Managing Complexity in Social Systems by Christoph E. Mandl

Author:Christoph E. Mandl
Language: eng
Format: epub, pdf
ISBN: 9783030016456
Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Synonymous to the notion of “generic structures,” the term “systems archetypes” was coined by Senge in 1990. What is puzzling, though, is why the two terms were created in the first place. In the natural science, models describing the dynamics of systems, e.g., Maxwell’s equations and Schrödinger’s equation, are typically referred to as a theory but not as a generic structure. So what, exactly, differentiates a theory from a generic structure? Or, more concrete, why is a generic structure not referred to as a theory of a distinct pattern of behavior of a social system ?

In modern science, the term theory or scientific theory is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support—verify—or empirically contradict, falsify, it.

An important concept in creating theories is Ockham’s razor , a problem-solving principle attributed to William of Ockham, who was a medieval friar, scholastic philosopher, and theologian. The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Ockham’s razor is used as a technique to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models. Ockham’s razor is not an irrefutable principle of logic . Rather, the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion . For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives. Simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they can be tested.

Systems archetypes and generic structures obey Ockham’s razor because they are SFDs with the least number of causal loops to explain specific yet common behavior patterns of social systems .

Systems archetypes are never as universal as laws of natural science. Yet they are as broadly applicable as any theory of social science. What makes them particularly valuable is their sole focus on the dynamics of social systems including phenomena of dynamic equilibria—a seemingly static situation that never really is static. Systems archetypes therefore qualify as theories of distinct patterns of behavior of social systems.

Theory is often contrasted to practice—a Greek term for “doing.” A classic example of this distinction is Newton’s laws of motion: his theory enables us to understand the causal relationship between physical bodies, forces, and motion, while the practical side of it, mechanical engineering, is the discipline of designing, producing, and operating machinery. In natural science, such a distinction has been valuable and is firmly established. But in management science, the distinction between theory and practice is not particularly appropriate. Nothing is so practical as a good theory, noted Kurt Lewin (1945) a pioneer of organizational psychology.

The language to express models of social systems is SFD. Some of the simple models that were developed ever since Forrester developed the first one in 1958 appear repeatedly in different businesses, professions, and real-life settings. Therefore, they qualify as theories.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.