Suchergebnisse

AbstractWe start our investigation with Professor Russell L. Ackoff's trailblazing (Ackoff and Strümpfer, 2003) in which they considered the problem of TERRORISM from a systemic perspective. We extend their views by attempting an epistemological inquiry based on the knowledge surrounding the problem. Specifically, we proceed to acquire knowledge by parsing the concepts labelled 'TRUST' and 'FRIENDSHIP' as well as their respective antonyms 'MISTRUST' and 'ENMITY'. These concepts lie at centre of any discussion of the problem raised by Ackoff and Strümpfer. We call this inquiry an epistemological inquiry because it is a method by which knowledge of a problem can be obtained in order to improve its meaning and understanding. We also invoke C. West Churchman (1971, 1979) when using the process of applying an inquiring system to solve a system problem: this process was studied in three previous papers by the present author (2005a, 2005b, 2006). See also McIntyre‐Mills, (2005, 2006). Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AbstractThis essay explores C. West Churchman's contributions to the development of the paradigm of the science of management and of management science. No other contemporary thinker has contributed more than Churchman to the elaboration of the management paradigm. In his unique way, and throughout his professional life, he has raised our level of consciousness concerning the unfinished business of the discipline. Given the eclectic nature of Churchman's mind, it would be impossible to do him justice and make a complete list of the methodological and epistemological issues that he has studied. In this essay, we illustrate the ideas that, to our mind, will have the greatest impact on the future direction of the discipline. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AbstractPart II is devoted to the epistemology and knowledge characteristics of the 'new' social sciences. Part II also explains epistemological and methodological differences and similarities among scientific disciplines such as the physical sciences and the social sciences and their respective fields of application.Part I treated the same topics in relation to the physical sciences, represented by modern physics. (See Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 19: 199–209 (2002)). Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AbstractPart I describes the epistemology and characteristics of knowledge of a typical physical science such as physics. Classical physics is contrasted with modern particle physics. The impact of the main scientific discoveries of contemporary physics on the development of 'hard' sciences domains is surveyed. The 'hard' sciences are engaged in an epistemological debate with the 'soft' sciences which reveals divergent trends concerning how the complexity–simplicity and the precision–imprecision characteristics of their respective problem domains are formalized. The outlines of this debate between 'hard' sciences, covered in Part I, and 'soft' sciences, the subject of Part II, become apparent when outlining how their respective epistemologies are evolving. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.