Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Problem Structuring and Research Design in Systemic Inquiry

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A Guide to Systems Research

Part of the book series: Translational Systems Sciences ((TSS,volume 10))

Abstract

The central question of this chapter is, “How are inquiries into problems structured and designed to conduct research in a systemic (holistic, comprehensive, complicated, and complex), as well as systematic (logical, rigorous, and disciplined) way?” The focus is on Problem Structuring and Research Design related to the purpose of research and development of an inquiry’s central research question(s). Both are predicated on researchers’ grounding in systems philosophy and theoretical or conceptual frameworks gained through knowledge acquired through review of the literature, experience, experimentation, or pilot study. These foundations prepare systems researchers for analyzing systems and defining problems to design, conduct, report, and evaluate systemic research studies. In addition, these fundamentals guide researchers’ journeys through iterative, nested, and cumulative cycles of learning about subject systems. Researchers will learn about defining systemic research questions and gain understanding about the role and embedment of context, including a system’s environment, its stakeholders, and emergent properties. Researchers will gain appreciation and competencies of systemic research that is also systematic by applying principles of adaptive project management. While Problem Structuring is about doing the right research, Research Design is about doing research right using a systemic lens. For systems researchers from disciplines such as the social, natural, and physical sciences, and fields like engineering, economics, and public policy, this question poses exacting challenges in evaluation of credibility, validity, and ethics of Systems Research including application of findings. It poses a dual standard of rigor in requiring that research meet both systematic and systemic definitions and distinctions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ackoff, R. L. (1971). Towards a system of systems concepts. Management Science, 17(11), 661–671. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.17.11.661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff, R. L. (1979). The future of operational research is past. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 30(2), 93–104. doi:10.2307/3009290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff, R. L. (1981). The art and science of mess management. Interfaces, 11(1), 20–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.11.1.20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahl, V., & Allen, T. F. H. (1996). Hierarchy theory: A vision, vocabulary, and epistemology. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1992). On organizational learning. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, W. R. (1947). Principles of the self-organizing dynamic system. The Journal of General Psychology, 37(2), 125–128. doi:10.1080/00221309.1947.9918144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, W. R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. London, United Kingdom: Chapman & Hall.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, D. (1998). Complexity theory and the social sciences: An introduction. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera, D., Cabrera, L., & Powers, E. (2015). A unifying theory of systems thinking with psychosocial applications. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 32(5), 534–545. doi:10.1002/sres.2351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, A. A. (1996). Distinguishing systemic from systematic. TechTrends, 41(1), 16–20. doi:10.1007/BF02812077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, D. (2009). The abduction of Sherlock Holmes. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 11(2), 193–202. doi:10.1350/ijps.2009.11.2.123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. B. (1983). OR and the systems movement: Mappings and conflicts. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 34(7), 661–675. doi:10.2307/2581700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. (2000). Soft systems methodology: A thirty year retrospective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17(Suppl.), S11–S58. doi:10.1002/1099-1743(200011)17:1+<::AID-SRES374>3.0.CO;2-O

  • Churchman, G. W. (1967). Wicked problems. Management Science, 14(4), 141–142. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2628678

  • Conneeley, A. L. (2002). Methodological issues in qualitative research for the researcher/practitioner. The British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65(4), 185–190. doi:10.1177/030802260206500406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cytrynbaum, S., Trist, E., & Murray, H. (1995). The social engagement of social science: A Tavistock anthology, Vol. 2: The socio-technical perspective. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 45(4), 567–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter? Higher Education, 62(3), 279–301. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York, NY: Henry Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edson, M. C. (2012). A complex adaptive systems view of resilience in a project team. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 29(5), 499–516. doi:10.1002/sres.2153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, B. J. (1977). The League of Nations Union and history teaching in England: A study in benevolent bias. History of Education: Journal of the History of Education Society, 6(2), 131–141. doi:10.1080/0046760770060205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations, 18(1), 21–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872676501800103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flood, R. L., & Jackson, M. G. (1991). Creative problem solving: Total systems intervention. Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. (1994). System dynamics, systems thinking, and soft OR. System Dynamics Review, 10(2–3), 245–256. doi:10.1002/sdr.4260100211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • François, C. (Ed.). (2004). International encyclopedia of systems and cybernetics. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fransella, F., Bell, R., & Bannister, D. (2004). A manual for repertory grid technique. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: History and issues. Emergence, 1(1), 49–72, doi:10.1207/s15327000em0101_4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goleman, D. (2006). Social intelligence: Beyond IQ, beyond emotional intelligence—the revolutionary new science of human relationships. New York, NY: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in systems of humans and nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson, L., Kinzig, A., Quinlian, A. Walker, B., Cundhill, G., Beier, C.,… Bodin, O. (2010). Resilience Alliance: Assessing resilience in social-ecological systems (Workbook for Practitioners, Version 2.0). Retrieved from http://www.resalliance.org/3871.php

  • Hofstadter, D. R. (1979). Gödel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. H. (1992). Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: An introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ison, R. L. (2008). Systems thinking and practice for action research. In P. W. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The Sage handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed., pp. 139–158). London, United Kingdom: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jankowicz, D. (2003). The easy guide to repertory grids. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewes, G. H. (1875). Problems of life and mind (1st. ser.). London, United Kingdom: Trübner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-8947-4

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, A. (2007). Participatory action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic intervention: Philosophy, methodology, and practice. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-4201-8

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J., & Brocklesby, J. (1997). Multimethodology: Towards a framework for mixing methodologies. Omega, 25(5), 489–509. doi:10.1016/S0305-0483(97)00018-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J., & Rosenhead, J. (2001). Diverse unity: Looking inward and outward. In J. Rosenhead & J. Mingers (Eds.), Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: Problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict (pp. 337–355). Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J., & Rosenhead, J. (2004). Problem structuring methods in action. European Journal of Operational Research, 152(3), 530–554. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00056-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munkejord, K. (2009). Methodological emotional reflexivity: The role of researcher emotions in grounded theory research. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 4(2), 151–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17465640910978409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munro, I., & Mingers, J. (2002). The use of multimethodology in practice: Results of a survey of practitioners. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 53(4), 369–378. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1992). The logic of scientific discovery (2nd ed.). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, R. (1978). On closed world data bases. In H. Gallaire & J. Minker (Eds.), Logic and data bases (pp. 55–76). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-3384-5_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Science, 4(2), 155–169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead, J. (1996). What’s the problem? An introduction to problem structuring methods. Interfaces, 26(6), 117–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.26.6.117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead, J., & Mingers, J. (Eds.). (2001). Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: Problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict (2nd ed.). Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, P. (1998). Scenario planning: A tool for strategic thinking. In R. G. Dyson & F. A. O’Brien (Eds.), Strategic development: Methods and models (pp. 185–208). Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheng, G., Elzas, M. S., Ören, T. I., & Cronhjort, B. T. (1993). Model validation: A systemic and systematic approach. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 42(2), 247–259. doi:10.1016/0951-8320(93)90092-D

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steels, L. (1990). Towards a theory of emergent functionality. In J.-A. Meyer & S. W. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behaviour From Animals to Animats (pp. 451–461). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (1989). Modeling managerial behavior: Misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Management Science, 35(3), 321–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.3.321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Boston. MA: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (2002). All models are wrong: Reflections on becoming a systems scientist. System Dynamics Review, 18(4), 501–531. doi:10.1002/sdr.261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stringer, E. T. (2013). Action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trist, E., & Murray, H. (1993). The social engagement of social science: A Tavistock anthology. Vol. 2: The socio-technical perspective. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W. (1995). Critical heuristics of social planning: A new approach to practical philosophy. Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W. (2000). Reflective practice in the civil society: The contribution of critically systemic thinking. Reflective Practice, 1(2), 247–268. doi:10.1080/713693151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W., & Reynolds, M. (2010). Critical systems heuristics. In M. Reynolds & S. Holwell (Eds.), Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide (pp. 243–292). doi:10.1007/978-1-84882-809-4_6

  • Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weihrich, H. (1998). Daimler–Benz’s move towards the next century with the TOWS matrix. In R. G. Dyson & F. A. O’Brien (Eds.), Strategic development: Methods and models (pp. 69–80). Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weston, A. (2009). A rulebook for arguments (4th ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weston, A., & Morrow, D. R. (2015). A workbook for arguments: A complete course in critical thinking (2nd ed.) Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, L. (2006). Evaluating problem-structuring methods: Developing an approach to show the value and effectiveness of PSMs. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(7), 842–855. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whyte, W. F. E. (1991). Participatory action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Logico-Philosophicus. New York, NY: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1984). Notebooks 1914–1916 (G. H. von Wright & G. E. M. Anscombe, Eds., G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolley, R. N., & Pidd, M. (1981). Problem structuring: A literature review. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 32(3), 197–206. doi:10.2307/2581061

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Federation for Systems Research, Vienna, Austria

    Mary C. Edson

  2. Systemic Excellence Group, Berlin, Germany

    Louis Klein

Authors
  1. Mary C. Edson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Louis Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. International Federation for Systems Research, Vienna, Austria

    Mary C. Edson

  2. Adelphi University , Garden City, New York, USA

    Pamela Buckle Henning

  3. University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, New South Wales, Australia

    Shankar Sankaran

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Edson, M.C., Klein, L. (2017). Problem Structuring and Research Design in Systemic Inquiry. 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_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation