ChapterPDF Available

Integrating Argument Mapping with Systems Thinking Tools – Advancing Applied Systems Science

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

In the absence of meaningful strategies to promote critical thinking, systems thinking, and social intelligence, it has been argued that algorithm-driven web technology will not only serve to damage human creativity, technology may ultimately reduce our collective intelligence. At the same time, the history of group decision-making in education, business, and public administration highlights that working groups often fail to solve complex problems because their method of collaborative problem solving is ineffective. Decades of research in social psychology and the learning sciences highlight the many limitations of group problem solving, including the tendency to focus on a limited set of ideas, select ideas based on biased ‘rules of thumb’, and failure to build trust, consensus and collective vision. A fundamental skill for resolving complex social and scientific problems is the ability to collectively visualise the structure of a shared problem, and use this knowledge to design solutions and strategies for collective action. In this chapter, we describe an approach to knowledge cartography that seeks to overcome three independent human limitations which impede our ability to resolve complex problems: poor critical thinking skills, no clear methodology to facilitate group coherence, consensus design and collective action, and limited computational capacities. Building on Warfield’s vision for applied systems sciences, we outline a new systems science tool which currently combines two thought structuring methodologies: Argument Mapping for critical thinking, and Interactive Management for system design. We further describe how teaching and learning a form of knowledge cartography grounded in applied systems science requires a vision around the development of Tools, Talents, and Teams. We also provide examples of how our approach to knowledge cartography and applied systems science has been used in business and educational settings.
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Integrating Argument Mapping with Systems Thinking
Tools Advancing Applied Systems Science
Michael J. Hogan1, Owen M. Harney1 and Benjamin J. Broome2
1 National University of Ireland, Galway, School of Psychology,
Michael.hogan@nuigalway.ie
2 Hugh Downs School of Communication, Arizona State University
Benjamin.Broome@asu.edu
Abstract. In the absence of meaningful strategies to promote critical thinking, systems thinking,
and social intelligence, it has been argued that algorithm-driven web technology will not only
serve to damage human creativity, technology may ultimately reduce our collective intelligence.
At the same time, the history of group decision-making in education, business, and public
administration highlights that working groups often fail to solve complex problems because
their method of collaborative problem solving is ineffective. Decades of research in social
psychology and the learning sciences highlight the many limitations of group problem solving,
including the tendency to focus on a limited set of ideas, select ideas based on biased ‘rules of
thumb’, and failure to build trust, consensus and collective vision. A fundamental skill for
resolving complex social and scientific problems is the ability to collectively visualise the
structure of a shared problem, and use this knowledge to design solutions and strategies for
collective action. In this chapter, we describe an approach to knowledge cartography that seeks
to overcome three independent human limitations which impede our ability to resolve complex
problems: poor critical thinking skills, no clear methodology to facilitate group coherence,
consensus design and collective action, and limited computational capacities. Building on
Warfield’s vision for applied systems sciences, we outline a new systems science tool which
currently combines two thought structuring methodologies: Argument Mapping for critical
thinking, and Interactive Management for system design. We further describe how teaching and
learning a form of knowledge cartography grounded in applied systems science requires a
vision around the development of Tools, Talents, and Teams. We also provide examples of how
our approach to knowledge cartography and applied systems science has been used in business
and educational settings.
1 Introduction
In a compelling critique of algorithm-driven Web 2.0 technologies, Jaron Lanier
(2011) argues that the algorithm-driven direction of Web 2.0 is disempowering
individuals and reducing the creativity of people online. He also argues that the
social-semantic web is distorting human relationships and distancing people from true
intimacy. Notably, by damaging our ‘competence’ and ‘relatedness’ in this way, Web
2.0 technologies may work to undermine two pillars of what Self-Determination
Theory characterises as fundamental to our intrinsic motivation and growth (Deci &
Ryan, 2000). However, in addition to ‘competence’ and ‘relatedness’ – two key
drivers of growth and flourishing the third pillar of Self-Determination Theory is
autonomy’, and perhaps it is our autonomy we need to exercise yet again to reclaim
our powers of relatedness and competence and thus exercise control over our
knowledge and our destiny.
2
Interestingly, in focusing on human creativity, Lanier does not address social
problem solving, or what we here call the pragmatic web (Schoop, de Moor, & Dietz,
2006; Buckingham Shum, Lind, & Weigand, 2007), a version of the social semantic
web (Breslin, Passant, & Decker, 2009) that we believe will evolve if autonomy is
exercised along with the use of increasingly meaningful technologies that promote
critical thinking, systems thinking, and social intelligence online and offline. The
pragmatic web uses the knowledge within the social network to facilitate collective
intelligence and problem solving. Naturally, collective intelligence within the
pragmatic web can never be an exclusively algorithm-driven process -- cultivating
critical thinking and systems thinking skills within individuals and teams is important.
Technology can support the development of these thinking skills and facilitate
collective intelligence and collective action, but the social psychology of collective
action presents unique challenges that require the cultivation of higher-order social-
emotional intelligence. We need to design holistic learning solutions that are
increasingly fit for purpose in this context.
This chapter describes some of our initial efforts in this regard. Building on John
Warfield’s vision for applied systems sciences, we describe an approach to knowledge
cartography that seeks to overcome three independent human limitations which
impede our ability to resolve complex social and scientific problems: poor critical
thinking skills, no clear methodology to facilitate group coherence, consensus design
and collective action, and limited computational capacities. We describe how
Argument Mapping for critical thinking and Interactive Management for system
design are integrated in our technology-supported approach to learning, and we
outline plans to further integrate Structural Equation and System Dynamics Modelling
into our approach. We focus on academic student learning and real world professional
sensemaking in relation to wicked problems. We highlight three Ts needed for
teaching and learning a form of knowledge cartography grounded in applied systems
science: Tools, Talents, and Teams. The chapter closes with a case study describing
an application of our method to manage cultural issues associated with technological
change in the automotive industry.
2 Knowledge Cartography and Applied Systems Science
According to John Warfield (2006), past president for the international society for
systems, resolving complex scientific and social problems is contingent upon the
collective action of groups working within an applied systems science framework that
incorporates at least five elements. Systems science is best seen as a science that
consists of nested sub-sciences. It is presented most compactly using the notation of
set theory. Let A represent a science of description. Let B represent a science of
design. Let C represent a science of complexity. Let D represent a science of action
(praxiology). Let E represent systems science. According to Warfield, we have the
following hierarchy of subsets within systems science:
A B C D E (1)
We can learn something of systems science by learning a science of description
(e.g., physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, economics). We can learn a
science of design that includes a science of description. Warfield argues that the
science of design is fundamental if our goal is to redesign systems (e.g., the intelligent
redesign of school systems via effective knowledge imported from biology,
psychology, sociology and economics). The science of design implies the use of tools
that facilitate the building of structural hypotheses in relation to any given problematic
situation, a problematic situation that may call upon the import of knowledge from
any given field of scientific inquiry. Furthermore, Warfield suggests we can learn a
science of complexity that includes a science of description and a science of design.
3
The science of complexity is fundamental if our goal is to integrate a large body of
knowledge and multiple disparate functional relations that different stakeholders
believe to be relevant to the problematic situation. In Warfield’s applied systems
science scheme, the science of action includes a science of description, a science of
design, and a science of complexity. The science of action is fundamental if our goal
is to catalyze collective action for the purpose of bringing about system changes that
are grounded in the sciences of description, design, and complexity. From an
educational perspective, if students are to learn a form of applied systems science that
can be used to promote successful collective action in science and society, they need
to learn in what ways the domain-based science of description that is their primary
focus of enquiry at University can be integrated in principle with other domains of
enquiry in the context of a broader science of design, complexity, and action.
However, from a broader applied perspective, advanced knowledge of systems science
is not a prerequisite for the application of Warfield’s methods to the resolution of
complex problems. Given that Warfield was primarily interested in supporting groups
working to resolve professional, business and societal problems, he focused on
developing a system of facilitation and problem solving that separated the demands of
group problem solving from the demands of facilitating groups in the application of
systems science methodologies. Below we describe Warfield’s methods and the
process of facilitation in more detail.
3 Interactive Management
Warfield’s vision for applied systems science is instantiated in part in the systems
science methodology he developed, Interactive Management (IM). IM is a computer
facilitated thought and action mapping technique that helps groups to develop
outcomes that integrate contributions from individuals with diverse views,
backgrounds, and perspectives. Established as a formal system of facilitation in 1980
after a developmental phase that started in 1974, IM was designed to assist groups in
dealing with complex issues (see Ackoff, 1981; Argyris, 1982; Cleveland, 1973; Deal
& Kennedy, 1982; Kemeny, 1980; Rittel & Webber, 1973; Simon, 1960). The
theoretical constructs that inform IM draw from both behavioural and cognitive
sciences, with a strong basis in general systems thinking. Emphasis is given to
balancing behavioural and technical demands of group work (Broome & Chen, 1992)
while honoring design laws concerning variety, parsimony, and saliency (Ashby,
1958; Boulding, 1966; Miller, 1956).
IM has been applied in a variety of situations to accomplish many different goals,
including assisting city councils in making budget cuts (Coke & Moore, 1981),
developing instructional units (Sato, 1979), designing a national agenda for pediatric
nursing (Feeg, 1988), creating computer-based information systems for organizations
(Keever, 1989), improving the U.S. Department of Defense’s acquisition process
(Alberts, 1992), promoting world peace (Christakis, 1987), improving Tribal
governance process in Native American communities (Broome, 1995a, 1995b;
Broome & Christakis, 1988; Broome & Cromer, 1991), and training facilitators
(Broome & Fulbright, 1995).
There is a series of steps in the IM methodology:
1. First, a group of key stakeholders with an interest in resolving a problematic situation
comes together in a situation room, who are asked to generate a set of ‘raw’ ideas
(commonly 50 200) about what might potentially have a bearing on the problem.
Group discussion and voting helps the group to clarify the sub-set of ideas that bear
upon the most critical problem issues (see step 1 & 2 in Figure 1).
4
2. Next, using IM software, each of the critical issues are compared systematically in
pairs and the same question is asked of each in turn: “Does A influence B?” Unless
there is majority consensus that one issue impacts upon another, the relation does not
appear in the final analysis.
3. After all the critical issues have been compared in this way, IM software generates a
graphical problem structure (or problematique) showing how the issues are
interrelated. The problematique can be viewed and printed for discussion (see step 4
in Figure 1).
4. The problematique becomes the launch pad for planning solutions to problems within
the problem field. The logical structure of problems is visible in the problematique
and when generating solutions, action plans are aimed at resolving problems in a
logical and orderly manner.
5. When the group is happy that they have modeled both the problem field and the best
possible set of solutions, the IM session closes and each member leaves with a
detailed action plan, a specific set of goals to work on, and the roadmap and logic
describing how all the various plans and goals of each member will work together to
resolve the original problem.
Notably, the IM methodology can be used to structure problems, objectives,
options, competencies, and so on, using a variety of different relational statements
(e.g., aggravates, enhances, promotes, supports, etc.). We have also made use of the
IM methodology in a conference setting, specifically, to structure barriers to wellbeing
in Ireland, (Hogan & Broome, 2012) and associated objectives to tackle those barriers
(Hogan & Broome, 2013).
(1) Generate and Clarify Ideas (system elements)
Statement Number of Sum of ranks
Category
votes
2. Lack of clear inc entives to 4 16 8
23. Clashing persona lities and 4 10 4
12. Challenge of ide ntifying l 3 8 6
4. Lack of identity for the new 3 9 2
17. Uncertainty rega rding new 2 7 2
25. Lack of reward s ystems to 2 6 8
9. Difficulty in def ining clust 2 6 1
24. Unrecognized val ue of soci 2 7 2
5. Specialization (m itigates ag 2 6 5
7. Lack of clear lan guage that 2 6 5
19. Overdependence o n "bureauc 2 4 6
22. Some individuals want to w 2 2 4
3. Lack of motivatio n or intere 2 7 7
13. Lack of opportun ity for fo 1 3 3
26. Turf issues: ind ividuals w 1 5 4
32. Someone needs to commit si 1 4 6
20. Divergence in me thods, pro 1 5 5
28. Not really an ex isting, re 1 4 3
33. Institute based on what we 1 2 6
14. Lack of informat ion/certai 1 1 5
15. Lack of translat ion of res 1 2 8
-------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -----
----
(2) Rank order, categorise, select elements
(3) Structure Elements
(4) Evaluate graphical representation of
group logic (element relations)
(5) Evaluate the reasoning supporting
each relation in the sy stem of logic
Fig 1. Collaborative Systems Thinking and Model Building using Matrix Structuring
(IM) and Argument Mapping (Rationale) support tools
5
4 Facilitating computation and making critical thinking visible
Warfield argued that the tools of systems science will be most effective if they
integrate our capacity to share meaning using words, represent causality using
graphics, and model complexity using mathematics (see Figure 2). IM integrates all
three of these components in its design. Warfield also highlights the distinction
between the mathematics of content and the mathematics of structure. IM draws upon
the mathematics of structure to convert matrix structures into the graphical
problematique.
Tools
MathematicsGraphicsWords
Mathematics of
logic and structure:
eg., formal logic,
graph theory, matrices
Mathematics of content:
e.g., differential equations,
integral equations
used to describe
phenomena in physics,
chemistry, biology,
psychology, sociology.
Fig 2. Systems science needs to work with our capacity to share meaning using
words, represent causality using graphics, and model complexity using mathematics.
Although the mathematical algorithms that underpin Warfield’s IM software are
relatively complex -- drawing in particular upon the mathematics of matrices -- the
application of the software for the purpose of generating a structural hypothesis in
relation to any given problematic situation is reasonably straightforward. In fact, the
rationale for separating the computational complexity of structuring from the process
of dialogue, information search, deliberation, and voting in a group was very explicit
in Warfield’s view. The IM software is designed to alleviate the group of
computational burden and thus allow them the opportunity to maximize the processes
of creative idea generation, dialogue, information search, critical thinking and voting
in relation to key binary relations in the overall problem structure.
Complementing the IM-generated influence diagram, we have recently integrated
our IM software with argument mapping (AM) software. Notably, given that each of
the binary relations in a larger structural hypothesis (or problematique) represents a
specific claim, a structural analysis and evaluation of the evidence used to support this
claim can be mapped out in an argument map (see step 5 in Figure 1). In the current
version of our IM software, the user can hyperlink out to a separate AusThink
RationaleTM argument map file for each relational line within a problematique.
6
Furthermore, with easy access to the Web of Science and other search engines, it is
possible for students working together to analyse and evaluate a particular claim in a
structure, specifically, by sourcing available knowledge and considering the
credibility, relevance, and logical significance of this knowledge to the relation under
investigation. An example will serve to illustrate this integration. Below is the
outcome of an IM session conducted as part of a Thinking, Modelling and Writing in
Psychology module in NUI Galway, in response to the trigger question, What are the
most important skills and dispositions of good critical thinkers? Table 1 illustrates the
top ranked skills and the top ranked dispositions of good critical thinkers, as voted
upon by the students in the class.
Table 1. Top Ranked skills and dispositions for CT
Top Five
Skills
Top Five
Dispositions
1. The ability
to clearly say
what it is you
want to say
1. The
willingness to
detach from one’s
own beliefs
2. The ability
to evaluate the
strengths and
weaknesses of
an argument
2. The
willingness to
recognise limited
knowledge or
uncertainty (e.g.
we may not have
enough
knowledge of a
topic to
confidently think
critically about it)
3. The ability
to converse
and engage
with others to
expound
personal
views and
experiences
3. The
willingness to
systematically
write an essay in
order to achieve a
goal
4. The ability
to logically
say what you
want to say in
a concise
manner
4. The
willingness to
question one’s
own assumptions
and thinking
5. The ability
to draw a
conclusion
about a topic
based on its
context and
what we know
about the
topic already
5. The
willingness to
listen properly
7
Figure 3 illustrates how these ideas are listed in the IM software in the ideas tab.
Fig 3. Screen from the IM software application showing the list of critical thinking
skills and dispositions to be structured
Figure 4 illustrates how ideas are selected for structuring in the IM software using the
voting tab.
Fig 4. Screen from the IM software application showing the selection of ideas to be
structured
Students were then facilitated in using the IM software to structure the
interdependencies among the highest ranked skills and dispositions. Figure 5
illustrates how the software application presents the group with individual matrix
structuring decisions.
8
Fig 5. Screen from the IM software application showing how the user is presented
with individual matrix structuring decisions.
After all elements were structured, the IM software generated the graphical
problematique (Figure 6) which is to be read from left to right, with paths in the model
interpreted as ‘significantly enhances’. For example, students who participated in the
IM session agreed after open deliberation that [the disposition] the willingness to
question one’s own assumptions and thinking significantly enhances [the skill] one’s
capacity to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of an argument.
Although Warfield recognized that the critical thinking skills of participants in an
IM session are often limited, he rarely discussed the particulars of these skills and how
they might be developed in parallel with training in the use of IM. In the context of
resolving problems that call upon the knowledge of diverse stakeholders, it is
important to recognize that informed judgments in relation to key system relations
imply the ability to think critically and reflectively in relation to one’s own knowledge
and the knowledge presented by others (Facione, 1990; Kuhn, 2005)
As defined in The Delphi Report (Facione, 1990), critical thinking involves:
“…purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis,
evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual,
methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that
judgment is based.” (p. 3)
While a variety of training techniques can be used to enhance critical thinking
skills, a meta-analysis by Alvarez-Ortiz (2007) suggests that the explicit use of
argument mapping training is one of the most effective methods of training critical
thinking skills (see also Dwyer et al. 2013). Furthermore, with research studies
demonstrating the largest gains in knowledge growth and critical thinking skills
deriving from cooperative enquiry (Johnson & Johnson, 2009), and with computer
supported argument mapping tools now widely available and widely applied in
tertiary education (van Gelder, Bissett, & Cumming, 2004), it is not difficult to see
how the development of critical thinking skills through cooperative enquiry using
argument mapping tools can fit within Warfield’s vision for systems science
education.
9
Returning to the problematique illustrated in Figure 6, the willingness to question
one’s own assumptions and thinking significantly enhances one’s capacity to evaluate
the strengths and weaknesses of an argument, is a contestable claim, which as shown,
may be evaluated more rigorously by constructing an associated Argument Map to
consider the credibility, relevance, and logical significance of the available evidence
underpinning the claim.
Fig 6. Sample enhancement structure (IM) of skills and dispositions required for critical
thinking, with unfolded argument map (Rationale) exploring a specific claim (that the
ability to question one’s assumptions and thinking enhances evaluation skills).
Unfolded argument map
Unfolded argument map
10
5 The role of the cartographer in facilitating the collective
intelligence process
Facilitating team learning and collective intelligence using integrated AM/IM tools is
challenging work that requires a sophisticated understanding of the role of the
facilitator, acquired both through training and learning from the experience of working
with different teams and different problematic situations. Central to our perspective
as facilitators is the distinction between context, content, and process, and these
distinctions are clarified with the team in advance of any session:
Context: Participants are working in a particular context and focus on a particular
issue and have specific goals
Content: Participants’ primary role is to provide ideas relevant to the context and the
particular issue they are addressing
Process: The role of the facilitation team is to manage the flow of activities, including
the implementation of various methodologies that allow goals to be accomplished.
Facilitators do not contribute ideas or make judgments about the content of
participants’ ideas.
Collective Intelligence sessions are dedicated to productive and efficient group
dialogue. Although the facilitator is not responsible for content input, the functions of
facilitation are key to groups producing valuable products. The responsibilities of the
facilitator lie in five major areas:
1. Developing a collaborative working relationship with the client group: Well before a
CI session starts, the facilitator must work with both the sponsor of the sessions and
the person who will serve as the liaison for designing the group work (sometimes
referred to as the broker, who could be the same as the sponsor). It is critical that the
facilitator gains a clear picture of the context in which the CI sessions are embedded.
This could entail several discussions with the sponsor/broker in order to understand
the problematic situation, decide on the goals of the CI session, and select the
participants who will take part in the CI session. Often the facilitator will need to
serve as a teacher/educator in explaining to the client what can/will be done and how
much time will be required.
2. Planning appropriate group processes: After the facilitator has a clear sense of the
purposes and goals for the Collective Intelligence session, the next task is designing a
detailed workshop plan and preparing the necessary materials for use in the session. A
critical component of this planning process is selecting the methodologies and the
sequence of activities that will be carried out during the session. Most CI sessions
involve both idea generation and structuring. The structuring is done with the AM/IM
software, but the idea generation can be accomplished in multiple ways, and often
there are multiple instances of both idea generation and structuring, depending on the
goals of the session. For idea generation, decisions have to be made about wording of
guiding questions, and for the structuring process, choices have to be made about the
type of relationship to be used with the software. Importantly, the methodologies and
the wording should be tested with the broker and/or a representative of the participant
group to see if it is likely to be appropriate.
3. Managing logistics: Although it is easy to consider logistics a mundane concern, it is
very important for the facilitator to give attention to tasks such as making
arrangements for the meeting room, gathering the materials that will be used in the
session (such as marker pens, paper, etc.), and making sure the group has the
necessary food and drink to sustain them during the long and demanding group work.
While many of these tasks can be delegated to support staff, we have found it
advisable for the facilitator to keep a close eye on logistics, since they are not only
11
necessary in order for the session to flow smoothly, but participants can become
surprisingly distracted by seemingly small disruptions that could be easily prevented
by proper attention to details.
4. Facilitating group process: Perhaps the central role of the facilitator is to create and
sustain an inclusive and participatory climate through structured dialogue. One of the
vital roles of the facilitator is to prevent the sessions from becoming platforms for
individual presentations, or a forum for academic debate or political posturing. While
individuals bring into the group various levels of status and prestige, the facilitator
promotes respect for individual contributions and guides the discussion to help
participants understand diverse points of view. It is critical to encourage a variety of
perspectives while disallowing premature evaluation. The facilitator asks participants
to adopt a posture of individual and collective willingness to listen to and learn from
each other. While it is not expected that everyone will agree with every aspect of the
final products, it has been our experience that participants are committed to and
willing to support the work of the group.
5. Guiding the group to their desired outcomes: Collective Intelligence sessions usually
result in both improved relations within the group and a set of products that are useful
for the group. By engaging in structured dialogue, participants can develop new
communication patterns that carry over into the workplace, and they may develop a
higher level of trust among the group participants. However, the primary focus of the
CI sessions is usually on the task outcome, helping the group gain a clearer
understanding of the situation they are facing and designing an appropriate response to
it. Depending on its purpose and goals, the group’s work could lead to a number of
different products, such as collective vision statement, an agenda for research, a new
curriculum, or a detailed plan of action to address the situation. The facilitator must
keep the group on track toward their desired outcomes by implementing the planned
methodologies, while making necessary adjustments in response to the continually
evolving dynamics and changing needs of the group. This may involve interventions
such as reminding the group of the context of their work, summarizing and
synthesizing progress at various points along the way, displaying interim results,
recognizing when the group veers off on a tangent and redirecting them to the task,
varying the pace of the work to keep everyone engaged, and bringing the group’s
attention to the objectives and goals of the session.
While many of the responsibilities described above are applicable to a wide range
of approaches to facilitation, the AM/IM facilitator is also a cartographer, charged
with implementing methodologies that allow groups to produce graphical
representations of problematic situations, goals for the future, action priorities, and
other structures that depict the group’s view of the connections among the issues that
it is exploring. As such, the cartographer-facilitator must also give attention to the
following imperatives.
1. Under-conceptualization must be avoided: Frequently, groups will fail to adequately
explore all required dimensions of a problematic situation. This happens primarily for
two reasons: (a) the set of participants is missing key individuals, leaving the group
without necessary expertise or points of view; (b) the methodologies utilized by the
group fail in identifying all the relevant dimensions. The first of these potentially fatal
shortcomings is addressed by the facilitator’s initial work with the client to ensure that
the relevant points of view and required expertise is represented around the table. The
second is addressed by the AM/IM methodologies, which are designed to elicit all the
ideas relevant to the situation and to incorporate the essential ideas in the final
products.
2. Information overload must be minimized: All too often, participants in meetings are
asked to deal with too many pieces of information simultaneously. The methodologies
12
in AM/IM help participants work with ideas systematically and in manageable chunks
while building up a holistic view of the situation.
3. The focus of the group must be kept on the larger picture that is emerging: Many
meetings often become bogged down in small issues and details and the group loses
sight of the larger picture. By implementing the AM/IM methodologies, the group
maintains focus on the system of issues that characterize the situation.
4. Efforts must be directed toward an integrated design product: It is common to see in
group work a significant amount of "jumping back and forth" between seemingly
unrelated issues. AM/IM sessions are conducted as part of an integrated plan for
dealing with the situation, and each session builds on what came before and lays the
foundation for what will come after.
5. Meaningful documentation must be provided: Quite often meetings usually go to one
of two extremes in providing a record of group work - they either provide sketchy
minutes or they try to capture every word uttered by participants. AM/IM sessions
avoid both extremes by providing an "audit trail" that captures the products produced
by the group and the rationales behind those products.
In addition to the skills and responsibilities described above, the cartographer-
facilitator role also requires curiosity, reflectiveness, and neutrality, qualities that are
essential in working with groups that produce a large number of ideas. Curiosity
implies maintaining an attitude of openness and interest to new ideas and lines of
reasoning. Reflectiveness implies a questioning attitude to the potential ambiguity and
redundancy of ideas in the idea set, and the balance and soundness of arguments
voiced during structuring. Reflectiveness also implies the provision of feedback in
relation to ideas and reasoning provided by the team and the coordination of ideas and
lines of reasoning to facilitate the integration of team members’ perspectives and
contributions. Finally, reflective feedback is provided not only with an attitude of
curiosity and openness -- that is, promoting exploratory dialogue in the group (Mercer,
2005) but also with neutrality as regards the underlying motives for particular ideas
and lines of reasoning. In other words, ideas and logic are considered by the
facilitator on the basis of key principles (e.g., clarity, non-redundancy, soundness)
rather than on whether or not they fit with a particular political agenda.
Having said that, the facilitator must be aware that in many business and applied
settings the political agenda of participants and potential conflicts between group
members need to be negotiated and managed. In his work in Cyprus, Broome (2003)
described how gaining trust, maintaining impartiality, sustaining commitment, and
dealing with the pressure to show “tangible” results were critical factors in the success
of the IM methodology in facilitating conflict resolution between Greek and Turkish
Cypriots. In this sense, the role of facilitator includes the exercise of skills that
promote and maintain effective team dynamics. Again, this implies the need to
provide sufficient training for facilitators (Broome & Fulbright, 1995).
6 Case Study Using IM to Manage Cultural Issues Associated
with Technological Change in the Automotive Industry
Organizations exist in turbulent environments, surrounded by constant change and
competing organizations. Since the publication in the early 1980s of books such as
Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life (Deal & Kennedy, 1982),
organizational culture has been recognized as a critical aspect of overall effectiveness
in corporate life, and it is seen as a key factor in managing change. Cultures in
organizations are multifaceted, complex, and constantly evolving, and although
humans seek stability and often resist change, organizations that find effective ways to
bring about needed cultural change are more likely to succeed.
13
In the early 1990s, the automotive industry in the United States was undergoing
rapid changes in response to increased international competition, particularly from
Asian car manufactures. To remain competitive in both domestic and international
markets, U.S. companies were faced with the need to incorporate new technology in
the design and testing of new automotive systems. One large U.S. automotive
manufacturer confronted that challenge by conducting a series of Interactive
Management sessions over a period of several years. The company was planning for
the development and introduction of a new technology for automotive design
processes (referred to in this paper as the AP program). The intention of the AP
program was to integrate hardware and software into a system that would provide the
means of sharing design and manufacturing information among all activities related to
AP processes.
An implementation team was assembled to define the system's technological
components and identify major issues that must be addressed in order to ensure the
success of the program. IM was used to assist the group in developing influences
structures, priority structures, and categorizations of ideas related to the AP program.
The initial IM sessions produced a structure that mapped the overall set of issues
related to the AP program. In the AP problematique, organizational culture emerged
as a central aspect of many of the problems and issues identified by the
implementation team.
A series of IM workshops was then focused on the development of a cultural
change program to support the introduction and acceptance of the new technologies
and processes that would be required to move the AP product realization process
toward the concurrent engineering process that is at the center of the AP vision.
Attention to the cultural aspects of the AP program progressed through several stages
including cultural problem identification; problem structuring and consideration of
problem interactions; development of options for ameliorating the identified cultural
problems; selection and structuring of options to build a preliminary event-sequence
structure that forms the basis of a cultural change program authored by the AP
program.
In the initial stages of the IM work on culture issues, a “cultural problem field”
was created by the implementation team that included over one hundred cultural
issues in ten categories. These categories included: Short Term Focus, Hardware
Focus, Trust Issues, Unrealistic Expectations, Resistance to Change, Teamwork
Issues, Motivational Issues, Discipline Issues, Business Process Issues, and
Communication Issues. Twenty-eight high-priority issues, selected across the ten
categories, were structured by the implementation team using an influence
relationship of "significantly aggravates." This resulted in the problematique shown in
Figure 7 below.
An analysis of this structure was performed by linking information from the
cultural problem field and the cultural problematique. This analysis showed that
problems related to business process issues, unrealistic expectations, resistance to
change, and hardware focus were providing the most negative influence on the overall
system of issues. In order to effectively bring about cultural change in the
organization, it would be necessary to address these categories of problems in a
meaningful way.
14
Fig 7: IM Problematique of AP Cultural Issues
15
The use of a graphical representation of issues (the problematique) allowed the
implementation team to make significant progress in developing a systematic plan to
take steps toward the necessary changes in the organizational culture. Focusing
primarily on the categories identified in the structural analysis, the participants
developed a “cultural options field” for resolving these issues. The options field
consisted of over 200 possible options that, if pursued, could address the cultural
problems and create an organizational environment in which the AP program would
be more likely to succeed. From the options field, the group identified a subset of
high-priority short-term options on which they believed significant progress could be
shown in a six-month time period. The implementation team engaged in developing
the task parameters associated with these options, including assignment of options to
appropriate individuals and departments. Although not all of the options in the plan
came to fruition, many of the highest-impact actions were implemented, resulting in
significant cultural change in the organization.
The key product of the IM design sessions was the problematique depicting the
system of problems associated with organizational culture. This graphical portrayal of
issues represented a broad and thorough understanding of the issues and their
interrelationships, and using it as a primary reference point allowed the
implementation team to identify a wide range of options and then select those that
would have the highest impact on the overall system. Without the problematique and
the associated problem field as guiding structures for their options generation, the
group might have been far less creative and thorough in their options generation, and
they would have had no sound basis for selecting options for implementation. It has
been our experience that groups obtain significant value in systematically mapping
influence relationships among the key issues they face and then using the graphical
representation of the resulting structure as a basis for generating and selecting options
for implementation. If corporations, government agencies, educational institutions,
and community organizations could follow this path of decision making, we could
make much better decisions about how to invest our limited resources, and we could
go a long way toward developing a healthy and equitable society.
7 Next steps: knowledge cartography for systems science education
We have argued that cultivating collective intelligence within the pragmatic web
requires that we move beyond thinking about collective intelligence as an exclusively
algorithm-driven process. We suggested that cultivating critical thinking and systems
thinking skills within individuals and teams is important and while technology can
support the development of these thinking skills, the social psychology of collective
intelligence and collective action presents unique challenges that require both social-
emotional intelligence and a new web infrastructure that is fit for purpose. There are
many challenges that we face as we seek to cultivate and apply our collective
intelligence in response to adaptive demands.
In closing, we focus on the importance of developing a new strategy for systems
science education, designing the pragmatic web in a way that facilitates quality
knowledge cartography and quality collective intelligence, and training facilitators to
support teams on the pragmatic web.
As past president of the International Society for the Systems Sciences, John
Warfield (1925 2009) devoted most of his career to the task of building a viable
systems science. However, his thinking as regards how systems science could be
integrated into science education at school and university came later in his career and
he died before any substantial progress could be made in this regard. Perhaps less
well developed in Warfield’s thinking are: (a) strategies for importing the facts and
16
relations of disparate descriptive sciences into group design efforts, (b) strategies for
quantifying problematique model fit by weighting and measuring discrete relations in
matrix structures, computing statistical fit indices, and further integrating with system
dynamics modeling tools (Maani & Cavana, 2000); (c) teaching the critical thinking
skills necessary for the analysis and evaluation of scientific evidence embedded in
problematiques, and (d) cultivating domain-specific systems level thinking in students
at school level prior to their entering university (Stein, Dawson & Fischer, 2010).
In order to advance Warfield’s vision of systems science education and further
develop applied systems science, we are working to develop a tool and a teaching
framework that integrates critical thinking and systems modelling in a broader
pedagogical framework (Hogan, Harney, & Broome, 2014). Central to our framework
is the development of tools, talents, and teams (see Figure 8), which set in context the
IM/AM approach detailed in this chapter.
Fig 8. Three levels in a framework for systems science education -- Tools, Talents
and Teams.
Note: IM = Interactive Management, AM = Argument Mapping, SysD = System
Dynamics.
Teams
Teams
Team orientation; Mutual performance
monitoring; Backup behavior management;
Adaptability; Leadership; Mutual trust, Shared
mental models; Closed loop communication
Talents
Talents
Critical, Systems,
Computational
Thinking; Social Intelligence
Tools
IM, AM, SEM,
SysD
17
We believe that developments across these three levels are reciprocally
reinforcing, in the sense that good tool design should facilitate the development of key
individual talents while also promoting effective team dynamics, much like efforts to
promote effective team dynamics should accelerate the development of individual
talents and the development of tool use skills. Furthermore, we believe that systems
science education needs to extend to cooperative action in the context of real-world
social problems. Therefore, we have proposed that systems science education should
include an action research and service learning component, whereby students are
given the opportunity to work with community stakeholders on real world problems
(Hogan, Harney, & Broome, 2014). In our framework, teams use their talents and
tools to work on specific tasks focused on the resolution of problems within specific
territories. The notion of tasks is consistent with Warfield’s vision for applied systems
science, which is rooted in the philosophical school of pragmatism (Warfield, 2006)
and is applied and task-oriented in its focus. The notion of territories is used to
reinforce the idea that human problems function within an ecosystem, or territory of
influence, and thus the resolution of these problems involves human action within a
specific territory. Problem description and modelling only serves the purpose to
facilitate understanding and perspective in relation to concrete adaptive action within
a territory of influence (Vennix, 1996).
In terms of the future development of our tool, we believe it will be useful to build
a stronger bridge between the mathematics of logic and structure and the mathematics
of content in Warfield scheme. This can be done by testing structural models or
dynamic models that are analogues or extensions of the models generated by a group
in an IM session (Chang, 2010; Maani and Cavana, 2000; Vennix, 1996). Although
detailed mathematical specification is beyond the scope of this chapter, consistent
with Vennix (1996) and Maani and Cavana (2000), IM modelling can be used as a
foundational step for groups that seek to develop consensus-based computational
models in a facilitated team setting using either structural equation modelling tools
such as Amos
1
or Mplus
2
, or System Dynamics tools such as Vensim
3
or Powersim
4
.
These tools can be used in parallel or integrated more directly as part of a multi-
component systems modelling and action planning tool. We are currently working on
the latter software development strategy.
In this chapter we have used the term ‘the pragmatic web’ (Schoop, et al., 2006),
but in so doing we are aware that there are many ways to build a pragmatic web that
promotes and facilitates collective knowledge cartography and problem solving and
overlays systems modeling affordances upon existing semantic web technologies. In
our framework, The Pragmatic Web is an ambitious project that seeks to enhance the
power and potential of applied systems science by embedding an updated version of
existing IM software into a Web 2.0 system with new, enhanced functional
components that allow working groups to design problematiques and action structures
that enhance their successful workings. More generally, we conceive the Pragmatic
1
http://www.spss.com.hk/amos/
2
http://www.statmodel.com/
3
http://vensim.com/
4
http://www.powersim.com/
18
Web as a project of job creation and infrastructure development designed to
regenerate society via the training of IM facilitators who will work across every sector
of society to facilitate the successful workings of groups who are invested in the
resolution of current economic, social, and environmental problems.
Warfield’s original IM software support tool was somewhat difficult to use and, as
a consequence, only a handful of IM facilitators used the method (see Warfield, 2006).
We have worked to develop a user-friendly version of the software
5
, but we now face
the design challenge of embedding IM into the Web. We anticipate many challenges,
including how best to facilitate group dialogue online, how best to work both
synchronously and asynchronously on model building and action planning efforts,
how best to maintain group focus, motivation, and effective team dynamics, and how
best to train users and facilitators in this unique approach to systems thinking and
applied systems science.
In relation to the training of facilitators who will get the most out of the tools, we
have documented the multi-component skill set, the sophisticated understanding of
one’s role as a facilitator, and the performance requirements necessary for effective
team dynamics and collective action. Facilitation skills need to be acquired both
through training and learning from the experience of working with different teams in
the context of many different problematic situations. We believe that the effective
functioning of the pragmatic web requires expert input from facilitators. Given this
requirement, there are a number of challenges moving forward, including the
development of a deep understanding of how best to facilitate groups online, how best
to train and prepare facilitators for online work, and how best to increase the
efficiency of working groups and possibly reduce the monitoring burden on
facilitators using information technologies that support key processes (e.g., individual
and group feedback) and the development of key products (e.g., models, simulations,
reports, action agendas). Overall, we are very excited about the prospect for the
development of a new pragmatic web that facilitates systems thinking, collective
intelligence, and collective action focused on the resolution of an increasing variety of
social problems. We also recognise that there are many challenges, but consistent
with Warfield’s view, we believe that these challenges and problems are the primary
catalyst of creativity and the design of new solutions that provide an increasingly
adequate fit to the challenges we face together.
5
The software is available upon request. Please contact michael.hogan@nuigalway.ie
19
References
Ackoff, R. L. (1981). Creating the corporate future: Plan or be planned for. New
York: John Wiley and Sons.
Alberts, H. (1992, March). Acquisition: Past, present and future. Paper presented
at the meeting of the Institute of Management Sciences and Operations Research
Society, Orlando, FL.
Alvarez-Ortiz, M., C. (2007) Does Philosophy Improve Critical Thinking Skills?
Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and
organizational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ashby, W. R. (1958). Requisite variety and its implications for the control of
complex systems. Cybernetica, 1(2), 1-17.
Boulding, K. E. (1966). The impact of the social sciences. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Breslin, J. G., Passant, A., & Decker, S. (2009).Social Semantic Web. London:
Springer.
Broome, B. J. (2006). Applications of Interactive Design Methodologies in
Protracted Conflict Situations. Facilitating group communication in context:
Innovations and applications with natural groups.: Hampton Press.
Broome, B. J., & Chen, M. (1992). Guidelines for computer-assisted group
problem-solving: Meeting the challenges of complex issues. Small Group Research,
23, 216-236.
Broome, B. J. (1995a). Collective design of the future: Structural analysis of tribal
vision statements. American Indian Quarterly, 19, 205-228.
Broome, B. (1995b). The role of facilitated group process in community-based
planning and design: Promoting greater participation in Comanche tribal governance.
20
In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Innovations in group facilitation: Applications in natural settings
(pp. 27- 52). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Broome, B. J., & Cromer, I. L. (1991). Strategic planning for tribal economic
development: A culturally appropriate model for consensus building.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 217-234.
Broome, B. J., & Fulbright, L. (1995). A multi-stage influence model of barriers to
group problem solving. Small Group Research, 26, 25-55.
Buckingham Shum S., Lind M. and Weigand H. (2007). (Eds.) Proceedings 2nd
International Conference on the Pragmatic Web (22-23 Oct. 2007, Tilburg: NL).
ISBN: 978-1-59593-859-6. Open Access Eprint: http://oro.open.ac.uk/9275
Chang, N. (2010). Using Structural Equation Modelling to Test the Validity of
Interactive Management. Western Political Science Association 2010 Annual Meeting
Paper. Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=15805
Christakis, A. N. (1987). Systems profile: The Club of Rome revisited. Systems
Research, 4, 53-58.
Cleveland, H. (1973). The decision makers. Center Magazine, 6, 5, 9-18.
Coke, J. G., & Moore, C. M. (1981). Coping with a budgetary crisis: Helping a
city council decide where expenditure cuts should be made. In S. W. Burks & J. F.
Wolf (Eds.), Building city council leadership skills: A casebook of models and
methods (pp. 72-85). Washington, DC: National League of Cities.
Deal, T. E. & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of
corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Dwyer, C., Hogan, M.J., & Stewart, I. (2012). An Evaluation of Argument
Mapping as a Method of Enhancing Critical Thinking Performance in e-Learning
Environments. Metacognition and Instruction, 7(3), 219-244.
Dwyer, C., Hogan, M.J., Stewart, I. (2013). An examination of the effects of
argument mapping on students' memory and comprehension performance. Thinking
Skills and Creativity, 8, 11 24.
Engelmann, T., Baumeister, A., Dingel, A., & Hesse, F.W. (2010). The added value
of communication in a CSCL-scenario compared to just having access to the partners’
knowledge and information. In J. Sánchez, A. Cañas, & J.D. Novak (Eds.), Concept
maps making learning meaningful: Proceedings of the 4th international
conference on concept mapping, 1, 377384. Viña del Mar, Chile: University of Chile.
Engelmann, T. & Hesse, F.W. (2010). How digital concept maps about the
collaborators
knowledge and information influence computer-supported collaborative problem
solving. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 299319.
Facione, J. (1990). Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for
Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction: The California Academic Press.
Feeg, R. (1988). Forum of the future of pediatric nursing: Looking toward the 21st
century. Pediatric Nursing, 14, 393-396.
Harney, O., Hogan, M.J., Broome, B. (2012). Collaborative learning: the effects of
trust and open and closed dynamics on consensus and efficacy. Social Psychology
of Education, 15, 517532
21
Hogan, M.J. & Broome, B. (2012). Well-Being in Ireland: Overcoming Barriers to
Well-Being in Ireland, Conference Report, NUI, Galway.
http://www.nuigalway.ie/psy/documents/wellbeing_ireland_conference_using_interac
tive_management_consultation_methodology.pdf
Hogan, M.J. & Broome, B. (2013).Wellbeing in Ireland Designing Measures and
Implementing Policies, Conference Report, NUI, Galway.
http://www.nuigalway.ie/psy/documents/wellbeing_ireland_2013_conference_prelimi
nary_report.pdf
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An Educational Psychology Success
Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning. Educational
Researcher, 38(5), 365-379.
Keever, D. B. (1989, April). Cultural complexities in the participative design of a
computer-based organization information system. Paper presented at the International
Conference on Support, Society and Culture: Mutual Uses of Cybernetics and
Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K., & Shaenfield, D. (2008). Arguing on the
computer: A microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-
supported environment. Child Development, 79, 1311 ñ 1329.
Kemeny, J. (1980). Saving American democracy: The lesson of Three Mile Island.
Technology Review, 83, 7, 64-75.
Lanier, J. (2010). You Are Not a Gadget. New York: Alfred A .
Maani, K.E and Cavana, R.Y. (2000). Systems Thinking and Modelling:
Understanding
Change and Complexity, Prentice Hall, Auckland.
Mercer, N. (2004) . Sociocultural discourse analysis : Analysing classroom talk as
a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 137-168.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits
on our capacity for processing information. Psychology Review, 63, 81-97.
Rittel, H.W.J. and Webber, M.M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of
Planning. Policy Sciences, 4: 155-169.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits: Human
needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there “big five” in teamwork?
Small Group Research, 36(5), 555599
Sato, T. (1979). Determination of hierarchical networks of instructional units using
the ISM method. Educational Technology Research, 3, 67-75.
Schoop M., de Moor A. and Dietz J.L.G. (2006) The Pragmatic Web: A
Manifesto. Communications of the ACM, 49: pp. 75-76.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1125944.1125979
22
Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of management decisions. New York:
Harper & Row
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported
collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge
handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press
van Gelder, T. J., Bissett, M., & Cumming, G. (2004). Cultivating Expertise in
Informal Reasoning. . Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58
142-152.
Varian, H., & Lyman, P. (2003). How much information? Berkeley, CA: Schoo l
of Information Management & Systems, UC Berkeley.
Vennix, J. (1996). Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using
Systems Dynamics. Wiley, New York.
Warfield, J. N. (1974). Structuring complex systems. [Columbus, Ohio,: Battelle
Memorial Institute.
Warfield, J. N. (2006). An introduction to systems science. Singapore: World
Scientific.
Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 15, 379428.
... PASSE provides a design-and practice-oriented framework that emphasises a curricular and pedagogical focus on the collective, group, and team structures and processes that are central to the operation of a viable CI and applied systems science. We highlight as problematic the predominant focus on individuals and the limited exposure to collaborative systems thinking and systems design methodologies in educational settings (Hogan et al. 2014(Hogan et al. , 2015b. We argue that in order to implement PASSE in practice, educators and students need to cultivate (1) an understanding of systems (Hogan et al. 2018; Hogan 2020), (2) an understanding of group dynamics relevant to the management and design of systems (Hogan et al. 2021), and (3) skill in the application of applied systems science methods that can be used by groups in the management and redesign of systems (Hogan et al. 2017). ...
... The 7-Ts framework provided us with an initial starting point as we sought to integrate key tools, talents, and team dynamics central to the design and delivery of an applied systems science module at University level. While a detailed description of the particular tools and methods we use (including procedural detail on Interactive Management and associated software) is provided elsewhere (Hogan et al. 2014(Hogan et al. , 2015b, we elaborate on some key aspects of our most recent curricular developments and pedagogical approach. We focus in particular on the group dynamics knowledge, CI facilitation, and teamwork skills we seek to cultivate in students. ...
... Facilitating groups using applied systems design methods requires an understanding of the role of the CI facilitator. Although the facilitator is not responsible for content input, the process facilitation is central to groups producing valuable products (Hogan et al. 2014;Hogan and Broome 2021). The facilitators work in the following ways: ...
Article
Full-text available
The design of systems to support sustainable wellbeing is contingent upon lifespan education of Homo sapiens and ongoing efforts to cultivate individual and collective intelligence. The Postdigital Applied Systems Science Education (PASSE) framework presented in this paper highlights the need for greater investment in educational infrastructures that support the development of collective intelligence, teamwork, and system design skills. We propose that the implementation of PASSE involves group- and project-based work focused on developing (1) an understanding of systems, (2) an understanding of group dynamics relevant to the management and design of systems, and (3) skill in the application of applied systems science methods that can be used by groups in the management and redesign of systems. To showcase curricular and pedagogical challenges and opportunities, we describe key features of our current delivery of PASSE along with future plans and prospects. Aligned with postdigital perspectives and innovations at the nexus of biology, information, and society, we highlight the potential for ongoing redesign of educational infrastructures and technologies that enhance societal teamwork and system design capabilities that allow us to address increasingly complex societal challenges.
... One applied systems science approach-Collective Intelligence (CI)-has been widely used to facilitate groupbased problem solving, specifically, to both understand a complex issue and map options and actions relevant to the problem [28] (see [29][30][31][32] for recent social science applications; and see [33][34][35] for further details on methodology and application). The benefits of applying this approach to understand the complexity of FMS interventions has recently been outlined in an exploratory study [36]. ...
... CI is a facilitated group consultation process designed for collective problem-solving [28,29,33,39]. Given the novelty of this approach in the context of FMS research, a protocol has been recently published to detail its rationale, procedures, and benefits [36]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background To have population-level impact, physical activity (PA) interventions must be effectively implemented and sustained under real-world conditions. Adequate Fundamental Movement Skills (FMS) is integral to children being able to actively participate in play, games, and sports. Yet, few FMS interventions have been implemented at scale, nor sustained in routine practice, and thus it is important to understand the influences on sustained implementation. The study’s aim was to use Collective Intelligence (CI)—an applied systems science approach—with stakeholder groups to understand barriers to the implementation of FMS interventions, interdependencies between these barriers, and options to overcome the system of barriers identified. Methods Three CI sessions were conducted with three separate groups of experienced FMS intervention researchers/practitioners ( N = 22) in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Participants generated and ranked barriers they perceive most critical in implementing FMS interventions. Each group developed a structural model describing how highly ranked barriers are interrelated in a system. Participants then conducted action mapping to solve the problem based on the logical relations between barriers reflected in the model. Results The top ranked barriers (of 76) are those related to policy, physical education curriculum, and stakeholders’ knowledge and appreciation. As reflected in the structural model, these barriers have influences over stakeholders’ efficacy in delivering and evaluating interventions. According to this logical structure, 38 solutions were created as a roadmap to inform policy, practice, and research. Collectively, solutions suggest that efforts in implementation and sustainability need to be coordinated (i.e., building interrelationship with multiple stakeholders), and a policy or local infrastructure that supports these efforts is needed. Conclusions The current study is the first to describe the complexity of barriers to implementing and sustaining FMS interventions and provide a roadmap of actions that help navigate through the complexity. By directing attention to the ecological context of FMS intervention research and participation, the study provides researchers, policy makers, and practitioners with a framework of critical components and players that need to be considered when designing and operationalising future projects in more systemic and relational terms.
... The map records the needs of citizens and serves as a basis for policy and monitoring (Ricky Ohl, 2014). Hogan et al. (2014) argue that collaborative problem-solving profits from a technology-based approach combining argument mapping for Critical Thinking and interactive workshops. ...
... According to the authors, humans face certain limitations when it comes to the resolution of complex issues, for example, poor Critical Thinking skills or the absence of an effective process to facilitate consensus. In that case, well-designed technological tools have the potential to overcome these barriers (Hogan, 2014). ...
Thesis
Full-text available
Resource scarcity and increasing pressure on ecosystems (Keppner, Kahlenborn, Hoff, Lucht, & Gerten Dieter, 2019) provide ground for a number of discourses. Thus, to ensure a sustainable management of natural resources and to guarantee the provision of ecosystem services for future generations, it is essential to enhance the understanding of such debates. This study aims to visualize the binational debate on the planned river regulatory measures on the Oder River, focussing on the German-Polish border district. The pending implementation of the Odra-Vistula Flood Management Project (OVFMP) executed by Polish Water Authorities ‘Państwowe Gospodarstwo Wodne Wody Polskie’, evoked critical voices questioning the transparency of the underlying intentions and the environmental compatibility of the project. Communicated objectives are ‘to increase flood protection […] in selected areas of the Odra and Upper Vistula basins and to strengthen the institutional capacity of public administration to mitigate the impact of floods more effectively’ (State Water Holding Polish Waters, 2021). Thereby, the Republic of Poland refers to its fulfilment of the German and Polish Agreement on the mutual improvement of the situation of inland waterways in the German-Polish border region signed in 2015 (German-Polish state treaty, 2015). The study objectives are to increase the transparency of the discourse, provide a basis for Critical Thinking and enhance mutual understanding of involved interest groups. The method of argument mapping was combined with a qualitative data analysis approach, interpreting 21 semi-structured expert interviews and a media research covering 78 articles on the planned Oder regulation published between 2015 and the 15th of March 2021. The main result is a comprehensive argument map comprising lines of argumentation supporting or attacking the intended Oder River regulation. Based on frequent nominations and a high number of interlinkages, eight key arguments have been identified that appear particularly relevant in the studied debate. Argument mapping was found to be an adequate tool to illustrate the complexity of the studied debate. However, a significant trade-off between readability and completeness has been identified.
... CI is a facilitated thought and action mapping process that helps groups to develop outcomes that integrate contributions from individuals with diverse views, backgrounds and perspectives. 45,46 The CI methodology is comprised of a number of methods and tools, which are selected and employed by the facilitation team based on the specific goals of the CI design project. In the current study, ideawriting and field representation methods were employed, in conjunction with SBD and user stories. ...
Article
Full-text available
Objectives eHealth refers to health services and health information delivered or enhanced through the internet and related technologies. The number of eHealth interventions for chronic pain self-management is increasing. However, little evidence has been found for the overall efficacy of these interventions for older adults. The aim of the current study was to use a Collective Intelligence approach to identify the barriers and specific user needs of middle-aged and older adults using eHealth for chronic pain self-management. Methods A Collective Intelligence workshop was conducted with middle-aged and older adults to generate, clarify, select, and structure ideas in relation to barriers to eHealth use and specific design requirements for the purposes of chronic pain self-management. Prior to attending the workshop, participants received a trigger question requesting the identification of five barriers to eHealth use for chronic pain self-management. These barriers were categorised and presented to the group along with barrier-related scenarios and user need prompts, resulting in the generation of a set of ranked barriers and a set of user needs. Results A total of 78 barriers were identified, from which six categories emerged: Content, Support, Technological, Personal, Computer Literacy and Accessibility. Additional idea-writing and group reflection in response to these barriers revealed 97 user needs. Conclusion This is the first study to use Collective Intelligence methods to investigate barriers to eHealth technology use and the specific user needs of middle-aged and older adults in the context of chronic pain self-management. The results of the current study provide a platform for the design and development of enhanced eHealth interventions for this population.
... There must be enough variety in options to cover all needs, but possible paths and solutions must exist in harmony to avoid creating confusion or disrupting problem resolution (Ashby, 1958;Boulding, 1966;Miller, 1956). Using CI can help to support high quality interdisciplinary work as it includes a set of methods and tools and a facilitated thought and action mapping process that helps groups to develop outcomes that integrate contributions from individuals with diverse views, backgrounds, and perspectives (Hogan et al., 2014;Warfield & Cardenas, 1994). CI has been applied in many different situations to accomplish many different goals, including mediating peacebuilding in protracted conflicts (Broome, 2006), developing a national well-being measurement framework (Hogan et al., 2015), mobilising communities across Europe in response to marine sustainability challenges (Domegan et al., 2016), and understanding and overcoming barriers to the design of personalised nutrition products and services for older adults (Hogan et al., 2017). ...
Article
Background: Population ageing and improvements in healthcare mean the number of people living with two or more chronic conditions, or ‘multimorbidity’, is rapidly increasing. This presents a challenge to current disease-specific care delivery models. Adherence to prescribed medications appears particularly challenging for individuals living with multimorbidity, given the often-complex drug regimens required to treat multiple conditions. Poor adherence is associated with increased mortality, as well as wasted healthcare resources. Supporting medication adherence is a key priority for general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses as they are responsible for much of the disease counselling and medication prescribing associated with chronic illnesses. Despite this, practical resources and training for health practitioners on how to promote adherence in practice is currently lacking. Informed by the principles of patient and public involvement (PPI), the aim of this research was to develop a patient informed e-learning resource to help GPs and nurses support medication adherence. Method: Utilising collective intelligence (CI) and scenario-based design (SBD) methodology, input was gathered from key stakeholders in medication adherence to gain insights into barriers to supporting people with multimorbidity who are receiving polypharmacy, strategies for overcoming these barriers, and user needs and requirements to inform the design of the e-learning tool. Results: In total, 67 barriers to supporting people who are taking multiple medications were identified across 8 barrier categories. 162 options for overcoming the identified barriers were then generated. This data was used in the design of a flexible e-learning tool for continuous professional development, that has been integrated into general practice and clinical education programmes as a supportive tool. Conclusions: Using CI and SBD methodology was an effective way of facilitating collaboration, idea-generation, and the co-creation of design solutions amongst a diverse group of stakeholders. This approach could be usefully applied to address other complex healthcare-related challenges.
... CI aims to generate, clarify, and structure interdependencies between problem elements, and 128 further develop options to address the system of interdependent problems (Warfield and 129 Cárdenas, 1993; see Groarke and Hogan, 2016;Hogan et al. 2015c;RezaeiZadeh et al. 2017 130 for recent social science applications; and see Hogan et al. 2014Hogan et al. , 2015aHogan et al. , 2015b for further 131 details on methodology and application). It utilises a set of methodologies to understand a 132 complex issue and to map actions in response to a problem field by integrating inputs from 133 individuals with diverse views and perspectives in the context of a facilitated and computer-134 supported workshop structure (Warfield, 2006). ...
Article
Full-text available
To have population-level impact, interventions must be effectively implemented and sustained under real-world conditions. Few Fundamental Movement Skill (FMS) interventions are implemented at scale, and even fewer are sustained in a way that allows for ongoing evaluation of population-level impacts. There has been increasing recognition of applying systems thinking to investigate the multitude of influences on interventions. To improve research-practice translations, investigations need to incorporate synthesised perspective and collective input from intervention stakeholders. This study trials Collective Intelligence (CI)-an applied systems science approach-to understand barriers to the adoption, implementation and institutionalisation of effective FMS interventions for children and adolescents. Participants generated a structural map to guide future action mapping, as a result of the CI session. By presenting this application example, we aim to underline the considerations and alleviate barriers to conducting much needed implementation and sustainability studies in FMS interventions. CI presents a new method to add to the 'tool box' to understand the complexity and functioning of public health interventions, such as those 38 targeting physical activity behaviours.
... IM is a facilitated group design process designed to enhance the collective problem-solving ability of groups (cf. Hogan et al., 2015c;Groarke and Hogan, 2016;RezaeiZadeh et al., 2017 for recent social science applications; see Hogan et al., 2014Hogan et al., , 2015aHogan et al., ,b, 2017 for further details on methodology and application). Four steps were used in the process. ...
Article
Full-text available
Research on meditation and mindfulness practice has flourished in recent years. While much of this research has focused on well-being outcomes associated with mindfulness practice, less research has focused on how perception of self may change as a result of mindfulness practice, or whether these changes in self-perception may be mechanisms of mindfulness in action. This is somewhat surprising given that mindfulness derives from traditions often described as guiding people to realize and experience the non-separation of self from the world or its “oneness” with the whole of reality. The current study used a collective intelligence methodology, Interactive Management (IM), to explore the nature of oneness experiences. Five IM sessions were conducted with five separate groups of experienced meditators. Participants generated, clarified, and selected oneness self-perceptions they believed most characterized their experience both during meditation and in their everyday experience in the world. Each group also developed structural models describing how highly ranked aspects of oneness self-perceptions are interrelated in a system. Consistent themes and categories of oneness experience appeared across the five IM sessions, with changes in the sense of space (unboundedness), time, identity, wholeness, and flow highlighted as most influential. Results are discussed in light of emerging theory and research on oneness self-perception and non-dual awareness.
Article
Background: Hypertension is one of the most important risk factors for stroke and heart disease. Recent international guidelines have stated that 'poor adherence to treatment – in addition to physician inertia - is the most important cause of poor blood pressure control'. The MaxImising Adherence, Minimising Inertia (MIAMI) intervention, which has been developed using a systematic, theoretical, user-centred approach, aims to support general practitioners (GPs) and people with hypertension to maximise medication use, through the facilitation of adequate information exchange within consultations about long-term antihypertensive medication use and adherence skill development. The aim of the MIAMI pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to gather and analyse feasibility data to allow us to (1) refine the intervention, and (2) determine the feasibility of a definitive RCT. Methods: GP practices (n = 6) will be recruited and randomised to the intervention arm (n = 3) or usual care control arm (n = 3). Each practice will recruit 10 patient participants. For a patient to be eligible they must have a diagnosis of hypertension, be on two or more anti-hypertensive medications, must not be achieving recommended blood pressure levels, and be over the age of 65 years. Participants in the intervention arm will meet their GP and receive the MIAMI intervention twice over three months. Quantitative data collection will take place at baseline and three month follow up. A pilot health economic analysis and a qualitative sub-study will also be incorporated into the study. Discussion: This pilot cluster RCT of the MIAMI intervention will allow us to gather valuable acceptability and feasibility data to further refine the intervention so it optimally designed for both GP and patient use. In particular, the qualitative component will provide an insight into GP and patient experiences of using the intervention.
Article
Personalised nutrition (PN) products and services have the potential to enhance the health and quality of life of older adults. However, PN innovation is challenging and requires specific competencies and supportive collaborations. This paper reports findings from a Collective Intelligence Scenario-Based Design session conducted with PN experts as part of the Horizon 2020 project INCluSilver, which aims to support the development of products, services, and systems that improve the health and quality of life of older adults through innovation in PN. Experts identified challenges to the design of PN products and services and barriers that small and medium enterprises (SMEs) face when innovating PN products and services for older adults. Options to address these barriers were generated and specific SME competencies supporting PN innovation were identified. This study provides a useful framework for understanding the challenges, opportunities, and key competencies needed to innovate PN products and services for older adults.
Article
Background: Population ageing and improvements in healthcare mean the number of people living with two or more chronic conditions, or ‘multimorbidity’, is rapidly increasing. This presents a challenge to current disease-specific care delivery models. Adherence to prescribed medications appears particularly challenging for individuals living with multimorbidity, given the often-complex drug regimens required to treat multiple conditions. Poor adherence is associated with increased mortality, as well as wasted healthcare resources. Supporting medication adherence is a key priority for general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses as they are responsible for much of the disease counselling and medication prescribing associated with chronic illnesses. Despite this, practical resources and training for health practitioners on how to promote adherence in practice is currently lacking. Informed by the principles of patient and public involvement (PPI), the aim of this research was to develop a patient informed e-learning resource to help GPs and nurses support medication adherence. Method: Utilising collective intelligence (CI) and scenario-based design (SBD) methodology, input was gathered from 16 stakeholders to gain insights into barriers to supporting people with multimorbidity who are receiving polypharmacy, strategies for overcoming these barriers, and user needs and requirements to inform the design of the e-learning tool. Results: In total, 67 barriers to supporting people who are taking multiple medications were identified across 8 barrier categories. 162 options for overcoming the identified barriers were then generated. This data was used in the design of a short and flexible e-learning tool for continuous professional development, that has been integrated into general practice and clinical education programmes as a supportive tool. Conclusions: Using CI and SBD methodology was an effective way of facilitating collaboration, idea-generation, and the co-creation of design solutions amongst a diverse group of stakeholders. This approach could be usefully applied to address other complex healthcare-related challenges.
Article
This paper discusses that the idea and method of the Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) can well be applied to the determination of learning hierarchies or networks of instructional units. The ISM is one of structure modeling methods, applied to the social system modeling. When the number of instructional units is relatively small and the network is relatively simple, it is easy for teacters to construct the network digraph of instructional units. But when the number of units is large (say 20 or more) and the network is very complicated, it is very hard for them to do it by the traditional method. So, the ISM method is applied to the problem. We can easly get the hierarchical network constructed automatically, for we have only to ponder and decide what the immediate prerequisite or prerequisites of each unit are. The ISM method is very useful and convenient to determine learning hierarchies or networks of instructional units efficiently.
Article
The Social Web (including services such as MySpace, Flickr, last.fm, and WordPress) has captured the attention of millions of users as well as billions of dollars in investment and acquisition. Social websites, evolving around the connections between people and their objects of interest, are encountering boundaries in the areas of information integration, dissemination, reuse, portability, searchability, automation and demanding tasks like querying. The Semantic Web is an ideal platform for interlinking and performing operations on diverse person- and object-related data available from the Social Web, and has produced a variety of approaches to overcome the boundaries being experienced in Social Web application areas. After a short overview of both the Social Web and the Semantic Web, Breslin et al. describe some popular social media and social networking applications, list their strengths and limitations, and describe some applications of Semantic Web technology to address their current shortcomings by enhancing them with semantics. Across these social websites, they demonstrate a twofold approach for interconnecting the islands that are social websites with semantic technologies, and for powering semantic applications with rich community-created content. They conclude with observations on how the application of Semantic Web technologies to the Social Web is leading towards the "Social Semantic Web" (sometimes also called "Web 3.0"), forming a network of interlinked and semantically-rich content and knowledge. The book is intended for computer science professionals, researchers, and graduates interested in understanding the technologies and research issues involved in applying Semantic Web technologies to social software. Practitioners and developers interested in applications such as blogs, social networks or wikis will also learn about methods for increasing the levels of automation in these forms of Web communication.
Article
This paper describes a methodology for the analysis of classroom talk, called sociocultural discourse analysis, which focuses on the use of language as a social mode of thinking – a tool for teaching-and-learning, constructing knowledge, creating joint understanding and tackling problems collaboratively. It has been used in a series of school-based research projects in the UK and elsewhere and its use is illustrated with data from those projects. The methodology is expressly based on sociocultural theory and, in particular, on the Vygotskian conception of language as both a cultural and a psychological tool. Its application involves a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods and enables the study of both educational processes and learning outcomes.
Book
This is the first book that renders a thorough discussion of systems science. It draws on material from an extensive collection of external sources, including several other books and a special library collection complete with videotape empirical evidence of applicability of the theory to a wide variety of circumstances. This is essential because systems science must be responsive to diverse human situations of the widest difficulty, and it must fill the void that the specific sciences cannot fill, because these sciences are insensitive to the necessities of reconciling disparate views of multiple observers, and incorporating local conditions in hypotheses that precede inductive explorations. © 2006 by World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. All rights reserved.
Article
The author's experience of serving with a presidential commission investigating the Three Mile Island nuclear accident leads to an observation that the only way to save American democracy is to change the fundamental decisionmaking process, at the federal level, so that it can come to grips with the enormous and complex issues that face this nation.
Article
The area of fuzzy complex systems is a good one for analytic philosophers to keep out of. If analysis is a way of getting straight on ideas or terms which enjoy wide philosophic and scientific currency and which have fairly well-fixed meanings awaiting illumination, then complex systems is no field for analysis. I have tried it; others have tried it; and it seems to me that the attempts amount to very little. Perhaps Professor Forrester and his MIT colleagues would say that positive feedback is at work. Just as expanded, low cost housing aggravates the housing situation in large cities, so attempts to shed philosophy's light on very large scale systems, fuzzy or not, brings darkness ([3], pp. 65ff.). There appear to be two types of systems concept that are bothersome, one benign and the other not.