Systems Research and Social Sciences

  • Stein Braten
Part of the NATO Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 5)


The task defined for this lecture is that of giving an introduction to the conference theme “Advances of Systems Research in Social Sciences,” and providing for some survey snapshots. They will sometimes be blurred, not merely because of the fuzziness of these concepts, but also due to the need for applying many different viewpoints and thereby for shifting or remaking distinctions. The close coupling to biological and physio-behavioral disciplines on one side, to physical and technical concerns on another, and to humanistic and Verstehen-oriented problems on a third side, has made the sciences of man and society emerge as a battleground for multiple and incompatible cores. These make for identity crises rather than paradigmatic crises in these sciences. This may perhaps be documented through reference to two large collections of contributions appearing at the turn of this decade: (i) The huge International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (1968) [1], and the (ii) Unesco document on Main Trends of Research in the Social and Human Sciences (Part 1: Social Sciences, 1970) [2], in spite of a small section on systems analysis in (i) and a large section on interdisciplinarian research in (ii).


System Approach General System System Research General System Theory System Philosophy 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Notes

  1. 1.
    International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, edited by D. L. Sills, Macmillan Co. & The Free Press, 1968. (The small section TSystems Analysis’ contains contributions by A. Rapoport on General Systems Theory, pp. 452–458; by J. Parsons on Social Systems, pp. 458–473; by W. C. Mitchell on Political Systems, pp. 473–479; by M. A. Kaplan on International Systems, pp. 479–486; and by D. S. Cockman on Psychological Systems, pp. 486–495.)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Main trends of research in the social and human sciences. (Part I: Social Sciences). Mouton/Unesco, Paris, The Hague, 1970. (The large section interdisciplinary aspects of research’ contains contributions by J. Piaget on common mechanisms, pp. 467–528; by R. Boudon on mathematical models, pp. 529–577; by P. de Bie on problem-focused research, pp. 578–644; and by S. Rokkan on cross-cultural, cross-societal, and cross-national research, pp. 645–692.)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Laszlo, Introduction to Systems Philosophy, Harper & Row, New York, 1972.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Piaget, Le Structuralisme, Presse Universitaires de France, Paris, 1970.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure, The Free Press of Glencoe, pp. 19–84, 1957.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. von Bertalanffy, Modem Theories of Development, Oxford University Press, New York, 1934.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. C. Homans, The Human Group, Harcourt, Brace & World Inc., New York, 1950.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. Buckley, Sociology and modem systems theory, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall Inc., 1967.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. Heider, The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, John Wiley, New York, 1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    K. Marx, Verker i Utvalg (1 økonomisk-Filosofiske manuskripter), Pax forlag, Oslo, 1970.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    W. R. Ashby, An Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman & Hall Ltd., London, 1956.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. H. Mead, The Philosophy of the Present, The University of Chicago Press, Illinois, 1959.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. H. Mead, Mind, Self, and Society, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1934.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Lewin, Field theory in social science, Harper, New York, 1951.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Angyal, Foundations for a science of personality, The Commonwealth Fund, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1941.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. Laszlo, Essential society, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    P. A. Sorokin, Sociological Theories of Today, Harper, New York, 1966.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    K. W. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government, The Free Press, New York, 1966.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    T. M. Mills, Working Papers on Systems-Awareness and Systems-Development, Institute of Sociology, University of Oslo, 1974.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning, 18, No. 2, 1977.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    O. R. Young, “A Survey of General Systems Theory,” In: General Systems, Vol. IX, Ann Arbor, 1964, pp. 61–80.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    W. Buckley (ed), Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist, Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago, 1968.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    T. W. Simon, “Systems Analysis as Empirically Purposeful,” General Systems Theorizing, Proceedings (1976 Annual North American Meeting), pp. 18–21, 1976.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. H. Howe and H. von Foerster, “Introductory comments to Francisco Varela’s Calculus for self-reference,” Int. Journal of General Systems, No. 1, pp. 1–4, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    W. Ross Ashby, “Systems and their informational measures,” In: Trends in General Systems Theory, edited by G. J. Klir, John Wiley, New York, pp. 78–97.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    L. A. Zadeh, “Theory of Fuzzy Sets,” In: Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology, Edited by J. Keltzer, A. Holzman and A. Konk, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1977.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    B. R. Gaines and L. J. Kohout, “The logic of Automata,” Int. Journal of General Systems, 2, No. 4, pp. 191–208, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy Sets as a Basis for a Theory of Possibility. Memo No. UCB/ERL M77/12, Electronics Research Lab., Univ. of California, 1977.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    K. E. Boulding, The Image, The University of Michigan Press, East Lansing, 1963.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    V. Lefebvre, “Introreflective analysis: Using Algebraic Polynomials with Boolean Coefficients to represent a Person’s Inner World,” Behavioral Science, 22, No. 1, pp. 49–52, January 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    R. D. Evered, “Organizational Activism and Its Relation to “Reality” and Mental Imagery,” Human Relations, 30, No. 4, pp. 311–334, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    F. J. Varela, “A Calculus for Self-reference,” Int. Journal of General Systems, 2, No. 1, pp. 5–24, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    R. A. Orchard, “On the Laws of Form,” Int. Journal of General Systems, 2, No. 2, pp. 99–106, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    W. R. Ashby, “General Systems Theory as a New Discipline,” In: General Systems, Vol. III, Ann Arbor, pp. 1–7, 1958.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    G. Frege, “Ueber Sinn und Bedeutung,” Zeitschrift für Philos, und Phil. Kritik, 100, 1892.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    G. Spencer Brown, Laws of Form, George Allen & Unwin, London, 1969.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    N. Müller, “Systems Theories in the Social Sciences,” In: Systems Theory in the Social Sciences, edited by H. Bossel, S. Klaczko and N. Müller, Birkhaüser, pp. 9–21, 1976.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    C. W. Churchman, The Design of Inquiring Systems, Basic Books, New York, 1971.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    G. Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Ballantine Books, New York, 1972.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    M. Kosok, “The Formalization of Hegel’s Dialectical Logic,” Int. Philosophical Quarterly, 6, No. 4, pp. 596–631, 1966.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    R. Hill, “Modern Systems Theory and the Family: A confrontation,” Soc. Sci. Inform., 10, No. 5, pp. 7–26, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    T. Parsons, “The American family: Its relation to personality and the social structure,” In: T. Parsons and R. Bales, Family, Socialization, and Interaction, Glencoe, 111., pp. 3–33, 1955.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    F. Vortes, A. Przeworski and J. Sprague, Systems analysis for social scientists, John Wiley, New York, 1974.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    N. Luhmann, Politische Planung, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    J. Habermas and N. Luhmann, Theorie der Gesellschaft order Sozial-technologie, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt A. M., 1971.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    R. Conant and W. R. Ashby, “Every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system,” Int. Journal of Systems Science, 1, No. 2, pp. 89–97, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    M. Minsky, “Introduction,” In: Semantic Information Processing, edited by M. Minsky, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 1–32, 1968.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    R. Conant and W. R. Ashby, “Every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system,” Int. Journal of Systems Science, 1, No. 2, pp. 89–97, 1970. Cf. W. R. Ashby, Design for a Brain, Chapman & Hall, London, 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    B. Berelson, P. F. Lazarsfeld and W. N. McPhee, Voting, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1954.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    E. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press of Glencoe, New York, 1962.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    B. Berelson and G. A. Steiner, Human Behavior, Harcourt, Brace & World Inc., New York, 1964.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    J. H. Monane, A sociology of human systems, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    A. Kuhn, The Logic of Social Systems, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1974.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    J. G. Miller, “Living Systems,” Behavioral Science, 10, pp. 193–237, 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    J. G. Miller, “Living Systems,” Behavioral Science, 10, , 1965ibid., pp. 337–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    op.cit. Quarterly Review of Biology, 48, 1, pp. 92–276, 1973.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    op.cit. Behavioral Science, 16, pp. 302–398, 1971.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    op.cit. Behavioral Science, 17, pp. 1–182, 1972.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    op.cit. Behavioral Science, 20, pp. 366–535, 1975.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    op.cit. Behavioral Science, 21, pp. 320–468, 1976.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    J. Galtung, Theory and Methods of Social Research, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 1967.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    J. Miller, op.cit., 59, has made a recent survey of World Simulation Models.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    J. W. Forrester, World Dynamics, Wright-Allen Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1971.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    D. L. Meadows et al., Dynamics of growth in a finite world. Wright-Allen Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1974.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    M. D. Mesarović and E. C. Pestel, “A Goal-seeking and regionalized model for analysis of critical world relationships—the conceptual foundation.” Kybernetes, 1, pp. 79–85, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    H. H. Bossel and B. B. Hughes, “Simulation of value-controlled decision-making: Approach and prototype,” In: Multilevel Computer Model of World Development System. Edited by M. Mesarovic & E. Pestel, IIASA, Laxenburg, Vienna, 1974, Vol. VI. See also: B. B. Hughes, “Survey of the Mesarović-Pestel World Model project,” and H. Bossel, “Information processing, Cognitive dissonance, and basic needs: The Modelling of behavior,” In: Op.cit., ref. 37, pp. 327–360; pp. 423–472.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    M. D. Mesarovic, D. Macko, and Y. Takahara, Theory of Hierarchical Multilevel Systems, Academic Press, New York, 1970.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    G. J. Klir, An Approach to General Systems Theory, van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1969.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    R. A. Orchard, “On an Approach to General Systems Theory,” In: Op.cit., ref. 25, pp. 205–250.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    G. J. Klir and H. J. Uyttenhove, “Computerized Methodology for Structure Modelling,” Annals of Systems Research, 5, pp. 29–66, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    B. P. Zeigler, “Simulation based structural complexity of Models,” Int. Journal of General Systems, 2, No. 4, pp. 217–224, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    B. P. Zeigler, Theory of Modelling and Simulation, John Wiley, New York, 1976.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    J. McLeod, “Behavioral Science, System theory—and simulation,” Behavioral Science, 19, pp. 57–69, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    R. P. Abelson, “Simulation of social behavior,” In: The Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, (Vol. II), Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., pp. 281–308, 1968.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    J. T. Gullahorn and J. E. Gullahorn, “Social and cultural system simulation.” In: Simulation in social and administrative science, edited by H. Guetzkow, P. Kotier and R. L. Schultz, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp. 427–448, 1972.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    S. Braten and U. Norlén, “Simulation Model Analysis and Reduction,” In: Simulation versue Analytical Solutions for Business and Economic Models, Proceedings, Edited by W. Goldberg, BAS 17, Gothenburg University, Vol. I, pp. 207–228, 1973.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    G. M. Weinberg, An Introduction to General Systems Thinking, John Wiley, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    A. Rapoport, “The Search for Simplicity,” In: The Relevance of General Systems Theory, Edited by E. Laszlo, George Braziller, New York, pp. 13–30, 1972.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    R. P. Abelson and A. Bernstein, “A Computer Simulation Model of Community Referendum Controversies,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 27, pp. 93–122, 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    T. Hägerstrand, Innovationsfö’rloppet ur korologisk synpunkt. C. W. K. Gleerup, Lund, 1953, (Engl. Trans. The Univ. of Chicago Press, 1967.)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    F. Wenstøp, “Application of linguistic variables in the analysis of organizations,” Working papers in Management Science, The Center for Research in Management Science, University of California, 1975.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    E. Holbaek-Hansεn, P. Handlykken and K. Nygaard, System Description and the Delta Language, Norw. Computing Center, Oslo, 1975.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    L. A. Zadeh, “A Fuzzy-Algorithmic Approach to the Definition of Complex of Imprecise Concepts,” In: op.cit., Ref. 37, pp. 202–282.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    A. Naess, The Pluralist and Possibilist Aspect of the Scientific Enterprise, Allen & Unwin/Univ. forlaget, London/ Oslo, 1972.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    I. de S. Pool, R. P. Abelson and S. Popkin, Candidates, Issues and Strategies, Cambridge, Mass., 1964.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    I. de S. Pool and A. Kessler, “The Kaiser, the Tsar and the Computer: Information Processing in a Crisis,” American Behavioral Scientist, 8, May 1965, pp. 31–38.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    S. Brâten, “A simulation study of personal and mass communication,” TAG Journal, IFIP administrative data processing group, 1968, 2, pp. 3–27. (Reprinted in Models and Simulation, edited by H. Stockhaus, Scand, Univ. Press, Gothenburg, pp. 117–137, 1970.)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    S. Brâten, “En konsistens- og kommunikasjonsmodell — som tillater simulering av EF-striden”, Tiksskr. for Samfunnsforskning, 17, No. 2, pp. 158–197, 1976.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    T. Baumgartner, T. R. Burns and P. Deville, “Work, Politics, and the Structuring of Social Systems,” Conf. on “Possibilities for the Liberation of Work and Political Power,” Dubrovnik, Youguslavia, 1977.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    P. G. Herbst, Behavioral Worlds, London, Tavistock, 1970.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    G. J. Klir, “Identification of generative structures in empirical data,” Int. Journal of General Systems, 3, No. 2, pp. 89–104, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    F. E. Emery and E. L. Trist, “Socio-technical systems,” In: Systems Thinking, edited by F. E. Emery, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1968.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    E. Thorsrud, “Democratization of Work as a Process of Change towards Non-Bureaucratic Types of Organization,” In: European Contributions to Organization Theory, Edited by G. Hofstede and M. S. Kassem, Van Gorrum, Assen, 1976.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    P. G. Herbst, Alternative to hierarchies, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    R. R. Grinker, Sr., “In Memory of Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s Contribution to Psychiatry,” Behavioral Science, 21, No. 4, July 1976, pp. 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    G. Bateson, Naven, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1958 (1963).Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    G. Pask, “The meaning of Cybernetics in the Behavioral Sciences,” Progress of Cybernetics, edited by J. Rose, Gordon and Breach, New York, Vol. 1, pp. 15–44, 1970.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    L. Løfgren, “Relative Explanations of Systems,” In: Op.cit., Ref. 25, pp. 340–406.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    F. I. Georgiev et al., On the Design of Conscious Automata AD 644204, National Technical Information Service, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1965.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    E. Brunswik, The Psychology of Egon Brunswik, edited by K. R. Hammond, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., New York, 1966.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    G. Pask, “Interaction between individuals: Its stability and Style,” Math. Bio-science, 11, pp. 59–84, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    G. Pask, Conversation, Cognition and Learning, Elsevier, Oxford, 1975.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    G. Pask, Conversation Theory, Elsevier, Oxford, 1976.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Cf. the introductory survey lecture by Brain Gaines on General Systems.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    S. Braten, “Notes for a seminar with Ph. C. Herbst on Foundations for Psychosocial Logic,” In: S. Braten, The Human Dyad: Systems and Simulation, Working paper, Oslo, pp. 132–139, 1977.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    R. Thorn, “La Theorie des catastrophes: etat présent et perspectives,” In Dynamical systems, edited by A. Dold & B. Eckmann, Warwick, pp. 366–372, 1974.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    E. C. Zeeman, “Levels of Structure in Catastrophe Theory Illustrated by Applications in the Social and Biological Sciences,” Proceedings of the Intern. Congress of Mathematicians, 1974, Vol. 2, Vancouver, pp. 533–548, 1975.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    C. Musés, “Cybernetics and the challenge of the catastrophe theory,” Kybernetes, 5, No. 1, p. 1, 1976.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    E. Taschdjian, “Time Horizon: The Moving Boundary,” Behavioral Science, 22, No. 1, January 1977, pp. 41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    H. von Foerster, “From stimulus to symbol: The Economy of Biological Computation,” In: Sign, Image, Symbol, edited by C. Kepes, George Braziller, Inc., New York, pp. 42–61, 1966.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    B. L. Alperson, “In search of Buber’s ghost: A calculus for interpersonal phenomenology,” Behavioral Science, 20, pp. 179–190, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    M. Buber, I and Thou, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1958 (1937).Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    A.N. Whitehead, Process and Reality, Harper & Row, New York, 1957 (1929).Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    J. H. Milsum (ed.), Positive Feedback, Pergamon Press, London, 1968.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    M. Maruyama, “The Second Cybernetics: deviation-amplifying mutual causal processes,” American Scientist, 55, pp. 164–179, 1963.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    H. Alker, Jr., W. Buckley, and T. R. Burns, “Introduction and Overview,” In: Power and Control, edited by T. R. Burns and W. Buckley, Sage, London, 1976.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    H. H. Pattee, “The Role of Instabilities in the Evolution of Control Hierarchies,” In: Op.cit., Ref. 115, pp. 171–184.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    F. W. Matson and A. Montagu, “Introduction: The Unfinished Revolution,” In The Human Dialogue, edited by F. W. Matson and A. Montagu, The Free Press, New York, pp. 1–11, 1967.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    M. Valach, “Ego-formation in the self-sustained system,” Vlllth Int. Congress on Cybernetics, Namur, 1976.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    M. Nowakowska, “Toward a formal theory of dialogue,” Semiotica, 18, 1976.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    J. Habermas, Technik und Wissenschaft als ‘Ideologie’, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am M., 1968.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    G. Klaus, Kybernetik und Erkenntnishtheorie, VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 1972.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    G. Vickers, “What Controls the Controller?” In: G. Vickers, Toward a Sociology of Management, Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 91–98, 1967.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    H. H. Pattee, “Unsolved Problems and Potential Applications of Hierarchy Theory,” In: Hierarchy Theory, edited by H. H. Pattee, George Braziller, New York, pp. 131–156, 1973.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    T. Parsons and E. Shils (eds.), Towards a General Theory of Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1951.Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    S. Bråten, “On the Need and Possible Structure of a Communication Research Information System in Scandinavia,” Acta Sociologica, 13, No. 3, pp. 149–160, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    G. J. Klir and M. Valach, Cybernetic Modelling, Prague/ London, Illife, 1967.Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    S. Bråten, “Simulering av moralsk dilemmabehandling under diadisk samhandling,” Univ. of Bergen (mimeo) 1972 (Trans. Computer simulation of dilemma-processing dyads, Working Paper No. 73, Univ. of Oslo, 1977). For a summary, see S. Bråten, “Computer simulation of consistency and communication,” Vlllth Int. Conference on Cybernetics, Namur, 1976.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    K. Boulding, “General Systems Theory — The Skeleton of Science,” Management Science, 2, pp. 197–208, 1956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    M. M. Drake, “After Systems Theory,” Abstract for paper at Third Europ. Meeting on Cyb. and Systems Research, Vienna, 1976.Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    M. Mulder, “Maktutjevning gjennom medbestemmelse,” In: Demokratiseringsprosessen i arbeidslivet, edited by P. G. Herbst, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, pp. 51–64, 1971.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    S. Brâten, “Model Monology and Communication: Systems Theoretical notes on Democratization,” Acta Sociologica, 16, No. 2, pp. 98–107, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    K. Boulding, “Twelve Friendly Quarrels with Johan Galtung,” Journal of Peace Research, XIV, No. 1, pp. 75–86, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    K. Nygaard and T. Bergo, Planlegging, Styring og databehandling. Tiden, Oslo, 1973.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    S. Beer, “On heaping our science together,” In: Progress in Cybernetics and Systems Research, edited by R. Trappl and F. de Hanika, John Wiley, New York, Vol. II, pp. 3–11, 1975.Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    H. von Foerster, “From stimulus to symbol: The Economy of Biological Computation,” In: Sign, Image, Symbol, edited by C. Kepes, George Braziller, Inc., New York, pp. 42–61, 1966Op.cit., Ref. 110.Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    A. Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine, Macmillan, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Lewis Carroll, The Works of Lewis Carroll, edited by R. L. Green, Paul Hamlyn, London, 1965.Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    J. Sutherland, A General Systems Philosophy for the Social and Behavioral Sciences, George Braziller, New York, 1973.Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    A. Locker and N. A. Coulter, “Recent Progress towards a theory of teleogenic systems,” Kybernetes, 5, No. 2, pp. 67–72, 1976.Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    L. von Bertalanffy, “The Tree of Knowledge,” In: Op.cit., Ref. 109, pp. 274–278.Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    K. E. Boulding, “Economics and General Systems,” Int. Journal of General Systems, 1, No. 1, pp. 67–73, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    R. Frisch, Economic Planning Studies, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1976.Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    G. J. Klir, “On the relation between Cybernetics and General Systems Theory,” In: Progress of Cybernetics, edited by J. Rose, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1, pp. 115–165, 1970.Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    G. A. Miller, E. Galanter and K. H. Pribram, Plans and the Structure of Behavior, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960. Their TOTE-principle has been extended into a co-actor or dialogical oriented TOT(SOS)E scheme by S. Braten, “Coding simulation circuits during symbolic interaction,” VIIIth Int. Congress on Cybernetics 1973. Proceedings, Namur, 1974, pp. 327–336. See also S. Bråten, Tegnebehandling og Meningsutveksling, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    F. Barth, Models of Social Organization, Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1966.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stein Braten
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of SociologyUniversity of OsloOslo 3Norway

Personalised recommendations