Table of Contents
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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. -
Moving Towards a New Urban Systems Science
Ecosystems DOI: 10.1007/s10021-016-0053-4 Ó 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York 20TH ANNIVERSARY PAPER Moving Towards a New Urban Systems Science Peter M. Groffman,1* Mary L. Cadenasso,2 Jeannine Cavender-Bares,3 Daniel L. Childers,4 Nancy B. Grimm,5 J. Morgan Grove,6 Sarah E. Hobbie,3 Lucy R. Hutyra,7 G. Darrel Jenerette,8 Timon McPhearson,9 Diane E. Pataki,10 Steward T. A. Pickett,11 Richard V. Pouyat,12 Emma Rosi-Marshall,11 and Benjamin L. Ruddell13 1Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, City University of New York Advanced Science Research Center and Brooklyn College, New York, New York 10031, USA; 2Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA; 3Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA; 4School of Sustain- ability, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287, USA; 5School of Life Sciences and Global Institute of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287, USA; 6USDA Forest Service, Baltimore Field Station, Baltimore, Maryland 21228, USA; 7Department of Earth and Environment, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA; 8Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California Riverside, Riverside, California 92521, USA; 9Urban Ecology Lab, Environmental Studies Program, The New School, New York, New York 10003, USA; 10Department of Biology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA; 11Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New York 12545, USA; 12USDA Forest Service, Research and Development, District of Columbia, Washington 20502, USA; 13School of Informatics, Computing, and Cyber Systems, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001, USA ABSTRACT Research on urban ecosystems rapidly expanded in linchpins in the further development of sustain- the 1990s and is now a central topic in ecosystem ability science and argue that there is a strong need science. -
What's in a Mental Model of a Dynamic System? Conceptual Structure and Model Comparison
What’s in a mental model of a dynamic system? Conceptual structure and model comparison Martin Schaffernicht Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales Universidad de Talca Avenida Lircay s/n 3460000 Talca, CHILE [email protected] Stefan N. Groesser University of St. Gallen Institute of Management System Dynamics Group Dufourstrasse 40a CH - 9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland Tel: +41 71 224 23 82 / Fax: +41 71 224 23 55 [email protected] Contribution to the International System Dynamics Conference 2009 Albuquerque, NM, U.S.A. Abstract This paper deals with the representation of mental models of dynamic systems (MMDS). Improving ’mental models’ has always been fundamental in the field of system dynamics. Even though a specific definition exists, no conceptual model of the structure of a MMDS has been offered so far. Previous research about the learning effects of system dynamics interventions have used two methods to represent and analyze mental models. To what extend is the result of these methods comparable? Can they be used to account for a MMDS which is suitable for the system dynamics methodology? Two exemplary MMDSs are compared with both methods. We have found that the procedures and results differ significantly . In addition, neither of the methods can account for the concept of feedback loops. Based on this finding, we propose a conceptual model for the structure of a MMDS, a method to compare them, and a revised definition of MMDS. The paper concludes with a call for more substantive research. Keywords : Mental models, dynamic systems, mental model comparison, graph theory, mental model measurement Introduction Mental models have been a key concept in system dynamics from the beginning of the field (Forrester, 1961). -
Warren Mcculloch and the British Cyberneticians
Warren McCulloch and the British cyberneticians Article (Accepted Version) Husbands, Phil and Holland, Owen (2012) Warren McCulloch and the British cyberneticians. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 37 (3). pp. 237-253. ISSN 0308-0188 This version is available from Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/43089/ This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies and may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the URL above for details on accessing the published version. Copyright and reuse: Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University. Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available. Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. http://sro.sussex.ac.uk Warren McCulloch and the British Cyberneticians1 Phil Husbands and Owen Holland Dept. Informatics, University of Sussex Abstract Warren McCulloch was a significant influence on a number of British cyberneticians, as some British pioneers in this area were on him. -
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 -
The Science of the Unknowable: Stafford Beer's Cybernetic Informatics
The Science of the Unknowable: Stafford Beer’s Cybernetic Informatics Andrew Pickering University of Illinois Department of Sociology Urbana, IL 61801 [email protected] Cybernetics and New Ontologies: An interview session with Andrew Pickering Kristian Hvidtfelt Nielsen [email protected] The Steno Institute University of Aarhus Working Papers from Centre for STS Studies Department of Information & Media Studies University of Aarhus Published by The Centre for STS Studies, Aarhus 2006. Editorial board: Peter Lauritsen, Simon Kiilerich Madsen, Finn Olesen. Andrew Pickering: The Science of the Unknowable: Stafford Beer’s Cybernetic Informatics Kristian Hvidtfelt Nielsen: Cybernetics and New Ontologies: An interview session with Andrew Pickering © The authors, 2006. Printed at Fællestrykkeriet for Sundhedsvidenskab, University of Aarhus. Cover design: Annette Bjerre Design. ISBN 9788791386121 (print) ISBN 9788791386138 (web) The Centre for STS Studies Department of Information & Media Studies Helsingforsgade 14 DK-8200 Aarhus N Tel: +45 8942 9200 Fax: +45 8942 5950 [email protected] http://imv.au.dk/sts The Science of the Unknowable: Stafford Beer’s Cybernetic Informatics Andrew Pickering University of Illinois Department of Sociology [email protected] This essay derives from a larger project exploring the history of cybernetics in Britain in and after World War II.1 The project focusses on the work of four British cyberneticians—Grey Walter, Ross Ashby, Stafford Beer and Gordon Pask; here I focus on Stafford Beer, the founder of the field he called management cybernetics, and his work in informatics.2 Anthony Stafford Beer was born in London in 1926. He joined the British Army in 1944 after just one year as an undergraduate in London, and served in India and Britain. -
1 Umpleby Stuart Reconsidering Cybernetics
UMPLEBY STUART RECONSIDERING CYBERNETICS The field of cybernetics attracted great attention in the 1950s and 1960s with its prediction of a Second Industrial Revolution due to computer technology. In recent years few people in the US have heard of cybernetics (Umpleby, 2015a, see Figures 1 and 2 at the end of Paper). But a wave of recent books suggests that interest in cybernetics is returning (Umpleby and Hughes, 2016, see Figure at the end of Paper). This white paper reviews some basic ideas in cybernetics. I recommend these and other ideas as a resource for better understanding and modeling of social systems, including threat and response dynamics. Some may claim that whatever was useful has already been incorporated in current work generally falling under the complexity label, but that is not the case. Work in cybernetics has continued with notable contributions in recent years. Systems science, complex systems, and cybernetics are three largely independent fields with their own associations, journals and conferences (Umpleby, 2017). Four types of descriptions used in social science After working in social science and systems science for many years I realized that different academic disciplines use different basic elements. Economists use measurable variables such as price, savings, GDP, imports and exports. Psychologists focus on ideas, concepts and attitudes. Sociologists and political scientists focus on groups, organizations, and coalitions. Historians and legal scholars emphasize events and procedures. People trained in different disciplines construct different narratives using these basic elements. One way to reveal more of the variety in a social system is to create at least four descriptions – one each using variables, ideas, groups, and events (See the figures and tables in Medvedeva & Umpleby, 2015). -
Multiple Perspective of Mobile Money System Development: Action Case of E-Masary Wallet
Multiple Perspective of Mobile Money System Development: Action Case of e-Masary Wallet A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In the Faculty of Humanities 2015 Mostafa Mohamad Manchester Business School University of Manchester 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................... 2 LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. 8 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................. 11 ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 12 DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................... 16 COPYRIGHT STATEMENT ............................................................................................................... 17 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................................... 18 ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................... 16 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Area of concern ................................................................................................................................ -
ESD.00 Introduction to Systems Engineering, Lecture 3 Notes
Introduction to Engineering Systems, ESD.00 System Dynamics Lecture 3 Dr. Afreen Siddiqi From Last Time: Systems Thinking • “we can’t do just one thing” – things are interconnected and our actions have Decisions numerous effects that we often do not anticipate or realize. Goals • Many times our policies and efforts aimed towards some objective fail to produce the desired outcomes, rather we often make Environment matters worse Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Ref: Figure 1-4, J. Sterman, Business Dynamics: Systems • Systems Thinking involves holistic Thinking and Modeling for a complex world, McGraw Hill, 2000 consideration of our actions Dynamic Complexity • Dynamic (changing over time) • Governed by feedback (actions feedback on themselves) • Nonlinear (effect is rarely proportional to cause, and what happens locally often doesn’t apply in distant regions) • History‐dependent (taking one road often precludes taking others and determines your destination, you can’t unscramble an egg) • Adaptive (the capabilities and decision rules of agents in complex systems change over time) • Counterintuitive (cause and effect are distant in time and space) • Policy resistant (many seemingly obvious solutions to problems fail or actually worsen the situation) • Char acterized by trade‐offs (h(the l ong run is often differ ent f rom the short‐run response, due to time delays. High leverage policies often cause worse‐before‐better behavior while low leverage policies often generate transitory improvement before the problem grows worse. Modes of Behavior Exponential Growth Goal Seeking S-shaped Growth Time Time Time Oscillation Growth with Overshoot Overshoot and Collapse Time Time Time Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Ref: Figure 4-1, J. -
Issues to Consider While Developing a System Dynamics Model
Issues to Consider While Developing a System Dynamics Model Elizabeth K. Keating Kellogg Graduate School of Management Northwestern University Leverone Hall, Room 599 Evanston, IL 60208-2002 Tel: (847) 467-3343 Fax: (847) 467-1202 e-mail: [email protected] August 1999 I. Introduction Over the past forty years, system dynamicists have developed techniques to aid in the design, development and testing of system dynamics models. Several articles have proposed model development frameworks (for example, Randers (1980), Richardson and Pugh (1981), and Roberts et al. (1983)), while others have provided detailed advice on more narrow modeling issues. This note is designed as a reference tool for system dynamic modelers, tying the numerous specialized articles to the modeling framework outlined in Forrester (1994). The note first reviews the “system dynamics process” and modeling phases suggested by Forrester (1994). Within each modeling phase, the note provides a list of issues to consider; the modeler should then use discretion in selecting the issues that are appropriate for that model and modeling engagement. Alternatively, this note can serve as a guide for students to assist them in analyzing and critiquing system dynamic models. II. A System Dynamic Model Development Framework System dynamics modelers often pursue a similar development pattern. Several system dynamicists have proposed employing structured development procedures when creating system dynamics models. Some modelers have often relied on the “standard method” proposed by Randers (1980), Richardson and Pugh (1981), and Roberts et al. (1983) to ensure the quality and reliability of the model development process. Forrester (1994) Recently, Wolstenholme (1994) and Loebbke and Bui (1996) have drawn upon experiences in developing decision support systems (DSS) to provide guidance on model construction and analysis. -
Edited by Allenna Leonard EFLECTIONS on the FESTIVAL
AM ERICAN SO CIETY FOR CYBERNETICS Number 3 NEWSLETTER Edited by Allenna Leonard August 1980 EFLECTIONS ON THE FESTIVAL By Shelly Clemson AFTERTHOUGHTS - EDITORIAL COMMENT By Roger Conant Participants in the First Annual Cybernetics estival at Sunset, Maine basked in sunshine, We will not convince the world tha t we have omaraderie, and participative labor for two anything worthwhi le to offer as a group/disci ovely days. Roger and Shirley Conant, hosts pline, if we cannot apply our understandings tc f the "happening", survived the brief trans ourselves. Do we understand self-organization! ormation of their summer homestead into a Then we should be able to bootstrap and self onference center. ASC folk from Washington, D.C. organize into a li:vely society. Do we under aryland, Virginia, Orono, ME., Chicago (Conant's stand circular causality? Then we should be Lnter home), New Hampshire (Larry Heilprin's able to apply positive feedback to our own op nmner home), Boston and Jakarta, Indonesia erations. Do we understand control and commun ~arry Clemson's parents) gave the meeting a ications? Then we need to modify the design of Lobal perspective. our own existing channels of communications anc Despite the overall mood of casual raillery, develop new ones to enhance both our internal ~ighty issues were the order of the day. Basic interactions and those wh;ich we have with the ;sumptions, such as the proper role of profess external environment. Tf we fail we shall not >nal societies, the unique mission of ASC, and only be an organizational flop, we shall as te desirability and rate of membership expansion practitioners have given a'l!lple evidence that !re on the agenda. -
EMERGY SYNTHESIS 5: Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology
EMERGY SYNTHESIS 5: Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology Proceedings from the Fifth Biennial Emergy Conference, Gainesville, Florida Edited by Mark T. Brown University of Florida Gainesville, Florida Managing Editor Sharlynn Sweeney University of Florida Gainesville, Florida Associate Editors Daniel E. Campbell US EPA Narragansett, Rhode Island Shu-Li Huang National Taipei University Taipei, Taiwan Enrique Ortega State University of Campinas Campinas, Brazil Torbjorn Rydberg Centre for Sustainable Agriculture Uppsala, Sweden David Tilley University of Maryland College Park, Maryland Sergio Ulgiati Parthenope University of Napoli Napoli, Italy December 2009 The Center for Environmental Policy Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences University of Florida Gainesville, FL ii 39 A Call to Empower Gaia William Perk and Cornelius Crane ABSTRACT Nature doesn’t use dollars; we need a cosmic accounting system… R. Buckminster Fuller Since the seminal “emergy methodology” of the late H. T. Odum and colleagues essentially meets what Bucky Fuller was insisting is needed, the current issue we intend to address is, “how do we get humanity to accept this “cosmic accounting?” Obviously, participants in this event are prime candidates to help bring this about. We suggest putting the parlous state of our planet, Gaia, at the top of the list of urgent reasons for such a transformed accounting system. Then we propose to use Bucky’s insistence on “new forming, not reforming” to focus on the recapture of the “commons”—by creating appropriate “Trusts” for that purpose—which will utilize emergy and emdollars throughout its activities in behalf of the “commons”. And guiding the activities of such Trusts will be the Fuller Challenge: “To make the world work for 100% of humanity in the shortest possible time through spontaneous cooperation without ecological offense or the disadvantage of anyone.” Finally, effective organization of such Trusts will be ensured by the seminal cybernetic management strategies and praxis of the late great Stafford Beer.