DOCSLIB.ORG

SYSTEMS CONCEPTS in EVALUATION an Expert Anthology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SYSTEMS CONCEPTS in EVALUATION an Expert Anthology SYSTEMS CONCEPTS IN EVALUATION An Expert Anthology EDITORS Bob Williams Iraj Imam INTRODUCTION FROM THE SERIES EDITOR It’s a pleasure to welcome readers to the first volume in a new series sponsored by the American Evaluation Association. The aim of the series is to make high quality work in evaluation available at a modest price that will make it easier for people in the United States and other countries to become aware of and keep up with this relatively new and fast-developing field. The Monograph Series was conceived of and will mainly consist of relatively brief single-author works, but will deviate from that model when the occasion arises. As it happened, an unusual opportunity made it possible to inaugurate the series with this very timely and well-staffed anthology. The series is overseen by the Publications Committee of the AEA, and supported by the Board of AEA, and was made possible as well as much improved by them, along with considerable help from the professional staff of the Association—most notably its Executive Director, Susan Kistler. This particular work also benefited greatly from its instigation and funding by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, whose director of evaluation, Teri Behrens, was very helpful throughout; and from the extremely valuable comments of the two distinguished reviewers for AEA, Elliot Stern and William Trochim. The book content was designed by Rose Miller; it is being published for AEA through EdgePress of Inverness, California, whose indispensable Jeri Jacobson manages the logistics. Hard copies of this publication can be obtained from EdgePress PO Box 69 Point Reyes CA 94956, or Amazon (http://www.amazon.com) for $US18 soft cover and $36 hard cover. Your reactions to this book, and suggestions about other possible titles for the series would of course be much appreciated; after all, evaluators should practice what they preach! Michael Scriven [email protected] © 2006 American Evaluation Association ISBN 978-0-918528-22-3 (Paperback) 978-0-918528-21-6 (Hardback) CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 3 Systems Thinking for Evaluation 11 Gerald Midgley A Systemic Evaluation of an Agricultural Development: A Focus on the Worldview Challenge 35 Richard Bawden System Dynamics-based Computer Simulations and Evaluation 47 Daniel D Burke A Cybernetic Evaluation of Organizational Information Systems 61 Dale Fitch, Ph.D. Soft Systems in a Hardening World: Evaluating Urban Regeneration 75 Kate Attenborough Using Dialectic Soft Systems Methodology as an Ongoing Self-evaluation Process for a Singapore Railway Service Provider 89 Dr Boon Hou Tay & Mr Bobby, Kee Pong Lim Evaluation Based on Critical Systems Heuristics 101 Martin Reynolds Human Systems Dynamics: Complexity-based Approach to a Complex Evaluation 123 Glenda H Eoyang, Ph.D. Evaluating Farm and Food Systems in the US 141 Kenneth A Meter Systemic Evaluation in the Field of Regional Development 161 Richard Hummelbrunner Evaluation in Complex Governance Arenas: the Potential of Large System Action Research 181 Danny Burns Evolutionary and Behavioral Characteristics of Systems 197 Jay Forrest CONCLUDING COMMENTS 211 BIOGRAPHIES 215 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Producing this volume has been rather like running a medium-sized business. Indeed it would be a good systems case study on its own. We have tried to keep a collaborative ethos right through, so consequently the list of acknowledgements is extensive. Our thanks to the following folk and no doubt others we have forgotten; you know who you are. Robin Miller had the original idea. Michael Scriven and the American Evaluation Association provided the vehicle. Craig Russon made the link between the AEA and the Kellogg Foundation. Teri Behrens and the W K Kellogg Foundation supplied the grants that made the endeavour possible. The staff of the Center for Applied Local Research (CAL Research), especially Carol Coley, provided constant support. The authors went way beyond the call of duty many times, and so did those whose potential contributions we didn’t have space to include. The team of reviewers from all over the world looked at their allocated papers at least twice; Meenakshi Sankar, Leslie Goodyear, Hassan Qudrat-Ullah, Lee Mizell, Jacob Silver, Olaronke Ladipo, Samruddhi Thaker, Thomas Chapel, Gene Lyle, Shannon Lee, Chris High, Graham Smith, Bridget Roberts, Alison Amos, Bill Harris, Bob Dick, Cheyanne Church, Eileen Franco, Greg Yelland, John Sherman, John Smith, Mel Tremper, Mike Lieber, Lindsey Poole, Rainer Loidl-Keil, Robin Miller, Aisha Shah, Tracy Henderson, Tony Berkley, Melissa Weenink, and Yee Sue Lin. Our apologies if we have missed someone. CAL Research with help from Andie Williams of San Francisco Bay Area Evaluators (SFBAE) organized a two-day meeting between the authors, editors, and evaluators Beverley Parsons, Susan Hanson, Amy LaGoy, Tony Berkeley, and John Gargani. Ruhel Boparai took the notes. San Francisco Bay Area Evaluators (SFBAE) also hosted a dinner that allowed a whole bunch of SFBAE members to contribute to this publication. Bill Trochim and Elliot Stern reviewed the whole draft and raised the standard even higher. Derek Cabrera, Patricia Rogers, Doug Fraser, Tessie Catsambas, and Michael Patton provided vital comments and support. Contributors to the Eval-Syst discussion group kept the endeavor grounded. Rose Miller did the design and layout 1 INTRODUCTION Iraj Imam, Amy LaGoy, Bob Williams Here is a short history of an idea. We are somewhere in the 960s. The idea is an approach to describing and assessing a situation in a way that can inform appropriate choices for action and improvement. The idea gains political support and the grudging acceptance of the academic world. Some academics criticise it for lacking an overarching theory, but reluctantly allow it into their departments and schools, partly because it is popular and lucrative. Over time a network of consultants cluster around the idea, responding to the demands of clients who become interested in it. The idea becomes fashionable in many parts of the world. It moves from being an idea to a field of inquiry to, some would argue, a trans-disciplinelike statistics. But the idea is applied differently in each part of the world. There are arguments and splits. There are debilitating debates around about what is “real” and what is “perceived,” and the use of qualitative and quantitative data. These are partly resolved by those who argue the wise use of both. But the bruises persist. There are also debates over the role of the emerging field in empowering people, especially the disenfranchised. Over time the focus on a single stakeholder view of the situation is expanded to allow multiple stakeholder views. This emerging field is beset with communication difficulties and misunderstandings; the field has become so diverse that despite many attempts it defies a single definition or description. Is this a description of the evaluation field or the systems field? Theanswer is both. An intriguing aspect of the systems and evaluation fields is that they share many experiences, concepts, goals, even attitudes, yet know relatively little about each other. What each understands about the other is often crude and partial. Ask an evaluator about the systems field and you will probably hear aboutmodels, interconnections, and “holism,” but little more. Ask a systems practitioner about evaluation and you will hear about measurement, targets, and outcomes, and little else. These perceptions reflect only a small part of the two fields’ ngera of activity. They also fail to get to the core of what either field is about. Despite drawing on some of the same philosophical, sociological, and scientific developments in the latter 20th century, the two fields have operated virtually independently since their inceptions. In recent years, however, some systems practitioners have begun applying systems thinking to evaluation work. With contributions from this volume’s authors, as well as Tony Berkley, Derek Cabrera, Tessie Catsambas, Susan Hanson, Beverly Parsons, and Bill Trochim. USING SYSTEMS CONCEPTS IN EVALUATION And today there is growing interest among evaluators in what the systems field can offer them. During a lively session at the 2005 Joint American Evaluation Association and Canadian Evaluation Society conference, participants described what was exciting about the use of systems concepts in evaluation: • Makes you think differently. • Offers more effective ways of dealing with complexity and complex situations. • Links the local and global, across silos, sectors and disciplines. • Provides tools to work with different opinions of stakeholders. • Develops new ways of understanding situations. • Pays attention to coalitions. • Pays attention to properties that emerge unexpectedly. • Puts multiple projects and topics into comparable forms. • Acknowledges the richness and interdependence of real life. • Helps identify leverage points; the differences that make a difference to a program and signal where best to intervene. • Allows for measuring or accounting for dynamic changes in a program or system. • Provides practical guidelines for using theory-of-change techniques. • Recognizes the evolutionary nature of programs. The evaluators at that session clearly understood that systems concepts had something to offer their evaluation work. To help deepen that understanding, this publication addresses three questions: . What key systems concepts do evaluators need to know? 2. How can evaluation benefit from using systems concepts?
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Re-Examining the Implications of Systems Thinking for Evaluation
    RE-EXAMINING THE IMPLICATIONS OF SYSTEMS THINKING FOR EVALUATION BY EMILY F. GATES DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Psychology in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2016 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Professor Jennifer C. Greene, Chair Professor Thomas A. Schwandt, Director of Research Professor Lizanne DeStefano Professor Martin Reynolds, Open University ABSTRACT Over the last twenty years, many prominent evaluators have been borrowing and using ideas, theories, and methods from the systems and complexity fields with little research on the implications of this trend for the evaluation field. This thesis examines this borrowing to identify over-arching implications for evaluation theory and practice. The first paper reviews inter- disciplinary literature on systems thinking and complexity science with regards to evaluating social policies and programs and identifies major implications for how evaluators theorize evaluation practice. The second paper reports on an analysis of eight cases of evaluation practice that use systems and complexity ideas and techniques and presents findings regarding how evaluators conceive of and practice evaluation. The third paper advances an argument for how evaluators can use critical systems heuristics to surface, reflect on, and make explicit the values that influence and should influence an evaluation. Collectively, these papers support the potential of borrowing from the systems and complexity fields to expand on and re-define evaluation theory and practice. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without the mentorship of Dr. Thomas Schwandt and Dr. Jennifer Greene. I am thankful to Tom for overseeing this dissertation, sharing his wisdom, providing generous editorial comments, and continuously challenging and expanding my thinking.
    [Show full text]
  • Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity This Page Intentionally Left Blank Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity
    Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity This Page Intentionally Left Blank Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity A Platform for Designing Business Architecture SECOND EDITION Jamshid Gharajedaghi AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON NEW YORK • OXFORD • PARIS • SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO Butterworth-Heinemann is an imprint of Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann is an imprint of Elsevier 30 Corporate Drive, Suite 400, Burlington, MA 01803, USA 525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, California 92101-4495, USA 84 Theobald's Road, London WC1X 8RR, UK This book is printed on acid-free paper. Copyright © 2006, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Science & Technology Rights Department in Oxford, UK: phone: (+44) 1865 843830, fax: (+44) 1865 853333, E-mail: [email protected]. You may also complete your request on-line via the Elsevier homepage (http://elsevier.com), by selecting “Support & Contact” then “Copyright and Permission” and then “Obtaining Permissions.” Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems thinking : managing chaos and complexity : a platform for designing business architecture / Jamshid Gharajedaghi. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-7506-7163-7 (alk. paper) 1. System analysis. 2. Chaotic behavior in systems. 3. Industrial management. 4. Technological complexity. I. Title. T57.6.G52 1999 003—dc21 98-55939 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
    [Show full text]
  • Aleksandr Bogdanov and Systems Theory
    Democracy & Nature, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2000 Aleksandr Bogdanov and Systems Theory ARRAN GARE ABSTRACT The signi cance and potential of systems theory and complexity theory are best appreciated through an understanding of their origins. Arguably, their originator was the Russian philosopher and revolutionary, Aleksandr Bogdanov. Bogdanov anticipated later developments of systems theory and complexity theory in his efforts to lay the foundations for a new, post-capitalist culture and science. This science would overcome the division between the natural and the human sciences and enable workers to organise themselves and their productive activity. It would be central to the culture of a society in which class and gender divisions have been transcended. At the same time it would free people from the deformed thinking of class societies, enabling them to appreciate both the limitations and the signi cance of their environments and other forms of life. In this paper it is argued that whatever Bogdanov’s limitations, such a science is still required if we are to create a society free of class divisions, and that it is in this light that developments in systems theory and complexity theory should be judged. Aleksandr Bogdanov, the Russian revolutionary, philosopher and scientist, has a good claim to being regarded as the founder of systems theory.1 His ‘tektology’, that is, his new science of organisation, not only anticipated and probably in uenced the ideas of Ludwig von Bertalanffy—who must have been familiar with his work,2 but anticipated many of the ideas of the complexity theorists. As Simona Poustlinik commented at a recent conference on Bogdanov: It is remarkable the extent to which Bogdanov anticipated the ideas which were to be developed in systems thinking later in the twentieth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Third Year Preceptor Evaluation Form
    3rd Year Preceptor Evaluation Please select student’s home campus: Auburn Carolinas Virginia Printed Student Name: Start Date: End Date: Printed Preceptor Name and Degree: Discipline: The below performance ratings are designed to evaluate a student engaged in their 3rd year of clinical rotations which corresponds to their first year of full time clinical training. Unacceptable – performs below the expected standards for the first year of clinical training (OMS3) despite feedback and direction Below expectations – performs below expectations for the first year of clinical training (OMS3). Responds to feedback and direction but still requires maximal supervision, and continual prompting and direction to achieve tasks Meets expectations – performs at the expected level of training (OMS3); able to perform basic tasks with some prompting and direction Above expectations – performs above expectations for their first year of clinical training (OMS3); requires minimal prompting and direction to perform required tasks Exceptional – performs well above peers; able to model tasks for peers or juniors, of medical students at the OMS3 level Place a check in the appropriate column to indicate your rating for the student in that particular area. Clinical skills and Procedure Log Documentation Preceptor has reviewed and discussed the CREDO LOG (Clinical Experience) for this Yes rotation. This is mandatory for passing the rotation for OMS 3. No Area of Evaluation - Communication Question Unacceptable Below Meets Above Exceptional N/A Expectations Expectations Expectations 1. Effectively listen to patients, family, peers, & healthcare team. 2. Demonstrates compassion and respect in patient communications. 3. Effectively collects chief complaint and history. 4. Considers whole patient: social, spiritual & cultural concerns.
    [Show full text]
  • Consciousness and Its Evolution: from a Human Being to a Post-Human
    Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej w Lublinie Wydział Filozofii i Socjologii Taras Handziy Consciousness and Its Evolution: From a Human Being to a Post-Human Rozprawa doktorska napisana pod kierunkiem dr hab. Zbysława Muszyńskiego, prof. nadzw. UMCS Lublin 2014 Table of Contents Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 Chapter 1: Consciousness, Mind, and Body …………………………………………………… 18 1.1 Conceptions of Consciousness …………………………………………………………. 18 1.1.1 Colin McGinn’s Conception of Consciousness ……………………………………….... 18 1.1.1.1 Owen Flanagan’s Analysis of Colin McGinn’s Conception of Consciousness ….…….. 20 1.1.2 Paola Zizzi’s Conception of Consciousness ………………………………………….… 21 1.1.3 William James’ Stream of Consciousness ……………………………………………… 22 1.1.4 Ervin Laszlo’s Conception of Consciousness …………………………………………... 22 1.2 Consciousness and Soul ………………………………………...………………………. 24 1.3 Problems in Definition of Consciousness ………………………………………………. 24 1.4 Distinctions between Consciousness and Mind ………………………………………... 25 1.5 Problems in Definition of Mind ………………………………………………………… 26 1.6 Dogmatism in Mind and Mind without Dogmatism ……………………………………. 27 1.6.1 Dogmatism in Mind …………………………………………………………………….. 27 1.6.2 Mind without Dogmatism …………………………………………………………….… 28 1.6.3 Rupert Sheldrake’s Dogmatism in Science …………………………………………….. 29 1.7 Criticism of Scientific Approaches towards Study of Mind ……………….…………… 30 1.8 Conceptions of Mind …………………………………………………………………… 31 1.8.1 Rupert Sheldrake’s Conception of Extended Mind …………………………………….. 31 1.8.2 Colin McGinns’s Knowing and Willing Halves of Mind ……………………………..... 34 1.8.3 Francisco Varela’s, Evan Thompson’s, and Eleanor Rosch’s Embodied Mind ………... 35 1.8.4 Andy Clark’s Extended Mind …………………………………………………………... 35 1.8.5 Role of Mind Understood by Paola Zizzi ………………………………………………. 36 1.9 Mind in Buddhism, Consciousness in Tibetan Buddhism ……………………………… 36 1.9.1 Mind in Buddhism ……………………………………………………………………… 36 1.9.2 B.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Pragmatic Systems Biology and Systems-Theoretical Biology Divide: Toward a Complexity-Inspired Epistemology of Systems Biomedicine
    Rethinking the pragmatic systems biology and systems-theoretical biology divide: toward a complexity-inspired epistemology of systems biomedicine Srdjan Kesić* Department of Neurophysiology, Institute for Biological Research “Siniša Stanković,” University of Belgrade, Despot Stefan Blvd. 142, 11060 Belgrade, Serbia * Corresponding author: Srdjan Kesić, PhD Assistant Research Professor, Department of Neurophysiology, Institute for Biological Research ―Siniša Stanković,‖ University of Belgrade, Despot Stefan Blvd., 142, 11060, Belgrade, Serbia. Tel: +381 61 3127580 E-mail: [email protected] Short Title: Systems biology and epistemology of systems biomedicine 1 Abstract This paper examines some methodological and epistemological issues underlying the ongoing ―artificial‖ divide between pragmatic-systems biology and systems-theoretical biology. The pragmatic systems view of biology has encountered problems and constraints on its explanatory power because pragmatic systems biologists still tend to view systems as mere collections of parts, not as ―emergent realities‖ produced by adaptive interactions between the constituting components. As such, they are incapable of characterizing the higher-level biological phenomena adequately. The attempts of systems-theoretical biologists to explain these ―emergent realities‖ using mathematics also fail to produce satisfactory results. Given the increasing strategic importance of systems biology, both from theoretical and research perspectives, we suggest that additional epistemological and methodological insights into the possibility of further integration between traditional experimental studies and complex modeling are required. This integration will help to improve the currently underdeveloped pragmatic-systems biology and system-theoretical biology. The ―epistemology of complexity,‖ I contend, acts as a glue that connects and integrates different and sometimes opposing viewpoints, perspectives, streams, and practices, thus maintaining intellectual and research coherence of systems research of life.
    [Show full text]
  • Hard Or Soft Environmental Systems?
    HARD OR SOFT ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS? M.B . Beck International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria RR-81-4 March 1981 Reprinted from Ecological Modelling, volume 11 (1981) INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSIS Laxenburg, Austria Research Reports, which record research conducted at IIASA, are independently reviewed before publication. However, the views and opinions they express are not necessarily those of the Institute or the National Member Organizations that support it. Reprinted with permission from Ecological Modelling 11 :233 - 251 , 1981 Copyright© 1981 Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright holder. iii FOREWORD In recent years there has been considerable interest in developing models for river and lake ecological systems, much of it directed toward large and complex simulation models. However, this trend gives rise to concern on several important counts. In particular, relatively little attention has been given to the problems of uncertainty and errors in field data, of inadequate amounts of field data, and of uncertainty about parameter estimates and the relations between important variables. The work of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) on environmental quality control and management is addressing problems such as these, and one of the principal themes of the work is to develop a framework for modeling poorly defined environmental systems. This paper discusses, in qualitative terms, the preliminary outlines of such a frame­ work.
    [Show full text]
  • Information System Meta-Synthesis Research Based on SOA
    Send Orders for Reprints to [email protected] 586 The Open Cybernetics & Systemics Journal, 2014, 8, 586-593 Open Access Information System Meta-Synthesis Research Based on SOA Shibin He*, Juhui Cao and Yi Zhang Department of Military Engineering, Logistics Engineering University, Chongqing, China Abstract: This paper is to about the main contents and basic working principles of information system meta-synthesis based on SOA. In the anterior part of the paper, we explained the current situations of the information system manage- ment and working conditions, and pointed out the reasons why we had to think over the disadvantages and advantages of information system meta-synthesis. In the middle part of the paper, we point out the basic principles of SOA, and intro- duced the layers of the SOA structure. And then, we created a probable architecture of the information system meta- synthesis based on SOA. In order to explain more clearly of this structure, the papaer described the mapping relationships between task requests and services by using nodes network structure, and some mathematics methods or models were used to analyze. Some formulas were also used to express the longest and the average distance of the services responding time. Three main physical layers were created in this architecture, public core service layer, service construction layer and service application layer. Each layer contained different services and achieved different functions. Finally, we took a cer- tain area information system as an example to illustrate the main contents of this structure, and analyzed the relationships among those layers. In the end of the paper, we summed up all the advantages and superiorities of information system meta-synthesis based on SOA, and proposed the research keynotes in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Siddharth Paper TITLE: the Systemics of (Meta)Design Abstract: Much Of
    GA2009 – XII Generative Art Conference – Politecnico di Milano University, Italy Siddharth Paper TITLE: The Systemics of (Meta)Design Abstract: Much of our knowledge today is being informed + transformed by the advent of systems’ sciences [1], and recent advances in technology & computation. Design, when looked at from trans-disciplinarity and the contemporary systemic view, can be seen as a process of systemic intervention in the evolution of interconnected complex adaptive & dynamic living systems. A successful design-system needs to holistically understand the system/s it is dealing and identify key participatory strategies, which when applied via collectively selected points of intervention, can result in a successful integration/overlay onto the system/s that are being addressed. This brings us to the notion of MetaDesign [2, 3] Systems, seen as a contemporary design framework for strategic & systemic comprehension + intervention. It is hoped that this paper will attempt Topic: Design-Systems to address the following: Author: - Evaluate current design methodologies for holistically Siddharth understanding dynamic living systems PhD Student, Spatial Information Architecture - Develop strategies for Systemic Intervention, based on current Laboratory, RMIT insights & understanding of Systems Sciences. This would include University, Australia describing collective/ participatory methods of analysis + synthesis, www.sial.rmit.edu.au defining intervention points, and evolutionary pathways (& quanta) that constitute a MetaDesign System. References: [1] Charles François (1999), Systemics and Cybernetics in a Historical Perspective. in: Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol 16, pp. 203–219 [2] Giaccardi, E. (2004). "Principles of Metadesign: Processes and Levels of Co-Creation in the New Design Space". PhD Thesis, University of Plymouth, UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Soft Systems Methodology
    Soft Systems Methodology An Introduction Computer Science/Roskilde University, Spring 1994 Jesper Simonsen Soft Systems Methodology......................................................................................1 Background...........................................................................................................1 SSM 1981 ...............................................................................................................2 Stage 1 and 2..............................................................................................3 Stage 3........................................................................................................4 Stage 4........................................................................................................5 Stage 5........................................................................................................6 Stage 6 and 7..............................................................................................7 SSM 1990 ...............................................................................................................7 The Stream of Logic-Based Enquiry........................................................9 The Stream of Cultural Enquiry ............................................................11 SSM and the Construction of IS ........................................................................12 Table of Key Concepts and Techniques/Guidelines.......................................14 The Philosophy of SSM......................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • The Fire and Smoke Model Evaluation Experiment—A Plan for Integrated, Large Fire–Atmosphere Field Campaigns
    atmosphere Review The Fire and Smoke Model Evaluation Experiment—A Plan for Integrated, Large Fire–Atmosphere Field Campaigns Susan Prichard 1,*, N. Sim Larkin 2, Roger Ottmar 2, Nancy H.F. French 3 , Kirk Baker 4, Tim Brown 5, Craig Clements 6 , Matt Dickinson 7, Andrew Hudak 8 , Adam Kochanski 9, Rod Linn 10, Yongqiang Liu 11, Brian Potter 2, William Mell 2 , Danielle Tanzer 3, Shawn Urbanski 12 and Adam Watts 5 1 University of Washington School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195-2100, USA 2 US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103, USA; [email protected] (N.S.L.); [email protected] (R.O.); [email protected] (B.P.); [email protected] (W.M.) 3 Michigan Technological University, 3600 Green Court, Suite 100, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA; [email protected] (N.H.F.F.); [email protected] (D.T.) 4 US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Durham, NC 27709, USA; [email protected] 5 Desert Research Institute, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV 89512, USA; [email protected] (T.B.); [email protected] (A.W.) 6 San José State University Department of Meteorology and Climate Science, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192-0104, USA; [email protected] 7 US Forest Service Northern Research Station, 359 Main Rd., Delaware, OH 43015, USA; [email protected] 8 US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Moscow Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 1221 S Main St., Moscow, ID 83843, USA; [email protected] 9 Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Utah, 135 S 1460 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0110, USA; [email protected] 10 Los Alamos National Laboratory, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Systems Thinking in Tobacco Control
    NCI TOBACCO CONTROL MONOGRAPH SERIES 18 National Cancer Institute Greater Than the Sum Systems Thinking in Tobacco Control Edited by Allan Best, Ph.D. Pamela I. Clark, Ph.D. Scott J. Leischow, Ph.D. U.S. DEPARTMENT William M. K. Trochim, Ph.D. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Other NCI Tobacco Control Monographs Strategies to Control Tobacco Use in the United States: A Blueprint for Public Health Action in the 1990’s. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 1. NIH Pub. No. 92-3316, December 1991. Smokeless Tobacco or Health: An International Perspective. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 2. NIH Pub. No. 92-3461, September 1992. Major Local Tobacco Control Ordinances in the United States. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 3. NIH Pub. No. 93-3532, May 1993. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 4. NIH Pub. No. 93-3605, August 1993. Tobacco and the Clinician: Interventions for Medical and Dental Practice. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 5. NIH Pub. No. 94-3693, January 1994. Community-based Interventions for Smokers: The COMMIT Field Experience. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 6. NIH Pub. No. 95-4028, August 1995. The FTC Cigarette Test Method for Determining Tar, Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide Yields of U.S. Cigarettes. Report of the NCI Expert Committee. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 7. NIH Pub. No. 96-4028, August 1996. Changes in Cigarette-Related Disease Risks and Their Implications for Prevention and Control. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No.
    [Show full text]