软系统探究的艺术追寻丘奇曼和查兰的足迹

IF 1 4区 管理学 Q4 MANAGEMENT Systemic Practice and Action Research Pub Date : 2024-09-14 DOI:10.1007/s11213-024-09689-9
Frank Stowell
{"title":"软系统探究的艺术追寻丘奇曼和查兰的足迹","authors":"Frank Stowell","doi":"10.1007/s11213-024-09689-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this paper I reflect upon soft-systems inquiry. To do this I revisit Churchman’s discourse on the philosophical ideas underpinning inquiring systems and then discuss the practical application of soft inquiry pioneered by Checkland. This body of work suggested ontological models of organisational behavior were inappropriate and only by adopting an epistemological perspective would provide the basis for understanding complex systems that characterise human society. These ideas motivated a new way of addressing complexity. This work created a difficulty for action research since to be faithful to this discovery meant that any method of inquiry should be one that could cope with such complexity. One outcome was Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). Paradoxically the success of SSM has restrained further discussion of these ideas. The purpose of this paper is to revisit the ideas of Churchman and Checkland as a means of returning to first principles. In this paper I reassess their ideas and those of Husserl and Gadamer and suggest there is more to be gained from this rich seam of systems thinking.</p>","PeriodicalId":51694,"journal":{"name":"Systemic Practice and Action Research","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Art of Soft Systems Inquiry: Retracing the Footsteps of Churchman and Checkland\",\"authors\":\"Frank Stowell\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11213-024-09689-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In this paper I reflect upon soft-systems inquiry. To do this I revisit Churchman’s discourse on the philosophical ideas underpinning inquiring systems and then discuss the practical application of soft inquiry pioneered by Checkland. This body of work suggested ontological models of organisational behavior were inappropriate and only by adopting an epistemological perspective would provide the basis for understanding complex systems that characterise human society. These ideas motivated a new way of addressing complexity. This work created a difficulty for action research since to be faithful to this discovery meant that any method of inquiry should be one that could cope with such complexity. One outcome was Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). Paradoxically the success of SSM has restrained further discussion of these ideas. The purpose of this paper is to revisit the ideas of Churchman and Checkland as a means of returning to first principles. In this paper I reassess their ideas and those of Husserl and Gadamer and suggest there is more to be gained from this rich seam of systems thinking.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51694,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Systemic Practice and Action Research\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Systemic Practice and Action Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-024-09689-9\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systemic Practice and Action Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-024-09689-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本文中,我将对软系统探究进行反思。为此,我重温了丘奇曼关于系统探究所依据的哲学思想的论述,然后讨论了由查兰(Checkland)开创的软探究的实际应用。这些研究表明,组织行为的本体论模型是不恰当的,只有从认识论的角度出发,才能为理解作为人类社会特征的复杂系统提供基础。这些观点激发了一种解决复杂性问题的新方法。这项工作给行动研究带来了困难,因为要忠实于这一发现,就意味着任何研究方法都必须能够应对这种复杂性。其中一项成果就是软系统方法论(SSM)。自相矛盾的是,软系统方法论的成功限制了对这些观点的进一步讨论。本文旨在重新审视丘奇曼和查兰的观点,以此回归最初的原则。在本文中,我将重新评估他们的观点以及胡塞尔和伽达默尔的观点,并建议从这一丰富的系统思维缝隙中获得更多。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Art of Soft Systems Inquiry: Retracing the Footsteps of Churchman and Checkland

In this paper I reflect upon soft-systems inquiry. To do this I revisit Churchman’s discourse on the philosophical ideas underpinning inquiring systems and then discuss the practical application of soft inquiry pioneered by Checkland. This body of work suggested ontological models of organisational behavior were inappropriate and only by adopting an epistemological perspective would provide the basis for understanding complex systems that characterise human society. These ideas motivated a new way of addressing complexity. This work created a difficulty for action research since to be faithful to this discovery meant that any method of inquiry should be one that could cope with such complexity. One outcome was Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). Paradoxically the success of SSM has restrained further discussion of these ideas. The purpose of this paper is to revisit the ideas of Churchman and Checkland as a means of returning to first principles. In this paper I reassess their ideas and those of Husserl and Gadamer and suggest there is more to be gained from this rich seam of systems thinking.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
25.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Systemic Practice and Action Research is dedicated to advancing deeper understandings of issues that confront the contemporary world, and better means for engaging with these issues for the benefit of individuals, organizations, communities and their natural environments. To this end, a fundamental rethink of the purposes and methods of science is needed, making it more systemic and action-orientated. The journal therefore seeks to make a substantial contribution to rethinking science as well as to the reflective application of systemic practice and action research in all types of organizational and social settings. This international journal is committed to nurturing wide-ranging conversations around both qualitative and technical approaches for the betterment of people''s lives and ways of working together. It seeks to influence policy and strategy in its advocacy of action research as a primary means to gain vision and leverage in wicked problem areas. All forms of investigation and reasoning are considered potentially suitable for publication, including personal experience. There are no priorities attached to settings for studies and no greater significance given to one methodological style over another - as long as the work demonstrates a reflective and systemic quality. The journal welcomes manuscripts that are original, are well written, and contain a vivid argument. Papers normally will demonstrate knowledge of existing literature. Full papers are normally between 5,000 – 10,000 words (although longer papers will not be excluded if the argument justifies the word count) and short papers are about 2,000 words. Notes and letters are welcomed for publication in the ''notes from the field'' and ''letters'' sections. A rigorous mentoring-based refereeing system is applied in all cases. Officially cited as: Syst Pract Action Res
期刊最新文献
Exploring Action Research Sponsorship: Role and Enactment The Art of Soft Systems Inquiry: Retracing the Footsteps of Churchman and Checkland Digital Transformations Through the Lens of the Collaborative, Co-Generative and Domesticative Reimagining Famagusta: The Dialogic Design Theory of Change in action Pluralistic Causal Mapping: A Postmodern Systems Thinking Approach Regarding Identification of a Causal Map of Social Complex Systems
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1