A framework to select between the hard or soft approach in studying the organization and its subsystem base on the ontology of the intended social system

Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی

Authors

1 Department of Public Management, Management and Accounting Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University, G.C., Tehran, Iran

2 Department of socio-technical systems, Management and Accounting Faculty, Shaihd Beheshty University, G.C., Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Social systems are completely affected by the complexity rooted in its nature. While the social system inherited attributes of lower level systems, but it has some distinctive attributes. The main question here is, what those common and distinctive attributes are in social systems, and how different methodologies responded to these attributes. The current paper is aimed at presenting a definition for social systems, studying its attributes, and presenting a framework to help researchers select the best approach in analyzing different social systems according to the characteristics of the understudy situation. In the current article, first the nature of social systems and its complexity is explained. Then, the abilities of reductionist and systems approaches in studying social systems discussed. In the following, different systems’ approaches in the form of soft and hard approaches are explained and appropriate context of using each of them, or their combination are clarified. Researchers could use the results of this article to select the appropriate methodology regards the intended problematic situation characteristics.

Keywords

References

1. رضائیان، علی (۱۳۹۶)، تجزیه و تحلیل و طراحی سیستم (Vol. چاپ هجدهم)، قم: سمت.
2. رضائیان، علی (۱۳۹۷)، اصول مدیریت (Vol. بیست و هشتم)، تهران: سمت.
3. روبرت، ت. (1393)، نگاهی اجمالی به فلسفه از روشنگری تا امروز (ا. رحمان، Trans. پ. هومن Ed. Vol. 0)، تهران: مهراندیش.
4. Ackermann, F., & Alexander, J. (2016), “Researching complex projects: Using causal mapping to take a systems perspective”, International journal of project management, 34(6), 891-901.
5. Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2010), Strategic options development and analysis Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide (pp. 135-190): Springer.
6. Ashby, W. R. (1957), An Introduction to Cybernetics: Creative Media Partners, LLC.
7. Bente, S., Bombosch, U., & Langade, S. (2012), Collaborative enterprise architecture: enriching EA with lean, agile, and enterprise 2.0 practices: Newnes.
8. Blackett, P. M. S. (1962), Studies of war, nuclear and conventional: Hill and Wang.
9. Boisot, M., & McKelvey, B. (2010), “Integrating modernist and postmodernist perspectives on organizations: A complexity science bridge”, Academy of management review, 35(3), 415-433.
10. Boulding, K. E. (1956), “General systems theory—the skeleton of science”, Management science, 2(3), 197-208.
11. Checkland, P. (1972), “Towards a systems-based methodology for real-world problem solving”, Journal of Systems Engineering, 3(2), 87-116.
12. Checkland, P. (1981), Systems thinking, systems practice.
13. Checkland, P. (1995), “Model validation in soft systems practice”, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 12(1), 47-54.
14. Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1999), Soft systems methodology: a 30-year retrospective: John Wiley Chichester.
15. Creswell, J. W. (2012), Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research: Pearson.
16. Eden, C. (1994), “Cognitive mapping and problem structuring for system dynamics model building”, System dynamics review, 10(2‐3), 257-276.
17. Gharajedaghi, J. (2011), Systems thinking: Managing chaos and complexity: A platform for designing business architecture: Elsevier.
18. Hambrick, D. C. (2007), “Upper echelons theory: An update”, Academy of management review, 32(2), 334-343.
19. Habermas, J. (1984), The Theory of Communicative Action: Jurgen Habermas; Trans, by Thomas McCarthy: Heinemann.
20. Jackson, M. (2009), “Fifty years of systems thinking for management”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(1), S24-S32.
21. Jackson, M. C. (2003), Systems thinking: creative holism for managers: Wiley Chichester.
22. Kotiadis, K., & Mingers, J. (2014), “Combining problem structuring methods with simulation: The philosophical and practical challenges”, Discrete‐Event Simulation and System Dynamics for Management Decision Making, 52-75.
23. Luthans, F. (2011), Organizational behaviour: An evidence-based approach, McGraw-Hill.
24. Lyytinen, K., & Newman, M. (2008), “Explaining information systems change: a punctuated socio-technical change model”, European Journal of Information Systems, 17(6), 589-613.
25. Meadows, D. H., & Wright, D. (2008), Thinking in systems: A primer: chelsea green publishing.
26. Mingers, J. (2014), Systems thinking, critical realism and philosophy: A confluence of ideas: Routledge
27. Mingers, J., & Rosenhead, J. (2004), “Problem structuring methods in action”, European journal of operational research, 152(3), 530-554.
28. Pidd, M. (2004), Systems Modelling: Theory and Practice: Wiley.
29. Rosenhead, J. (2013), Problem Structuring Methods. In S. I. Gass & M. C. Fu (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science (pp. 1162-1172). Boston, MA: Springer US.
30. science. (2018), In Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford dictionary. Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/science
31. Senge, P. M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization: Doubleday/Currency.
32. Smith, C. M., & Shaw, D. (2019), “The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review”, European journal of operational research, 274(2), 403-416.
33. Sterman, J. D. (2000), Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world (Vol. 19): Irwin/McGraw-Hill Boston.
34. Stroh, D. P. (2015), Systems Thinking For Social Change: A Practical Guide to Solving Complex Problems, Avoiding Unintended Consequences, and Achieving Lasting Results: Chelsea Green Publishing.
35. Turner, S. F., Cardinal, L. B., & Burton, R. M. (2017), “Research design for mixed methods: A triangulation-based framework and roadmap”, Organizational Research Methods, 20(2), 243-267.
36. Ulrich, W. (1983), Critical heuristics of social planning: A new approach to practical philosophy.
37. Wilby, J. (2006), “An essay on Kenneth E. Boulding's General Systems Theory: the skeleton of science”, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 23(5), 695-699. doi:doi:10.1002/sres.802

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics