Sunday, January 22, 2011 (0900-1800 ET), at Jacksonville, FL
Live Meeting at https://www.livemeeting.com/cc/incose/join; Meeting ID: G686W4; Entry code sent via e-mail
Teleconference at Toll-free: +1-877-647-3411; Toll: +1-719-867-0497; Participant code sent via e-mail
Facilitator: David Ing (see coevolving.com)
By the end of day on January 22, the working group will provide input that will be further developed at sessions scheduled at two meetings:
IFSR Conversation, Linz, Austria, April 14-19, 2012
ISSS 2012, San Jose, CA, July 15-20, 2012
The central theme to be explored is:
Which questions should the System Science Working Group explore, that would lead towards a common language and understanding across systems practice, systems science and systems thinking?
The output should be packaged in form as a series of index cards (e.g. presentation headline and content):
Central Question
(A concise question for further inquiry)
Guidance
(How did this question come about?)
(Which reference sources can we cite, so far?)
(What issues or challenges require deliberation?)
Work products should sufficiently self-explanatory so that future workshop participants (who are not present today) will be able to pick up the thread. (David Ing will be present at both events only as a reference resource, due to priorities with other responsibilities.)
The work products can be appended to this wiki page.
All content should be available over the Internet. Partipants are encouraged to bring laptops and/or tablets.
Baseline
"Overview of Systems Science" (BKCASE 0.5) at http://www.bkcasewiki.org/index.php/Overview_of_System_Science
"Systems thinking and (the) systems science(s) in a system of ideas" (blog post), Nov. 20, 2011, at http://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/systems-thinking-and-the-systems-sciences-in-a-system-of-ideas/
Proposed extensions
"Foundations for a systems approach", Aalto University, http://coevolving.com/aalto/201010-cs0004/201010-cs0004-map01-foundations.html, from ...
"2010/10 CS0004 Systemic Thinking of Sustainable Communities", Aalto University, http://coevolving.com/aalto/201010-cs0004/-index.html, described at "Learning about teaching: systems thinking and sustainability course in Finland"
"2011/02 CS0005 Systemic Thinking for Planners and Designers", Aalto University, http://coevolving.com/aalto/201102-cs0005/-index.html, described at Systemic Thinking for Planners and Designers (CS0005), Aalto University, Finland"
"Systems Thinking Courses in the Master's Programme on Creative Sustainability at Aalto University: Reflections on Design and Delivery of the 2010-2011 Sessions", ISSS Hull 2011, at http://coevolving.com/commons/201107-systems-thinking-creative-sustainability described at Systems thinking courses in Finland: cycle two, learning from cycle one
"Science, systems thinking, and advances in theories, methods and practices" at http://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/science-systems-thinking-and-advances-in-theories-methods-and-practices/
"The Meta-design of Dialogues as Inquiring Systems" at http://coevolving.com/commons/20120111-the-meta-design-of-dialogues-as-inquiring-systems, described at The Meta-design of Dialogues as Inquiring Systems (blog post)
Blog post on "Design, practice and social learning" to be completed, extracting from Wenger (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity.
"Design and the emergent", pp. 232-233, [preview at Google Books].
"... social participation as a process of learning and knowing"and Figure 0.1 Components of a social theory of learning: an initial inventory, pp. 4-5, [preview at Google Books].
"Intellectual contexts" and Figure 0.2 Two main axes of relevant traditions ,pp. 11-12, [preview at Google Books]
Figure 0.3 Refined intersection of intellectual tradition [preview is not available at Google Books]
Future directions
The target state will emerge as a result of the series of conversations, as captured in artifacts from these workshops.
Banathy (1996) proposed that generative dialogue should
…lead to the creation of collective consciousness, collective inquiry that focuses on the thoughts, values, and worldviews of the group and creates a flow of shared meaning, shared perceptions, a shared worldview, and a social milieu of friendship and fellowship. (p. 219)
Strategic dialogue alone can, of course, produce results. These often happen quicker, at less short-term expense, and with less involvement by different stakeholders than through generative dialogue. Recapping from above, though, it assumes that:
1. There are fixed, agreed ends in mind;
2. The decisions of the planners involved have determined the appropriate limitations and closure on the information space to be used, and;
3 . An external design can be imposed on material that is the passive recipient of engineered limits.
As described by Banathy (1996), generative dialogue is not meant to replace strategic dialogue, but to precede it (see Metcalf, 2008). By acting on the environment in which strategic dialogue is to take place, generative dialogue opens possibilities by creating a deeper sense of understanding between the people involved, which often leads to new connections between ideas or ways of thinking, and a sense of trust which makes the sharing of ideas feel less threatening that it might otherwise. When effective, generative dialogue fosters a sense of shared commitment amongst the individuals involved. As changes occur at a strategic level, they are less likely to be dismissed as “someone else’s problem,” and more likely to be attended to by those who feel a vested interest in them. [Metcalf 2008 (at journals.isss.org)]
To start off a generative conversation ...
Have each person in the group responding, for about 5 minutes, to the question:
By which path did I come to this workshop?