Suchergebnisse

The article considers the possibility of solving the fundamental problems of cognition through the use of gen-eral systems theory as an epistemology. For this purpose it is necessary to develop and expand the general theory of systems, which is achieved through its rethinking from the position of essentialism. The expected properties of such a reinterpreted general theory of systems will give it an advantage over epistemology. These advantages are due to the greater transparency of the general theory of systems, as well as the orientation to the traductive methods of thinking, best suited to the task of forming a system of knowledge as a model of be-ing with unattainable absolute certainty. In the framework of the general theory of systems (reinterpreted from the position of essentialism) the problem of cognizability of the world is solved based on the recognition of the existence of isomorphisms – the most important empirical fact, confirming the finite complexity of the world and the possibility of its cognition. According to the general theory of systems, the limitedness of our knowledge refers to particularities, minor details, but not to the general understanding of forms, phenomena and the laws of the universe corresponding to them.

"Persönliche Netzwerke haben in der Luhmannschen Systemtheorie bisher keinen systematischen Stellenwert. Die vorliegende Arbeit versucht diese Lücke mit einer Diskussion bisheriger Begriffsvorschläge und dann mit einer eigenen Verortung des Netzwerkbegriffs in der Systemtheorie zu schließen. Zunächst wird überprüft, inwiefern frühere konzeptionelle Vorschläge in der Systemtheorie für die Fassung persönlicher Netzwerke geeignet sind. Diskutiert werden die Dreier-Typologie sozialer Systeme (Interaktion, Organisation und Gesellschaft) nach Niklas Luhmann, der Vorschlag einer Erweiterung um den Systemtyp der Gruppe von Helmut Willke, Friedhelm Neidhardt und Hartmann Tyrell, sowie Überlegungen zu Familie und Intimsystemen von Tyrell, Luhmann und Peter Fuchs und der Begriff des Interaktionszusammenhangs nach André Kieserling. Der zweite Abschnitt nimmt die bisherigen systemtheoretischen Arbeiten zum Netzwerkbegriff in den Blick: einige Formulierungen von Luhmann selbst, die Arbeiten von Gunther Teubner, von Eckard Kämper und Johannes Schmidt, von Veronika Tacke und von Stephan Fuchs. Abschließend wird auf den vorangegangenen Überlegungen aufbauend ein eigener Begriffsvorschlag für die systemtheoretische Fassung des Netzwerkbegriffs entwickelt. Einzelne Sozialbeziehungen werden dabei im Anschluss an Luhmann als autopoietische Systeme gesehen. Diese sind in gemeinsamen Interaktionen und in der Konstruktion von Personen (als Knoten von Netzwerken) aneinander gekoppelt. Nur in Ausnahmefällen entstehen dabei symbolisch abgeschlossene Gruppen wie Familien oder Straßengangs." (Autorenreferat)

For years, systems theory has been applied successfully in all fields of technology, but its impact on the world of finance has to date been limited. This book aims to rectify this situation. Readers will no longer be able to assert that money cannot be reliably earned on the financial markets: one might just as well say that man has never set foot on the moon. The potential reader may be frightened by the number of formulas, but can be reassured that almost all of them can be skipped.

Comrad Don Quixote / Nina Witoszek -- Explaining action and explaining social phenomena / Andreas Balog -- Socio-economics and a new scientific paradign / Roger hollingsworth, Karl H. Müller, Ellen Jane Hollingsworth, David M. Bear -- Rule system theory : an overview / Tom R. Burns -- Negotiation int the context of generalized game theory / Ewa Roszkowska -- Rough rule-following by social agents / Anna Gomolińska -- On the art of being usefully wrong : lessons from voting paradoxes / Hannu Nurmi -- The stabliization of social order : social cognitive dissonance theory applied to hospitals and clinics / Nora Machado -- Dare we dream of a future without AIDS? : challenges and opportunities for responsive social science research / Beth Maina Ahlberg -- Of mind and matter : policy paradigms and institutional design / Marcus Carson -- Corporate (social) responsibility as an arena for partnered governance : from the business to the public policy case / Atlte Midttun -- The institutionalization of a meta-order : negotiating the energy charter theory / Svein S. Anderson -- Opinion polling on international political accords / Hans L. Zetterburg -- The political systems of the United States and the European Union / Alberto Martinelli -- Germany and migration : a European case / Helena Flam -- Social rule systems theory and the disintegration of Yugoslavia / Dusko Sekulic -- Could Home oeconomicus become a revolutionary? : probing the irrevelance of standard economics / Christian Arnsperger, Philippe VeVillé

The following essay begins by outlining the pragmatist link between truth claims and democratic deliberations. To this end, special attention will be paid to Jeffrey Stout&rsquo ; s pragmatist enfranchisement of religious citizens. Stout defends a deliberative notion of democracy that fulfills stringent criteria of inclusion and security against domination. While mitigating secular exclusivity, Stout nonetheless acknowledges the new visibility of religion in populist attempts to dominate political life through mass rule and charismatic authorities. In response, I evaluate recent innovations in deliberative democratic systems theory (DDST). By adding a pragmatist inflection to DDST, I aim to apprehend the complex religious interactions between partisan interest groups as well as the trust-building capacities of minipublics.

Does systems theory need rethinking? Most social scientists would probably say no. It had its run, was debated critically, and found wanting. If at all, it should be treated historically. Why then might systems theory need rethinking, as the title of this symposium claims? The reason is that, unlike in the natural and biosocial sciences, any conception of system in the social sciences has remained suspect in the wake of problematic Parsonian and cybernetic systems theories. The premise of this special issue is that abandoning conceptions of systems has imposed a high price on the social sciences: a lack of ontologies and methodologies that are both philosophically profound and scientifically defensible. It has left social scientists who choose to ignore ontology in their theoretical and empirical work defenseless against enterprising settlers from a variety of humanities and social science disciplines who attack mainstream work with—often simplistic and naïve, but nevertheless fundamental—philosophical arguments, whether anti-scientific postmodernists or pseudo-scientific rational choice theorists. The goal of this special issue is to showcase new and original work that contributes to a rethinking of systems theory by taking the conception of systems seriously. This introduction offers a programmatic statement of a systemic ontology and methodology as well as a brief general outline and examples of what a systems-based approach in the social sciences entails.

While "systemic thinking" is popular in the context of capacity development and evaluation, there is currently a lack of understanding about the benefits to employing systems theory in evaluation capacity development. Systems theory provides a useful orientation to the work involved in complex systems (e.g. national evaluation systems). This article illustrates how evaluation capacity development practitioners can use systems theory as a conceptual tool to gain a better understanding of the functional aspects and interrelationships present within a given evaluation system. Specifically, the systems theory perspective can help elucidate the reasons for the success or failure of a given evaluation capacity development program or activity. With the goal of motivating evaluation capacity development practitioners to use systems theory in their work, this article presents a systems theory framework for evaluation capacity development and offers practical examples of how it can be adopted.

The major purpose of this article is to reassess the adequacy of the major principles of sociotechnical systems theory by means of a detailed reexamination of the case studies from which they are partly derived. It is shown, as a result, that the notion of a single, homogeneous sociotechnical school is a misleading oversimplification, since two streams of sociotechnical theory can in fact be identified. It is suggested that the autonomy granted to autonomous work groups is limited, and subordinate to particular economic objectives. Further, it is argued that the concept of joint optimization has little connection with the reality of sociotechnical practice and that it should be replaced with the notion of intensification of labor. The role of pay incentives is also shown to have been seriously underestimated in the causation of economic and psychological changes. And finally, the idea of organizational choice is also shown to be inadequate on the grounds that the case studies have demonstrated the superior economic and psychological effectiveness of only one form of work organization: autonomous groups.