Doing Research in the Social Domain

Concepts and Criteria
  • Martha Vahl

Abstract

Any professional activity worth its name will have developed criteria and concepts that help to guarantee the quality of its products (see Stevens, Schade, Chalk, and Slevin, 1993, p. 6, concerning health care professionals). Interestingly this stage does not seem to have been realised yet for systems professionals in the social domain. Not only early workers have been worried (Ackoff, 1981; Beer, 1985; Checkland, 1981), but also more recent ones (Checkland, 1992; De Zeeuw, 1995; Van der Zouwen, 1996).

Keywords

System Research Social Domain Soft System Methodology Rich Picture General System Theory 
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. Ackoff, R., L., 1981, Creating the Corporate Future, Wiley: New York.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, P. W., 1996, They think it’s all over, Times Higher (September 27), p. 20.Google Scholar
  3. Angell, I.O., and Smithson, S., 1991, Information Systems Management, Opportunities and Risk, MacMillan: London.Google Scholar
  4. Axelrod, R., 1984, The Evolution of Co-operation, Basic Books: New York.Google Scholar
  5. Beer, S., 1985, Diagnosing the System for Organisations, Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  6. Broekstra, G., 1997, Organisations are closed systems, Systemica 11 (in press).Google Scholar
  7. Brown, D., 1996, The ‘essences’ of the fifth discipline: or where does Senge stand to view the world?, Systems Research 13(2): 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bryman, A., 1988, Quantity and Quality in Social Research, Routledge: London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carse, J.P., 1986, Finite and Infinite Games. A Vision of life as Play and Possibility, Penguin Books: Middlesex.Google Scholar
  10. Casti, J., 1979, Connectivity, Complexity and Catastrophe in Large-Scale Systems, Wiley: New York.Google Scholar
  11. Checkland, P., 1981, Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  12. Checkland, P., 1992, Systems and scholarship: the need to do better, J. Opl Res. Soc. 43(11): 1023–1030.Google Scholar
  13. Checkland, P., 1995, Model validation in soft systems practice, Systems Research 12(1): 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Checkland, P. and Scholes, J., 1990, Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  15. Ellis, K., Gregory, A., Mears-Young, B.R., Ragsdell, G., eds., 1995, Critical Issues in Systems Theory and Practice, Plenum Press: New York.Google Scholar
  16. Flood, R.L., and Jackson, M.C., 1991, Creative Problem Solving, Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  17. Hacking, I., 1965, Logic of Statistical Inference, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Hammersley, M., 1995, Principles of Social and Educational Research, Open University: Walton Hill.Google Scholar
  19. Lakatos, I., 1970, Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs, in: Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, (I. Lakatos, and A. Musgrave, A., eds.), p. 91–196, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  20. Latour, B., 1987, Science in Action, Open University Press: Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
  21. Midgley, G., 1995, Mixing methods: developing systemic intervention. Research memorandum no. 9, Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull.Google Scholar
  22. Mintzberg, H., 1979, The Structuring of Organizations. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  23. Mitroff, I., and Churchman, C.W., A manifesto for the systems sciences: outrage over the state of science, General Systems Bulletin XXII(1): 7–10.Google Scholar
  24. Popper, K.R., 1972, Objective Knowledge, Clarendon Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
  25. Silverman, D., 1993, Interpreting Qualitative Data, Sage: London.Google Scholar
  26. Stevens, P.J.M., Schade, A., Chalk, B., and Slevin, O., 1993, Understanding Research. A Scientific Approach for Health Care Professionals, Campion Press: Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  27. Taket, A., 1994, Undercover agency?-ethics, responsibility and the practice of OR, J. Opl Res. Soc. 45: 123–132.Google Scholar
  28. Taket, A., and White, L., 1994, Doing Community Operational Research with Multicultural Groups, Omega, Intl. J. Mgmt. Sci. 22(6): 579–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tsouvalis, C., and Checkland, P., 1996, Reflecting on SSM: the dividing line between ‘real world’ and’ systems thinking world’, Working Paper nr 3 Centre for Systems and Information Sciences, University of Humberside.Google Scholar
  30. Ulrich, W., 1989, Critical heuristics for social systems design, in: Operational Research and the Social Sciences, (Jackson, M.C., Keys, P., Cropper, S.A., eds.), p. 79–89, Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vahl, M., 1994, Improving mental health services in Calderdale, Report of the Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull.Google Scholar
  32. Waelchli, F., 1992, Eleven Theses of General Systems Theory, Systems Research 9(4): 3–8.Google Scholar
  33. Warfield, J., 1995, Spreadthink: explaining ineffective groups, Systems Research 12(1): 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zéeuw, G. de, 1995, Values, science and the quest for demarcation. Systems Research 12(1): 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zouwen, J. van der, 1996, Methodological problems with the empirical testability of sociocybernetic theories, unpublished paper presented at the 10th International Congress on Cybernetics and Systems in Bucharest (August 1996).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martha Vahl
    • 1
  1. 1.Lincoln School of Management, Centre for Systems ResearchLincoln University CampusLincolnUK

Personalised recommendations