ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

Systems theory lacks a universal, formally agreed upon definition. It is a term that has been used in a variety of disciplines to support varied purposes and one which is found frequently in the systems literature. Because the term has been used in a variety of disciplines and has multiple meanings, it is often subject to misunderstanding when used in a multidisciplinary setting. This paper classifies and provides a brief historical perspective of the major streams that address systems theory. A synthesis of these seemingly disparate streams is presented, along with a path forward for development of a unified theory.
Proceedings of the 2013 Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference
A. Krishnamurthy and W.K.V. Chan, eds.
A Historical Perspective of Systems Theory
Abstract ID: 434
Kevin MacG. Adams, Ph.D.
National Centers for System of Systems Engineering
Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA
Patrick. T. Hester, Ph.D.
National Centers for System of Systems Engineering
Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA
Joseph M. Bradley, P.E.
National Centers for System of Systems Engineering
Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA
Abstract
Systems theory lacks a universal, formally agreed upon definition. It is a term that has been used
in a variety of disciplines to support varied purposes and one which is found frequently in the
systems literature. Because the term has been used in a variety of disciplines and has multiple
meanings, it is often subject to misunderstanding when used in a multidisciplinary setting. This
paper classifies and provides a brief historical perspective of the major streams that address
systems theory. A synthesis of these seemingly disparate streams is presented, along with a path
forward for development of a unified theory.
Keywords: systems theory, historical perspective, history
1. Introduction
Systems theory is a term without a formally agreed upon definition. It is a term that has been used in a variety of
disciplines and is found frequently in the systems literature. Because the term has been used in a variety of
disciplines and has multiple meanings, it is often subject to misunderstanding when used between disciplines.
We classify the major streams that address systems theory from a historical perspective. A high-level view of the
major historical classifications of systems theory and their principal proponents are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Historical Classifications of Systems Theory
Major Streams
Proponents
General Systems Theory
Bertalanffy [1-3], Boulding [4]
Living Systems Theory
Miller [5]
Mathematical Systems Theory
Mesarovic [6], Wymore [7], Klir [8]
Cybernetics
Rosenblueth, Wiener & Bigelow [9], Wiener [10], Ashby[11-
13], Forrester [14-16]
Social Systems Theory
Parsons [17-19], Buckley [20, 21], Luhmann [22, 23]
Philosophical Systems Theory
Laszlo [24-26], Bunge [27-30]
Adams, Hester, & Bradley
This paper aims to provide a historical perspective of different classifications of systems theory and to provide a
synthesis of these seemingly disparate perspectives, as well as a path forward for a common language with which to
understand systems which is discipline-agnostic.
2. A Historical Perspective on Systems Theory
The following subsections provide a brief historical perspective on each of the six classifications of systems theory
introduced in Section 1, specifically: (1) general systems theory, (2) living systems theory, (3) mathematical systems
theory, (4) cybernetics, (5) social systems theory, and (6) philosophical systems theory.
2.1 General Systems Theory
Ludwig von Bertalanffy [1901-1972] was the originator of general systems theory. His original work was in
organismic system theory, where he studied the thermodynamic equilibrium of steady state in living organisms as
open-systems. His research culminated in the notion of a general systems theory where he states:
The formal correspondence of general principles, irrespective of the kind of relations or forces between the
components, leads to the conception of a “General Systems Theory” (9) as a new scientific doctrine, concerned
with the principles which apply to systems in general. [2]
Authors note: The (9) refers to Bertalanffy [1]
Bertalanffy continued to espouse General Systems Theory, and in 1954, he and his colleagues Kenneth Boulding,
Anatol Rapoport, and Ralph Gerard founded the Society for General Systems Research (SGSR). The aims of
society, captured in its bylaws were [31]:
1. To investigate the isomorphy of concepts, laws, and models from various fields, and to help in useful transfers
from one field to another;
2. To encourage development of adequate theoretical models in fields which lack them;
3. To minimize the duplication of theoretical effort in different fields; and
4. To promote the unity of science through improving communications among specialists.
The universal, multidisciplinary acceptance of general systems theory, as envisaged by the founders, has certainly
not emerged. We believe that this is because it did not provide either a construct for systems theory or the
supporting axioms and propositions required to articulate and operationalize a theory.
2.2 Living Systems Theory
James Grier Miller [1916-2002] was the originator of living systems theory. Living systems, in Miller's theory [5],
include not only biological systems, but all systems which are living, thus including social systems. Living Systems
Theory is about how all living systems work, about how they maintain themselves and how they develop and
change. Miller defines living systems as open, self-organizing systems that have the special characteristics of life
and interaction with the environment. Interaction takes place by means of both information and material or energy
exchanges.
Miller’s living systems theory includes a system hierarchy of eight levels: (1) cells, (2) organs, (3) organisms, (4)
groups, (5) organizations, (6) communities, (7) societies, and (8) supranational systems. Each higher level is more
complex than those at lower levels, because the higher levels inherit the characteristics of the lower levels and also
contain emergent properties, that is, properties that do not exist at the lower levels. His theory includes a series of
20 critical processes that deal with (1) material and energy exchanges involved with the metabolic processes of the
system, and (2) information for the coordination, guidance and control of the system. Miller integrates the eight (8)
levels of hierarchy and twenty (20) subsystems in a table of 160 cells.
The basic strategy of applying general living systems theory to deal with or do research on problems of
individual living systems is as follows: (1) make clear the level of the system; (2) identify the components of
each of its 20 subsystems; (3) illustrate each component of subsystems with the proper subsystem symbols;
(4) diagram the flows of matter-energy and information through the subsystem components, from input to
the boundary, through the system, to output from the boundary. [32]
The work in living systems theory has had limited impact outside of the biological sciences and consequently has
failed to develop the traction necessary to serve as a theoretical construct applicable to all systems. We believe that
Adams, Hester, & Bradley
this is because it did not provide either a construct for systems theory or the supporting axioms and propositions
required to fully articulate and operationalize a theory.
2.3 Mathematical Systems Theory
Three individuals contributed to the approaches that underpin mathematical systems theory: (1) Mihajlo D.
Mesarovic, (2) A.Wayne Wymore [1927-2011], and (3) George J. Klir.
Mihajlo D. Mesarovic
Mesarovic [6] used an axiomatic approach. In this approach a system is represented as a relation of abstract sets. In
this approach a system can be described as an input-output system or a goal-seeking system. Mesarovic understood
the limitation of a purely mathematical approach and characterized the following two limitations of a mathematical
theory of general systems:
(1) Since it is essentially a mathematical theory it can put severe restrictions on the description of the
behavior of the real-life systems, especially if one deals with complex biological or social situations.
(2) Since the theory uses rather weak mathematical structures, it is not possible to "solve" too many
problems or even to develop deep enough results to be useful.[33]
A. Wayne Wymore
Wymore [7, 34] also approached systems theory using set theory, developing his tricotyledon theory of system
design, which provided a formal theory to assist in system design. His definition of a system is based on state-
transition structures. As such it is applicable to hybrid systems, which contain both continuous and discrete
variables, or to systems defined by infinite sets. Wymore's theory provided foundational elements for later
developments in modelling and simulation.
George J. Klir
Klir [8] approaches systems theory by first identifying a system’s traits. The traits are compiled from variables
present in the system including behavior, states, transitions, elements, connections, hierarchy, etc. The compiled
traits are formalized in both verbal and mathematical forms. The system is characterized as belonging to one of five
basic definitions of systems, which is Klir’s continuum of systems. Each system definition in Klir's continuum of
systems is associated with a particular class of system-type problems. Hence, Klir’s definitions of systems classify
system-type problems and serve as the basis for a general systems methodology.
The work in mathematical systems theory, much like that in general and living systems theory, has not
developed the traction necessary to serve as a theoretical construct applicable to all systems. Once again, we believe
that this is because it did not provide either a general construct for systems theory or the supporting axioms and
propositions required to fully articulate and operationalize a theory.
2.4 Cybernetics
As with mathematical systems theory, three individuals contributed to the approaches classified as cybernetics: (1) Norbert
Wiener [1894-1964], (2) W. Ross Ashby [1903-1972], and (3) Jay Forrester.
Norbert Wiener
Norbert Wiener was a giant in the field of mathematics and logic. The idea of cybernetics was prompted by his
work in solving the anti-aircraft and fire control problem during the Second World War [35]. During this time, he
was a co-author on a pioneering paper focused on the purposeful behavior of systems [9]. This paper served as the
basis for Wiener’s seminal text Cybernetics [10]. Wiener’s treatise on cybernetics revolves around the theory of
regulation and command in both mechanical and living systems. His two main ideas, communications and control,
rely on feedback of operational properties and transmission of this information. Wiener credits Claude Shannon
[1916-2001] for introducing the concept of entropy in information theory [36-38], which introduced a degree of
formalism, close to that in classical statistical mechanics when calculating the quantity of information.
W. Ross Ashby
W. Ross Ashby was a physician who modeled much of his work upon the operation of the human body, as described
in his book, Design for a Brain [13]. Franҫois [39] reports:
One of his most significant contributions was the understanding that a system should be ‘richly joined’, but
not overly so. He clearly explained that no system could operate, nor even exist, without ‘constraints’, but
Adams, Hester, & Bradley
altogether that sufficient leeway was an absolute necessity for the system to be adaptive. His homeostat
model showed how a system made of interacting components may oscillate and settle within progressively
self-defined limits of stability, throwing a new light on the nature of ergodicity.
Perhaps his most recognizable contributions were his Law of Requisite Variety [12] and the Conant-Ashby Principle
[40], which state that control can be obtained only if the variety of the controller is at least as great as the variety of
the situation to be controlled.
Jay Forrester
Jay Forrester is an electrical engineer who was involved with the earliest digital computers. From this work he was
able to apply his unique engineering view of electrical systems and digital computers to the field of human systems.
He used computer simulations to analyze social systems and predict the implications in a series of formal models.
In so doing, he founded System Dynamics. He published the first, and still classic, book in the field titled Industrial
Dynamics [14], which was followed by Urban Dynamics [15] and World Dynamics [16].
The system dynamics approach defines problems dynamically, develops formal maps of the processes and verifies
these with the subject matter experts. The approach relies heavily upon a formal, structured computer simulation
model of coupled, nonlinear, first-order differential equations that are evaluated within discrete intervals of time.
The feedback principle is at the heart of the approach and uses diagrams of information feedback and circular
causality to conceptualize the structure of a problem system and as a basis for analysis.
The work in cybernetics, like the previous streams, has also failed to emerge as a theoretical construct applicable to
all systems. Like the previous three theoretical streams, we believe that this is because it did not provide either a
construct for systems theory or the supporting axioms and propositions required to fully articulate and operationalize
a theory.
2.5 Social Systems Theory
Once again, three individuals contributed to the approaches that underpin social systems theory: (1) Talcot Parsons
[1902-1979], (2) Walter F. Buckley [1922-2006], and (3) Niklas Luhmann [1927-1998]. Parsons led what Sawyer
[41] calls the first wave of social systems theory, while Buckley and Luhmann were principals in the second wave.
Talcot Parsons
Talcot Parsons was a Harvard professor and during the period from 1930-1970 was the best-known sociologist in the
United States. To summarize his work is not possible in this article. However, we can focus on his ideas with
respect to sociological theory and systems.
“Parsons’ influential structural-functional theory of society was famously based on systems concepts derived from
cybernetics” [41] and assumed that all systems and component subsystems were decomposable. He developed a
scheme where system functions were defined in terms of four functions: Adaptation, Goal attainment, Integration,
and Latency in a scheme labelled AGIL. Each system function was supported by subsystems with specific roles.
He likened the system functions and subsystem roles to the structure of the human body’s organs and functions.
His work was highly influential and served to inform a large group of sociologists, including sociologists who were
to focus their future work based on systems perspectives (i.e., William Wimsatt, Niklas Luhmann, etc.). Parsons
extended himself beyond traditional sociological topics and participated in the Macy Conferences on Cybernetics
and Systems Theory in the 1950s with other systems theorists such as Norbert Wiener, Ludwig von Bertalanffy,
Ross Ashby, Warren McCulloch, and Hans von Foerster.
Parson’s work received renewed interest in the 1980s and continues to resonate in some circles [42]. However, due
to the rise of new forms of less hierarchical organizations, most of the work done by Parsons was no longer
appropriate. This set the stage for the second wave of social systems theory.
Walter F. Buckley
Walter Buckley was an American professor of sociology and was among the first sociologists to recognize concepts
from Bertalanffy’s general systems theory. His book Sociology and Modern Systems Theory [20] was the first to
apply systems theory to sociology. His approach was a synthesis of the concepts of system, information and
Adams, Hester, & Bradley
communication, cybernetic feedback and control, and the related concepts of self-regulation, self-organization, and
complex adaptive systems. He felt that systems theory was not so much a theory “but rather a theoretical framework
and set of methodological tools that may be applied to any field of study” [21].
Niklas Luhmann
Although little known in the United States, in Europe “Niklas Luhmann is remembered as the most important social
theorist of the 20th century” [43]. Luhmann was a student of Talcott Parsons at Harvard in 1962. His view of
society as a system grew from a body of work that culminated in his magnum opus, the two-volume Theory of
Society [23]. Luhmann posited that “every social contact is understood as a system, up to and including society as
the inclusion of all possible contacts” [22]. His proposal to describe social phenomena like interactions,
organizations or societies as systems is where he broke with the more traditional views of his colleagues in
sociology. In fact, his view matches that of those who view systems as a functional construct of components with
prescribed boundaries and environments.
Systems are oriented by their environment not just occasionally and adaptively, but structurally, and they
cannot exist without organization. They constitute and maintain themselves by creating and maintaining a
difference from their environment, and they use their boundaries to regulate this difference. Without
difference from an environment, there would not even be self-reference, because difference is the functional
premise of self-referential operations. . . . processes which cross boundaries (e.g., the exchange of energy
or information) have different conditions for their continuance (e.g., different conditions or utilization or of
consensus) after they cross the boundaries. [22]
This statement could have come from any of the previously mentioned systems theorists, but from a sociologist, this
represented a radical shift of thought with respect to society; it is theory that subsumes itself to a systemic
perspective.
The work of the second wave social systems theorists has provided tremendous insight into the utility of systems
concepts. However, like each of the previous historical streams, it has failed to gain popular acceptance as a
multidisciplinary framework or theory. Once again, we believe that this is because it did not provide either a
construct for systems theory or the supporting axioms and propositions required to articulate and operationalize a
theory.
2.6 Philosophical Systems Theory
Two individuals contributed to the approaches that underpin philosophical systems theory: (1) Ervin Laszlo, and (2)
Mario Bunge.
Ervin Laszlo
Ervin Laszlo has proposed a systems philosophy that integrates the knowledge gained through our study of the
natural world. His approach is similar to that of Bertalanffy, who was aware and approving of Laszlo’s endeavors,
even providing the preface for Laszlo’s Introduction to Systems Theory: Toward a New Paradigm of Contemporary
Thought [25]. Laszlo describes the structure for this philosophy as:
Envisage the structure of science as an edifice built on a horizontal two-dimensional plane, and rising
above it in the third dimension. The two-dimensional foundation is ‘'nature” as it is presented to science in
observation and experiment. The structure rising above it is the body of concepts, principles, theories and
laws evolved in a given science. I shall call 'empirical adequacy’ the factor which requires of science to
make contact between the theoretical structure and nature at all points where such contact is possible (i.e.
where the constructs have 'epistemic correlations', [Northrop] 'rules of correspondence’ [Margenau], or
'operational definitions' [Bridgman]). Such coupling of theory and nature is to be as extensive and
intensive as currently feasible, given the existing theoretical structure. That is, theory should eventually
match all relevant observations with quantitative and predictive accuracy. [25]
In conjunction with this three-dimensional structure, he proposes a systems language that enables the understanding
between scientific disciplines now separated by specialized concepts and terms. Laszlo’s focus on the natural
philosophy of his modern systems philosophy include a comparison of the traditional atomistic, analytical view and
the more holistic and synthetic view. His ability to maintain perspective is based on the central role of systems
thinking. Laszlo uses systems thinking to both view the world and his own position in the world. Through systems
Adams, Hester, & Bradley
thinking, he is able to organize his knowledge in terms of systems, systemic properties, and inter-system
relationships [26]. Laszlo’s systems philosophy provides additional foundation for the development of systems
theory.
Mario Bunge
Bunge’s most important contributions are in the social sciences where he introduced both the systemic approach
[29] and mechanism [28] based explanation. Bunge has tackled the thorny philosophical issue in the social sciences
over the primacy of individualism or holism as a philosophical construct. He states:
The twin concepts of system and mechanism are so central in modern science, whether natural, social, or
biosocial, that their use has spawned a whole ontology, which I have called systemism. According to this
view, everything in the universe is, was, or will be a system or a component of one. [27]
He believes that systemism is the alternative to both individualism and holism. He is careful to note that there is a
keen distinction to be made between system and mechanism where he states that mechanism is a process in a
system.
This distinction is familiar in natural science, where one is not expected to mistake, say, the cardiovascular
system for the circulation of the blood or the brain with mental processes. But it is unusual in social
studies. . . . Mechanism is to system as motion is to body, combination (or dissociation) to chemical
compound, and thinking to brain. [In the systemic view], agency is both constrained and motivated by
structure, and in turn the latter is maintained or altered by individual action. In other words, social
mechanisms reside neither in persons nor in their environment - they are part of the processes that unfold
in or among social systems. . . . All mechanisms are system-specific: there is no such thing as a universal
or substrate-neutral mechanism. [30]
When Bunge uses the term systemism, he is being very specific. He explains that systemism is an approach, a
systemic approach, used to explain complex things of any kind. He differentiates a systemic approach from systems
theory as follows:
Notice that I use the expression ‘systemic approach,’ not ‘systems theory.’ There are two reasons for this.
One is that there are nearly as many systems theories as systems theorists. The other is that the ‘systems
theory’ that became popular in the 1970s [25] was another name for old holism and got discredited
because it stressed stasis at the expense of change and claimed to solve all particular problems without
empirical research or serious theorizing. [27]
It is remarkable to see that Bunge understands how inadequate the constructs proposed by both Bertalanffy and
Laszlo were in providing a foundation for systems theory. The philosophical stream, like each of the previous
historical streams, fails to present a universal construct for systems theory or the supporting axioms and propositions
required to fully articulate and operationalize a theory.
3. Synthesis and Conclusions
Although the six (6) systems theory streams discussed in this paper did not provide a generally accepted canon of
general theory that applies to all systems, we believe that each identifies a number of individual systems
propositions and further insights that are relevant to a common practical perspective for systems theory. However,
in order to improve the depth of understanding for systems practitioners using the term systems theory, we believe
that a more unifying definition and supporting construct needs to be articulated. Further, supporting axioms and
propositions required to fully articulate and operationalize a theory are necessary for universal acceptance and
associated utility.
We believe that systems theory is the foundation for understanding multidisciplinary systems. Practitioners can
benefit from the application of systems theory as a lens when viewing multidisciplinary systems and their related
problems. The authors recognize the need for the development of a multidisciplinary theory of systems, one which
is generalizable and applicable to all systems. A challenge, sure, but one which the authors believe is both feasible
and necessary for the future of systems research and practice.
References
[1] L. v. Bertalanffy, "General Systems Theory," Biologia Generalis, vol. 19, pp. 114-129, 1949.
[2] L. v. Bertalanffy, "An Outline of General Systems Theory," The British Journal for the Philosophy of
Science, vol. 1, pp. 134-165, 1950.
Adams, Hester, & Bradley
[3] L. v. Bertalanffy, General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications (Rev. ed.). New York:
George Braziller, 1968.
[4] K. E. Boulding, "General Systems Theory The Skeleton of Science," Management Science, vol. 2, pp.
197-208, 1956.
[5] J. G. Miller, Living Systems. New York: McGraw Hill, 1978.
[6] M. D. Mesarovic, Views on general systems theory. New York: . New York: Wiley, 1964.
[7] A. W. Wymore, A mathematical theory of systems engineering: The elements. New York: Wiley, 1967.
[8] G. J. Klir, An approach to general systems theory. Princeton, NJ: Nostrand, 1968.
[9] A. Rosenblueth, N. Wiener, and J. Bigelow, "Behavior, Purpose and Telelogy," Philosophy of Science, vol.
10, pp. 18-24, 1943.
[10] N. Wiener, Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Cambridge: MIT
Press, 1948.
[11] W. R. Ashby, "Principles of the Self-Organizing Dynamic System," Journal of General Psychology, vol.
37, pp. 125-128, 1947.
[12] W. R. Ashby, An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall, Ltd., 1956.
[13] W. R. Ashby, Design for a Brain London: Chapman & Hall, Ltd., 1952.
[14] J. W. Forrester, Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1961.
[15] J. W. Forrester, Urban Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1969.
[16] J. W. Forrester, World Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971.
[17] T. Parsons, "Concrete Systems and "Abstracted Systems" " Contemporary Sociology, vol. 8, pp. 696-705,
1979.
[18] T. Parsons, "On Building Social System Theory: A Personal History," Daedalus, vol. 99, pp. 826-881,
1970.
[19] T. Parsons, The Social System (New Edition). London: Routledge, 1991.
[20] W. Buckley, Sociology and Modern Systems Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1967.
[21] W. Buckley, Society - A Complex Adaptive System: Essays in Social Theory. Amsterdam: Overseas
Publishers Association, 1998.
[22] N. Luhmann, Social Systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1995.
[23] N. Luhmann, Theory of Society, Volume 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2012.
[24] E. Laszlo, The Systems View of the World: A Holistic Vision for Our Time. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press,
1996.
[25] E. Laszlo, Introduction to Systenms Theory: Toward a New Paradigm of Contemporary Thought. New
York: Harper Torchbooks, 1972.
[26] E. Laszlo, "The Rise of General Theories in Contemporary Science," Journal for General Philosophy of
Science, vol. 4, pp. 335-344, 1973.
[27] M. Bunge, "How Does It Work?: The Search for Explanatory Mechanisms," Philosophy of the Social
Sciences, vol. 34, pp. 182-210, June 1, 2004 2004.
[28] M. Bunge, "Mechanism and Explanation," Philosophy of the Social Sciences, vol. 27, pp. 410-465,
December 1, 1997 1997.
[29] M. Bunge, "A systems concept of society: Beyond individualism and holism," Theory and Decision, vol.
10, pp. 13-30, 1979.
[30] M. Bunge, The Sociology-philosophy Connection. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1999.
[31] D. Hammond, "Exploring the genealogy of systems thinking," Systems Research and Behavioral Science,
vol. 19, pp. 429-439, 2002.
[32] C.-G. Bahg, "Major systems theories throughout the world," Behavioral Science, vol. 35, pp. 79-107, 1990.
[33] M. D. Mesarovic, "General systems theory and its mathematical foundation," presented at the 1967
Systems Science and Cybernetics Conference, Boston, MA, 1967.
[34] A. W. Wymore, Model-based systems engineering. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1993.
[35] F. Conway and J. Siegelman, "Dark Hero of the Information Age: In Search of Norbert Wiener The Father
of Cybernetics," ed Cambridge, MA: Basic Books, 2005.
[36] C. E. Shannon, "A Mathematical Theory of Communication, Part 1 " Bell System Technical Journal, vol.
27, pp. 379-423, July 1948.
[37] C. E. Shannon, "A Mathematical Theory of Communication, Part 2," Bell System Technical Journal, vol.
27, pp. 623-656, October 1948.
[38] C. E. Shannon and W. Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Champaign, IL: University
of Illinois Press, 1949.
Adams, Hester, & Bradley
[39] C. François, "Systemics and cybernetics in a historical perspective," Systems Research and Behavioral
Science, vol. 16, pp. 203-219, 1999.
[40] R. C. Conant and W. R. Ashby, "Every Good Regulator of a System Must Be a Model of that System,"
International Journal of Systems Science, vol. 1, pp. 89-97, 1970.
[41] R. K. Sawyer, Social Emergence: Societies as Complex Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press,
2005.
[42] D. Sciulli and D. Gerstein, "Social Theory and Talcott Parsons in the 1980s," Annual Review of Sociology,
vol. 11, pp. 369-387, 1985.
[43] G. Bechmann and N. Stehr, "The Legacy of Niklas Luhmann," Society, vol. 39, pp. 67-75, 2002/01/01
2002.
... The idea of general systems theory was originally advanced by Von Bertalanffy in the 1930s and after the Second World War (Bertalanffy1972; Adams, Hester, and Bradley, 2013;Friedman and Allen, 2014). As a practicing biologist, Bertalanffy was interested in developing the theory of "open systems". ...
Presentation
Full-text available
The usefulness of the systems theory in educational administration as well in the production function of education needs critical attention. This paper attempts to explore the usefulness of the theory in that perspective.
Book
Full-text available
تقديم الكتاب بدأ نمو "العلاج الأسري" وممارسته منذ حوالي 70 عامًا، وكان يمثل نقلة نوعية ومهمة في تقديم الارشاد والعلاج النفسي، فبدلاً من التركيز العلاج الفردي كان تركيزه على "المساحة بين" الأشخاص (الاتصالات وأنماط التفاعل) في الأسر، وأصبح الاهتمام بالعلاج هنا والآن بدلاً من الماضي، والأنماط والسلوكيات التي تعزز الأعراض وتحافظ عليها وتعوق قدرة الأسرة على إيجاد حلول صحية والاستفادة من نقاط القوة الكامنة فيها، وإن الحاجة إلى العلاج الأسري تعتبر ضرورية، فنحن نعيش حياتنا من خلال مجموعة من العلاقات، وعندما تسوء هذه العلاقات عاطفيًا أو نفسيًا يمكن أن تكون لها آثار مدوية علينا. ومن وجهة نظر تاريخية، كانت الأسرة هي الحقل الأول والمفضّل للتدخل في العلاج النسقي، والعلاج الأسري النسقي أو ذو التوجه النسقي يُعنى بالنظرية والممارسة النفسية التي تركز على نسق الفرد وعلاقته بالآخرين، وترجع جذورها إلى ردود الفعل حول الفردانية التي كان يتبناها التحليل النفسي، وهكذا ولد العلاج الأسري النسقي من خلال محاولة الاقتراب من المريض النفسي في سياقه وليس في وظيفته النفسية وحدها، وخلال نمو العلاج الأسري وتطوره كانت هناك العديد من القصص والروايات الثرية عن التاريخ والاتجاهات والقضايا الرئيسية خلال العقود الثلاثة الأولى، والتي كانت معبأة بمحتويات مختلفة ولكنها مترابطة وتتقاسم الكثير من تقاليد الممارسة والمفاهيم، فهي تقدم صورة متعددة الألوان للحقل الناشئ خلال ميلاده وطفولته ومراهقته ، وقد قمنا بالتطرق إليها بشيء من التفصيل في ثنايا الكتاب. والآن حان الوقت للمضي قدمًا والنظر إلى مرحلة البلوغ لهذا العلاج الذي انتقل إلى مرحلة العلاج ما بعد الحداثي وما بعد البنيوي، أين تأثر العلاج الأسري في القرن الحادي والعشرين بشدة بما بعد الحداثة التي تشكك في حقيقة موضوعية واحدة، وتسلط الضوء على ذاتية المعالج بما في ذلك التحيز المحتمل للممارسة العلاجية، لذلك تركز ممارسة العلاج الأسري المعاصر بشكل أكبر نسبيًا من النماذج التقليدية على التعاون مع الأسرة طوال فترة العلاج والشفافية في العملية العلاجية. وتختلف أساليب العلاج الأسري ما بعد الحداثة أيضًا عن النماذج الكلاسيكية من حيث أنها لا تلتزم بالنموذج النسقي الذي يؤكد على التأثير الفردي على أداء الأسرة كنسق ثابت للتفاعلات الاجتماعية التي تحافظ على المشكلات، وعلى النقيض من النماذج الكلاسيكية للعلاج الأسري التي نظرت إلى الأسر على أنها أنظمة متجانسة تقاوم التغيير، فإن مناهج ما بعد الحداثة في العلاج الأسري تنظر إلى الأسر على أنها ديناميكية ومتغيرة باستمرار بحيث قد يكون التعديل البسيط هو كل ما يلزم لإنتاج تأثيرات تموجية تغير الأسرة، كما تؤكد مناهج العلاج الأسري لما بعد الحداثة التي تأثرت بشدة بالحركة البنائية الاجتماعية في الثمانينيات على كيفية بناء اهتمامات الأسرة والأفراد اجتماعيًا كأفراد في مجتمع أكبر، والبناء المشترك مع المعالج. وفي هذا الكتاب حاولنا تسليط الضوء على مختلف جوانب العلاج الأسري من خلال التطرق أولا إلى جذوره النسقية والمقاربة النسقية في العلاج الأسري ، وعبر الفصول اللاحقة قمنا باستعراض سبعة نماذج راسخة للعلاج الأسري وافتراضات كل مدرسة حول طبيعة وأصل الخلل النفسي. وبهذا سيكون هذا الكتاب قد أحاط بمختلف الموضوعات والمجالات المتعلقة بالعلاج الأسري وجدوره النسقية كي يصبح مرجعا للطلبة والباحثين في مجال الأسرة والعلاج الأسري. دكتورة عايش صباح الشلف
Article
Social engineering is the act of using manipulation and deception to obtain access to confidential information. It is considered one of the leading threats to information security today. The topic is complex and increasing in prevalence among individuals and businesses. This paper explores the subject of social engineering from an interdisciplinary perspective. A literature review from the information technology, psychology, and business disciplines explains the interconnected nature of the topic as well as the necessity to comprehend it from multiple viewpoints. An ethical perspective follows the literature review and analyzes social engineering research from a philosophical and professional viewpoint. A proposed framework provides researchers with a flexible model to use in their studies with an emphasis on a philosophical or practical ethics perspective.
Research
Full-text available
العلاج النسقي أو ذو التوجه النسقي يُعنى بالنظرية والممارسة النفسية التي تركز على نسق الفرد وعلاقته بالآخرين، وترجع جذورها إلى ردود الفعل حول الفردانية التي كان يتبناها التحليل النفسي، وهكذا ولد العلاج النفسي النسقي من خلال محاولة الاقتراب من المريض النفسي في سياقه وليس في وظيفته النفسية وحدها، ومن وجهة نظر تاريخية، كانت الأسرة هي الحقل الأول والمفضّل للتدخل في العلاج النسقي، إلى درجة أنه غالباً ما يشار إليها اليوم بطريقة تقييدية باسم "العلاج الأسري ، ومن خلال هذه المحاضرات سوف نستعرض العلاج النسقي من خلال القاء نظرة تاريخية حول النسقية ثم مفاهيم حول المقاربة النسقية والانساق ومن ظهور المقاربة النسقية في العلاج النفسي ثم المفاهيم النسقية في العلاج النفسي، وأخيرا أهم النظريات النسقية في العلاج الأسري باعتباره الارض الخصبة التي فيها نما وترعرع استخدام العلاج النسقي.
Chapter
This chapter describes how systems thinking is applied to safety culture approach by the Finnish nuclear safety research and in regulatory practice. Systemic approach to safety implies considering the system as a whole, as well as the interactions and interconnections between its various elements—human, technology, organization, and context—rather than considering single elements in isolation. Previous research indicated that systems thinking is important for ensuring nuclear safety. We specify the approach to safety culture assessment and development, as developed by VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland over the last decades, shown in the methodology for Contextual Assessment of Organizational Culture and Design for Integrated Safety Culture framework. The chapter also describes basic premises of the safety culture oversight conducted by the Finnish regulatory body. We conclude by discussing some future research directions regarding a systemic approach to safety in complex safety-critical systems.
Chapter
In the last chapter, you were introduced to a systemic thinking methodology, one that is very different from the traditional, systematic methods for dealing with problems. The construct for systemic thinking is holistic, using both reductionism (i.e., to deconstruct problems and messes into understandable elements) and constructivism (i.e., to rebuild problems and messes to understand the whole). This unique systemic perspective, focused on the use of both reductionism and constructivism, and which underlies all aspects of systemic thinking, is built upon a science-based foundation labeled systems theory.
Chapter
Systems theory is a term that has been used inconsistently in a variety of disciplines. Further, few of these disciplines provide any type of formal definition for the term. As such, it is often subject to misunderstanding when used between disciplines. We believe that systems theory provides the foundation for improved understanding when dealing with systems and their attendant problems and messes. Before exposing you to a formal definition for systems theory, we will present a classification and high-level view of the major streams of thought that have addressed systems theory (i.e., the historical roots of systems theory). This will be followed by our definition of systems theory and the axioms and supporting propositions (i.e., systems principles) that we feel apply to all systems. Finally, we’ll present a linkage of the principles of systems theory to the systemic thinking perspectives.
Article
Energy needs and energy options are undergoing re-evaluation by almost every country of the world. Energy issues such as safety, public perceptions, load growth, air pollution, acid rain, construction schedules, waste management, capital financing, project cancellations, and energy mix are but a few of those problems that are plaguing planners.This paper examines some of the key elements of the energy re-evaluation and transition that are in progress and the potential for the Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (Modular HTGR) to have a major impact on energy planning and its favorable prospects for deployment.
Article
Sociologists have long believed that psychology alone can't explain what happens when people work together in complex modern societies. In contrast, most psychologists and economists believe that we can explain much about social life with an accurate theory of how individuals make choices and act on them. R. Keith Sawyer argues, however, that societies are complex dynamical systems, and that the best way to resolve these debates is by developing the concept of emergence, paying attention to multiple levels of analysis--individuals, interactions, and groups--with a dynamic focus on how social group phenomena emerge from communication processes among individual members.