as an integrated whole conceptual system. The scheme accentuates the interplay among the entities rather man delimiting mem to dichotomous relations. There need be no Cartesian-like split between body and mind to comprehend the system. Whether experiencing oneself or being experienced by others, the three entities, however they may be momentarily perceived, must give sway to the interplay and interactivity among them that makes the whole person present, visible, and vital. For example, the human spirit, encompassing at one extreme and contained at the other extreme, poses a challenging quest for human inquiry. Inquiry is to map the embeddedness of their relationships under various circumstances and situations.

32 Systemic Change

Figure 3 Nested relationships among body, mind, and spirit

Given research methodology developed to study body and mind, researchers in Western European and North American civilizations are taken to use these methods, such as experimentation and observation, to study the human spirit, despite the presence of potentially complementary research traditions described in terms known as spiritual inquiry (Rothberg, 1994). These traditions, such as meditation and movement of Asian civilizations, have their own historical parallels to those identified with the sciences of the West. Inquirers who dare to cross paradigmatic boundaries may adopt a global point of reference, opening the door to explore from all traditions micro Ie vel s of knowing the viability, systemic quality, and transdisciplinarity of methodologies to the study of the person as a system.

Change as a Systemic Idea 33

In sum, an openness to converge the research methods of the three realms (body, mind, and spirit) enables researchers to discover points of methodological complementarity. Subsequent constructions of methodology for human inquiry invite praxiological complexification. In this endeavor, it is more likely the complexity of the methodology will match the complexity of the system-wide comprehension sought. Thus, we might expect from our efforts that there will be advances in research methodology, which will yield integrative and wholistic comprehensions of the systems studied.

5. Thinking Macro Human beings have been markedly successful in propagation as a species, extraction of earthly resources, invention and consumption, and production of goods and services. Success, as we imagine it, means redesigning and remaking our environments to fulfill our dreams, suit our tastes, sustain our lifestyles, and pamper our pleasures. Success has come about with extensive waste and toxicity to life. The promulgation of humanity is a remarkable and conflicted story, epitomized in Figure 4, the ramifications of which we are struggling to understand and ameliorate. Change as a systemic idea at macro levels to the person may be illuminated through the confluence of human activities indicated in Figure 4. This flgure is based on a similar one found in Collen (1998a). The schematic is to suggest the macro level impact of human activity as the globalization of humanity proceeds. It is difficult to deny the conclusion that it is a human-centered world. But from our local and personal point of reference, it may be difficult to comprehend the global consequences of our individual actions. Collectively, our actions undeniably impact

34 Systemic Change

levels more macro than our self. We examine the effects with the aid of sophisticated technology. The early consequences that would otherwise remain invisible, become visible. We can see acid rain, for example, but it is our aerial technology that shows us its toxicity to plant life over large areas of geography. Figure 4 The confluence and paradox of human activity Emergence of Human Beings HUMAN ACTIVITY

G

consequences POSITIVES NEGATIVES + Longer human life span - Species loss and extinction + Medical cures for disease - Air pollution + Liberation from manual labor - Water pollution + Cornucopia (food, shelter, products) - Soil pollution + Multiple energy sources - Radiation poisoning + Multiple communication media - Sound pollution + Diversity of occupations - Resource depletion + Diversity of recreations - Erosion and desertification The global problematique and paradoxical predicament for human beings BETTERMENT { } DETRIMENT

Beyond our immediate provincial frame of reference, the macro consequences may be invisible to us, until the invisible changes reach a sufficient magnitude, a threshold, after which we directly experience them. We would like to presume that individual and collective efforts can ameliorate the negative consequences that transpire. However, the practices that gave birth to the trend

Change as a Systemic Idea 35

more often than not must be reconsidered in the context of the globalizing problematique. This reconsideration will likely require some radical alternatives to counter and ameliorate the systemwide changes we detect. To note in passing one prevalent seemingly simple example, more and more of humanity rises each morning to haze in the city streets. Although it is increasingly difficult to ignore the seriousness of the polluted air we breathe, we live through the daily inhalation of toxins. Coping with the discomforting bodily symptoms seems a daily nuisance, until one day, some of us detect a wheeze in our lungs that does not go away. Others may gasp to perform the exercise we used to do with ease. And still others may faint when there is an air inversion, then subsequently regain consciousness in the hospital, where our physician informs us we have a chronic life threatening condition. The technologies of our invention have extended considerably our ability to detect, monitor, and alter the living conditions of our existence. We have before us a potentiality, far greater than ever before in human civilization, to better as well as worsen any and everything on the planet. The critical concern is whether we can redesign and remake our environs, social institutions, routines and habits of daily life to continue the present course of human civilization. We impact our world by what we do, and what we do now in sheer numbers has consequences far beyond what we can perceive in our immediate environment. The lists of positive and negative consequences (Figure 4) amply allude to the many macro level systems, leading us to the current problematique and paradox of human activity.

6. Toward Confluence The growing popularity of books and methods (p. ex Churchman, 1968; Jackson, 2002; Laszlo, 1972) that are built upon such

36 Systemic Change

phrases as "a systems approach" or "a systems view," are testaments to increasing interest in systemic change. Throughout this book, systemic change is repeatedly connected to practice. The term "practice" in contemporary usage is taken to convey its root association with "praxis." The study of practices, particularly in regard to the methodological aspects of praxis, is taken to be one meaning of the term "praxiology." For the purposes of seeking answers to questions posed in the previous chapter about the nature and dynamics of systemic change, this interpretation of praxiology is to be explored through forms of human inquiry. This latter construct conveys the central emphasis given to the study of systemic change when human beings are the principal agents and recipients of change. The intent in this chapter to open to further discussion the praxiological nature of systemic change, as well as implicate central relevance of both praxiology and human inquiry to systemic change. Where Professor Tadeusz Kotarbirïski (1965), the recognized founder of praxiology, described praxiology as the general methodology of the sciences, this text shall remain true to his generalist view as much as possible. However, this book is delimited to those sciences that directly concern human affairs, betterment, problems, and issues of human being. In this broad sense, the term "human sciences" is occasionally used to suggest areas of application for praxiology. It shall become increasingly clear that the praxiology of import here is a human oriented derivation of its classic form. Moreover, it is important to be cautious in the use and understanding of the phrase "human sciences," so as not to confuse it with its classical form stemming from the nineteenth century philosophical movement known as the Geisteswissenschaften tradition (Collen, 1990; Makkreel, 1975). Moreover, it will become obvious that there is great overlap of interests between human oriented scientists and praxiologists.

Change as a Systemic Idea 37

The confluence of streams touched upon in this volume of the Praxiology Series may help to highlight some thematic aspects emerging across volumes of the series. To this point, action orientations, the Es of praxiology, pragmatics, and applications of ethics are included in this volume and previous volumes. More than previous volumes, this volume treats human inquiry in greater detail. To achieve this end, we draw upon the growing confluence of human inquiry with such influential developments as complexification, cybernetics, human sciences, pragmatics, praxiology, systemics, sciences of complexity, and transdisciplinarity. Underlying this pursuit is an informative philosophic base for human systems inquiry.

7. A Philosophic Base for Human Systems Inquiry Behind our questioning and curious attitude towards existence are three fundamental ideas from Greek philosophy: ontos, logos, and praxis. With them, a conceptual system may be derived that underlies all contemporary forms of human inquiry. This conceptual scheme (Figure 5) provides an initial foundation of a general methodology, a praxiology if you will, for human inquiry. The three ideas form the three cornerstones of the figure. It is no accident that these three corners serve us to both study and apply various forms of human inquiry. First to be represented is ontos — the ontology, the study of human being, human existence, and of what is. Second is logos — the epistemology, the study of human knowing, what can be known, and what constitutes human knowledge and theory. Third is praxis — the praxiology, the study of action, the practices of human beings, and what we do. Though the metaphors of a triangle and a pyramid may be used to convey the foundation of a general methodology, these figures suggest a rigid structural foundation. It is important not to stop with this depiction. It is only our

38 Systemic Change

platform of departure, from which we may experience the interactive and systemic character of the scheme. Its emergent fluidity involves the confluence of the three ideas as three entwining spaces of influence on the general methodology of any particular form that human inquiry takes. Figure 5 Philosophical base of a general methodology

We can associate a form as an instance of human inquiry, that is, a research study. A collection of similar forms may establish a research tradition. Inevitably, a community of researchers emerge, because they come to see that they hold a similar view of the base about general methodology. They share the basic philosophical assumptions about research. They do research using essentially the same method, even though there typically are differences (variations) among them in the exact procedures applied to collect and process their data. When we examine any specific research formulation, namely a given research study, this triangular base, like a template, may be

Change as a Systemic Idea 39

used to examine the ontological, epistemological, and praxiological aspects of the inquiry. Let one example suffice to illustrate, while other examples of this conceptual integration are to be found elsewhere in this book. To interview a human being about a particular experience (phenomenon) is a popular approach to method in human inquiry. Engagement in the interviewing represents the ontological emphasis, what comes to be known about the phenomenon studied from the interview represents the epistemological emphasis, and the manner in which particular practices of research interviewing are exercised represents the praxiological emphasis. Research interviewing melds the three emphases to such an extent, it may seem rather artificial to research interviewers that they be separated. We do so chiefly for evaluative, pedagogical, and reflexive purposes. The systemic nature of the figure stems from three qualities worth highlighting. Emergent from the corners, i) the interplay among the three angles generates a seamless experience of human inquiry for the researcher, ii) the comprehension of inquiry is an integrating process, and iii) the meta level comprehension of methodology is a general process. Three angles are influences simultaneously contributive to the comprehension of systemic change associated with the inquiry. To go a step further with the systemic nature of the figure, let us imagine being the principal investigator of the research study. During the course of conducting the research the seamlessness of the three realms tends to pervade the process. That is to say, moment to moment, while observing and collecting data, the researcher and participant are obviously cognizant of the presence of the other. Researchers do not ordinarily dweil upon the existential dimensions of relationship to the human beings under study. They do not ruminate on what they know about what is happening in the inquiry. Further, they do not practice improving the efficiency of what they are doing as the central activity at hand. Each of these foci, the ontological, epistemological, and

40 Systemic Change

praxiological, respectively, can be brought to the foreground of the inquiry, and this may happen from time to time during the course of inquiry. However, our conscious engagement in the process routinely concerns dwelling upon the phenomenon being studied. Ordinarily, researchers follow the plan of the research design to executive various data collection procedures, all the while, witnessing and contemplating the course of events as the data comes to hand. Having stated the seamlessness of inquiry in regard to its philosophic base, it may seem contradictory now to state that it is critical for researchers to remain conscious of the base. At any time, researchers need to be able to question the inquiry itself. Researchers must be willing to question their ontological, epistemological, and praxiological assumptions underlying their research. The apparent contradiction is easily resolved when a researcher realizes that the discipline of inquiry is important to its success, and that researchers do not conduct inquiry like automatons who lack self correction, oversight, and reflexivity. There is a dialectical dynamic that operates over the course of inquiry between following and questioning various rules and procedures of research methodology. While tinkering, experimenting, and innovation may be regular occurrences in many forms of human inquiry, it is typical to expect that the overshadowing and domineering corner of the philosophical base tends to be the epistemological. This is likely because it is most directly related to the research questions posed. But it is important that attention be given to all three corners of the pyramid in the course of inquiry. The systemic nature of systemic change involves not only knowledge about the phenomenon that may help us to explain it, but also its manifestations of being and its practical behaviors as well. A better balance of emphases is maintained using research questions that tap all three constructs (corners) of the foundation.

Change as a Systemic Idea 41

To solidify the systemic character of Figure 5, we stress research process as the union of a) being in the process of inquiry, b) thinking about events as they occur, and c) engaging in research practices that carry the inquiry to completion. Reflecting upon research process, inquirers can comprehend a) the process of i n q u i r y as a system, b) the systemic n a t u r e of the phenomenon, and c) the actions that make inquiring and phenomenal systems visible. Comprehension occurs at two levels of abstraction. The first level is the specific experience of the investigation. By citing and discussing the investigation, we are communicating our comprehension of this process of inquiry as a whole. Verbal and written reporting of the research helps to consolidate the research into this whole. The other level of abstraction is a meta level derivation of the direct experience. This meta level comprehension is to consider whether and to what degree the investigation conducted serves to epitomize research methodology as a general process. The second level pushes us in an epistemological quest to grasp the general aspects of research methodology that may become apparent to us from our first hand experience of conducting human inquiry. In sum, three points have been made to convey the systemic nature of Figure 5. The first point delineates the three corners of the triangular base, while highlighting their coming together (pyramid) as a system in the conduct of an inquiry. The second point stresses the reflections of the researcher back upon the three corners in relation to a particular inquiry. The third point is to suggest that specific research studies are means to experience, know, and practice general principles of research methodology. Certainly, there are additional angles we can include in the figure. Specifically, axiology is an important fourth corner that shifts the base of Figure 5 from a triangle to a square. As our chief point of reference is the human being, axiology, perhaps better than the other three corners, is the realm that concerns

42 Systemic Change

itself with the intentions, interests, needs, motives, and values of human beings (Maslow, 1962; Parra-Luna, 2001). The human side of human inquiry tends to bring forward the humanistic perspective (Collen, 1997), and it is through this realm that we witness and experience the influence of the subjective side of science (Mitroff, 1983). In the neutral sense, researcher biases are to be included and confronted as inherent aspects of human inquiry. Even though Figure 5 has not been drawn to accommodate a four sided philosophical base, the pyramid of the three constructs is imbued with the fourth (axiology). Their interactions complexify discussions of systemic change through the chapters of this book. It is to be implied that any dynamic construction and execution of research process shall include all four realms to comprehend systemic change as fully as possible.

8. Questions, Problems, and Context of Human Inquiry People ask questions from the problems thrown at them as well as those they choose to face. The purposes of their questioning stem from wanting to explain, understand, and change their problems. Our task as researchers becomes one of developing ways to help them find answers to explain, meanings to understand, and solutions to change. In everyday usage, the term "problem" is taken usually as a negative. It is an unwanted presence in one's life. However, like bias, a problem is meant to be neither positive, nor negative. It is a perception that something is happening that commands attention. It may be seen as a crisis and just as well an opportunity. In research methodology, we use this construct to focus human inquiry. A problem is a magnet that attracts the attention and interest of researchers. Figure 6 illustrates the embedded nature of question, problem, and context. Familiarity with our surroundings mean a different-

Change as a Systemic Idea 43

iation of particular aspects we draw into the foreground, in contrast to the rest of what is happening, which constitutes the background. The former may be termed problems and the latter context. It is from the problems, as we perceive and formulate them, that our research questions arise. Figure 6 Questions from problems in context

Though the research question may take many forms, it is those forms that are especially productive to doing research with human beings which interest us. Some questions point inquirers toward explaining what is happening, while others foster a deeper understanding of our self. Still others guide us in the process of inquiry toward systemic change. To reiterate an earlier point, research questions may be directed at various levels of human organization, namely, the person, a small group of persons, the human organization, and a community of people. It is guiding research questions toward systemic change that we want coupled with systemic research methods. A research question about a change in procedure or the effects of introducing a new technology serves to illustrate this point. The introduction of a new technology that alters the channels through which we communicate with others is happening with increased frequency. Take for example the instillation of an intranet within an organ-

44 Systemic Change

ization. We might expect it to become an alternative to the telephone and fax, but it does not seem to work this way. The system complexifies dramatically beyond predictions before email became available. In the United States alone, the popularity of email has profoundly altered the way millions of jobs are conducted daily and the allocation of time spend among communication media for most employees. Clearly, the introduction of email to business brought profound systemic change. System-wide change seems to occur with each newly accepted form of communication. Witness the trends through the 1980s and 1990s in person-to-person communication: desk phone to fax to email to the Internet to cellular phone. Each subsequent media channel does not seem to replace its predecessors but adds to the multiple choices available to us to communicate with each other. We develop our own personal hierarchy of media preferences to communicate with coworkers, friends, family, and business entities. If one technology is momentarily disrupted, we know that we can fall back upon an earlier form to complete the transaction. Earlier forms serve as "back-ups" when any preferred technology fails. Literally electrifying, more recent media bring unprecedented opportunities for making visible human activity systems. It is through systemic methodologies that incorporate these technologies as the means to execute them that vivifies the system studied. Complexification of our human activity systems mandates more complex research methodologies to enable us to detect, describe, manage, and guide systemic change.

9. Questions, Problems, and Issues The kinds of problems we generally face in organizational life are often confused with other ideas. We must keep in mind that a question is a more limited construct than the problem that tends

Change as a Systemic Idea 45

to spark it. For the purposes of developing productive forms and processes of human inquiry, it helps to avoid mixing the logical categories shown in Figure 7. It is a common belief to associate an answer to the question, as it is to think of a solution for the problem. But rarely if ever does it come to pass in action (e.g. human inquiry) that solutions answer questions and answers solve problems. In the praxis and inquiry of systemic change, we can avoid much of the confusion by keeping these associations clear. Figure 7 Three logical categories in the research context

We have learned to pose a question and seek its answer, define a problem and find its solution, and discuss an issue and debate its positions. Inquiry tends to be most productive working within each prime association. When we fail to keep these relations clear in human inquiry, then difficulties arise and inquiry can become unproductive and wasteful. It would seem apparent in crossing categories to form the most basic associations, that we link the input with the expected

46 Systemic Change

output of inquiry. For example, a common misguided belief is that the answer to a question is the solution to the problem. This belief may be further complicated by holding the expectation that a solution to a problem sufficiently addresses an issue, and the issue will disappear once the problem is solved. Or that an answer to a question used in debate makes an issue suddenly a non issue. Conversely, it is sometimes reasoned that solutions to problems are answers to questions. It is often assumed notably by ideologues that a certain position taken on an issue solves the problem, or is the answer (e.g. truth) to the question. In short, caution is warranted in the mixing and matching logical types (Bateson, 1972). In being cautious, modest and humble, there is progress to be made using the fruits of the concrete to build up to the more abstract. That is to say, the answers to several questions may help solve a problem. The results of several solutions exercised to solve a problem may help us to understand and articulate the positions on an issue, even though the issue remains. This scheme of relations forms a conceptual system that can be expressed in terms hierarchical. Question-answer relations are taken to be more factual, concrete, and simple. Issue-position relations are taken to be the most ambiguous, abstract, and complex. Problem-solution relations are viewed somewhere in between. For the purposes of productive research, we seek the most concrete level of operations to make human inquiry feasible and productive. As much as possible issues and problems are formulated and expressed in terms of researchable questions — often a set of questions rather than one research question. Efforts are made to decompose, and if necessary re-express, research problems and issues in terms of researchable questions. When clearly expressed, research questions enable subsequent connections to be made with research methods. The praxiological and pragmatic implications of stating the researcher's interests in terms of clear research questions cannot be overemphasized.

Change as a Systemic Idea 47

10. Questions Bring Focus to Disciplined Inquiry It is the disciplined character of doing research that allows us to claim some legitimacy to the phrase disciplined inquiry. This construct is not meant to convey a militaristic, authoritative, and inflexible rule-bound execution of research procedure — easy to infer from common connotations of "discipline." To the contrary, disciplined inquirers take the best of what they know and apply it in their research context to describe, explain, understand, and undergo systemic change. In the research context, the research question acts as a conduit to move the researcher's interest — initially expressed as a question, problem, or issue — toward a method of inquiry. This depiction is intended in Figure 8. The research question becomes more than just a specialized kind of question. It serves as a methodological device to direct researchers to make choices and decisions relevant to answering their questions. Figure 8 Disciplined inquiry in context

48 Systemic Change

The research question is commonly posed and refined by its inquirer. A question chosen from a problem area, often in the context of the human organization, is recast into a form now called a research question. This question must be linked with a means to human inquiry, specifically, a research method or methodology. It is through some form of methodology that an answer to the question is sought. Research questions play a central guiding role. They are expressions of our interests in the process of doing research that will help us to explain, understand, and bring about systemic change. It is when we consider the methodological aspects of inquiry that we are also brought into the praxiological aspects as well. The decision making is required to i) link the question to method, ii) constitute the method of choice, and iii) implement human inquiry. Decision making entails a careful look at the practical, ethical, efficacious, and economical aspects of doing research. These endeavors require disciplined inquiry, that is, the adoption of numerous definitions, criteria, rules, and procedures. Figure 8 represents this shift in thinking about systemic change to emphasize the necessary articulation of key constructs that comprise the chosen research method for inquiry.

11. Summary This chapter serves to introduce change as a systemic idea. To change systemically means changes system-wide. Comprehension of the system, manifesting such an extensive and expansive idea, is the general aim of systemic inquiry. Our orientation and point of view toward systemic change require points of reference. It is a given that we view everything from the standpoint of our self, the person, from which we can move multi-dimensionally. We can conceptualize implicitly from our world more microscopically and macroscopically in space.

Change as a Systemic Idea 49

We can conceptualize backwards and forwards in time. The body-mind-spirit trichotomy illustrates extensions and integration from levels micro. The global problematique illustrates moving from self to levels macro. Upon a philosophical base of our most essential ideas about ontology, epistemology, praxiology, and axiology, we develop a general methodology for the study of systemic change. Such methodology involves general constructs, such as problem, research question, and disciplined inquiry, by which human inquiry may be formulated and carried out, regardless of research tradition. As this chapter reveals and subsequent chapters shall pursue, these general constructs tend to provide fertile ground to examine all research traditions, constitute a praxiology, formulate human inquiry, and conduct research process. In the next chapter, we take a step further in scrutinizing the systemic and non systemic characteristics of methodology that is necessary to know, if we are to use approaches to human inquiry that are indeed systemic.

12. Activities and Exercises 1. Select a system of interest to you. Describe the qualities of space and time that define these points of reference for you in the context of this system. For example, you may describe your relationship with another human being, your activities with a group of persons with whom you affiliate, or your position in your place of employment. Now specify a technology that enables you to move more microscopically to a finer level of examination. What more of the system becomes visible? Moving more macroscopically, do the same but with a technology that improves your comprehension of the system. Describe what becomes visible.

50 Systemic Change

2. Choose an idea, question, problem, or issue of interest to you about a change in a human activity system. For example, it could be the birth of a new child, starting a job, moving to another neighborhood, or traveling to a foreign country. Briefly describe the life event in terms of an idea, question, problem, or issue manifest in the human activity system. Examine this event in terms of systemic change. What implicit assumptions are you making about the system? Classify these assumptions in terms of the philosophical scheme (being, knowing, doing, valuing) presented in the chapter. Conclude with stated details of the points of reference you have adopted to engage in this activity. 3. Write a research question of interest to you. What would it mean to conduct a research study to answer this question, in terms of being the researcher actually doing the inquiry (e.g. ontos)? Describe in a similar fashion what it would mean to conduct inquiry for what one can know about the answer to the question (e.g. logos). Describe what one would do exactly to conduct the inquiry to answer the question (e.g. praxis). Finally, state some of your values held implicitly as the researcher in experiencing, conducting, and coming to know your inquiry (e.g. axios). Summarize the philosophical base of your inquiry. Alternatively, you may start with a published research report and imagine yourself the researcher who did the project from the above four corners of the philosophical foundation. 4. Describe one problem and one issue to be researched. Reformulate the problem and issue in terms of research questions. What do you imagine would it mean for doing research if your reformulations in each case were bypassed and researchers attempted to provide answers to the problem and issue?

Distinguishing Systemic from Non Systemic

1. Introduction What makes and does not make a research method systemic? In the course of answering this question, some of the key characteristics and misconceptions about systemic thinking and method are revealed. Three entrances to answer the question are taken. First, there are five characteristics that make a method systemic. Second, there are five characteristics that make a method scientific but not necessarily systemic. Third, there are six characteristics that qualify a method as systemic for collective forms of human inquiry, and consequently they become centrally relevant to the study of systemic change.

2. Comprehending the Complexity of the System Systemic change becomes visible through inquiry designed to make it possible for us to comprehend the complexity of the whole system of our interest. Of course our comprehension is limited by several factors, one being the research methods available to us. Research methodology is the focus of this chapter, in that a careful look at what makes a method systemic aids in the selection of those means of human inquiry that bring us to

52 Systemic Change

comprehend more clearly the complexity and whole that is the system. Systemic methods are those that enable us to detect, measure, monitor, evaluate, design, analyze, and describe systemic change. Ideally, such methods take us beyond mere detection through measurement. We often expect research instrumentation to measure change, thereby enabling us to gain insights and explain change. But more recently, we expect systemic methods to help us to sustain economically and ethically, redesign, and transform systems. Our gains (insights, understandings, and explanations) mean a being, knowing, doing, and valuing about inquiring systems (Churchman, 1971). We want to participate in, have knowledge of, engage in practices for, and value systemic change, respectively. Significant in distinguishing systemic from non systemic is the dynamics of inquiry itself as a system engaged in the process of relationship to the system under study. These dynamic interactions add considerable complexity to human inquiry. Although principally about methodology, indirectly this chapter concerns what is and is not systemic change. We shall discuss distinctions between the systemic and non systemic features of research method. The latter gives insight into the former. The dynamic comprised of interactions between systemic change of the system and the means of studying the system is a theme developed over the course of this book.

3. Meanings of Systemic To apply the label "systemic" may import several meanings to its referent, in this case, systemic method. Systemic means of the nature or character of a system or systems. To appreciate the multitude of meanings of systemic, it is informative to present the definitions to be found in two references (Table 1). As can be

Distinguishing Systemic from Non Systemic 53

expected for a popular term, the dictionary (The Compact Oxford English Dictionary, 1991) and encyclopedia (Francois, 1997) present several general to circumscribed definitions applicable to a broad array of knowledge domains. Where the dictionary tends to be more analytic, the encyclopedia stresses the variety and complementarity among definitions. Table 1 Denotations of system and systemic The Compact Oxford English Dictionary (1991) A set or assemblage of things connected, associated, or interdependent, so as to form a complex unity. The whole scheme of created things, the universe. The prevailing political, economic, or social order. An organized scheme or plan of action, one of a complex or comprehensive kind. Francois (1997) A set of elements dynamically interacting and organized in relation to a goal (de Rosnay). A set of parts with a common destiny, which maintain their interrelations, even when placed in a different environment (Bonsack). A complex object every part of which is related to some other component of the same object (Bunge). An organization comprising man and machine components engaged in coordinated goal-directed activity linked by information channels and influenced by an external environment (Howland). A grouping of interrelated elements possessing a boundary and functional unity (Dechert). A large number of parts that interact in a non simple way (Simon). A time-invariant relation among selected present, past, or future states of the variables in the experimental frame (Klir).

Graduate school students taking a course on systems research methodology in organizations furnished a variety of responses to the question, "What does the idea of 'systems' mean?" (Table 2).

54 Systemic Change

Table 2 Individual responses to the idea of system and systemic • Focus on interrelationships • Inputs, processes, outputs, and relationships among them • Understand how current problems were created by non systemic solutions • Study the whole through the analysis of parts • Interdependence and grasping the whole • More than one way to get to a specific end • Outcome oriented knowledge to bring about something new • Synergy and total is more than the sum of its parts • Whole to parts and back to wholes through all the interconnections among parts in order to comprehend all the complexity • The emergent properties, interactions, and intricacies of the whole • Multiple perspectives on a problem • Visioning the situation within a context • Multiple step process that is iterative • Looking at the whole rather than the parts • Seeing connections and the impact each component has on the whole • Adding dimensions to organizational research • Positive and negative loops, and interdependency between parts • Permeable membranes, where internal effects external (environment), and vice versa • Many concepts that involve a series of interrelated parts that when put together act as a whole • Gaining an understanding of the complex interactions and interconnections within an organization (in terms of people, resources, technology, etc.) • Exploring a holistic means for increasing participation and involvement from everyone • Understanding the boundaries that effect the flows of the system

In a similar vein, the group discussion of the same kind of question in another graduate school course, though aimed more directly at systemic method, yielded the collection of statements presented in Table 3. In Table 1, we see two implicit emphases: analysis and synthesis. They are both central to understanding systemic thinking and method. The term "science" communicates the propensity of

Distinguishing Systemic from Non Systemic 55

splitting the subject of inquiry. The term "systemic" emphasizes integrating the subject of inquiry. Hence, for those of any discipline of science, who would employ systemic methods for systemic change, the oxymoron "systems science" challenges them to surmount an intriguing and quixotic cognitive paradox. Systemic method, when construed as a form of scientific method, will engage researchers in both analysis and synthesis to fulfill the purpose of inquiry. The contributions and interplay between analyzing and synthesizing research activities become more evident in terms of research process, covered in some detail in a later chapter of this book. Table 3 Group responses to the idea of systemic method 1. A research method that takes into account the interconnectiveness of the particular environment and recognizes that any change in one area will effect and cause change in other areas. Additionally, it will recognize that the system is something greater than any of the individual elements, and greater than the sum of the individual elements. 2. Systemic research methodology would entail a blending of quantitative and qualitative approaches, a scope broad enough to look at all the components involved and specific enough to analyze accurately the interrelationships of those components; also a focus of studying the synergy or Gestalt of the entire system, hindrances to, or elements of success. 3. Interrelationships are examined within specific settings, and connection of behaviors, actions, and results are uncovered and examined within an organization to make its functioning more efficient and effective. 4. A systemic method considers the impacts of the elements within the system and how the system is impacted by external forces and attempts [of the system] to be at a state of equilibrium.

The entries in Tables 2 and 3 indicate authoritative as well as experiential convergence with the statements shown in Table 1.

56 Systemic Change

Keeping in mind that it is the research methods that offer us a range of activities to study as well as implement systemic change, the table entries suggest some bases to formulate key characteristics of what is and is not systemic. At this point, it is relevant to note that systemic in the phrase "systemic method" or "systemic methodology" may imply one or both of the following meanings. It can mean a method of inquiry that we apply to a system, and it can mean a method of inquiry that is itself one that makes use of features considered characteristically systemic. It is preferably the latter meaning that is intended throughout this book.

4. To Be Systemic There are five key characteristics that give to a research method its systemic nature. Systemicity becomes a salient quality of a research method for human inquiry when these distinguishing features are inherently evident in its application. Being so, we can appropriately term the method systemic. They are called perspectivistic, convergent, comprehensive, wholistic, and complexificative. These characteristics are central to our understanding of the systemicity of research method. Perspectivistic

A systemic research method is first perspectivistic, in that it provides the researcher with more than one view. This means having multiple vantage points and dimensions to describe the system. The minimum number recommended is three, as aptly illustrated in the contributions of Harold Linstone (1995). This characteristic has been stimulated by perspectivism (Bertalanffy, 1968). This feature of a systemic method is pivotal in the systems research literature. This characteristic is plentiful

Distinguishing Systemic from Non Systemic 57

among systemic research methodologists, illustrated in several textbooks (p. ex Checkland and Scholes, 1990; Collen and Gasparski, 1995; Jackson, 1991; Mason and Mitroff, 1981). Convergent For considering a research method to be systemic, perspectivism is a requisite point of departure. Taking it a step further and into the conduct of inquiry itself leads us to convergent research practices in many forms. One such form is the principle of converging operations (Garner et al, 1956), prompted by the earlier influence of operationism (Bridgman, 1927). This principle when applied carefully in the design and execution of inquiry, enables researchers in achieving, what becomes recognized afterwards, as a critical test between two rival theories, interpretations, interventions, programs, treatment regimens, or procedures. History of science and technology, particularly in mathematics, surveying and astronomy, demonstrate the scientific basis for a related principle termed triangulation. Although not always called triangulation, it is a key concept of general methodology practiced throughout the behavioral, human, and social sciences. Some outstanding evidence of the pervasiveness of this characteristic in research is: inter-judge reliability (converging three points of view), convergent operations (using multiple operational definitions of the same construct by means of differing research procedures), convergent validity (finding remarkable equivalence among instruments indicative of high conceptual overlap among the constructs they measure), cross validation among samples or instruments (replicating to extend reliability and generalizability of findings and instrumentation), and multi-method research design and analyses (evaluating a convergent confounding of instrumentation with main effects). Knowledge of these applications are increasingly available (p. ex

58 Systemic Change

Campbell and Fiske, 1959; Grimm and Yarnold, 1995; Kramer et al, 1996, Shipman, 1981; Winer, 1971). Unquestionably, triangulation is a key feature and hallmark of case study methodology (Yin, 1994). Finally, it is taken to be a core principle for design and construction of a viable methodology for human inquiry (Collen, 1995b; Patton, 2002). When we look for what these principles, namely applications of converging operations and forms of triangulation, have in common, it is the perspectivistic characteristic that has high currency as an inherent aspect of a systemic method. Comprehensive To be considered truly systemic, methodology must be comprehensive. It must scope and cover the elements and their interactions throughout the system. In short, the inquiry must attempt a system-wide examination. The methodology needs to include sufficient components to provide the fullest possible coverage of the system. Building upon the perspectivistic and convergent features, to make the elements and interactions comprehensive usually requires more than a few data collection techniques, one instrument, person, even more than one method. There needs to be a collection of multiple data streams. The approach is multi-method and multivariate. Further, this feature typically involves adoption of a theoretical conceptual framework to overlay on, depict, model, or represent the system. Alternatively, one could describe this overlay as the application of lenses (Flood and Jackson, 1991), through which one can see, study, and evaluate the system from any number of perspectives. The emphasis here is strategically adopted vantage points for inquiry that shall enable comprehension. Perhaps the most well known example of the comprehensive characteristic is living systems theory (Miller, 1978) and process analysis methodology associated with it (Collen, 1992).

Distinguishing Systemic from Non Systemic 59

Wholistic Emergent properties of a system are often detected through a method of study, leading to the inference that systems behave as whole entities. It is in recognition of this holism that we apply the term wholistic. Where local properties of parts can sometimes bias researchers to over-emphasize the study of the internal dynamics of system, the greater interest here in wholism is for researchers to approach the system as an integrated entity in its entirety and in its context. In other words, the focus is on the system-environment interactions in the co-development of the system with its environment. Naturally, this bias moves the research to stress exogenous relations over endogenous ones. Those elements and their interactions that induce and define the wholeness of the system must be made accessible through the methodology. Moreover, which forms of systemic methodology are better suited to the study of emergent properties of the system, in contrast to those better suited to internal dynamics, are not as yet well understood in the human realm. As illuminating as systems analysis might be, unfortunately researchers cannot compromise the methodology to the intensive study of parts and delimited interactions with hopes to extrapolate the properties and behaviors to the whole. An unresolved tension and predicament familiar to systemic researchers tends to arise in the execution of systemic method. This tension between analyzing and synthesizing activities, to define parts and interactions and seek a wholistic comprehension, respectively, epitomizes the cognitive paradox mentioned earlier. There is an artificiality to human intervention when we insist on operating from the perspective of analysis followed by synthesis, despite its well established status as an effective research strategy in the sciences. The analytic process of breaking a whole (system) into parts and reconstructing it back to its whole — analysis complemented by synthesis — can not

60 Systemic Change

guarantee conditions to study emergent properties natural to that system. The strategy is productive but incomplete. It is akin to the children's nursery rhyme about the egg, named Humpty Dumpty, who sat on a wall, then fell off the wall, and all the king's men could not put him back together again (Wright, 1992). However, the limitation of reassemblage has not discouraged researchers in their pursuits to advance systemic methodology in human organizations (Checkland, 2000; Espejo, 1990; Jackson, 1991). Nor has it discouraged researchers in the applied sciences and engineering from redesigning many physical systems, namely, urban expansion and renewal of our cities. As complex as a system may appear, be it an aircraft carrier, computer, spaceship, or skyscraper, the physical entity constructed is not yet a human activity system. The human beings that inhabit, use, and work it must necessarily be included to comprehend the system fully. An object without its operator makes no sense in systems thinking. One mistaken belief is that systems analysis and subsequent synthesis are sufficient to comprehend the system. It may be scientific, but it is not necessarily systemic. To reiterate, the physical object of human creation is not a system until those for whom it serves interface with it. Only then can the wholistic feature of a research method become relevant to its systemicity. Extensive literatures on computer simulation and modeling, forecasting, network analysis, emergence, and evolution represent main interests that highlight the wholistic characteristic. Two pioneering examples for systemic human inquiry are to be found in System Dynamics (Forrester, 1961, 1969) and Viable Systems Model (Beer, 1982,1985; Espejo, 1990). Complexificative Where the previous characteristics cover "breadth and depth," complexificative adds the notion of "density." Researchers

Distinguishing Systemic from Non Systemic 61

studying a system seek to know its complexity. This characteristic entails the complexification of the methodology to enable researchers to grasp a fuller comprehension of the system. A description of a system may consist of some detail of its subsystems and its relations to superordinate systems. Natural systems appear to have evolved to ever greater levels of complexity (Hall and Fagen, 1968; Jantsch, 1980; Laszlo, 1987, 1991). Complexification is an evolutionary phenomenon of the natural world attracting scientific scrutiny (Casti, 1994), as well as the technological world of human artifacts (Basalla, 1988). However, in reference to systemic method, by methodological complexification, we mean that the method must enable researchers to describe (in richness and density) the complexity of the system studied. In other words, the complexification of methodology is the process of matching the complexity of the method to the demands researchers require to comprehend the complexity of the system. It should come as little surprise therefore that researchers strive to improve the sophistication of their methodology to study higher orders of complexity of systems. For methodology to be systemic, complexification must be build into the inquiry. An illustration of complexification in systems methodology can be seen in methodologies applied in human organizations where successive steps of integration to macro levels are required to attain the fuller system-wide comprehension. Such examples of complexification are found in the methodologies of Sanford Beer (1985), Arne Collen (1996), Jay Forrester (1969), and James Miller (1978). Each one holds the potential to push description of human activity systems to ever higher densities. Confluence of Characteristics The five characteristics are meant to influence researchers to favor integrating and synthesizing research procedures that have

62 Systemic Change

a common aim — to provide a system-wide comprehension. This aim is the general purpose of systemic research. This aim and these characteristics distinguish the family of systemic research methods and methodologies from non systemic approaches to human inquiry. The five characteristics help us grasp the underlying nature of the systemic paradigm for scientific research. Importantly, they provide basic criteria to evaluate whether an application labeled "systems," "systemic," and "systems approach" indeed merits this distinction. The set of characteristics gives us some sense of a minimally acceptable set of expectations to apply and advance our means to study human beings and human activity systems regarding systemic change. It is unlikely that by any one characteristic alone a research method can qualify as systemic. It is the collection that gives us a set of criterion by which to determine the systemicity of a research method. The extent to which researchers might assert that a human oriented research method is systemic, according to the characteristics discussed in this section, is to be debated and judged as happens with any form of research. The validity of the method may rise or fall on the extent to which researchers can substantiate their claims that its implementation successfully met these five criteria. 5. The Paradox of Methodological Complexity The aim of attaining a system-wide comprehension may seem to be both a blessing and a curse. The idea of system is a conceptualization of the researcher, who strives to gain some sense of its reality through the implementation of a methodological construction. Ironically, the degree to which the inquiry successfully attains its own systemicity increases the complexity of conducting the inquiry. Such an imposition has its own limita-

Distinguishing Systemic from Non Systemic 63

tions on what path the inquiry takes, what data are obtained and observations made, and consequently what system-wide comprehension researchers can attain. Faced with this puzzling and seemingly circular cybernetic relation, researchers can feel trapped within this methodological paradox. Therefore, we must remain ever vigilant in inquiry against falling prey to our own untested assumptions and unsubstantiated beliefs. We learn through trial and error that mere complexification of inquiry does not automatically yield a clear and useful system-wide description. Regardless of the extend and ways the system may become visible in forms we can comprehend, eventually we must confront the matter of scientific interpretation, critique, debate, and consensus building among members of our community. In addition, tempestuous claims of a system-wide comprehension, without credible matches with the five criteria, can not be received seriously as systemic. To minimize this pitfall, it behooves researchers to incorporate into the process of inquiry the persons whose system is to be described. Those who comprise the human activity system under study need also to comprehend the complexity conveyed. Careful construction and implementation of methodology for inquiry can be a blessing for us to move beyond the paradox and preclude the notion of it becoming a curse. 6. To Misconceive Systemic To clarify the meaning of what is and is not a systemic research methodology, it is important to consider characteristics of human inquiry that may mislead researchers into thinking that a systemwide comprehension can be attained. To parallel the characteristics of systemic research, there are five misconceptions. There are, we may state, five non systemic characteristics: analytic, objective, systematic, disciplined, and complicated.

64 Systemic Change

Analytic Scientific thinking is often equated with analysis and analytical thinking (Tweney et al., 1981). To break a whole into its parts and study the parts by means of carefully worked out rules and procedures for observation, measurement, and data collection may make the research method analytic and thereby in part scientific, but it does not make it systemic. A clear illustration of the analytic feature of science is dissection of the corpse of what was a living thing to describe all its anatomical parts and the physical connections among these parts. However, like fossils, geological formations, and photographs, a corpse is a set not a system (Minati and Collen, 1997). Attempts to comprehend the living system — its physiology and vitality — leaves us making many inferences and sometimes wild speculations that may not be the case in vivo. Extrapolations about systems from sets must await subsequent validation through the study of the living system by means of systemic methodology. Objective The hackneyed impression of the scientist standing aloof observing the object of study may linger as the stereotypical picture of non scientists who imagine what those who conduct scientific inquiry do. But those who conduct inquiry cannot be separated from what they study (Foerster, 1963), and they are not immune from bias (Barber, 1973; Mitroff, 1983; Rosenthal, 1976). In science today, objectivity seems more ideal than real. In forms of human inquiry, it is less than ideal, because the consciousness of objectivity is only a small part of engagement in human inquiry. Typically, as human beings, both the researcher and participant manifest the subjective and intersubjective sides

Distinguishing Systemic from Non Systemic 65

of their humanness that cannot be ignored. They are in relationship for the purposes of inquiry. The participant cannot be treated as an astronomer would a star, a geologist a rock, and a botanist a plant. If research process is to ensue, researchers must relate competently with their subjects of inquiry, rather than to their objects of study. The latter view is presumptuous and illadvised in forms of human inquiry. It is the preferred strategy in human inquiry for researchers to embrace the non objective sides of being. Instead of denial, rationalization, intellectualization, and ignorance, researchers are to bring their biases into perspective over the course of inquiry. Ironically, by articulation of biases, presuppositions, prejudices, and preconceptions, researchers put them along side those of their participants to gain the objectivity often taken-for-granted in those sciences where the object of study is the non human. Once bias is known, it can be dealt with tangibly in the course of inquiry. For example, in the experiment, single and double blind procedures are used. Some biases may be minimized by sampling plans, randomization, and counterbalancing treatment conditions. In phenomenology, the natural attitude is bracketed. In ethnography, informant (emic) observations are included to compare and contrast with researcher (etic) observations. Forms of statistical control represent another approach taken in some research methods, such as correlational and experimental, by executing a partial correlation analysis and analysis of covariance, respectively, to adjust for bias. There are research procedures classified as objective, namely questionnaires, measuring instruments, and scaled performance tests. But it is more accurate to state the likelihood of error is less than other forms of data collection, not that these procedures are in fact objective and other forms are not. The matter is relative. For example, numerous self report psychological tests appear objective, in that complete statements are presented with instructions to make specific marks to limited alternatives

66 Systemic Change

(Cohen and Swerdlik, 1999). There often is an implicitly "correct" or "true" response to select, indicative of what the test is designed to assess. There is a key to score the respondent's answer sheet. A single number is calculated to represent the extent of the attitude, propensity, state, or trait measured by the test. However, the respondent may be physically ill, moody, not understand some items, have no experience and knowledge from which to make a meaningful response, and intentionally fake some responses to appear "good" or "sick." These more subjective sides of being human, while taking psychological tests, complicate the presumed objectivity of the instrument. If a method is objective, it does not follow that it is systemic. But if researchers implement through inquiry various research procedures to make visible the objective, subjective, and intersubjective aspects of bias, as it impacts inquiry in various ways, then the inquiry becomes more systemic, because sides and forms of bias can become known. Thus, the idea of objectivity, from a systemic point of view, is non systemic until the multiple perspectives of bias are inclusive in research. Sometimes being objective in inquiry is falsely equated with being systematic or disciplined, the next two misconceptions to be discussed. Systematic

Scientific inquiry requires a careful exploration and examination of parts and interactions to root out the relevant features, properties, functions, causes, influential factors, and changes of a system. This process is methodical. Typically, it is organized and executed in a stepwise fashion that involves following a favored strategy for inquiry and many replications. The systematic nature of scientific investigation seems to hold both within a single investigation and for programmatic research that links together successive investigations. However, there is room

Distinguishing Systemic from Non Systemic 67

in research for spontaneity, serendipity, and innovation. They infuse the systematic character of inquiry with many possible variations to conduct inquiry. Research procedures often require their execution to be done in combinations and permutations to study known effects as well as allow unknown effects to appear. A truly systemic research method is one that also is systematic to be scientifically acceptable. The converse does not follow. To be systematic is not to be systemic. The systematic nature of inquiry is a hallmark of sound science, but in itself does not make the method used systemic. A clear example of the systematic character of inquiry is to follow a proven strategy that has yielded high returns in past research efforts. Such a strategy might entail moving systematically from one part of a system to another to determine those parts critical to a specific function in the system and eliminate those parts not critical to the specific function (Collen, 1985). This strategy has been used quite effectively to advance our understanding of the human nervous system through experimental procedures of surgical ablation and electrical stimulation. A systematic research strategy also helps to justify the research across a series of investigations that aims to reveal a causal explanation of a phenomenon, an effective treatment for a condition, and a more accurate understanding of the functioning of a specific part of the system. Clinical trials of a pharmaceutical agent through animal and subsequent human testing represents an outstanding illustration of systematic research. Since such efforts do indirectly contribute to an eventual system-wide appraisal, a method used to make its piecemeal contribution may be mistakenly identified as systemic. Disciplined The illustrations offered for systematic also capture the character of what is meant by disciplined. Researchers attempt to describe

68 Systemic Change

and apply their methods with agreed upon rules and procedures. Methods are to be evaluated in regard to validity, reliability, standardization, and the Es of praxiology. Such practices lead to the formalization of a research method. With subsequent recognition among increasing numbers of inquirers in a research community, the practices are accepted for their discipline of inquiry. They become the means to define operationally what that community considers to be scientific method. The practices constitute disciplined inquiry. In the broadest sense, from the viewpoint of praxiology, the researchers have developed a disciplined way of doing research that, de facto, becomes a form of scientific method. Nevertheless, discipline in one's practices of doing inquiry does not make the method systemic. A method has various components like its research design, research plan, and data collection and data processing procedures. A noteworthy example of the disciplined feature of scientific practice is following an established, proven, and reliable procedure that produces a finding directly relevant to testing the researcher's hypothesis. This adherence to the disciplined nature of human inquiry by execution of a research procedure establishes its scientific character, but does not establish the systemicity of the methodology. Complicated Even though complicated and complex may be synonyms in everyday lay conversation, in systemic inquiry and other scientific contexts, they should not be confused. As every veteran researcher knows and novice researcher soon learns, both complication and complexity are not to be taken lightly. A complicated method may imply some degree of trouble, incoherence, difficulty, irregularity, and disorder in the execution of the methodology, all of which may jeopardize the validity of the investigation. Many systemic methodologies are inherently

Distinguishing Systemic from Non Systemic 69

complex because of the various systemic characteristics described earlier. They can also get complicated when any aspect of their application does not work well in practice. Granted, many researchers engaged in systemic inquiry experience the methodology as complicated, but a complicated method does not make it systemic. With non systemic and systemic methods alike, complication is usually received as an unwelcomed visitor. In contrast, successful complexiflcation of inquiry can be very satisfying when it enables researchers to make visible the more systemic properties and changes of a system. One of the challenges of human inquiry is to construct methodologies from among compatible methods, techniques, and procedural components without complication (Collen, 1995b). Researchers accomplish this feat through the integration and execution of a research design and plan that capitalizes on the praxiological interests of economy, efficiency, effectiveness, efficacy, and ethicality — the Es of praxiology introduced and discussed in a later chapter. Participant observation is an accepted part of many forms of research in the behavioral, social, and human sciences. It is an established approach for human inquiry evident in such research traditions as ethnography (Fetterman, 1989) and case study methodology (Yin, 1994). Researchers engaged in participant observation experience the method as both complicated and complex, but for different reasons. Entering the field may be perceived as a complicated affair. The initial month of observation may be confusing and often disorienting. The research questions that prompted the study in the beginning may be displaced by others that emerge as more relevant and reflective of what is happening. Researchers must gain familiarity and comfort with the setting, establish a base of operations, form relationships with informants and those observed, sample places and occasions, and organize the time to both observe and make field notes. As the data accumulate about persons, places, and events

70 Systemic Change

— the substance for the future ethnography or case study report — the daunting complexity of it all poses a formidable challenge to organize, condense, synthesize, thematize, and write the report. In other words, the skillful entry into the field and making observations, as well as the writing of the research report, may do much to qualify the research methodology as scientific, but they do little to characterize it as systemic. Comparing Tables 2 and 3, we see a rise in expectations in the latter as to what constitutes systemic. We also note a more sophisticated and careful look at what we mean by use of the descriptor "systemic," in the phrase "systemic method." To use a systemic research method poses a formal challenge to those who would claim their methodology is systemic. We may consider this challenge more acute particularly for methodologies intended for use in human organizations. The responses in Tables 2 and 3 suggest some caution for more circumscribed usage of a systemic methodology with human beings. This is a consideration to be elaborated by means of additional characteristics in the the next section. To the positive, conducting inquiry that is analytic, objective, systematic, disciplined, and not complicated are valued ideals of rigorous scientific inquiry, even though any one of them, and as a set, cannot qualify a method as systemic.

7. Human Activity Systems Having entered the subject directly with prominent characteristics and indirectly with some misconceptions, the remaining portion of this chapter is devoted to specialized attention to the study of human activity systems. This specialty emphasis refers to human collectives, particularly human organizations, such as associations, business corporations, communities, factories, families, schools, institutions, and societies, in contrast to a single

Distinguishing Systemic from Non Systemic 71

person, described in terms of personality traits, states of consciousness, and bodily functions. Obviously, the former is macro and the latter is micro in our treatment of systems. To be added to, but not in lieu of, the five general characteristics previously presented are six paramount characteristics common to systemic methodologies for human activity systems. Exemplary methodologies for macro level inquiry are soft systems methodology (Checkland, 1981; Checkland and Scholes, 1990), search conferencing (Weisbord, 1992), and viable systems model (Beer, 1985). This last section is to describe and illustrate the following characteristics: participatory, cross-constituency, collaborative, transdisciplinary, group centered, and transformative. These additional qualities pertain to a social group process that characterizes inquiry. Through them, the research team may attain a more system-wide comprehension of their human organization. Not just in theory, but also in practice, they move the methodology toward systemicity. Chris Argyris et al., (1985) contrasted theory espoused with theory-in-use. In this regard, the research team can state that a systemic methodology has been used when they successfully exercise these six additional characteristics implementing an espoused systemic methodology. Participatory This feature points to the importance of playing an active part in the process of inquiry. It is being a player and not solely a spectator of events. It is essential to be a receiver, generator, and contributor of communications that constitute the group process of human inquiry. As a member of the research team, it means being an active data collector. As a participant, it means providing information to the team to make the activities of the organization more visible. Without participation, the organization appears lifeless and hollow, like attempting to describe the organ-

72 Systemic Change

ization from its business cards and touring its offices during non business hours. Participation makes the system seen. Acts of participation epitomize the activity in the phrase "human activity system." Cross-Constituency The group executing the systemic methodology is composed of those most affected by the consequences of the inquiry. Constituency based means that the membership of the research team cuts across the principal stakeholders, namely, those who have a vested interest in the organization (Mason and Mitroff, 1981). Though the team typically is a small group, it is critical to the success of the inquiry that broad based participation be obtained. The body of participants also reflects this rainbow of interests. Constituency based research teams build in one kind of perspectivism noted earlier. Constituencies are commonly determined by the job descriptions, labels, and prescribed roles associated with named positions in the organization, though they need not be. Any scheme that makes sense to those desiring a systemwide view of their organization can serve to meet this characteristic. For example, a transnational corporation may want to have representation from all global continents in which it does business, a professional society may want trans-constituency based on level of training and experience in the profession, and a school may want to include students all year levels. In collective forms of human inquiry, bases are defined by role and behavioral boundaries in the daily life of the organization. However in practice, it is often difficult to formalize and sustain the research team to reflect the constituent make-up of the organization. Defining constituency may be in large part suspended when the participants act as researchers (data collectors) and participants (data providers). A division of labor is often necessary in their collective efforts to work the method-

Distinguishing Systemic from Non Systemic 73

ology toward a comprehension of systemic change. Key to meeting this characteristic of systemic methodology is to involve in a participatory fashion as much of the whole organization as possible, such that the resultant process, data, and outcome are visibly system-wide as much as possible. Collaborative In participatory and constituency based research, teamwork for the purposes of inquiry means that each member must discover effective ways to contribute to the team effort. The complementarity and fit among members fosters the collaborative characteristic of systemic inquiry. This characteristic is taken largely to be equivalent in meaning to the term cooperation. Building upon the previous characteristics described, there is a necessary transparency to partisanship to become an effective research team. Competing interests are expected and must be confronted. Group cohesion must occur, else the process of inquiry is stultified. Constructive forms of communication must prevail to foster more synergetic work. It is the cooperative nature of the communications that encourage common understandings, group solidarity, and progress from one stage of inquiry to the next. Competition is commonly contrasted with cooperation. Both concepts are pervasive views of the global marketplace. If competition is to be utilized in a human organization, it is best done in a limited fashion within the larger context of cooperation. Stated in other words, the hierarchical priority given to cooperation over competition is to apply carefully the latter to serve the broader, long range aim of the former. Strictly from a methodological point of view, this is because a systemic approach favors more constructive, synthesizing, and integrating activities to attain its aim — to comprehend the whole system. Competition is associated with destructive, dividing, and con-

74 Systemic Change

flicting tendencies that tend to be counterproductive to this aim, even though competition may be helpful and essential at critical times to decide from among attractive choices. Again, the success of the research team to implement its systemic methodology relies chiefly on cooperation. In understanding the effective use of this characteristic for the purposes of systemic inquiry, it is helpful to see collaboration in terms of the dialectical dynamic between cooperation and competition (Collen, 1993). In practice, it is the effective use of both that can facilitate inquiry. For example, although cooperation must reign supreme to enable the data to be collected, data often compete in its relevance to validating and disputing observations, findings, and interpretations. Conflict in data serves to prompt researchers to seek more data to clarify and resolve apparent contradictions and inconsistencies. If this is not possible, then researchers still seek more data to obtain as accurate a distribution as possible of the competing data points, values, and positions represented. Cooperation must come not only within the research team, but also from the organization, in which it is embedded. Collaboration means activities that support the process of inquiry from all sectors of the organization. Thus, it must become apparent that the collaborative characteristic is an essential ingredient to manifest systemicity of a methodology. Various kinds of collaboration must occur, from inside and outside the research team, if the methodology is to be systemic. Transdisciplinary Like the cross-constituency characteristic, transdisciplinarity builds into the inquiry another form of perspectivism (Minati and Collen, 1997). Expertise from various knowledge domains makes for a more systemic methodology. It fosters access and use of resources not ordinarily available.

Distinguishing Systemic from Non Systemic 75

Much of what has been stated for the constituency based characteristic applies to the transdisciplinary characteristic. This latter characteristic is discussed more in the chapter on disciplinarity. Although discipline is closely associated with a field of study and knowledge domain, applied in human organizations with broadened meaning, it can be defined as an area of expertise (competence and know-how) attained through life experience. The place of expertise is expounded upon in the chapter on developing human inquiry for systemic change. Suffice it to state here that the relevant knowledge domains and expertise pertaining to the system studied need to be present for inquiry to proceed fruitfully. Every discipline, occupation, and profession has its preferred lens through which to view the world. Simply, if the research team is comprised chiefly of psychologists, then we can expect a psychological description of the system. Economists, or middle managers, will naturally gravitate toward a comprehension of the system in terms of monetary flows, or keeping the organization running, respectively. Consumers will view their system principally through their commercial and consumptive attitudes, preferences, and practices. Thus, it is critical that the research team comprise the mix of disciplines and expertise pertinent to the systemic changes the team seeks to comprehend. Only then can the research method match its users' intention toward the systemicity that is presumed to characterize the methodology employed. Group-Centered Unlike many forms of human inquiry involving a researcher or team of researchers making observations and collecting data from individuals, the more systemic forms focus on the group. The centrality of the group becomes the key point of reference for the members of the research team. The group often becomes the

76 Systemic Change

primary source of observations and data. At various times during the inquiry, members may "step out" to obtain data to bring back into the group process. This feature of working with the inquiry process as a groupcentered process is akin at the collective level to a researcher doing research on him or herself (e.g. autobiographical, autoethnographic, and autohistorical research). Self study of an institution for the purposes of accreditation and internal audits of various kinds may serve to exemplify some of the potentialities for the more group-centered systemic methodologies. Evaluative and case study research, program evaluations, and institutional assessments may become more systemic when executed as a group-centered inquiry process. Transformative

Importantly, the process of inquiry usually leads to a transformation of thought of the inquirers and often practice as well. The views of the participating individuals and the consensual view of the group may be markedly different after the inquiry compared to entering into the inquiry. The emphasis intended here is the collective transformation, or shifts in group consensus and group consciousness. Use of the term "transformative" is not to be construed as a alteration of thought anticipated and predicted through the execution of research methodology. One can demonstrate the essence of this characteristic by remarking on the shift in statements of participants at the start and finish of a research cycle. However, whether we can account for the shift by the process itself is problematic, given the difficulty of establishing causality in a single group pre to post type comparison. Therefore, some caution must be exercised in making direct causal inferences by post hoc changes in utterances among research team members. The team has to examine carefully the progression of data collected at various times through the

Distinguishing Systemic from Non Systemic 77

course of the systemic change experienced. The systems methodology used is expected to bring about a richer and more systemwide comprehension that means inclusion of many parts, interconnections, hierarchical and heterarchical subsystems, and system-environment relations not previously evident to the participants and members of the research team. To be meaningful, transformation of the system has to be described in the forms of successive stages (Figure l0e in the next chapter). A systemic methodology would enable that to happen.

8. Behind the Systemic Claim Research methodology provides the means of engagement for human beings in a social group process of systemic inquiry to experience, describe, enlighten, and transform their human activity system. It may seem sometimes we have to be a wizard to make a systemic methodology work. But unlike the 1939 movie The Wizard of Oz, there is no curtain hiding a human operator at a wizard making machine. Both a systemic methodology and the organization in which it is executed are not wizards. The set of criteria described in this chapter gives us a basis to assess and design methodologies with systemicity. Perusal of the methodologies available to human organizations, such as those found in the textbooks written by Robert Flood and Michael Jackson (1991) and Jackson (1991, 2000), and in leading journals for systemists, such as Systems Research and Behavioral Science and Systems Practice and Action Research, give us insight into an important delimitation. It is probably a fair appraisal to infer that, for the most part, the methods and methodologies published in these sources, characterized as systemic according to the criteria described in this chapter, tend to occur in the democratic sociopolitical contexts of those who write about their methodology. These characteristics express

78 Systemic Change

taken-for-granted core values and beliefs of those who work and reside in human organizations and societies that operate largely by democratic principles. It is important, for example, to examine and know whether a systemic methodology can be successfully implemented in a totalitarian organization. Further, it important to know how systemic change works in human organizations that have great propensity toward autocracy, while they manage to survive, and even thrive, in a democracy. There is a dynamic here — a dialectic in system-environment relations — that those who partake in a systemic method need to negotiate over the course of their inquiry. It would seem that the systemic claim and efficacy of systemic research methodologies have yet to be studied and substantiated in civilized societies across a variety of sociopolitical forms of organization. From another perspective, the issue whether systemic methodologies for human activity systems are being applied in a range of sociopolitical environments leaves open to question the accuracy and completion of this set of characteristics. One can speculate that it seems implausible to find effective applications in more autocratic and dictatorial forms of human organization less tolerant of participatory and transformative systemic change. Further, to the degree human beings profess to be democratic in theory yet autocratic in practice, it is unlikely to expect much benefit from the implementation of a systemic methodology. More comparative studies across sociopolitical systems would be helpful as more systemic applications are accompanying the globalization of humanity. From a third perspective, one might argue, more systemic approaches to research could thrive as team research at the more local level of human organizations, regardless of the sociopolitical climate. However, we shall return to this issue in the last chapter. Given the influence of critical theory (Habermas, 1971) on the aims of action oriented forms of doing research — to ameliorate, liberate, and emancipate those constituting the human organ-

Distinguishing Systemic from Non Systemic 79

ization — greater use of action science (Argyris et al., (1985), participatory action research (Whyte, 1991), and related developments in research methodology (Flood, 1990; Flood and Romm, 1996; Ulrich, 1998) draw together the characteristics discussed in this chapter, producing forms of group oriented inquiry that gravitate toward systemicity. To improve the conditions and quality of human organizational life, the characteristics of a systemic methodology described in this chapter distinguish such a methodology from other forms of human inquiry. Although systemic forms may be given over just as well to theory building and hypothesis testing, a chief advantage of a systemic methodology is to enable us to attain a system-wide comprehension of the system studied. Finally, with the characteristics described, the comprehension grasped is to be understood as a collective and shared vision of the system, complexified by the multiple versions of its members. With only the five characteristics that began this chapter and a solo researcher, the result is of course the personal comprehension of that researcher. Enigmatically, although a wholistic conception, it is de facto a one-sided view of the whole from one person. But with collective forms of systemic methodology, the comprehension becomes a group pluralistic comprehension and first persons account, evidenced more representatively in range and depth from those who comprise the whole system. To understand the distinction between personal and collective system-wide comprehensions, we may make reference to a parallel distinction, that of a personal consciousness of one who is part of a human organization contrasted with the collective consciousness of those who comprise that organization. We like to assume that learning is a personal endeavor throughout the life span of the individual. If this learning process is to be put in tandem with others similarly engaged, collective forms of learning are expected to emerge. The human organization is to benefit, that is, formerly a set of individuals becomes a system (Minati

80 Systemic Change

and Collen, 1997), and the human organization becomes the learning organization (Senge, 1990). It is with this intention in mind that systemic methodologies provide means (processes of inquiry) through which human organizations may benefit from a collective system-wide comprehension emergent from the integration of a multitude of its constituents' personal comprehensions. Perhaps the case of the obvious in regard to the prevalence of collective consciousness has been overstated here, since most organizations capitalize plentifully on group processes for many purposes, such as community building, decision making, marketing, organizational development, program and product evaluation, retraining, self-evaluation, and strategic planning. Our emphasis is to extend this collective consciousness to forms of human inquiry for systemic change. Importantly, the group processes alluded to above may be approached in terms of human inquiry with the intention to engage those who comprise the organization in facilitating particular kinds of system-wide changes.

9. Summary After looking earlier at the idea of systemic method, this chapter broaches the relationship between systemic change and systemic method. The relation is about the fit of method as means to comprehend system-wide change. The fit is crucial, because it is the systemic character of the method that is deemed appropriate to fulfill the interest of researchers to obtain the comprehensive view of the system. A set of characteristics can distinguish a systemic from a non systemic method. Systemic methods enable researchers to inquire with multiple perspectives. This endeavor tends to complexify inquiry, but not necessarily complicate inquiry. Systemic meth-

Distinguishing Systemic from Non Systemic 81

odology tends to be scientific when it is analytic, systematic, and disciplined. However, the characteristics that make a method scientific do not determine its systemicity. Given the propensity of human beings to work collectively, systemic methodologies have been created to study human activity systems. When engaging in a collective form of systemic inquiry, six additional characteristics bring systemicity to methodology, specifically, participation, inclusion of the constituencies, collaboration, transdisciplinarity, centrality of the group, and collective transformation. From our examination of change as a systemic idea to the characteristics fostering means to examine such a change, the next chapter takes up two core constructs influential in systemic change and systemic research methodology.

10. Activities and Exercises 1. Select a recent change that has occurred in your place of residence, employment, neighborhood, or local community. Drawing upon the characteristics of systemic method described in this chapter, propose a research project to study this change. The aim should be to obtain a comprehensive picture of what happened to bring about this change. Be sure to include some consideration of the five characteristics presented in the earlier portion of the chapter that distinguishes a systemic method from non systemic method. 2. Conduct a similar exercise as that described in the first activity, but do it with a group of peers. Provide the leadership necessary to convene the group and guide the process of proposing your research team study. Allow the group to decide on the recent change and formulations that make the means to study the change characteristically systemic. Be sure to include ample consider-

82 Systemic Change

ation of the collective characteristics of systemic methodology discussed in the latter portion of the chapter. Lead your research team to write collectively the research proposal. 3. Select a research report from a book or journal, in which the claim seems evident, whether explicit or implicit, that a systemic method or methodology was used. Applying the characteristics described in this chapter, evaluate the report as to whether the claim to systemicity is justified. If is not, what characteristics were absent and had to have been present to substantiate the claim? 4. Select a research report from a book or journal completed by a solo researcher, who claims explicitly or implicitly to have used a systemic method or methodology. Reformulate the research to be executed by a research team. Expound upon the advantages that may be gained by this shift in inquiry from the individual level to the collective level. Make use of all the characteristics described in this chapter that tend to feature the methodology as systemic rather than non systemic. 5. Keeping in mind the second activity described above, select a systemic change of interest to you. Make the connection of one systemic method or methodology to this change, for example, a form of action research, soft systems methodology, or living systems methodology. Discuss possible change-method(ology) connections with your research team. Compare and contrast the multiple perspectives generated by the group. Describe to what degree and in what ways your experience of this group process may lead to the formulation of a research team favoring a particular research method or methodology for carrying out the collective intention. What did your team finally decide? Describe the decision making process involved.

Hierarchy and Control

1. Introduction Two primary concepts in the study of human organizations are hierarchy and control. It is not surprising, since they are also central to working with systemic approaches to systemic change. Hierarchy lies at the heart of general systems theory (Bertalanffy, 1968; Miller, 1978). Control lies at the heart of cybernetics theory (Weiner, 1961; Ashby, 1963). This chapter discusses and relates these two constructs to systemic change. The chapter is organized into three parts. We consider control first, hierarchy second, and their integrative relationship third. Each construct has accumulated a hefty published literature that continues to expand (p. ex Francois, 1997; Martinelli, 2001; Oliga, 1990; Troncale, 1993; Tsivacou, 1997). Their association represents a major focus for research and a major challenge for guiding processes of systemic change, because it is human beings that make, operate, and sustain human activity systems. By control, we mean to influence, direct, steer, restrict, and command the actions and words of others by means of our actions and words. Applied to human inquiry, control may come in many forms, such as written instructions to research participants on what to do to take a psychological test, participate in a focus group, and archive the minutes of a meeting. Control also

84 Systemic Change

becomes salient in the interpersonal dynamics among research team members and interactions of researchers and participants throughout the course of inquiry. By hierarchy, we mean an ordering of the above that establishes structure, organization, relationship, and value reflective of our controlling actions and words. From a research point of view, acts of hierarchy and control generate data that make human activity systems visible. The establishment of hierarchy brings into the foreground the conceptual relationship between hierarchy and control. To illustrate, it is reasonable to anticipate that in human organizations a supervisor will communicate instructions to subordinates about what tasks take priority, who needs to do them, and when they must be completed. As will become increasingly evident, this relationship between hierarchy and control relates directly to human inquiry for systemic change. Since the theoretical contributions of Norbert Weiner and Ludwig von Bertalanffy, cybernetics theory and systems theory respectively, they have converged in applications of hierarchy and control to human organizations. Some salient examples are the influential works of Russell Ackoff (1981), Sanford Beer (1982), Peter Checkland (1981), James Miller (1978), and Peter Senge(1990).

2. Control in Human Communication Five kinds of communication control comprise a scheme to describe many aspects of human affairs that contribute to making a human activity system evident and visible. The primary interest is in applications of research methodology to human beings. What might we learn about systemic change through human communications? What might we want to know about human communication that may impact on the conduct of inquiry devoted to systemic change?

Hierarchy and Control 85

Meaning The first form of control is labeled meaning. This form involves a definition of what is spoken and written. When two persons communicate, we assume there is an exchange of information between them. Control involves the decisions that the two persons make in regard to defining the meaning of what is communicated. The speaker has in mind what is meant in what is spoken, although many meanings are usually implicit. The speaker typically, and often presumptuously, assumes that the listener manifests and will receive similar meanings. The listener receives and interprets what is said. The listener conjures and defines the meanings of the information received in the listening. Both listener and speaker make many assumptions about the common reservoir of meanings exchanged between them. The participants in the dialog (conversation, information exchange) control what is communicated and received by selecting their words and constructing their language-in-use that they believe is the intended meanings of the communications. Meaning is applied here at multiple levels, specifically, the individual words chosen, phrases and sentences determining context, the segment of the dialogue, and the entire discourse taking place. The dialogue (discourse) may be described metaphorically as a river or a stream. It can be discussed philosophically, psychologically, or sociologically as a text. It is also a hierarchy and dynamic linguistic system, a point to be reiterated in the next section of the chapter. Moreover, for its progenitors, the expressions intentionally and inherently shape and control their discourse. It is a creative process of human engagement. This first form of control is depicted simply in Figure 9a. With reference to human inquiry and systemic change, it is to answer the basic research question: What is it? What is the meaning of the message being communicated?

86 Systemic Change Figure 9 Five forms of control in the human communication

Availability The second form of control is availability. We typically have much information available, but we must know it is available to obtain it. One person must designate or tell the other person where the information is (Figure 9b). The teller, conveyer of the information, decides what is to be communicated, and thereby commits in the telling acts of inclusion, exclusion, disinformation, composition, plot, character depiction, and story line. The participants control their communications whether and where in the dialogue to place (situate) content. In other words, they define its availability. Telling a story, or a narrative style of communication, has great saliency for everyday conversation and socializing, as well as, literary and journalistic forms of writing. When streamlined, narrative becomes more succinct and less conversational. The office memo, assembly instructions, and scientific report illustrate these latter forms, in contrast to anecdotes and stories.

Hierarchy and Control 87

Availability may also be depicted metaphorically as a river. The participants decide where in its depth (edge, waist, neck, or overhead) and its flow (previous, present, or anticipated) to place themselves. Once again, there is a hierarchy and conceptual system to consider, but for this second form of control, the basic research question is: Where is it? Where in the dialogue can one find particular content about what is being communicated? Here, the "it" in the general question leads researchers to specify a set of more specific research questions that can connect the dialogue and inquiry to systemic change under study. Accessibility We may know the information exists and know where it is, but still, we cannot have it. As the lay expression suggests, the information is "beyond our control," because it is coveted by others who deny us access. The third form of control we term accessibility. Access involves entry through a doorway or a gate to the place where the information is located (Figure 9c). The act of entry may require permission, a pass, or a code that one provides or one must obtain from another person charged with the responsibility to restrict access. Electronic accounts, titles of job positions, credit cards, and personnel identification badges are familiar examples of control by accessibility. The idea of the public domain in a democracy carries special meaning for its citizens. Information residing there is presumably available at any time. We just need to know how to access it. As the Internet grows as a resource of public information, availability tends to be taken-for-granted and the task becomes knowing the internet provider, search engines, web directories, and web site addresses providing access to information desired. The basic research question posed in the third form of control is: How to reach it? What exact procedures (sequence of steps) and critical information give us access?

88 Systemic Change

Retrievability The fourth form of control is called retrievability. Once the sought after information is found, what means do we take to exit and keep it (Figure 9d)? Alternatively, we might discover that we can have it temporarily as long as we are there, but we cannot physically or electronically copy it to take with us. In such cases, retrievability is short lived. One remarkable feature of information is its reproducibility. Unlike the physical objects that occupy and adorn our abodes, which we call our property, having information does not mean it is moved and thereby lost from the location we accessed it. It can remain in its location to be experienced again and again by everyone having accessibility to it. However, it can be possessed and owned in the sense that we make our own personal replication (memory) of it. One consequence is that repeated accessibility and retrievability may become more an option than a necessity. But like its source, our information is only as good as our replication and ability to sustain it. The forms of control described in this section that appear externally in the communications between two persons, operate internally in regard to our ability to maintain our memories. Notoriously, we forget, distort, select, and in other ways change our personal replication with the passage of time. Periodically revisiting the original information usually constitutes renewal and once again replication. Often, infusions of additional meanings to what was obtained originally bring added value. By limiting retrievability through planned obsolescence and retrieval devices, we may impose varying degrees of control over accessibility. If one does not want others to use information they can access, one can certainly act to make it non retrievable. The basic research question here is: How to take it? Or in cases when it cannot be taken: What procedures ensure its repeated retrievability?

Hierarchy and Control 89

Applicability The last form of control to be discussed is applicability. Having discovered, located, reached, and obtained it, we cannot necessarily apply it. Globalizing trends have brought much information about many ideas and things that find no application. Such information is seen as clutter, filler, and pollution. Increasingly, we must cope with the information problem, receiving postal promotions, telemarket recordings, spam, radio and television advertising, and web pop-ups. The opposite of accessibility, we are being inundated with unsolicited information via every medium used to reach a wide range of recipients. This form of control becomes relevant when the social and/or technological contexts permit access and retrieval but we find nothing to utilize (Figure 9e). We realize that what we need to know is there somewhere, but it is like finding a needle in a haystack. Alternatively, this form of control may become evident in the application of information as threat of punishment, act of punishment, censorship, press for a social convention, taboo, political vote, and legal regulation. These examples of this form of control constitute negative manifestations imposed upon persons to control their behavior. On the positive side, technology for multimedia integration facilitates broadened applicability by allowing persons to share and exchange information with ease across media modalities (cellular phone, fax, email, and web). In common with the other forms of control, applicability becomes a controlling force, for human betterment or human detriment, through the intended uses of the information applied by its users. The basic research question for the fifth form of control is: What to do with it? Of what use is it? Having traversed other forms of control, possessing information also means having some responsibility for it. In this sense, responsibility is applicability.

90 Systemic Change

The possessor decides what use is to be made of it. To share, covet, be silent, omit, and withhold what one knows can all be performed as acts of control. For human communication to remain successful, we must assume the intentions of those doing the controlling are implicit in their communications. When it is not so — often to our surprise — we discover we cannot make such assumptions, and our communications quickly deteriorate. Control becomes relevant because sharing (or not sharing) information and knowledge with others involves selecting, censoring, composing, and disclosing. These actions define what is meant here by applicability. Implications and Confluence of Forms Some important implications follow from this scheme. In our communications with others, we exercise the five forms of control continuously. Exercise entails an acquired responsibility for the content of our discourse. We are expected to face and exercise this responsibility in each instance of communication. We expect to be truthful, honest, and sincere in our communications between each other, In a civil society, prudent and considerate exercise of the forms of control are taken to be socially responsible acts. Though selective and cautious, our everyday communications are to be taken as our version of what we believe to be true. Control is neither positive or negative. Whether it is taken to be good or bad depends on the intended use of its controller. Most acts of communication appear self-serving, because to meet our needs and fulfill our interests, we are required to engage in these forms of control. Ironically, we instill in others and ourselves the very forms of control that we may seek to surmount. We are capable of using them at any time for either positive or negative purposes.

Hierarchy and Control 91

On the one hand, propensities not to self-disclose and covet information in certain corporate and cultural contexts, for example, may protect us, but they may also impede the development of the human organization. On the other hand, these same propensities to self-disclose and communicate, though often questionable and even offensive, yield the richness and diversity that sustain our fascination with human culture. The five forms suggest a conceptual system of relations relevant to human communication. They point to a process of unfolding that complexifies human communication and human inquiry. The cybernetic and systemic study of these relations in human organizations can provide one useful research focus for mapping and guiding systemic change. Specifically, by taking the basic research question associated with each form of control, the researcher has an elementary question set to be used as a methodological device when conversation is data in human inquiry critical to monitoring change. The set is summarized in Table 4. It concerns discourse about what is meant, available, accessible, retrievable, and applicable. Table 4 Forms of control in communication and associated research questions Meaning Availability Accessibility Retrievability Applicability

What is it? Where is it? How to reach it? How to take it? What to do with it?

One area of illustration is image management (Gray, 1986). As the focus for human inquiry, image may center on the person, small group, business and corporate entity, and nation. Self-image management may be applied to explain the communications of a person. The same may be said of a family concerned about its standing in its social sphere, a business in relation to its clients

92 Systemic Change

and competitors, and a nation in regard to its relations with other nations. The possibility of having the question set in Table 4 linked to other schemes pertinent to systemic change through praxis and inquiry brings us to consider hierarchy, the second key construct of this chapter.

3. Hierarchy The ordering of elements that comprise an organization creates a hierarchy when structural or functional relationships among the elements become determined. Relationships among the elements of a system create an inherent order, or hierarchy, that may become apparent to us in our experience, study, and description of that system. This propensity for hierarchy seems most evident in physical systems found in nature, but certainly are capitalized upon heavily through human invention of all artificial, ideational, information, social, and technological systems. Schemes of organization of systems based on hierarchy are well known (p. ex Boulding, 1985; Jantsch, 1980; Miller, 1978). The attribution of value (axiology) complexifies the definition of hierarchy considerably. Human beings place value on their foci of interest. Persons change constantly their order of things, leaving some doubt about the certainty, consensus, and norms of any particular hierarchy. Given this complexification, linking hierarchy to systemic change is like reaching for a moving target. The study of systemic change is an ongoing and uncertain challenge for researchers. Whether the ordering by the inquirer (observer, researcher) of a set of elements corresponds to their natural order, as understood by other persons or a group of the human activity system studied, is a matter to be determined. Often it remains illusive over the course of inquiry. Veridicality cannot be assumed in

Hierarchy and Control 93

human inquiry. In fact, such a shortfall frequently becomes part of the quest to know and describe the system more fully. We must take into account this valuing by human beings to follow, study, and guide systemic change through praxis and inquiry, because it is the values placed on certain orders, practices, and research decisions that give us insight into systemic change. Human valuing often contrasts what appears to us to be the natural order of the elements, events, and activities of the system. The distinction between theory espoused and theory-in-use (Argyrus et al., 1985) makes the point indirectly. Here, the distinction involves order espoused and order-in-use. It is most clearly seen in bureaucracy conveying established lines of authority and responsibility. However, the exercise of power notoriously does not consistency follow the published organizational charts. In human organizations, hierarchy is two-sided. The more visible side is the job description that presumably defines what it is a person does in the designated position to be part of the system. The less visible side is the exercise of power that comes with that role and place in the human organization. It is the distribution of power that more often than not communicates hierarchy. By power is meant engaging in the forms of communication control described earlier to influence and command the relationships among the human beings that comprise the human activity system. The forms of control underlie the hierarchy made visible by the persons who constitute it. Two salient examples of power that determine hierarchy may be seen in the family and the larger social institution. Be it nuclear, blended, or extended, families develop a power configuration among members that can be described hierarchically. An initial anchor is whether the family is a matriarchy, patriarchy, or mixture of both. Knowing who dispenses and withholds resources provides the point of reference for understanding hierarchy, order, and control in the family system. The larger social

94 Systemic Change

institution is a form of bureaucracy, such as agencies, businesses, corporations, governments, and schools. There is a chain of command, allocation of resources, and structural-functional linkages, all of which help to define the hierarchical nature of the human organization. As a third example of hierarchy, the sciences and various fields of study may be depicted historically, drawn as a multibranched tree with trunks, branches, and twigs labeled from the more general sciences to the variety of specializations within and joining various sciences. This example is apropos, because researchers draw heavily from human oriented fields of study (e.g. behavioral, human, management, and social sciences) for their research methods to study systemic change. Complementing the forms of communication control, the next sections describes five processes to hierarchy. After presenting them, depicted in Figure 10, we can converge the two key constructs to consider their importance in regard to systemic change through praxis and inquiry. Differentiation There seems little end to our ability to map creatively hierarchical systems that organize conceptually any set of ideas, be it semantic categories of any lexicon, taxonomies of living things, ancestral to present day dialects of any mother tongue, consumer product inventories, encyclopedias of any subject domain, directories of every imaginable collection of artifacts, and hypertext linkages among and within Internet web sites. All these examples have some degree of inherent familiarity for us. The basis of hierarchy in these examples may be termed differentiation. This form of hierarchy suggests the first of five processes that generates hierarchy. Differentiation can be reduced to numerous bifurcation points as to what goes where in the order of things (Figure l0a).

Hierarchy and Control 95 Figure 10 Five processes to hierarchy

Accretion Hierarchy may also be generated through the addition of more substance, layers, coverings, or levels. Such hierarchies form a second process. Like a plant that moves outward into the soil extending its tap roots, human organizations expand their spheres of influence through extending their customer bases to ever larger and specifically targeted populations. This second process of hierarchy is commonly used in systems theory in terms of nestedness (embeddedness). That is, some elements of the system are enclosed by other elements. A system can extend its complexity through bubbling outward from itself as well as bubbling inward (Figure l0b). A particular interest of the author in this process of hierarchy is nicely illustrated by the ever wider paradigmatic arenas of human

96 Systemic Change

inquiry for various human oriented research methods (Collen, 1995a). It seems researchers critical of the mainstream methodology leverage and transcend themselves beyond it into a broader bubble that allows them to conduct inquiry as they wish. At the same time, they attempt to justify their form of inquiry as scientific (p. ex Denzin and Lincoln, 1994; Reason and Rowan, 1981). A more familiar example is the development of communication technologies. They have seen rapid advances in recent decades. Their combination and integration tend to create ever more effective and extended communication technologies. The idea of hierarchy here is that from a proven foundation, such as a platform or architecture, a more efficacious technology may appear. Each subsequent technology relies on the dependability of those coming before it (Basalla, 1988). An intranet may pervade the human organization to such an extent that participation enables the user to "light up" the organization like a Christmas tree. The system becomes visible through its electronic communications activities. This exciting prospect makes the inclusion of communication technologies a promising adjunct to research on systemic change in human organizations. As we map the progression of one technology superseding another, in effect we generate hierarchical order. As a last example of this fact, computer software improves through usage. Witness the seemingly never-to-end issuance of the next software version every few years. This is accretion in its most blatant form, in which older versions are assumed extensions to newer ones. Decomposition The third process to hierarchy is decomposition. The whole may be broken down into an ordered set of parts and displayed as a configuration of these elements (Figure l0c). An example of this kind of hierarchy generating process is the growth of the trans-

Hierarchy and Control 97

national corporation. Typically, this human organization has a central headquarters with secondary and tertiary departments (locations) that configure the whole organization as an intercontinental, even global network. To get a comprehension of the whole, we can display the corporation by decomposing it into its multiple locations and indicate their relationships with central headquarters, and vice versa. It is the nature of these relationships that establish the hierarchical configuration. A challenging exercise for those who produce the annual reports of transnational corporations for its shareholders is to depict geographically and at the same time hierarchically the essential holdings and relationships of the corporation. Another illuminating source of depictions of hierarchy by decomposition is the plenitude of visual illustrations communicating "graphical excellence" (Tufte, 1983) and "micro/macro readings" (Tufte, 1990). State Transformation The process of hierarchy termed state transformation is one where a basic substance can change the order of its organization when basic conditions change (Figure l0d). Regardless of the change, it is essentially the same substance, even though it may display different properties and behaviors. A familiar example of state transformation in the physical sciences is heating ice changes it to water, and boiling water evaporates it to steam. By analogy, it is an intriguing to speculate and study in the human realm whether "heated" and "cooling" economic, social, and political conditions bring about shifts in forms of the body politic regarding autocracy, oligarchy, and democracy. When applied to research teams devoted to systemic change, relevant questions and concerns may be examined in reference to not only the internal dynamics of the research team in the conduct of its inquiry, but also the dynamics of the human organi-

98 Systemic Change

zation that places the research team in context. A state transformation of the research team can most certainly alter the course of inquiry. A state transformation of the organization can also alter the purpose of inquiry. Such a case would arise if the research team began as a study group to map the organization, but then became an action oriented leadership team to change the organization. Another kind of example is that when inquiry and organization processes extend over long durations, turnover in leadership may occur to such an extent, what began as an inquiry to study one problem, let us say a production process, is transformed to study another problem of another production process, without ever bringing closure to the original inquiry. This kind of transformative activity can easily become very costly and resource wasteful to the organization. On the more positive side, maintaining flexibility to shift personnel and resources to tackle the vital problems and opportunities may be prudent and resourceful. However, leadership conveys hierarchy, that is, priority about what are the more and less important problems of the moment. To remain viable, an organization may necessarily have to be put through what is tantamount to a state transformation. Some illustrative methodological approaches to system-wide change that often require transformative activities are to be found in the contribution of Russell Ackoff (1981), John Warfield (1970), and Marvin Weisbord (1992) Metamorphosis The fifth and last process to hierarchy to be considered is metamorphosis. More profound than a state transformation, it entails a change in substance to the degree that different forms of behavior emerge not possibly foreseen and predicted from the previous organization (Figure l0e). Metamorphosis means extensive alterations in organization. This process derives directly

Hierarchy and Control 99

from remarkable structural and bodily changes, outstandingly represented in the biological sciences by the pupated caterpillar becoming the butterfly. The ordering of stages in the life span makes explicit reference to the process of development. Whether a human being and a human organization can go through metamorphosis remain topics of speculation and research. Can personality go through a metamorphosis? Can downsizing, merger, and acquisition sufficiently change a business and corporation that only metamorphosis can convey its new form and activity? Metamorphosis means to alter radically the nature, properties, and activities of being. To focus specifically on human inquiry for systemic change, imagine a research team conducted an inquiry that led to recommendations to change certain practices in the organization. Then this team became responsible to implement those recommendations. The same group of persons who were formerly inquirers now are task masters accountable to superiors for the success of their recommendations, restated as the new practices expected. This example is not a rarity in the corporate life. As with state transformations, the intention is to generate better forms of organization from lesser forms. Better is typically defined by the incumbents. In both state transformation and metamorphosis, the sequence of organizational states generated toward betterment establishes the hierarchy of those forms. Betterment connotes a feedforward improvement in the organization. Hence, it should come as no surprise that forms of organization are usually ranked by the incumbent leadership hierarchically in value from most recent to previous forms. Converging Processes Processes generating hierarchy, schematized in Figure 10, illustrate the richness of the concept. Each form shows us a different

100 Systemic Change

way of thinking about the ordering of the elements of a system. The concept of hierarchy has its fundamental place in systems theory. As a construct, it may be expansive in its meaning beyond relations between whole and parts, and this is a fundamental application of the generalized concept of hierarchy (Kalaidjieva, 1996).

4. Situating the Inquirer Heinz von Foerster (1984) reminds us of the centrality of the observer in systems. His thesis epitomizes the human side of science (Collen, 1997; Mitroff, 1983). It is the human researcher making the observations, interpretations, judgments, numbering, and valuating as to what becomes ordered and what actions and words seem necessary to create, validate, and maintain order. It may be there is no necessary and required order. The human being (the observer, inquirer) imposes hierarchy on reality as it is experienced. Further, the human inquirer reflects upon experience to interpret the order of things. Such impositions impart meaning to control, as well as, enable us in part to comprehend, understand, and explain our reality. In other words, our descriptions of reality partly consist of documenting the ways we establish, impose, maintain, and communicate order. We must bring Figure 5 of the introductory chapter into this chapter, to stress that the underlying philosophical assumptions of researchers influence greatly the praxis of their inquiries. The epistemology, methodology, ontology, and axiology of inquiry are inherently hierarchical. In classical forms of human inquiry, researchers tend to emphasize most the epistemological, then the methodological, less the ontological, and least the axiological. This hierarchy is not surprising. The inquirer is chiefly devoted to knowing the subject of study, the phenomenon. Having a means to this end forces some attention to research procedures. To

Hierarchy and Control 101

make accommodations in research procedures when necessary over the course of inquiry usually requires reflection upon what one is doing in inquiry. And finally, awareness and questioning of research procedures can make more evident our assumptions and values that are influencing the conduct of inquiry. More recently, this hierarchy may be reordered, according to the arena of inquiry in which the researcher has primary affiliation (Collen, 1995b). Whether the researcher per se or the human beings comprising the human activity system studied, we must acknowledge the human side of systemic change. Attempts to study and influence systemic change impact on those involved. Logic and rationality cannot entirely satisfy scientific quests to account for systemic change. Human intention, imagination, and idiosyncratic interest defy control, even though much can be known and communicated by means of the regularities of habit and convention. As we perceive and experience our reality, our ability to predict it is limited. Expecting to predict and control are illusory as space and time dimensions magnify our point of reference; note Figure 2 in the introductory chapter. Predicting much of human action remains analogous to weather forecasting. General regional to global patterns are easier to see and map over brief time periods by means of technology systems (weather satellites). Predictability rapidly diminishes as future projections increase. Severe stable macro conditions make it easier to predict local conditions. Otherwise, local patterns appear ever changing under high flux conditions. Micro conditions cannot be taken to represent macro conditions. Predictability is even more limited regarding the lives of human beings in organizations. Forecasting remains a field in its infancy, until methodological advances are made to incorporate longer time periods meaningfully into its projections (Linstone, 1997). The state of affairs clarifies a boundedness characterizing the human condition (Figure 2). Imposition of order seems to be one chief means we have to close the gap between what is and what

102 Systemic Change

we perceive and experience everything in spacetime to be. Imposition of order creates hierarchy. By means of technological extensions of ourselves, these impositions also enable us to perceive and comprehend levels more macro and micro than ourselves. Obviously, this is a very active process of the researcher and not the passive stereotype of an indifferent aloof scientist — a most unfortunate and misguided image. We act on our world, while it acts on us. Our boundedness is sobering. It is not to be perceived as a barrier. Boundedness sharpens our capacities to learn from our past and design our future. In our present condition, hierarchy seems to be one principal means we have of bringing control to human affairs. Our focus on systemic change, therefore, moves us to look for what is changing system-wide in regard to hierarchy. Systemic changes may forecast changes in hierarchy and control in our human organizations. We may pay special attention specifically to changes in personnel and established practices. Alternatively, systemic changes following openly imposed measures of control may be tracked by mapping changes in hierarchy within and among the human activity systems involved. We may pay special attention to the consequences of specific changes in stated policy and procedures.

5. Control and Hierarchy in Human Inquiry The five processes to hierarchy may be considered in the context of the space and time of conducting research. The many decisions researchers make create hierarchy and impose control. Researchers are very imaginative in conceptualizing hierarchies to select the more to less valid instruments, utilize the more to less efficient data processing procedures, and weigh various interpretations of the findings. In many cases of hierarchy by accretion, earlier phases of a research program influence later phases and increasingly deter-

Hierarchy and Control 103

mine its course. Programmatic research involves a series of many investigations over many years devoted to one general aim. Accretion can be taken as a measure of progress. Such a case can be explaining the etiology of a disease, refining a new manufacturing process, developing a new commercial product, and determining the effectiveness of a treatment. In cases of hierarchy through state transformation and metamorphosis, the research proposed, executed, and reported may not in many respects be the same. A particularly striking example between the execution of research process and final written report occurs in some forms of ethnography. The time spent in the field may involve years before serious writing begins. Further, the time spent writing the report may involve years after leaving the field. The book length document, also called an ethnography, is the product of the process but is not necessarily reflective and informative about research process leading up to it. The written ethnography is tantamount to a state transformation from the ethnography lived in the field. This is not a point of critique or weakness about ethnography, but merely part of the ontology inherent in this research tradition. A similar point may be made to a degree about every research tradition for human inquiry. To connect the schemes concerning hierarchy and control serves to integrate the contents of this chapter and make it more palpable for applications. The five processes to hierarchy can be crossed with the five forms of control to create a matrix of possibilities (Table 5). This taxonomy provides a theoretical base to analyze and classify into one or more combinations each communication (email, letter, document). Once the set of communications were classified, the specific integrative pattern of hierarchy and communication control could be seen in the subject organization. The resultant pattern would indicate the combinations present, absent, frequent, infrequent, dominant, concentrated, and scattered. Analytical use of the matrix for this purpose represents the

104 Systemic Change

macro level approach to the integration of hierarchy and control. The micro level approach involves studying the contents of any particular communication to classify its content. The resultant pattern informs us about that particular communication. The two approaches are complementary. A sample of the organization's communications (macro) as well as key and pivotal communications (micro) may be analyzed. Corroboration and triangulation among communications and approaches bring more systemicity to this methodology. Table 5 Hierarchy-control matrix of 25 possibilities for the study of communication in human organizations

Although the structure of the hierarchy serves to control the flow of communication in the human organization to a large degree, human beings are very inventive in circumventing prescribed paths, regardless of the structural restrictions. Two of a set of possibilities can serve to illustrate the situation of three coworkers in line order of authority and responsibility (Figure 11). Person 1 is the superordinate, Person 3 is the subordinate, and Person 2 is between Persons 1 and 3 in the hierarchy. In the first instance (Figure 1 la), Person 1 discloses something about Person 2 to Person 3, and later Person 3 gives feedback to Person 2,

Hierarchy and Control 105

unknown to Person 1, something about what Person 1 said. If you are Person 3, this case is the instance of your supervisor's supervisor saying something to you about your supervisor, and later you tell your supervisor what was said without his supervisor knowing that. This scenario is not a rarity, and it is always a possibility in human relations. Figure 11 Two cases of three way communication in human organizations

A second illustration may be drawn that is quite similar, whereby the roles of Persons 1 and 3 are reversed (Figure 1 Ib). Person 3 discloses something about Person 2 to Person 1, who later communicates the nature of this information to Person 2. Again, if you are Person 3, this case is the instance of telling something about your supervisor to that person's supervisor without your supervisor knowing it. Later, the higher supervisor informs your supervisor the gist of what you said without you knowing it. Once again for better or worse, it happens more often in human organizations than we care to admit.

106 Systemic Change

Both these illustrations assume the communications take place on separate occasions. Meaning, availability, accessibility, and retrievability of the information bear directly on the nature of the communications among the three persons. Since the power associated with each position is unequal, the impact of the communications likely effect the three persons differently. Specifically, top-down (superior-to-subordinate) communications are typically taken with greater seriousness than bottom-up (subordinate-to-superordinate) communications. There are many variations of such examples to discuss, but suffice it to state that as the number of nodes separating communicators in the hierarchy increase, the level of control becomes more indirect, remote, and difficult. The distance or remoteness idea between two nodes (positions) in human bureaucracy appears to have relevance not only hierarchically (vertically), but also heterarchically (horizontally) in the organization. While applications of hierarchy usually concentrate on order of the subject matter, in regard to knowledge and theory of human organizations, it is less common to point out that there are applications critical to the nature of doing research itself. This emphasis may be highlighted in general terms as "methodological steps" for scientific research (Kalaidjieva, 1991). Researchers apply the concept of hierarchy to research practice, for example, in analysis, processing conceptual relations, proving mathematical relations, establishing object orders, modeling, and theory building. If we examine the process of formulating, conducting, and presenting a research study, the rich illustrations of hierarchy become promptly evident. Human inquiry tends to follow a cyclical process (Collen, 1995b), discussed in a later chapter on research process. The phases along the way involve praxiological decision making. In hindsight, the researcher transits to the next phase, looking back to realize each previous phase involved a hierarchy of choices.

Hierarchy and Control 107

Overall, the process of inquiry is a hierarchically ordered sequence of phases that allows for innovation and reordering according to the research tradition followed. Some examples of hierarchy in the research cycle are a) posing a set of specific research hypotheses from a general research question, b) constructing a methodology from method components, c) employing an a priori category scheme for data collection and processing, d) executing a set of rules that define the procedure to analyze observations, e) consuming resources in the execution of the research plan, f) organizing the display of the findings, g) synthesizing the findings into a contribution to knowledge and theory, and h) explicating in a logical and rational manner the interpretation, argumentation, and critique of the findings. These illustrations also serve as impositions of control by the researcher on the conduct of inquiry, a notion strongly conveyed in the choice of adjective in the phrase "disciplined inquiry." Thus, it is in this fashion that hierarchy and control converge in the study of systemic change through praxis and inquiry.

6. Some Implications Convergence of the constructs control and hierarchy are hardly novel in the systems sciences. There is a wide range of very different combined treatments of them in human organizations (p. ex Beer, 1982; Nelson, 1990; Saaty, 1980; Simon, 1969). The hierarchy-control matrix shown in Table 5 can be tested empirically. Macro level approaches to examine the complexities of human organizations (Beer, 1982; Miller, 1978) guide researchers to systematic collection of data relevant to hierarchy and control. A systemic methodology can provide different perspectives or lens (Flood and Jackson, 1991). Hierarchy and control can be approached by means of a processing systems

108 Systemic Change

methodology (Collen, 1996a), multiple perspectives (Linstone, 1995), and mapping strategic assumptions (Mason and Mitroff, 1981). Human organizations consume large amounts of money, time, and resources annually trying to address problems of communication. To apply combinations of hierarchy and control shown in Table 5 to the problem focus represents yet another methodological avenue. This means stands in contrast to those cited previously, with the exception of Collen (1996a), in that this latter approach tends to be initially micro in its analysis of communication systems and finally macro to integrate patterns. Any given set of elements in interaction may be perceived by those who comprise the system as a subsystem of their human organization. Specifically, divisions, departments, offices, task forces, committees, work teams, and conferences are examples of such subsystems. Subsystems may vary tremendously in their fluidity in space and time, and in their correspondence to established and enduring structural entities of the human organization. At any time, newer aggregations may be solidified and older ones dissipated. Complexity has a multitude of possible definitions (Flood and Carson, 1988). It may be defined in terms of numbers and types of hierarchical levels, nodes, connections, forms of communication control, and forms of hierarchy (both formal and informal). The fluidity of systemic change in hierarchy and communication control adds much complexity to the study of human organizations. The quick appearance and disappearance of supersystems and subsystems relative to our location in the organization may be considered hyperstructures and hypostructures, respectively, in the sense described by Baas (1993). Hyperstructures bring about increasing complexity. Hyperstructuring leads to the emergence of hierarchy and paradoxically, an apparent support for self organizing and reorganizing processes. Ironically, we are often

Hierarchy and Control 109

compelled to complexify our activities more hypostructurally in response and adaptation to the apparent hyperstructure. The study of hyperstructure linkages among the elements of an organization may be a productive research focus that yields insights into the convergence of hierarchy and control in human organizations. Three possible directions for future research may prove helpful. First, the study of hyperstructures in terms of the existing human communication subsystems may provide cases of the 25 possibilities in Table 5. Second, linkage propositions may be formulated to test the relevance of systems theory regarding isomorphic relations postulated between one level of hierarchical organization and another. This research focus extends across various interacting human organizations each having their own hierarchical arrangement, even though these linkages need not be as ambitious and transdisciplinary in scope, as described by Troncale (1993). Third, the notion of hyperstructure as an emergent phenomenon from human observation and perception in the context of human organizations may be considered an application of abduction, as described by Minati and Collen (1997). Research centering on the human observer, and the observation of hyperstructures in organization settings will likely yield valuable insights into hierarchy and control processes and their cross connections. Despite an insufficient critical perspective, growing diversity, and absence of evaluation of well known hierarchies in the systems theory (Wilby, 1994), convergence of the two constructs shows promise in understanding several areas of application to real world problems of sustainability. The key to our understanding seems to lie in an effective balance between hierarchies emergent through complexification of human collective activities and the control of them through modulating regulatory agencies. Particularly clarifying is a synopsis of this balance and reference to numerous applications (Espejo and Stewart, 1998), in which we find a human organization to be a hierarchical "unfolding of

110 Systemic Change

complexity" embedded within hierarchical levels of local, regional, and global environments, each with their own regulatory authorities. The challenge for humanity is to allow all levels of organization some degree of autonomy to operate in self interest to survive, and at the same time, operate for the common good within their organizations and indirectly to society, but without producing to levels detrimental to both. These systemic and sociocybernetic relationships exemplify the interplay between hierarchy and control. The glimpse of the grand picture we obtain for any given human activity system, considering its hierarchical and heterarchical interdependencies with other systems, is a complex nexus of relations. There are seemingly an infinite number of such foci comprising the web and weavings we call human society. We are at once struck by its awesomeness and ominous potentiality. It is to systems methodology that we turn for direction to enable us to comprehend its complexities.

7. Summary There are numerous ways human beings communicate hierarchy. Likewise, there are numerous ways to control the exchange of information and knowledge. The five forms of control described and illustrated are meaning, availability, accessibility, retrievability, and applicability. The five processes to hierarchy described and illustrated are differentiation, accretion, decomposition, state transformation, and metamorphosis. Crossing the forms taken by the two constructs produces a matrix of manifestations that suggests a rich array of expressions to study in human organizations. The scheme also opens the door to a methodological approach to micro level study of their interactions. The human researcher, as both observer and actor, is key to those interactions relevant to bringing about systemic change.

Hierarchy and Control 111

Various systemic methodologies for level inquiry can complement those for macro level inquiry. Building upon change as a systemic idea, human inquiry that is systemic, and the relevance of hierarchy and control in systemic change, the next chapter examines the place of disciplinarity in systemic change.

8. Activities and Exercises 1. Pick a recent situation or event that happened to you involving confusion, surprise, unexpected action, or misunderstanding. Make this situation or event the focus for doing a research study pertinent to control in human communication. State this focus in terms of the set of questions in Table 4. Propose a research study to answer the questions. 2. Reflect upon some aspect of your life to see if you can describe the hierarchies implicit in your relationships with others. For this activity, you can also use objects or ideas instead of persons. Categorize these hierarchies in terms of the scheme shown in Figure 10. Discuss reasons for your categorization in each case. 3. Does imposing order create hierarchy? Argue for and against this assertion. Provide examples of hierarchies in favor and disfavor to support your positions. Which side of the argument do you favor. Give your reasons for your final position on the issue. 4. Apply the scheme shown in Figure 10 to your place of employment. Find an illustration of each process to hierarchy. Describe these hierarchies and your reasons for classifying them as such.

112 Systemic Change

5. Using a published research report, highlight several implicit hierarchies that the researcher(s) likely used to make various critical decisions necessary to conduct the inquiry? Describe the choices you imagine were available to make each decision. In each case, imagine the researcher(s) ordering the choices on some basis (p. ex cost, time, personnel) to decide which choice was the better one for the inquiry. State what you imagine was the basis for the decision in each case. If another choice had been taken, do you believe the research would have been strengthened or weakened? Provide reasons for your position. 6. Select from 3 to 5 of the 25 possibilities shown in Table 5 that are of greatest interest to you. Imagine examples of the combinations in the communications among persons of an organization familiar to you. Be skeptical about whether these combinations actually exist. What could you do to investigate whether they in fact do exist? 7. Applying the matrix (Table 5) to the study of culture of an organization, assess the kinds of communications that work as best practices and worst practices. At first this task may appear daunting and too abstract, so it is productive to focus on only one combination in the matrix at a time. Define it with illustrative examples. Work your way around the matrix until several combinations have been examined. Attention to one combination at a time is micro level work. It is through this process that you are later rewarded by discovering the macro level pattern in the matrix.

Disciplinarity

1. Introduction Disciplinarity may be conceptualized in terms of forms and phases of human activity to seek, develop, produce, and change knowledge. It takes four principal forms: singular, multiple, interrelational, and boundary-breaking pursuits. However, it is as much process as it is form. The inquirer may prefer to view disciplinarity as phases of an ongoing pursuit for knowledge within a circumscribed subject domain, also known as a discipline and knowledge domain. Discipline is used here as synonymous with field of study and area of knowing, expertise, competence, and practice. In this chapter, the forms of disciplinarity are described, based on the discussions in Gianfranco Minati and Arne Collen (1997) and Collen (2002). The scheme is extended to include the overarching form that brings the inquirer full circle in the process of disciplinary thinking to begin the cycle anew. The scheme is more extensively examined as a conceptual system that serves those engaging in the study as well as the action of bringing about systemic change. In this regard, we may take this process also as demonstrative of systemic thinking. Finally, it is a dynamic process, in which human beings reflect and communicate with each other to come to know their shared human activity system.

114 Systemic Change

Similar to the other key constructs discussed in previous chapters, disciplinarity is a conscious, creative, decision-oriented, dynamic, meaningful, and productive activity of the inquirer. Disciplinarity may be introduced in three respects: i) the content domain; ii) the praxis of inquiry; and iii) the credibility of the research method, executed procedures and inquirer's actions. Essentially, disciplinarity entails the study of a subject domain through applications of clear rules and procedures. These rules and procedures are the acts that map the territory. Subject domains have their discovers, pioneers, settlers, creators, developers, innovators, maintainers, changers, critics, designers, and renovators. The rules and procedures utilized for research purposes comprise much of the methodology of the discipline. Their consistent and intended application is what is meant by the phrase disciplined inquiry (Collen, 1995b). In almost all forms of research interviewing, for example, conversation just does not ramble. There is a form or template, known as an interview protocol, used by the researcher to guide the course of the interview. This protocol has a structure, decipherable format, organization, and sequence of questions to be asked. It is designed intentionally to maximize the collection of information that has direct relevance to the purpose of the research. The methodical use of the interview protocol is an example of disciplined inquiry. It lends credence to characterizing the research approach as scientific. In this manner, researchers build validity into their work and credibility with peers. If we are to do scientific research, then our peers, funding agencies, participants, and consumers want to know researchers are serious and the research will be done competently. Disciplined nature of inquiry is one chief means researchers have to establish their credibility. To maintain this trust they receive from others means to use wisely the resources, time, funds, and persons in the conduct of inquiry.

Disciplinarity 115

The purpose of this chapter is to add disciplinarity to those constructs already discussed in regard to systemic change through praxis and inquiry. First, disciplinarity is further defined. Second, there is a synopsis of forms from Minati and Collen (1997). A fifth form is introduced. Next, the five forms are compared, contrasted, and integrated into a more wholistic conceptual system. Finally, disciplinarity is brought into relation with human activity systems, human inquiry, systemic method, control, and hierarchy in the pursuit of systemic change.

2. What is Disciplinarity? Various subject matter specialty areas provide the narrower definitions of the construct. In contrast, broadened meanings are found in the meta sciences, under such phrases as the cognitive arts, cognitive sciences, sciences of the artificial, sciences of complexity, design sciences, and systems sciences. After following some denotative transitions from discipline to disciplinary to disciplinarity, we examine a contemporary view among the forms of disciplinarity. To paraphrase The Compact Oxford English Dictionary (1991, p. 442): Where discipline points to specific instruction, practice, and exercise of that which one is learning (and has learned), such as a lesson or teaching, it can also mean a particular course or branch of knowledge, instruction, education, art, and science. Typically, it suggests a known direction for a particular course of action, such that the inquirer (learner, disciple) acquires the appropriate, proper, and correct course of action, namely the training effect (trained condition) of experience, having carried out the lesson or teaching. In regard to systemic change, discipline may be defined as "a system or method for the maintenance of order" or "a system of rules" for the conduct of inquiry, practice, and training. Hence,

116 Systemic Change

we may refer once again to the phrase "disciplined inquiry" and note the connection of this construct to hierarchy and control discussed in the previous chapter. However, it must be stressed that discipline and disciplinarity are not to be construed in terms of inflexibility — an unfortunate misunderstanding of the construct in the context of human inquiry. Discipline and disciplinarity are compatible with other concepts and principles of not only research methodology, but also systems theory. Disciplined inquiry works to foster an openness in systems thinking to enable the advancement of knowledge and betterment of one's skill of the discipline. We may receive the popular view that discipline leads to rigidity. In fact, the opposite is the intended result in applications of disciplined inquiry to systemic change. Disciplined inquiry, for example, enables researchers to use and communicate to other researchers a sufficiency of specific rules and procedures to further the inquiry in cases of collaborative team research and to prompt others to initiate their own replications. Discipline is taken to be a necessary and advantageous condition for scientific and methodological advancement. This view is clearly in opposition to those who would imply discipline is a straight-jacketlike or militaristic-like activity. Suffice it to state that the practice of discipline importantly positions the inquirer to a) repeat the work of other researchers, b) demonstrate repeatedly the stability of findings, c) determine delimitations (the boundedness of generalization), and d) notice (and subsequently explore) anomalous and serendipitous events during the course of inquiry. There is one remaining and equally popular definition of discipline. To quote the previously cited dictionary, discipline is "the correction, chastisement, or punishment inflicted by way of training." This definition reiterates the misunderstanding discussed above, when it is applied to human oriented research and systemic change.

Disciplinarity 117

Based upon the description of discipline, we may extend the meanings to state that disciplinarity is being in the state or condition of a discipline, or manifesting the characteristics of a discipline. What might those states and characteristics be?

3. Forms of Disciplinarity Disciplinarity involves our attributions of conceptual divisions upon our observation, experience, and discussion of phenomena. Our specific categories, extensive taxonomies, and grand schema organize and group that which we study. At the same time, they place boundaries that separate, albeit artificially, many of the linkages we revisit to integrate what we come to know — after we acquire more knowledge about what we observe. In other words, the analytical activity of science is complemented and accompanied by synthesizing activity. Nevertheless, the boundaries we impose come to be known by their focus, that is, the discipline and knowledge domain. One or more perspectives may be influential in the domain. For illustrative purposes, we may point to the biological, cultural, economic, physical, political, psychological, social, and spiritual. The presence of multiple perspectives means potential for the discipline to become more systemic and eventually be transformed beyond its state of disciplinarity. The scheme to follow is one way of looking at disciplined inquiry in our pursuit of systemic change through praxis and inquiry. The five forms to be discussed are: mono, multi, inter, trans, and meta. This five-fold scheme is not to exhaust the possibilities. The subject matter domain includes terms like cross and pluri, to be found for example in Francois (1997) and the Internet Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential. But these latter terms are not emphasized for reasons that shall become clearer in explicating the scheme.

118 Systemic Change

Mono

As researchers come to know one focus (perspective, domain, position), there is great temptation to specialize in that focus, gain confidence and comfort in this knowing, and resist foraging into neighboring fields. To cross disciplinary boundaries may complicate and jeopardize what we know after considerable investment of time and resources. Researchers become established and affiliated with the focus. This form and solidification process of disciplinarity is known as monodisciplinarity. The resultant expertise of course is to be valued as long as it remains uncompromised by ideology and methodolatry. Monodisciplinarians work with fragmented knowledge attained through effective pursuit strategies associated with its subject domain. Scientists have repeatedly proven themselves to operate effectively by the process of separating, dividing, and specializing in a knowledge domain. The observables, pedagogy, research methods, research strategies, and theory of a discipline tend to be relatively homogeneous, compared to other disciplines. They provide the characteristics that distinguish the discipline from other disciplines. Descriptions of phenomena and organizations of them (taxonomies) tend to be widely shared among those affiliated with the subject matter domain of the discipline. In the pursuit of knowledge of a relatively sparsely explored domain, this initial phase makes a great deal of sense, for without the establishment of the various disciplines, there is little reason for researchers to have what is necessary to advance knowledge from a clear point of reference. In other words, it is important to know the status of the discipline to make a contribution to it and its transformation to another form of disciplinarity. To picture the prevalence of monodisciplinarity is to comprehend the internal activities of each discipline, operating in parallel with other disciplines. There is little if any commun-

Disciplinarity 119

icating and and sharing of knowledge among inquirers. These solo pursuits are metaphorically like a room full of persons at their workstations. They keep to themselves. When the need to communicate with another person does arise, it happens only with one whose discipline is common to both inquirers. From the study of local phenomena to globalizing trends, human inquiry is less likely to fulfill its aims through only one discipline. Researchers have to cross knowledge domains. A solitary discipline is increasingly insufficient to transcend what is known. A particular research focus benefits from the convergence of multiple perspectives and knowledge domains. These realizations compel us to advance our thinking beyond monodisciplinarity. Multi One means to transcend the restraints of monodisciplinarity is to gather together a set of experts representing their disciplines to examine a particular phenomenon or problem. The unilateral look and contribution of each representative conveys the process known as multidisciplinarity. The result is a knowledge product considered more a collection of positions, views, and expositions — the nature of a roundtable and cafeteria-like display of what is known about the focus — than an integrated presentation of the domains. This is the general manifestation of multidisciplinarity, and nothing more. At some stage, this bibliographic and encyclopedic form of disciplinarity has an important place as a depository and resource of knowledge as understood by those representatives at that time in human history. Where multidisciplinary collaboration tends to be of some value in providing a broadened and deepened range of the contributions brought to bear by the participating parties, the products tend to be limited in moving the process toward more integrative work. Such integration considers the complexification

120 Systemic Change

and systemicity of phenomena and problems across the participating knowledge domains. In this form of disciplinary we can imagine symposia, conferences, and consultations convening to solicit the views of the experts. Anthologies, proceedings, and edited books of readings make available to others the range of views on the focus of study. Achieved through these collective activities, we evidence aggregations of the sciences by means of the following descriptors: artificial, behavioral, biological, cognitive, computer, design, earth, human, life, management, physical, political, social, space, and systems. As an ongoing endeavor, each aggregation takes the form of a multidiscipline, for example, the earth sciences. In regard to multidisciplinarity in the human organization, we can apply the metaphor of the room full of active workstations. The users work autonomously but share access to the same institutional archives, databases, and web sites. Each worker contributes and receives information to and from these sources, respectively. Further, as a human resource, each worker has membership in various aggregations with other workers to perform specified collective tasks. It follows that each organizational entity, be it a task force, committee, department, or work team, is inherently multidisciplinary. However, for the same reasons evident in monodisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity is severely limited. Participating disciplines need not manifest systemicity to enable its participants to research its focus and perform its tasks collectively. Here the terms multi and pluri are applied interchangeably to mean the simultaneous use of a set of relatively autonomous disciplines to address a focus, interest, problem, and issue, without requisites imposed for the linkage, synthesis, and integration of knowledge. Pluridisciplinarity may mean the employment of a plurality of researchers and their research methods, some of which may be stock-and-trade of a discipline

Disciplinarity 121

outside the researcher's affiliated discipline. Finer distinctions among terms of disciplinarity may be found in Francois (1997). To conclude this form of disciplinarity, there is no mandate to restrict and define multidisciplinarity according to any of the following criteria: a) centricity (the requirement of a centralizing discipline), b) classification (systematic description and taxonomic aggregation of phenomena), c) formalization (extensive concretization of rules and procedures), d) method (infusion of methodology from one discipline into another), and e) theory (presence of a falsifiable body of propositions, axioms, and laws). The community of those who acknowledge the multidiscipline may use any set of them to articulate the characteristics that communicate their definition of it. Inter

When the representatives of disciplines truly communicate with mutual respect and learning, there can be attained a form of disciplinarity well beyond separate and parallel contacts. Inquirers come to view their interests, issues, problems, questions, answers, and solutions with common concern and the seeds of genuine collaboration germinate. Colonizing and condescending attitudes of researchers in a discipline give way to the recognition there is value in multiple perspectives. Recognition is given also to the need for diversity of expertise to advance the disciplines a step toward integration of the knowledge of all participating disciplines. The delineation of common interest and the contribution from difference become accepted and important characteristics of interdisciplinariry. Imagine a Venn type diagram of overlapping geometrical figures, in which each one represents a discipline. All figures overlap, showing a common core. Yet areas in common also occur by overlap of neighboring disciplines. A very simplified illustration of this principle is shown in Figure 12, commonly used to

122 Systemic Change

conceptualize any three of the human oriented sciences (disciplines). Although this portrayal represents anthropology, psychology, and sociology, it could just as well involve any three, as well as, add other sciences with more figures, or select sets that might include archeology, geography, economics, and political science. This approach to representation generates a richer picture as the number of participating disciplines increases. Figure 12 An example of interdisciplinarity in human oriented sciences

Any such set can suggest a range of possibilities for collaboration. Interdisciplinarity involves combinations of two or more individual disciplines. It can readily be anticipated that through exposure and collaboration with researchers from other disciplines, researchers naturally move in their way of thinking and working together from multi to interdisciplinarity. What is particularly important for studying and bringing about systemic change through human inquiry in this form of disciplinarity is that the set of disciplines be directly relevant to the focus of the change. Further, at various phases of the research, the disciplines are to contribute and be advantageously used to promote the inquiry. These characteristics are essential to exercise in researching systemic change. The methodology is to be both interdisciplinary and systemic.

Disciplinarity 123

An outstanding example of interdisciplinarity is the specialty focus known as psychoneuroimmunology. More informed considerations of many human maladies may benefit from the experts and what is known in biology, chemistry, cytology, epidemiology, endocrinology, hematology, neurology, and psychology that pertains to a particular human condition. This pursuit is inclusive of other relevant interdisciplines like biochemistry, neurochemistry, and neuropsychology. Interdisciplinarity begins with a particular tie or bridge that connects two disciplines. They may join through infusion of one into the study of the other, or from symbiotic benefits of synthesizing aspects of subject matter, that may also entail additional disciplines. There are many cases where specific aspects of knowledge domains fuse (p. ex, astrophysics, biochemistry, ecopsychology, and sociobiology. Psychohistory is also one case in point, where psychology contributes theoretical organizing frameworks, such as Freudian theory, and the emphasis on personhood to view historical accounts. History is a rich discipline in its own right with many related disciplines that can contribute to it. Psychohistory reaps additional benefits when infused with cartography, economics, political science, and sociology. Researchers are able to weave a richer collective tapestry of any human event, movement, and trend than could otherwise be conveyed solely through classical approaches found in the disciplines of psychology or history. The potentialities of interdisciplinarity beckon researchers to draw from a multiplicity of relevant disciplines to innovate research methodology. To follow further the workstation metaphor, interdisciplinarity means a higher level of interaction among work-stations than multidiciplinarity. These interactions create additional layers of organization memory devoted to collaboration and synthesis of their activities. Electronic trails provide evidence to study and evaluate the generativity of information and knowledge products.

124 Systemic Change

Trans As interrelations among disciplines become more evident and intricate, it necessitates the realization that the complexification compels us toward transdisciplinarity. At this point, we draw upon cybernetic and systemic constructs. They become paramount in rendering added meaning to our study of systemic change. Our inquiry applies such constructs as positive and negative feedback loops, the co-evolving nature of a discipline with its context (other disciplines), and the embeddedness of a discipline in regard to its subdisciplines and interrelations with adjacent, sister, and superordinate disciplines. Like interdisciplinarians, transdisciplinary researchers foster a common language, usable knowledge among disciplines, and shared methodologies. But their aims are loftier. They endeavor to include systemicity in methodology to study the complexity of the focus of inquiry. In distinction from the previous forms described, transdisciplinarity opens the pursuit through inquiry beyond any limiting factor, problem, and theory within and between specific disciplines. Researchers confining themselves to other forms of disciplinarity cannot achieve these ends. It is instructive at this juncture to note the use of crossdisciplinarity as a construct. It is sometimes used to distinguish the basic form (mono) and the more complex form (trans) from the intermediate forms (multi, pluri, and inter). The prefix "cross" implies a breaking through, transgressing, and sometimes bridging disciplinary boundaries. However, it does not inform us about what happens and what is accomplished when researchers go beyond the confines of particular disciplines. This prefix is not used in the present scheme, because of the ambiguity of meanings among the intermediate forms. Although the phenomenon of crossing disciplinary boundaries is an important and often courageous professional undertaking — a focus itself worthy of study — cross-disciplinarity may refer to any of the

Disciplinarity 125

intermediate forms. Consequentially, it is of limited value in exploring the progression of forms as a conceptual system. In their transdisciplinarity, researchers germinate an integrated body of knowledge through their teamwork applying their affiliated disciplines. It may be difficult to imagine such a body of knowledge from earlier forms of disciplinarity because of the absence of participation from key disciplines. Each core discipline has essential parts of the puzzle to contribute and until the pieces are present, the new whole has little chance of being achieved. From the integrating of a new body of transdisciplinary knowledge, systemicity is an emergent property. It can be described in the complexiflcation of the disciplines when integration occurs. The challenge is to construct and apply a systemic methodology that makes these points evident. Despite the wholistic bias inherent in transdisciplinarity, the individual participating disciplines remain somewhat autonomous until sufficient coherence of the new knowledge overshadows its contributing disciplines. This autonomy is evidenced through all forms of disciplinarity covered to this point in the pursuit of knowledge until we reach the last form of disciplinarity. Meta The last form of disciplinarity to be discussed is metadisciplinarity. The boundaries distinguishing disciplines dissolve to a degree in inter and transdisciplinarity, but they become more than meaningless, in fact nonexistent, at the meta level. Having attained metadisciplinarity, researchers work collaboratively and collectively with the interwoven qualities of the blended disciplines. They make the pursuit of knowledge more than tangibly transdisciplinary. In short, the extended integration suggests a superordinate and emergent monodisciplinarity of higher order complexity.

126 Systemic Change

Gregory Bateson (1979) is widely recognized for his reach to encourage and model metadisciplinarity. More recent acknowledgement of Bateson's influence is given by Tyler Folk (1995), who points out that "a metapattern is a pattern so wide-flung that it appears throughout the spectrum of reality ... a pattern of patterns . . ." (pp. viii-ix). Metadisciplinarians seek to synthesize, integrate, and convey the holism of a body of knowledge, whose saliency may be characterized and thematized in terms of its metapatterns. By way of another illustration, at some point in its development as a magnet for researchers, many will argue that psychoneuroimmunology is no longer a nexus of disciplines best depicted as interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary in character. Consensus will favor the knowledge domain to stand on its own. In other words, it has matured from its parent disciplines to become a metadiscipline. Though the psychoneuroimmunology example may be debated at this time, it serves to illustrate nicely the process of disciplinarity emphasized in this chapter, whereby newly integrated aggregations of the sciences can occur. There is no absolute mandate that an established taxonomy of the sciences be maintained. As our knowledge changes, our organizations of it may change too. Knowledge domains are conceptual systems in relation to one another. Systemic change is just as applicable to knowledge systems as it is to human activity systems. On another horizon, we may take a similar view to discuss metadisciplinarity, regarding those disciplines contributing to the study of consciousness. Such a cluster of disciplines appears to be undergoing the progression described in this chapter. There are other collectives among the sciences and various fields of study progressing toward metadisciplinarity, such as the cognitive sciences, earth sciences, human sciences, and space sciences. These collectives serve to illustrate further some likely future candidates for metadisciplinarity.

Disciplinarity 127

4. Integration The five forms of disciplinarity covered in the previous section may be summarized by means of a table and two figures. Each summary sets the stage for the discussion of presence and use of disciplinarity in human inquiry for systemic change. Table 6 compares the forms of disciplinarity in two important respects. We can see a progression toward more systemicity and increasing complexity, as inquiry is formulated and exercised from monodisciplinarity to multidisciplinarity, to inter-disciplinarity, and finally to transdisciplinarity. The symbols in the systemicity column of the table indicate whether perspectivism is inherently present (+) and absent (-) in inquiry. The numbers in the complexity column convey only relative order, not precise amount, regarding complexification from one form to the next. Table 6 Select properties distinguishing forms of disciplinarity Disciplinaritv Mono Multi

Relation Within Among

Inter Trans Meta

Between Beyond Above

Systemicity + + +

Complexity 0 1 2 3 4

Figure 13 is a general schematic of disciplinarity as a conceptual system. We can move among the forms to study any given focus (interest, phenomenon, problem). The trend in the pursuit of knowledge today is a progression of disciplinarity from mono to multi and/or inter, and then to trans. Metadisciplinarity represents a culminating state for the process ideally to begin all over again. Knowledge systems continue to emerge, be revisited, revised, interface, and reformulated.

128 Systemic Change

Figure 13 Disciplinarity as a conceptual system

Metadisciplinarity is the four forms of disciplinarity, taken as whole. The relations among the forms are relevant to working with them as a whole system. It is important to emphasis that as tempting as it may seem, the scheme does not unfold as a simple linear phase progression that enables an accounting of the conceptual system. Figure 14 depicts the progression over the five forms as an unfolding of nested manifestations, in which each emergent form encompasses earlier forms. There is not a replacement of one form by another, but a development that is advancing. Thus, researchers have more choices for inquiry. The progression allows researchers to regress to, or draw advantage from an earlier form, while continuing to progress to higher order and more challenging complex forms of disciplinarity. Metadisciplinarity encompasses all forms and may be seen as a higher order, more complex, reintegrated, and advanced form of monodisciplinarity. Finally, it is equally important to view Figures 13 and 14 as a conceptual system of complementary forms. In systemic applications of methodology, researchers can move among the forms to reap the greatest benefits from all contributing disciplines in the praxis of inquiry. Each discipline makes avail-

Disciplinarity 129

able to inquiry its perspectives, research methods, theory, expertise, experience, and practices (Collen, 1994), such that a system-wide comprehension becomes attainable, than would otherwise be the case. Figure 14 The embeddedness of disciplinarity

5. Discussion When we speak of the meta level, there is scantly much left but historical vestige to regress to anything mono, multi, inter, and trans. We might think of meta as a higher order emergent synthesis — a super monodisciplinarity. In human history there is both the proliferation of specializations as well as the turn toward unification. While there is certainly the continued necessity for specialists, as knowledge domains mushroom beyond the comprehension of a single human being, there is a concomitant and complementary need for generalists to synthesize in parallel fashion the proliferating knowledge domains. Various processes to hierarchy discussed in the previous chapter exemplify this proliferation.

130 Systemic Change

Complexification (Casti, 1994) brings both differentiation within as well as unification beyond given disciplines. Although a cyclic process has been suggested earlier when examined transitionally, the growth of the disciplines is really a spiral-like process when viewed historically. Both volume and density of the body of information and knowledge expands, even though paradoxically, the horizons become clearer of how much we do not yet know. To design a system able to act on the processes of knowledge production is to design an inquiry system. The history of science may be viewed in this fashion. C. Wes Churchman (1971) provides an informative and useful description of such a sequence of paradigmatic systems for inquiry, that is to say, broadly conceived research traditions in the history of Western science. Although granted the phrase "inquiring system" does convey an enlivened connotation — used to stress the dynamics and process of the search for knowledge — appearances of the phrases "disciplined inquiry," "inquiry system," and "system of inquiry" are not intended to diminish that vitality. In addition, Churchman contributes an important perspective to his history of inquiry systems by reminding us that our design and use of them must take into account future generations, else we fail to include fully the ethics of our pursuit. We may speculate that with further globalization of information and knowledge, there will be a general enhancement of disciplinarity in all its forms. For example, the Internet is making it rapidly possible for an unprecedented proportion of humanity to develop more personalized forms of monodisciplinarity that transcend physical limitations and traditional disciplines. The mutual presence formerly required between inquirers (coresearchers, mentor and apprentice) may be less necessary in coming generations, even though established traditions will be heavily used nevertheless. Given a preliminary focus, researchers can draw upon the global network of archives, experts, and

Disciplinarity 131

related sources to cull, define, circumscribe, situate, contextualize, critique, evaluate, synthesize, theorize, and apply their focus. It is from these research-oriented activities that the disciplinarity of the inquirer emerges. Once established, researchers can offer their domain and expertise to others. With our fellow inquirers, we can engage in research contributing to an emergent metadisciplinarity. It is from these more collective pursuits that metadisciplinarity can emerge by way of knowledge communities and cultures largely denuded of classical university degree labels and department boundaries. To research local to globalizing trends, we will work with peers who are experts affiliated with disciplines defined in terms of knowledge domains pertinent to the trend under study, rather than prescribed territories defined within established sciences, professions, and universities.

6. Summary Disciplinarity is a key construct in human inquiry devoted to systemic change. Five forms of disciplinarity are described. They tend to follow a sequence toward increasing systemicity and complexity. This development is advantageous to the application of research methodology to study, describe, understand, explain, and bring about systemic change. It is in the disciplines and their combined forms that we find the research methods and practices. Collaborations among those expert and engaged in disciplined inquiry in particular knowledge domains better position us to engage systemic change through praxis and inquiry

7. Activities and Exercises

1. What is disciplinarity in your chosen field of interest, occupation, or profession? Compare your definition with that

132 Systemic Change

given in this chapter. Describe the relevance of disciplinary to understand and work with systemic change in your work context. 2. Apply the forms of disciplinarity discussed in the chapter to a problem you are attempting to solve in your place of work or life circumstances. What form of disciplinarity do you find most applicable and why? 3. Which form of disciplinarity seems to be the more compatible with your way of thinking about various problems and issues in your life? Describe your approach to disciplinarity and whether your approach may be a way to work with systemic change. 4. Select a topic focus or problem area for research. Pinpoint a research question to guide your inquiry. Drawing upon the forms of disciplinarity described in this chapter, envision a research team. Describe your proposed research that will make use of the talents, expertise, experience, research methods, and knowledge that each member of the team brings to the inquiry. Although doable as a solo exercise, this activity is often more effective when exercised in a group context, where each member represents a different knowledge domain, area of expertise, or profession. 5. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of adopting a particular disciplinary position. This activity may be best exercised by focusing on an issue of personal interest. What does it mean to adopt a monodisciplinary stance on the issue? What happens to one's point of view when one moves to a multidisciplinary stance on the issue? Continue this line of activity through the other forms of disciplinarity.

Es of Praxiology in Inquiry

1. Introduction Although reading the writings of praxiologists can readily convey the abstract and theoretical, the many practical examples about daily life found in Kotarbinski (1965) amply illuminate the relevance of praxiology to the concrete and behavioral. The more pragmatic aspects of human inquiry are expressed in the praxiological. Researchers take account of anticipated procedures of execution and take note of the consequential best and worst practices. The economy of inquiry becomes paramount, as does its efficiency, effectiveness, and efficacy. The ethics of inquiry and its evaluability pose more complex challenges. These constructs contribute importantly to the education of the researcher and others affiliated and affected by the process of inquiry. All of these key constructs provide a mnemonic — the letter "E." This chapter concentrates on the Es in conducting human inquiry directed toward systemic change.

2. From Set to System The practical side of classical praxiology rests essentially on Kotarbinskian explications of efficiency, effectiveness, and ef-

134 Systemic Change

ficacy, even though he spent considerable text expounding also on economy and evaluation of action (Kotarbinski, 1965). Their interaction is implicit in the earlier writings of many praxioiogists (Gasparski, 1996). The interaction of efficiency and effectiveness, the two inceptive Es, brings about and defines efficacy (Collen, 1993), although this view is only one among several. There is the converse derivation (Popa, 1992), efficacy as the centerpiece of the set (Kotarbihski, 2002), and their treatment in terms of economic values (Gasparski, 2002). Nevertheless, selecting from the set, delimitation of praxiological applications to this E and that E on any subject is immediately evident. For illustrative purposes only, we may point to Mlicki (1996) or Rudniahski (1980). Marek Mlicki provides an exemplar of the perspective we might expect of the praxiologist's contribution to the study of a particular phenomenon. He examines the effectiveness and efficiency of collective action in the context of solving a social dilemma. He accomplishes his contribution essentially through discussion of an established body of empirical and theoretical literature in social psychology, known as the Prisoner's Dilemma. Since the researcher looks at the phenomenon through a particular lens, in this case an E of praxiology, certain sides of the phenomenon may become more apparent that, in turn, prompt new questions for inquiry not yet addressed in the knowledge domain. In this case, such a question may be: In this kind of cooperative-competitive situation, specifically the Prisoner's Dilemma, which pattern of human interaction is the most and least efficient solution? The same kind of question may be asked through the lens of effectiveness. Efficacy has come into the foreground of research since the latter half of the twentieth century. In the United States, for example, sectors of society dealing with the health and welfare of consumers are preoccupied with accountability. The matter especially pertains to professions dependent on Pharmaceuticals, invasive surgical procedures, and therapies. Professionals are

Es of Praxiology in Inquiry 135

increasingly subject to social and legal pressures to show evidence of any claim that their products, services, and treatments hold the power of amelioration and cure; that is to say, they are efficacious in their application. This idea also has relevance to the use of human beings for research purposes, as evidenced by the proliferation of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) charged with the responsibility to scrutinize research proposals for adverse impact of their research procedures on human participants. Accompanying efficacy and ethicality, there is an increased concern for the economy of human inquiry for systemic change in business, education, government, and research institutions in the United States. The concern is not only financial (costs and expenses of human inquiry), but also interactive. With growing recognition, we realize the Es of praxiology often interact to complexify the issues, such as cost effectiveness, return on investment, ecological impact, and wastefulness. Given the broadening contexts of application for human inquiry and contemporary local to globalizing trends, praxiology can be expanded and strengthened beyond its historical origins. One such expansion is through complexification. Blatant extension of the set of Es, the elements of praxiology expounded by Kotarbinski (1965, 2002), to an interactive system is a recent development. The 1990s evidenced complexification of the scheme in terms of the "Es of praxiology" (Collen, 1993, 1999b) and the "triple E of praxiology" (Gasparski and Ryan, 1996). The latter volume emphasized ethics (ethicality) in applications of praxiology to business settings, and it introduced education as an E in addition to the triple E of efficiency, effectiveness, and ethics. The former sources reconceptualized the set in terms of a conceptual system, emphasizing the interactivity among the Es and derivative (emergent) Es from its complexification. Accepted as well as potential Es become relevant in its applications, for example, ethical judgment. The system of Es is to include not only those explicated by Kotar-

136 Systemic Change

binski, specifically efficiency, effectiveness, efficacy, economy, and evaluation, but also derived Es, such as educability, ethicality, evaluability, and executability. In addition, as Editor-in-Chief of this book series, Wojciech Gasparski's Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology is a major contribution to the expansion of praxiology beyond its historical base by his invitation to others to explore interactions of the Es in various knowledge domains, such as economics, systems design, learning, and business. To this point are Volume 1 (Auspitz et al., 1992), Volume 3 (Collen and Gasparski (1995), Volumes 4 and 6 (Gasparski et al., 1996; Gasparski and Botham, 1998), and Volumes 5 and 8 (Gasparski and Ryan, 1996; Ryan et al, 2000), respectively. Given the contributions cited above, as a conceptual system, the Es have a place in research methodology to comprehend the complexity and systemicity necessary to engage in human inquiry for systemic change. After defining the Es in the next section, we move to place them in the context of inquiry.

3. The Es Defined Table 7 shows an extended base for the Es of praxiology. The table does have a particular order. The initial two entries form the classical foundation. Immediate extensions comprise the next three entries, and the last four entries consist of further extensions. The "E" has no remarkable significance intended beyond the fact that in English all the concepts begin with the same letter. Though an impoverished mnemonic to be sure, the value should be obvious. It gives us a convenient handle to discuss and apply the set to any application of human inquiry. In defining and discussing the Es, we seek a parsimony in this endeavor with an eye on pragmatics for human inquiry.

Es of Praxiology in Inquiry 137 Table 7 The Es of praxiology* EFFECTIVENESS: The quality of being in regard to concern for the production of some event or condition; the power of acting upon persons or objects; that portion of an agency or force which is actually brought to bear on a particular person or object; the completion or result of an action. EFFICIENCY: The fact of being an operative agent or efficient cause; fitness or power to accomplish the purpose intended; adequate power; effectiveness; efficacy; the work done by a force in operating a group or machine, the total energy expended, the ratio of useful work performed to the total energy expended. EFFICACY: Having the power or capacity to produce effects; power to effect the person or object intended. ETHICALITY: Having the qualities, behaviors, or principles concerned with the science of morals, rules of conduct recognized in certain associations or departments of human life, and science of law, whether civil, political or international. ECONOMY: Careful management of resources so as to make them go as far as possible; frugality, thrift; the structure, arrangement, or proportion of parts of any product of human design; the organization, internal constitution, or apportionment of functions of any complex unity. EDUCABILITY: The potential, capacity, or readiness to be nourished, brought up, lead forth, or given systematic instruction in preparation for the work of life. EXECUTABILITY: The potential, capacity, or readiness to be followed out into effect, carried out, or performed. EVALUABILITY: The potential, capacity, or readiness to be appraised, estimated, or valued. EXPENDABILITY: The potential, capacity, or readiness to be normally consumed in use; able to consider not worthy of being preserved or salvaged. *Definitions of terms adapted from The Compact Oxford English Dictionary (1991). Second edition. New York: Oxford University Press.

138 Systemic Change

Economy in the scheme refers to its general and wholistic meanings, rather than strictly to the "coinage of the realm." In this sense, economy has much overlap with parsimony as a scientific ideal. Also, it overlaps semantically with efficiency and effectiveness, in that economy can imply a kind of cost effectiveness. The central importance of economy in praxiology is better traced through its relation to economics (Mises, 1966; Auspitz et al., 1993; Gasparski, 1996). Educability acknowledges the importance brought to education by Wojciech Gasparski and Leo Ryan (1996). Certain use of the term education in reference to the training and instruction of the next generation of praxiologists is intended. The root of education stems from the idea of rearing and bringing up the young. The "care of the young" has special import. Combined with a related root word of education, namely "leading forth," educability means guidance in a supportive fashion. Particularly powerful in this regard are two images: i) the mother with arms suspended to provide assistance as necessary to her toddler who is taking first steps to walk, and i) the apprentice performing under the kind eye and gentle hand of the master. The semantic comparisons and contrasts among the Es can be just as confusing as distinguishing. It behooves us therefore to define the Es carefully, when applied to a particular case of human inquiry. The potentialities (educability, executability, evaluability, expendability) are intended to capture conceptually more than can be implicated in any single action discussed in terms of its efficiency, effectiveness, efficacy, ethicality, and economy. Educability stresses whether and to what extent human inquiry for systemic change can be nourished and developed in the inquirer. Executability indicates whether and to what extent the human inquiry posed is doable. In this sense, executability is synonymous with feasibility. Evaluability emphasizes in what regard and to what degree the inquirer attributes value to actions

Es of Praxiology in Inquiry 139

comprising the process of human inquiry. Expendability is largely the antonym of evaluability. The former has been included because of concern for the ecological impact and resource wastefulness of inquiry for systemic change. Finally, evaluability is more than the opposite of expendability. It entails the challenges in human inquiry to evaluate what one is doing to bring about systemic change through praxis and inquiry. Evaluation necessitates feedback of confirmatory evidence the course of inquiry is doing what it is supposed to do. We presume in evaluation that what may be taken to be of value and expendable can be known, and that the course of inquiry taken will be ameliorative. Evaluators proceed to make these determinations through inquiry. Some concepts overlap in both denotative and connotative meanings; specifically, effectiveness and efficacy. Like effectiveness is to effectuality, effortability is semantically so close to effectiveness and efficacy, we may question the necessity of having a place for it in the conceptual system of Es. On the one hand, we want to avoid unnecessarily any tendency to "split hairs." On the other hand, we want comprehensive coverage to ensure the scheme may prove itself repeatedly worthy of application to as many forms of human inquiry possible. Of course, more Es can be named (such as effortability, effectuality, evaluableness, and expensiveness), but we must be careful that any complexification becomes an unwanted complication. The set discussed seems an optimal extension of the classical base. Table 7 represents a parsimony of Es. Using an agreed upon scheme of meanings for the Es may pose further challenges when taking into account the forms of disciplinarity discussed in the previous chapter. For example, "effort" is a foundational concept in the physical sciences and engineering. Its usage by a physicist and engineer may not exactly equate to its usage by a social and political scientist, even though the semantic reference to "power" provides an implicit linkage for transdisciplinary communication to occur. Imagine that the

140 Systemic Change

forceful impact of a steel ball against a concrete wall carries an analogous meaning to the forceful impact of a political campaign on the citizenry. Therefore in passing, it is central to include the point that linkage concepts like analogy, homology, isomorphy, and metaphor (Bateson, 1979; Bertalanffy, 1968, 1975; Ortony, 1993) importantly illuminate the potential for transdisciplinary applications of the Es of praxiology to human inquiry.

4. Praxiology and Human Inquiry The realization by researchers that there is a nest of constructs to be woven together to propose inquiry is a key insight into research process preliminary to the actual conduct of the inquiry. Presentation of the research proposal is to convince us that the work to be done has coherence and internal consistency. It has been thought out and carefully constructed in its research question, design and plan. A schematic display of key constructs relevant to the coherence expected, taken from Collen (1993), is shown in Figure 15. To manifest coherence, the research proposal requires definition and description of each construct, as well as the network of relations among them. If the proposed inquiry is to be understood and justified in the use of human beings for research purposes, it must be coherent. The research questions posed must be researchable. The research procedures designed and implemented must follow from the questions posed and generate data that will answer them. The data processing procedures used must produce findings relevant to answering the questions. The clarity of each research question in its relations with the other constructs is the nexus critical to establishing the internal validity of the investigation. But coherence and internal consistency are not enough. Further, the research has to have cogency, plausibility, and ethi-

Es of Praxiology in Inquiry 141

cality. These additional criteria of an acceptable research proposal push researchers into the territory of praxiology. Figure 15 The conceptual net of internal consistency

DATA PROCESSING

Let us shift for the moment to another another kind of posing and answering questions. The kinds of questions that connect human inquiry with praxiology do concern the details required to propose, fund, execute, and report inquiry. These questions are not the research questions, but those involving decisions the researcher must make to move the network (Figure 15) into research process. Articulating the network for inquiry engages the

142 Systemic Change

researcher in two forms of praxiology. There are anticipatory and preparatory actions (Gasparski, 1987, 1996; Kotarbinski, 1965). Anticipatory actions are involved in creating the research proposal. It communicates the network in written form to others. This is to be distinguished from the actions of actually implementing the proposal. Implementation involves first order praxiology and proposing reflects second order praxiology. They are akin to first and second order cybernetics (Foerster, 1984), respectively. In some research traditions, such as ethnography, both first and second order actions dissolve (Collen, 1995c). For all practical purposes, the distinction is academic to the experienced ethnographer. These activities involve praxiological decisions that translate the conceptual net of internal consistency into a multitude of specific actions. It must be emphasized again the center of decision making activities is always the research questions posed. Keeping their questions as their focus, researchers make each decision at the practical level. Decisions are necessitated by the use of resources, justifications for inquiry, ethical use of human participants, and the ecological impact of inquiry. With each decision, researchers also ask: Is the coherence of inquiry strengthened or compromised? If the response is favorable, the conceptual net becomes increasingly coherent in a manner moving toward valid answers to the questions posed. If unfavorable, the net is weakened, and establishing internal validity in the conduct of inquiry becomes more difficult. Given the definitions of Table 7, we can illustrate the kinds of questions of a praxiological bent that are of great usefulness to researchers in making the many decisions necessary to operationalize inquiry. This praxiological kind of question applies the Es to the writing of research proposals and the conduct of research process. Answering these questions also tends to increase researcher sensitivity to ecological, economic, and ethical concerns. Table 8 lists the Es with one exemplary question.

Es of Praxiology in Inquiry 143

Table 8 Questions that connect the Es of praxiology to human inquiry EFFICIENCY: Which research procedure will bring the most data relevant to the research question asked? EFFECTIVENESS: Who manifests the phenomenon to be studied? EFFICACY: Which research procedure has the greatest effect? ETHICALITY: Which clauses are essential to obtain the informed consent of the research participant? ECONOMY: Given the number of participants expected, what quantities of materials and supplies are needed to complete data collection? EDUCABILITY: What instructions are to be given to participants and training to research assistants? EXECUTABILITY: Can the research be done with the resources available within the time frame planned? EVALUAB1LITY: What is the criterion measure against which human performance is to be assessed? EXPENDABILITY: To what extent will execution of the research procedure deplete a vital resource of the participant?

These questions are intended to give inquirers clear directions for anchoring their research in the praxiological aspects of inquiry. Note that each E applied to inquiry generates a family of related questions idiosyncratic to the research study. For example, take the E of expendability. Researchers can ask several related questions to apply this E. Are there vital resources that can be depleted in using this research procedure? If so, what are they? What rates of depletion are likely in the research proposed? Can improvements be made to lessen them without jeopardizing the validity of the research? Expendability may necessitate awareness of several vital resources that may be altered in carrying out the research. These secondary effects of research point to the

144 Systemic Change

unintended and often unanticipated consequences of doing research with human beings. We may ask what the consequences are likely to be. Further, researchers can examine the answers to the questions about an E of praxiology, such as these expendability questions, in relation to those generated about other Es, for example, efficacy. Expendability that is a detriment to the participant will likely impact on the economy, ethicality, and evaluability of proposed research. In other words, what may be considered from one E will probably have a bearing on other Es. Each E is an entry point into the conceptual system that is the Es of praxiology.

5. Summary From its beginnings, praxiology stems from matters of economy, efficiency, effectiveness, efficacy, and evaluation. Over the course of the twentieth century, particularly in North America, interests have expanded from these foundational Es to the set of constructs shown in Table 7. Though praxiology as a name label did not take hold as such in the twentieth century in North America, other rubrics, such as human factors, management science, operations research, and systems engineering are phrases that have gained usage. It is in these domains that we may find attention given to select Es of praxiology. However, it should be clear that there is no intention throughout this book to equate and use these phrases synonymously with praxiology. When applied to human inquiry, this conceptual system affords researchers an important infusion of Es into the process of inquiry. The Es are critical to numerous decisions that researchers make to propose and engage in inquiry. The Es form a nexus of methodological interrelations, a conceptual system, that is of great potential value to researchers. The conceptual system brings a means for researchers to provide accountability and validity in disciplined inquiry.

Es of Praxiology in Inquiry 145

Given the Es of praxiology, in the next chapter we look at the philosophical backgrounds that influence researchers in their praxiological decision making and conduct of inquiry.

6. Activities and Exercises 1. Examine a published report of research for the presence of the Es of praxiology. Which Es were considered? What definitions, if any, was given to these Es? What part was played by each E in the research reported? State these considerations in terms of likely praxiological kind of questions the researchers had to ask, even if implicitly, to propose and conduct the research. What did the researchers do to take these Es into consideration both before and over the course of their research? 2. Formulate more questions for each E shown in Table 8. Create a family of questions in each case to understand more fully the relevance of each E to human inquiry for systemic change. Point to the linkages that associate one E with another. This kind of overlap makes more visible the nexus of interrelations among the Es of praxiology. 3. Examine a research proposal in regard to the Es of praxiology. Apply questions, such as those shown in Table 8 and those generated in the previous activity to the proposed research. In what ways do such considerations press researchers to confirm, improve, and compromise their research proposed? For this proposal, describe one example of these three possible outcomes: a) confirmation, b) improvement, and c) compromise. 4. Are the Es of praxiology described in this chapter sufficient? Are their definitions sufficiently clear? Are there additional Es to be discovered and included in the conceptual scheme? Discuss the

146 Systemic Change

definitions, the semantic relations among them, and your views of the conceptual scheme. 5. Discuss the applicability of the conceptual scheme presented in this chapter to human inquiry for systemic change. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the scheme? Are there any applications that would benefit from its strengths? Briefly describe them. Are there any improvements to the scheme that would minimize its weaknesses? Briefly describe them. 6. Consider the system of Es as they could be applied to a human organization familiar to you. Which Es seem more important and less important in this context? Imagine asking the members of this organization their priorities as to which Es are of greatest value. We could then rank order the Es from the most to least important (valued). Perform this imaginary exercise for the organization in mind. What does the rank order imply in regard to doing research for systemic change in this organization? 7. Select one kind of systemic change of interest to you. Imagine doing a research study in a human organization familiar to you and undergoing this systemic change. Propose an inquiry that would incorporate the rank order of Es, described in the previous activity, into the research to facilitate and monitor this systemic change. As the principal investigator and active agent in this inquiry, describe what you imagine you would be doing to conduct the research, monitor, and facilitate systemic change.

Emergent Forms of Praxiology

1. Introduction At the abstract level, praxiology is a general methodology. At the concrete level, it is the study of research practices. Underlying general concepts and principles that comprise methodology as a knowledge domain, as well as the research practices that are its applications, are core assumptions and beliefs held by researchers associated with and influenced by praxiology. These underlying considerations are the ideas of philosophy. A range of philosophical positions may be taken on the base of the triangular foundation introduced and discussed in the introductory chapter. However, the landscape of philosophy is complex. This book is not a treatise on philosophy. Modest import is made in this chapter only to suggest the potentially fruitful course of study that may come from considering the convergence of two simple trichotomies that show the growing philosophical presence of praxiology in human inquiry. Given the definition of praxiology at its abstract and concrete levels, it is appropriate to turn to philosophies of science to find forms of praxiology. The first part of this chapter concentrates on space and time as key to understanding three orientations of researchers studying systemic change through praxis and inquiry. The second part of

148 Systemic Change

this chapter describes three forms of praxiology associated with the inquirer's assumptions and beliefs about human inquiry. The viewpoint taken is that the inquirer cannot be meaningfully separated from the process of inquiry and the practices exercised. Each part presents a scheme consisting of three inquiring systems (Churchman, 1971). For the third and closing part of the chapter, the philosophical landscape of praxiology is surveyed to provide a richer and deeper picture of praxiology as a family of paradigmatic forms.

2. A Form of Praxiology as Paradigmatic In examining Kotarbinski (1965) and his influence on subsequent generations of praxiologists (Alexandre and Gasparski, 2000), the importance of actions, anticipation as a form of action, and the consequences of acting will strike a familiar chord for North American researchers steeped in pragmatism (Dewey, 1938; Houser and Kloesel, 1992; James, 1975). We may take full advantage of the cross continental and transdisciplinary collaborations available to us now, suggestive in Ryan et al. (2002), that were inaccessible to Tadeusz Kotarbinski and William James. One such meeting ground is to focus on the Es discussed in the last chapter. The present chapter covers forms of praxiology, as manifest in the assumptions and beliefs held by researchers taking a praxiological view of human inquiry. To the lay person the literature of praxiology may appear largely philosophical and theoretical. However, researchers bring this content to life through praxis. The research practices become praxiological in human inquiry when the Es preoccupy the decision making of the inquirer. For example, researchers are concerned about the reliability and validity of their instruments. Common practice dictates that periodic calibrations are necessary to maintain the accuracy and precision of measurement.

Emergent Forms of Praxiology 149

Research methodology becomes less abstract when working with its concepts in applications at the most pragmatic of levels. The decisions researchers make to propose and conduct an inquiry serve as convenient markers. Metaphorically speaking, they are like foot prints in the sand of the research process. These markers inform us of the choices made. Equally important, there are multiple choices to propose research. Researchers use them in foresight to imagine, formulate, design, and plan inquiry. In hindsight, they prompt reflection back upon the course of inquiry taken. These markers also leave a cumulative record often useful for making mid-course corrections over the course of inquiry. Inquiry is much like a journey, in which the navigator has to steer the course charted with accommodation as necessary to the demands of traveling conditions. The various, often subtle, assumptions and beliefs of the researcher about human nature of inquiry influence the many decisions that chart research process. With sufficient consensus about research process, a way of doing research fosters formation of a research community, and a research tradition is born. It is common in the United States to find a word or phrase to serve as an identifying rubric for the research methods affiliated with a given research tradition, such as case study, epidemiology, ethnography, experiment, correlation, grounded theory, hermeneutics, oral history, observation, participatory action, phenomenology, and survey. The multi-variegated scene of research traditions should not surprise us. Each research tradition may differ in several important respects. For example, assumptions and beliefs about how to observe human beings determines in part whether it is best to collect data through remote viewing, passive observation, direct engagement in conversation, experimental manipulation and control, or collaborative group oriented activities (Collen, 1995a). It is in their paradigmatic domain that researchers come to think the way they do about doing research (Churchman, 1971;

150 Systemic Change

Kuhn, 1962). Research communities are the homes where others reside with whom researchers learn, collaborate, and receive intellectual nourishment for their beliefs. Research communities have direct influences on their decision making. The influence pervades the conduct of inquiry, because it is typically to their research communities that they will be reporting their research. Thus, it is to their research communities that they will defend their findings and use of method. Finally, researchers are intent on being participating members of their communities to influence others through their contributions. Importantly, a research tradition is not synonymous with a form of praxiology. By its definition given earlier in regard to human inquiry, praxiology is one kind of emphasis, most clearly understood by means of the Es, that may be exercised within a research tradition. There are many shared assumptions and beliefs that make a research tradition, which are not praxiology. What are the prominent spacetime orientations and arenas of human inquiry that may suggest to us emergent forms of praxiology? Our understanding of strengths and weaknesses that researchers bring to inquiry for systemic change can benefit from awareness of the emergent forms of praxiology. Researchers can hold radically different points of view about systemic change and human inquiry, even within a specific research tradition. Conversely, the familiarity with the forms may be crucial to choosing the better stance and case application of praxiology to human inquiry for systemic change.

3. Orientations to Space and Time The researcher's favored orientation (bias) to space and time provides one basis of study and understanding of differences among research methods. We may get an immediate grasp of three possible researcher orientations by a study of Figure 16. The left

Emergent Forms of Praxiology 151

side (a) indicates the dimension of time. The dimension is not to be divisible into past, present, and future. It is to be construed in terms of three ranges: Past to present, past to future, and present to future. To the right side (b), it is to be emphasized that researcher orientations may be examined individually and in relation to one another. At one extreme (top), the orientations are nested. At the other extreme (bottom), they are seen as separated. These conceptual matters will assist us in describing emergent forms of praxiology. Figure 16 Researcher orientations to space and time

WAS Present

Past

THERE and THEN

IS

Past

Future

HERE and NOW

WILL BE Present

Future

THERE and THEN a. Three emphasizes of the arrow of time

b. Nestedness and orthogonality of three forms

The influences shaping a researcher's orientation on applying praxiology in human inquiry suggest three forms from the time of Kotarbinski to the present: traditional praxiology, pragmatic praxiology, and design praxiology. Each form is a derivative of an earlier form, which accounts for their nested depiction in Figure

152 Systemic Change

17, even though each form may be considered separately, as indicative of the bottom portion of Figure 16b. Figure 17 Three forms of praxiology rooted in the researcher's orientation to space and time

Each form of praxiology may be described as a orientation toward space and time in the adoption of praxiology as a form of general methodology, as well as, a choice of specific research methods and practices. We may discuss the three forms in regard to its epistemology, ontology, and methodology, discussed in an earlier chapter; note Figure 5. Each form comprises a conceptual system held by researchers about decision making and research process. Each form influences importantly the attitude taken by researchers in directing human inquiry for systemic change. Nestedness in the figure is intended to express that earlier forms are enveloped by and largely give rise to more recent forms. The scheme of three orders of praxiology, shown in the figure, first appeared in the introductory chapter of Volume 3 of the

Emergent Forms of Praxiology 153

series Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy & Methodology (Collen and Gasparski, 1965, pp. xii-xiii) with the terms classical (orthodox) praxiology, modern praxiology, and design praxiology, respectively. The revised labels are thought to convey the forms more distinctly in regard to researcher orientation than the earlier publication. Finally, the scheme typifies the process of accretion (Figure 1 Ob) generating hierarchy, discussed in an earlier chapter. Traditional Praxiology Ideas of general action and activity seem to characterize the epistemology of this well known and enduring form of praxiology. The contribution of Kotarbinski (1965) best represents this form. Traditional praxiology involves the logical clarifications and articulation of relations among the Es of praxiology discussed in the previous chapter. For our purposes, we direct the discussion of praxiology to human inquiry in general and research practices in particular. For example, increasing the efficiency of action, increases the economy of action. Applied to research process, by conducting several pilot interviews, researchers test out the interview format, asking various kinds of questions in varying sequences. Thereby, additional interviewees may be engaged with increased competence, effectiveness, and efficiency. Epistemology conies into play, in that it is essential researchers know the Es in direct reference to the research interviewing, because the theory and knowledge of research interviewing may provide some guidance to exercise this specific research skill. Overall, the knowledge gained from this experience also may contribute to the researcher's praxiology as a general methodology, that is, what Kotarbinski (1965) called a methodology of sciences. The actions and activities of traditional praxiologists that constitute the Es of praxiology provide the methodology. In the above example, they are the techniques and procedures of re-

154 Systemic Change

search interviewing. Research interviewing is a recognized and widely chosen means of data collection in human inquiry. There are more than several established forms, each helping to define such research traditions as biography, case study, constant comparative method (grounded theory), ethnomethodology, ethnography, focus groups, hermeneutics, narrative inquiry, life story, oral history, and phenomenology. Ontology involves the experience and communication of action concepts in terms of the Es of praxiology. We can experience the Es in the course of inquiry, manifest in simplistic and often linear relationships between any two Es. Once again in our example, exercising a particular demeanor and style of research interviewing makes in part the human relationship over the course of the interview period. Researchers experience the following praxiological relation: Increasing the efficiency of action, increases the economy of action. Style, responsiveness, interpersonal guidance, and prompting are all key to efficient and effective engagement in exercising interviewing skills. In the more scientific vain, traditional praxiology is exemplified in actions required to test and explicate theory and model building stemming from what we can learn about the Es of praxiology applied to a particular problem focus. Underlying this form is the philosophical stance that researchers can profit from inquiry breaking the phenomenon down into parts in order to comprehend how it works and partake in its process. The study of systemic change is to be partitioned and each part of it thoroughly and carefully examined. This scientific enterprise of conceptual splitting (analysis) is expressed in applications of the Es of praxiology in human inquiry. We can directly experience the traditional form of praxiology in the detailed question asking (Table 8) and praxiological decision making discussed in the previous chapter. Traditional praxiology gives us the base of understanding for the relevance of the Es to human inquiry and systemic change. It

Emergent Forms of Praxiology 155

is from this form of praxiology that subsequent forms have been derived. Pragmatic Praxiology As an expansion transcending the traditional subject domains of a general methodology of sciences, the second form of praxiology concerns the explication of the Es as consequential. This form of praxiology also places more emphasis on anticipatory and preparatory acts that enable the main course of action to take place. These second order actions (anticipations and consequences) were also included in the classical description of praxiology (Kotarbinski, 1965), but here they are the primary interest. They are also at the root of growing interests in the intersection of praxiology and pragmatism (Ryan et al., 2002). Second order praxiology extends the experience of the researcher to an ontology that takes from the immediate future to conceive the present considerably in terms of preparatory acts and anticipated consequences. The preparations necessary to set up and expend resources for a survey research project, for example, engage researchers in preliminary planning and decision making relevant to the conduct of the survey to come. But preparations are not in themselves, the actual execution of the survey. Researchers anticipate higher yields of data by the inclusion of a stamped envelop with a return address for participants to enclose and mail back their completed survey. Obviously, attention to the Es of praxiology heavily influences these decisions and research activities. Coupled with the experience of doing, the knowledge gained contributes importantly to our epistemology — what we can know about what happens as a result of our actions. The flow of inquiry from our preparations to execution of research procedures to the consequences of our actions provides a more dynamic process oriented conception of inquiry to characterize this form of

156 Systemic Change

praxiology. Where pragmatic praxiology focuses on the dynamic qualities of human inquiry, traditional praxiology focuses on the structural aspects of inquiry. The underlying philosophical view that distinguishes the two forms parallels that between structuralism and functionalism, prevalent for example in the history and systems of psychology (Marx and Hillix, 1963). The former is a lens to view the world principally as entities, shapes, and concrete forms. In contrast, the latter is a lens to see the world as interactions and changes among the entities seen through the former lens. The research process may be described as an enduring repetitious cycle or spiral of phases, each one of which involves practical decisions having important consequences for subsequent phases of inquiry. This conception and its underlying assumptions aptly convey one core belief of a pragmatic praxiology. As an aspect of an epistemology for proposing, conducting, and evaluating human inquiry, this conception easily becomes a cybernetic and systemic model for these purposes. Although more discussion of this model for inquiry appears in a later chapter on research process, it serves to illustrate the epistemological side of pragmatic praxiology. The third base of pragmatic praxiology is methodology. The use of technical procedures with action plans involve researchers in activities making decisions from among multiple choices. Each decision is a very pragmatic one. This form of praxiology is exemplified in extending the specification of rules and procedures intended to govern specific actions to rules and procedures more anticipatory. Once again, primary emphasis is given to the Es of praxiology. There are several means available to conduct a survey, namely by mail, email, web, telephone, and in-person. Each one has specific advantages and disadvantages. Which choice of surveying researchers select will depend on comparing the choices in regard to their efficiency, economy, effectiveness, efficacy, and evaluability.

Emergent Forms of Praxiology 157

More than other forms, pragmatic praxiology takes into account decision making, organizing, prioritizing, planning, and consequences of action. This form is not to minimize traditional and design praxiology, but to the contrary, it further develops the analytical activities of the traditional form and provides the practical experience precursory to design activities. Pragmatic praxiologists give more attention to preparatory and consequential actions. Although the pragmatic appears to dominate, the confluence of analysis, structure and dynamic process brings to human inquiry for systemic change a more wholistic, integrative, and comprehensive effort. In this form of praxiology we are drawn to study and describe change processes, sociocybernetics, and system dynamics of human activity. Design Praxiology The epistemology, ontology, and methodology of design have become the most recent form of praxiology. Design praxiology takes earlier forms to yet another order of activity. Design activities take full advantage of what we know of the Es of praxiology as they are applied to possible future scenarios that may better our world. Design is a forward thinking activity. It involves our conceptualization of something we would like to see, have, or do now, but it does not now exist. We have to imagine its creation as a future activity, action, thing, or state. Given our image of it, we can then go about directing our activities to create this imagined entity. At the material level, for example, every object of our civilized existence has at one epoch in time gone through its design. The things we use daily are continually undergoing improvements (Basalla, 1988), that is to say, redesign, while the design aspects of most present day things are largely ignored (Collen, 1995c). We take for granted the design, the designerly process, its technological development, and the means of production that

158 Systemic Change

made the very existence of the artifact possible. In fact, we remain largely ignorant of these aspects for much of our civilized environment, because this knowledge has become less necessary to survive in an industrialized and consumer based society. It is only when something breaks down that we take a particular interest in the design aspects. There is much we can know from modeling and simulation research (Casti, 1997). Advances in computer and communication technologies allow us to play out in an innovative and unobtrusive fashion may possible scenarios without suffering the consequences of our mistakes in reality. Through simulations we can make errors, vicariously experience the consequences, and practice perfecting our actions. As a result, systemic changes in the design of things and processes that impact on human beings may be made prior to their actual existence. It may be comforting for travelers to know that a newly designed aircraft has gone through hours of testing in various kinds of simulators and its pilot trained for hours in a flight simulator before servicing commercial passengers. This example illustrates that design is not restricted to the material level (designing aircraft). It also pertains to actions and activities (pilot training). Regarding systemic change through praxis and inquiry, the Es are applied to improve the design of human inquiry. The epistemology of design praxiology builds upon its precursory forms to extend them to the imagined and envisioned. In the conduct of research, for example, the development of an instrument allows several equivalent forms to be created and tested virtually with pilot participants before the final version is made for mass usage. Another example is various paths of data processing that may be efficiently explored and compared by means of computer software before settling upon the avenue that most informatively addresses the research question posed. To some extent, simulation experiences contribute to an ontology of design praxiology. Virtuality has the verisimilitude of

Emergent Forms of Praxiology 159

reality. Researchers experience a reality-like dimension of potential research paths that define the course of a research study. We are reminded of general systems theory discussed by Bertalanffy (1968), in which various initial conditions lead to numerous paths to a desired end. Equipotentiality is juxtapositioned with equifinality in the study of systems through design praxiology. From preliminary engagement in the possible scenarios, by such exercises as simulation, rehearsal, and role playing, researchers gain valuable experience they can apply to the actual conduct of the inquiry in the future. By putting into practice what is known about the Es, as well as weighing various potential courses a given inquiry may take as a result of having made E-based decisions, researchers propose and conduct more skillfully the inquiry intended. This third basis represents the methodology of design praxiology. The potential for design praxiology can be seen in such systems methodologies as search conferencing (Weisbord, 1992), soft systems methodology (Checkland 1989), and social systems design (Banathy, 1991), to the extent that they be slanted to planning and designing activities that engage the participants in the Es of praxiology for systemic change. The underlying philosophical influence is teleological, in that there is a core belief in the ability of human beings to reshape, reinvent, and recreate themselves and their worlds through contemporary activities of design. Present objects and human activities are redesigned in light of imagined future systems. Science fiction is to become science fact. Although the pull of the future on present endeavors is as old as human civilization itself, in the third form of praxiology, it becomes the central preoccupying force. The Es of praxiology become prime considerations in future studies, modeling and simulation research, and redesign activities in action oriented inquiry. The Es are central, for example, in research that will determine future extraterrestrial living conditions to be erected for human beings in orbiting space

160 Systemic Change

stations and habitats on the moon and mars. They are equally central to maintaining our intraterrestrial conditions regarding future life-extending nano-devices and chemical elixirs inhabiting our bodily tissues and fluids. Inspirations for such forms stem from those whose philosophic underpinnings promote redesign (p. ex chapters in Collen and Gasparski, 1995, by Banathy, Collen, Finkelstein and Finkelstein, Warfield, and Wise). In short, designing visionary forms for action and activity, stemming from the Es of praxiology, becomes the preoccupation of designing systems for human betterment. Exemplifications of design praxiology are in the activities and actions of those involved in designing the future, followed by their acting upon those designs to bring them into reality.

4. Arenas of Human Inquiry The general process of paradigmatic development is most often depicted in terms of distinguishable arenas or domains of inquiry, discussed in several sources (e.g. Burrell and Morgen, 1979; Collen, 1995a; Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Lakatos and Musgrave, 1970; Mitroff and Killman (1978; Oliga, 1988; Reason and Rowan, 1981; Trierweiler and Strieker, 1998). There is no exact correspondence among these sources, but all appear to delineate, compare, and contrast three to four research paradigms, that are philosophically communities of researchers who share similar aims, assumptions, beliefs, and practices about doing research. Despite the polemics of those who profess that research paradigms are irreconcilable and incommensurable (p. ex Guba and Lincoln, 1994), this author is aligned with those who emphasize relationship, systemicity, and accretion (p. ex Jackson, 1991; Lewis and Grimes, 1999; Schultz and Hatch, 1996). It is unnecessary to replace or discard one arena for another to advance research methodology for human inquiry and systemic change. It

Emergent Forms of Praxiology 161

is importance for each generation of researchers to learn and value the distinguishing characteristics, aims, uses, strengths, weaknesses, and contributions of each domain. Ideological warfare among researchers from different paradigmatic arenas is an unproductive and denigrating exercise in futility. As the praxiological aspects of inquiry are brought into the foreground, the methodological forms of praxiology are more evident. There are three emergent forms that correspond to the three arenas of inquiry delineated by the author elsewhere (Collen, 1993, 1995a, 1995b). The three praxiologies may be termed classical, interpretive, and critical (Figure 18). Each form has its slant on epistemology, ontology, and methodology. Figure 18 Three forms of praxiology according to arenas of human inquiry

The view favored across the chapters of this book is systemic. Newer paradigmatic forms emerge from earlier ones to augment, amplify, better, and complement the earlier forms. Later forms usually attempt to encompass earlier forms. Polemical rejection

162 Systemic Change

of earlier forms may appear necessary initially, but only to differentiate newer developments from established forms. Sooner or later, there comes an acceptance and mutual respect of the differentiation occurring to advance research methodology. Again, reference may be made to processes described in an earlier chapter on generating hierarchy. The complexification of arenas, to a range of forms and hybrids, is the history of research methodology in the twentieth century (Collen, 1993). When we express a paradigmatic arena in terms praxiological, such as the Es of praxiology, we find three corresponding manifestations (Figure 18). This portion of the chapter is to make the correspondence of the forms of praxiology more explicit as research paradigms for human inquiry. Classical Praxiology The most established form is represented in the original works of its founder, Kotarbinski (1965). Much stated under traditional praxiology could just as well be stated here, though classical praxiology need not be confined entirely to analysis and an orientation from the past to the present. There is much to be credited to synthesizing activities that yield aphoristic-like statements crisply expressing a relationship between two Es of praxiology. True to Kotarbihskian style, such statements are usually accompanied by succinct anecdotes typical of everyday life situations. Provocatively, they illustrate the point. In a more contemporary context one example may serve to convey this form. It comes from our daily observations of rapid transit systems. This daily phenomenon in many cities of the globe is rather miraculous, when we begin to appreciate the system of human movement achieved. It is largely taken for granted. Whether researcher or commuter, we see persons waiting in lines at subway stations each day of the work week. We notice the places along the platform they stand and in the train cars or

Emergent Forms of Praxiology 163

wagons they sit. We observe them enter and exit the wagons. The proximities among persons vary. We note where persons stand to grab seat handles and ceiling bars. Certain factors complexify the situation, such as the frequency of trains, the number of wagons per train, the number of persons at various times of the day, and the day of the week. Despite the complexity, a general relationship emerges that characterizes this human activity system in terms of its ongoing efficiency and effectiveness. We may infer after many sessions of observation that "persons distribute themselves as evenly as possible within the total space allotted." However, this generalization, though useful, like generalizations typically, requires boundedness. For example, fewer persons wait on the platform for the head and tail cars of the train creating the appearance of a Gaussian distribution of persons if we could see a plain platform from some distance above. This distribution parallels the crowding effect in the train from the front to back wagons respectively, though within each wagon persons distribute themselves as evenly as possible within that confined space. But even this generalization requires careful delimitation, because within that space, there appears more crowding at the doors of the wagon after all seats become occupied. To most persons on the platform the space may appear relatively open, compared to the wagon that awaits them upon boarding the train. This example of the daily subway train commute serves to illustrate the classical praxiological approach taken by means of traditional observational research method. It leads researchers to the axiomatic-like generalization with its qualifying sub-axiomatic statements. The details of human activity are important to know, because rapid transit must move large numbers of persons efficiently and effectively. The efficacy and economy of the system must be evident and sustained if it is to be utilized and supported by those who comprise it. Though the example serves to make the point, it is limited in fact; under certain circumstances, observations tend to refute the generalization. Therefore,

164 Systemic Change

it becomes key to learn through inquiry the boundedness (generalizability) of each axiomatic expression (generalization). Classical forms of methodology for human inquiry tend to favor means, such as an electronic device, a questionnaire, and a research interview, that can detect something about the system undergoing change, which truly characterizes that change. The results may contrast or verify the beliefs and opinions researchers may have about the change. Persons may share, confer, and differ in this regard. The instrumentation brings a source of veridicality to the detection and measurement of systemic change. In the illustration above, there is nothing unusual about a researcher using self as the instrument of research, but nowadays, researchers are just as likely to use surveillance and metering technologies available to sample with higher efficiency and economy the people on the train platforms. Classical praxiology becomes most relevant in its contributions to standardization, technology assessment, and measurements of human activity. Most traditional methods, namely correlational, experimental, observational, and survey research, would have an affinity for this form of praxiology. Clearly we can see hidden paradigmatic beliefs about doing research coming into play. In line with the commuter illustration, researchers seem positivistic in orientation, making observations of the rapid transit system through their extended sense systems as if the system studied and the methodology employed are autonomous entities from themselves. But we know research rarely explains human phenomena solely within this research paradigm, which leads us to consider its successor. Interpretive Praxiology In contrast to the classical stance, the interpretative one occurs when researchers lend great credence to the beliefs and perceptions of the research participants as they conceive and com-

Emergent Forms of Praxiology 165

municate their experiences of systemic change. It is not for researchers to impose their beliefs in terms of a priori category schemes upon the data collected from participants. The presumptions of researchers about the reality of the participants is kept to a minimum. The findings tend to emerge a posteriori from the data, making use of the language and categories of the participants as much as possible. In its most orthodox form, researchers holding the interpretist view, advocate that constructed meanings based on the participants' experiences furnish the primary and perhaps most valid path to the answers of all research questions posed for human inquiry. This approach includes what persons say as well as do. In interpretive praxiology, actions are just as important as words. In fact, words are usually construed as a form of action. The challenge is to interpret actions in terms of the participants' attributions and constructions of meanings. What persons think, feel, and do about their world of systemic change preoccupies the interests of interpretive praxiologists. An outstanding example of this interest is research focused on productivity with the personalized configuration of the desktop, allied software programs, internet service provider, and web links. Altogether they provide the core means thousands of persons have to participate effectively and efficiently at a competitive level of productivity in numerous businesses settings around the globe. This nexus might have a common standardized form, studied from the classical praxiological point of view, but it is the user that is the most important ingredient of this system from the viewpoint of interpretive praxiology. It is the user that must create the nexus that best enables productive participation. It is the user that sets the relative standards of assessment and evaluation, as there will be great individual differences among users. Several research traditions are imbued with the interpretive view, such as biography, case study, ethnography, hermeneutics, phenomenography, phenomenology, and psychohistory. It is in

166 Systemic Change

such traditions as these that this form of praxiology would likely be more evident. It is not so much that researchers in these traditions need reject the means of focus on research practices prevalent in the more classical form, as transcend them to allow methods which are more conducive to the interpretive side of human nature. They may leave other methods to play the more adjunctive role in their constructions of research methodology. Thus, we can expect in this form of praxiology that researchers would have greatest interest in contact through conversation with those undergoing systemic change. For example, to collect their perceptions, thoughts, feelings, and reflections on matters relevant to the systemic change under study would be preferred over remote observation and secondary records of activity. To return to the rapid transit illustration, the interpretive praxiologist would immediately think of research through conversing directly with commuters about their commuting experiences, preferences, and underlying reasons, some of which could be corroborated by remote observation. Critical Praxiology The third paradigmatic arena of human inquiry centers on the researcher's intention to liberate and emancipate human beings from limiting, misleading, and disadvantageous ideas, assumptions, and beliefs. It is surely presumptuous of researchers to bring about systemic change for others. But in this arena, researcher has come to mean agent, instrument, and facilitator of change in circumstances and situations where those constituting the system seek human betterment. Researchers are often members of the group seeking the improvements. The critical stance, consciousness raising, and social action research characterize this approach to human inquiry, termed critical praxiology. As seen in the other forms, the focus here too is on the Es of praxiology.

Emergent Forms of Praxiology 167

An example in which a critical praxiology is brought to bear on the conduct of human inquiry devoted to systemic change is the use of achievement tests in school settings. To introduce this kind of test and testing brings systemic change. Children, parents, teachers, administrators, district supervisors, and legislators are vested stakeholders in the success of education programs. The avenues of political and social influence among these constituents determine the success of the program. The voices of all parties are relevant and can be studied, from which researchers can apply the critical perspective (McLaren, 1998). For the critical praxiologist, the program evaluation might be oriented heavily on the use and abuse of achievement tests to evaluate children in the school setting. Researchers examine the Es of testing, but would also connect the Es of testing to impact on systemic change. Researchers would hold great interest in the children, parents, teachers, and other parties who come under the influence of testing. Certain kinds of tests may not be economical, efficient, and efficacious. Other kinds may be considered unethical when test interpretations become the chief basis for academic advancement. Moreover, there are typically issues of social control linked to administrators and distinct supervisors who make budgetary decisions, and to corporations developing and supplying the tests. The forms of communication control discussed in an earlier chapter (Table 4) are pertinent here. But the thrust of the research effort is to bring various issues to the surface for discussion and to have the results of inquiry contribute to making system-wide improvements. The secondary benefit is educational; it is to raise the awareness of those comprising the human organization to have a higher level of discernment regarding the cultural, economic, political, and social issues that effect everyone. Research methods modified and extended to include the critical perspective are the more common and dominant forms of inquiry most likely to comprise critical praxiology. The appearance of the

168 Systemic Change

term "critical" has helped to identify these forms, such as critical case study, critical ethnography, critical hermeneutics, and critical heuristics. It is from such choices that researchers might conduct the program evaluation noted above. Here, as in all such manifestations, the praxiology would focus on the impact of practices, in regard to their Es on human relations directed toward human betterment. This third form of praxiology does not sunset the other forms. To the contrary, it encompasses them. Various research traditions found in earlier paradigmatic arenas are refashioned in ways that enable the critical perspective to guide and enrich the research.

5. Convergence and Confluence of Forms The previous section discussed two conceptual schemes that catalyze the emergence of multiple forms of praxiology. One scheme reflects the spacetime orientation of the researcher, particularly in proposing research. The other scheme taps into the many assumptions and beliefs held by researchers that identify them as favoring a particular way of doing research and belonging to a community of like-minded researchers. The two schemes may be brought together. Their cross combinations reveal a greater array of emergent forms of praxiology. The resultant forms (Table 9) involve explicit as well as implicit research practices for systemic change. Table 9 shows nine manifestations of praxiology by cross tabulation of the two schemes. It is intended that this matrix stimulate consideration of several forms that praxiology may take, as it is practiced in human inquiry for systemic change. It is not intended that all forms must exist and that evidence is easily forthcoming to validate each point of convergence. For many researchers, classical and traditional forms may be too synonymous to be meaningfully distinct (Collen and Gasparski, 1995).

Emergent Forms of Praxiology 169

Consequentially, [ 1 ] in the figure may serve as a useful point of departure to other forms. This pattern is shown in the figure by intention; note the display of forms by the numbers 1 to 9. Table 9 Emergent forms of praxiology CLASSICAL

INTERPRETIVE

CRITICAL

TRADITIONAL

[ 1]

[3]

[6]

PRAGMATIC

[2]

[4]

[8]

DESIGN

[5]

[7]

[9]

The scheme suggests that there can be a variety of forms within a given praxiology. In other words, the classical form may house praxiologists differing in specialty focus (e.g. traditional, pragmatic, design). The same may be true for the interpretive and critical forms. Conversely, a design praxiologist may hold a set of beliefs (e.g. critical position about human nature) that differs from peers (classical and interpretive views). These differences help us to explain the difficulties in communication researchers often experience discussing their research with peers and disseminating their findings and views to wider audiences. Specifically, researchers holding a traditional-interpretive view believe that their human participants construct their own meaning of their changing system, let us say, their place of employment, by personal analysis of the problem, which chiefly determines their actions as part of that system. Other researchers holding a pragmatic-critical view believe that the employees need to isolate the roots of the problem in what is and is not working effectively, initiate changes in procedures that will thereby liberate themselves from being subjected to the problem. The former believes analysis and personal construction of belief leads to a change in belief and action in response to the problem. The latter con-

170 Systemic Change

centrates on changing procedures that bring alternative consequences of one's actions. When the two researchers share and discuss their research findings and their interpretations on what brought about systemic change, when blinded by methodolatry and praxiological position, they argue more from their beliefs than from their findings. Academically, we can emphasize the assumptions and practices of a research method in terms the epistemological, ontological, and methodological. However, practically speaking, researchers intermingle the three aspects as they will to make the research work within their disciplines of inquiry. The confluence can confuse. But also, it can spark innovation. Mixing occasionally offers insight into the nature of research process. Further, debates among researchers may be attributed more to differences in ideas and assumptions about human nature and doing research, as implied in the nine forms of praxiology, than about any truth suggestive in the content of their research. We can help reconcile controversies by examining the ideas and assumptions researchers make, as implied in their adopted positions shown in the matrix (Table 9). At one extreme, there are the impositions of mechanistic schemes, structures, plans, and production schedules on human activities. At the other extreme, there are irrational, intuitive, and crisis oriented management and decision making to drive human activity. It would seem that a more systemic, humanistic, and value oriented integration of the two extremes would be advantageous to systemic change in the human realm. Perhaps, this range of human propensity to organization activity fosters the variety of forms in praxiology. It is also advantageous of researchers steeped in the praxiological to take into account the interface of the forms of praxiology discussed here with their affinities to research ongoing processes of system change. To augment the convergence of the two schemes, it is important to tap the substantive literature available from the

Emergent Forms of Praxiology 171

philosophy and methodology of science (p. ex Burrel and Morgan, 1979; Churchman, 1971; Collen, 1995ab; Mitroff and Kilmann, 1978; Oliga, 1988). Rationality in these and related schemes is marked; see particularly Max Weber (1947) and Robert Flood (1990), as well as the seminal work of Jiirgen Habermas (1971). These contributors do not bridge their work to praxiology, but they do provide a range of viewpoints in regard to various paradigmatic arenas of inquiry and research communities affiliated with each arena. This author's preference is to favor usage of the phrase arena of inquiry to capture metaphorically the collectivity of those who share assumptions, beliefs, and praxis about the nature and conduct of human inquiry. These inquirers comprise a community of living contemporaries during a specified period of time. Generally speaking, paradigmatic arena of inquiry and research community are two phrases used interchangeably across the chapters of this book, even though it is to be expected that several research communities can comprise an arena, and a particular research community can contain researchers who cross paradigmatic boundaries and utilize secondarily the research methods favored in other arenas.

6. Summary From its beginnings, the most central constructs of praxiology fall on matters of efficiency, effectiveness, economy, efficacy, and ethics. Over the course of the twentieth century, particularly in North America, interests became more expansive, suggested by the set of constructs shown in Table 1. As yet, praxiology as a name label has not been widely used in North America, but other designations, namely, human factors, systems engineering, and management science are terms more familiar to those interested in the Es of praxiology.

172 Systemic Change

The ideas, assumptions, and beliefs researchers have about research process are shaped by their research traditions, and in turn their conduct of inquiry continues to unfold and advance their research traditions. These influences reflect arenas of inquiry that are general collectives of specific research communities. The two paradigmatic schemes show an unfolding of arenas, nested in a fashion where preceding forms are expanded and utilized in innovative ways in later forms. The first scheme consists of traditional, pragmatic, and design praxiologies (Figure 16). The second scheme is comprised of classical, interpretive, and critical praxiologies (Figure 17). Convergence of these schemes reveals an array of manifestations (Figure 19), in which praxiology may express itself in human inquiry. In the next chapter, we revisit the Es to develop them further as a conceptual system. We complexify the system to enable its meaningful application in human inquiry devoted to systemic change.

7. Activities and Exercises 1. Examine a published research report that concerns one or two Es of praxiology. Given the assumptions and beliefs that appear to you in your reading of the report, into which form of praxiology (Table 9) would the report best be classified? Discuss your reasons for this determination. 2. Describe a research study in progress within a human organization familiar to you. Applying Figures 17 and 18, and Table 9, which form of praxiology appears to have the most dominant influence on the conduct of the inquiry? Provide reasons for this determination for each scheme separately, and finally for their convergent form.

Emergent Forms of Praxiology 173

3. Is there another scheme or alternative conceptualization that better conveys the praxiologies for human inquiry, instead of those presented in this chapter? If so, describe it. Illustrate your alternative scheme with examples from human organizations familiar to you. If you have no alternative, then state some reasons the schemes presented in this chapter are meaningful and applicable to human inquiry for systemic change. Support your reasons with examples from human organizations familiar to you. 4. Describe some of your assumptions and beliefs about human nature and human inquiry. Which form of praxiology (Table 9) would you most likely adopt in conducting human inquiry for systemic change? Provide some reasons for your position. 5. Select a research tradition of collecting data from among the following: action research, archival research, focus groups, participant observation, psychological testing, and research interviewing. Describe likely variations in the practices of this tradition as you, the researcher, would affiliate with the various forms of praxiology indicated in Table 9.

This page intentionally left blank

Systemic Change Through Praxiology

1. Introduction The Es of praxiology, defined in Table 7 and discussed there, provide the platform for the complexification of praxiology in human inquiry. Complexification of this conceptual system in praxis and inquiry is the main subject of this chapter. It consists of two conceptual sections followed by two applied sections. After extending the system of Es to question asking activities, we use the design and development of a human activity system to evaluate the impact of research proposals on human participants to illustrate praxiology in action.

2. The Praxiological in Human Inquiry The praxiological perspective assists researchers to judge whether research practices are advisable, doable, feasible, and manageable. The Es of praxiology provide tools to construct extensions of the conceptual system discussed earlier for direct application to human inquiry. Figure 19 represents an arrangement of the Es of praxiology to give researchers an overview and point of departure. Making a particular proposal for human inquiry the central focus of scrutiny, we may ask various questions of this

176 Systemic Change

inquiry. The questions serve as one means to relate each E and combination of the Es to this inquiry. Finding answers to our questions informs us about the praxiological aspects of the proposed research, its strengths and weaknesses, its adequacies and inadequacies, its intentional and sometimes unintentional consequences when the research is implemented. Figure 19 Overview of the Es of praxiology to be applied to human inquiry

The scheme in Figure 19 is particularly useful for an inclusive consideration of the Es in two respects: research proposals and research reports. As to the first, to obtain financial support for a research project requires a clearly and carefully articulated rationale to justify the expenditure of research participants' time, materials, information resources, tax payer money, venture capital, and time. Statements in the proposal that cover the Es are increasingly expected in the frequently fierce competition for funding. In contrast to the fundability of proposed research projects is understanding their contributions once completed, because they often lead to further funding requests and attempts to apply the findings. To convince consumers and policy makers, it is important to know the strengths and value as well as shortcomings

Systemic Change Through Praxiology 177

and limitations of research methodology and the findings. They may come through use of the Es in the critique of published research. This latter activity is as important as fundability. Researchers are accountable to their funders, research participants, sponsors, and society at large.

3. Building a Synthesis of the Es The conceptual system of the Es appears analytical, in that the general methodology known as praxiology may be decomposed into various categories or dimensions called efficiency, effectiveness, economy, et cetera. However, as discussed earlier, the Es are not mutually independent of one another. We quickly discover this fact in the praxis. There are several important relationships between particular Es. We can also comprehend interdependencies among small groups of Es. Theoretically, we can explore the possible meaningfulness and relevance of every E and combination of Es to our focus of research. For a given research study, bringing specific E relations to the foreground builds a synthesis of those Es pertinent to the case. Although it is unnecessary to detail exhaustively the possible combinations and permutations of the Es from Figure 19, several representative relationships must suffice. In practice, it is up to researchers through careful exploration to discover those Es and their combinations that are most applicable to research at hand. Figure 20 outlines the ensuing complexification that will emerge when a specific research proposal is questioned in regard to its coverage of the Es. The possible relationships are presented in terms of those at basic ground level (zero order), listed alphabetically, followed by first and second order relationships. It is possible of course to continue this progression. However, it should become immediately apparent that the escalating complexity shall quickly surpass the tolerance of researchers to apply

178 Systemic Change

the questions. Equally important is the increasing level of difficulty for researchers to communicate to others the answers to those questions germane to a specific research proposal. Figure 20 Building relationships among the Es of praxiology The Es—the basic (zero) order ECONOMY EDUCABILITY EFFICIENCY EFFECTIVENESS EXECUTABILITY EFFICACY ETH1CALITY EVALUABILITY EXPENDABILITY First order relationships between the Es EFFECTIVENESS—EFFICIENCY EFFICACY—EXECUTABILITY EDUCABILITY—EFFICACY EVALUABILITY—EFFICACY EXPENDABILITY—ETHICALITY ETHICALITY—ECONOMY ECONOMY—EXECUTABILITY ECONOMY—EDUCABILITY EVALUABILITY—ETHICALITY EFFECTIVENESS—EXPENDABILITY Second order relationships among the Es EFFICIENCY—EFFECTIVENESS—EFFICACY EFFICIENCY—ETHICALITY—EVALUABILITY EXECUTABILITY—EFFICACY—ETHICALITY EVALUABILITY—EXPENDABILITY—ETHICALITY EFFICIENCY—EFFECTIVENESS—EXECUTABILITY EFFICACY—EVALUABILITY—EXPENDABILITY EDUCABILITY—ECONOMY—ETHICALITY

Thus, a modicum must be found and a level of reasonableness to use this scheme. In its applications, the author has found up to several key questions satisfactory coverage to meet most

Systemic Change Through Praxiology 179

concerns. The challenge is to discover which questions apply most specifically to the case. Each entry in Figure 20 may be expressed as a question. There are, in fact, several intertwined questions, a family of related questions, that covers each E. Examples are shown in Table 10. These examples comprise only possible questions researchers can ask. Since the Es have important associations and interdependencies, it is important to ask those most germane to the research study. Many questions can involve two and three Es. They are shown in the table under first and second order questions, respectively. Precise questions pertinent to the research must be generated by the researchers. Obviously, some questions will be more important than others, some critical, others tangential. Table 10 illustrates the focus, breadth, depth, and potential of this kind of questioning. Table 10 Building the scheme through questioning the Es of praxiology Zero order questions ECONOMY: How much is to be paid to research assistants and participants? EDUCABILITY: What is to be learned by those who participate? EFFICIENCY: What are the most efficient procedures for data collection? EFFECTIVENESS: Which setting is the more likely to find the phenomenon? EFFICACY: Will the research procedures likely provide the information expected to answer the research question? ETHICALITY: What clauses are essential to include in consent form to be signed by the research participant? EVALUABILITY: What is the criterion measure against which human performance will be evaluated? EXECUTABILITY: Can the project be done with the resources available within the time frame planned? EXPENDABILITY: In what manner will the use of the materials deplete a vital resource from the community in which the participants reside? EVALUABLENESS: What value can come from the research procedure that can benefit the participants and society?

180 Systemic Change

First order questions EFFICIENCY—EFFECTIVENESS: What level of efficiency is necessary the have an effective research procedure? ECONOMY—EFFICIENCY: At what point does the expense of materials lower the efficiency of data collection? ECONOMY—EXECUTABILITY: Are the resources to be expended sufficient within the cost allotments to collect and process the data; and conversely, is the budget sufficient to cover the expenses required? EDUCABILITY—ETHICALITY: What level of readability and detail are sufficient to inform the participants of the research procedures to enable thereby informed consent? EFFICACY—EVALUABILITY: What procedures are to evaluate the efficacy of the project? EXPENDABILITY—ETHICALITY: Are the resources to be consumed with due consideration of human rights and ecological impact? ETHICALITY—EVALUABLENESS: What is the level of tolerance to be permitted when questionable research practices conflict with the elegance of testing the hypothesis? Second order questions EFFECTIVENESS—EFFICIENCY—ETHICALITY: To what degree does the effectiveness of the research procedure at its presently established level of efficiency pose minimal risk of harm to participants? EFFICIENCY—EFFECTIVENESS—EXECUTABILITY: What level of efficiency in the execution of the research procedure is necessary to be effective? ECONOMY—EXPENDABILITY—EVALUABILITY: Can our knowledge to be gained from managing this project inform to sustain the program of research of which this project is part? EDUCABILITY—ETHICALITY—EXECUTABILITY: What form of administrating the research procedures will enable the participants to become better informed about their condition and their possible beneficial and detrimental effects of participation?

4. An Arena of Application It is instructive at this point to shift from the articulation of the conceptual scheme to a specific application. The Es of praxiology

Systemic Change Through Praxiology 181

take on more life when enunciated in reference to specific research studies. The area of application is the review of a research proposal by a particular kind of social system. Reviewers look for possible adverse impact of research procedures that are to be carried out on human participants, and they evaluate the risks. Where human beings are to be used for research purposes, the studies that use them require prior scrutiny by a panel of evaluators, known in the United States as the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The domain of the IRB encompasses any research procedure that can be construed for potential aversive impact on human participants (Stanley et al., 1996). The IRB exists to evaluate potential impact, explicitly for the presumed protection of those participants. But there are secondary benefits of IRBs beyond the review of research proposals (Chastain and Landrum, 1999), namely, a) sensitizing researchers to unacknowledged potential risks to the humans to be subjected to their research procedures, b) informing researchers of current standards and regulations bearing on the ethics of doing research, and c) educating generally a research community on all matters pertaining to research ethics. IRBs are an expected part of any research institution using human participants in the United States. They are mandated through guidelines of the federal government. Research involving humans requires an IRB review consisting of a panel of evaluators. On the average, the typical IRB meets monthly, has sixteen members, and reviews close to 300 proposals per year (Hayes et al., 1995). However, IRBs may vary in design, for example, a proposal may be assigned to a subgroup of its membership. IRBs and the review panels seem to range anywhere from half to two dozen members. As much as possible, the evaluators are chosen for their expertise and experience with research ethics and the problems and issues relevant to the project under review. But at the same time the IRB is to represent the constituencies of the institution it serves, and in

182 Systemic Change

addition, the public interest (public-at-large members). In short, the IRB is one kind of human activity system (Checkland, 1981), where evaluating research proposals for potential harm to human beings is its primary activity. Each case coming before the IRB for review necessitates the application of research ethics and many concepts and principles of research design and execution. The chief concern is always the adverse impact any procedure may have on the human participants. The IRB panel expects a convincing argument that the potential for benefits of doing the research outweigh the potential for detriments. The process of a panel review brings to life the heart of activity of the IRB. The review process is readily construed as a form of evaluation research as well as human systems inquiry. The presence of the conceptual system, known as the Es of praxiology, has a natural place in this arena of application to human inquiry.

5. Praxiology in Action The conduct and practice of review are salient to the description of the IRB. It is essential to an IRB that its own procedures of review be conducted efficiently and effectively, and that its review guidelines and due process be upheld. Just as the IRB would expect of those whose research proposals it reviews, it is imperative for the IRB to be both efficacious and ethical in its actions as a social system. We may focus praxiology as a general methodology explicitly on IRB matters. In conducting IRB review, the panel of evaluators can apply the conceptual scheme (Figure 19 and Table 10) to determine whether the potential for benefit of the proposed project sufficiently outweighs the potential for harm to justify the use of human participants for research purposes.

Systemic Change Through Praxiology 183

By mandate, in IRB review, ethicality takes on greater importance than any other E. Thus, the basic questions, like all other first and second order questions generated through the scheme, are always implicitly related to ethicality. This praxiological scheme, in effect becomes a conceptual system of ethics in this application. Ethicality sits at the center of the conceptual system and every element is tied to it. All questions raised by IRB reviewers must be about the research ethics of the case. The IRB at the author's institution may serve to illustrate this application of praxiology. This IRB deals with a wide variety of ethical issues and practices in its evaluation of graduate student and faculty research. In bringing to bear the praxiological scheme of Es on a case, certain key questions of an ethical nature surface. These questions may be classified as zero order, that is the most basic of questions that connects a specific E to a specific research procedure. For example, "Is the set of interview questions to be asked ethical?" "Are they phrased in a language comprehensible to the participant?" "Are they selected and to be given to minimize emotional upset?" IRB type questions are listed in Table 11. They direct us to the ethicality of a proposed research project. One basic question bearing on ethicality, pertinent to most projects, is: "Is the participant being provided with truly informed consent?" At the author's institution, researchers make use of a model consent form, available in the institution web site, to fashion their consent forms thought appropriate to the proposed research. Often researchers are not fully informed about basic rights participants have in being used for research purposes, such as being able to withdraw at any time without stating a reason, refusing to answer any question, being informed of known side effects of a procedure, and being given a copy of the signed consent form for their records. In contrast, sometimes researchers exclude clauses known to be directly relevant for fear participants will not want to participate. Researchers may think they can debrief partici-

184 Systemic Change

pants after the research procedures are completed, and they attempt to justify this postponement in their application to the IRB. Whether it be naive or intentional exclusion, the ethicality of informed consent is a matter of central concern for IRB reviewers. There is typically dialog among the members of the review panel, regarding the clauses present and absent, and their expressed clarity. Researchers may be required to resubmit to the chief reviewer a revised consent form to meet the conditions necessary to clear the research for implementation. Table 11 Questions on ethicality that focus IRB review on praxiology in human inquiry Are any of the research procedures to be used questionable on ethical grounds? Are those participating justly to receive benefit and compensation? In the consent form to be signed by the participants, are the essential clauses included to obtain truly informed consent? What procedure is to be used to safeguard the data to be collected? Is the ethicality of any research procedure being compromised for the sake of expediency? Are there any threats to human welfare and the environment in carrying out the research procedures? Are any human rights being violated by carrying out the research procedures? Do any of the research procedures pose a conflict of interest? Do the benefits arguably justify the use of human beings and the accompanying resources for research purposes?

The praxiological scheme also provides a framework to give feedback to researchers about a) research ethics, b) reasons for particular clauses and phrases, and c) ways to state clauses and phrases to obtain truly informed consent. A further illustration of ethicality is found in the basic question: "On the participants behalf, does the researcher adequately safeguard the data collected?" Where confidentiality and third party interests are concerned, researchers are expected to

Systemic Change Through Praxiology 185

lock up securely their consent forms and raw data, such that it is not possible for anyone readily to obtain them and identify a given participant. Restrictions of access are to be limited chiefly to the principal researcher, no one else, and especially not to third parties whose interests may be profit driven and have little if anything to do with the research. As this question also may be viewed as a matter of economy and expendability, it may be taken as a first order level question. It is not productive to fuss over whether a particular question asked is zero, first, or second order. But it is important to ask the question, then determine its relevance to the research under scrutiny. The complexity of IRB review increases when the panel asks additional questions, in which another E interacts with ethicality. Again, the purpose is to assess whether the convergence of Es for a specific research procedure has potential for adverse impact on human beings. First order questions can often convey the precarious balance among the Es. For example, "Given two procedures for data collection, namely a questionnaire of 20 items to be completed by paper and pencil responses or a structured tape recorded interview consisting of the same 20 items, which procedure is the most efficient?" Let us say that the researchers propose the paper and pencil form as the more efficient. They intend to leave the room while participants complete it. Or the researchers can give it to participants with instructions to complete it at home and return it a few days later. However, an examination of the 20 items reveals several phrases known to be unfamiliar and offensive to some participants, and misleading to other participants. Although less efficient according to the researchers, the more ethical procedure is likely to be to collect the data in the presence of the participants to answer any questions, confront concerns, and clear up confusions. More productive is a course of action to revise the items to minimize its problematic aspects, and thereby, improve the ethicality of the preferred mode of data collection.

186 Systemic Change

An example of a higher order type question common to all IRB reviews is: "Do the potential benefits, either specific or general, of the proposed research, outweigh the potential risks of applying it to the human participants?" Though the statement of ethicality may appear more general, it again plays the central role in connecting other Es to it, considering whether benefits outweigh risks. Surprisingly, many researchers have not thought through carefully the benefits-to-risks relationship (ratio), even though they have become well versed in justifying their work to their peers, mentors, colleagues, coworkers, and funders. This emphasis asks researchers to give concerted attention to both benefits and risks. What is common across the illustrations in this section is the manner in which the IRB review makes visible the praxiological aspects of this evaluative social system. IRB review is praxiology in action.

6. Human Inquiry for Systemic Change In distancing ourselves from the IRB review of any particular case, we discover mostly in hindsight that the accumulation of case reviews has a profound effect on the institution served by the IRB. The activities of the IRB exemplify the manner in which one entity of a human organization may bring about systemic change. The IRB is a social force for systemic change of the institution it serves. For the purposes of discussion, we may state that those comprising the institution have a general level of awareness about the concepts, principles, ethical codes, guidelines, practices, and issues involved in using human beings for research purposes. Preparation of the IRB application to be reviewed requires some familiarity with research ethics, the application and related forms, and appropriate appendices. Researchers may expend

Systemic Change Through Praxiology 187

considerable time and energy to make their presentation detailed, clear, and complete for IRB review. Whether they view this activity as educative and necessary, or bothersome, in part depends on their past experience with IRB review and the present manner of feedback and treatment by the IRB. Thought needs to be given periodically to the improvement of IRB materials to be as user friendly as possible. The person chairing the IRB must not only welcome critique and suggestions for improvement, but also act to make them happen. The viability, respect, and place of the IRB as an agent for systemic change depends on researcher compliance with IRB policy and procedures. Equally important is an openness from the IRB to making improvements. There is an ongoing cybernetic relation of the IRB with its institutional context. This human activity system co-evolves with its institution. It is a part of it and depends on it for its membership. It is in a continuous state of flux and challenged with cases that often facilitate and sometimes conflict with its priorities of review for the protection of human participants. Drawing further on the author's IRB experience with his institution, the aftereffects of review on the principal researcher and supervisory faculty are critical to the acceptance of the IRB. These persons will likely have to work again with the IRB in the future. Often there will be further IRB applications in the case of programmatic research and expected institutional service on the IRB. Those whose research is subject to IRB review take with them a critical learning experience. It will shape their attitude and disposition toward the domain of research ethics and review of research. With each case, the IRB has both a duty to perform in the protection of human participants and an opportunity to educate and convey to researchers a respectful and caring concern toward those who will provide them with the information they required to meet the objectives of their research. As the positive learning experiences with the IRB among researchers and institutional personnel accumulate, then evidence of system-wide

188 Systemic Change

change becomes more visible. Specifically, we can look to the following sources in the case of systemic change through IRB review: a) the general level of competence in regard to the knowledge domain known as research ethics increases, b) lessened feedback and fewer revisions of research procedures become necessary for IRB approval, c) direct consultations with the chairperson of the IRB on ethical issues pertinent to their proposals increase from researchers, d) researchers make greater use of web based IRB materials and resources, and e) more sophisticated presentations appear in IRB applications of the research rationale, potential impact, safeguards, benefits-to-risks, and ethical issues. In a graduate level institution granting research degrees, the students, faculty, and staff supporting them are expected to be informed about research ethics, because doing research is a well established system-wide activity. In this type of human organization, IRB actions inevitably impact system-wide the work and attitudes of others. Systemic change stems multifold from the individual researchers and their supervisors who become more cognizant of the ethical issues and practices as a result of IRB review. While public relations is a constant concern of the IRB in its communications within its host institution, by its position and mandate, the IRB is the standard bearer and conveyor of research ethics that nurtures an organizational climate toward meeting and maintaining the expected federal standards on use of human beings for research purposes. Once again, we can allude to the cybernetic relation that lies at the heart of the system. Two-way communications between the IRB and others it serves must work effectively and efficaciously to narrow progressively any apparent gap between the internal research practices of the institution and expected standards of ethical practical imposed from the broader sociopolitical system. Like an insurance policy, IRB approval is thought to mean more measured protection for human participants. IRB demands

Systemic Change Through Praxiology 189

on principal investigators to change research procedures to make them more benign are thought to lessen negative impact. However, operating assumptions have yet, to the author's knowledge, been put to systematic test. They are increasingly debated in the United States for various kinds of research procedures. Therefore, the IRB must negotiate its place in its institution to remain an efficacious agent of systemic change. On the one hand, IRB review holds researchers accountable for compliance with federal guidelines and professional codes of conduct relevant to their research ethics. On the other hand, it educates and influences those within the institution it serves that IRB review is a vital service within the organization, where the activities of the IRB raise general consciousness and ethical competence systemwide. These intentions are thought to contribute to better the responsible treatment of human beings as subjects of research. Finally, it is insightful to realize that the IRB is one important means by which the ethos of research ethics passes to the next generation of researchers who will succeed to positions of responsibility for research institutions and their IRBs.

7. Summary In this chapter the Es of praxiology are elaborated in terms of a scheme of questions to promote systemic change. One example of praxiology in action for systemic change is described. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a force in the life of institutions having research with human participants as an activity. Ethicality forms the core of this conceptual system in the case of IRB review. The questions reflect various orders of complexity, in that they relate ethicality to other Es. The scheme is a set that becomes a complex conceptual ethical system when applied to any case of human inquiry, such as a research proposal or a published research report.

190 Systemic Change

The activities of the IRB also show us several aspects of praxiology in action through membership on an IRB and as a principal investigator. We can evidence firsthand an evaluative social system operating through praxis and inquiry. Finally, the process of institutional development involving the IRB is an outstanding illustration of systemic change through praxis and inquiry. Various aspects of IRB review discussed in this chapter converge several emphases of this book. Awareness and practices bearing on research ethics within a human organization can evidence changes in response to IRB reviews that percolate throughout the institution. The results can be tantamount to systemic changes in its area of contribution over time, brought about through its praxis and human inquiry as a subsystem within the larger human organization it serves. In the next chapter, the process of inquiry is examined more closely as a general prototype or template for the foundation on which researchers exercise their praxiological decision making to propose and conduct their inquiries.

8. Activities and Exercises 1. Select a research proposal or a published research report that involves the use of human beings for research purposes. Imagine yourself to be a member of an IRB review panel. What questions could be asked about this research regarding its ethicality? Present a set of questions that draws upon the connections between Ethicality and the other Es of praxiology pertinent to this case. 2. Select an ethical issue in an area of research of interest to you. What research procedures can you find associated with this issue? Which research procedures might seem tangential or marginally relevant that could be questioned on ethical grounds?

Systemic Change Through Praxiology 191

Which Es of praxiology appear most relevant to the issue and research procedures described? Select one of the questioned research procedures. What changes may be made to make it less aversive to use with human beings, without jeopardizing its reliability and validity as a research procedure? Give reasons that the changes would lessen the ethically controversial nature of this practice, 3. Select a product or service of an organization familiar to you. Pose one question about the product or service that utilizes an E of praxiology. From this question, relate it to the other Es to generate some first order questions. Do the same to generate a few second order questions. As a set, if answered, what will these questions enable you to find out about the product or service? 4. Having gained some awareness in this chapter of the IRB as an agent for systemic change, think of another such agent, perhaps one in a school, business, association, government agency, or corporation. Describe this "force" for change and its relevance to the Es of praxiology. Are there ways in which the Es can inform and guide this force to bring about systemic change? Provide details. Describe this force in terms of systemic change through praxis and inquiry.

This page intentionally left blank

Research Process

1. Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to give more attention to research process from the viewpoint of sociocybernetics. This view can be informative to facilitate the work of human inquiry for systemic change. The sociocybernetic perspective opens one means to weave the content of previous chapters (e.g. disciplinarity, praxiology, and Es of praxiology). It moves us a step forward with the main theme of the book. The other purpose of this chapter is to discuss praxiological decision making. Both purposes serve to preview forms of complexification taken up in the remaining chapters. Research process may be considered a general form of human activity devoted to knowing, understanding, and amelioration. The sociocybernetic view describes communication links among persons comprising the human activity system — a system of researchers and participants engaged in human inquiry. The praxiological view is useful for the making of decisions that delineate research process. These views are particular lenses through which we see and communicate research activities. The emphasis on general concepts and principles is meant to suggest that there are characteristics in common applicable across a multitude of research traditions comprising the territory of

194 Systemic Change

research methodology for human inquiry. This generalist approach is further applied in the remaining chapters, in which advances in research methodology for human inquiry are directed toward systemic change.

2. Cybernetics and Systemic Change Since its formulation and introduction (Ashby, 1963; Wiener, 1961), cybernetics continues to provide a meaningful perspective and set of theoretical constructs to study and describe a wide range of human phenomena (Buckley, 1968; Checkland and Scholes, 1990; Collen, 1994; Rescher, 1997; Senge, 1990; Smith and Smith, 1966: Trappl, 2002). It is with this persistent interest that the application of cybernetics to describe the dynamics of human inquiry appears promising and relevant. Scientific method is a standard and ideal that assists researchers in formalizing ways of doing human inquiry. It has become the methodological point of reference. In practice, however, multiple variations of scientific method exist. When applied to the study of human phenomena, methodological diversity is more the rule than the exception. This is especially apparent, and increasingly controversial, as researchers form distinguishable and successive arenas of inquiry, each indicative of a cogent set of paradigmatic assumptions that influences their multiplicity of interests (Collen, 1995a; Oliga, 1988). Furthermore, differentiation within each arena has led to a multitude of research traditions. This diversity is evidenced in and helps to explain the many forms of praxiology presented in an earlier chapter. Presently, researchers are not always adhering to their traditions. Some researchers are boldly transgressing arenas to mix methods, resulting in more complex constructions of methodology that converge seemingly disparate traditions involving qualitative and quantitative data processing procedures (Brewer and Hunter,

Research Process 195

1989; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998). With the globalization of humanity, there is the inevitable presence of the human element in all aspects of life on this planet. Researchers in all paradigmatic arenas of human inquiry are making increasing use of their research methods to follow our growing awareness of the complexity of local to global changes. Trends compel us toward more complexification in methodology and disciplinarity. Trends favor, even necessitate, transdisciplinary collaborative inquiry to track, describe, understand, explain, and influence systemic change (Collen. 1992a, 1995a). Given globalizing trends, we may reconsider Popper's three worlds (Miller, 1985) to assert rapprochement, interface, and convergence among them. Some contributors (p. ex Gage, 1989; Guba and Lincoln, 1994) by means of polemics convey the polarization of researchers affiliated with different arenas of inquiry. While it is important to recognize that such arguments sharpen our understanding of the distinctions among the arenas of inquiry, the arguments should not dissuade us from advancing transdisciplinary research methodology beyond the confines of paradigmatic boundaries, because it is increasingly needed and necessary in human inquiry for systemic change. In contrast, other contributors (p. ex Creswell, 2002; Jackson (1991; Patton, 2002; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998) by means of content on strategy, design and procedure, seek complementarity and integration in research methodology. The latter path is the one sought in this book; see also Collen et al. (1996), Flood (1991), and Jackson (2000). Researchers employing methods of researching human beings may incorporate sociocybernetics as one lens to the study contents of research process. One implication is that the dynamics of scientific inquiry, viewed as a particular process for the discovery, production, and creation of knowledge, may be described in terms of reciprocal relationships among those entities researchers conceptualize to define their process of inquiry.

196 Systemic Change

These relationships can be designated feedback and feedforward, and positive and negative, in reference to research process as well as the broader contexts in which inquiry is situated. In short, there are general cybernetic relationships in human oriented research methodology inherent in the theory and conduct of inquiry. Although most researchers do not bother to explicate the cybernetics of their research, they will implicitly apply many of its concepts and principles in the course of doing science. Whether they express what they do in cybernetic terminology, they must have some knowledge in some useful conceptual form and language equivalent to communicate those cybernetic relationships to fellow researchers, peers, and recipients of their research. The focus on systemic change through praxis and inquiry places the process of inquiry as a major means through which systemic change may become known, studied, and take place. It is taken to be only one way of several that systemic change transpires. Disciplined inquiry as research process becomes formalized in the fashion of research traditions. It is the core process developed in this book. It is general research process by which we engage with, in, and for systemic change. Several metaphors are instructive to convey this general process. It constitutes one chief means our humanness may be exercised as the accountants, agents, progenitors, and stewards of systemic change.

3. Research as a Cycle Renditions that describe the conduct of scientific inquiry as a linear process (p. ex Fox. 1969; Scott and Wertheimer, 1962) do not convey that it is more fully and pragmatically conceptualized in terms of a general cycle (Collen, 1994: Rescher, 1977; Rowan, 1981; Runkel and McGrath, 1972). Moreover, we can consider it

Research Process 197

to be a cyclical process as well, in that inquiry is ongoing, cumulative, and programmatic. The circular metaphor in motion is also compatible with applying sociocybernetic and praxiological concepts to human inquiry. In regard to systemic change, what is learned once through the research process provides the base for the next time through it. Programmatic research in particular is favored through applications of the Es of praxiology. The development of the knowledge domain, deepened understanding by those engaged, and ameliorative change are also fostered through programmatic research. Long range thinking about human inquiry contrasts sharply with dependence on the singular investigation for expectant systemic change. One version of the cycle is shown in Figure 21. The cycle consists o f t e n or eleven phases, depending on funding. Communication loops are illustrated in terms of feedback (dashed arrow backwards) and feedforward (solid arrow forwards). Research process may be depicted as a general feedforward loop (the general cycle) with numerous feedback loops interconnecting its phases. The feedback loops shown in the figure are only representative. Doing a critical review of the literature, for example, positions the researcher to make informed decisions in defining constructs and designing the study. Operationalized constructs must be checked against the research question (or hypothesis) formulated earlier. Comparing conditions by means of equivalent groups of participants, repeated observations of the same persons, or both is a design decision that must be checked for relevance to the research questions posed and variables defined. Asking pilot participants to perform a task that is a crucial part of the study, in order to confirm the clarity of the instructions, is often necessary before collecting data en masse. The schematic is an idealized form of course. This construction of the general research cycle (Collen 1995b, 1996b) serves as a general model or template applicable to various

198 Systemic Change

research traditions involving human inquiry. It does mean that research must proceed through all phases in the order delineated by the feedforward nature of the process, even though it is one interpretation of the figure. Further, it does not mean that every research study must have precisely these phases to qualify as scientific, or that the same feedback loops define all forms of inquiry. Specific studies will lead to some variations in the cycle. Despite its shortcomings, the metaphor and its schematization in this form have proven to be highly useful for planning, proposing, pedagogy, critique, and cross comparisons of research processes. Figure 21 Feedback and feedforward loops of the general research cycle

Separations between adjacent phases often are blurred, depending on the variation of research method employed. Further,

Research Process 199

working simultaneously on aspects of various phases often brings into question the generalization of such a prototypical cycle for all inquiries. The researcher usually has a bearing on where in the cycle the project is, regardless of the ambiguities of going from one phase to the next. Finally, whether the outcome of the cycle is a negative (-) or positive (+), the feedforward contribution to programmatic research can only become known in hindsight. With this general idea of the cycle in mind, it begins when researchers push into the foreground of consciousness a preoccupation with the topic area, problem focus, and research questions. With some formalization in the first phase, the project enters into operationalizing and consensus building among inquirers, followed by designing and planning. Thereafter, the research proposal becomes the more salient task. As the proposal reaches approval, funding and IRB clearance become salient concerns. Then the emphasis shifts to implementation. Data streams require recordation, organization, and processing. Processing preoccupies researchers with analyses followed by syntheses to render cogent findings that hopefully can be contributive and applicable to systemic change. Forms of reporting back to those who have vested interest in the inquiry entails the latter portion of the process, which also positions inquirers — having reaped the fruits of the process — to reinitiate it once more from the programmatic view of the total long-range endeavor. Characteristically, earlier phases drop increasingly into the background as the inquiry proceeds around the cycle. Like the motion of an oceanic wave, there is a swell from the context of the focal phase to define the foreground as the previous phase recedes into the background. However, from the cybernetic and systemic points of view, each phase has important relations with every other phase. Moreover, the researcher becomes increasingly aware of these systemic relationships as experience is gained in doing research, such that work done in any single phase is examined for its impact on all other phases.

200 Systemic Change

Furthermore, engagement in any one phase may be informed by drawing upon expertise, previous experience, and resources available with all other phases. We must note some saliency given to the feedback loop between one phase and its immediate predecessor, particularly during the transition from it to the next phase. Additionally, we must note the other feedback loops from other phrases, those completed, as well as those anticipated. Researchers monitor with vigilance and exploit these linkages to apply the Es of praxiology most advantageously. The following metaphor is apropos: The researcher is like the automobile driver who makes ample use of the front and side windows, as well as the side and rear view mirrors, to scan while traveling forward on the highway. Scanning provides continuous feedback as to what is all around, but particularly what is immediately behind and ahead, so that the confluence of feedback loops contribute to the feedforward motion of highway travel to where the drive seeks to go. Like the driver, the researcher moves inquiry through each phase of the research cycle. In sum, we consider the research cycle a general feedforward loop comprised of between phase feedback loops. All loops depicted are of the first cybernetic order, but second order loops (Foerster, 1984) may be conceptualized linking one phase with others not immediately adjacent (Collen, 1996b). The latter loops tend to be more reflective and anticipatory, where the former ones are direct engagements in implementing research procedures.

4. Research as a Rope A useful metaphor for communicating some of the dynamic aspects of human inquiry for systemic change is the spiraling research rope (Figure 22). If we think of the rope to be composed of smaller ropes (thick strings) working together to create and strengthen the research process, a given research study may be

Research Process 201

best described in terms of a cycle (Figure 21). A particular inquiry is an application of research methodology like a rope, in that it becomes an amalgam of the six resources discussed in detail in the next chapter. Each resource influences inquiry at each phase over the course of its cycle. Figure 22 The research rope in research methodology

202 Systemic Change

The rope metaphor is apt, for it requires a turning and integration of its strands to take the stress of the process and ensure a feedforward movement. Put in other words, it is an emergent strength that lends internal validity (coherence, consistency, and integrity) to the inquiry. The idea of the rope in retrospect also provides inquirers with its trace, or history, to document in a proper, disciplined, and methodical fashion as much of the course of the inquiry as possible. The rope and cycle metaphors may help us to connect human inquiry to systemic change, in that the former draws upon key resources of the human organization and the latter provides a means to use them for systemic change through praxis and inquiry. To reiterate, a given research study can best be conceptualized and understood as a cycle. During inquiry, the phase at hand dominates the inquiry. Previous phases (feedback) serve the researchers to adjust (push) the process, while impending phases serve to draw (pull) the researchers forward in the process. Taken together, the push-and-pull enables researchers to steer, in the cybernetic sense, the inquiry through its cycle. The wave metaphor was mentioned earlier to convey this movement, to which the helmsman (cybernaut) may be added. It is also these dynamics, the steering through the simultaneous push-and-pull, that brings past and future influences, respectively, into the process. The solo project is also cyclical in that it suggests the inquirers come back to their inception, once outcomes have been reported. The reporting often provides impetus to begin the cycle again, to further inquiry in the programmatic sense.

5. The Learning Cycle There is an important linkage of research process to management science and related fields of study and research in human organizations. It entails various representations of the learning

Research Process 203

cycle (Kolb, 1884; Kolb et al, 1971). The key aspects with some representative variations are shown in Figure 23. Figure 23 Renditions of the Kolb learning cycle a. The learning cycle based on Kolb et al. (1971, p. iv)

b. The wheel of learning based on Ross et al. (1994, p. 60)

c. Work/being cycle based on Reinharz (1981, p. 430)

204 Systemic Change d. Action learning wheel based on Enderby et al. (1998, p. 143)

The terms in the figure refer to essential human processes of thought, feeling, and action indigenous to being, working, and relating. The overall process is that of learning — a process of inquiry. We discover a family of constructs proliferate into the variations shown: act, evaluation, experiencing, experiment, deciding, doing, observation, planning, question, reflection, review, and test. They convey, like the complexification of research traditions, what various researchers have done to use their language to make the general learning cycle meaningful to them. The Kolb learning cycle is a feedforward loop parallel to that of the general research cycle. But the learning cycle may also be taken at the level of persons and small groups, working as feedback loops for each phase within the general research cycle. Either way, the interface is significant, not only between feedforward and feedback loops, but also the convergence between the research process and the learning cycle depicted as two models shown in Figures 21 and 23, respectively. In fact, to those researching in human organizations, the two cycles are synonymous to such an extent that human inquiry, for example, participatory action research (Whyte, 1991), becomes for all intended purposes scientific method, or in other words, action science (Argyrus et al., 1985). Action oriented researchers usually do not communicate with jargon of scientific method and sociocybernetics, but instead are careful to speak the language of their organization when working the learning (research) cycle.

Research Process 205

As research tends to be done collectively, the learning cycle (Figure 23) may be mapped and documented with the research cycle (Figures 21 and 22) to create a recordation of research process. In this archive and history we can see the more general feedforward loop shown in Figures 22 and 23. The feedback loops, some of which are illustrated in Figure 21, are also documented group process decisions and activities at each phase of the learning (research) process. Importantly, the learning cycle is a continuous private looping process going on repeatedly with each individual team member throughout the inquiry cycle, thus complementing and paralleling the macro level and public processes displayed in the figures. These forms of learning (research) process bring some sense of discipline, structure, and organization into the process of inquiry. Further, they suggest insightfully to those who engage in inquiry that research processes are about making more explicit, public, systematic, and methodical the basic learning processes inherent in our humanness when we are immersed in systemic change through praxis and inquiry.

6. Toward Complexification of Human Inquiry Certainly the number of phases in Figure 21 is sufficient to suggest some complexity to understanding research process. Metaphors like cycle, rope, driver, wave, and cybernaut capture and convey certain aspects of our experience in research process. Metaphors enable us to deepen our appreciation of that complexity. Contributing also to this endeavor are key aspects presented in previous chapters, such as the forms of disciplinarity and praxiology that imbue inquiry. As we move toward integration of constructs and forms discussed in earlier chapters, the complexification of human inquiry becomes obvious, inevitable, and paramount. Given the immense challenge of studying, ex-

206 Systemic Change

plaining, understanding, and bringing about any systemic change, we would expect, by necessity, that methodological complexification would occur to help us meet this challenge. As researchers focus more deliberately on the dynamics of research process, the complexificative as well as emergent aspects of human inquiry become more apparent. Let us consider one example to bring about organizational change through participatory action research (Whyte, 1991). Selecting those in the human organization who are to participate in the research may bear on the systemicity of the change that can be expected. The initial decision on selection may not reflect the organization as a whole. Sufficient inclusivity is not possible in many cases. It is impractical and disruptive to work flow to engage large numbers of employees. The challenge is to interface the inquiry in as non obstructive manner as possible. Often discouraging are the facts that even with representativeness, those not participating may not vest in the process of change. Undesired and unanticipated reactions of confusion, procrastination, and resistance to change may appear. In a parallel fashion, those participating may give pretentious lip service but not commitment to change. It is not possible to know in advance, because of self-interest, disinterest, competing work responsibilities, and absenteeism. These factors also may lead to attrition from the research, such that the makeup of those directly engaged in inquiry at the start may not stick with the process over its course. There are no guarantees that what appears to be adequate representation within the organization to undertake whole system change shall be sustained through the course of inquiry. After some turnover, the group of inquirers may not represent the views of the whole organization. In short, initial decisions concerning selection and sampling often require adjustments in selection and further sampling as the research progresses. On the side of optimism, remaining sensitive to these potential difficulties can alert researchers to minimize and manage them over the course of inquiry.

Research Process 207

To follow this example of complexification a bit further to point out one kind of emergence in human inquiry for systemic change, those tapped to become the principal research team may come from very disparate areas of the organization. Personalities may clash at first and interdepartmental rivalries slow the initial formulation phase of the inquiry. It is important to ask: What levels, branches, departments, subsidiaries, and locations are to provide the research data? Recognition of key contributors brings loyalty and commitment to the research. Keeping contributors informed as the inquiry proceeds is also essential. From collaborative cooperative work emerges a coherent team that must transcend as a whole individual team member differences. In fact, the diversity of talents and skills they bring to the team effort often contribute in a complementary manner to the cooperative and collaborative teamwork required to advance inquiry. To engage effectively in research process for systemic change, the research team has to become a viable human activity system, a newly recognized and respected entity in the organization. The necessity for collaboration in human inquiry is amplified in the chapter on disciplinarity (e.g. transdisciplinarity) and the next section and chapter in regard to the effective utilization of human resources in inquiry.

7. Praxiological Decision Making A major aspect of the viewpoint being developed is that research involves many decisions about the use of resources (persons, funds, material resources, and time). Decisions mean actions, not only in the making of the decisions, but also in the implementing of them. Decisions entail the efficiency, effectiveness, and efficacy of action, that is, the Es of praxiology. However, decision making is not strictly utilitarian and functionalist, as a superficial reading of Kotarbinski (1965) might lead a researcher to conclude.

208 Systemic Change

Research decisions bring pragmatics to bear on the researcher's actions. They tend to emphasize the practical and consequential nature of action. And more recently, rationality in the praxiology of decision-making has attracted more emphasis (Ulrich, 1998). The contemporary praxiological viewpoint needs to include the ethicality of action, specifically, its ameliorative and detrimental consequences on others and the environment (Collen, 1999). The triple E of praxiology (Gasparski and Ryan, 1996) — the focus on the practicality of efficiency, effectiveness, and ethics — are being expanded to education and the other Es discussed earlier. Applying the conceptual scheme of Es to human inquiry further illuminates the complexification of inquiry for systemic change. The relevance of the Es is perhaps most vivid when directed to each phase of the general research cycle. Table 12 shows some representative decisions to be made at each phase. For example, the choice of instrumentation, noted under "design" in the table, typically involves a nexus of the following considerations: Consultation with its creator; transactions with its owner and supplier; knowledge of its validity, reliability, and impact on human beings; experience and know-how with its administration; recording, scoring, and interpretation; and versatility for data processing. We can begin to appreciate the useful convergence of praxiology, pragmatism, and sociocybernetics. Connections are implicit between acts of decision-making characteristic of human inquiry (praxiology) and the consequences of executing them (pragmatism). Connections are also implicit between decisionmaking (praxiology) and human relations of each phase (sociocybernetics) of the research cycle. To take one more example to bring a close to this section, the division of labor among researchers to collect the data, noted under "collect" in the table, varies widely in research practice. There is frequently formed a team of primary data collectors, who are supervised by a principal investigator. Training and careful coordination for and during data collection are required by

Research Process 209

the principal to ensure its reliability, validity, and usability across samples (data collectors). Similarly, we can discuss many other decisions in the table, but the exact decision to be made always goes to the level of the particular research study. Table 12 Examples of practical decisions to be made at each phase of the general research cycle FORMULATE Choice of problem area and focus within it. Choice of knowledge domains. Choice of level and perspectives of the subject matter within the problem area, Choiceof several research questions and hypotheses, constituting a family of research aims, each of which may suggest a slightly different direction or emphasis for investigating the phenomenon. DEFINE Choice of several viable and theoretically anchored definitions of the same hypothetical constructs. DESIGN Choice of several valid and reliable instruments available to operationalize a hypothetical construct, thereby enabling the researcher to make observations and measure the phenomenon. Choice of several research designs to configure the persons, resources, and time required for conducting the inquiry. PROPOSE Choice of formats and items to comprise a complete research proposal. Different formats, level of detail, and specific appendices according to the requirements of the source to which the research proposal is being submitted. FUND Set of forms particular to each funding agency. Details and appendices particular to the requirements of the source to which the research proposal is being submitted.

210 Systemic Change

IRB Variations on the application forms to that the research procedures to be applied incorporate sufficient safeguards for the protection of the human participants to be used for research purposes. Different categories of review depending on the extent of contact with human research participants. Possibly more than one review depending on the number of institutional sources required to collect the data.

COLLECT Choice of several plausible sampling plans to select the persons who manifest the phenomenon under study. Choice of multiple participants and repeated contact with the same participants. Choice of several times of the day, days of the month, and months of the year to make observations and collect data. Choice of several places to make observations and collect data. Choice of researchers, taking into consideration their research competencies, experiences and proficiencies, their familiarity with the phenomenon under study and methodology to be used, their epistemological orientation, and other personal characteristics relevant to the inquiry. PROCESS Choice of several means to code, organize, and process the data collected. Choice of multiple qualitative and quantitative indices to analyze and synthesize the data, answer research questions, and test hypotheses. INTERPRET Choice of multiple interpretations of the findings. Range of findings from interpretable to uninterpretable. CRITIQUE Choice of multiple theories that seem to account for or refute the findings. Choices among possible presentations to debate the critics. Choices of direction for future research based on the findings.

Research Process 211

REPORT Choice of organizations and formats to place and present qualitative and quantitative indices and their associated findings in the report. Choice of several organizations and formats to describe and present the project.

8. Summary This chapter describes research process that involves the learning cycle and praxiological decision making relevant to it. Sociocybernetics embellishes research process by making us aware of the feedforward and feedback natures of the process. Several metaphors, such as the cycle and cybernaut, stimulate our thinking about different aspects of what the process may be like for researchers. The numerous decisions researchers make that come to define their research process, highlight the dynamic nature of the process. This chapter sets the stage for the remaining two chapters, in which methodology advances to become more systemic and various forms of complexiflcation in inquiry occur. Both chapters taken together convey a generic and systemic approach to methodology for human inquiry devoted to systemic change.

9. Activities and Exercises 1. Describe a research project familiar to you in terms of the general research cycle. Select a metaphor that you think captures the research process. Discuss the accuracy and value of the chosen metaphor to understanding research process in reference to your description.

212 Systemic Change

2. In what ways does the Kolb learning cycle (Figure 23) show up in your professional work? Relate this cycle to that of engaging in human inquiry. In what ways are learning and research cycles the same, different, and complementary. Provide reasons for your views to either agree or disagree with those presented in this chapter. 3. Describe the praxiological decisions made in a research study familiar to you. Present a version of Table 12 for that study. 4. What does complexification mean in reference to human inquiry? Illustrate this construct in regard to one of the following: a) the research process, b) the learning cycle, and c) praxiological decision making. To provide your answers, draw upon a known research study, personal project, or area of job responsibility that can be construed in terms of human inquiry.

Developing Human Inquiry for Systemic Change

1. Introduction Whether solely to study, understand, explain, or better the human condition, or pursue some combination of these aims, there are several principal resources upon which to draw to construct research methodology for human inquiry devoted to systemic change. These resources are theory, expertise, experience, practice, simulation, and innovation. These resources are expounded in this chapter to position us for exploring more carefully the complexiflcation and systemicity of systemic change through praxis and inquiry in the next chapter.

2. To Think We Can Think Systemically Is Paradoxical To conduct inquiry that would be systemic entails the characteristics of systemic method discussed in an earlier chapter, in contrast to those that are non systemic. Systemic inquiry is to enable inquirers to comprehend the complexity and systemicity of the whole system studied. But this challenge leads to "the paradox of systemic thinking." As part of the system, which is typically the case in human organizations, inquirers expect their inquiry to achieve a comprehensive view of the whole. Con-

214 Systemic Change

ducting systemic inquiry, as promising as it may appear, researchers cannot be system-wide. They have to rely on the evidence gathered throughout their organization that usually involves the perceptions and interpretations of others comprising their organization. An inquirer is one view. Integration of many views is necessary to achieve the comprehensiveness expected. It seems artificial to think we can step outside the system to view the whole system, and one might argue its like a fish thinking it can get a glimpse of its whole world by jumping for a moment out of its milieu. Any claim of autonomous observation seems illusionary and presumptuous. Researchers are elements of the system, meaningful in terms of inherent and indigenous relationships embedded in the system. Researcher relations are aspects of the larger human activity system. To extract the researchers conducting inquiry for systemic change, even for a moment conceptually, is to under-conceptualize the system. It is this line of thinking that leads researchers to seek some form of participatory action research within their human organizations and include some views from those whose vantage points come from outside the organization. As a living being we are gifted with self-consciousness of our being, though limited in cognizance microscopically inward and macroscopically outward. We must rely on technology and other persons to extend ourselves beyond what we ordinarily perceive and comprehend locally. Akin to our being as a person, let us imagine extending our conscious being to be the whole human organization. To be able to be a part of a human activity system and simultaneously have the consciousness of that human activity system is the paradox. It lies at the core of our ambition when we engage in systemic thinking. It is what we expect of a systemic research methodology as a means to this end. We depend on a systemic research methodology to enable us to comprehend the whole system. We are embedded within the whole that we consciously struggle to grasp conceptually.

Developing Human Inquiry for Systemic Change 215

The form of being that is a collective consciousness simultaneously cohabits with our self-consciousness. But a collective consciousness is a composite and can manifest in multiple forms. Specifically in reference to human inquiry, as a member of a collaborative transdisciplinary research team, we engage in research process cognizant of our presence in the team as a researcher, all the while, holding a consciousness about other team members, the team as an organizational entity, the research process, and the whole human organization of which we are part. Having this expanded consciousness — to transcend solely oneself, to expand from the solitary entity to the whole, to hold both self consciousness and a collective consciousness — epitomizes the paradoxical challenge before anyone who would engage in human inquiry for systemic change. It is presumptuous and bold of researchers through any effort at human inquiry to claim influence to system-wide changes. It is the explicit expectation that systemic inquiry can lead us to a comprehension of the whole. It is the implicit expectation that it can bring about system-wide altercations in activities to better the whole. We anticipate better human relations and human working conditions in our organization, profitability, productivity, personal and collective fulfillment, quality of life, and sustainability. Much can be vested in systemic inquiry when it is put to task in human organizations. In this endeavor, researchers draw upon six key resources to enable an expanded consciousness to emerge through inquiry.

3. Six Key Resources for Constructing Methodology The six resources discussed in this section are common ones for research. Researchers draw upon them for impetus, when systemic change is implied, to construct their methodologies for human inquiry. They are: theory, expertise, experience, practice.

216 Systemic Change

simulation, and innovation. The scheme is general and pragmatic. It is not meant to be exhaustive and prescriptive. Methodological constructions entail integration of these resources. To direct the process of inquiry toward systemic change, researchers utilize each major resource to integrate content described in earlier chapters on systemicity of method, means to hierarchy, and forms of praxiology. Each resource involves a conceptual system and in practice a human activity system. The resources described are interactive and complexify human inquiry. They represent methodology applications through which the researcher can actualize the perspectivistic nature of systemic inquiry. Finally, they may be construed as exercises in systemic thinking to address the paradox described in the previous section. Ideally, methodology constructed to work with a human activity system would seem to have the greatest relevance to systemic change. Such a methodology, when enacted, itself becomes a systemic process. We can cite particular approaches showing evidence of adoption and broadening success, such as soft systems methodology (Checkland, 2000). Its applications across a range of organizations may be taken to be a family of research variations sharing a set of common characteristics that researchers understand when using the phrase, "soft systems methodology." In practice, a particular methodological approach may be understood in terms of possible configurations of a meta-level prototype or template. The template is used instinctively by researchers to construct and conduct their methodology in the organizational context utilizing the resources available to them. A family of versions emerges by comparing and contrasting a pool of research studies designed by its practitioners as the same systems method or methodology. This phenomenon happens when the six common resources converge in a multitude of organizations. To a lesser and greater degree, this is the case of each approach to systems methodology described in Jackson (2000).

Developing Human Inquiry for Systemic Change 217

With these possibilities in mind, we turn to examine each resource. Theory

The relation between theory and method may be evident in examining the meanings of the constructs separately, then making linkages between them when they are situated in the course of inquiry. Table 13 lists denotations of method and theory. Table 13 Definitions of method and theory METHOD A way of doing anything, especially according to a defined and regular plan; a mode of procedure in any activity. A special form of procedure adopted in any branch of mental activity, whether for the purpose of teaching and exposition, or for that of investigation and inquiry. Systematic arrangement or order. A disposition, arrangement, or order of things according to a regular plan or design. THEORY A conception or mental scheme of something to be done, or of a method of doing it; a systematic statement of rules or principles to be followed. A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observations or experiments and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what is held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed. A hypothesis proposed as an explanation, hence a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture. In a general sense. *From The Compact Oxford English Dictionary (1991, pp. 1070 and 2040).

218 Systemic Change

Since much of the work with systemic forms of methodology involve the more connotative meanings of theory, it is instructive to consider a topology of manifestations that theory may take. It is important to keep in mind in advancing any systemic inquiry to systemic change which kind of theory applies. Figure 24, from Collen (1995b), shows such a topology with a descriptive definition of each kind of theory. As informative as the dictionary can be, the taxonomy becomes pragmatic when actually working the method-theory link for a particular inquiry. In drawing upon theory to inform inquiry, we must be clear what kind of theory (Figure 24) is being linked to method. Parenthetically, we will find it relevant to remain vigilant over the course of inquiry to the distinction between the theory publicly espoused and the theory actually in use (Argyrus et al., 1991). For illustrative purposes, we refer to another scheme (Figure 25) that shows the use of this resource in regard to the contribution of theory to developing methodology for systemic change. Peter Checkland (1981) categorizes systems into five major classes called natural, designed physical, designed abstract, human activity, and transcendental systems. The systems comprising each category are associated with their own features, properties, disciplines of study, bases of knowledge, theories of explanation, and methods of inquiry. It is in reference to this theoretical map that soft systems methodology is developed for application to human activity systems. In the execution, its practitioners make use of designed abstract systems. Checkland's scheme can serve as a theoretical foundation for the development of systems methods suited to the study, understanding, and improvement of each type of system. Consequently, if we were to adopt this topology, it is critical that the methods appropriate to each kind of system be well understood. Further, to construct a methodology, we must understand the relation of systems categories to each other and the methods

Developing Human Inquiry for Systemic Change 219

affiliated with each category to integrate appropriately two or more methods into a construction (methodology) that enables research process to occur. Figure 24 Types of theory bearing on human inquiry (facets of theory)

GENERAL THEORY: A general conceptual framework that organizes a large body of concepts and principles and that pertains to a wide variety of phenomena. INFORMAL THEORY: A network of concepts and principles that supposedly accounts for a circumscribed subject area, integrated by a set of hypotheses and/or assertions based on an established body of disciplined inquiry. LAY THEORY: Speculation and opinion on a subject based on incidental associations among daily events. FORMAL THEORY: A cogent set of logically interrelated propositions, axioms, and laws, each aspect of which has been derived by logical application, such as deductive and/or inductive logic, and tested through hypothesis formulation and empirically based disciplined inquiry. GROUNDED THEORY: A category scheme generated by the constant comparative research method, or such equivalent, pertaining to a specific human experience based phenomenon and revealing a network of hierarchical relations among the categories.

220 Systemic Change

Figure 25 Linking theory to research methodology linking theory WHAT RESEARCH METHODS BEST STUDY EACH SYSTEM? to research methodology

The theory, chosen to link to method, organizes and integrates the essentials of what we know about a changing system, be it a person, family, working group, institution, corporation, or community. A method is also a conceptualization, but then we use it as a means to conduct disciplined inquiry to generate, develop, and test a theory. The reciprocal connection between the two is basic to our epistemology of systemic change. In short, we have two levels of consideration. First, we must know the methods of each category of theory. Second, we must know how to fit them together in various combinations to construct a methodology that justifiably complements and may even transcend the individual categories. In turn, the family of combinations may move us toward the realization that there is a general methodology. We can use it to design a specific application as the occasion demands. In each case, a specific methodology will be required to meet the complexity to be faced. In principle, it is possible to base a methodology on each theory taxonomy of systems articulated in the systems sciences. We can find ourselves in a quandary as to which theory taxonomy is the more meaningful to the task. Regardless of the founding taxonomy, does this pursuit lead us to a general order,

Developing Human Inquiry for Systemic Change 221

that is to say, a meta methodology? This tendency toward hierarchy in methodology is one form of complexification discussed in the next chapter. Expertise A second resource upon which to draw in constructing a research methodology for human inquiry is with those whose wisdom may have something to show us in formulating and conducting inquiry for systemic change. Table 14 provides some definitions of what is meant by this resource. These outstanding persons are likely to be those systemists who, through a lifetime of work with people and their problems, have the insights and adeptness to know what to do in human predicaments on a collective scale. These elders and sages are not necessarily those who have received the most accolades in their field. They may be humble experts, perhaps sparsely published and rarely in the public eye. They may not be formally trained in systems science, systems thinking, and systems methodology. Further, they may have no academic degrees whatsoever, but they may be recognized among their peers for possessing equivalent qualities that become an invaluable community resource in times of crisis. Abraham Maslow's research into the lives of those he termed selfactualized may also help to define this area (Maslow, 1962). Table 14 Definitions of expertise* EXPERTISE Expert opinion or knowledge Quality or state of having knowledge, skill, or expertness in a particular branch of study Obtaining through submitting a matter to experts *From The Compact Oxford English Dictionary (1991, p. 551).

222 Systemic Change

Each expert can serve as a key member of the research group developing the methodology (Figure 26). Various experts also serve as mentors for passing on their methodology to the next generation of researchers. Figure 26 Linking expertise to research methodology linking expertise WHOSE RESEARCH METHOD IS BEST TO STUDY THIS SYSTEM?

Complementing the community sages are central contributors to systems methodology who, from their work in human organizations, have advanced a systemic method or methodology. The progenitor of a systems method or methodology is another kind of expert. To highlight a sampling of this resource we call expertise, we have from Russell Ackoff(1981) interactive planning, Sanford Beer (1982) viable systems model, Jay Forrester (1969) system dynamics, Harold Linstone (1995) multiple perspectives, Richard Mason and Ian Mitroff (1981) strategic assumption surfacing and testing, John Warfield (1970) interactive management, and Marvin Weisbord (1992) future search conferencing. However, to utilize this resource, as with others, it is not the author's definition of terms that is to determine the meaning for

Developing Human Inquiry for Systemic Change 223

those who engage in human inquiry for systemic change. It is the researchers and their cohorts who define the resources that enable a research methodology to be conceived, systematized, concretized, and executed. Experience In contrast to the expert, the experience (Table 15) of each member of a research team is a valuable resource in human inquiry. Each member builds up a fund of experiences that provides the substance to construct a conceptual framework and cognitive map for successfully navigating many social contexts (Kolb, 1984). Individuals contribute their experiences to the process of inquiry as active collaborators and co-researchers. Table 15 Definitions of experience* EXPERIENCE The action of putting to the test; proof by actual trial; practical demonstration. Obsolete. The actual observation of facts or events, considered as a source of knowledge. The fact of being consciously the subject of a state or condition, or of being consciously affected by an event; a state or condition viewed subjectively. What has been experienced; the events that have taken place within the knowledge of an individual, or community, humankind at large, of particular period or generally. Knowledge resulting from actual observation or from what one has undergone. The state of having been occupied in any department of study or practice, in affairs generally or in the intercourse of life; the extent to which or the length of time which one has been so occupied; the aptitudes, skill, judgment, etc. thereby acquired. *From The Compact Oxford English Dictionary (1991, p. 550).

224 Systemic Change

Table 15 conveys a multi-sided view of experience. Participants typically offer a wealth of experiences in the organization context of inquiry (Figure 27). They are engaged in and are at the effect of ongoing systemic changes. From their learning experiences, they have acquired particular know-how and skills to make inquiry a feedforward endeavor. Figure 27 Linking experience to research methodology linking experience WHAT CAN EACH PERSON CONTRIBUTE TO THE PROCESS OF INQUIRY? to research methodology

The research team can tap into this resource at all phases of research process. Recognition and validation of this rich resource are essential aspects of collaborative inquiry. Research methodologies noted in the previous section, purporting to be systemic, rely on the experience of those participating to ensure successful inquiry. A specific case in point is an earlier version of social systems design methodology (Banathy, 1991), in which one of

Developing Human Inquiry for Systemic Change 225

the five conceptual spaces recognized this resource by calling it the "experience space." This resource for the advancement of methodology rests on the human potential inherent in the human activity system. It assumes that each person has a needed and worthy contribution to make to the research group throughout the inquiry. Research methodology based on this resource is often the initial starting point for a rich diversity of specific applications generated by the unique talents of individual members. Published literature in the social psychology of small groups, communication research, team work, interdisciplinary research, cooperative learning, focus groups, and group facilitation are especially relevant to the researcher's understanding of the place that experience has in the interpersonal dynamics of human inquiry (p. ex Bray et al, 2000; Collen, 1994; Glassman and Kates, 1990; Krueger, 1988; Larson and LaFasto, 1989; Reason and Bradbury, 2001). Practice

This resource for developing methodology is to be distinguished from others by its emphasis on praxis (Table 16). This resource is about the special attention given to the pragmatic and praxiological aspects of methodology. The focus is on the specifics of decisions and actions directly determining the nature and course of inquiry. Practice taps praxiological decision making discussed in the previous chapter. Both practice and praxis are closely related for our purposes; they are presented in Table 16 to make more readily apparent the richer picture inherent in this resource. Practice concerns not just a specific action, decision, or technique, but also the general aspect that is the praxis contributing to the development of a systemic methodology applicable to systemic change.

226 Systemic Change Table 16 Definitions of practice and praxis* PRACTICE The action of doing something; performance, execution, working; method of action or working. The habitual doing or carrying on of something: usual, customary, or constant action; a habitual way or mode of acting. The doing of something repeatedly or continuously for the purpose of or with the result of attaining proficiency. PRAXIS Practice or exercise of a technical subject or art, as distinct from theory; habitual action, accepted practice, custom. A collection of examples, or example, to serve for practice or exercise in a subject; a means or instrument of practice or exercise in a subject; a practical specimen or model. *From The Compact Oxford English Dictionary (1991, p. 1406, 1408).

Some key questions for researchers developing their specific applications are: What works? What works efficiently and efficaciously? What is maximally beneficial and minimally detrimental? What works cost effectively? Among the resources to construct a research methodology, the Es of praxiology show up most obviously in this resource. Regardless of the questions asked, it is through the doing — the practices of inquiry — that the methodology emerges, is tested, and subsequently refined (Figure 28). The notorious Hawthorne Effect (Parsons, 1974; Schwartzman, 1993) illuminates the importance of research methodology development from practice. In this research program, conducted at the Western Electric Company plant near Chicago, known as the Hawthorne Works, investigators began with experimental method, later conducted research interviews, and after that participant observation, trying to explain unexpected increases in worker performance. The series of studies over nearly two

Developing Human Inquiry for Systemic Change 227

decades entailed an unfolding research methodology based on both practical considerations and limited results obtained in earlier studies. The delimitations of one method pushed researchers to use another method. This research demonstrates the forward motion through research cycles in programmatic research discussed in the last chapter. It is also mentioned in regard to the complexification of inquiry to be discussed in the next chapter. Figure 28 Linking practice to research methodology linking practice WHAT RESEARCH PRACTICES MAKE INQUIRY MORE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT? to research methodology

Simulation Simulation means mimicking, modeling, and duplicating in a vicarious and representational fashion the phenomenon and method

228 Systemic Change

of studying it (Table 17). We may develop artificial eyes and arms to make observations and collect samples, respectively, from a distant land. We may develop software subroutines to guide a probe to positions for minute injections into tissue or for extraction of single cells within the human body. We can augment our personal meetings by means of media technology to monitor and influence business transactions, politics, and consumer product distribution. These examples serve to illustrate the wide spread use of this resource of research methodology. Table 17 Definitions of simulation* SIMULATION Tendency to assume a form of resemblance to something else. The technique of imitating the behavior of some situation or process by means of a suitably analogous situation or apparatus or model, especially for purpose of study or personnel training. *From The Compact Oxford English Dictionary (1991, p. 1770).

Though simulation may be perhaps most vivid in the physical presence of technology in our everyday life, it may be the most difficult to conceptualize as a resource for methodology development compared to the other resources. As researchers comprising a human activity system engage in their collaborative efforts for systemic change, much of their essential support for their research process depends on the reliable operations of the takenfor-granted technologies. For example, computer communication and networking among the members of the research team are becoming more a part of inquiry at all stages of the research cycle. Communications among team members preoccupy their activities, while the machinery is presumed to operate flawlessly. Without the dependability of the technology, we must revert

Developing Human Inquiry for Systemic Change 229

back to an earlier form of technology. More specifically, technological failure, when unfixable, usually means a return to knowhow before the current technology became an integral part of our methodology. This resource is being discussed in terms of technology because, for any given technology, simulation to the point of dependability preceded its distribution and use. The technology in use, before it became an integral part of the research methodology, was put through a series of exercises designed to simulate use in the field. Further, limited usage often occurs to test its efficiency, effectiveness, dependability (reliability), and longevity (sustainability) before being released system wide. The human-machine interface lies at the core of this resource of methodology development. With the rapid spread and availability of a wide range of technologies, virtual modeling of the real world approaches such realistic proportions that the boundary between natural and virtual realities gets fuzzier. Researchers in many sciences now include modeling by computer to study complex systems (Casti, 1997). A parallel line of argumentation may be made regarding the natural and artificial as more synthetic substances and prosthetic devices come to inhabit the human body. Many profound beneficial applications await futuristically oriented scientific explorers and inventors. The limitations of scale of the human body and the impossibility of entry into environments that cannot support the existence of human life have prompted the development of simulation methodologies. Genetics, space and ocean exploration, medical diagnosis and microsurgery, artificial intelligence, and robotics are outstanding examples of computer supported simulation. Imaging and modeling methods provide the methodology of inquiry. The above trends of human-machine interface are extending the human senses of collaborating researchers. Human activity systems are relevant because every example alluded to above is embedded in human activity systems. The technologies allow us

230 Systemic Change

to examine human activity systems to profound microscopic depths and macroscopic heights. Prevalent use of simulation in the systems sciences occurs through modeling (Figure 29). To study and serve human activity systems, systems methodology has its applications (p. ex Ackoff, 1981; Checkland and Scholes, 1990; Senge, 1990). While modeling tends to be limited to particular applications (Breitenecker et al., 1990; Deutsch and Lehmann, 1992; Verveen, 1990), there is much we can learn generally from modeling activities in the design of systems (Gigch, 1991). Serendipity is an important aspect to highlight in this relationship, because many advances in research methods stem from unexpected discoveries about methodology through modeling. Figure 29 Linking simulation to research methodology linking simulation WHAT FORMS OF INQUIRY BEST MIMIC THE SYSTEM? to research methodology

As to one kind of human organization, routine functioning of large corporations today around the globe rely on the complex interconnection and interdependence of a) people, b) hardware, and c) software. They are extensively meshed together. This fact

Developing Human Inquiry for Systemic Change 231

has certainly influenced the author (1996a) and James Miller (1978) in their formulations of systems methodology. Officers of transnational corporations monitor corporate global activities through multimedia communication technologies. Concomitantly, active modeling by means of computer simulation of stock market activity and weather phenomena are two prominent examples of many displays that the citizenry views on the Internet from home computers. There is a strong belief among businesses and citizenry alike that their efficient and effective interface enables communication control, described in an earlier chapter, and a competitive edge. Given this belief, three assertions about simulation appear: i) it supports methodological applications for ongoing organization analysis and redesign of subsystems of people-hardware-software interface; ii) it allows play at designing, planning, and implementing various scenarios for profit making; and iii) it makes more probable economic survival in the global marketplace. When systems malfunction, the interface provides an obvious problem focus. Is it the hardware, software, or operator? Is there an incompatibility? What interaction among them has gone astray? Modeling and simulation assist organizations to hypothesize and pilot test, respectively, possible problem foci and corrections. They help to discover where in the interface the trouble appears and test possible rectifications before experimenting with system-wide changes that will have profound repercussions. Thus, this resource is often invaluable in making mid-course corrections, in the sense of the cybernaut steering his vessel to a distant port. Without playing with possible scenarios, beta testing products, and contrasting action plans, corporations cannot hope to maintain a competitive edge and viable market share. Once a technology is developed, interests soon follow to apply it in the service of human inquiry and to combine it compatibly with other technologies in use. With careful ex-

232 Systemic Change

animation, it soon becomes apparent this complex integration has made possible every major extension of one technology to the emergence of another. A few of the most obvious examples are the telescope, microscope, telephone, automobile, camera, submarine, and computer. The history of methodology consists of the incremental integration of scientific and technological discovery, innovation, and invention, leading to further scientific and technological discovery, innovation, and invention (Basalla, 1988; Petroski, 1992). Obviously, this relationship is also characteristic of the remaining resource (innovation) to be discussed. To conclude, simulation not only supports, but also augments a methodology application. From every newly developed technology there develops the potential for a method of its application in human inquiry. Consequently, we can describe a taxonomy of technologies as the basis for methodology development. Thus, use of simulation technology becomes a general conceptual scheme of the various methods that human beings have ingeniously invented and applied to the study of human phenomena, problems, predicaments, and issues. From each technology springs a method, and convergence with other methods yields methodology. As with other resources, we can look for the rubric that umbrellas a bundle of specific technological and methodological applications. Parenthetically, applications of modeling and simulation may be hierarchically organized by methodological complexity shown in Figure 32 and discussed in the next chapter. Corroboratively, Gigch (1991) describes a three level hierarchy of modeling that parallels this hierarchy. Innovation What we mean by innovation in terms of methodology for human inquiry is suggested in Table 18. Innovation is about changing method as it is practiced and studying the consequences. This

Developing Human Inquiry for Systemic Change 233

last resource to be considered may be implied largely through the other five. However, emphasis given here comes from the importance of experimentation, studying variations in research procedures, and taking advantage of serendipity in human inquiry. Table 18 Definitions of innovation* INNOVATION Action of change or alteration in what is established by the introduction of new elements or forms; introduction of novelties. A change made in the nature or fashion of anything; something introduced; a novel practice, method, etc. *From The Compact Oxford English Dictionary (1991, p. 583).

We may consider that "variations" in Figure 30 have four important meanings. First, we have variations of the phenomenon under the same conditions. Second, we study varying conditions in which the same phenomenon occurs. Third, we create variations in methodology (research procedures and practices). And fourth, we benefit from the results from the other three, specifically the diversity of practices and tools generated (Basalla, 1988). The latter two are particularly of interest here. Certain aspects of a phenomenon may be detectable by some variations in methodology but not others. All four kinds of variation contribute to the richness of this resource for developing human inquiry for systemic change. Researchers tinker with the phenomenon under study. Plausible variations in research procedures are used to comprehend the scope and depth of systemic change. The conditions in which system-wide change become visible and persistent are of great interest. Often pointed out by scientists is the unexpected result that leads to the next step in research process, next breakthrough, and next serendipitous discovery (Roberts, 1989).

234 Systemic Change Figure 30 Linking innovation to research methodology linking innovation WHAT VARIATIONS IN RESEARCH METHOD ENABLE STUDY OF THE SYSTEM?

It is crucial to recognize that innovations in our current methods become seeds and later directions to develop new methods. Innovation can be a principle used to find those variations of different methods that can be combined compatibly. The Es of praxiology may be explored through variations in research procedure to know better in what circumstances and under what conditions one variation is advised over others. For example, sometimes in an institutional setting, focus groups may be used with surveys and feed into a soft systems methodology. Experimental method may be used within a systems methodology (Collen, 1985). We can also learn about constructing methodologies from case presentations, such as studies conducted in the Hawthorne Works (Schwartzman, 1993), British army (Davies, 1991), and Ireland (Trauth and O'Connor, 1991). The search for repeated combinations that appear to fit under a variety of circumstances and conditions becomes a pursuit for

4. Converging Resources The six resources constitute six directions for advancing methodology for human inquiry. Clearly, they overlap and to a degree are interdependent. The six are used to organize and give guidance to research process. The base for this approach to development of a general methodology for human inquiry is shown in Figure 31. Figure 31 A general and systemic approach to research methodology for human inquiry

This conception has some proclivity to a Kotarbinskian praxiology, or a methodology of methodology (Gasparski, 1993). At the center, the inquirers must create through research process and praxiological decision making the methodology that brings to life human inquiry for systemic change. Inquiry entails an emergent

236 Systemic Change

human activity system. It involves the convergent interactions of the six resources that are for the inquirers to make their system comprehensible and consequential systemic change visible. Engaging the systemic view of the whole — facing the paradox of systemic thinking — is facilitated by bringing the six resources together to compose a practical scheme. Putting the scheme into action involves adaptation and accommodation to the circumstances and situations of inquiry. The developing research methodology must qualify as a systemic methodology according to the characteristics described in an earlier chapter. The development of any viable methodology will converge all six resources. To what degree each is evident in the methodology depends upon which resources, or one might say perspectives, that researchers find more praxiological to constructing and conducting their inquiry. In searching for directions to improve our methodologies, it is a matter of emphasis. The area given greatest resources will, of course, influence the application. Therefore, the implication is that a theory-based (or theory-driven) methodology will have primarily theoretical contributions to make, an experienced-based methodology will provide mainly a humanizing and user friendly approach, and a practice-based methodology will make chiefly pragmatic and praxiological contributions.

5. Summary Six general resources are needed to construct a research methodology involving human inquiry for systemic change. They are theory, expertise, experience, practice, simulation, and innovation. These resources are convergent in various forms to create many methodological variations. Praxiology becomes a major influence in determining which manifestation of methodology becomes the one applied to a particular systemic change.

Developing Human Inquiry for Systemic Change 237

The six resources are also useful as a conceptual system in itself. Applying the scheme yields insights regarding directions for advancing research methodology. Such advancements are important if we are to have systemic methodologies to match the complexity of the systems we are part. There is much yet to know about how to do methodology construction. To match the complexity of the methodology to the complexity of the systems we study remains a frontier. But once the frontier becomes familiar, to do methodology construction well will pose many challenges. A general approach to methodology may be profitable in allowing the flexibility necessary to construct a diverse range of methodologies as best fits with the complexities of system-wide change. The resources represent yet another kind of complexity in methodology and systemic change. Developing systemic methodologies for human inquiry, the theme of this chapter, by means of the six resources, demonstrates one kind of complexification inherent in human inquiry for systemic change. Over the course of the last several chapters, we have been describing and advancing human inquiry toward ever more complex expressions. In the remaining chapter, additional approaches to the subject are presented, and complexification is explored as an general process that is integral to both research methodology for human inquiry and systemic change.

6. Activities and Exercises 1. Utilizing one of the six resources covered in this chapter describe three to four variations in constructing a research methodology for systemic change. Make this activity concrete by selecting a systemic problem or issue, then draw on a resource to advance forms of a research methodology.

238 Systemic Change

2. Examine the set of key resources as a conceptual system. What are some of the major interdependencies and interrelations among them? In what ways might the relationships among resources determine the research methodology to be used for systemic change? 3. There is no requirement that the scheme of six resources discussed in the chapter be limited to six. The scheme is not meant to be complete. In your opinion, is there another resource that should be included? When added, discuss the consequences on the scheme for constructing and advancing research methodology, as you would apply it in human inquiry for systemic change. 4. Relate the scheme of six resources to the Es of praxiology presented in an earlier chapter. Discuss the interface between the two conceptual schemes (resources and Es) as it may bear on the construction of research methodology to be applied for systemic change. 5. Discuss some ways in which the use of the six resources may have a bearing on each phase of the research cycle presented in the previous chapter. It may be easier to complete this activity using a research study known to you to illustrate ways the resources become relevant at each phase of the research cycle. Note also the metaphor of the research rope (Figure 22). Alternatively, a research study may be proposed to provide the illustrations.

Complexification

1. Introduction At various points across chapters the idea of complexification has appeared. Although thought to be complementary with articulation of the construct by John Casti (1994), the author's use is targeted specifically to appreciate and advance research methodology for systemic change through praxis and human inquiry. This chapter takes complexification a step farther than previous chapters. It focuses on the confluence of the schemes more wholistically. This chapter shows several avenues in which human inquiry complexifies as a natural and orderly process, when inquirers seek more than a superficial awareness of systemic changes in the human activity system of which they are part. Lastly, this chapter discusses specific forms of complexification p e r t a i n i n g to human i n q u i r y . As numerous and cumulative as they appear in this book, it is instructive that their integration be examined. After all, systemic research for systemic change does happen, as published reports testify (p. ex. Checkland, 2000; Espejo, 1990; Flood and Romm, 1996; Jackson, 1991; Weisbord. 1992). There is hope the complexities of human inquiry, that often seem overwhelming to researchers, can contribute favorably to system-wide change.

240 Systemic Change

2. A Coming to Terms In an earlier chapter, we stressed caution in the usage of the terms systemic and systematic when applied to human inquiry. Similarly, complexification may be too quickly presumed to mean complication. Complexification is easy to contrast with simplification but not complication. The dictionary definitions (Table 19) do not convey the subtle differences. Table 19 Definitions of complexification and complication* COMPLEXIFICATION The action of becoming more complex or complicated. Several parts becoming more united or connected together; interwoven; whole formed by composite of different elements. A whole comprehending in its compass a number of connected, interwoven parts or involved particulars; an embracing or encompassing several elements. COMPLICATION An involved condition or structure produced by the intimate interweaving of various elements. The action of combining, or condition of being combined, in an entangled, involved, integrate, or perplexing manner; an entangled state of relations, matters, mass, structure, or affairs. Something that complicates or adds difficulties. *From The Compact Oxford English Dictionary (1991, p. 302).

The distinction between the two constructs is important in human inquiry devoted to systemic change. Researchers are not generally interested in making their research process and fruits of their inquiries complicated. Quite the opposite. Simplicity is preferred whenever possible, as it approaches the scientific ideal of parsimony. The Es of praxiology are favored over any unnecessary entanglements and difficulties. Simplicity is sought in the combining of methodological components, as much as possible, without jeopardizing the validity of inquiry.

Complexification 241

Complexification and complication are complementary in the same sense that presumption and prejudice, challenge and problem, opportunity and crisis, large and fat, disassemble and destroy, and solitude and loneliness have semantic overlap. For these pairs of cognates, we are socialized to believe that the former ones are positive and the latter ones are negative. But in the case of the cognates Complexification and simplification there is an exception. Making advantageous use of the Es of praxiology in human inquiry, researchers accept the necessity to complexify, while at the same time, they prefer to simplify. Parsimonious decision making is appreciated when and where ever it appears. Consequentially, researchers pursue careful Complexification of their methodology, knowing full well complications will likely ensue. The challenge is to complexify and keep complications to a minimum. Opportunities to simplify help tremendously to actualize this research strategy. Finally, simplification in thought and action often results in over-simplification. This is the negative side of simplification. The latter does not contribute sufficiently to construct a research methodology that enables inquirers to attain a systemic comprehension adequate to describe, manage, ameliorate, and appreciate the complexities involved.

3. Nature of Decision Making in Human Inquiry What does it mean to complexify human inquiry? It means development from simpler to more complex research procedures. In the previous chapter on research process, we highlighted numerous decisions necessary to traverse the research cycle. In this section, we are particularly interested in decisions involving the Es of praxiology that complexify human inquiry. A decision involves choices. Often the choices may be arranged on a scale of complexity. Those decisions that increase use

242 Systemic Change

of one particular resource — theory, expertise, experience, practice, simulation, or innovation — simultaneously influence use of the other resources. Given to praxiological decision making, researchers coordinate carefully their research procedures over time. Complexifying inquiry tends to thicken the interrelatedness among the phases of the research cycle (Figure 21) and tighten the research rope (Figure 22). Stepping back from the engagement in inquiry to take a more reflexive stance helps researchers realize there are many decisions that shift thinking from non systemic to systemic research process. The latter tends to complexify human inquiry. Decisions toward complexification are more appropriate when the aims of inquiry are a) a comprehensive public display of the system studied, b) a deepened appreciation of the complexities of the system one is part, and c) an engagement in human inquiry to bring about systemic change. These three aims correspond to those of the three paradigmatic arenas of human inquiry (Collen, 1993) that give rise to three emergent forms of praxiology discussed earlier. Table 20 dimensionalizes several bases of decision making involved in the construction of research methodology for human inquiry. It is in the course of making the decisions, particularly those of a praxiological nature, that the phases of the research process of a specific study become explicit and complexify. The entries in the table illustrate aspects that complexify human inquiry. Proceeding down the table, some not so obvious entries require more explanation. Sampling one or more universes refers to the number of discernible populations to be sampled. Any hierarchy of human organization may be sampled, such as the decision to use a stratified random sampling plan to obtain participants representing the traditional tiers of bureaucracy. Also, at any given level, there can be horizontal (heterarchical) sampling of departments and divisions. The mixed sampling plan would involve the decision to sample the same hierarchical

Complexification 243

positions across various heterarchical levels. Researchers can also construe sampling as the converse, that is, sample heterarchically at various hierarchical levels. These considerations become critical in cross-organization comparisons. Table 20 Choices in decision making that complexify human inquiry Dimension

Complexification =====> <===== Simplification

FACTOR

SINGLE

MULTI-FACTOR

VARIABLE

UNTVARJATE

MULTIVARIATE

PARTICIPANTS

N= 1

N>1

ORGANIZATION

N = 1

N>I

SAMPLING

UNIVERSE

MULTI-VERSE

HIERARCHY

VERTICAL

MIXED

HETERARCHY

HORIZONTAL

MIXED

RESEARCHER

SOLO

TEAM

DISCIPLINARY

MONO

MULTI, INTER, TRANS

ARENA

ONE

MORE THAN ONE

METHODOLOGY

UNI-METHOD

MULTI-METHOD

TIME

ONCE

MORE THAN ONCE

PLACE

ONE

MORE THAN ONE

DESIGN

WITHIN, BETWEEN

MIXED

ANALYSIS

WITHIN, BETWEEN

MIXED

RESEARCH CYCLE

SINGLE

PROGRAMMATIC

REVIEW (IRB)

ONE

TWO

FUNDING SOURCE

ONE

MORE THAN ONE

Complexification =====> <===== Simplification

244 Systemic Change

Arena refers to paradigmatic arena of inquiry or research tradition. Whether researchers are of one research tradition or their research team represents a mix of traditions is pertinent to entries indicated by arena and researcher. These considerations may also complexify methodology, whether one or a mix of research procedures for data collection and data processing are involved. Proposed research may require review for impact on human participants by more than one IRB, especially when different institutions are overseeing and funding the research. More than one funder (sponsor) usually means more reports of progress, forms, and auditing procedures to complete. All of the above shifts toward complexification contribute to a more intricate, interwoven, and encompassing research process. The kinds of decisions indicated in Table 20 connect importantly to the issue of whether a research methodology and accompanying research processes are systemic or non systemic. Choices researchers make can complexify their methodology to fulfill demands of a systemic inquiry sufficiently complex to meet the complexity of system-wide change expected. As the number of the choices shift toward complexification, the systemic nature of research becomes more apparent. For example, multivariate research often makes more of the system visible in data processing, as analyses reveal patterns and trends among several variables, in contrast to dependence on one variable. These multivariate observations may be made on more than one occasion (time) and location (place) to create a complex mix of between and within type research designs covering system-wide activities. The resultant picture of project management through each phase of the research cycle devoted to systemic change is itself complex. It can be daunting. It can seem more than daunting when it involves programmatic research. The latter requires foresight and thoughtful planning if resources are to be used prudently. It entails an organized effort to coordinate multiple inquiries toward a common end. It requires carefully considering forms of praxi-

Complexification 245

ology and research traditions in constructing and applying research methodology.

4. Tiers of Research Methodology From the introduction in this book, we realize that the unfolding of conceptual levels of research methodology are in a nested systemic relationship (Figure 32). Researchers conceptualize their approach to research in terms of levels when constructing increasingly more complex inquiries (Collen, 1995b). Figure 32 Hierarchy of methodological complexity*

*From Collen (1995b).

The first tier or level involves research procedures and techniques of data collecting and data processing. For example, research interviewing is very popular when researchers need to obtain the self-reported experiences of persons involved in systemic change. These persons may, in fact, be the agents of systemic change. They may be those subjected to systemic change. These persons perceive the situation in a variety of ways

246 Systemic Change

and have rich experiences to report about what is happening to them as their system changes. Research interviewing is only one of several traditional forms of data collecting. It is at this level that researchers have direct contact with their participants, interact with the phenomenon under study, experience systemic change, and gather what become the data for research purposes. The second tier is more abstract than the first tier. It is largely conceptual, in that researchers discuss and come to agreement on what research procedures and techniques comprise their research methods. A particular research method comes to have its name label because a critical mass of researchers agree they are performing the same kind of research process. They articulate the characteristics of their method and a published literature develops about the method, including numerous research reports using it. Research method usually entails more than one research procedure or technique, or variations of them, that researchers agree belong under the same rubric. For example, historiographers are familiar with a family of research procedures and techniques that enable them to study human collectives, be they lives, events, eras, empires, concentrations, migrations, and dispersions of humanity. The focus on researchers is not to discount the contribution that a single researcher can make to establish forms of research design, data collection and data processing, which subsequently attracts the attention and emulation of other researchers. Soon the cadre of researchers becomes evident at the second tier. A standardized, codified, and subscribed way of doing research becomes affiliated with a research community. It takes but one generation of researchers to establish a tradition. The experimental research designs and statistical procedures for data processing of Ronald A. Fisher illustrate the profound influence one contributor can have on succeeding generations of researchers who use and extend the method, by which it blossoms into an omnipresent research tradition in the behavioral and social

Complexification 247

sciences (Campbell and Stanley, 1963; Fisher, 1951; Howell, 1992; Rucci and Tweney, 1980; Winer, 1971). The third tier is also conceptual. Similar to the first and second tiers, research activities come to be conceptualized in more integrated forms. At this tier, the term methodology is appropriate, because two or more research methods, and their associated research procedures and techniques, are a) converged under a name label of methodology, or b) mixed, leaving researchers to communicate by their choice of label which method largely dominates the methodology. Such a convergence may be controversial, transient, and illustrative of innovation as a resource. In contrast to method, it is just as important to know that archivists, epidemiologists, historians, and historiographers draw upon a complementary family of research procedures and techniques to conduct their inquiries. To the extent that they converge parts of methods from related disciplines for a specific inquiry, their way of doing research becomes a methodology. However, some forms of convergence successfully integrate to gain broadened acceptance of the methodology as a research tradition. One such exemplar is ethnography. As to the hybridization of established research traditions, the components of each tradition become mixed in the emergent methodology. Such an argument may be advanced for a heuristic methodology that is an interplay of phenomenology and hermeneutics. Another approach to heuristic methodology altogether comes from the convergence of computer simulation and mathematics applied to modeling complex human activity. Yet another kind of hybrid is psychohistory that is the meld of one form of hermeneutics (psychoanalysis) and historical method. However, these examples only serve to convey the idea of the third tier. There seems no limit to creative and innovative pursuits of researchers. Essentially, this tier is the challenging pursuit of converging and mixing methods to construct methodologies that enables researchers to fulfill their intentions.

248 Systemic Change

In methodology for systemic change, we expect systemic and collective forms of methodology, such as multiple versions of participatory action research. These forms are to meet the characteristics of systemic methodology described in a previous chapter. Choices of select research methods are to be incorporated to facilitate progress through the systemic methodology. The expectation of advance in methodology to increasingly complex forms, namely from a procedure to a method to a methodology, leads us to a more fully developed and comprehensive approach to grasp the depth, breadth, and complexity of systemic change. It is usually to the level of methodology that we must aspire to fit the methodology of the inquiry to the apparent complexity of system-wide phenomena, problems, predicaments, and issues studied in human organizations. Researchers find it evidently necessary to construct complex inquiry, appropriately termed methodology, to exercise human inquiry for systemic change. Eileen Trauth and Barbara O'Connor (1991) studied "the role of societal factors in Ireland's progression from an agrarian to an information economy." Their methodology made use of participant observation, open-ended interviewing, and documentary analysis, a combination often found in ethnography. Linda Davies (1991) studied the organizational culture of the British army. She constructed the methodology for her inquiry within the framework of soft systems methodology. She expanded the methodology beyond its heavy dependence on modeling (abstract designed systems) to include additional recordings from participant observation, unstructured interviewing, documentary reading, and her researcher's diary. Note in these examples that construction of a methodology may occur a) spatially through the simultaneous configuration (interface) of research methods, b) temporally through sequential execution of research methods, and c) mixed research design, that is, both spatially and temporally in the same research project. As indicated in Table 20, these are bases of complexification.

Complexification 249

The hierarchy of methodological complexity (Figure 32) is an invitation to seek general methodology (Figure 31) to which we can address complexities of systemic change in human organizations. This praxiology culminates in the presentation of the last chapter. It serves to illustrate the fourth tier of the hierarchy, termed metamethodology. At the fourth tier, we have to imagine, converge, and apply the chief constructs covered in previous chapters to human inquiry. This endeavor brings together the cornerstones of the philosophical base of a general methodology, the systemic characteristics of method, advanced forms of disciplinarity, the Es and forms of praxiology, phases of the research cycle, and available resources to construct metamethodology. Operating at this fourth level means the human activity system, perhaps more accurately termed a research activity system, becomes the inquiry system that utilizes a general methodology for systems-wide change. We look more long range at facilitating participatory action oriented inquiry in a programmatic fashion. The research cycle more accurately fits the metaphor of the spiraling research rope (Figure 22). After years of programmatic research, researchers realize that they have attained this level of activity. We may cite a source mentioned in the previous chapter, namely Schwartzman (1993) who recounts the research program conducted at the Hawthorne Works. Over the ensuing two decades of this research program, researchers went from experimental method to research interviewing, and finally to participant observation. In retrospect, the complexification of the series of inquiries to account for worker performance suggests an approach and strategy of puzzle solving — a metamethodology — that extends beyond the tier of methodology. The 4-tier scheme of methodological complexity lies at the heart of a pedagogical approach for human inquiry (Collen, 1993, 1995b). It represents a conceptual system that alludes to some of the dynamics that complexify developing systemic forms of

250 Systemic Change

research methodology to study, explain, understand, and bring about systemic change. Certainly the scheme is purely conceptual. However, it becomes meaningful when applied by means of specific research procedures and techniques. This conceptualization assists researchers to organize, conduct, and understand their research process. Human organizations with established research groups engaged in bringing about changes in their organization are often ideally situated to actualize this scheme.

5. Dialectics in Human Inquiry Engagement in research process and praxiological decision making involves dialectics in human inquiry. Dialectics brings a creative tension for researchers to processes of inquiry. Those aspects shown in Figure 33 are salient ones stemming from the author's research experience. Where the researcher's decisions involve actions that make research process visible, dialectics influence those decisions and communicate the researcher's attitude and style of conducting inquiry. Dialectics come with participation in research process. Understanding the polarities help researchers to cope with and work through each phase of the research cycle (Figure 21). The dialectical aspects of human inquiry imbue research process with tension. Like the person (cybernaut) at the helm of a boat, the researcher must contend with the consequences of earlier decisions in steering an inquiry through fine adjustments, self-corrective motions, and an occasional reconsideration of earlier actions to carry out the research. Further, as the helmsman, the researcher knows the journey is filled with uncertainties and the final destination is often unclear as well. When a decision is made along the way, the choice typically includes one aspect of inquiry to the exclusion of others. For example, resources may

Complexification 251

Figure 33 Dialectics in research process*

252 Systemic Change

permit only one method of data collection. But the idea of inclusivity is to emphasize that in making the choice all relevant choices have been considered. Nevertheless, there will be times in progressing through the research cycle when the researcher will reflect upon whether the choice of method made was the better one for the inquiry at hand. Herein lies the source of the tension. What is the better choice of a research procedure, participant, place to observe, time of day to observe, instrument, and statistic? What is the better choice for the researchers to fulfill their aims? To exclude from the decision making a viable choice connects directly with the negativity of the Es of praxiology, specifically, an inefficient, ineffective, and unnecessarily expensive choice. Dialectics of inclusivity-exclusivity is about choices made implementing a research method. But always favoring the same research method (or tradition and way of doing research) for every kind of question, problem focus, and issue is methodolatry — not the productive path of human inquiry for systemic change. Balancing the temptation toward the exclusionary attitude of methodolatry is the inclusionary attitude of systemic inquiry. The latter provides a metadialectic favored by those inclined to decision making in research process that is heuristic, democratic, and collaborative. The attitude of inclusivity in methodology means that decision making involves defining the focus of inquiry through the generation, consideration, and choice among viable alternatives (options, aims, research questions). What choices are relevant and doable? Researchers have to consider and weigh the advantages and disadvantages, gains and risks to human participants, tradeoffs, and uncertainties of each choice, particularly in regard to the Es of praxiology. What resources will it take and consequentially mean to opt for each choice? Given what researchers can know at the time, they take the choice most suited to the inquiry at hand. This straight-forward four step paradigm is i) determine what needs to be decided, ii) define the choices, iii)

Complexification 253

compare and contrast them, and iv) decide. It outlines the steps of decision making discussed in a previous section of this chapter. It is one variation of several prominent for problem solving, and it is compatible with forms written primarily for business contexts and personal situations (p. ex Hammond et al., 1999). In general, for making the most informed decisions, the research strategy recommended is to consider the choices as inclusively as possible. As other dialectical aspects, the dialectic of antinomy-complementarity creates tension in decision making as the inquiry complexifies. Some decisions involve considerations whether there is fit and interface, or whether there is a clash and incommensurability. Are two research procedures contradictory and counterproductive to inquiry? In the sequencing of data collection, for example, which sequence minimizes unwelcomed biases and artificial order effects? As researchers construct complex methods and methodologies, complementarity becomes highly favored, because antinomy among choices for any given decision tends to undermine and invalidate research process. The position-perspective dialectic relates directly to considering only one choice in contrast to multiple choices in the decision making. Methodolatry is typical of the extreme position on the one hand regarding all decisions of research design, data collection, and data processing strictly according to one research tradition. What makes these decisions typically methodolatrous is the polemical denigration of the other research traditions as unscientific, irrelevant, and unsuitable to research process. A more pluralistic approach that fosters construction of a methodology from compatible components of select research traditions represents the perspectivistic and opposing extreme. As with other dialectical tensions in human inquiry, researchers struggle with pulls toward both extremes. Another common example of this dialectic is explaining empirical results according to one theoretical position only, in contrast to drawing on a number of the relevant theories.

254 Systemic Change

The design-plan dimension is not obvious to many researchers, because of their semantic overlap. Many researchers use the terms interchangeably. But there is an important difference. Although both terms in human inquiry refer directly to the use of resources, such as participants, research personnel, money, settings, and materials, research design emphasizes the spatial configuration of relationships among resources to be used, and the research plan emphasizes the step-by-step temporal execution of the project that is to consume these resources (Collen, 1995b). Any given research project has its design and its plan. They are complementary constructs that make the communication of the project complete and comprehensible. The dialectical tension inherent in this complementary pair centers on the coordination of place and time in the formulation and implementation of research. For example, it may be more convenient to have all participants come to one setting on one occasion to collect data, but it may generate more reliability and confidence in the data that addresses the research questions about systemic change to collect the data in multiple locations and on different occasions. From the design the resources become apparent, but when the various plans are compared, using such Es of praxiology as efficiency and economy, researchers discover marked differences. That is to say, one variation of design may lead to a lengthier plan and consumption of more resources, while another design with its shorter plan requires fewer resources. Though costly, the former is the more rigorous examination of systemic change, where the latter is not. Researchers struggle and tinker with variations of design and plan to cope with such dilemmas. Another lesser known and subtler dialectic in human inquiry is the collecting and processing of data. The tension arises when having collected data by means of one research tradition, researchers are aware of options to process the data by means of another research tradition. Conversely, knowing one way to process data tends to influence researchers to collect that kind of

Complexification 255

data. However, it may not be the kind of data needed to detect systemic change. Research interviewing is a popular means of collecting data in human inquiry. There are many forms of research interviewing (p. ex. Kvale, 1996; Mishler, 1986; Patton, 2002; Spradley, 1979). Given the interests of the research team, there may be more than one way of answering the research questions with narrative data. The archives and email communications of an organization may be amenable to multiple means of qualitative data processing. Just as viable is the use of quantitative data processing based on covariance and difference (Grimm and Yarnold, 1995; Hair et al., 1995), when numerical data is available. Qualitative and quantitative data processing can provide complimentary perspectives monitoring systemic change. The type of data to be collected and processed is another and related dialectic. Whether numbers, pictures, or words only are to be the data of inquiry represents one extreme. Collection and use of more than one data type defines the other extreme. Researchers need not limit themselves to only one data type. Researchers collect data in numerous forms. It is converted as necessary to other forms that enable them to fulfill their research aims and answer their research questions. Such forms may be produced naturally in the course of human activity — the footprints and residues of human activity — or they may be collected in forms determined by the technology interfaced with human activity for this purpose. It is important researchers remain open to those data types that make visible the systemic changes that occur. Numbers may speak louder than words in some cases, as can pictures. Other times, it is the spoken word that conveys systemic change, that is little reflected in the numbers and pictures available as the data of inquiry. The passivity-proactivity dialectic may perhaps be best understood in decisions researchers make to become directly involved in the collection of data. The three forms of observational method serve as a classic illustration of this dialectic (Collen, 1995b).

256 Systemic Change

Naturalistic observation tends to be remote viewing, as by means of spyglass and video camera. Non-participant observation places researchers in the vicinity and noticed by those being observed, but there is little if any direct contact with others. Participant observation is the most active form, in which researchers interact and converse with those being observed. When using the observational research tradition, researchers decide when and in what form they engage in making observations. Remote viewing is the passive extreme, while interaction requires some proactive engagement with the subject. Another common example is the employment of research assistants to administer research procedures, such as self report tests, surveys, and research interviews. At one extreme, delegation and outsourcing are actions taken toward passivity. Acting with and on those being studied convey the proactive extreme in research process. The last entry in Figure 33, but by no means the final one that could be discussed, is experience-interpretation. This dialectic typically concerns the question: When in the process of inquiry do researchers have enough data to commence data processing? Another form of this dialectic may be expressed as follows: How much critical information need researchers have about the relevant options, before a decision can be made? The experiences of one's own, other inquirers, and the participants may be a productive resource, but at some point researchers must interpret the data to make sense of it and comprehend the complexity of the systemic change it presumably portrays.

6. Contributions of Disciplinarity The chapter on disciplinarity led to an integration of its forms termed metadisciplinarity. The disciplinarity scheme (Figures 13 and 14) is to be incorporated into the complexification of research in macro level considerations of human inquiry for systemic

Complexification 257

change. Specifically, disciplinarity is a prime consideration in programmatic research devoted to macro level questions, problems and issues. Figure 34a depicts the spiral of disciplinarity noted in that earlier chapter. The tendency to transdisciplinary research teams in human inquiry for systemic change is compatible with the general theme and approach to research methodology developed throughout this book. Figure 34 Complexification of the disciplines a. Spiral progression

b. Dynamic tension between specialization and generalization

To elaborate the previous section a bit further, there is an additional kind of dialectical tension represented in Figure 34b. The many disciplines and fields of study have the simultaneous accretion of specializations and unification. As methodology and

258 Systemic Change

technology advance, enabling disciplined study of systemicity and complexity, the necessity of specialists continues because knowledge domains mushroom ever more beyond the comprehension of a single human being. In parallel fashion, there is the concomitant need for and appreciation of expert generalists. Complexification brings both differentiation within as well as unification beyond and above the disciplines. Figure 34b is to suggest that the existing ongoing dynamic tension is an inherent aspect of this process of disciplinarity. It involves the combined contributions of specialists and generalists. Although Figure 34 might suggest a cyclic process when examined momentarily, the growth of the disciplines is really a spiral process when viewed historically. Specialists tend to be of greatest value in their articulation of the knowledge domain through analytically oriented research, but they also contribute to other forms of research. As noted earlier, developing a systemic approach to inquiry relies on each expert (specialist) to make the needed contribution to the team effort required to fulfill successfully transdisciplinary aims of inquiry. Specialists are no longer confined or encouraged to remain within their own discipline. They are needed to work in research teams engaged in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research projects. In a similar vain, generalists provide an invaluable service to the progression of the disciplines by looking for and making us aware of the linkages among them. Their integrative research enables synthesis, raises boundary breaking and far reaching questions, and invites debate among very different kinds of researchers and even those from seemingly incompatible research traditions. This tendency to spiral through the phases of disciplinarity parallels the construction of research methodology commensurate with the hierarchy of methodological complexity (Figure 32). It is important to note that initiating inquiry with a systemic methodology means the inquirer's vantage point is the third tier.

Complexification 259

7. Basic Forms of Organizing Collective Human Activity The conceptual schemes discussed throughout this book are to be applied to human beings and human groups engaged in human inquiry for systemic change. But they only make sense in the context of some understanding of the ways human beings organize themselves and their activities. Human collectives are of great interest to researchers of all ilks and propensities, be they cyberneticists, ethnographers, ethnomethodologists, feminists, functionalists, historiographers, pragmatists, praxiologists, cultural critics, structuralists, and systemists. A classic typology of organizations comes from Max Weber (1947, 1958), whose triadic scheme uses the legitimacy and domination of power in leadership to promulgate traditionalautocratic, rational-legalistic, and charismatic type organizations. Of course, there are many other schemes, such as contrasting bureaucracy with networking types, yet within a broader historical scheme: feudal, proprietorships, steep hierarchies, and networking organizations (Savage, 1990). In marked contrast, another scheme uses metaphors to convey a range of types: machine, organism, brain, culture, political system, prison, flux, and transformation organizations (Morgan, 1986). A popular scheme is based on sociopolitical systems: monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, and adhocracy. But the triad examined in theory and research by Kurt Lewin (1951) on autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire conceptions of organizing has an enduring elegance in organization theory. It relates most directly to that of M. de Geus, who also formulates three basic human organizations. This section adopts one scheme (de Geus) as representative of several that could be used to fulfill this theoretical contribution as an essential piece of applying research methodology in human inquiry for systemic change. Such a scheme also highlights once again the importance of theory as both a resource and an epistemology that informs human inquiry.

260 Systemic Change

Harry Hummels (1996) has written a synopsis of the contribution of M. de Geus, whose organization theory consists of three "conceptions of organizing," termed rational, integrating, and libertarian (Figure 35a). They are differing bases by which human beings form organizations to achieve their aims. They lead to contrasting climates and structures, views of people, and strategies to conduct organizational activities. For example, an organization conceived and run upon rationality makes greatest use of hierarchical control and centralization, one based on an integrating conception runs largely on division of power and democratic process, and one run in a libertarian way becomes a loose selfmanaging consortium of relatively autonomous human groupings. Figure 35 Systemic view of three conceptions of organizing a. Three conceptions of human organizing in continuous interaction RATIONAL

b. Three kinds of domination (climate) in human organizations

Complexification 261

These forms are ideal types. In reality, each type may be found and tolerated in any given organization (Figure 35b). For our understanding and relating to others in the organization, the extent to which a conception dominates leads us to classify the organization to be one of these three types. The dominant conception is usually reflective of those having greatest influence on and responsibility for the organization. However, such an exercise would be an oversimplification when it comes to engagement in human inquiry and working with systemic change of any organization. By way of further illustration, let us imagine the transdisciplinary research team as falling within one of the de Geus categories. Rationality would pervade the praxiological decision making at each phase of the research cycle with a bureaucratic hierarchical distribution of responsibility and control that regulates the decision making. In contrast, another kind of research team may be characterized by democratic and consensus building interactions as equals in making the decisions required to progress through the phases of inquiry. And in contrast to these two research teams is the one in which the members have their assigned tasks as researchers to make those decisions furthering their research process with little if any consultation and participation in the decision making from other team members. These descriptions are to convey in a succinct form the rational, integrating, and libertarian forms of organizing, respectively. However, these types of research teams must function within a larger organizational context. A team of a given type may be aligned with its organizational type, or it may differ from it. From a systemic view, it is realistic not to stereotype teams and organizations too strictly. Just as the organization co-evolves with its societal context, so does the research team co-evolve with its organization. Types may fluctuate and transform. Such considerations, discussed in the next section, move us to complexify our understanding and working with systemic change.

262 Systemic Change

8. Systemic Change Between Basic Forms of Organizing The importance of the de Geus scheme, or an equivalent that researchers may favor, cannot be overemphasized. Given acceptance of the scheme, an appreciation is brought to light through human inquiry when we study the interactions of two collective human bodies, either within a given human organization or between two different organizations. Table 21 conveys combined organizing conceptions to be expected in the everyday reality when two collectives interact. Such considerations are critical to long range thinking and planning in research required to actualize systemic change. Two general points to be made about Table 21. The first has to do with collaboration and communication within a given organization. The second relates to collaboration and communication between two organizations. Table 21 Interactions between organization entities of similar and differing conceptions of organizing Rational Rational Integrating Libertarian

R-R

Integrating

Libertarian

R-I

R-L

I-I

I-L L-L

The first point (problem) arises when a research team must communicate and interact with another entity of the human organization of which it is part. Naturally, this other entity also has its own way of organizing its activities. The other entity may relate to the research team according to any of the three conceptions. We would expect the most cooperation and facilitation when the other entity is most similar in organizing to that of the research team; however, this is presumptuous. Verisimilitude does not guarantee progress and productivity in terms

Complexification 263

of the Es of praxiology. The most obvious illustration is the clash between two warring competitors, each organized and controlling in a highly rational, authoritarian, and bureaucratic manner. Regardless, the first point is to become aware of the nature of other entities in the organization upon which the research project depends. This is necessary for the purpose of effectiveness in furthering human inquiry. An integrating type research team may take longer to make a decision, in comparison to a rational type research team. A libertarian type entity in the organization may likely be the more difficult body of persons for the research team to collaborate, because of the disorderliness and autonomous activity that transpires among its members. The same analysis may be done for collaboration and communication of the research team with other entities outside its host organization. When the research team must go outside its organization to make any decision or conduct any research procedure, it will likely have to deal with others who are organized according to one of the three conceptions. Obtaining the instruments required to collect data from another organization that manufactures them is one such illustration. It may be useful for the research team to understand what kind of organizing conception is dominating that other organization, as well as, the subdivision of it that is to fill the purchase order. Another common example is conducting interorganizational research, in which counterparts from various organizations meet to collaborate for mutual benefit. Knowing the conception of organizing that influences those coming from other organizations may be of value in facilitating the process of human inquiry with this diversity of participants. To conceptualize the interactions among the de Geus categories, we must assume a third dichotomous dimension to the matrix shown in Table 19. That dimension is either within or between human organizations. The matrix thereby becomes a cube. The cube would have six combinations within and six between for

264 Systemic Change

a total of twelve smaller cubes composing the 6 x 6 x 2 larger cube. Although the interactions between any two smaller cubes follow the same logic as described in the examples above, we cannot presume the combinations within will be redundant with those between, until we have done the empirical work to permit us to collapse, hence simplify, the larger cube. Until then, any comparison may be unique when applied to a specific research study in a particular human organization. In sum, the cube contributes yet another aspect of complexification to the conduct of human inquiry in human organizations.

9. Integrating Schemes Gaining awareness of the schemes described across the chapters of this book, researchers come to appreciate that project management and programmatic research benefit from taking them into account and using them systematically. Although they complexify inquiry, they need not complicate it. Sensitivity to particular schemes, such as the combinations shown in Table 19, when properly understood and applied, enhance the chances of success in doing research. Most chapters have presented conceptual schemes for human inquiry. Along with the basic concepts and principles conveyed, the schemes may be converged to our advantage in the pursuit of systemic change. Their convergence is to give us a fuller means and appreciation to enable systemic inquiry for systemic change. Figure 36 is to remind us that the schemes are there to compose and sustain methodology through the course of inquiry. From resources available researchers establish a disciplinary research team. Various forms of praxiology and conceptions of organizing influence the decision making that comes to define the research cycle. Doing research means facing and working with many dialectical tensions throughout the cycle.

Complexification 265 Figure 36 Integrating conceptual schemes in human inquiry for systemic change

The complexity of methodology constructed and implemented bears directly on the complexity to be comprehended through inquiry. Team interactions with other organizational entities relate importantly to their conceptions of organizing. Their interactions also play centrally on their ability to fulfill their research aims.

266 Systemic Change

10. Broadening Contexts Given the areas, displayed in Figure 36, that are available to us for human inquiry devoted to systemic change, four directions remain to be discussed. The directions serve to situate systemic change through praxis and inquiry in increasingly broader contexts. First is the transdisciplinary research team, second is programmatic research, third is the broadened social context, and fourth is the globalization of humanity. The Transdisciplinary Research Team The inception of meta level inquiry opens the way toward transdisciplinarity, in that those who engage in research process know they come to the process contributing their disciplinary expertise, while expecting results from inquiry that transcend their discipline. The transcendent knowledge to be gained through transdisciplinary praxis and inquiry is the base for subsequent meta level systemic integration of knowledge domains to describe, explain, understand, and guide systemic change. The transdisciplinary attitude towards participation is the more productive in systemic inquiry, because it is likely that any one person's expertise is insufficient to mount and sustain the research enterprise that involves system-wide changes. Inquiry is clearly a team effort requiring many points of view and areas of expertise. Given the forms of disciplinarity discussed earlier (Table 6), the transdisciplinary research team is likely the better choice of a team, although other forms may appear and prevail. When contrasted to other forms of disciplinarity, not only does transdisciplinarity give us the greatest chance of sufficient representation to tackle macro level questions, problems and issues that extend clearly beyond any one discipline, but also it capitalizes on the propensities of its members to seek a multiperspectivistic comprehension of the changing system studied.

Complexification 267

Programmatic Research

To actualize systemic change through praxis and inquiry usually necessitates long range thinking in research in terms of project management and programmatic research. One course through the research cycle usually leads to another one, and thereby research becomes programmatic. The feedforward nature of the general research cycle suggests multiple repetitions of the cycle in programmatic research. Table 22 shows four variations on research plans for multiple investigations, that is, programmatic research. The first and third plans use the same research team to conduct a series of studies. The first plan involves repeated investigations of the same project, or strict replication. The third plan involves the same team completing different studies each time through the cycle. The second and fourth plans use a different research team each time through the cycle. In the second plan the same project is done each time, but by a different research team. In the fourth plan, a different research study is done each time by a different research team. Here, as elsewhere, research study is used synonymously with research project. Table 22 Serial and parallel plans for programmatic research Research Cycle: Research Plan 1

1

2

3

Team A Project X

Team A Project X

Team A Project X

2

Team A Project X

Team B Project X

Team C Project X

3

Team A Project X

Team A Project Y

Team A Project Z

4

Team A Project X

Team B Project Y

Team C Project Z

268 Systemic Change

The four plans provide choices researchers have in developing programmatic research for systemic change. Typically one time through the research cycle, or one research project, does not do the job expected. Programmatic research enables improvements to inquiry as researchers thereby benefit to detect, monitor, and facilitate systemic change through praxis and inquiry. As we would expect, resources are a factor in selecting and working through one of the programmatic research plans depicted in Table 22. Where the first plan may be executed in one fashion (serial), the second plan offers two choices (both serial and parallel). The first plan requires a lengthier period of time to finish, for the research team must be able to complete and learn from one research cycle before entering the next. The second plan may be done in serial fashion, with each team taking its turn through the cycle to complete its project. But there is the alternative for the second plan, in that all three teams can conduct their research in parallel over the same period of time. This alternative is also available for the fourth plan, but not feasible for the third plan. In short, programmatic research is a series of research cycles, characterized as general feedforward. But this general feedforward in series may also be evidenced through parallel efforts across different research teams. It is in programmatic research that human inquiry brings one to the broadened scope and meaning for a comprehensive look at systemic change. Situating Human Inquiry in Its Social Contexts The broadening of human inquiry to social contexts can be conveyed through an examination of the web of human relationships that surround and embed a research project. The general research cycle should be viewed as a dynamic process over a period of time in the places in which systemic change happens. These times and places contextualize to compose the background of

Complexification 269

inquiry. The conduct of inquiry can be appreciated more fully through the sociocybernetics of the research processes as situated, that is, its embeddedness in broader social contexts. Though simplistic in conception, three such contexts may be delineated as three concentric circles, or levels of situatedness (Table 23). Table 23 Human relationships in human inquiry illustrating three levels of contextual embeddedness Level

Situatedness

Human relations Examples:

0

Phases of the research cycle Within the research team Expertise among members are complementary Division of labor among data collectors Responsibilities of principals, assistants, and staff prescribed

1

Research project in relation to its place of operation Within the research institution and community Employer distribution of funds to researchers Researcher progress reports to employer Selection of participants

2

Research project in relation to domains of knowledge and application Within the public domain and society Media coverage of the research results Foundation support for the research Researcher testimony to a government committee

The innermost circle encompasses the research study itself. We consider only the feedback and feedforward loops of the phases of the research cycle in relation to each other. The psychosocial relationships among the researchers and their participants serve as a prime example. These relations bear directly on the conduct of the inquiry. To examine this inner area, we can review the earlier chapter on research process.

270 Systemic Change

There is a broader area in which research process is embedded we can term first order. It is one step removed from the inquiry itself. Researchers have reciprocal relations with others immediately outside the phases of the research cycle. They depend on these others to traverse each phase and move from one phase to the next. For example, in the United States informed consent of a parent or guardian is required when a participant is not of legal age. Testing sites have to be arranged and scheduled through those who manage them. An IRB must scrutinize and approve most research studies before persons may be subjected to the research procedures. Broadening the context farther involves reciprocal relations of a second order. They essentially define the sociocultural, economic, and political embeddedness of a given research study in the researcher's profession and society-at-large. This broadened context becomes visible when we examine such aspects as press releases and news reports about the research. This third context is indeed the most amorphous. It also entails societal influences on the conduct of science that in turn bear on the conduct of research. What the researchers read in their professional publications about science policy, Requests for Proposals (RFPs), and ethical issues germane to their area of inquiry influence their conduct of inquiry. The interdependency of the research team on others may be stated in terms of the reciprocal relationships pertinent to the research, according to these concentric contexts, summarized and illustrated in Table 23. Researchers cannot ignore and must cultivate the human relationships that they have with one another, their participants, administrators, site managers, civic officials, journalists, peers, and the public-at-large. In short, it takes a group of persons, well beyond the research principals and their assistants to make research happen. Researchers depend heavily on others immediately outside their inquiry. Even farther removed is a third concentric circle of

Complexification 271

relationships with those who take an interest in communicating on matters of research reporting, science policy, and social issues. Mapping out these levels of human relationship for a given project helps to make visible the embedded and interdependent nature of research activity. Globalization of Humanity This closing portion of the chapter brings us back to where this book began. In reference to Figures 2 and 4, human inquiry is part of a much larger picture of human activity, whose complexity and systemicity often seem beyond reach of our cognitive abilities to comprehend. Numerous globalizing trends press researchers to attempt more complex constructions of research methodology to enable inquiry in the context of these trends. In this sense, globalization may be taken to be an even broader context (Figure 37) that encompasses all those indicated in Table 23. Several forms of complexification of human inquiry discussed previously are demonstrative of the intrinsic motivation of researchers striving to comprehend the complexity of systemic change. Figure 37 Human inquiry and globalization

272 Systemic Change

Researcher interests and expectations bring together a wide range of disciplines and fields of study that bear on the human condition and the state of the planet. Their endeavors are ambitious. They are challenged in the face of globalizing trends to conduct successfully forms of inquiry that advance our knowledge and understanding of systemic change and better our prospects of sustaining life as we know it. Human proclivity and inhabitation are the two most evident emergent planetary phenomena that drive and underlie many visible global changes, such as urbanization, pollution, deforestation, and tourism. The consequent problem contexts in which research is to be done necessarily becomes macro and complex. The considerations and extent of inquiry to produce research results that can inform and guide human activity at the macro level will furthermore extraordinarily tax praxiological decision making, viable constructions of research methodology, and available resources.

11. Summary When we complexify, we are drawn to discuss, propose, and conduct inquiry more in systemic terms. Although prone to be complicated, complexification is not the same as complication. There are numerous bases to create choices for praxiological decision making that come to define research process devoted to systemic change. From these bases, making the decisions from among the choices is a complexifying process in human inquiry. Thereby, a hierarchy of methodological complexity is apparent in the construction of research methodologies for systemic change. In its application, this hierarchy itself is another example of complexification. Dialectics in human inquiry, including developing forms of disciplinarity, bring creative tensions to research processes and

Complexification 273

praxiological decision making. Several dialectical dimensions are involved with the decision making inherent in doing research. They surface to preoccupy researchers in making often difficult decisions among choices at each phase of the research cycle. To the above aspects of complexification, we must add others, namely the important influences on human inquiry from the resources available, forms of praxiology, and conceptions of organizing human beings to enable human inquiry to occur. A research study is situated and embedded in broadening contexts of support, specifically the programmatic nature of inquiry, the research community, and societal interests. There are reciprocal sociocybernetic loops that weave research process into these contexts. They are most apparent in the communications among researchers and participants, and between researchers and others who have more secondary and tertiary relationships to the research. Finally, the globalization of humanity serves as the most macro level backdrop to all human inquiry, as it has subtle and indirect influences on the long range, programmatic, and societal aims of the research endeavor.

12. Activities and Exercises 1. Imagine yourself as a member of a transdisciplinary research team. Describe what this means. Make this activity relevant to your research interests and professional work by illustrating the concept of transdisciplinary research team in action at various phases of the research cycle. 2. Present a proposal for a research study that uses one research method. Reformulate the proposal such that it uses a research methodology. Explain what was done in making this shift from method to methodology, and state at least three reasons researchers might use to justify it.

274 Systemic Change

3. Read a published research report. Imagine the dialectics that the researchers likely had to face in conducting their inquiry. Describe five dialectical dimensions pertinent to its execution. 4. With which conception of organizing (rational, integrating, libertarian) do you identify? As research team leader, describe what the research process through the research cycle would be like. What are some of the likely advantages and disadvantages your team might experience working as this kind of organization? 5. Building upon the previous activity, describe the working relations you would expect when your team encounters other groups organized according to the three de Geus organizing conceptions at any particular phase of your research cycle. 6. Imagine being part of a research effort that will study systemic change by making use and integrating all the conceptual schemes discussed across the chapters of the book. To be as inclusive as possible, use Figure 36 as a starting point and draw upon other tables and figures that are synoptic of the schemes, such as the forms of praxiology, resources for developing systemic inquiry, and the hierarchy of methodological complexity. Present and discuss your research proposal with peers for the purpose of convincing them to join you to establish a research team to implement the project. This exercise is to propose a study that emphasizes a more passive observational inquiry into studying, documenting, and interpreting the meaning of systemic change. 7. Propose a research study as described in the previous activity, but make it for the purpose of proactively bringing about systemic change. This exercise is to be action oriented, in distinction to the previous exercise. In this exercise, the research team is to be an agent for systemic change.

Complexification 275

8. Discuss three advantages and three disadvantages of serialized programmatic research. Do the same for parallel programmatic research. Are there any general rules of thumb as to when it is the better use of resources to follow a plan of serialized programmatic research rather than parallel programmatic research, and vice versa? 9. Draw three concentric circles. Imagine a research study in the bullseye of the figure. In the area just beyond the bullseye, write some phrases that inform you of the context in which the research is embedded. Think of salient events that have happened in regard to the human relations between the researchers and those who are immediate but not directly involved. Do the same in the area just beyond that, but these entries should be pertinent though less direct, that is, professional and societal influences. Finally, if you can see connections to the broadest context, specific globalizing trends, write in those entries just outside the outermost circle. Discuss the meaning of the schematic for this project being done in its broadening contexts as an example of human inquiry for systemic change.

This page intentionally left blank

Conclusion

Globalization of humanity will inevitably demand complex and sophisticated approaches to human inquiry that center firmly upon collaborative and cooperative transdisciplinarity among the arts, business, humanities, professions, sciences, and body politics than is currently happening. The thesis of this book stems from a recognition that globalizing trends place humanity in a systemic predicament. As both agents and stewards, human beings should favor an emergent approach to research methodology in accompaniment of globalization. Such an approach compels a more human orientation and global ethic. It favors forms of human-centered inquiry that are characteristically more convergent, integrative, pragmatic, and systemic. There are several general characteristics of research methodology that make it systemic. Knowing the systemic nature of human inquiry aids researchers to propose and implement research process that is consistent with the study of and engagement with systemic change. The characteristics are intended to provide the potentiality for inquirers to obtain a system-wide comprehension of their whole changing entity. In addressing the challenge of systemic change, the two principal foci of this book have been on praxis and human inquiry. The first connects importantly to praxiology and the second to

278 Systemic Change

research methodology. It is in the blend of the two that the path to a deepened understanding of systemic change occurs. A set of elements can be ordered hierarchically. This human propensity in applying conceptual systems has had great utility. Researchers study the hierarchical nature of complex systems, primarily through methodology and technology. Constructing a means of doing human inquiry involves the following 4-tier hierarchy of methodological complexity of procedures and techniques, method, methodology, and metamethodology. The integrative and synthesizing activities of researchers draw especially upon the resource of innovation to combine various methodological components from similar to markedly dissimilar research traditions, so as to construct ever more complex inquiries that are increasingly methodologies and occasionally metamethodologies. In allegiance with the other conceptual schemes, the hierarchy provides a general approach to systemic change through its praxis and human oriented inquiry. The six chief resource areas to construct research methodology for systemic change are theory, expertise, experience, practice, simulation, and innovation. Of course, their commonness lies in the pervasive presence of human beings as the key unifying resource in human inquiry. As it is with all the schemes discussed, in praxis, the six resources overlap and to a degree are interdependent. But it is through the initial analytic activity of researchers that the scheme may be articulated, and thereafter brought to focus in the synthesizing activities of application to specific research projects. Human oriented research involves an integration and interdependence among the conceptual schemes discussed throughout the book. The schemes are delineated for purposes of saliency in thinking about, proposing, and conducting inquiry. As particular aspects of the schemes meld into a specific research study, abstract concepts transform into actions of doing research. Thereby, the logos, ontos, and praxis of inquiry converge.

Conclusion 279

Praxiology involves the study and application of its Es, which are efficiency, effectiveness, efficacy, ethicality, educability, economy, expendability, and evaluability. Their applications of interest here are human inquiries for systemic change. Particular emphasis in this regard is placed on praxiological decision making that imbues research process. The schemes conveyed in this book involve first, second, and sometimes third order cybernetic loops. From the central point of reference — the human being as inquirer — primary loops define research procedures that comprise the phase activities of the general research cycle. Although most of the cycle may be experienced as more conceptual than real, it provides a useful metaphor and methodological aid for conducting and understanding the process of inquiry. This process is cyclical in the short run and an advancing spiral in long term programmatic research. The Es of praxiology are an important part of these activities, discussed in terms of the praxiological decision making in human inquiry. The decision making is also steeped in such dialectical tensions and activities as exclusivity and inclusivity, antinomy and complementarity, positioning and perspectivity, designing and planning, data collecting and data processing, passivity and proactivity, and experiencing and interpreting. The dialectics accompany praxiological decision making for using research procedures, methods, and methodology. Beyond the research cycle are broadening contexts involving those to whom researchers must relate to support and inform their research endeavors. Societal and globalizing trends are the most abstract and distal contexts to which researchers must indirectly relate. Cybernetics, dialectics, and praxiology contribute the dynamic qualities to research process. They render it conceptually comprehensible to those engaging in human inquiry for systemic change. The integration of the conceptual schemes in practice is likely the viable approach to research the complexity of contemporary

280 Systemic Change

problems. As problem contexts drive to a significant degree the advancement of methodology, human inquiry is moving toward the metamethodological level. It seems that it must be so, if systemic approaches to inquiry are to fulfill their claims to be appropriate to the study of complexity and amelioration of the human condition at various collective levels of human organization. On the one hand, advancements in science methodology and technology have fed rising expectations of what can be known of system-wide changes. On the other hand, trends toward globalization have demanded means to comprehend on a larger scale the globalizing state of human problems and activities. Consequentially, forms of complexification press upon the process of doing research. Human inquiry is increasingly complex and complicated. Incorporating any given conceptual scheme discussed in this book and any means of integrating them have the net effect of complexifying human inquiry. With each passing decade, research methodology for human inquiry is moving more to the meta level. Forms of complexification, as discussed and illustrated in the progressions within the conceptual schemes, are becoming more visible in their applications to research process. This is particularly true when system-wide, programmatic research, and globalizing interests appear to take highest priority. Human inquiry for systemic change entails the cornerstones of the philosophical base of a general methodology, the systemic characteristics of method, advanced forms of disciplinarity, the Es and forms of praxiology, phases of the research cycle, and resources to bear in making the decisions necessary for human inquiry to occur. One central conclusion is that it is imperative we envision human inquiry in terms of processes of complexification, if we are to engage systemic change through praxis and inquiry.

Conclusion 281

In parallel to this process view of human inquiry, processes of globalizing human activities correlate with an ambivalent mix of emergent phenomena that both captivate the hopes and dreams of a good life for billions of human beings, and simultaneously denigrate the life space we require to survive. This omnipresent, pernicious, and troubling network — the global problematique — may be argued as crisis and opportunity, blessing and curse, challenge and burden. Overwhelming to comprehend, it is the confluence of many globalizing trends, such as the advancing knowledge domains through science and technology, the contamination of natural resources, the cornucopia of human goods and services, human poverty, human proclivity, deforestation, soil erosion, species extinction and generation, tourism, urbanization, and virtualization. While specializations in science become increasingly micro (p. ex. nanotechnology, proteomics, and genomics), problem contexts in which research needs to be done are increasingly macro (p. ex. globalizing trends). The considerations and extent of inquiry to produce research results that can inform and guide human activity at macro levels can seem beyond our competence and resources. To secure and sustain our future, it is our challenge to transcend any perceived contemporary limitation. The depth and complexity of system-wide changes are well beyond our immediate personal comprehension, even though we evidence specifically local benefits and detriments. Our everyday actions do not produce informative and immediate feedback regarding our contributions to globalizing trends. But they are there nevertheless, as each one of us make individual contributions to emergent phenomena from the collective activities of human beings en masse. As we experience, accommodate to, benefit from, and cope with globalizing trends, it behooves us to scrutinize carefully our current research methods and undertake the task of inventing extended and new ones through several means of complexification available to us.

282 Systemic Change

Researchers reassessing our practices seek advances in research methodology to levels that can match the complexities of the problems we face. It is our recognition of increases in complexity of the phenomena we experience and study that invite us to use advantageously complexification and systemicity in advancing our means to influence systemic change for human and planetary betterment.

References

Ackoff, R. (1981). Creating the Corporate Future. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Alexandre, V. and Gasparski, W. (Eds) (2000). The Roots of Praxiology: French Action Theory from Bourdeau and Espinas to Present Days. Volume 4 of Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., and Smith, D. (1985). Action Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ashby, W. (1963). An Introduction to Cybernetics. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Auspitz, J., Gasparski, W., Mlicki, M, and Szaniawski, K. (1992). Praxiologies and the Philosophy of Economics. Volume 1 of Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Baas, N. (1993). Emergence, hierarchies, hyperstructures and self-organization. In. R. Packham (Ed). Ethical Management of Science as a System. Louisville, Kentucky: International Society for the Systems Sciences, pp. 171-193. Banathy, B. (1991). Systems Design of Education: A Journey to Create the Future. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology. Barber, T. (1973). Pitfalls in research: Nine investigator and experimenter effects. In R. Travers (Ed). Second Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, pp. 382-404. Basalla, G. (1988). The Evolution of Technology. New York: University of Cambridge Press. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballatine Books. Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. New York: Dutton. Beer, S. (1982). Brain of the Firm. Chichester, England: Wiley. Beer, S. (1985). Diagnosing the System for Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

284 Systemic Change Bertalanffy, L. von (1968). General Systems Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York: George Braziller. Bertalanffy, L. von (1975). Perspectives on General Systems Theory: Scientific-Philosophical Studies. New York: George Braziller. Boulding (1985). The World as a Total System. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications. Bray, J., Lee, J., Smith, L., and Yorks, L. (2000). Collaborative Inquiry in Practice: Action, Reflection, and Making Meaning. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Breitenecker, F., Frotschnig, A., and Kopacek, P. (1990). Simulation methods in peace and conflict research. In R. Trappl (Ed), Cybernetics and Systems Research '90. Singapore: World Scientific Publishers, pp. 651658. Brewer, J. and Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications. Bridgman, P. (1927). The Logic of Modern Physics. New York: Macmillan. Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London: Heinemann. Campbell, T. and Fiske, D. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56:81-105. Campbell, T. and Stanley, J (1963). Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally. Casti, J., (1994). Complexification: Explaining a Paradoxical World Through the Science of Surprise. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Casti, J. (1997). Would-Be Worlds: How Simulation is Changing the Frontiers of Science. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Chastain, G. and Landrum, E. (Eds) (1999). Protecting Human Subjects: Departmental Subject Pools and Institutional Review Boards. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association,. Checkland, P. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Checkland, P. (2000). Soft Systems Methodology: A thirty year retrospective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17(S1 ):S11-S58. Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Churchman, C. (1968). The Systems Approach. New York: Delacorte Press. Churchman, C. (1971). The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organizations. New York: Basic Books. Cohen, R. and Swerdlik (1999). Psychological Testing and Assessment: An Introduction to Tests and Measurement. Fourth edition. Mountain View, California: Mayfield Publishing Company. Collen, A. (1985). Experimental method and systems methodology: The case for and against. In B. Banathy (Ed.). Proceedings of the Society for General Systems Research. Volume 1. Seaside, California: Intersystems, pp. 536-539.

References 285

Collen, A. (1990b, October). Contemporary developments in general systems theory and its relevance to the philosophy of medicine. Invited address to the Danish Society for the Philosophy of Medicine, Copenhagen, Denmark. Collen, A. (1990a). Advancing human science. Saybrook Review, 8(l):l-38. Collen, A. (1992a). Methodological perspectives on human systems, design, and learning for a more global ethic. In R. Trappl (Ed). Cybernetics and Systems Research '92. Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 561-567. Collen, A. (1992b, July). Some benefits and limitations of living systems process analysis for organizational research. Paper presented at the ThirtySixth Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences, Denver, Colorado. Collen, A. (1993). Human Science Research: A Systemic Approach to Disciplined Inquiry. Seminar Supplement. Walnut Creek, California: Human Science Research Seminars. Collen, A., (1994). Developing a systemic approach to human science research methodology. In M. Bazewicz (Ed). Information Systems Architecture and Technology '94. Wroctaw, Poland: Oficyna Wydawnica Politechniki Wroctawskiej, pp. 30-38. Collen, A. (1995a). The foundation of science. Foundations of Science, Collen, A. (1995b). Human Science Research: Methods, Models and Systems. Seminar Supplement. Walnut Creek, California: Human Science Research Seminars. Collen, A. (1995c). Introduction: Designs, designing, and designers. In Collen, A. and Gasparski, W. (Eds). Design and Systems: General Applications of Methodology. Volume 3 of Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, pp. xi-xvi. Collen, A. (1995d). Concluding remarks: Emerging issues and paradoxes. In Collen, A. and Gasparski, W. (Eds). Design and Systems: General Applications of Methodology. Volume 3 of Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, pp. 459-463. Collen, A. (1996a). Needed: A methodology for studying the interface and integration of communication processing systems? Systems: Journal of Transdisciplinary Systems Science, 1:12-15. Collen, A. (1996b). Two generic areas of methodology for the application of cybernetics to human science research. In R. Trappl (Ed). Cybernetics and Systems '96. Volume 1 . Vienna: Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies, pp. 461-465. Collen, A. (1997, September). Human science research: an important focus for the next century. Plenary paper presented at the International Conference Humanistic Psychology Towards XXI Century, Vilnius, Lithuania.

286 Systemic Change

Collen, A. (1998a). Design of a life: Sustainability and the inquirer/researcher alias designer in an evolving world system. World Futures, 51:223-238. Collen, A. (1998b). Whether to design and plan a life. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 15:183-192. Collen, A. (1999a, May). Praxiology and sociocybernetics in human inquiry. Paper presented at the Research Committee 51 Conference of the International Sociological Association, Kolimbari Chanion, Crete, Greece. Collen, A. (1999b). A conversation design for systemic research on and betterment of the ethicality of information systems embedded in human organizations. Systems: Journal of Transdisciplinary Systems Science, 4:33-42. Collen, A. (2002). Disciplinarity in the pursuit of knowledge. In G. Minati and E. Pessa (Eds). Emergence in Complex, Cognitive, Social, and Biological Systems. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 285-296. Collen, A. and Gasparski, W. (Eds) (1995). Design and Systems: General Applications of Methodology. Volume 3 of Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Collen, A., Minati, G., Penna, M., and Pessa, E. (1996). Describing transcultural activity in the framework of the systemic view. In E. Pessa, M. P. Penna, and A. Montesanto (Eds). Proceedings of the Third European Congress on Systems Science. Edizioni Kappa, Rome, pp. 881 885. Compact Oxford English Dictionary, The (1991). Second edition. New York: Oxford University Press. Creswell, J. (2002). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Second edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Davies, L. (1991). Researching the organizational culture contexts of information systems strategy: a case study of the British army. In H. Nissen, H. Klein, and R. Hirschheim (Eds). Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 145-167. Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds) (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Dewey, J. (1916/1966). Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press. Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education. New York: Collier. Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential. Retrieved August 12, 2001, from http://www.uia.org/uialists/kon/c0077.htm Enderby, J., Phelan, D. and Birchall, G. (1998). Organizational learning: A case study and model for intervention and change. In W. Gasparski and D. Botham (Eds) (1998). Action Learning. Volume 6 of Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, pp. 129-145.

References 287

Espejo, R. (Ed) (1990). Special issue: Stafford Beer's Viable System Model. Systems Practice, 3:217-330. Espejo, R. and Steward, N. (1998). Systemic reflections on environmental sustainability. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 15(6):483-496. Espinas, V. (2000). The origins of technology. In V. Alexandre and W. Gasparski (Eds) (2000). The Roots of Praxiology: French Action Theory from Bourdeau and Espinas to Present Days. Volume 4 of Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, pp. 45-91. Fetterman, D. (1989). Ethnography Step by Step. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications. Fisher, R. (1951). The Design of Experiments. Sixth edition. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. Flood, R. (1990). Liberating Systems Theory. New York: Plenum Press. Flood, R. (1991). A brief introduction to complementarism. In M Jackson, G. Mansell, R. Flood, R. Blackham, and S. Probert (Eds). Systems Thinking in Europe. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 383-390. Flood, R. and Carson, E. (1988). Dealing with Complexity: An Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science. New York: Plenum Press. Flood, R. and Jackson, M. (1991). Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Flood, R. and Romm, N. (Eds) (1996). Critical Systems Thinking: Current Research and Practice. New York: Plenum Press. Foerster, H. von (1984) Observing Systems. Second edition. Salinas, California: Intersystems Publications. Folk, T. (1995). Metapatterns Across Space, Time, and Mind. New York: Columbia University Press. Forrester, J. (1961). Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Forrester, J. (1969). Principles of Systems. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Wright-Allen Press. Francois, C. (Ed) (1997). International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics. Munich: K. G. Saur. Garner, W., Hake, H., and Eriksen, C. (1956). Operationism and the concept of perception. Psychological Review, 63:149-159. Gage, N. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A "historical" sketch of research and teaching since 1989. Educational Research, 18:4-10. Gasparski, W. (1987). On praxiology of preparatory actions. International Journal of General Systems, 13(4): 345-353. Gasparski, W. (1993). Tadeusz Kotarbinski's philosophy as a philosophy of practicality. In T. Airaksinen and W. Gasparski (Eds). Practical Philosophy and Action Theory. Volume 2 ofPraxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, pp. 93-101.

288 Systemic Change

Gasparski, W. (1994). The concept of hierarchy in general systems theory. Studies in Human Ecology, 11:141-148. Gasparski, W. (1996). Editorial: Rationality of and preparation for action. In Gasparski, W., Mlicki, M., and Banathy, B. (Eds). Social Agency: Dilemmas and Education. Volume 4 of Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, pp. 1-9. Gasparski, W. (2002). Effectiveness, efficiency, and ethicality in business and management. In L. Zsolnai (Ed). Ethics and the Future of Capitalism. Volume 9 of Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, pp. 117-136. Gasparski, W. and Botham, D. (Eds) (1998). Action Learning. Volume 6 of Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Gasparski, W., Mlicki, M., and Banathy, B. (Eds) (1996). Social Agency: Dilemmas and Education. Volume 4 of Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Gasparski. W. and L. Ryan, L. (Eds) (1996). Human Action in Business. Volume 5 of Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Gigch, J. van (1991). System Design Modeling and Metamodeling. New York: Plenum Press. Glassman, U. and Kates, L. (1990). Group Work. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications. Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Viking Penguin. Gray, J. (1986). Managing the Corporate Image: The Key to Public Trust. Westport CT: Quorum Books. Grimm, L. and Yarnold, P. (Eds) (1995). Reading and Understanding Multivariate Statistics. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association. Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, pp. 105-117. Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and Human Interests. Trans, by J. Shapiro. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings. Fourth edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Hall, A. (1989). Metasystems Methodology: A New Synthesis and Unification. New York: Pergamon. Hall, A. and Fagen, R. (1968). Definition of system. In W. Buckley (Ed). Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist. Chicago: Aldine, pp. 81-92.

Hammond, J., Keeney, R., and Raiffa, H. (1999). Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making Better Decisions. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. Hayes, G., Hayes, S., and Dykstra, T. (1995). A survey of university Institutional Review Boards: Characteristics, policies, and procedures. 1RB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, 17(3): 1 -6. Houser, N. and Kloesel, C. (Eds) (1992). The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings. Volume 1. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Howell, D. (1992). Statistical Methods for Psychology. Third edition. Boston, Massachusetts: PWS-Kent Publishing Company. Hummels, H. (1996). Business ethics and the process of organizing: An interaction perspective. In W. Gasparski and L. Ryan (Eds). Human Action in Business. Volume 5 of Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, pp. 97-111. International Center for Transdisciplinary Research. A new vision of the world transdisciplinarity. Retrieved August 10, 2001, from http://perso.clubinternet.fr/nicol/ciret/english/visionen.htm Jackson, M. (1991). Systems Methodology for the Management Sciences. New York: Plenum Press. Jackson, M. (2000). Systems Approaches to Management. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. James, W. (1975). Pragmatism and The Meaning of Truth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jantsch E. (1980). The Self-Organizing Universe: Scientific and Human Implications of the Emerging Paradigm of Evolution. New York: Pergamon. Kalaidjieva, M. (1996). The generalized concept of hierarchy. In R. Trappl (Ed). Cybernetics and Systems '96. Volume 1. Vienna: Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies, pp. 20-25. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Kolb, D., Rubin, I., and Mclntyre, J. (Eds) (1971). Organizational Psychology: A Book of Readings. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall. Kotarbinski, T (1965). Praxiology: An Introduction to the Sciences of Efficient Action. Trans, by O. Wojtasiewicz. New York: Pergamon Press. Kotarbinski, T (2002). The ABC of practicality. In L. Ryan, F. Nahser, and W. Gasparski (2002). Praxiology and Pragmatism. Trans, by A. Szpaderski. Volume 10 of Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, pp. 25-59. Kramer, A., Coles, M., and Logan, G. (Eds) (1996). Converging Operations in the Study of Visual Selective Attention. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

290 Systemic Change

Krueger, R. (1988). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications. Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (Eds) (1970). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press. Larson, C. and LaFasto, F. (1989). TeamWork. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications. Laszlo, E. (1972). The Systems View of the World: The Natural Philosophy of the New Developments in the Sciences. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Laszlo, E. (1987). Evolution: The Grand Synthesis. Boston, Massachusetts: Shambhala. Laszlo, E. (Ed) (1991). The New Evolutionary Paradigm. New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers. Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers. Edited by D. Cartwright. New York: Harper & Row. Lewis, M. and Grimes, A. (1999). Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of Management Review, 24(4):672-690. Linstone, H. (1997). The changing role of forecasting. Systems: Journal of Transdisciplinary Systems Science, 2:2-8. Linstone, H. et al. (1995). The multiple perspective concept. In A. Collen and W. Gasparski (Eds). Design and Systems: General Applications of Methodology. Volume 3 of Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction, pp. 177-242. Makkreel, R. (1975). Dilthey: Philosopher of the Human Studies. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Martinelli, D. (2001). Systems hierarchies and management. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 18(1):69-82. Marx, M. and Hillix, W. (1963). Systems and Theories in Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Maslow, A. (1962). Toward a Psychology of Being. Princeton, New Jersey: D. van Nostrand. Mason, R. and Mitroff, I. (1981). Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions. New York: John Wiley & Sons. McLaren, P. (1998). Life in Schools: An Introduction to Critical Pedagogy in the Foundations of Education. New York: Longman Miller, D. (1985) (Ed). Popper Selections. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Miller, J. (1978). Living Systems. New York: McGraw-Hill. Minati, G. and Collen, A. (1997). Introduction to Systemics. Walnut Creek, California: Eagleye Books.

References 291

Minati, G. and Pessa, E. (Eds) (2002). Emergence in Complex, Cognitive, Social, and Biological Systems. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Mises, L. von (1966). Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Third revised edition. Chicago: Contemporary Books. Mishler, E. (1986). Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Mitroff, I. (1983). The Subjective Side of Science. Seaside, California: Intersystems Publications. Mitroff, I. and Kilmann, R. (1978). Methodological Approaches to Social Science. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers. MHcki, M. ( 1990). Some problems of linking ethical and efficiency criteria. Praxiology, 4-5:117-141. Mlicki, M. (1996). Volunteer's dilemma and efficiency of action. In W. Gasparski, M. Mlicki, and B. Banathy (Eds), Social Agency: Dilemmas and Education. Volume 4 of Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, pp. 137-148. Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organization. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications. Oliga, J. (1988). Methodological foundations of systems methodologies. Systems Practice, 1(1):87-112. Oliga, J. (1990). Power-ideology matrix in social systems control. Systems Practice, 3(1 ):31-49. Ortony, A. (Ed) (1993). Metaphor and Thought. Second edition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Parra-Luna, F. (2001). An axiological systems theory: Some basic hypotheses. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 18(6):479-503. Parsons, H. (1974). What happened to Hawthorne? Science, 183(ll):992-932. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Third edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Petroski, H. (1992). The Evolution of Useful Things. New York: Vintage Books. Popa, C. (1992). Praxiology, logic of action and rationality of human activity. In J. Auspitz, W. Gasparski, M. Mlicki, and K. Szaniawski (Eds). Praxiologies and the Philosophy of Economics. Volume 1 of Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 537-583. Prigogine, I. and Stengers, I. (1984). Order Out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue with Nature. New York: Bantam. Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (Eds) (2001). Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Reason, P. and Rowan, J. (Eds) (1981). Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

292 Systemic Change

Reed-Danahay, D. (Ed) (1997). Auto/Ethnography. New York: Berg. Reinharz, S. (1981). Implementing new paradigm research: A model for training and practice. In P. Reason and J. Rowan (Eds). Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 415-435. Rescner, N. (1977). Methodological Pragmatism: A Systems-Theoretic Approach to the Theory of Knowledge, Oxford: Basil Blackwell & Mott Limited. Roberts, R. (1989). Serendipity: Accidental Discoveries in Science. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Rosenthal, R. (1976). Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research. New York: Halsted Press. Ross, R., Smith, B., & Roberts, C. (1994). The wheel of learning: Mastering the rhythm of a learning organization. In P. Senge, R. Ross, B. Smith, C. Roberts, & A. Kleiner (Eds), The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. New York: Currency/Doubleday, pp. 59-65. Rothberg, D. (1994). Spiritual inquiry. ReVision, 17(2):2-12. Rowan, J. (1981). A dialectical paradigm for research. In P. Reason and J. Rowan (Eds). Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research, New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 93-112. Rucci, A. and Tweney, R. (1980). Analysis of variance and the "second discipline" of scientific psychology: A historical account. Psychological Bulletin, 87(1):166-184. Rudnianski, J. (1980). Between efficiency and ethics: Methods of environment control in non-armed struggle. Praxiology, 1:113-130. Runkel, P. and McGrath, J. (1972). Research on Human Behavior: A Systematic Guide to Method. New York: Holt, Rinhardt and Winston. Ryan, L., Gasparski, W., and Enderle, G. (Eds) (2000). Business Students Focus on Ethics. Volume 8 of Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Ryan, L., Nahser, F., and Gasparski, W. (2002). Praxiology and Pragmatism. Volume 10 of Praxiology: The International Annual of Practical Philosophy and Methodology. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Saaty, T. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Savage, C. (1990). Fifth Generation Management: Integrating Enterprises Through Human Networking. Bedford, Massachusetts: Digital Press. Schultz, M. and Hatch, M. (1996). Living with multiple paradigms: The case of paradigm interplay in organizational culture studies. Academy of Management Review, 21(2): 529-557. Schwartzman, H. (1993). Ethnography in Organizations. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications. Scott, W. and Wertheimer, M. (1962) Introduction to Psychological Research. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

References 293

Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Science of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Senge, P., Ross, R., Smith, B., Roberts, C., and Kleiner, A. (Eds) (1994), The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. New York: Doubleday Shipman, M. (1981). The Limitations of Social Research. Second edition. New York: Longman. Simon, H. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Second edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Smith K. and Smith, M. (1966). Cybernetic Principles of Learning and Educational Design. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Spradley, J. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Stanley, B., Sieber, J. and Melton, G. (Eds) (1996). Research Ethics: A Psychological Approach. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Trappl, R. (Ed) (2002). Cybernetics and Systems Research '02. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. Trauth, E. and O'Connor, B. (1991). A study of the interaction between information technology and society: an illustration of combined qualitative research methods. In H. Nissen, H. Klein, and R. Hirschheim (Eds). Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 131-144. Trierweiler, S. and Strieker, G. (1998). The Scientific Practice of Professional Psychology. New York: Plenum Press. Troncale, L. (1993). Qualitative and quantitative research on hierarchies as a case study of general systems research. In. R. Packham (Ed). Ethical Management of Science as a System. Louisville, Kentucky: International Society for the Systems Sciences, pp. 233-247. Tsivacou, I. (1997). The rationality of distinctions and the emergence of power: A critical systems perspective of power in organizations. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 14(l):21-34. Tufte, E. (1983). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press. Tufte, E. (1990). Envisioning Information. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press. Tweney, R. Doherty, M. and Mynatt, C. (Eds) (1981). On Scientific Thinking. New York: Columbia University Press. Ulrich, W. (1998). Praxiology, action research, and critical systems heuristics. In W. Gasparski and D. Botham (Eds), Action Learning. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, pps. 91-101. Verveen, A. (1990). Qualitative analysis of physiological control systems. In R. Trappl (Ed), Cybernetics and Systems Research '90. Singapore: World Scientific Publishers, pp. 467-474.

294 Systemic Change Warfield, J. (1970). A Science of Generic Design: Managing Complexity Through Design. Salinas, California: Intersystems Publications. Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Trans. by A. Henderson and T. Parsons. New York: Oxford University Press. Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Scribners. Weisbord, M. (1992). Discovering Common Ground. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler Publishers. Whyte, W. (Ed) (1991). Participatory Action Research, Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications. Wiener, N. (1961). Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Second edition. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Wilby, J. (1994). A critique of hierarchy theory. Systems Practice, 7:653-667. Winer, B. (1971). Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. Second edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Wright, B. (1992). The Original Mother Goose. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Running Press Book Publishers. Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research. Second edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

List of Figures and Tables Figures 1. Nestedness of meanings among change, development, and evolution, 27 2. The human being as point of reference, 29 3. Nested relationships among body, mind, and spirit, 32 4. The confluence and paradox of human activity, 34 5. Philosophical base of a general methodology, 38 6. Research questions from problems in context, 43 7. Three logical categories in the research context, 45 8. Disciplined inquiry in context, 47 9. Five forms of control in human communication, 86 10. Five processes to hierarchy, 95 11. Two cases of three way communication in human organizations, 105 12. An example of interdisciplinarity in human oriented sciences, 122 13. Disciplinarity as a conceptual system, 128 14. The embeddedness of disciplinarity, 129 15. The conceptual net of internal consistency, 141 16. Researcher orientations to space and time, 151 17. Three forms of praxiology rooted in the researcher's orientation to space and time, 152 18. Three forms of praxiology according to arenas of human inquiry, 161 19. Overview of the Es of praxiology to be applied to human inquiry, 176 20. Building relationships among the Es of praxiology, 178 21. Feedback and feedforward loops of the general research cycle, 198 22. The research rope in research methodology, 201 23. Renditions of the Kolb learning cycle, 203 24. Types of theory bearing on human inquiry, 219 25. Linking theory to research methodology, 220 26. Linking expertise to research methodology, 222 27. Linking experience to research methodology, 224 28. Linking practice to research methodology, 227 29. Linking simulation to research methodology, 230 30. Linking innovation to research methodology, 234

296 Systemic Change Figures 31. A general and systemic approach to research methodology for human inquiry, 235 32. Hierarchy of methodological complexity, 245 33. Dialectics in research process, 251 34. Complexification of the disciplines, 257 35. Systemic view of the three conceptions of organizing, 260 36. Integrating conceptual schemes in human inquiry for systemic change, 265 37. Human inquiry and globalization, 271 Tables 1. Denotations of system and systemic, 53 2. Individual responses to the idea of system and systemic, 54 3. Group responses to the idea of systemic method, 55 4. Forms of control in communication and associated research questions, 91 5. Hierarchy-control matrix of 25 possibilities for the study of communication in human organizations, 104 6. Select properties distinguishing types of disciplinarity, 127 7. The Es of praxiology, 137 8. Questions that connect the Es of praxiology to human inquiry, 143 9. Emergent forms of praxiology, 169 10. Building the scheme through questioning the Es of praxiology, 179 11. Questions on ethicality that focus IRB review on praxiology in human inquiry, 184 12. Examples of practical decisions to be made at each phase of the general research cycle, 209 13. Definitions of method and theory, 217 14. Definitions of expertise, 221 15. Definitions of experience, 223 16. Definitions of practice and praxis, 226 17. Definitions of simulation, 228 18. Definitions of innovation, 233 19. Definitions of Complexification and complication, 240 20. Choices in decision making that complexify human inquiry, 243 21. Interactions between organization entities of similar and differing conceptions of organizing, 262 22. Serial and parallel plans for programmatic research, 267 23. Human relationships in human inquiry illustrating three levels of contextual embeddedness, 269

Index

Accessibility, 86-88 Accretion, 95-96, 103, 153, 258 Achilles, 23 Ackoff, R., 84, 98, 222 Action research, 16, 79, 204, 248 Activities, 24, 49, 81, 111, 132, 145, 172,211,237,273 Analogy, 140 Analysis, 59-60, 154,243 Analytic, 59, 64, 278 Antimony, 253 Applicability, 86, 89-90 Argyris, C., 71 Availability, 86-87 Axiology, 41,92-93, 100 Bateson, G., 126 Beer, S., 61,84, 222 Bertalanffy, von L., 28, 84 Bias, 65-66 Body, 31-33 Boulding, K., 30 Boundedness, 102, 164 Bourdeau. L., 10 Bunge, M, 10 Case study, 69-70 Casti, J., 239 Checkland, P., 84,219 Churchman, C., 130

Coherence, 140-142,202 Collaborative, 73-74, 207, 215, 224, 252, 262-263 Collective consciousness, 79-80, 214-215 Collen, A., 10,61,95-96, 108, 113, 140, 161, 170-171, 195, 218,230 Competition, 73-74 Complementarity, 33, 73, 253 Complexification, 33, 42, 44, 61, 69,92, 110, 125, 130, 135, 162, 175, 195,205-208,220, 227, 239-244, 256-258, 264, 271-273,280 Complexificative, 61-62, 206 Complexity, 25, 30, 33, 51, 62, 69,91-92, 108-109, 127, 185, 194,205,213,231-232,237, 248,258,265,271-272,278 Complication, 69-70, 240-241 Comprehensive, 58-59 Conceptual system, 26, 31, 37, 46 Consciousness, 79-80, 214-215 Constituency based, 72-73 Control, 83-91, 102, 107, 110, 167,230,261 Convergent, 57 Convergent validity, 57 Converging operations, 57 Cooperation, 73-74 Cooperative learning, 225

298 Systemic Change Critical praxiology, 161, 166-169 Critical theory, 79 Cross-disciplinarity, 124 Cybernetics, 16, 194, 196, 199, 202,279 Data processing, 251, 255 Davidson, D., 10 Davies, L., 248 Decision making, 48, 107, 142, 149, 157, 193,207-211,241244, 250, 252, 256, 272-273, 279 Decomposition, 96-97 Democratic, 252, 259 Design praxiology, 151-152, 157160, 168-169 Development, 26 Dialectical, 40-41, 60, 74, 78, 253, 257 Dialectics, 250-256, 265, 272, 279 Differentiation, 43, 94, 161, 257 Dilemma, 22 Disciplinarity, 114, 116-117, 127129, 207, 243, 249, 256-258, 265-266 Discipline, 113, 115-116 Disciplined, 68 Disciplined inquiry, 47-48, 107, 114, 116,220 Economical, 19 Economy, 133, 135-138, 143-144, 163, 176, 178-180, 185,279 Educability, 136-138, 143, 176, 178-180,279 Education, 133, 138 Effectiveness, 14, 19, 23, 73, 133134, 136-139, 143, 176, 178180, 182,207-208,225,229, 279 Efficacy, 14, 19, 23, 78, 96, 133138, 143-144, 163, 176, 178180, 182,207,225,279

Efficiency, 14, 19, 133-134, 136139, 143, 176, 178-180, 182, 185,207-208,225,229,279 Embeddedness, 26-27, 31-32, 42, 74,95, 110,269,271,273 Emergent, 17, 40, 60, 80, 202, 206, 226, 235, 242, 247, 280 Epistemology, 38-41, 100, 152, 155,220,259 Equifmality, 159 Equipotentiality, 159 Es of praxiology, 68-69, 134-135, 138, 143-144, 153, 175-180, 185,200,207-208,225,234, 240, 279 Espinas, A., 9-10, 30 Ethicality, 14, 19, 135-137, 143144, 176, 178-180, 182-184185,208,279 Ethics, 37, 130, 133,208 Ethnography, 65, 69-70, 103, 142, 247 Evaluability, 133, 136-138, 143144, 176, 178-180,279 Evolution, 26 Executability, 136-138, 143, 176, 178-180 Exercises, 24,49, 81, 111, 132, 145, 172,211,237,273 Expendability, 139, 143-144, 176, 178-180, 185,279 Experience, 215, 223-224,235236,242,251,256,278 Experimental, 234, 246, 249 Expertise, 215, 221-222, 235, 242, 269, 278 Feedback, 196-198, 200, 204-205, 269,281 Feedforward, 196-198, 200,202, 204-205, 267, 269 Fisher, R., 246 Flood, R., 77, 170, 195 Focus groups, 225, 234 Foerster, von H., 100

Index 299

Folk, T., 126 Forrester, J., 61, 222 Francois, C., 53, 117 Future search conferencing, 71, 159, 222

Gasparski, W., 136, 138 Geisteswissenschaften, 36 General systems theory, 14, 28, 109 Generalist, 257-258 Generalizability, 58, 164 Geus. M. de, 259-260 Globalizing trends, 13, 22-23, 34, 319, 131, 195,272,279,281 Group centered, 76 Habermas, J., 170 Hawthorne effect, 226, 249 Heraclitus, 26 Herculean, 23 Hermeneutics, 247 Heterarchy, 106,242-243 Heuristic, 247, 252 Hierarchy, 44, 46, 84, 92-100, 102, 106-107, 110, 130, 153,220, 232,242-243,258,261,265, 272, 278 Historical, 247 Holism, 30, 59, 126 Homeostatic, 16 Homology, 140 Human activity systems, 62, 182, 193, 214, 216, 219, 229 Human factors, 144 Human inquiry, 15, 20-21 Human-machine interface, 229-230 Human sciences, 36 Hummels, H., 260 Hyperstructure, 109 mclusivity, 206, 251-252 Innovation, 31, 40, 215, 232-235, 242, 247, 278

Inquiring systems, 130, 148 Institutional review board, 181190,243,270 Integrating, 260-263 Interactive management, 222 Interactive planning, 222 Interdisciplinarity, 121-124, 127129,257 Interdisciplinary, 225 Interest, 24, 42, 47, 90, 92, 100101, 141, 194,280 Internal consistency, 140-142,202 Interpretation, 251, 256 Interpretive praxiology, 161,164166, 168-169 Interviewing, 39, 114, 153-154, 185,245,249,255 Isomorphy, 14, 16, 109, 140 Jackson, M., 77, 195,216 James, W., 148 Jantsch, E., 30 Kolb, D., 203-204 Kolb learning cycle, 16, 203-204 Kotarbinski, T., 10, 15,36, 133, 148, 153,235 Laszlo, E., 30 Learning cycle, 202-205 Lewin, K., 259 Libertarian, 260-263 Linstone, H., 56, 222 Logical types, 45-46 Logos, 37-38, 278 Macro, 22-23, 26, 28-31, 33, 48, 71, 102, 104,214,229,257, 266,272,281 Management science, 144 Maslow, A., 221 Mason, R., 222

300 Systemic Change Meaning, 85-86 Metadisciplinarity, 125-129,256257 Metamethodology, 234, 246, 249, 278 Metamorphosis, 98-99, 103 Metaphor, 140, 149, 170, 200, 202, 205, 259, 279 Methodolatry, 252-253 Micro, 22-23, 26, 28-31, 48, 71, 102, 104, 108,214,229,281 Miller, J., 30, 61,84, 230 Minati, G., 113 Mind, 31-33 Mitroff, I., 222 Mlicki, M., 134 Modeling, 158,229-230,247 Monodisciplinarity, 118-119, 127129,257 Multidisciplinarity, 119-121, 127129,257 Multi-method, 58 Multiple perspectives, 222 Multivariate, 58, 243-244 Necker cube, 27 Nestedness, 26-27, 31-32, 95, 151, 245 Objective, 64-65 Observation, 69, 249, 255-256 Observer, 28-29 O'Connor, B., 248 Ontology, 28, 38-41, 100, 152, 154, 158 Ontos, 37-38, 278 Operationism, 57 Operations research, 144 Paradigmatic, 149, 160, 164, 170, 194,242-244 Paradox, 19, 34-35, 55, 59-60, 63, 109,213-216,235

Parsimony, 240 Parsons, T., 10 Participatory, 71-73, 204 Patton, M., 58 Perspectivism, 14, 28, 57, 72, 75, 117, 119, 127,236 Perspectivistic, 56-58, 216, 253, 266 Phenomenology, 65, 247 Power, 93, 139 Practice, 215, 225-227, 232-233, 235-236 Pragmatic praxiology, 22, 46, 151152, 155-157, 168-169 Pragmatics, 23, 136, 208, 215, 219 Pragmatism, 148 Praxiology, 33, 36-41,68, 142, 151-155, 162-164, 168-169, 184,207-211, 242,249,265, 272, 279 Praxis, 14, 18-19, 36-38, 225-226, 277-278 Problematique, 34-35 Problems, 42-47 Programmatic, 67, 103, 197, 199, 226, 234, 257, 267-268 Qualitative, 255 Quantitative, 255 Questions, 18-23,42-48, 140-141, 255 Rapid transit, 162-163, 166 Rational, 260-263 Reliability, 58, 148, 208-209, 229 Replication, 58 Research cycle, 77, 196-202,204205, 208-209, 242-244, 249, 252, 267-270, 279 Research design, 140-141,243244,246,251,253 Research ethics, 181-189 Research plan, 140-141, 251,267268

Index 301

Research process, 41, 149, 152, 156, 170, 193, 195-198,202205,215,235,242,244,246, 250, 252-253, 265-266-270, 277, 279 Research rope, 200-202, 242, 249 Research tradition, 38, 149-150, 154, 165, 167, 194,244,246247,253,278 Retrievability, 86, 88 Rudnianski, J., 134 Ryan, L., 138 Sampling, 242-243 Scientific, 64, 67-68 Scientific method, 55, 68, 194 Senge, P., 84 Serendipity, 230, 234 Simplification, 240-241 Simulation, 158-159,215,227-232, 235, 242, 247, 278 Social systems design methodology, 224 Sociocybemetics, 193, 195,208, 273 Sociopolitical, 78, 259 Soft systems methodology, 71, 159, 216,219,234 Spacetime, 28-29, 150-151, 168,243244 Specialist, 257-258 Spirit, 31-33 Spiritual inquiry, 32 State transformation, 97-98, 103 Strategic assumption surfacing and testing, 222 Sustainability, 109,215,229 Synthesis, 28, 30, 59-60 Systematic, 67, 264 System dynamics, 61, 222 Systemicity, 56, 60, 62, 68, 74-75, 77, 104, 125, 127,206,213, 281 Systemic method, 52-63, 213, 216 Systemics, 13, 15

Systems engineering, 144 Systems science, 55 Systems thinking, 113, 214, 216 Technology, 30-31, 34-35, 228232, 278 Teleological, 159 Testing, 166-167 Theory, 93, 215, 217-220, 235236,242,259,278 Transdisciplinarity, 32, 124-125, 127-129,207,266,277 Transdisciplinary, 16, 30, 75, 109, 140, 195,215,257-258,261, 266 Transformative, 76 Trauth, E., 248 Triangulation, 57-58 Usability, 209 Validity, 202, 208-209, 240 Viable systems model, 61, 71, 222 Virtuality, 158,229 Von Baer's law, 26 Warfield, J., 98, 222 Weber, M, 170,259 Weiner, N., 84 Weisbord, M., 98, 222 Wholistic, 26, 30, 33, 79, 59-60, 125, 135

Yin, R., 58 Znaniecki, F., 5-10

This page intentionally left blank

About the Author

Since the mid-1970s, Arne Collen has been affiliated with two doctoral level institutions of psychology, human science, and organizational studies in the United States. He is a long standing member of the Executive Faculty of Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center in San Francisco, California. He also has Teaching and Research Adjunct Faculty positions in two schools of Alliant International University, San Francisco Bay campus: the California School of Organizational Studies and the California School of Professional Psychology. After completion of his doctorate degree in Experimental Psychology at the main campus of the Ohio State University in 1971, he spent three decades studying, teaching, and using a range of human oriented research traditions involving disparate as well as compatible theoretical and empirical activities, nomothetic and ipsative research designs, qualitative and quantitative data collection and processing procedures, and simple to complex constructions of methodology. His current professional activities involve supervising and training graduate level researchers, developing several forms of research methodology for human inquiry, publishing; providing research workshops and seminars, and research consulting. With his innovative incorporation of cybernetic and systemic ideas into his pedagogy applied to research process, he has con-

304 Systemic Change

tributed an inspiring perspective and approach to human praxis and inquiry that is intended to foster systemic change in individuals, collaborative research teams, and human organizations. Drawing from several philosophical and methodological streams prominent in the continental United States, his work thrives on a transdisciplinary, pragmatic, and generalist approach to human inquiry. His students and colleagues perhaps know him best for his devotion to advancing various forms of human inquiry that may courageously at times cross paradigmatic boundaries to reveal doable and productive mixed methodologies. Systemic Change through Praxis and Inquiry, Volume 11, represents his continuing contribution to the Praxiology series. Here, he has examined Polish Praxiology and shown its relevance and richness to developing a continental U.S. American pragmatic approach to research methodology for systemic change. As an individual author and research methodologist, he has also pursued in his volume some of the themes in Volume 10, Praxiology and Pragmatism by Leo Ryan et al. (2002). With Professor Wojciech W. Gasparski, the book series editor, he co-edited and provided chapters in Design and Systems, Volume 3 of the Praxiology series, published in 1995. He is an active contributor to several professional associations and their affiliated publications in human oriented research methodology, sociocybernetics, and systems research.