Advertisement

Causal Loop Diagram Aggregation Towards Model Completeness

  • Emily RyanEmail author
  • Matthew Pepper
  • Albert Munoz
Original Paper
First Online:
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

Experienced system dynamicists commonly conceptualise causal relationships and feedback loops using Causal Loop Diagrams (CLDs). In adhering to best practice, multiple data collection activities may be required (e.g. multiple group model building sessions), resulting in multiple CLDs. To achieve covariation that correctly attributes cause and effect from multiple data sets, aggregation of CLDs may be necessary. Such aggregation must adequately account for attribution variations across constructed CLDs to produce a coherent view of a phenomenon of interest in a ‘complete’ model. Discourse concerning model completeness should account for the potential for method bias. The data collection method chosen for CLD development will influence the ability to create a model that is fit for the purposes of the study and influence the likelihood of achieving model completeness. So too does the method chosen for model aggregation. Little processual guidance exists on a method for data aggregation in system dynamics studies. This paper examines three data aggregation approaches, based on existing qualitative analysis methods, to determine the suitability of each method. The approaches considered include triangulation, includes all data in the aggregation process; grounded theory, bases aggregation on frequency of occurrence; and synthesis, extends aggregation to include variables based on magnitude of occurrence. Comments are made regarding the relevance of each method for different study types, with final remarks reiterating the consideration of equifinality and multifinality in research and their impact on method selection. This paper enhances the rigour of research aiming at facilitating greater success in studies utilising CLDs.

Keywords

Casual loop diagram Aggregation Model completeness Synthesis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

References

  1. Ahn W, Kalish CW, Medin DL, Gelman SA (1995) The role of covariation versus mechanism information in causal attribution. Cognition 54:299–352.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)00640-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson L (1997) The introduction of generic workers into the ward team: an exploratory study. J Nurs Manag 5:69–75.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2834.1997.00251.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett-Page E, Thomas J (2009) Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol 9:59.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beven K (2001) Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology. J Hydrol 249:11–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00421-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown SC, Stevens RA Jr, Troiano PF, Schneider MK (2002) Exploring complex phenomena: grounded theory in student affairs research. J Coll Stud Dev 43:173–183Google Scholar
  6. Buckley WF (1967) Sociology and modern systems theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  7. Burns JR, Musa P (2001) Structural validation of causal loop diagrams. In: Proceedings of the Atlanta SD Conference. International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, July 2001, Atlanta, Georgia, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. Cavana RY, Mares ED (2004) Integrating critical thinking and systems thinking: from premises to causal loops. Syst Dyn Rev 20:223–235.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charmaz K (1999) Stories of suffering: subjective tales and research narratives. Qual Health Res 9:362–382.  https://doi.org/10.1177/104973299129121910 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charmaz K, Belgrave LL (2012) Qualitative tnterviewing and grounded theory analysis. In: Gubrium JF, Holstein JA, Marvasti AB, McKinney KD (eds) The SAGE handbook of interview research: the complexity of the craft. SAGE, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  11. Charmaz K, Bryant A (2011) Grounded theory and credibility. In: Silverman D (ed) Qualitative research, 3rd edn. SAGE Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Cheng PW, Novick LR (1992) Covariation in natural causal induction. Psychol Rev 99:365–382.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.2.365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chi MTH (1997) Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical guide. J Learn Sci 6:271–315.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooper H, Hedges LV (2009) Introduction. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC (eds) The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis, 2nd edn. Russell Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Denzin NK (1973) The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Transaction Publishers, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  16. Eaves YD (2001) A synthesis technique for grounded theory data analysis. Methodol Issues Nurs Res 35:654–663.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01897.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eden C, Jones S, Sims D (1983) Messing about in problems: an informal structured approach to their identification and management. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Eden C, Ackermann F, Cropper S (1992) The analysis of cause maps. J Manag Stud 29:309–324.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00667.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev 14:532–550.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1989.4308385 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Finfgeld-Connett D (2010) Generalizability and transferability of meta-synthesis research findings. J Adv Nurs 66:246–254.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05250.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Flick U (1992) Triangulation revisited: strategy of validation or alternative? J Theory Soc Behav 22:175–197.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1992.tb00215.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Flick U (2004) Triangulation in qualitative research. In: A companion to qualitative research. SAGE Publications, London, pp 178–183Google Scholar
  23. Flick U, von Kardorff E, Steinke I (2004) A companion to qualitative research. SAGE Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Fusch PI, Ness LR (2015) Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. Qual Rep 20:1408–1416Google Scholar
  25. Glaser BG, Holton JA (2004) Remodeling grounded theory. Forum Qual Soc Res 5:1–17Google Scholar
  26. Gläser J, Laudel G (2013) Life with and without coding: two methods for early-stage data analysis in qualitative research aiming at causal explanations. Forum Qual Soc Res 14:1–37.  https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-14.2.1886 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  28. Groesser SN, Schwaninger M (2012) Contributions to model validation: hierarchy, process, and cessation. Syst Dyn Rev 28:157–181.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1466 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Guba EG (1978) Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation. University of California, Los Angeles, Center for the Study of Evaluation, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  30. Guizzardi G (2005) Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models. Dissertation, Telematica InstituutGoogle Scholar
  31. Hammell KW (2007) Quality of life after spinal cord injury: a meta-synthesis of qualitative findings. Spinal Cord 45:124–139.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3101992 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hester PT, Adams KM (2017) Systemic decision making: fundamentals for addressing problems and messes, 2nd edn. Springer, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hewstone M, Jaspars J (1987) Covariation and causal attribution: a logical model of the intuitive analysis of variance. J Pers Soc Psychol 53:663–672.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.663 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hodgkinson GP, Clarkson GP (2005) What have we learned from almost 30 years of research on causal mapping? Methodological lessons and choices for the information systems and information technology communities. In: Narayanan V, Armstrong DJ (eds) Causal mapping for research in information technology. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, pp 46–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Holton JA (2007) The coding process and its challenges. In: Bryant A, Charmaz K (eds) The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. SAGE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Homer JB (1996) Why we iterate: scientific modeling in theory and practice. Syst Dyn Rev 12:1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1727(199621)12:1<1::AID-SDR93>3.0.CO;2-P CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hoon C (2013) Meta-synthesis of qualitative case studies: an approach to theory building. Organ Res Methods 16:522–556.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113484969 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Inam A, Adamowski J, Halbe J, Prasher S (2015) Using causal loop diagrams for the initialization of stakeholder engagement in soil salinity managament in agricultural watersheds in developing countries: a case study in Rechna Doab Watershed, Pakistan. J Environ Manag 152:251–267.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.01.052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jones CG (1975) A Delphi evaluation of agreement between Organisation. http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/ch3b4.html. Accessed 19 May 2016
  40. Katz D, Kahn RL (1978) The social psychology of organizations. Wiley, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  41. Kiani B, Gholamian MR, Hamzehei A, Hosseini SH (2009) Using causal loop diagram to achieve a better understanding of E-business models. Int J Electron Bus Manag 7:159–167Google Scholar
  42. Kim DH (1992) Guidelines for drawing causal loop diagrams. Syst Thinker 3:5–6Google Scholar
  43. Kim H, Andersen DF (2012) Building confidence in causal maps generated from purposive text data: mapping transcripts of the Federal Reserve. Syst Dyn Rev 28:311–3280.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1480 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Korsgaard MA, Schweiger DM, Sapienza HJ (1995) Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: the role of procedural justice. Acad Manag J 38:60–84 http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/10.2307/256728 Google Scholar
  45. Lane DC (1992) Modeling as learning: a consultancy methodology for enhancing learning in management teams. Eur J Oper Res 29:64–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Langfield-Smith K (1992) Exploring the need for shared cognitive map. J Manag Stud 29:349–368.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00669.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Laurenti R, Lazarevic D, Poulikidou S et al (2014) Group model-building to identify potential sources of environmental impacts outside the scope of LCA studies. J Clean Prod 72:96–109.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Leech NL, Onwuegbuzie A (2007) An array of qualitative data analysis tools: a call for data analysis triangulation. School Psychol Q 22:557–584.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.22.4.557 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Levers MJD (2013) Philosophical paradigms, grounded theory, and perspectives on emergence. SAGE Open 3:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013517243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Martinez-Moyano IJ, Richardson GP (2013) Best practices in system dynamics modeling. Syst Dyn Rev 29:102–123.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1495 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Morse JM (1994) “Emerging from the data”: the cognitive processes of analysis in qualitative inquiry. In: Morse JM (ed) Critical issues in qualitative research methods. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 23–43Google Scholar
  52. Nelms KR, Porter AL (1985) EFTE: an interactive Delphi method. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 28:43–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(85)90072-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Newig J, Gaube V, Berkhoff K et al (2008) The role of formalisation, participation and context in the success of public involvement mechanisms in resource management. Syst Pract Action Res 21:423–441.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-008-9113-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Noblit GW, Hare DR (1988) A meta-ethnographic approach. In: Noblit GW, Hare DR (eds) Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies. SAGE Publications, Newbury ParkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Orji IJ, Wei S (2015) Dynamic modeling of sustainable operation in green manufacturing environment. J Manuf Technol Manag 26:1201–1217.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-11-2014-0120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pagano R, Paucar-Caceres A (2008) Elicitation methods of organisational knowledge: from the individual to the collective through an integrative approach. Syst Pract Action Res 21:323–337.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-008-9099-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pandit NR (1996) The creation of theory: a recent application of the grounded theory method. Qual Rep 2:1–15Google Scholar
  58. Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research & evaluation methods, Third edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  59. Pearson A (2004) Balancing the evidence incorporating the synthesis of qualitative data into systematic reviews. JBI Reports 2:45–64.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-6988.2004.00008.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Richardson GP (1986) Problems with causal-loop diagrams. Syst Dyn Rev 2:158–170.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.4260020207 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Richardson GP (1997) Problems in causal loop diagrams revisited. Syst Dyn Rev 13:247–252.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1727(199723)13:3<247::AID-SDR128>3.0.CO;2-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sandelowski M, Docherty S, Emden C (1997) Qualitative metasynthesis: issues and techniques. Res Nurs Health 20:365–371.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199708)20:4<365::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-E CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Spector JM, Christensen DL, Sioutine AV, McCormack D (2001) Models and simulations for learning in complex domains: using causal loop diagrams for assessment and evaluation. Comput Hum Behav 17:517–545.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00025-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Spicer J (2015) Representation and dynamic implications of mental models of food systems. In: Proceedings of the Massachusetts. International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, July 2015, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
  65. Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. McGraw Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  66. Sterman JD (2001) System dynamics modeling: tools for learning in a complex world. Calif Manag Rev 43:8–25.  https://doi.org/10.2307/41166098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (1998) Mixed methodology: combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. SAGE, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  68. Thurmond VA (2001) The point of triangulation. J Nurs Scholarsh 33:253–258.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2001.00253.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tomlinson R (1990) Of tools, methods, and methodology. In: Eden C, Radford J (eds) Tackling strategic problems: the role of group decision support. SAGE Publications, London, pp 178–188Google Scholar
  70. Tulinayo FPF, van Bommel PP, Proper HAE (2012) From a system dynamics causal loop diagram to an object-role model: a stepwise approach. J Digit Inf Manag 10:174–186Google Scholar
  71. Vennix JA (1996) Group model building: facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Wiley, West SussexGoogle Scholar
  72. Vennix JAM, Gubbels JW, Post D, Poppen HJ (1990) A structured approach to knowledge elicitation in conceptual model building. Syst Dyn Rev 6:194–208.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.4260060205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vo HV, Poole MS, Courtney JF (2005) An empirical comparison of collective causal mapping approaches. In: Narayanan V, Armstrong DJ (eds) Causal mapping for research in information technology. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, pp 142–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Walton DC (2004) Modeling organizational systems: Banathy’s three lenses revisited. Syst Pract Action Res 17:265–284.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SPAA.0000040647.65393.79 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wolstenholme EF (1999) Qualitative vs quantitative modelling: the evolving balance. J Oper Res Soc 50:422–428.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3010462 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Woudenberg F (1991) An evaluation of Delphi. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 40:131–150.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(91)90002-W CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yilmaz K (2013) Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions: epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. Eur J Educ 48:311–325.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options