“Systems design” represents a worldview composed of at least three philosophical layers: ontological beliefs, epistemological assumptions, and methodological choices. An archetype is a root metaphor that crosses these layers and captures a worldview. Three archetypes thought to have good potential for communicating and triggering inquiry into the nature of the systems design worldview are described.
Key wordssystems design archetype epistemology methodology worldview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Asimov, I. (1950).I, Robot, Doubleday, New York.Google Scholar
- Banathy, B. H. (1991).Systems Design of Education: A Journey to Create the Future, Educational Technology, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
- Davies, I. K. (1984). Instructional development: Themata, archetypes, paradigms, and models. In Bass, R. K., and Dills, C. R. (eds.),Instructional Development: State of the Art II, Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, IA, pp. 8–17.Google Scholar
- Jackson, J. E. (1990). “Deja entendu:” The liminal qualities of anthropological fieldnotes.J. Contemp. Ethnogr. 19(1), 8–43.Google Scholar
- Jones, J. C. (1970).Design Methods: Seeds of Human Futures, Wiley-Interscience, London.Google Scholar
- Midgley, G. (1992). Pluralism and the legitimation of systems science.Syst. Pract. 5(2), 147–172.Google Scholar
- Rowland, G. (1994). Designing and evaluating: Creating futures and appreciation error.Educ. Technol. 34(1), 10–22.Google Scholar
- Rowland, G., and Wilson, G. F. (1994). Liminal states in designing.Perform. Improve. Q. 7(2), 30–45.Google Scholar