Advertisement

The Theory and Practice of Third Phase Science

  • Kenneth C. BauschEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Translational Systems Sciences book series (TSS, volume 1)

Abstract

Systems thinkers often regard groups and communities as collective thinking entities. And collective thinking itself is layered upon a social fabric of norms and traditions. The ways that groups and communities think and make decision together is closely linked to their group identities, and change is difficult. Sometimes, however, innovation in the deep structure of collective thinking becomes essential. This happens when complexity reaches a threshold beyond which informal deliberations fail to produce effective understandings and collective action. Gerard de Zeeuw advanced the understanding of collective thinking when he introduced the concept of Third Phase Science in 1997. His thought was summarized in non-specialist language by Bausch and Flanagan. In the Western world view, we have come to see things as well-defined objects that are separate from us. In Indigenous and Eastern cultures, the separation is more subtle. These cultures see human beings as being enmeshed in a universal web of life. This article presents the bare bones of De Zeeuw’s thought, describes some of its roots, and shows some applications that (perhaps unconsciously) illustrate is use. It traces these applications as art and as science.

Keywords

Contextualized object Dialogic design Domain of science model First, second, and third phase science Immersed observer 

References

  1. Bausch, K. C., & Flanagan, T. R. (2013). A confluence of third-phase science and dialogic design science. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. doi: 10.1002/sres.2166. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
  2. Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., & Grunow, A. (2011). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education. In M. Hallinan (Ed.), Frontiers in sociology of education. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Christakis, A. N. (2006). A retrospective structural inquiry of the predicament of mankind prospectus of the Club of Rome. In J. McIntyre (Ed.), Critical and systemic implications for democracy. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Christakis, A. N., & Bausch, K. B. (2006). How people harness their collective wisdom and power to construct the future. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Churchman, C. W. (1968). The systems approach. New York: Delta.Google Scholar
  7. Churchman, C. W. (1979). The systems approach and its enemies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  8. De Zeeuw, G. (1997). Three phases of science: A methodological exploration1. Academia.edu. Accessed 18 June 2013 from http://www.academia.edu/618520/THREE_PHASES_OF_SCIENCE_A_METHODOLOGICAL_EXPLORATION1
  9. Delbrück, M. (1986). Mind from matter? An essay on evolutionary epistemology. Palo Alto: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Doxiadis, C. A. (1963). Architecture in transition. Oxford: New York.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Flanagan, T. & Christakis, A. (2010). The talking point: Creating an environment for exploring complex meaning. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Flood, R. L. (1990). Liberating systems theory. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flood, R. L. & Jackson, M. C. (Eds.). (1991). Critical systems thinking: Directed readings. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Fuenmayor, R. (1991). Between systems thinking and systems practice. In R. L. Flood & M. C. Jackson (Eds.), Critical systems thinking: Directed readings (pp. 227–244). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Jackson, M. C. (1992). Systems methodology for the management sciences. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  17. Laouris, Y. Laouri, R. & Christakis, A. (2008). Communication praxis for ethical accountability: The ethics of the Tree of Action: dialogue and breaking down the wall in Cyprus. Syst. Res., 25: 331–348.Google Scholar
  18. Ozbekhan, H. (1969). Toward a general theory of planning. In E. Jantsch (Ed.), Perspectives of planning. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  19. Ozbekhan, H. (1970). The predicament of mankind: A quest for structured responses to growing world-wide complexities and uncertainties. www.redesignresearch.com/docs/ThePredicamentofMankind.pdf
  20. Planners: Oracles at Delos. (August 8, 1969). Time. Accessed from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,941288,00.html#ixzz1iyEvP8fh
  21. Rank, O. (1932). Art and artist: Creative urge and personality development. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  22. Ulrich, W. (1999). An appreciation of C. West Churchman (with a bibliography from 1938 to 2001 and a postscript of 5 March 2006). Luminaries of the systems approach. Web site of the International Society for the systems sciences. Accessed from http://projects.isss.org/c_west_churchman (Last updated January 6, 2011).
  23. Warfield, J. N. (1994). A science of generic design: Managing complexity through systems design. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Warfield, J. N. (2006). An Introduction to systems science. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for 21st Century AgorasCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations