lnu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
An Identification of Normative Sources for Systems Thinking: an Inquiry into Religious Ground-Motives for Systems Thinking Paradigms
Chalmers University of Technology.
2003 (English)In: Systems research and behavioral science, ISSN 1092-7026, E-ISSN 1099-1743, Vol. 20, no 6, 475-487 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In celebration of C. West Churchman's work, this article investigates one of the most cherished endeavours of his thinking: to provide a normative meaning for the conduct of human affiars. Churchman has always emphasized ‘What-Ought-To-Be’, at the expense of the ‘What-Is’. To achieve this purpose, four Systems Thinking paradigms, namely Hard Systems Thinking, Soft Systems Thinking, Critical Systems Thinking, and Multimodal Systems Thinking, are investigated with regard to their foundations for normative guidance. This investigation is made by identifying their respective basic convictions in the form of so-called ‘religious ground-motives’, which are based on the assumption that all human thinking and acting starts with a credal conviction, be it Christian, Jew, Islamic, Buddhist, or other. As a result it is found that these systems thinking paradigms are either founded on an inherent contradiction or provide a normative foundation that lacks a social contract for their implementation, and therefore these paradigms do not provide a stable and satisfactory normative guidance for system design.

Note: The key claim of this author is that, to be normative, an ethical theory must be grounded in a transcendental justification which is based on some religious faith. The opinions presented in this paper are strictly the author's, who does not claim that his beliefs have more merit or are more ethical than those of any competitive faiths.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
London: John Wiley & Sons, 2003. Vol. 20, no 6, 475-487 p.
National Category
Business Administration
Research subject
Economy, Ledarskap, entreprenörskap och organisation
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-28124OAI: oai:DiVA.org:lnu-28124DiVA: diva2:640615
Available from: 2013-08-14 Created: 2013-08-14 Last updated: 2017-12-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Fulltext

Authority records BETA

Haftor, Darek

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Haftor, Darek
In the same journal
Systems research and behavioral science
Business Administration

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 92 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf