Rerum cognoscere causas: Part II—Opportunities generated by the agency/structure debate and suggestions for clarifying the social theoretic position of system dynamics

Abstract

This is the second half of a two-part paper dealing with the social theoretic assumptions underlying system dynamics. In the first half it was concluded that analysing system dynamics using traditional, paradigm-based social theories is highly problematic. An innovative and potentially fruitful resolution is now proposed to these problems. In the first section it is argued that in order to find an appropriate social theoretic home for system dynamics it is necessary to look to a key exchange in contemporary social science: the agency/structure debate. This debate aims to move beyond both the theories based only on the actions of individual human agents, and those theories that emphasise only structural influences. Emerging from this debate are various theories that instead aim to unite the human agent view of the social realm with views that concentrate solely on system structure. It is argued that system dynamics is best viewed as being implicitly grounded in such theories. The main conclusion is therefore that system dynamics can contribute to an important part of social thinking by providing a formal approach for explicating social mechanisms. This conclusion is of general significance for system dynamics. However, the over-arching aim of the two-part paper is to increase the understanding of system dynamics in related disciplines. Four suggestions are therefore offered for how the system dynamics method might be extended further into the social sciences. It is argued that, presented in the right way, the formal yet contingent feedback causality thinking of system dynamics should diffuse widely in the social sciences and make a distinctive and important contribution to them. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 17, 293-309, (2001) Recapitulation-the structure and aims of this paper This is the second half of a two-part paper dealing with the social theoretic assumptions of system dynamics. Two issues were considered in Part I. 1 Firstly, the implicit but underlying social theory of the field was probed. This was done by relating the range of system dynamics practice to a framework-widely used in both operational research (OR) and systems science-which organises the assumptions behind traditional social theoretic paradigms (Burrell and

Can Organic Farming Reduce Vulnerabilities and Enhance the Resilience of the European Food System? A Critical Assessment Using System Dynamics Structural Thinking Tools

“…The theoretical assumptions of system dynamics have been addressed in several studies (e.g., [51,52,[54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63]), but usually system dynamists take them for granted. System dynamics appears to be ontologically a realist approach, as models are presented as abstract representations of the real physical and information flows in a system, with feedbacks implying that, "decisions are not entirely 'free will' but are strongly conditioned by the environment" [51].…”

“…From social theoretic perspective, however, divergent practice within this field makes it difficult to place it in one paradigm. Superficially, system dynamics can be positioned within the functionalist sociology paradigm, its ideas seeming to be a version of social systems theory [58,62,63]. However, the practice of system dynamics, and hence its theory in use, has many features of more interactionist paradigm and also some links to interpretativism [58,62,63].…”

“…paradigm, its ideas seeming to be a version of social systems theory [58,62,63]. However, the practice of system dynamics, and hence its theory in use, has many features of more interactionist paradigm and also some links to interpretativism [58,62,63]. The uncertainty related to positioning system dynamics within a social theoretic perspective leads to the conclusion that this approach appears to be best locatable within those theories that try to integrate the agency and structure views of the social realm (for detailed analysis see [52,58,62,63]).…”

The non-codified use of problem structuring methods and the need for a generic constitutive definition

“…Several broad themes may be identified: agency versus structural theories. Lane attempted to link causality and agency structure issues within a System Dynamics frame (Lane, 1999(Lane, , 2001a(Lane, , 2001b. Further understanding we think could be achieved through adopting causal mechanisms, i.e., the causal processes and causal interactions, that provide the mechanisms by which the world works; to understand why certain things happen, we need to see how they are produced by these mechanisms.…”

Managing Organizational Growth and Dynamic Complexity

“…In this regard, the 'social structure' view appears more ingrained into the external perspective, while the 'human agency' view better reflects the internal perspective viewpoint (Lane 2001;Grossler 2004Grossler , 2008Schwaninger and Groesser 2008). This entails the identification of a self-consistent system of goals and objectives for each unit. Such goals should be embodied in formal plans, together with the definition of the activities that each unit will undertake, in order to build a resource system providing a suitable basis to affect results in the short, medium and long term (outcomes).…”