Questions related to Systems Thinking
As the world becomes more complex and interconnected, the importance of systems thinking is rising, with engineering being no exception to this trend. Should we as engineering educators aim to teach and train our students in systems thinking from the get-go (first year, first semester), or should we wait for later years when they're acquired more discipline-specific (electrical, mechanical, etc.) knowledge and skills? In other words, is there value in teaching systems thinking to novices, even in a basic way?
Two widespread ways to characterise (or face) systems taking an SD perspective are:
- The dynamic complexity characteristics (Sterman 2000, 2001), such as governed by feedback, history-dependent, adaptive, counterintuitive.
- The open-loop vs. closed-loop view for system appreciation (Sterman 2000, 2001), where the second identifies systems as feedback-rich structures and accounts for the occurrence of side-effects and the actions of others to accommodate the potential outcomes of systems-change.
Nevertheless, there are some discussions in other areas (such as sustainability transitions) that I have not so far found a counterpart in the SD literature:
- Level of analysis/aggregation fo the system (micro, meso, macro perspectives)
- Boundary definitions in regard to the purpose of the system
- Timeframe definition for system investigation
- Any other way that might help analyse systems taking an SD perspective
Highly appreciate any thoughts shared.
- Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World.
- Sterman, J. D. (2001). System Dynamics Modeling: Tools for Learning in a Complex World. Reprinted from the California Management Review, 43(4), 8–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166098
The website, integratedreporting.org, states the following:
"The International <IR> Framework defines integrated reporting as ‘a process founded on integrated thinking that results in a periodic integrated report by an organization about value creation over time and related communications regarding aspects of value creation.’ Integrated reporting brings together material information about an organization’s strategy, governance, performance and prospects in a way that reflects the commercial, social and environmental context within which it operates. It provides a clear and concise representation of how the organization demonstrates stewardship and how it creates value, now and in the future.
But integrated reporting isn’t just a reporting process. It’s founded on integrated thinking, or systems thinking. Integrated thinking drives an improved understanding of how value is created and enhances decision-making by boards and management. The more integrated thinking is embedded in daily operations, the more naturally this information will be expressed in internal and external communications. On this basis, integrated thinking and integrated reporting are mutually reinforcing."
In relation to the aforementioned:
1. What should be the contents of an integrated report? Currently, the IIRC suggests 8 elements to be part of any IR. These are: organizational overview and external environment, governance, business model, risks and opportunities, strategy and resource allocation, performance, outlook, and finally the basis of preparation and presentation. Do you believe more elements should be added, or some of the aforementioned elements could be removed? On what basis do you make such a recommendation?
2. Do you believe that the contents of integrated reporting could possibly be a threat to an organization?
3. The IIRC defines capitals as "stocks of value that are increased, decreased or transformed through the activities and outputs of the organization. They are categorized as financial, manufactured, intellectual, human, social and relationship, and natural capital". Can improvements in one of the six capitals lead to a negative effect among them? For example, attempting to improve on the financial front might lead to a deterioration in the environment one. Or attempting to provide training to the company’s employees would lead to more expenses and thus a financial decline.
These are only some starting points for discussion, please feel free to add more ideas and raise further questions.
Dear Colleagues from Research Gate:
Probably most of you know an author in systems thinking and management who´s name is "Russell L. Ackoff", he wrote many books about systems thinking and operational research. The last ones of them had many examples of how burocracies and somehow organizations helped create problems that had to be solved afterwards. Just to name one: "The Art of Problem Solving: Accompanied by Ackoff's Fables".
Unfortunately, many of this excepcional readings are from the 80´s or 90´s. The question is: ¿does anyone know of similar readings but more modern (let´s say Y2K on?. And linked to this: what books about problem solving in management would you recommend me and why?
Thank you very much
In socio technical systems an idea of technological initiative can emerge and different groups can be organizing around it. Each groups little by litle are organizing sponaneously based on common interest, shared values including ethics, around of an idea of progress and potential benefits that sometimes is vague.
Sometimes those groups start to interact each other and at certain point of development a macro context start to be needed in order to reach the necessities of the society.
Lately despite of the potential social benefits of the new technological initiative, the political body do not create the institutional conditions for the development of a new regulation and public policy (this is what I call the macrosystem). So the socio-technological initiative do not thrive.
Some of the hypothesis about why this issue is happening are:
1) Politicians do not take care or interest of the posibilities of the new technology and initiative.
2) Politicians sees the new technology as a loss of self power threat.
3) Politicians want to take control of the different technical groups resources and assets but not the values and real purpose, because they want to have more power for themselves.
In consecuence the work done by different technical groups will never be enough organized and coordinated as well as is required by a common purpose that reach societal necesities.
What I want to do is describe the problem in terms of the interaction of technological working groups (the system) and the political and policy level (the macrosystem)
Do yo know if there are a systemic theoretical framework that can help me to analyse and describe this problem and dynamic?
This is a general philosophical question which isn't related to any particular study/paper I'm working on.
Do you think these two cognitive abilities are related? If so, in what way/s? If not, why?
I was just wondering how can we go about analysing water quality management issue using system thinking approach? are there any literature which looked at water quality management issues using the system thinking approach?
Any advice on a methodological framework I can use to review factors or variables that are associated with physical activity (outcome of interest)? I'm not necessarily interested in a meta-analysis on the strength of these associations, but rather interested in identifying the holistic "system" that has been associated with physical activity across various contexts. Almost like "systems thinking or concept mapping", but then based on literature rather than "interviews / workshops".
Thank you in advance
We are conducting a study that practically implemented a combination of different learning approaches to foster systems thinking competence in the context of sustainability and in a real-world setting. The learning approaches include mobile learning, collaborative learning, and field trips. What journals would you recommend for such a study?
Thanks in advance!
I am looking for some articles which have summarized the common attributes of the system thinking principles applied to safety management.
I need explanation for the two systems types mentioned above and a brief description of how scientists and engineers solve problems using hard systems thinking
Cyber Physical Systems (CPS) defines how a physical system integrates sensor, communication, computing, and control in a large scale cyber infrastructure. Digital Twin system has multiple definitions and each has a different perspective. From product designer perspective, product life cycle management (PLM) is the key platform to use product design model to monitor, test, control, and service the products in the field. From a user perspective, the design model often is not available. Users will use data from the usage to model the purpose (quality, efficiency, maintenance, etc). They will own the data and domain knowledge which often designers might not have or lacking. From a system integrator perspective, many different products will be used so the data analytics will be conducted through another platform which designers and users might not have. In summary, CPS is system thinking from networked products and operations. Digital twin is a engineering system that drive new abilities to design, operate, maintain, and create new services to maximize its value.
Especially with Artificial Intelligence and Big data tools which many environmental scientist lack adequate understanding
I have read some articles about KPI's and found out KPIOnto. It is connected with KPI ontology. Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence or reality as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Do we need programming language for philosophical study? What is the big idea about KPIOnto? What is its practical use?
Integrated Management: How Sustainability Creates Value for Any Business, Emerald Press
A resource for Business School Sustainability Courses and curriculum. Endorsed by the CEO of Unilever Paul Polman, John Elkington, Scholars from Harvard, MIT, Boston College, American University, The Aspen Institute, The Living Futures Institute and industry consultants.
This book is an evidence based how-to resource. Faculty and students will find action learning activities and integration exercises in each chapter aimed at making the intangible tangible, while showcasing best practices by top ranked companies.
It’s easy to say sustainability is important, yet not so easy to understand how it is part of the decisions that are made every day and how it cuts across business functions, systems, and supply chains. The information within this book, the application of systems thinking to complex problems, development of a vision and action plan, your own research, and action learning activities are all designed to accelerate management action, value creation, and the goal of a sustainable future.
Each chapter includes applied learning, what’s your Integrated Enterprise (IntEnt) questions, along with templates for a customizable integrated management strategy statement; strategic sustainability assessment; use of the social cost of carbon dioxide in financial decision analysis; and the creation of a vision and action plan for any reader.
I welcome any comments, suggestions for improving the book and can provide a syllabus to use in conjunction with this book. firstname.lastname@example.org
I am working on this question for my research. I would like to have views and opinion from different people on the question if the systems thinking tools can help increase productivity in construction sector.
Yesterday's risk management practices are no longer adequate to deal with today's High Hazard threats and they need to evolve.
The revised version of ISO 31000 is focused on the effect of incomplete knowledge of events or circumstances on organizations decision making, producing "Knowledge Gaps". The resulting standard is not just a new version of ISO 31000. Reaching beyond a simple revision, it gives new meaning to the way that Safety Practitioners manage the risk of tomorrow.
The psychology of risk management by Katherine Heires / September 1, 2017 www.rmmagazine.com deals with how humans respond to high-risk and crisis situations. This research has highlights how the lack of pre-crisis training and preparation may exacerbate risk and cause unnecessary errors during times of stress and uncertainty.
The good news begins with a understanding that each workplace has a “Controlled Condition” or "Scope of Work", with it's own unique chain of command or hierarchy. Thus Managing the Hazardous Hierarchy (MTHH) ensures each that employee complies with healthy and safe work-related practices, which may include disciplinary action.
This phenomena which safety practitioners have begun to understand better than ever before, is that each project has its’ own unique hazardous conditions that exist within the Hierarchy of Hazard Controls. Safety practitioners must consider the scope of work including the basic task or tools required to complete each job safely.
This gives Safety Managers, EHS Professionals and Competent persons the flexibility to document Near Miss and First Aid Events in a way that satisfy the needs and objectives of organizations wishing to learn from pass mistakes.
An article in The University of Sunshine Coast Journal of Theoretical Issue in Ergonomics Science by “Brian Thoroman M.S.” a researcher within the Center for Human Factors and Sociotechnical Systems that merge applications of systems thinking with a daily analysis of near miss/close incidents.
A review of industry-wide Learning from Near Miss events is an important component of maintaining safe work systems. Within safety science it is widely accepted that a systems approach is the most appropriate for analyzing incidents in sociotechnical systems.
Senge (1994) posits that the learning organization includes Personal Mastery, Shared Vision, Team Learning, Mental Models and Systems Thinking. Individualized Education Plan consists of a team of school teachers, administrators, psychologists, social workers, and parent teams (Guardians, Parents, Parent Educator, Grandparents, etc). I am seeking to investigate whether There is a strong correlation between a learning organization as constructed by Senge (1994), and successful Individualized Education Plans.
What do you think are most important foci of an ecosystem approach (following James J. Kay and others; see attached!) to integrate production, supply and consumption in the context of global sustainability?
Is it e.g. scale-based spatial considerations, demography, urbanization dynamics, stakeholder (value) governance, or some distinct levers in production, supply, or consumption (LCA, SOM, Responsible Consumerism?), or something else?
If anything, where do you see priorities or research gaps?
The question is deliberately "open" and broad, as not to prejudice answers.
Thanks in advance for a discussion.
The studies carried out by different scholars show that, in both Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), innovation processes, in their scientific and technological context, are ineffective. Therefore, it is difficult to create an appropriate environment for the development of new and better products and services in such a way that the whole helps the social and economic growth of these countries (de la Torre, 2014; Lederman et.al. 2014, CAF, 2013, World Bank, 2014). Despite some scholars describe the problem as systemic, is Wicked Problem (Rittel, 1973) an adequate framework to formulate these difficulties?
Do you know the concept? What does it mean to you locally? Do you use other concepts instead? What can design and designers do to foster more sustainable Distributed-Economies-type product-service systems?
Using systems thinking lens can advance understanding of the complexity in health systems problems.
To elucidate the complexity of a health system problem, factors identified in individual literature while conducting a systematic review can be used to build a causal loop diagram. This can provide more information about the "how" of the problem that can then be tested in subsequent research.
-Reality is known to everyone.
-System is a whole consisting of components and their relationships with oneanother and with the whole.
-Matter, space, and time is just reality according to quantum physicists and astrophysicists (see e.g. E. Wigner).
-My question regards whether there is any reality in but beyond this material system; think for instance, the problems of cognitive science or consciousness studies.
Thanks for your answers. Marc
Dear all, I am going to ask a difficult question. I am writing about governance of social systems. Particularly, I am looking at the structure of governance (ie actors, power relations rules). I conceive governance as the `management´ or regulating structure. Namely, the governance structure is what regulates and shapes the processes within specific social-ecological systems (e.g. bioenergy systems, food systems etc.). I would like to explore the literature on systems thinking for management which is the literature where the methodology I use has been mostly used. I know that the management literature focuses on organizations. However, what I need is some inspiration/knowledge of the micro to expand to the macro level (i.e. systems governance).
I am not sure whether I have been clear enough. If you need clarifications please ask and if you have any suggestion, thank you. Very much appreciated.
I am looking for key literature (mostly significant books) regarding complex systems and complex adaptive systems in social sciences. Just for reference, I use systems thinking and system dynamics and I would like to expand my theoretical knowledge on complex systems.
Thank you in advance
I'm preparing a PhD proposal to study an egocentric network in primary health care setting in a low-middle income country feed with a name-generator survey. I have 2 questions:
1. Any suggestion to the minimum sampling size to keep the validity?
2. What is the estimated time to do an (egocentric) social network analysis of a sample size of X?
Any suggestions, references?
Hi everyone, I might be approaching the field of socio-ecological systems to write the final paper of my PhD. I would like to get an idea of a super MUST-READ literature to get an overview of the approach and ideally a couple of case studies.
To narrow down the search, I am a political and social scientist (somewhere in between ;) ) and I study bioenergy development from a triple bottom line perspective (socio, economic and environmental sustainability). I have been using qualitative system dynamics (i.e. causal mapping) and systems thinking in my previous papers and I am now into the CAS literature. I have been advised to look into socio-ecological systems as a good example of CAS and quite related to my theoretical and methodological framework.
Thanks for any help you can provide
I am writing a book chapter on the integration of STEM with the Arts to create STEAM. I am trying to describe the specificities of technological-scientific thinking, on the one hand, artistic thinking, on the other, and the new affordances of the synthesis of both domains.
In my view, STEM disciplines entail the following mental activities:
- make questions
And the following thinking skills or thinking modes:
- critical thinking
- problem-solving (in the sense of computational thinking: developing routines for most efficient problem solving)
- spatial reasoning (not sure. acting as a gatekeeper)
The arts, on the other hand, contribute these thinking skills:
- creativity + innovation
The combination of the two domains allows for the arousal of:
- systemic thinking
- problem-solving (in creative ways + global perspective)
- learn (or any of the activities above) by doing
- communication of facts, findings, ideas
Is there anything else you would include? Something you find redundant or out of place?
After completing some research on systems thinking across various medical and health professions education programs, colleagues and I decided to develop a monograph to help educators teach and assess systems thinking. We have found it a bit more challenging to publish a monograph as opposed to a research article -- journals want brief manuscripts; book publishers want full textbooks. Some colleagues have suggested self-publishing but I am concerned that this might not be a credible/respected route to pursue as a researcher and academic. Would love to hear what others think.
Brian Wilson and I have been using SSM derived conceptual models (issue-based and primary task) to structure and explore programmatic aspects of infrastructure and organisational capability focused programmes and projects (see Soft systems thinking, methodology and management of change). An SSM perspective could help unearth conceptual information and measures of performance relevant to the root definition(s) / purpose of the programme. By mapping the identified 'failures' to the measures and model activities it would enable identification of potential areas of impact on realising the stated programme purpose (outcomes) as defined in the root definition(s).
An interesting and important matter in relation to the Australian society (its struggle to handle high population growth) put forth in a compelling manner. Another example highlighting the lack of systems thinking on the part of decision makers. It shouldn’t be narrowly focused everything is the economy only perspective. There is a whole system out there. High migration rate keeps the economic figures in a good shape. But infrastructure building must be on par with the population growth – better transport plans and infrastructure, more school and hospitals. Otherwise, the overall productivity of operation will continue to decline and causing major economic and other problems in the longer run.
If you are interested to know more on service innovation as aresult of systems thinking theories, please help yourself access the latest research I authord on this:
I see it cited in-text, yet not in the reference list, in "The relationship between systems thinking and the new ecological paradigm" (2015) and would love to read that paper. I am currently working on a project related to decision-making and systems thinking, and I have found your work very interesting. Thank you for your assistance!
im hanging on my bachelor thesis right now. I want to exclude missing data cases with the if-function (data -> select cases). I have about 8 questionnaires with many lacking some variables.
To deal with it I created the variable"missingdata" ( compute variable: nmiss( my questionnaires) ...which shows a number from 1 -8 -> one for each sum/mean score ( I made sure that these scores were only computed if no variables are missing) of a questionnaire representing how many variables are missing.
Then I wanted to exclude data with the if function missingdata = "0" . In my mind this should select only the case with 0 missing variables and therefore exclude the others. Now my programm shows me this
"A relational operator may have two numeric operands or two character string operands. To compare a character string to a numeric quantity, consider using the STRING or NUMBER function."
When I go into variables view my "missingdata" variable is numeric though...but its shown as a nominal "measure"... I dont know what to do. I tried recoding it into a new variable and automatic recode but its still showing the same message.
I also just changed the nominal measure into a scale one but as I thought that didnt help either. As long as the system thinks its a string variable I cant continue my analysis.
I have to use the if function as I already used it for other criteria in my thesis. It is crucial for my thesis to get this part done right.
also two other side questions:
- if I used the if function for something like ...variable >= "1" . It should contain only data that is 1 or bigger shouldnt it? . But I saw one of the variables with a value of 0,75 that wasnt excluded !? what did i do wrong? can I manually exclude it or is this illegal data manipulation?
and the other one is that my data is not normally distributed ( at least thats what the k-s-test says) but I want to do a regressionanalysis. Is this a problem with a sample of 170 people?
I hope you guys can help me
In my book "Public Participation as a Tool for Integration Local Knowledge into Spatial Planning" (Springer, 2017) I claim that Local Knowledge in urban and regional planning refers to the knowledge of people who could be affected by plans, and that it is "a large, complex epistemological system related to a broad conceptual scope that includes perceptions, desires, grievances, opinions, ideas, beliefs, thoughts, speculations, preferences, common sense, feelings and sensations; it also addresses needs, cultural codes, spatial conducts, social relations, societal norms, and everyday life scenarios and practices, all of which are rooted in the locals' everyday reality".
Design Thinking seems to be the flavor of the season. How is it different from Systems Thinking? Both have feedback loop in their core. What is it that Design thinking can accomplish which Systems Thinking can not?
I've been wondering whether a mathematical-based model exists for Systems Thinking which could be used on complex systems. Maybe, this idea is not even feasible? Any thoughts and ideas are most welcome.
We plan to use bottom-up collected quantitative and qualitative data as an addition to the already established statistical database, and use these for developing the network and input-output models. Do you have any similar experience in any parts of the above? I would like to talk about your experience and understand what kind of difficulties we have to face off.
Grounded theory as developed by Anselm Strauss is rooted in information received from ordinary citizens which it is argued provides useful insights into issues in societies. This perspective is also supported by the Brazilian educator and sociologist Paulo Friere, Karl Polanyi and the Interpretivist approaches of Max Webers Social Action Theory, Husserl's Phenomenology and Schultz' Ethnomethodological Perspective. I would not mind contributing an article/chapter for the proposed book.
No single factor/s whether molecular or morphological is/are important in a sustainable maintenance of any system, is an indication of failure in reductionist approach or otherwise successful in an integral interpretation.
The concept of transdisciplinarity is becoming very popular with the increased complexity of problems and solutions that require strong collaboration and expertise across different sciences and disciplines. We can see strong integration trends between various areas of science, arts, technology, and humanities, building up new areas of research and practice in the process...
Although philosophically analytics without reasoning seems wrong, in machine learning solutions it is commonly found. Recently DataScienceCentral had a related webinar regarding this issue - http://www.datasciencecentral.com/video/the-myth-of-the-machine-learning-black-box
Without disputing the deep learning model, I'd like to mention again the Occam's razor principle (leaner is better) regarding very complex matters.
Based on what computational mechanisms can a smart cyber-physical system operationalize abductive reasoning in its overall operation? This knowledge-intensive computational reasoning mechanism is supposed to reflect the logical workings of abductive inferencing pertinent to scientific explanation.
Why do you think that the creator is a modular designer and a modular creator? And what are the consequences for intelligent species.
I have seen that state-space models are a flexible framework to model various processes and data dependencies, in ecological models. I would like to deepen my knowledge about them, as I mostly rely on Buckland's "State-space models for the dynamics of wild animal populations". Is there any more recent text about them?
What could be the core changes today that enforce the belief of a new industrial revolution?
The CRISPR-Cas9 method allows one to edit genomic sequences and have these changes permanently established in the organism. It is easy to imagine this technology resulting in biological disasters when in the wrong hands.
I am developing a new construct. I am keen to understand conceptually, what should the new construct include? Should it have elements of cause and effects? In my view, this will make the definition of the new construct very comprehensive.
Working on developing Life Cycle Assessment tools for graduate students in a Process Design class. One student uses store bought samples, and a custom rig, but seems uncertain as to how the setup/analysis is interatively improved upon. Wondering what criteria SEM/STM analysis relies on that can be quantified for comparison, or qualitative factors which may be addressed.
As a part of my research on urban transportation, I am using System Dynamics as a tool. If anyone has experience in System Dynamics / Systems Thinking, software tools for System Dynamics or its application on transportation systems, please get in touch with me.
Main Purpose -
1. Make friends from same working background :)
2. I want to engage in discussions with a peer
3. Get some inputs on selecting suitable software package
I am researching on a stilt community on a lake and looking at how the knowledge of construction of the building is transferred. I also plan to document the knowledge by filming the knowledge in action (During construction). All contributions are important at this stage. Thank you!
In my most recent investigation, I'm exploring the different forms of conversations in design using Gordon Pask's Conversation Theory. The main references I use are the works of Gordon Pask, Ranulph Glanville, Paul Pangaro and Ben Sweeting. What I would like to ask is if someone would be so helpful to share references of projects which use the concepts of P-individuals and M-individuals to understand or enhance the conversational process between an observer and his environment (architectural space).
Can systems dynamics (e.g. Braun, 2001) and Fisher’s account of temperament (Fisher et al., 2015; Brown et al., 2013), be used to explore the "emergence" of values? For example, a child developing in a setting which rewards and reinforces curiosity and creativity might become increasingly sensitised to feelings associated with their dopamine system (Fisher, below), and subsequently seek experiences which offer that particular feeling of reward. This might establish a reinforcing cycle (Braun, 2001), through which the child’s temperament becomes predominantly expressive of the dopamine system. From Schwartz’ human values perspective would this child’s goal choices tend to consistently express openness to change, independence and self-direction values? Would the child’s choices be values-based insofar as they are infused with feelings, refer to desired goals, and exhibit consistency that transcends specific situations (Schwartz, 2012)?
Might Fisher’s Explorers express Schwartz’ Openness To Change values, Builders express Conservation values, Directors express Self-enhancement values, and Negotiators express Self-transcendence values?
Might accounts connecting neurochemical systems with values and feelings (e.g. Lövheim, 2012) improve the utility of the worthwhile, satisfied, happy, anxious and social trust dimensions in the subjective wellbeing literature (e.g. Michaelson et al., 2012) and enrich the goal choice (e.g. Knafo and Sagiv, 2004) and productivity literatures (e.g. Parks and Guay, 2009)?
Fisher Four broad temperament dimensions:
· Explorers expressive of the dopamine system linked with traits including: being curious, creative, spontaneous, energetic, risk-taking, novelty-seeking, mentally flexible.
· Builders expressive of the serotonin system linked with traits including being: traditional, conventional, following the rules, respecting authority.
· Directors expressive of the testosterone system linked with traits including being: analytical, logical, direct, decisive.
· Negotiators expressive of the oestrogen system linked with traits including: being empathetic, emotionally expressive, good with people.
Schwartz (2012) values super groups:
· Openness to change values: emphasise independence of thought, action, and feelings and readiness for change (self-direction, stimulation)
· Conservation values: emphasise order, self-restriction, preservation of the past, and resistance to change (security, conformity, tradition)
· Self-enhancement: emphasise pursuit of one's own interests and relative success and dominance over others (power, achievement).
· Self-transcendence: emphasise concern for the welfare and interests of others (universalism, benevolence)
Braun, W., 2001. The Systems Modelling Workbook. Berlin: Springer, 2001. [Online]. [Accessed 19 January 2017]. Available at http://www.albany.edu/faculty/gpr/PAD724/724WebArticles/sys_archetypes.pdf
Brown, L.L., Acevedo, B. and Fisher, H.E., 2013. Neural correlates of four broad temperament dimensions: testing predictions for a novel construct of personality. PloS one, 8(11), p.e78734.
Fisher, H.E., Island, H.D., Rich, J., Marchalik, D. and Brown, L.L., 2015. Four broad temperament dimensions: description, convergent validation correlations, and comparison with the Big Five. Frontiers in psychology, 6.
Lövheim, H., 2012. A new three-dimensional model for emotions and monoamine neurotransmitters. Medical hypotheses, 78(2), pp.341-348.
Knafo, A. and Sagiv, L. 2004. Values and work environment: Mapping 32 occupations, European Journal Of Psychology Of Education, 19 (3).
Michaelson J., Mahony, S. and Schifferes, J. 2012 Measuring Well-being: A guide for practitioners, London: New Economics Foundation.
Parks, L.,and Guay R. 2009. Personality, values, and motivation, Personality and Individual Differences, 47, pp. 675–684
Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116
Many educational approaches in contemporary primary, secondary and tertiary systems embed design features organised around the individual. Indeed, the personalisation agenda in these systems is accentuating this way of organising. There are of course consequences of this way of organising (see attached).
But what do we know about alternative educational approaches in tertiary education systems which focus on 'the collective', whether as a primary organising concept, or in an aspect of the system? And what do we know of the consequences of organising in this way? I have attached some possibilities in the links related to this question.
Technical Report CABS Leadership & Policy Paper: Business schools as educatio...
Give model with Reasons for adding subject at specific layers..
It will helps to understand overall correlation between art, religion, spirituality, philosophy, physics - & other scientific branches.. Model should establish / shows unity / correlation between different subject, helps to understand nature of universe & how physics, math, arts etc influence - connected with each other..
I am writting an article relating experiments in adapting small-group problem solving protocols (social psychology) to large-group methods (organizational development), but I lack theoretical support linking both approaches. Since Kurt Lewin both approaches seem to have evolved in different directions, as if they had nothing to do with each other.
Phenomenological approach is criticized for "lack of science" in the knowledge generated. How can we best justify the knowledge generated using phenomenography? What would be the counter argument particularly useful for use of phenomenographic research in entrepreneurship and learning?
I'm doing a critical analysis of District Education strategic plan. I wan to understand how that plan can be traced in its theoretical foundations. In other words, what are the theoretical underpinnings of a strategic plan. What theories can be traced in strategic planning. I traced a couple of them such as Social Cognitive theory. I want to look at some more to situate my analysis with theoretical foundations.
How to test the reliability and validity of DELPHI Technique? What are the various drawbacks of DELPHI technique?
I'd trying to get a handle on the relationship and interdependency between system dynamics and systems thinking.
Having read, amongst others, Forrester (1994) and Richmond (1994) my take is that System dynamics is a "measurement" (my term) of a social or physical system bearing in mind its "complexity, nonlinearity, and feedback loop structures" (Forrester 1994), while systems thinking may be a tool(s) used to provide a holistic solution(s) for the issues/outliers/potential problematic areas within those social or physical systems? I'd appreciate peoples thoughts/ideas. Thanks
The integrated thinking concept is linked to integrated reporting and is defined as an organization’s active consideration of the relationships between its various operating and functional units and the capitals (financial, manufactured, intellectual, human, social and natural) the organization uses and affects (IIRC, 2013).
Besides, the notion of integrated thinking is akin to a system thinking perspective in accounting, which suggests that it is necessary to look within the business for evidence of interactively developed strategies and control.
So, what is the nature of integrated thinking in a real life or a real organization system ?
I'm in a good old methodological dilemma stage of my 1st year Ph.D. work. Interaction between members of the clinical team are complex, and I thought this combination of methodologies were mutually compatible for a exploratory piece of work.
In our presentation "21st Century Critical Literacy: Pedagogical and Ideological Intersections" my partner and I explored the question: What is critical literacy and how does it 'look' in the 21st century? This webinar highlights how and why systems thinking and action/activity theories inform an understanding of the pedagogical and ideological intersections of 21st century critical literacy teaching and learning. The intended audience is expert and novice educational researchers, teachers, and teacher educators in brick and mortar, hybrid, and online settings. The topic of 21st century critical literacy is relevant to early childhood, primary, secondary, and tertiary learning environments.
We look forward to your feedback. Please visit the following link for a video archive of this webinar presentation:
What are the necessary books for understanding, Perceiving and then execution of system thinking in people’s attitude and improvement of their lives by better Decision Making Process, And also for increase quality of policies and decisions in organizations?