Advertisement

The Limitations of Applied Systems Research

  • Mick McLean
Part of the NATO Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 5)

Abstract

This short paper does not attempt to present either an exhaustive or a comprehensive critique of general systems research. Its purpose is rather to raise a number of interrelated issues which the author feels are worthy of a wider discussion. These issues are raised in connection with those areas of systems research which are intended to improve our understanding of social and economic systems. This is not, we feel, a serious limitation since it is in the application of systems research to the social and economic problems of mankind that explicit considerations of methodology have become most important and controversial.

Keywords

System Research Urban Model Comprehensive Critique System Researcher Interrelated Issue 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    See for example, Part III of: S. Encel, P. Marstrand, and W. Page (eds), “The Art of Anticipation,” Martin Robertson, London, 1975.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. F. Coates, “The Role of Formal Models in Technology Assessment,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 9, No. 1/2, pp. 139–190.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. M. McLean, “Methods of System Analysis and Model Building,” to appear in: Cybernetics: A Sourcebook, ed. R. Trappl, Hemisphere Books.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wittgenstein, “Philosophical Investigations,” London, 1953.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. B. Lee, “Requiem for Large Scale Models,” AIP Journal, May 1973.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. D. Brewer, and D. P. Hall, Policy Analysis by Computer Simulation: The Need for Appraisal, Rand Report, p. 4893, 1972.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Clark, and S. Cole, Global Simulation Models, John Wiley, 1976.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    “Analytical Methods in Government Science Policy: An Evaluation,” Science Policy Studies, OECD Paris, 1972.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    I. Hoos, Systems Analysis in Public Policy—A Critique, University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. K. Galbraith, “The New Industrial State,” Hamish Hamilton, London, p. 405, 1967.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. Wiener, “The Human Use of Human Beings,” New York, Houghton Mifflin, 1954.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    W. Ross Ashby, An Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman and Hall, London, 1956.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Mesarovic, and E. Pestel, Mankind at the Turning Point, Outton Press, New York, 1974.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. A. Linstone, Book Review, “Mankind at the Turning Point,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 7, No. 3, p. 331, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. M. McLean, “Does Cross-Impact Analysis Have a Future?” Futures, Vol. 8, No. 4, August 1976.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. C. Duperrin, and M. Godet, “SMIC 74—A Method for Constructing and Ranking Scenarios,” Futures, 7(4), August 1975, pp. 302–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. West Churchman, “Systems and Management Annual,” Petrocelli/Charter, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. L. Cook, “Operational Research, Social Well-Being and the Zero Growth Concept,” in Systems and Management Annual, ed. C. West Churchman, Petrocelli/Charter, New York, p. 424, 1975.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. M. McLean, “The Computerisation of Social Research,” to appear in Demystifying Social Statistics, Pluto Press, London.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Meadows, et al., The Limits to Growth, Universe Books and Earth Island, 1972.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. Thiemann, Interview in Europhysics News, August 1973.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    C. Kaysen, “The Computer that Printed Out Wolf,” Foreign Affairs, 50, 4, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. M. Keynes, “Professor Tinbergen’s Method,” The Economic Journal, Vol. XLIX, No. 195, September 1939, p. 559.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. A. Sayer, Urban Models—A Critique, Pergammon Press, Oxford, 1976.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    I. S. Lowry, “A Model of Metropolis,” Rand Corporation, 1964.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    I. R. Hoos, op. cit., p. 6.A Model of Metropolis,” Rand Corporation, 1964.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    P. B. Checkland, Plenary Address, Proceedings of the Third European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research, Vienna, 1976.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    T. S. Kuhn, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” Univ. of Chicago, 1962.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    K. R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson, London, 1959.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    P. K. Feyerabend, “How to be a Good Empiricist—A Plea for Tolerance in Matters Epistemological,” In Philosophy of Science, The Delaware Seminar, Vol. 2, ed. B. Barmrin, Interscience, 1963.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mick McLean
    • 1
  1. 1.Science Policy Research UnitUniversity of SussexEngland

Personalised recommendations