The CogniscopeLessons Learned in the Arena

  • Alexander N. Christakis
  • Kevin Dye

A response to the increasing complexity and risk of designing and planning social systems, especially inter-organizational collaborations, is to ground methodologies on well-researched principles and empirically verify the efficacy of their application. Recent examples from our arena of practice include engaging representatives of fifty organizations in planning a twenty year global Disease Elimination program, international philanthropy-government-venture capital sponsored industrial-academic consortia in Northern Ireland, external stakeholder-driven modernization of regulatory policy, Federal and State interagency coordination for resource stewardship, and statewide engagement of stakeholders in special education.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Apel, K., 1981. Charles S. Peirce: From Pragmatism to Pragmaticism, University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst.Google Scholar
  2. Ashby, R., 1958. Requisite Variety and Its Implications for the Control of Complex Systems, Cybernetica, 1(2): 1-17.Google Scholar
  3. Banathy, B.H., 1996. Designing Social Systems in a Changing World, Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Banathy, B.A., 1999. An information typology for the understanding of social systems, Systems Research and Behavioral Sciences, 16(6): 479-494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bausch, K., 2001. The Emerging Consensus in Social System Theory, Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Bausch, K., 2000. The practice and ethics of design. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17 (1): 23-51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boulding, K., 1966. The impact of social sciences, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick.Google Scholar
  8. Christakis, A.N., 1973. A new policy science paradigm. Futures, 5(6): 543-558.Google Scholar
  9. Christakis, A.N., 1987. High Technology Participative Design: The Space-Based Laser, in General Systems. John A. Dillon Jr. (ed.), International Society for the Systems Sciences, Vol. XXX, New York, 69-75.Google Scholar
  10. Christakis, A.N., 1988. The Club of Rome revisited in: General Systems. W.J. Reckmeyer (ed.), International Society for the Systems Sciences, Vol. XXXI, New York, pp. 35-38.Google Scholar
  11. Christakis, A.N., 1993. The Inevitability of Demosophia, in: A Challenge for Systems Thinking: The Aegean Seminar, Ioanna Tsivacou (ed.), University of the Aegean Press, Athens, Greece, pp. 187-197.Google Scholar
  12. Christakis, A.N., 1996. A People Science: The CogniScope system approach. Systems: Journal of Transdisciplinary Systems Sciences, 1(1).Google Scholar
  13. Christakis, A.N., Warfield, J.N., 1987. NSF DTM OhioGoogle Scholar
  14. Christakis, A.N., Warfield, J.N., and Keever, D., 1988. Systems Design: Generic Design Theory and Methodology, In Decleris, Michael (ed.), Systems Governance, Publisher Ant. N. Sakkoylas, Athens-Komotini, Greece, pp. 143-210.Google Scholar
  15. Christakis, A.N., and Dye, K.M., 1999. Collaboration through communicative action: Resolving the systems dilemma through the CogniScope. Systems: Journal of Transdisciplinary Systems Sciences, 4(1).Google Scholar
  16. de Zeeuw, G., 1996. Second Order Organizational Research, Working Papers in Systems and Information Sciences, University of Humberside, Hull, England.Google Scholar
  17. Dye, K.M., 1997. Collaborative Design Process Science, Working Papers at MIT, Boston.Google Scholar
  18. Dye, K.M., Feudtner, C., Post, D., and Vogt, E.M., 1999. Developing Collaborative Leadership to Reframe the Safe Use of Pharmaceuticals as a National Health Priority, Final Report, CWA Ltd. Paoli, PA.Google Scholar
  19. Dye, K.M., and Conaway D.S., 1999. Lessons Learned from Five Years of Application of the CogniScope™ Approach to the Food and Drug Administration, CWA Ltd. Report, Paoli, PA.Google Scholar
  20. Habermas, J., 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action, Vols. I and II. Polity PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Kapelouzos, I.B., 1989. The Impact of Structural Modeling on the Creation of New Perspectives in Problem-Solving Situations, Proceedings of the 1989 European Congress on Systems Science, Lausanne, Switzerland, AFCET, October, pp. 915-932.Google Scholar
  22. Magliocca, L.A., and Christakis, A. N., 2001. Creating a framework for sustainable organizational leadership: The CogniScope System Approach. Systems Research and Behavioral Science,Google Scholar
  23. Miller, G.A., 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limitations on our capacity for processing information. Psychology Review, 63: 81-97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Murthy, P.N., 2000. Complex societal problem solving: A possible set of methodological criteria, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17: 73-101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Simon, H.A., 1974. How big is a chunk. Science, 183: 482-488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tsivacou, I., 1997. The rationality of distinctions and the emergence of power: A critical systems perspective of power in organizations, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 14 (1): 21-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Taylor, J.B., 1976. Building an Interdisciplinary Team. In Arnstein, S.R., and Christakis, A.N., (ed.) Perspectives on Technology Assessment, Science and Technology Publishers, Jerusalem, Israel, pp. 45-63.Google Scholar
  28. Turrisi, P.A., Ed., 1997. Pragmatism as a Principle and Method of Right Thinking, State University of New York Press, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Warfield, J.N., 1988. The magical number three, plus or minus zero, Cybernetics and Systems, 19: 339-358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Warfield, J.N., 1994. A Science of Generic Design: Managing Complexity Through Systems Design, Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
  31. Warfield, J.N., 1999. The Problematique: Evolution of an Idea. Systems Research, 16: 221-226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Warfield, J.N., and Christakis, A.N., 1987. Dimensionality. Systems Research, 4:127-137.Google Scholar
  33. Warfield, J.N., and Cardenas, A. R., 1994. A Handbook of Interactive Management, Iowa State University Press, Ames, 1994.Google Scholar
  34. Warfield, J.N., and Staley, Scott M., 1996. Structural Thinking: Organizing Complexity through Disciplined Activity, Systems Research, 13(1): 47-67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander N. Christakis
  • Kevin Dye

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations