Suchergebnisse

World-systems theory is analyzed in the context of general systems theory, outlining some basic concepts of the latter that are of particular relevance to the former. Particular attention is devoted to the notion of dissipative structures, borrowed from physical chemistry, which extended Newtonian mechanics to the study of open systems, ie, those that exchanged matter & energy with their environments. The characteristics of the world system as a dissipative structure are discussed, & contributions of the theory of dissipative structures to world-systems analysis are identified. 54 References. K. Hyatt Stewart

Traditional sciences are narrowly specialized into selected viewpoints and parts of reality. This causes important insights and oversights that are supposed to be resolved by cybernetics and systems theory. The General Systems Theory fights over‐specialization; cybernetics grew from interdisciplinary cooperation practicing this fight. More holism and wholeness result. The Dialectical Systems Theory adds methodology to support attainment of requisite holism and wholeness by influencing human attributes and methods. This makes it universally applicable. Its applied method USOMID and De Bono's Six Thinking Hats are very close and can be combined. The new concepts of social responsibility exposing 'interdependence and holistic approach' apply a very comparable concept and are found helpful against the current crisis as a consequence of over‐specialization. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This article examines the role of a psychiatric consultant in a psy chiatric hospital undergoing a major change. The principles of group phenomenon, systems theory, sentient, task, and basic as sumption groups were utilized in diagnosis of organizational re gression, elucidation of its precipitants, and strategies for helping the organization towards higher level of integration in face of po tentially regressive changes.

"Luhmann and Systems Theory" published on by Oxford University Press.

AbstractThe paper investigates if a living system according to Miller's living systems theory is a viable system according to Beer's viable systems theory and vice versa. Miller's and Beer's theories are briefly reviewed and translated into one cybernetic approach. The comparison of their functional and structural commonalties and differences shows: Miller's theory allows simple structures, below the scope of Beer's approach, which are nevertheless viable, as examples from biology, anthropology and economy show. Beer's viable systems can be derived form Miller's living systems theory, i.e. Beer deals only with issues of viability that emerge with complex living systems. Short considerations of large social units suggest that their structures are not unequivocally determined and may be viable while deviating from Beer's approach, too. Yet such structures can be derived from Miller's theory. It is concluded that Miller's living systems theory covers viability more completely than Beer's viable systems theory. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The last few decades have seen increasingly widespread use of risk assessment and management techniques as aids in making complex decisions. However, despite the progress that has been made in risk science, there still remain numerous examples of risk‐based decisions and conclusions that have caused great controversy. In particular, there is a great deal of debate surrounding risk assessment: the role of values and ethics and other extra‐scientific factors, the efficacy of quantitative versus qualitative analysis, and the role of uncertainty and incomplete information. Many of the epistemological and methodological issues confronting risk assessment have been explored in general systems theory, where techniques exist to manage such issues. However, the use of systems theory and systems analysis tools is still not widespread in risk management. This article builds on the Alachlor risk assessment case study of Brunk, Haworth, and Lee to present a systems‐based view of the risk assessment process. The details of the case study are reviewed and the authors' original conclusions regarding the effects of extra‐scientific factors on risk assessment are discussed. Concepts from systems theory are introduced to provide a mechanism with which to illustrate these extra‐scientific effects. The role of a systems study within a risk assessment is explained, resulting in an improved view of the problem formulation process. The consequences regarding the definition of risk and its role in decision making are then explored.