An eighth face of research

Bowen, Ken

doi:10.1016/0305-0483(90)90068-k

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ulrich, 1983;Miser and Quade, 1985;Bowen, 1986;Eden and Radford, 1990;Jackson, 1991;Strijbos, 1995;Flood and Romm, 1996). One popular approach is Jackson's (1982Jackson's ( , 1991 use of the Burrell and Morgan (1979) model of sociological paradigms to interpret the various contributions to systems thinking.…”

Section: A Comparison Of the Model Of Religious Ground-motives With Jmentioning

confidence: 96%

Identification of normative sources for systems thinking: an inquiry into religious ground‐motives for systems thinking paradigms

Eriksson

2003

Syst. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In celebration of C. West Churchman's work, this article investigates one of the most cherished endeavours of his thinking: to provide a normative meaning for the conduct of human affiars. Churchman has always emphasized ‘What‐Ought‐To‐Be’, at the expense of the ‘What‐Is’. To achieve this purpose, four Systems Thinking paradigms, namely Hard Systems Thinking, Soft Systems Thinking, Critical Systems Thinking, and Multimodal Systems Thinking, are investigated with regard to their foundations for normative guidance. This investigation is made by identifying their respective basic convictions in the form of so‐called ‘religious ground‐motives’, which are based on the assumption that all human thinking and acting starts with a credal conviction, be it Christian, Jew, Islamic, Buddhist, or other. As a result it is found that these systems thinking paradigms are either founded on an inherent contradiction or provide a normative foundation that lacks a social contract for their implementation, and therefore these paradigms do not provide a stable and satisfactory normative guidance for system design.Note: The key claim of this author is that, to be normative, an ethical theory must be grounded in a transcendental justification which is based on some religious faith. The opinions presented in this paper are strictly the author's, who does not claim that his beliefs have more merit or are more ethical than those of any competitive faiths. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: A Comparison Of the Model Of Religious Ground-motives With Jmentioning

confidence: 96%

Identification of normative sources for systems thinking: an inquiry into religious ground‐motives for systems thinking paradigms

Eriksson

2003

Syst. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The research archetypes are also presented as linked to dichotomies. These were developed independently from Brugha's dichotomies, and are presented, somewhat differently, in terms of a strong desire (+1) or not (−1) to make certain statements (Bowen, 1990). Bowen's A, B, and C ordering is the same as the order of Chinese archetypes.…”

Section: Western Decision Archetypesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following Eilon (1974), Bowen (1990) considered the differences between different kinds of operational researcher. Over a period these have reflected styles of game playing, research, solving problems, and, later, styles of management.…”

Section: Western Decision Archetypesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A suggestion that the system is not adequate (A = 1) corresponds to planning in Nomology: there is uncertainty about what the system should be and, consequently, new approaches should be explored. Dichotomy C is based on the "desire to make statements about the adequacy of the beliefs of a 'decision-maker' as to what the system is and can do (doubting the 'theory' and the basis for particular decisions)" (Bowen, 1990). Questioning the decision-maker's beliefs (C = 1) corresponds to a focus on people-related issues in Nomology.…”

Section: Western Decision Archetypesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Questioning the decision-maker's beliefs (C = 1) corresponds to a focus on people-related issues in Nomology. Dichotomy B is based on to the "desire to make statements about the adequacy of behavior that controls the system (the same theoretical system, for the same purpose)" (Bowen, 1990). The third dimension in adjustment decisionmaking in Nomology stemmed from the question as to whether to use a more personal or more positional approach to carry out some activity.…”

Section: Western Decision Archetypesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Decision Research Using Cognitive Structures

Brugha

Bowen

2005

Syst Pract Act Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes a form of management epistemology, and suggests that it be called Decision Research, since it is primarily based on what can be learned from how managers make decisions in practice. The paper proposes that Decision Research be founded on generic cognitive structures that show a high degree of stability from east to west, old to new. These are described by Nomology, the science of the laws of the mind, and so have a positivist flavor. The paper develops, through an understanding of settled practice, how these structures are used in different cultures and fields of management. The richness of diversity it reveals encourages an interpretivist approach. Its value to Systemic Practice comes from the way that it provides frameworks and maps to elucidate issues and resolve situations in management.

show abstract

In Search of an Integrative Vision for Technology

Strijbos¹,

Basden²

2006

Contemporary Systems Thinking

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An eighth face of research

Cited by 4 publications

References 2 publications

Identification of normative sources for systems thinking: an inquiry into religious ground‐motives for systems thinking paradigms

Identification of normative sources for systems thinking: an inquiry into religious ground‐motives for systems thinking paradigms

Decision Research Using Cognitive Structures

In Search of an Integrative Vision for Technology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About