Foundations of Science

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 579–602 | Cite as

The Science of Conceptual Systems: A Progress Report

Article

Abstract

In this paper I provide a brief history of the emerging science of conceptual systems, explain some methodologies, their sources of data, and the understandings that they have generated. I also provide suggestions for extending the science-based research in a variety of directions. Essentially, I am opening a conversation that asks how this line of research might be extended to gain new insights—and eventually develop more useful and generally accepted methods for creating and evaluating theory. This effort will support our ability to generate theory that is more effective in practical application as well as accelerating the development of theory to support advances in other sciences.

Keywords

Science of conceptual systems Theory Metatheory Policy Metapolicy Integrative propositional analysis 

References

  1. Ambrose, D. (1996). Unifying theories of creativity: Metaphorical thought and the unification process. New Ideas in Psychology, 14(3), 257–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Axelrod, R. (1976). Structure of decision: The cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton: Princeton Universtiy Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Burrell, G. (1997). Pandemonium: Towards a retro-organizational theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Calas, M. B., & Smircich, L. (1999). Past postmodernism? Reflections and tentative directions. The Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 649.Google Scholar
  6. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Clegg, S. R., Cunha, J. V., & Cunha, M. P. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55(5), 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Council, S. (2010). Defining science. 2010 from http://www.sciencecouncil.org/DefiningScience.php
  9. Craik, K. (1943). The nature of explanation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Curseu, P., Schalk, R., & Schruijer, S. (2010). The use of cognitive mapping in eliciting and evaluating group cognitions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(5), 1258–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dekkers, (2008). Adapting organizations: The instance of business process re-engineering. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25(1), 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dent, E. B., & Umpleby, S. A. (1998). Underlying assumptions of several traditions in systems theory and cybernetics. In R. Trappl (Ed.), Cybernetic and systems ‘98 (pp. 513–518). Vienna: Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies.Google Scholar
  13. Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building (Revised ed.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  14. Edwards, M. (2010). Organisational transformation for sustainability: An integral metatheory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Faust, D. (2005). Why Paul Meehl will revolutionize the philosophy of science and why it should matter to psychologists. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(10), 1355–1366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (2002). Using meta-scientific studies to clarify or resolve questions in the philosophy and history of science. Philosophy of Science, 69(3), 185–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fiske, D. W., & Shweder, R. A. (1986). Metatheory in social science: Pluralisms and subjectivities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Flower, L., & Mellon, C. (1989). Cognition, context, and theory building. College Composition and Communication, 40(3), 282–311.Google Scholar
  20. Friedman, D. (1997). Hidden order: The economics of everyday life. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar
  21. Gardner, E. S, Jr. (2004). Dimensional analysis of airline quality. Interfaces, 34(4), 272–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gentner, D. (1983). Strcture-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
  24. Jacobson, N. (2001). Experiencing recovery: A dimensional analysis of recovery narratives. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 24(3), 248–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jean-Pierre, V. M. H., & Edward, A. G. (2000). Metadisciplinarity, belles lettres, and Andre Malraux: A bibliometric exploration of knowledge formation. The Serials Librarian, 37(4), 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson-Laird, P. (1980). Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 4, 71–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  28. Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  29. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kostoff, R. N., del Rio, J. A., Humenik, J. A., Ramírez, A. M., & García, E. O. (2001). Citation mining: Integrating text mining and bibliometrics for research user profiling. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(13), 1148–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–195). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lane, D. A. (1992). Artificial worlds and economies. Working Paper for the Santa Fe Research Program. Santa Fe, New Mexico.Google Scholar
  34. Ledoux, L. (2012). Philosophy: Today’s manager’s best friend? Philosophy of Management: Special Issue (Guest Editors: Stephen Sheard, Mark Dibben), 11(3), 11–26.Google Scholar
  35. MacIntosh, R., & MacLean, D. (1999). Conditioned emergence: A dissipative structures approach to transformation. Strategic Management Journal, 20(4), 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McNamara, C., & Troncale, L. (2012). SPT II: How to find and map linkage propositions for a GTS from the natural sciences literature. Paper presented at the 56th Annual Conference of the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS), San Jose, CA.Google Scholar
  37. Meehl, P. E. (1992). Cliometric metatheory: The actuarial approach to empirical, history-based philosophy of science. Psychological Reports, 71(2), 339–467.Google Scholar
  38. Meehl, P. E. (2002). Cliometric metatheory: II. Criteria scientists use in theory appraisal and why it is rational to do so. Psychological Reports, 91(2), 339–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meehl, P. E. (2004). Cliometric metatheory III: Peircean consensus, verisimilitude and asymptotic method. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55(4), 615–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Müller, K. H. A., & Tos, N. (2012). New cognitive environments for survey research in the age of science 2. Društvena Istraživanja [Social Research: Journal for General Social Issues], 21(2), 315–339.Google Scholar
  41. Oberschall, A. (2000). Oberschall reviews “Theory and Progress in Social Science” by James B. Rule. Social Forces, 78(3), 1188–1191.Google Scholar
  42. Palmer, K. D. (2014). Setting off to Nowhere: Introduction: Search for a Deeper Theory of Everything. Working paper. https://www.academia.edu/5945873/Search_for_a_Deeper_Theory_of_Everything_Setting_Off_to_Nowhere. Accessed 13 Sept 2014.
  43. Parnell, J. A. (2008). Assessing theory and practice in competitive strategy: Challenges and future directions. Journal of CENTRUM Cathedra, 1(12), 12–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Pieters, K. P. (2010). Patterns, models, complexity. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 12(4), 57–77.Google Scholar
  46. Raphael, T. D. (1982). Integrative complexity theory and forecasting international crises: Berlin 1946–1962. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 26(3), 423–450.Google Scholar
  47. Ritzer, G., & Smart, B. (Eds.) (2001). Introduction: Theorists, theories and theorizing. In Handbook of social theory (pp. 1–9), London: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Robertson, P. P. (2014). Why top executives derail: A performative-extended mind and a law of optimal emergence. Journal of Organisational Transformation and Social Change, 11(1), 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Senge, P., Kleiner, K., Roberts, S., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. J. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.Google Scholar
  50. Šešelja, D., & Straßer, C. (2014). Epistemic justification in the context of pursuit: A coherentist approach. Synthese, 191(13), 3111–3141.Google Scholar
  51. Shackelford, C. (2014). Propositional analysis, policy creation, and complex environments in the United States’ 2009 AfghanistanPakistan Policy. Doctoral Dissertation, Walden, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  52. Shaw, D. R., & Allen, T. F. H. (2012). A systematic consideration of observational design decisions in the theory construction process. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 29(5), 484–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shoemaker, P. J., Tankard, J. W, Jr, & Lasorsa, D. L. (2004). How to build social science theories. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shotter, J. (1994). Conversational realities: From within persons to within relationships. Retrieved December 3, 2005 from http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jds/Adelaide94.htm.
  55. Shotter, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2007, 7–9 June). Theory as therapy: Towards reflective theorizing in organizational studies. Paper presented at the Third Organizational Studies Summer Workshop: ‘Organization Studies as Applied Science: The Generation and Use of Academic Knowledge about Organizations’, Crete, Greece.Google Scholar
  56. Smith, M. E. (2003). Changing an organisation’s culture: Correlates of success and failure. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 24(5), 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sosa, E. (2003). In search of coherentism. In E. Sosa (Ed.), Epistemic justification: Internalism vs. externalism, foundations vs. virtues (Vol. 7). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  58. Stacey, R. D. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  59. Stinchcombe, A. L. (1987). Constructing social theories. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  60. Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E., & Streufert, S. (1992). Conceptual/integrative complexity. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 393–400). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Sussman, S., & Sussman, A. (2001). Praxis in health behavior program development. In S. Sussman (Ed.), Handbook of program development for health behavior research and practice (pp. 79–97). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Thagard, P., & Stewart, T. C. (2011). The AHA! experience: Creativity through emergent binding in neural networks. Cognitive Science, 35(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Turner, J. H. (1986). The structure of sociological theory (4th ed.). Chicago: The Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
  64. Umpleby, S. (2010). From complexity to reflexivity: The next step in the systems sciences. Paper presented at the Cybernetics and Systems 2010, Vienna. http://www.gwu.edu/~umpleby/cybernetics_papers.html
  65. Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, 111(2), 447–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Wallis, S. E. (2008). From reductive to robust: Seeking the core of complex adaptive systems theory. In A. Yang & Y. Shan (Eds.), Intelligent complex adaptive systems (pp. 1–25). Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wallis, S. E. (2009a). The complexity of complexity theory: An innovative analysis. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 11(4), 26–38.Google Scholar
  69. Wallis, S. E. (2009b). Seeking the robust core of social entrepreneurship theory. In J. A. Goldstein, J. K. Hazy, & J. Silberstang (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship and complexity. Litchfield Park, AZ: ISCE Publishing.Google Scholar
  70. Wallis, S. E. (2010a). The structure of theory and the structure of scientific revolutions: What constitutes an advance in theory? In S. E. Wallis (Ed.), Cybernetics and systems theory in management: Views, tools, and advancements (pp. 151–174). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wallis, S. E. (2010b, July 29–August 1). Techniques for the objective analysis and advancement of integral theory. Paper presented at the Integral Theory Conference 2010: Enacting an Integral Future, Pleasant Hill, CA.Google Scholar
  72. Wallis, S. E. (2010c). Toward a science of metatheory. Integral Review, 6 (Special Issue: “Emerging Perspectives of Metatheory and Theory”).Google Scholar
  73. Wallis, S. E. (2010d). Towards developing effective ethics for effective behavior. Social Responsibility Journal, 6(4), 536–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wallis, S. E. (2010e). Towards the development of more robust policy models. Integral Review, 6(1), 153–160.Google Scholar
  75. Wallis, S. E. (2011). Avoiding policy failure: A workable approach. Litchfield Park, AZ: Emergent Publications.Google Scholar
  76. Wallis, S. E. (2012a, July 15–22). Existing and emerging methods for integrating theories within and between disciplines. Paper presented at the 56th annual meeting of the International Society for Systems Sciences (ISSS), San Jose, California.Google Scholar
  77. Wallis, S. E. (2012b, July 22–27). Theories of psychology: Evolving towards greater effectiveness or wandering, lost in the jungle, without a guide? Paper presented at the 30th International Congress of Psychology: Psychology Serving Humanity, Cape Town, South Africa.Google Scholar
  78. Wallis, S. E. (2013). How to choose between policy proposals: A simple tool based on systems thinking and complexity theory. Emergence: Complexity Organization, 15(3), 94–120.Google Scholar
  79. Wallis, S. E. (2014a). A systems approach to understanding theory: Finding the core, identifying opportunities for improvement, and integrating fragmented fields. Systems Research and Behavioral Science Journal, 31(1), 23–31.Google Scholar
  80. Wallis, S. E. (2014b). Abstraction and insight: Building better conceptual systems to support more effective social change. Foundations of Science, 19(4), 353–362. doi:10.1007/s10699-014-9359-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wallis, S. E. (2014c). Existing and emerging methods for integrating theories within and between disciplines. Organisational Transformation and Social Change, 11(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wallis, S. E. (2014d). Structures of logic in policy and theory: Identifying sub-systemic bricks for investigating, building, and understanding conceptual systems. Foundations of Science. doi:10.1007/s10699-014-9360-4
  83. Wallis, S. E. (Under submission). Are theories of conflict improving? Using propositional analysis to determine the structure of conflict theories over the course of a century (availible on request).Google Scholar
  84. Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516–531.Google Scholar
  85. Wong, E. M., Ormiston, M. E., & Tetlock, P. E. (2011). The effects of top management team integrative complexity and decentralized decision making on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1207–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wright, B., & Wallis, S. E. (Under submission). A revolutionary method to advance entrepreneurship theories (availible on request).Google Scholar
  87. Yolles, M. (2006). Knowledge cybernetics: A new metaphor for social collectives. Organizational Transformation and Social Change, 3(1), 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), 311–318. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03721.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Foundation for the Advancement of Social TheoryPetalumaUSA
  2. 2.Meaningful Evidence, LLCFalls ChurchUSA
  3. 3.Adjunct FacultyCapella UniversityMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations