Submitting your abstract, please, contribute by 1) answering, at least, one of the below questions and 2) making, at least another related question. All accepted abstracts along with the new questions will be shared with all authors whose abstracts has been accepted for presentation, before the last 5 days left to the conference
What is NSR 2021?
NSR 2021 would be based on relational thinking, in this specific case, it would be relating your research and/or research in your disciplinary, inter-, or trans-disciplinary field to your community and/or Society al large. In this context, it would be related to what research is for and/or what the research should be for, i.e., what is and/or should be the purpose of research in any disciplinary, inter- or trans-disciplinary field. What is, and/or should be the orientative North Star, in a specific intellectual field and/or in general.
Consequently, you are invited to submit an abstract related to any of the following questions? You can address anyone(s) of them, or any other related to them, but always keeping in mind the topic of this special track, i.e., “North Star for Research”.
1. What is and/or should be the final purpose (the telos) of research in your field/or in general? 2. Why research, in your field, may achieve its present of potential purpose? 3. How research (in your field and/or in general) is being done now and/or how should be done? 4. In your specific case, what would be the short and the long term purpose of your research? How do you think you may achieve it? What would be the short and the long term of research in general? Authors of all accepted abstract will have access to the other accepted abstracts, so they can enhance their conference presentation referencing each other.
The special Track NSR 2021 is:
1. Meta-research (research on research), 2. Second-Order Cybernetics* Research (SOC), which requires reflection on what is being observed and reflexion on the observing system, i.e., the research, what is researched and the relationships between them* 3. Researching the researcher as related to its research object, i.e., to observe the observer while observing the observed) and/or 4. Research-based reflections on what the final purpose of research is, and/or should be.
* I.e., Researching the researcher as related to its research object, i.e., to observe the observer while observing the observed. SOC is based on Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle And Niels Bohr’s Complementarity Principle.
You may address the above question, or other related to them, at the local, national and/or global level.
Topics, as questions that may be answered (Addressing the following issues is a necessary condition for the acceptance of any abstract)
For many reasons we prefer to suggest questions to potential answers rather than words or phrases. The main reason is that, as affirmed in an abstract below, “according to Lonergan (who is considered by many intellectuals to be the finest philosophic thinker of the 20th century." Time, April 27, 1970, p. 10), making questions is the first step in our understanding. To think on the respective answers or, at least, to try to answer questions may generate insights which are necessary conditions to transforms our experience in understanding. Is it not time to enhance and/or deepen our understanding regarding the notion and the activities of Research? Is this not a priority for researchers?”
These questions are based on the abstract annexed below, which represent what inspired and what is the purpose of this special track and corresponding publications:
1. Is ‘research’ a means or an end in itself? a. If it is a mean, what is the end, or the purpose for which research is a means? b. If it is an end-in itself, what would be its long term purpose, in general, or in a given disciplinary, inter-, or trans-disciplinary field. 2. Is it valid Dr. Teresa Langness’ suggestion as to the North Pole of research is 'Improving Life'?, then: a. How do you think this is being done on your research, academic, or professional field? b. How should it be done? 3. Should the purpose of research include an ethical dimension? Which kind of Ethics should have? a. What would be the researcher’s Deontological Ethics. i.e., the ethic related to duties? b. What would be the researcher’s Consequencialist Ethics, i.e., the ethics related to contribute to the common good? c. A systemic, potentially cybernetic, Ethics, based on a combination of the two above? d. Other ethical perspective. 4. How adequate us the Ethical Education of future researchers? If it can be improved, how? Should it be improved? 5. If it is valid the suggestion made by Dr. Teresa Langness’ as to the North Pole of research is 'Improving Life', then, the question she made in her conversational session are 100% valid for this special track, these are the following (we are making copy and paste of part of her abstract annexed below 6. a. What process have you pursued in your own work that helped you identify a North Star? Do you have models for shaping a career harnessed to a conviction that enhances life? Have setbacks altered your path or strengthened your resolve? b. Some of the greatest success stories of Nobel Prize winners have confirmed the value of centering research around a firm conviction but also seeing the question through the eyes of colleagues across the disciplines, who may apply the research differently to improve life even more effectively. Have you witnessed that process in your own work? c. Have you faced challenges that sent you on a research path far from your North Star? Have industry standards proven a springboard or a ceiling for your research? If so, how have you overcome the challenge? d. Have you seen a pattern between the timing of world events and your own personal and professional evolution? How does your research about improving life for others affect your own transformation and vice versa? e. Take one minute to think of a wish you have always had, such as the Esther Duflo’s wish to create a system to end poverty. In your presentation, ask the attendees of your session to raise their hands if they like to state their research area, and their North Star wish. As you listen to one another, think of the potential for overlapping ideals and ideas. Does someone else’s North Star align with yours? Could there be an area of joint research to create a Super Nova star? If so, send them your contact information and begin a collaboration. Then follow your North Star together.
Your presentation and, consequently, your abstract should be addressing the above question, and/or making more related questions. This is a necessary condition for the acceptance of any abstract submitted to this special topic and, hence, for its presentation at the conference and options for following publications, with no charge for the authors.
The main purpose of this special track is to generate reflections and reflections based on research-experience, regarding issues related to the general purpose of research. It is about self- reflection research, supported by Second Order Cybernetics which; in turn, is based on Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle and Bohr’s Complementarity Principle.
Purpose of NSR 2021
The Special Track on “North Star for Research” was inspired by Dr. Teresa Langness in her plenary keynote address at the IIIS March 2021 conference.
A main purpose is to maximize the number of perspectives from different disciplinary, inter-, and trans-disciplinary fields (as well as from different national cultures and economies) “North Star for Research” is a trans-disciplinary topic that may require to be addressed by any intellectual discipline; including those in scientific, engineering, technological, philosophical, theological, humanistic, artistic, esthetic, etc. fields. It is an important topic with an increasing urgency to be addressed by as many disciplines as possible. This kind of multi-disciplinary forum for addressing trans-disciplinary topics is a main purpose of IIIS Conferences, especially because it is an effective way to foster interdisciplinary communication; which it is a necessary condition for inter-disciplinary research and education. The later are, in turn, necessary conditions for addressing specific and general real life problems, including, in local, national and global contexts.
Members of the International Institute of Informatics and Systemic (IIIS) have volunteered along with a financial support provided by a start up publisher to make feasible the waiving of the registration fee for participants in this special track to be held in the 25th World Multi- Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics: WMSCI 2021© on July 18 - 21, 2021; which will be a virtual one. An additional day would be added if necessary.
Steps
The steps for participating in this special track and potential following publications of associated full papers (which article processing charge would be waived) will be the following:
1. Submission of an abstract, by or before June 15. 2021, using the link: http://www.iiis2021.org/wmsci/abssub/default.asp?vc=1 2. Authors of all accepted abstracts will be programmed in the WMSCI 2021 virtual conference for their respective presentations, which should be asynchronous ones. 3. The abstracts will be published in the “Abstracts Proceedings” of the Special track or in the conference book, depending on the accepted and presented submissions. In any case, the abstracts will be published on the web: 1) in the conference web site and 2) in Academia.Edu, which has an audience of 158,388,592 academics and researchers. Full papers will not be included in the conference proceedings of full papers. 4. The best abstracts/presentations will be selected and their authors will be invited to write the respective full articles for their Participative Peer-to-Peer Reviewing (PPPR) and, hence, if accepted will be published in a special issue the IIIS’s journal, indexed by DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journal, a white list) since 2003. The Article Processing Cost will be waived for the authors whose full papers have been accepted. 5. Authors of the best papers may also be invited to participate, with their full papers, in a printed open-book which will be distributed via Amazon at a very low price, close to the lowest required by Amazon. The respective article processing charge will be waived as well.
To increase the acceptance probability of your abstract:
Please, read carefully, the first two sections above, as well as the questions (given above) that define its topics, in order to increase the possibility of accepting your abstract. A necessary condition to accept an in this special track is that it has to be strictly related to the topic of North Star for Research (NSR 2021).
Maximizing the variety of disciplinary and cultural background:
We are trying to follow Ross Ashby’s First Law of Cybernetics which he summarized with the phrase “Variety destroy Variety”, i.e., variety is required to increase the adaptability of any system, hence of any conference track which is a system (related set of) of presentations and publications.
This is why one of our main purposes in to maximize 1) the number different disciplinary, inter-, and trans-disciplinary fields and 2) the number of different countries and cultures, especially because this topic is a trans-disciplinary, trans-national, and trans-cultural one. This is one of the reasons why we are removing any cost for the virtual presentation.
Consequently, feel free, please, to send this call for presentation to other departments in your organization and personally invite personal colleagues of yours in your department, in other departments, or in your academic or research network.
For Authors Who Already Are Participating in the Conference
Authors who are already registered at the conference may also submit an abstract and, if accepted, its presentation will not require an additional second paper fee, because 1) there has been no article processing cost and 2) this special track has a financial support from a start up publisher.
ANNEX
Abstracts Related to this Call for Presentations
The following two abstracts are related to two plenary presentations at the IIIS’s March 2021 conference that inspired this special track, on the “North Star for Research” and generated the volunteering work from different members of the IIIS and the financial support provided by the star up publisher. The third abstract is a sad example, being lived since January 2020 in the whole world; which shows the importance and even urgency and the necessity of a Meta- Research, i.e., Researching Research with the orientation of not confusing means with their ends and the danger of taking a means as an end in itself.
Dr. Teresa Langness, USA, Nonprofit Board President at Full-Circle Learning and author of about 50 books.
Plenary Keynote Address: "'Improving Life' as Your North Star for Research"
This keynote address evaluates the impact of research centered on enhancing the quality of life. It presents examples of research in which the essential question, pivoting around altruistic possibilities, set in motion long-term outcomes that extended beyond the length of the project. The examples listed occur in the past and present, across the disciplines, in engineering, science, social science, social action research, education, and communications technologies. The relationship between research questions, methods, and long-term outcomes pointed to the concept that research guided by a North Star influences not only the subjects involved but the broader society. In some cases, it ultimately enhanced the cohesion and destiny of humans and other species. Thus, continually holding this as an ideal had the potential to shape the researcher, the research field, and human progress itself. Findings include the long-term outcomes accrued during and beyond the lifetime of the researchers involved. Conclusions are reinforced by global trends in “Improving Life” as the result of research.
Dr. Teresa Langness, USA, Full-Circle Learning, Nonprofit Board President at Full-Circle Learning, Author of about 50 books
Plenary Conversational Session: "'Improving Life' as Your North Star for Research"
This session is based on a plenary talk and paper evaluating the impact of research centered on enhancing the quality of life. The material presents examples of research in which the essential question, pivoting around altruistic possibilities, set in motion long-term outcomes that extended beyond the life of the project. The examples occur across the disciplines, in engineering, science, social science, social action research, education, health, environment, and communications technologies. The human processes that redounded to human progress point to the concept that research matters most when it sustains life, improves the quality of life or otherwise enhances the cohesion and destiny of humans and other species, and that continually holding this as an ideal has the potential to shape the researcher, the research field, and human progress itself. Findings include the long-term outcomes accrued during and beyond the lifetime of the researchers involved. Conclusions are reinforced by transdisciplinary trends inaugurated as the result of research.
Discussion Questions
1. What process have you pursued in your own work that helped you identify a North Star? Do you have models for shaping a career harnessed to a conviction that enhances life? Have setbacks altered your path or strengthened your resolve? 2. Some of the greatest success stories of Nobel prize winners have confirmed the value of centering research around a firm conviction but also seeing the question through the eyes of colleagues across the disciplines, who may apply the research differently to improve life even more effectively. Have you witnessed that process in your own work? 3. Have you faced challenges that sent you on a research path far from your North Star? Have industry standards proven a springboard or a ceiling for your research? If so, how have you overcome the challenge? 4. Have you seen a pattern between the timing of world events and your own personal and professional evolution? How does your research about improving life for others affect your own transformation and vice versa? 5. Take one minute to think of a wish you have always had, such as the Esther Duflo’s wish to create a system to end poverty. Raise your hand in the Participant feature if you would like to state your name, your research area, and your North Star wish. As you listen to one another, think of the potential for overlapping ideals and ideas. Does someone else’s North Star align with yours? Could there be an area of joint research to create a Super Nova star? If so, in the chat, send them your contact information and begin a collaboration. Then follow your North Star together.
Dr. Jeremy Horne, USA, President-Emeritus, Southwest Area Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), [email protected]
Extended abstract: Where are you, now that we really need you?
Two facts:
• In late October 2017 the north magnetic pole crossed the international date line, passing within 390 km of the geographic pole, and is now moving southwards" [Livermore and Bayliff, 2020]. • "In late October 2017 the north magnetic pole crossed the international date line, passing within 390 km of the geographic pole, and is now moving southwards" [Livermore and Bayliff, 2020].
Because of equinox precession, the "North Star" will change from Ursa Minor (current one) to Gamma Cephei around the year 4200 CE [Ridpath, 1988] So goes universal processes, fortunately for us very slow. Not so fast, there fans. Another compass is moving a lot more rapidly, and not to be hyperbolic, threatening to engulf our very existence. I'll leave this morsel for you as a reward for reading my paper and soon-to-be- published book, Zero is Greater Than One, admittedly plying on the native curiosity of genuine academics. Meanwhile, I will be searching for Robert Peary; maybe he can help us get back up to the geographic North Pole, as he first did 6 April 1909. At least that won't change in our oblate spheroid planet. Yet, so many others have lost their bearings they cannot muster the courage to come together to confront one of the greatest dangers to scholarship – deteriorating knowledge quality – such as with a knowledge quality institute. It is too great an undertaking, even though a private organization does not seem to have thought so, Cabells requiring hefty "admission fees" to participate in even learning who the offenders are, let alone helping to stop the problem. It's like your having to pay to be a member of a police force. What's wrong with this picture? One major publisher I tried interesting them in a monitoring organization and who bragged to the public about it fighting for quality peer review exposed its yellow belly after being spooked by self- serving attorneys (I presume) too incompetent to ward of the simplest of threats. I guess they were so steeped in their Medievalism reading their law books they never heard of the IEEE or other standards organizations. Years ago, Professor Nagib Callaos invited me to present an IIIS conference on peer-review, and the deeper I dug, the more artifacts I found betraying the true essence of the problem and indicative of what is to come. They, like geological stratigraphy, told the story. This paper describes some findings and what to do. The academic Pole Star one guiding the raison etre of research has disappeared, leaving the sky populated only with destructive competition, siloed (hence isolated and alienating) teaching and research, and regular gamma-ray bursts from knowledge fakers interested only the crassest material narcissistic gain. Here, I address the Universal level of: research (n.) 1570s, "act of searching closely," from French recerche (1530s, Modern French recherche), back-formation from Old French recercher (see research (v.)). Meaning "scientific inquiry" is first attested 1630s. [Research, 2021] "What is its purpose?" focuses on Aristotle's "final cause", an exercise in recursion, if there ever was one. An "interdisciplinarian" will quickly realize his other three causes – material, formal, and efficient - interlace to result in education's efficacy. Of course, we have to know the meaning of that word, too, many "educators" failing to understand the real meaning underpinning the verbiage. Recursively, we search ourselves through ourselves, and to do that requires we identify our values, and only then can we distinguish between "episteme" and "techne". I fell in love with the Queen of Sciences back in the 1970s, and the University of Florida granted me that craved license in 1988, so I am a bit prejudiced about desired research goals. I got religion, but not the way Koran-Bible-Talmud-Veda and other "holy book" thumpers would have it. Look up "religion" for those speaking Latin. In one sense, I am a Roman at heart. For me and my spouse, the answer is simple: "the love of wisdom", and contemplating our navels gives us more satisfaction than discovering all the sub-atomic particles, animal/plant species, or spies lurking in the depths of crumbling empires. No old cheap US Wild West saloon whore is she. Her valise is packed with lots of critical thinking tools. We can walk into any religious – sectarian or generic – setting and rightly say we are "religious". We laugh our brains out watching these moral reprobates with their sex scandals run for the deep recesses of the nearest outhouse. Check it out. I doubt if many microbiologists would stand in front of their charges proclaiming religiosity, so what do I say to them about their "telos"? Maybe they are one of Nick Bostrom's underlings in his simulated world, creating random species to duke it out in some virtual gladiatorial arena. Getting back into the moment, consider the research spectrum from the infinitesimal (our ultimate ability to measure at Planck scale) to the infinite (limited by our ability to measure light- years). At every location along this spectrum, research occurs, each scholar like a prospector desperately hoping for a large nugget of pure aurum (AU), all of it 79 protons, if you please. Yes, but not only where are you on this spectrum, but where are you in relation to your colleagues, not the least question of how you communicate with them? Whoa, though. You don't even know where Alpha Ursae Minoris is? Remember? Infinitesimal through infinity extends through the Milky Way Galaxy (and its satellites), and it would be wise to identify the motivational engine driving these. You have, insofar as celestial time is concerned, four millennia before the next pole star. I intend not only to build a spaceship for exploring our universe but fuel it with the desperately needed affirmation of our identity. Read on, so you can board with confidence about your destination and the trip, itself. References Livermore, P.W., Finlay, C.C. & Bayliff [2020], M. Recent north magnetic pole acceleration towards Siberia caused by flux lobe elongation. Nat. Geosci. 13, 387–391 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-0570-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-020- 0570-9 Research [2021]. Research. https://www.etymonline.com/word/research Ridpath, Ian [1988]. "Chapter Three: The celestial eighty-eight – Ursa Minor". Star Tales. Cambridge: The Lutterworth Press. ISBN
Dr. Nagib Callaos, USA, founding president of the International Institute of Informatics and Systemics and co-organizer of the Special Track on “North Star for Research”.
Abstract: Could Research Objective Be Research’s Object? Should it be?
If we ask a young researcher why s/he is doing research, s/he may answer: because this is what I am supposed to do. This all right as long s/he is using her/his intellectual freedom to do so and not accepting without any reflection the objective of her/his research.
S/he may answer: I need to do that in order to keep my job or in order to get the next academic promotion, this is also all right, as long as s/he is aware that this is her/his immediate objective and not necessarily his objective as researcher, or his final objective as researcher, let alone the final end of Research, in general.
Consequently, no matter is the answer, it still valid the question what is the purpose of research, is the researcher using a compass to orient her/his research beyond her/his immediate job requirements or immediate intellectual needs or objectives. Should any researcher, young and old ones have an orientation, a supporting compass, for their research? Should they have a research North Pole to orient and support their research decisions? Consequently, should a research objective be its own object of research? Should research be reflexive, i.e., research itself and, consequently, its long term purpose? Dr. Teresa Langness, author of about 50 books, suggests 'Improving Life' should be the North Pole of Research? Is she right? Why? Is she wrong? Why? In the second case what would be your suggestion regarding a potential answer to be considered by another researcher? In she is correct in her suggestion, then what would the North Pole of Research in your disciplinary, inter-, or trans-disciplinary academic, professional, or research fields?
In the first case (she is not all right) what would be your suggestion, based on your research, academic, or professional experience and knowledge?
Is it not time for self-reflecting research? If the answer is yes: why? If the answer is no: why. According to Lonergan (who is considered by many intellectuals to be the finest philosophic thinker of the 20th century." Time, April 27, 1970, p. 10), making questions is the first step in our understanding. To think on the respective answers or, at least, to try to answer questions may generate insights which are necessary conditions to transforms our experience in understanding. Is it not time to enhance and/or deepen our understanding regarding the notion and the activities of Research? Is it not this a priority for researchers?
Dr. Nagib Callaos, USA, founding president of the International Institute of Informatics and Systemics and co-organizer of the Special Track on “North Star for Research”.
Abstract: “The Ethical Dimension of Reflexive-Research in Meta-Research” Research on Research is increasingly being required in several dimensions, including, and especially, in peer reviewing. But a most important research required is regarding the purpose of research in any disciplinary, inter-, and trans-disciplinary fields.
This meta-research process may start by trying to answer the apparently simple question: Is research a means or an end in itself. 1) If it is a means, then what is the end that research should be subordinate to? 2) If the research is an end-in-itself, then what is this end and who decide it?
Is it all right that a much known scientist to decide, or the influence the decision related “virus experiments ‘despite pandemic risk’”? Is it all right to give this opinion in 2012 and then to give again now, after 171,278,524 Coronavirus Cases and 3,562,094 Deaths (by May 31, 2021)? Is this ethical? Should it be legal” Who should decide if the risks are justified in a given research project?
On the other hand, shouldn’t each research have a minimum knowledge about what is the short and large terms purpose of research? Did not arrive the time to initiate meta-research project regarding what is research, what is forth, especially in the long range? Should not we be exploring the notion of research, especially in its ethical dimension? Is it fair not to have an adequate supervision on decisions related to research? We think that this is a complex process, but its initial steps are very simple one: let each researcher and academic make a research-based reflections regarding 1) her/his own purpose which making research and 2) the purpose of research in her/his intra-, inter-, or trans-disciplinary field. Then, let know these opinions to the researchers in other disciplines and to the General Public. The Society, at large should be, at least informed, about what is the last end, the North Pole of Research, especially because it is 1) providing the financial support of “research” and 2) receiving it potential benefits, but also paying the potentially high costs related to the output of research. Should some scientists, or some scientific board take a decision with known societal risks without consulting first with the potentially most affected people and had 3,562,094 Deaths (up to May 31, 2021), is still justifying his decision and his opinion regarding taking the risk of pandemic because the scientific knowledge that might be generated, Is that al right, one or few researcher deciding the destiny of millions of persons, including 171,278,524 Coronavirus Cases, 3,562,094 Deaths and the huge economical and educational costs that the world suffered not because a natural pandemic but by a pandemic which possibility was already known to the researcher. Is this the end of research? Is the end to be decided by one or few scientists without letting know about the risks being taken, not even tie the White House Is that correct? Does not this meta-research on research be required? The actual pandemic is just one example of the huge importance of making meta-research on research. There are other dimensions that require meta-research, as for example, the field of education and especial meta-education, the academic promotional systems that mostly are based on means and not ends, the grants decided by different scientific organisms that almost all countries have in order to provide research with the financial support which, in turn, is provided by the tax-payers and the Society at large,
Consequently, to start thinking about the North Pole of Research and the corresponding meta- research has, not just an ethical dimension, but also an economical, educational, and societal ones. It may even have a legal dimension. Is it legal for one scientist, or for a board of scientists, to make decisions that may affect the whole population of the world regarding their health, economy, education, socialization, etc.? Is there no ethical or moral obligation of researcher regarding the real-life problems facing their communities, organizations, localities, countries and geographical regions, especially in the context of the Globalization Process that Science and Technologies has created and/or accelerated? Is there no pragmatic need for researching research or for identifying or, at least trying, to identify, the ‘North Pole’ of Research?