SYSTEMS APPROACH
In general
\it J.van GIGCH enumerates many different aspects of the systems approach, which “can be regarded as:
- “A methodology of design
A common conceptual framework
A new kind of scientific method
A theory of organizations
Systems management
A method related to systems engineering, operations research, cost effectiveness, etc…
Applied General Systems Theory“ (1978, p.34)
van GIGCH completes his overview establishing a taxonomy of sciences and systems, divided into “hard” and “soft” systems in physical, life, behavioral and social sciences (p.39).
\it Logical aspects
\it BLAUBERG, SADOVSKY and YUDIN consider that, from the logical viewpoint,“the development of systems research presupposes:
a) The construction of formal logical systems describing the process of reasoning as applied to certain aspects of the systems approach or special systems theories (e.g. the logic of relations, bio-logics, the logic of reflexive reasoning, etc…)
b) The formulation of the logical apparatus of the general systems theory
c) The metamathematical and metalogical analysis of systems formalisms“ (1977, p.125).
\it Methodological aspects
According to the same authors, the methodological aspects of the systems approach “cover the following tasks:
- “a) The explication (including the formal explication) of the basic concepts of the systemic approach, such as system, element, connection, structure, wholeness, part-whole relation, etc…
- “b) The classification of systems, including the discussion and comparison of the various approaches to this problem
- “c) The identification and analysis of the specific methods of systems research — the systemic (integral) representation of a system object, the investigation of a system together with its environment, the isomorphy of systems concepts and laws, systems analysis and synthesis, etc…
- “d) The methods for constructing the theoretical knowledge of systems — both in the case of special systems concepts and in formulating a general systems theory (1977, p.125).
J. SUTHERLAND, from another viewpoint on methodology, proposed what he called the syncretic approach, “… to insure that the systems models we use comprehend to the fullest extent possible both qualitative and quantitative constructs” (Quoted from J.D. WHITE, 1977, p.68).
As to the basic nature and limits of the systemic approach, J.C. LUGAN writes: “The systemic approach consists in isolating a number of elements n, emphasizing certain types of relations that would give a degree of autonomy to the system in relation to a more extensive set N of elements.
- “This global character of systemic modelization should not be understood as aiming at exhaustivity. To begin with only those properties considered as essential from the modelizer's viewpoint are taken in account. The model can be enriched… (but will never be complete). In other words, systemic modelization should tend to be an evolutive process, conscious of its limits between a kind of exhaustive perfectionism and an excessively reducing simplification” (1993, p.24).
\it Psycho-sociological aspects
E. HERRSCHER writes: “The point can be made that the systems approach comprises both rational and non-rational elements. Particularly since soft systems thinking took the lead from the hard system approach, many social, political and psychological issues became more relevant, weakening the rational part of the rational/non-rational mix or, at least introducing (in the words of C. FRANÇOIS) a psychical and sociological rationality, complementary to the hard systems approach. Few social scientists would object, but some quantitative or closed-model-oriented scientists might” (1995).
The systemic psycho-sociological rationality aspects are of different kinds:
1) The systemic inner and relational workings of societies; autopoiesis, conflict, hierarchies, interactions with the environment; networks, processes, side effects, stigmergy, subsystems, etc…
2) The ways these inner social workings translate into attitudes, situations and issues: values, norms, ideologies, prejudices, power relations, etc…
3) The ways the modelizer understand (or not) his/her observer role and choices when modeling some social system, and perhaps his/her relationship with members of the latter, who required the intervention.