Integrating Argument Mapping with Systems Thinking Tools: Advancing Applied Systems Science

  • Michael Hogan
  • Owen Harney
  • Benjamin Broome
Part of the Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing book series (AI&KP)


In the absence of meaningful strategies to promote critical thinking, systems thinking, and social intelligence, it has been argued that algorithm-driven web technology will not only serve to damage human creativity, technology may ultimately reduce our collective intelligence. At the same time, the history of group decision-making in education, business, and public administration highlights that working groups often fail to solve complex problems because their method of collaborative problem solving is ineffective. Decades of research in social psychology and the learning sciences highlight the many limitations of group problem solving, including the tendency to focus on a limited set of ideas, select ideas based on biased ‘rules of thumb’, and failure to build trust, consensus and collective vision. A fundamental skill for resolving complex social and scientific problems is the ability to collectively visualise the structure of a shared problem, and use this knowledge to design solutions and strategies for collective action. In this chapter, we describe an approach to knowledge cartography that seeks to overcome three independent human limitations which impede our ability to resolve complex problems: poor critical thinking skills, no clear methodology to facilitate group coherence, consensus design and collective action, and limited computational capacities. Building on Warfield’s vision for applied systems sciences, we outline a new systems science tool which currently combines two thought structuring methodologies: Argument Mapping for critical thinking, and Interactive Management for system design. We further describe how teaching and learning a form of knowledge cartography grounded in applied systems science requires a vision around the development of Tools, Talents, and Teams. We also provide examples of how our approach to knowledge cartography and applied systems science has been used in business and educational settings.


Collective Action Critical Thinking System Science Problematic Situation Interactive Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ackoff, R. L. (1981). Creating the corporate future: Plan or be planned for. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  2. Alberts, H. (1992, March). Acquisition: Past, present and future. Paper presented at the meeting of the Institute of Management Sciences and Operations Research Society, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  3. Alvarez-Ortiz, M., C. (2007) Does Philosophy Improve Critical Thinking Skills? Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  4. Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Ashby, W. R. (1958). Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica, 1(2), 1–17.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Boulding, K. E. (1966). The impact of the social sciences. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Breslin, J. G., Passant, A., & Decker, S. (2009).Social Semantic Web. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broome, B. J. (1995a). Collective design of the future: Structural analysis of tribal vision statements. American Indian Quarterly, 19, 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Broome, B. (1995b). The role of facilitated group process in community-based planning and design: Promoting greater participation in Comanche tribal governance. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Innovations in group facilitation: Applications in natural settings (pp. 27-52). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  10. Broome, B. J. (2006). Applications of Interactive Design Methodologies in Protracted Conflict Situations. Facilitating group communication in context: Innovations and applications with natural groups. Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  11. Broome, B. J. and Christakis, A. N. (1988). A culturally-sensitive approach to Tribal governance issue management. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Broome, B. J., & Chen, M. (1992). Guidelines for computer-assisted group problem-solving: Meeting the challenges of complex issues. Small Group Research, 23, 216–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Broome, B. J., & Cromer, I. L. (1991). Strategic planning for tribal economic development: A culturally appropriate model for consensus building. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Broome, B. J., & Fulbright, L. (1995). A multi-stage influence model of barriers to group problem solving. Small Group Research, 26, 25–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buckingham Shum S., Lind M. and Weigand H. (2007). (Eds.) Proceedings 2nd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web (22–23 Oct. 2007, Tilburg: NL). ISBN: 978-1-59593-859-6. Open Access Eprint:
  16. Chang, N. (2010). Using Structural Equation Modelling to Test the Validity of Interactive Management. Western Political Science Association 2010 Annual Meeting Paper. Available at SSRN:
  17. Christakis, A. N. (1987). Systems profile: The Club of Rome revisited. Systems Research, 4, 53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cleveland, H. (1973). The decision makers. Center Magazine, 6, 5, 9–18.Google Scholar
  19. Coke, J. G., & Moore, C. M. (1981). Coping with a budgetary crisis: Helping a city council decide where expenditure cuts should be made. In S. W. Burks & J. F. Wolf (Eds.), Building city council leadership skills: A casebook of models and methods (pp. 72–85). Washington, DC: National League of Cities.Google Scholar
  20. Deal, T. E. & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  21. Dwyer, C., Hogan, M.J., Stewart, I. (2013). An examination of the effects of argument mapping on students’ memory and comprehension performance. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Facione, J. (1990). Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction: The California Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Feeg, R. (1988). Forum of the future of pediatric nursing: Looking toward the 21st century. Pediatric Nursing, 14, 393–396.Google Scholar
  24. Hogan, M.J. & Broome, B. (2012). Well-Being in Ireland: Overcoming Barriers to Well-Being in Ireland, Conference Report, NUI, Galway.
  25. Hogan, M.J. & Broome, B. (2013). Wellbeing in Ireland – Designing Measures and Implementing Policies, Conference Report, NUI, Galway.
  26. Hogan, M.J., Harney O., & Broome, B. (2014). A Proposal for Systems Science Education. In, Wegerif, R., Kaufman, J. Li L. (Eds). The Routledge Handbook of Research on Teaching Thinking. (In Press)Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keever, D. B. (1989, April). Cultural complexities in the participative design of a computer-based organization information system. Paper presented at the International Conference on Support, Society and Culture: Mutual Uses of Cybernetics and Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  29. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kemeny, J. (1980). Saving American democracy: The lesson of Three Mile Island. Technology Review, 83, 7, 64–75.Google Scholar
  31. Lanier, J. (2010). You Are Not a Gadget. New York: Alfred A.Google Scholar
  32. Maani, K.E and Cavana, R.Y. (2000). Systems Thinking and Modelling: Understanding Change and Complexity, Prentice Hall, Auckland.Google Scholar
  33. Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 137–168.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychology Review, 63, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rittel, H.W.J. and Webber, M.M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sato, T. (1979). Determination of hierarchical networks of instructional units using the ISM method. Educational Technology Research, 3, 67–75.Google Scholar
  38. Schoop M., de Moor A. and Dietz J.L.G. (2006) The Pragmatic Web: A Manifesto. Communications of the ACM, 49: pp. 75–76.
  39. Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of management decisions. New York: Harper & Row.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stein, Z., Dawson, T. and Fischer, K. W. 2010. “Redesigning testing: Operationalizing the new science of learning”. In New science of learning: Cognition, computers, and collaboration in education, Edited by: Khine, M. S. and Saleh, I. M. 207–224. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. van Gelder, T. J., Bissett, M., & Cumming, G. (2004). Cultivating Expertise in Informal Reasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 142–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vennix, J. (1996). Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using Systems Dynamics. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  43. Warfield, J. N. (2006). An introduction to systems science. Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NUI, GalwayGalwayIreland
  2. 2.Arizona State UniversityPhoenixUSA

Personalised recommendations