An Epic Learning Journey: From the Club of Rome to Dialogic Design Science and DEMOSOPHIA

  • Alexander N. Christakis
Part of the Translational Systems Sciences book series (TSS, volume 1)


Dialogue is a vehicle for understanding cultures and subcultures in organizations. And organizational learning depends upon such cultural understanding. It facilitates the development of a common language and collective mental models. Thus, the ability to engage in dialogue becomes one of the most fundamental and most needed human capabilities. Dialogue becomes a central component of any model of evolutionary transformation [Banathy (2000). Guided evolution of society: A systems view; Quoted by Christakis, A., & Bausch, K. (2006). In N. Roberts (Ed.), Transformative power of dialogue].


Club of Rome Demosophia Dialogic design science Dialogue Ekistics Problematique 


  1. Act Beyond Borders 2010.m4v. (2010). Accessed from
  2. Alexander, G. C. (2002). Interactive management: An emancipatory methodology. Systems Practice and Action Research, 15(2), 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Americans for Indian Opportunity (AIO). (1989). Tribal Issues Management System (TIMS), AIO Report, Bernalillo, New Mexico.Google Scholar
  4. Apel, K. (1981). Charles S. Peirce: From pragmatism to pragmaticism. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  5. Banathy, B. H. (1996). Designing social systems in a changing world. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Banathy, B. H. (2000). Guided evolution of society: A systems view. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Broome, B. J., & Christakis, A. N. (1988). A culturally sensitive approach to tribal governance issue management. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 108–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christakis, A. N. (1973). A new policy science paradigm. Futures, 5(6), 543–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christakis, A. N. (1993). The inevitability of Demosophia. In I. Tsivacou (Ed.), A challenge for systems thinking: The Aegean seminar (pp. 187–197). Athens: University of the Aegean Press.Google Scholar
  10. Christakis, A. N., & Bausch, K. (2006). Colaboratories of democracy: How people harness their collective wisdom and power. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Christakis, A. N., & Brahms, S. (2003). Boundary-spanning dialogue for 21st -Century Agoras. Systems Research and Behavioral Sciences, 20, 371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Churchman, C. W. (1979). The systems approach. New York: Delta.Google Scholar
  13. de Zeeuw, G. (1996). Second order organizational research, Working Papers in Systems and Information Sciences, University of Humberside, Hull.Google Scholar
  14. Dialogic Design Science: Innovations in Government Award. Accessed from
  15. DialogicDesignScience: Home. Accessed from
  16. DialogicDesignScience: Matrix of Co-Laboratory Archetypes. Accessed from
  17. Doxiadis, C. A. (1968). Ekistics: An introduction to the science of human settlements. London: Hutchinson of London.Google Scholar
  18. Dye, K. M., & 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.Google Scholar
  19. Flanagan, T., & Christakis, A. (2010). The talking point: Creating an environment for exploring complex meaning. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Funeral Speech of Pericles from Athens Democracy. Accessed from
  21. IM Design Workshop (NMFS Part 1). (2010). Accessed from
  22. Institute for 21st Century Agoras. Accessed from
  23. Jantsch, E. (1969). Perspectives of planning. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  24. Kakoulaki, M. (2011, September 27). Democratic [R]evolution: Alexandros Christakis: A modern Greek Zorba! Democratic [R]evolution. Accessed from
  25. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Laouris, Y., & Christakis, A. (2007). Harnessing collective wisdom at a fraction of the time using Structured Design Process embedded within a virtual communication context. International Journal of Applied Systemic Studies, 1(2), 131–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Magliocca, L. A., & Christakis, A. N. (2001). Creating transforming leadership for organizational change: The CogniScope system approach. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 18(3), 259–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maturana, H. R. (1970). Biology of cognition. Reprinted in Matrurana and Varela (1980), 2–62.Google Scholar
  29. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D., & Randers, J. (1972). The limits to growth. New York: Universe Books.Google Scholar
  30. Ozbekhan, H. (1968). The triumph of technology: “Can implies ought.” System Development Corporation paper.Google Scholar
  31. Ozbekhan, H. (1970). The predicament of mankind: A quest for structured responses to growing world-wide complexities and uncertainties. Scholar
  32. Peccei, A. (1969). The Chasm ahead. Toronto: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
  33. Schreibman, V., & Christakis, A. (2007). New Agora: new geometry of languaging and new technology of democracy: the structured design dialogue process. International Journal of Applied Systemic Studies, 1(1), 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Taylor, J. B. (1976). Building an interdisciplinary team. In S. R. Arnstein & A. N. Christakis (Eds.), Perspectives on technology assessment (pp. 45–63). Jerusalem: Science and Technology Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. The White House. Remarks by President Obama at the Brandenburg Gate. Berlin, Germany. Accessed from
  36. Warfield, J. N. (1994). A science of generic design: Managing complexity through systems design. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Warfield, J. N. (1999). The Problematique: Evolution of an idea. Systems Research, 16, 221–226.Google Scholar
  38. Warfield, J. N., & Cardenas, A. R. (1994). A handbook of interactive management. Ames: Iowa State University Press. 1994.Google Scholar
  39. Warfield, J. N., & Christakis, A. N. (1987). Dimensionality. Systems Research, 4, 127–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Warfield, J. N., & Staley, S. M. (1996). Structural thinking: Organizing complexity through disciplined activity. Systems Research, 13(1), 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander N. Christakis
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for 21st Century AgorasArchanes, CreteGreece

Personalised recommendations