Suchergebnisse

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.

Present‐day economics is characterised by the fragmentary and reductionist approach that typifies most social sciences. Economists generally fail to recognise that the economy is merely one aspect of a whole ecological and social fabric; a living system composed of human beings in continual interaction with one another and with their natural resources, most of which are, in turn, living organisms. The basic error of the social sciences is to divide this fabric in fragments, assumed to be independent and to be dealt with in separate academic departments (Capra, 1982, pp. 194–5).

Marx's works mark an interesting anticipation of many of the themes later developed by General Systems Theory. Three of these themes are discussed: (1) Marx's conceptualization of the mode of production as a theoretical system composed of interdependent elements, (2) his analysis of the cycles of interdependence of these elements within the system, & (3) his analysis of social change through an endogenous process of immanent system & class contradiction. These theoretical developments remain of contemporary relevance. 1 Figure. AA.

AbstractIt is useful for systems theories to distinguish between abstracted and concrete systems. Parsons and his followers have emphasized the first sort; Miller and others have emphasized the second. Scientific work can be conducted in terms of either sort of system, but concrete systems theory has elicited more quantitative research. In addition it brings social science closer to the natural sciences. Abstracted and concrete theories also differ in their categorization of subsystem processes. Recognition of the similarity of subsystems at various biological and social levels of systems facilitates the development of cross‐level hypotheses and quantitative research to test the existence of formal identities across levels.Few cross‐level formal identities have yet been investigated empirically, but such interdisciplinary fundamental research can confirm or disconfirm very powerful integrative systems principles. In recent years interest in such cross‐level research has been rising. Ten cross‐level studies are described.

"This book uses Niklas Luhmann's systems theory to explore how the legal system operates as one of modern society's subsystems. The authors demonstrate how this theory alters our understanding of some of the most important and controversial issues within law: the nature of judicial communication and legal argument; the claim that it can be right to disobey law; the character of legal pluralism and globalisation; time and its construction within law; the significance of the rule of law and human rights and the role of appeals to, and within, law."--Back cover

Although Niklas Luhmann refrains from an explicit treatment of power as a force of social constraint, I propose that, if partially reconstructed, his Systems Theory can illuminate the subject considerably. I show this by distinguishing between five elements in Luhmann's treatment of each of the following six social subsystems: the economy, politics, law, science, religion and education. The five subsystem elements are: (1) a binary code, (2) a basis of authority, (3) a language of social communication, (4) a generalized medium of communication, and (5) a social function. Whereas Luhmann assumes that each subsystem approximates autopoiesis, or self‐contained internal operation and autonomy, I assume the pervasiveness of interpenetration, whereby operations is one subsystem nonetheless affect operations in others. Subsequently, I juxtapose the reconstructed systems‐theoretic framework developed in the first half of the paper with Michel Foucault's power/knowledge framework. I conclude that the use of a reconstructed systems‐theoretic approach, based loosely on Luhmann's original theory, could greatly illuminate the specifics of power/knowledge in modern societies, to an even greater extent than Foucault does himself.

AbstractThe field of mediation is largely technique‐ and process‐driven. In an effort to develop a more comprehensive theoretical system for mediation, this article applies Bowen Systems Theory to mediation. The article begins with a brief overview of the development of Bowen Systems Theory; it proceeds to define its central concepts, including differentiation, triangulation, and chronic anxiety; finally, the article applies these concepts to mediation and discusses the relationship between theory and technique, using caucusing and co‐mediation as examples. The article concludes that Bowen Systems Theory naturally extends to mediation, providing this field with a comprehensive theoretical system.

A Systems Theory of Religion, still unfinished at Niklas Luhmann's death in 1998, was first published in German two years later thanks to the editorial work of André Kieserling. One of Luhmann's most important projects, it exemplifies his later work while redefining the subject matter of the sociology of religion. Religion, for Luhmann, is one of the many functionally differentiated social systems that make up modern society. All such subsystems consist entirely of communications and all are "autopoietic," which is to say, self-organizing and self-generating. Here, Luhmann explains how religi

Two inquiring systems developed since the 1960s—Vickers's concept of the appreciative system and the soft systems methodology, are highly relevant to the problems of the 21st century. Both assume that organizations are more than rational goal-seeking machines and address the relationship-maintaining and Gemeinschaft aspects of organizations, characteristically obscured by functionalist and goal-seeking models of organization and management. Appreciative systems theory and soft systems methodology enrich rather than replace these approaches.

Intro -- Contents -- Preface -- Chapter 1 -- Biases in the Process of Designing a System -- Abstract -- 1. Introduction -- 1.1. Mesarovic and Takahara's General Systems Theory -- 1.2. Systems Engineering -- 1.3. Klir's Architecture of Systems Problem Solving -- 1.4. Van Gigch's Metamodeling -- 1.5. Churchman's Design of Inquiring Systems -- 1.6. Jackson's Systems Paradigms -- 1.7. Summary of the Selected Approaches to System Design -- 2. Some Basic Notions and Some Immediate Consequences -- 2.1. Definition of Core Notions -- 2.2. Some Consequences Derived from the Definition of Core Notions -- 3. Outline of the Developed Approach to System Design -- 4. The Core Context for System Design -- 5. The Material Base for System Design -- 5.1. The Material Needs for System Design -- 5.2. The Sources of the Material Base for the System Design -- 6. The Goal-Setting Process -- 6.1. The Options for Goal-Setting -- 6.2. Contexts of Goal-Setting and Resulting Biases Influencing the Design Process -- 6.3. Goal-Setting -- 6.4. Summary: The Goal-Setting Process -- 7. The Prerequisites of System Design -- 7.1. A Priori Knowledge -- 7.2. From A Priori Knowledge to Preliminary Knowledge -- 7.3. The Preliminary Knowledge of the System Designer and Its Necessary Scope -- 8. The Core Process of Designing a System: From the Prerequisites and Goal-Values via Preliminary Knowledge to the Final Design -- 8.1. The Core Process of System Design: From Elements and Relations via Subsystems to a Complete System Design -- 8.1.1. Assumptions -- 8.1.2. Selecting Elements and Relations -- 8.1.3. Intermediate Evaluation -- 8.2. From a Complete Design to the Final Design or When Is a System Design 'Good Enough'? -- 8.3. A Byproduct: An Increase in the Preliminary Knowledge of the System Designer -- 8.4. Redesigning a System -- 8.5. Summary of the Core Design Process

Archaeology has tremendous potential for developing world‐systems approaches to non‐Western and noncapitalist societies because it has the ability to both explore non‐Western and noncapitalist societies with the sophistication of anthropology and to explore societies in existence long before the capitalist world‐system began to evolve. I suggest that sociologists stand to gain by learning about non‐Western and noncapitalist societies, particularly as they are understood by archaeologists. World‐systems theory provides a common framework within which archaeologists and sociologists can both work. This article explores recent work in world‐systems archaeology that sociologists might find particularly valuable.