Generalization and systemic epistemology: Why should it make sense?

Abstract

This paper argues that true 'systemic' epistemology should reveal multiple perspectives, conflicting realities and various other contexts due to its inherent pluralistic nature. Therefore, generalization in systems research occurs not across one linear conceptual framework but across the variety of nonlinear, conflicting, dialectal 'realities'. It is therefore a misunderstanding of systems research to search for linear, singular and non-conflicting versions of events as though there is one overarching 'mega concept' that will explain world events. The paper presents the hallmarks of a systemic epistemology. Using an example the nature of a systems epistemology is demonstrated and explained. The paper concludes that a 'systemic' epistemology is one that should reflect a 'systemic' reality.

La centration sur le processus du changement : l’apport de l’intervention systémique à l’amélioration du bien-être au travail

“…Développée dans les années 1950 à partir de la cybernétique et de la Théorie Générale des Systèmes (TGS), l'approche systémique a cherché à faire progresser le paradigme cartésien (Houghton, 2009), considéré comme trop réducteur pour appréhender les phénomènes humains et sociaux, par essence complexes. Cette complexité tient essentiellement à leur imprévisibilité (Macintosh & Maclean, 1999) ; les systèmes (organisationnels, sociétaux…) qui nous entourent étant souples et évolutifs, en adaptation constante à l'environnement (Thiétart & Forgues, 2006).…”

“…Les grands principes présentés ci-dessus sont prégnants dans l'intervention systémique, qui s'est détournée de l'approche cartésienne dès les années 1950, pour aider à la décision et à l'action dans les organisations (Houghton, 2009). Cette tradition d'intervention se positionne au sein d'un champ d'applications large.…”

“…C'est surtout le principe d'agrégativité qui prime, en lieu et place de l'exhaustivité. Il n'est pas donc nécessaire de prétendre obtenir une image fidèle d'une situation pour la transformer (Benoit & Perez-Benoit, 2006 ;Houghton, 2009).…”

Systems of Systems: Pure, and Applied to Lean Six Sigma

“…This is achieved through a dialectic process relying on the tension between the objectivist modeller or enquirer and subjectivist positions of the systemees; thereby acknowledging that human activity systems contain different perspectives and are therefore implicitly contradictory (Houghton, 2009). Therefore it could be argued that human activity system models are formed from epistemological pluralism; or in other words, SSMs use multiple ways of knowing and "understand phenomena from a metatheoretical vantage point" (Houghton, 2009). While this argument has some value, it does not alter the fact that pluralism is constructed from existing accepted forms of knowledge creation, each of which has the same requirements for rigor and relevance.…”

Systemic Cognition During the Sub-Prime Crisis: Lessons and Research Implications

“…We have several problem structuring methods (Mingers and Rosenhead 2004) but so far very few people have applied the soft systems (Checkland 1981) way of thinking to the analysis of group thinking during large-scale social movements (Benford and Snow 2005). Research discussed in Houghton (2009) suggests that a systemic epistemology is comprehensive (Ulrich 2003) yet relies on the dialectic of conflicting paradigms to be effective. In this way systemic patterns reveal complexity because inherent in the systems way of thinking, is the idea that synthesis is necessary (Houghton and Metcalfe 2010) conflicting objectives and meanings are present (Checkland 1981) and variegation presents itself continuously.…”