Abstract
In this chapter, we make the proposal that a system is a whole unit of nature. We then propose a systems research framework, specifically the PAR Holon Framework that can yield a holistic form of systems analysis. By whole is meant a natural unit that is a self-related cycle of causes. The concept of systems has been around since the earliest philosophical records. To date, we do not have a widely accepted definition. The schema we present is based on the work of the mathematical biologist Robert Rosen and it follows, with important modifications, the causal and categorical definitions given by Aristotle. The resulting four-quadrant, four-category framework is then described and related to other meta-system frameworks that exist independently in many disciplines. There are two keys to understanding this framework. One is that since Aristotle we have thought of causality in a dualistic, hierarchical way, with ultimately unknowable causes at the top and inert substance at the bottom. Natural science has focused on the bottom half and humanistic and social sciences have focused on the top. Prior to Greek philosophy, however, in nondual philosophy, these same causes were described as a self-related cycle, giving a holographic view of reality. By reinventing the causal cycle in mathematical terms we remove the problem of unnatural causes. The entirely natural treatment of the four causes then lends itself to mathematical rigor and many applications in science, humanism, and other fields. Examples and worksheets are provided to help introduce the reader to this highly systemic way of thinking.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Requisite variety refers to systemic stability and regulation. Essentially, the number of states of control mechanisms must be equal or greater than the number of states in the system being controlled. As Ashby (1956) stated, “Variety can destroy variety” (p. 124).
- 2.
Socio-ecological systems or social ecological systems.
- 3.
In mathematics this condition is known as “impredicativity,” meaning that a system’s laws are not fully “predicated” on those of the general environment, but are at least partially determined within the system being studied.
- 4.
The reader may notice that we are using the idea of framework in much the same way as worldview, yet a mathematically explicit worldview.
- 5.
The term “actualized” is used instead of the more common term in relational biology, “realized,” because with the introduction of the contextual category, both interactive and latent aspects are considered “real.”
- 6.
A holarchy is thus an invertible hierarchy of inclusive wholes.
- 7.
It is technically defined as an “inverse entailment.”
- 8.
Technically, in category theory, these are “functor” relations, explained in Chapter 4.
- 9.
There have been various views of noumenon, but even Kant’s idea dismisses it by simultaneously overstating its reality (“the thing itself”) and then declaring it unknowable. Here it is nothing more than contextual potential for existence of phenomena, researchable through inference.
- 10.
They are not fully “closed” because besides this interaction each also has its own cycle that continues independently (management systems do have inertia!) and each can be influenced by other systems.
References
Ackoff, R. L., & Emery, F. E. (1972). On purposeful systems. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Adams, D. R., & Hedberg, L. I. (2012). Function spaces and potential theory. Berlin, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-03282-4
Ashby, W. R. (1947). Principles of the self-organizing dynamic system. The Journal of General Psychology, 37(2), 125–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1947.9918144
Ashby, W. R. (1956). Variety, constraint, and the law of requisite variety: An introduction to cybernetics. London, United Kingdom: Chapman and Hall.
Åström, K. J. (2012). Introduction to stochastic control theory. New York, NY: Dover.
Atkins, J. P., Burdon, D., Elliott, M., & Gregory, A. J. (2011). Management of the marine environment: Integrating ecosystem services and societal benefits with the DPSIR framework in a systems approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(2), 215–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.12.012
Barnes, J. (1984). The complete works of Aristotle: The revised Oxford translation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bell, S. (2012). DPSIR = A problem structuring method? An exploration from the “imagine” approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 222(2), 350–360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.04.029
Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Chapin, S. F., Walker, B. H., Hobbs, R. J., Hooper, D. U., Lawton, J. H., Sala, O. E., & Tilman, D. (1997). Biotic control over the functioning of ecosystems. Nature, 277(5325), 500–504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5325.500
Checkland, P. (1988). The case for “holon” [Editorial]. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 1(3), 235–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01062921
Chemero, A. (2003). An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 181–195. http://doi.org/10.1207/S15326969ECO1502_5
Cochran, C. (2015). ISO 9001:2015 in plain English. Chico, CA: Paton Professional.
Corning, P. A. (2001). Control information: The missing element in Norbert Wiener’s cybernetic paradigm? Kybernetes, 30(9), 1272–1288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006552
Cottam, R., Ranson, W., & Vounckx, R. (2007). Re-mapping Robert Rosen’s (M,R)-systems. Chemistry & Biodiversity, 4(10), 2352–2368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cbdv.200790192
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cziko, G. A. (2000). The things we do: Using the lessons of Bernard and Darwin to understand the what, how, and why of our behavior (1st ed.). Cambrigde, MA: MIT Press.
de Vries, B. (2013). Sustainability science (1st ed). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Dill, K. A., & MacCallum, J. L. (2012). The protein-folding problem: 50 years on. Science, 338(6110), 1042–1046. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1219021
Doob, J. L. (1984). Classical potential theory and its probabilistic counterpart: Advanced problems. Berlin, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-5208-5
Edwards, M. G. (2005). The integral holon: A holonomic approach to organisational change and transformation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(3), 269–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810510599425
Einstein, A. (1924). Relativity: The special and the general theory. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
Esbjorn-Hargens, S., & Zimmerman, M. E. (2009). Integral ecology: Uniting multiple perspectives on the natural world. Boston, MA: Shambhala.
Falcon, A. (2012). Aristotle on causality. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2012 ed.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/
Friendshuh, L., & Troncale, L. (2012). SoSPT I: Identifying fundamental systems processes for a general theory of systems (GTS). Proceedings of the 56th Annual Conference of the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS). Retrieved from http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings56th/issue/current
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755. http://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L
Gare, A. (2011). From Kant to Schelling and process metaphysics: On the way to ecological civilization. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 7(2), 26–69. Retrieved from http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/263
Garratt, B. (1999). The Learning Organisation 15 years on: Some personal reflections. The Learning Organization, 6(5), 202–207. http://doi.org/10.1108/09696479910299802
Giampietro, M., Allen, T. F. H., & Mayumi, K. (2006). The epistemological predicament associated with purposive quantitative analysis. Ecological Complexity, 3(4), 307–327. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.02.005
Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 205(1161), 581–598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1979.0086
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2006). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Halcomb, E., & Hickman, L. (2015). Mixed methods research. Nursing Standard, 29(32), 41–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.7748/ns.29.32.41.e8858
Hameroff, S. R., Kaszniak, A. W., & Chalmers, D. (Eds.). (1999). Toward a science of consciousness III: The Third Tucson discussions and debates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hawking, S., & Mlodinow, L. (2010). The Grand design. New York, NY: Bantam.
Henry, R. C. (2005). The mental universe. Nature, 436(7047), 29–29. http://doi.org/10.1038/436029a
Holling, C. S. (1978). Adaptive environmental assessment and management. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. http://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
Jung, C. G. (2014). Collected works of C.G. Jung, Volume 9 (Part 2): Aion: Researches into the phenomenology of the self (G. Adler & R. F. C. Hull, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for laws of self-organization and complexity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kelso, J. A. S. (1995). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-4560-67-2
Kineman, J. J. (2005). Vedic ecology and the new eco-accounting. In J. Allen & J. Wilby (Eds.), Proceedings of the 49th Meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: ISSS.
Kineman, J. J., Banathy, B. A., & Rosen, J. (2007). The atomistic structure of relationship. In J. Allen & J. Wilby (Eds.), Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the International Society for the System Sciences. Retrieved from http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings51st/issue/current/showToc
Koestler, A. (1970). Beyond atomism and holism: The concept of the holon. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 13(2), 131–154. http://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1970.0023
Korzybski, A. (1933). Science and sanity: An introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and general semantics. Lakeville, CT: International Non-Aristotelian Library.
Koshy, V. (2005). Action research for improving practice: A practical guide. London, United Kingdom: Sage.
Kristensen, P. (2004, September 27–29). The DPSIR framework. Paper presented at the National Environmental Research Institute, Kenya, Nairobi. Retrieved from http://wwz.ifremer.fr/dce_eng/content/download/69291/913220/file/DPSIR.pdf
Kylafis, G., & Loreau, M. (2011). Niche construction in the light of niche theory. Ecology Letters, 14(2), 82–90. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01551.x
Lee, K. S., & Geem, Z. W. (2005). A new meta-heuristic algorithm for continuous engineering optimization: Harmony search theory and practice. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 194(36–38), 3902–3933. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2004.09.007
Levins, R., & Lewontin, R. C. (1985). The dialectical biologist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Louie, A. (2009). More than life itself: A synthetic continuation in relational biology. Heusenstamm, Germany: Ontos Verlag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110321944
Lowe, E. J. (2006). The four-category ontology: A metaphysical foundation for natural science. Oxford, United Kingdom: Clarendon Press.
Loy, D. (1997). Nonduality: A study in comparative philosophy. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanity Books.
Martin, C. B. (2007). The mind in nature. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234103.001.0001
Masreliez, C. J. (2012). The progression of time: How the expansion of space and time forms our world and powers the universe (CreateSpace Independent Publishing ed.). Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8947-4
Merlin, D. (2001). A mind so rare: The evolution of human consciousness. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Mermin, N. D. (1989). What’s wrong with this pillow? Physics Today, 42(4), 9–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2810963
Mikulecky, D. C. (2000). Robert Rosen--the well-posed question and its answer: Why are organisms different from machines? Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17(5), 419–432. http://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1743(200009/10)17:5<419::AID-SRES367>3.0.CO;2-D
Morçöl, G. (2002). A new mind for policy analysis: Toward a post-Newtonian and postpositivist epistemology and methodology. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Mumford, S. (2003). Dispositions. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199259823.001.0001
Nadin, M. (2010). Anticipation and dynamics: Rosen’s anticipation in the perspective of time. International Journal of General Systems, 39(1), 3–33. http://doi.org/10.1080/03081070903453685
Ness, B., Anderberg, S., & Olsson, L. (2010). Structuring problems in sustainability science: The multi-level DPSIR framework. Geoforum, 41(3), 479–488. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.12.005
Odling-Smee, F. J., Laland, K. N., & Feldman, M. W. (2003). Niche construction: The neglected process in evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
O’Leary, Z. (2004). The essential guide to doing research. London, United Kingdom: Sage.
Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Berkes, F. (2004). Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social–ecological systems. Environmental Management, 34(1), 75–90. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-0101-7
Örtenblad, A. (2004). The learning organization: Towards an integrated model. The Learning Organization, 11(2), 129–144. http://doi.org/10.1108/09696470410521592
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939), 419–422. doi:10.1126/science.1172133
Patton, C., Sawicki, D., & Clark, J. (2015). Basic methods of policy analysis and planning (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Penrose, R. (1994). Shadows of the mind: A search for the missing science of consciousness. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Peters, T. (2014). Playing god? Genetic determinism and human freedom. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Prime, R. (2002). Vedic ecology: Practical wisdom for surviving the 21st century. Novato, CA: Mandala Publishing.
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263. http://doi.org/10.1177/13684310222225432
Rosen, J., & Kineman, J. J. (2004). Anticipatory systems and time: A new look at Rosennean complexity. In J. Allen & J. Wilby (Eds.), Proceedings of the 49th Meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: ISSS.
Rosen, R. (1978). Fundamentals of measurement and representation of natural systems. New York, NY: North-Holland.
Rosen, R. (1985). Anticipatory systems: Philosophical, mathematical, and methodological foundations. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
Rosen, R. (1990). The modeling relation and natural law. In R. E. Mickens (Ed.), Mathematics and science (pp. 183–199). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/9789814503488_0013
Rosen, R. (1991). Life itself: A comprehensive inquiry into the nature, origin, and fabrication of life. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Rosen, R. (1993). Drawing the boundary between subject and object: Comments on the mind-brain problem. Theoretical Medicine, 14(2), 89–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00997269
Rosen, R. (1999). Essays on life itself. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Rosen, R. (2003). The limits of the limits of science (Certified 1st ed., Copy #5). Rochester, NY: Judith Rosen.
Rosen, R. (with J. Rosen, J. J. Kineman, & M. Nadin). (2012). Anticipatory systems: Philosophical, mathematical, and methodological foundations (2nd rev. ed.). New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1269-4
Rousseau, D., Billingham, J., Wilby, J. M., & Blachfellner, S. (2016a). A typology for the systems field. Systema, 4(1), 15–47. Retrieved from http://www.systema-journal.org/
Rousseau, D., Billingham, J., Wilby, J. M., & Blachfellner, S. (2016b). The scope and range of general systems transdisciplinarity. Systema, 4(1), 48–60. Retrieved from http://www.systema-journal.org/
Rousseau, D., Billingham, J., Wilby, J. M., & Blachfellner, S. (2016c). The synergy between general systems theory and the general systems worldview. Systema, 4(1), 61–75. Retrieved from http://www.systema-journal.org/
Sankaran, S., Dick, B., Passfield, R., & Swepson, P. (2001). Effective change management using action learning and action research. Lismore, Australia: Southern Cross University.
Schlosshauer, M., & Camilleri, K. (2011). What classicality? Decoherence and Bohr’s classical concepts. arXiv:1009.4072 [quant-Ph], 26–35. http://doi.org/10.1063/1.3567426
Schrödinger, E. (1955). What is life? The physical aspect of the living cell. Cambridge, United Kingdom: The University Press.
Schrödinger, E. (2012). What is life? With mind and matter and autobiographical sketches. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107295629
Schrödinger, E., & Hastings, C. (1964). Meine Weltansicht [My View of the World] (C. Hastings, Trans.). Cambridge, United Kingdom: The University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1992). The rediscovery of the mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Doubleday.
Senge, P. M. (2014). The dance of change: The challenges to sustaining momentum in a learning organization. New York, NY: Random House.
Smolin, L. (2014). Time reborn: From the crisis in physics to the future of the universe. Boston, MA: Mariner Books.
Snow, C. P. (1993). The two cultures. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511819940
Stein, L. (2012). Becoming whole: Jung’s equation for realizing god (1st ed.). New York, NY: Helios Press.
Triebel, H. (2010). Theory of function spaces. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser Verlag.
Troncale, L. (2006). Towards a science of systems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 23(3), 301–321. doi:10.1002/sres.729
Tscherning, K., Helming, K., Krippner, B., Sieber, S., & Gomez y Paloma, S.. (2012). Does research applying the DPSIR framework support decision making? Land Use Policy, 29(1), 102–110. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.05.009
Ulanowicz, R. E., & Kauffman, S. A. (2009). A third window: Natural life beyond Newton and Darwin. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press.
Unger, R. M., & Smolin, L. (2014). The singular universe and the reality of time. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139696487
Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21–54. Retrieved from http://www.misq.org/
von Foerster, H. (2003). Understanding understanding: Essays on cybernetics and cognition. New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/b97451
Walker, S. I., Cisneros, L., & Davies, P. C. W. (2012). Evolutionary transitions and top-down causation (arXiv e-print No. 1207.4808). Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.4808
Wheeler, J. A. (1981). Law without law. In J. A. Wheeler & W. H. Zurek (Eds.), Quantum theory and measurement (pp. 182–216). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wiek, A., Farioli, F., Fukushi, K., & Yarime, M. (2012). Sustainability science: Bridging the gap between science and society. Sustainability Science, 7(1, Suppl.), 1–4. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0154-0
Wiens, J. A., Crawford, C. S., & Gosz, J. R. (1985). Boundary dynamics: A conceptual framework for studying landscape ecosystems. Oikos, 45, 421–427. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3565577
Wigner, E. P. (1981). Remarks on the mind-body question. In J. A. Wheeler & W. H. Zurek (Eds.), Quantum theory and measurement (pp. 168–181). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wilber, K. (2007). A brief history of everything. Boston, MA: Shambhala.
Wilson, E. O. (2000). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Zachariadis, M., Scott, S., & Barrett, M. (2013). Methodological implications of critical realism for mixed-methods research. Mis Quarterly, 37(3), 855–879. Retrieved from http://www.misq.org/
Zurek, W. H. (Ed.). (1990). Complexity, entropy, and the physics of information: The proceedings of the 1988 Workshop on Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information held May-June, 1989, in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Worksheets
Appendix: Worksheets
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kineman, J.J. (2017). Systems Research Framework. In: Edson, M., Buckle Henning, P., Sankaran, S. (eds) A Guide to Systems Research. Translational Systems Sciences, vol 10. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0263-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0263-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-0262-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-0263-2
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)