The MPSB Research as a major pathway to pursue transdisciplinary
research: a proposal
Joseph
Kim-keung Ho
Independent Trainer, Hong Kong, China
Abstract: Granted,
systems thinking and transdisciplinary endorse each other, but the exact nature
of both transdisciplinarity and the systems thinking-transdisciplinarity mutual
endorsement is less than clear. This paper examines this issue via the critical
systems thinking lens and discuss how the Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB)
Research, which is grounded on critical systems thinking, can be employed as a major
pathway to pursue transdisciplinary research (a transdisciplinarity subtheme).
To do so, the writer employs the FMA research model of Checkland and Holwell to
develop the supportive reasoning. It recommends an enriched systems language
for concepts bridging in transdisciplinary research. Moreover, it clarifies the
nature of the MPSB Research with the transdisciplianrity theme. Overall, the
paper offers a contemporary systems thinking perspective to comprehend
transdisciplinarity, especially on transdisciplinary research.
Key words: holism; key MPSB concepts; systems
language; transdisciplinarity; transdisciplinary research; the FMA research
model; the Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) Research
Please
cite the article as: Ho, J.K.K. 2016. “The MPSB Research as a major pathway to pursue
transdisciplinary research: a proposal” American
Research Thoughts 2(3) January: 3321-3334.
Introduction
The literature of systems (and
holistic) thinking always makes clear that it supports transdisciplinarity.
Vice versa, transdisciplinarity literature also expresses its commitment to systems
(and holistic) thinking. For instance, Jackson (2003) has identified four
emphases of modern systems thinking: (1) an emphasis on both process and
structure, (2) an emphasis on holism, (3) an emphasis on transdisciplinarity,
and (4) an emphasis on “getting to grips with real-world management problems”. The
four emphases have been widely shared in the systems thinking and
transdisciplinary literatures. Systems thinking-based and transdisciplinary
modes of research and learning are said to be required for dealing with real-world
problems that are increasingly complex.
In the words of Ackoff (1981), we are in the systems age, not machine
age, thus systems age thinking is much needed. Clearly, systems thinking and
transdisciplinarity are closely associated research themes. Nevertheless, on
closer examination of them, one realizes the intricacy involved in their study,
for there are different notions of systems, holism, transdisciplinarity and
their related practices. This brief paper does not offer to resolve the issues
involved in the diversity and incompatibility of viewpoints on them. What it
does is to examine how the Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) Research,
which is grounded on critical systems thinking (Jackson, 2000: Part III), can
be employed as a research pathway to pursue the transdisciplinarity ideal.
Specifically, this paper confines its scope of investigation to the
transdisciplinary research topic. To do so, it discusses: (1) the basic ideas
of transdisciplinarity, (2) the role played by transdisciplinarity in research
endeavors, utilizing the explanatory power of the FMA model of Checkland and
Holwell, and, finally, (3) how the MPSB Research can be employed to pursue
transdisciplinary research.
The basic ideas of
transdisciplinarity and its subthemes
Transdisciplinarity is described as
“a research strategy that crosses many disciplinary boundaries to create a
holistic approach[1]”
(Wikipedia, 2015) as well as “a reflective, integrative, method-driven
scientific principle” (Lang et al.,
2012). It has also been described by Nicolescu (1994) as multireferential and
multidimensional. For Ramadier (2004), transdiciplinarity
endeavors to reverse a trend in disciplinary thinking on knowledge compartmentalization.
Specifically, Nicolescu (1994) proclaims The
Charter of Transdisciplinarity, with 14 articles, to explain the theme. For
illustration, three of his articles are quoted as follows:
Article 2: “The
recognition of the existence of different levels of reality governed by
different types of logic is inherent in the transdisciplinary attitude. Any
attempt to reduce reality to a single level governed by a single form of logic
does not lie within the scope of Transdisciplinarity.”
Article
3: “Transdisciplinarity
complements disciplinary approaches. It occasions the emergence of new data and
new interactions from out of the encounter between disciplines. It offers us a
new vision of nature and reality. Transdisciplinarity does not strive for
mastery of several disciplines but aims to open all disciplines to that which
they share and to that which lies beyond them.”
Article 4: “The keystone of
Transdisciplinarity is the semantic and practical unification of the meanings
that traverse and lie beyond different disciplines. It presupposes an
open-minded rationality by re-examining the concepts of "definition"
and "objectivity." An excess of formalism, rigidity of definitions
and a claim to total objectivity, entailing the exclusion of the subject, can
only have a life-negating effect.”
The three articles from Nicolescu emphasize,
among others, adoption of: (1) multiple forms of logic, (ii) a new vision
beyond those from individual disciplines and (3) a unification of meanings
beyond different disciplines. The nature of transdisciplinarity can be further
clarified by distinguishing it from two related terms, namely
multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity. A brief clarification on them is
made here. For Rashussen et al.
(2010), multidisciplinarity is “co-operation, with a low degree of interaction
between disciplines” and “participants from different disciplines take on
separate tasks in a common project without losing their individual
mono-disciplinary identity…”. As to interdisciplinarity, its practices are said
to “transcend the mode of disciplinary mode of knowledge production” (Rasmussen
et al., 2010). Additionally, “Co-operation
is carried out in a highly formalized structure of participants, leading to a
high degree of organization of the work, together with a high degree of
cognitive coupling” (Rasmussen et al.,
2010). Nevertheless, there is quite a diversity of approaches proposed to
pursue the transdisciplinarity ideal, e.g., Hodgson (2012) on a
transdisciplinary world model, Francois (2006) on transdiciplinary unified
theory, and Lang et al. (2012) on an
ideal-typical conceptual model. The writer also discerns two major sub-themes
in transdisciplinarity, namely, transdisciplinary research and transdisciplinarity
learning. Basically, when transdisciplinary research is
conducted, certain requirements are expected (Lang et al., 20120): (1) problems
examined should be “societally relevant”, (2) the research process should
enable mutual learning among “researchers from different disciplines” and
people “from outside academia”, (3) research aim should include creation of
solution-oriented, social robust and transferable knowledge. Similarly,
transdisciplinarity is said to “transcends science” by involving
“non-scientists in the production and /or evaluation of knowledge” and by
orienting “its knowledge production not only around disciplinary
problem-definitions but also around other definitions, derived from pressure,
‘applications’ or from societal stakeholders” (Rasmussen et al., 2010). On the whole, according to Schaltegger et al (2013), the recognition that
disciplinary research and related corporate practices “need to be complemented
with novel research-practice collaboration approaches” has fostered “the
development of multi, inter, and transdisciplinary research approaches”. Some
examples of transdisciplinary research include: sustainable operation (Sahamie et al., 2013), population-environment
research for sustainability (Hummel et al.,
2013) and vocational psychology (Collin, 2009). As to transdisciplinary learning,
it is attentive to “the outcomes of interdisciplinary learning, which come from
students’ participation in learning and acquisition of knowledge skills” (Park
and Son, 2010). This focus is justified; as Perry (2013) maintains, “Knowing
what we know, and believing it is a process and this process cannot be dictated
by disciplinary boundaries”. Examples of works on transdisciplinary learning
are: a transdisciplinary learning approach on urban and regional planning
(Müller et al., 2005), transdisciplinary
learning in a multidisciplinary environment (Park and Son, 2010) and
envisioning sustainable water futures (Schneider and Rist, 2013).
Overall, transdisciplinarity is
considered a worthwhile intellectual vision to pursue because (1) “the present proliferation of
academic and nonacademic disciplines is leading to an exponential increase of
knowledge which makes a global view of the human being impossible” [concerns 1]
and (2) “life on earth is seriously threatened by the triumph of a techno-science
that obeys only the terrible logic of efficacy of efficacy's sake” [concern 2]
(Nicolesu, 1994). Besides, transdisciplinairty “promises to bring universities and
other knowledge organizations into line with new demands and opportunities” in
the contemporary world that we are in (Russell et al., 2008). Its pursuit, accordingly, enables us to more
properly address the two concerns identified by Nicolescu (1994). Therefore,
even though transdisciplinarity has not been considered as a new practice
(Russell et al., 2008), the overall
intellectual vision which transdisciplinarity endorses in both research endeavors
and learning is appealing and rich in diversity of ideas, see Literature on transdiscipline in the bibliography
for more details on the topic. The next section takes a closer look at the
subtheme of transdisciplinary research, as it is the main study scope of
this paper.
examining transdisciplinary
research with the FMA research model of Checkland and Holwell
Jackson (2000) makes use of the FMA
research model of Checkland and Holwell (1998) to elucidate the relationship
between transdisciplinarity and research endeavors. [F is Frameworks of ideas; M stands
for Methodology, A means Area of
Concern.], see also Figure 1.
Referring to Figure 1 (an adapted
model by this writer based on Checkland and Holwell, 1998), the basic argument
of Jackson (2000) is that, when knowledge is “produced to satisfy the demands
of particular users”, research naturally needs to be “organized around a
particular A”. As Jackson (2000) sees it, in most cases, no single discipline
is able to offer a suitable F. Due to this consideration, in order to be
effective, the FMA research process, as proposed by Checkland and Holwell
(1998), has to be transdisciplinary. Moreover, in this case, the F is “likely
to be “looser” than a theory or set of hypotheses and may be relevant to only
one application” (Jackson, 2000). For this writer, while the F could include
notions from multiple disciplines, these notions still need to be related to
each other by means of a set of bridging concepts so as to form a loosely associated set of concepts
(i.e., a loose F). The set of bridging concepts need to be readily understood
and accepted by researchers with different discipline, interdisciplinary or
multidisciplinary backgrounds in order to support the transdisciplinarity
ideal. In the systems community, the basic shared view is that the systems
language is capable of serving as the bridging concepts in F for the
transdisciplinary FMA research process (re: Figure 1). The problem is:
different systems theorists favor different sets of systems language as the
bridging concepts to employ in transdisciplinary research. While the writer
concurs with the basic systems thinking view that the systems language is
highly relevant in this situation, he also holds a unique position by proposing
the employment of an enriched set of systems language. Furthermore, this set of
systems language should include the key MPSB concepts of the MPSB Research as
propounded by the writer. Further elaboration of this proposal is provided in
the next section.
The MPSB Research as a major pathway
for transdisciplinary research
The Multi-perspective, Systems-based
(MPSB) Research was launched by the writer in 1992 as his Ph.D. thesis research
theme at the Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, University
of Hong Kong. The research involves making use of critical systems thinking to
review a number of management disciplines, notably information systems
management, logistics management and management accounting (Ho, 1996). One of
the main outcomes of the research is the identification of a set of key MPSB
concepts. The main ones are: perspective, multi-perspective, systems-based,
perspective anchoring, perspective migration, built-in tension of pluralism,
perspective switching, an MPSB rich-picture building exercise, an MPSB
knowledge compilation, an MPSB framework, and an MPSB knowledge filter for
management. (Also see appendix 1: a glossary on the key
MPSB concepts.) By now, there is quite a substantial literature on the MPSB
Research; readers are referred to the Facebook page on the MPSB Research for
further information (re: the MPSB Research Facebook page in the bibliography).
It is highly relevant to the transdisciplinarity topic because: (1) the MPSB
Research studies various management disciplines with the goal of producing
knowledge that contributes to the theoretical development of systems thinking,
which is transdisciplinary and (2) the key MPSB concepts can enrich the systems
language for concepts bridging[2],
an activity well recognized as essential in transdisciplinary research. As a
brief illustration on how the MPSB Research works, the writer extracts Ho
(2015)’s paper which employs the key MPSB concepts to study Kasperskaya and
Tayles (2013)’s article on performance evaluation models. The extracts, two in
total, are as follows:
Extract 1: “Idea 1: Kasperskaya and Tayles (2013: p. 427): ‚the assumption of
quantifiable and predictable causal links appear to be problematic in real-life
applications...”.
Evaluative remarks: “An indication of the limitation of
the hard systems perspective and the associated machine metaphor to
comprehend a company’s strategy” (Ho, 2015).
Extract 2:
“Idea
2: Kasperskaya and Tayles (2013: p. 427): ‚many of the users of the
causal PMMs have associated these models with improvements in perceived
organizational performance...”.
Evaluative remarks: “An indication of the need to conduct
an MPSB rich picture building exercise to explore the context of the
situation to comprehend why users have got this perception of satisfaction or
have expressed this satisfaction feeling.” (Ho, 2015).
Undoubtedly, systems (holistic) thinking
endorses transdisciplinarity and vice versa. Nevertheless, there are different
holistic approaches and there are a number of ways to conceive the notion of
systems[3]
(Jackson, 2000; 2003). As such, different writers can hold dissimilar views on
transdisciplinarity. Also, their understanding of how transdisciplinarity
supports what ideas of holism and systems may simply not be the same. For this
writer, the MPSB Research offers an important pathway to pursue
transdisciplinarity as conceived from a critical systems/ creative holism
perspective. In this respect, critical systems thinking enables
transdisciplinary research to transcend different disciplines and be creatively
holistic. Understandably, other systems theorists may just not share the same
intellectual interest with the writer on critical systems thinking. [The debate
among systems theorists who support different strands of systems thinking has
been examined at great length by Jackson (2003), thus not repeated here.] More
specifically, the key MPSB concepts are recommended to be included in the
systems language, thus forming an enriched set of systems language, to be
employed as the bridging concepts in F of the FMA research model of Checkland
and Holwell (1998). This enriched set of systems language is made clear in
Table 1 as follows:
Table 1: An enriched set of systems language,
including the key MPSB concepts
Traditional
systems language (roughly up to around the 1970s)
|
Modern systems
language (post-1970s)
|
·
Systems
characteristics (i.e., objectives, environment, resources, components)
(Schoderbek et al., 1985)
·
System
definition elements (i.e., set, objects (inputs, process, output, feedback, relations), attributes,
environment, whole, system boundary) (Schoderbek et al., 1985)
·
Holism,
open system, homeostasis, emergence, communication, control, identity and hierarchy
(Jackson, 2000)
·
Complexity
(Flood and Carson, 1988; Clemson, 1984: Chapter 2)
·
Metadiscipline
and transdiscipline (Flood and Carson, 1988; Jackson, 2000)
|
·
Machine
age thinking and systems age thinking (Ackoff, 1981)
·
Systemic
metaphor filters (Flood and Jackson, 1991)
·
Types
of systems (i.e., deterministic, animated,
social and ecological) (Ackoff and Gharajedaghi, 1996)
·
Creative
holism (Jackson, 2003)
·
Types
of inquiry system (Mitroff and Linstone, 1993)
·
The key MPSB concepts (Ho, 2013)
|
Table 1 provides examples of an
enriched set of systems language that serves as a group of bridging concepts in
the domain of F (Framework of ideas) in the FMA research model for
transdisciplinary research. The list of systems language examples in Table 1 is
not supposed to be exhaustive; rather, it is intended to underline the richness
of the systems language involved in the transdisciplinary research process that
supports the MPSB Research. More importantly, the table explicitly recognizes
the key MPSB concepts as belonging to the enriched set of systems language for
transdisciplinary research. When using the MPSB Research as the prime pathway
to pursue transdisciplinary research, this kind of transdisciplinary research,
together with transdisciplinary learning, can be conceived as contributing to
(e.g., propelling) the MPSB knowledge supply chain as expounded by Ho (2014) (also
see appendix
2).
Concluding remarks
By working out: (1) the relationship
between transdisciplinarity and systems thinking and (2) how the MPSB Research
could be employed as a major pathway to pursue transdisciplinary research, the
paper makes contribution to the theoretical development of the MPSB Research as
well as transdisciplinary research. In the discussion, it emphasizes the pivotal
role of the enriched set of systems language in transdisciplinary research.
Nevertheless, this paper does not explain further the MPSB Research for quite a
number of the MPSB Research literature can be accessed in the public domain via
the Internet, especially in the open access journals of European Academic Research and American
Research Thoughts. See also the MPSB Facebook page as noted in the bibliography.
Hopefully, informed by this paper on the MPSB Research-cum-transdisciplinarity
theme, readers will find the literatures of the MPSB Research and
transdisciplinarity more comprehensible. Lastly, it should be reminded again
that the transdisciplinarity theme covers both transdisciplinary research and
transdisciplinary learning. In the same vein, in the MPSB Research, there are
also the corresponding topics of the MPSB Research and the MPSB managerial
intellectual learning (see the Managerial
Intellectual Learning FB page as provided in the bibliography). This paper has examined the transdisciplinary research
topic, but not the transdisciplinary learning one. Reasonably,
transdisciplinary learning should be examined with the MPSB Research lens in a
separate paper in the future.
Bibliography
Ackoff, R.L. 1981. Creating the corporate future. Wiley. Chichester.
Ackoff, R.L. and J. Gharajedaghi.
1996. “Research Paper: Reflections on Systems and their Models” Systems Research 13(1). Wiley: 13-23.
Checkland, P.B. and S. Holwell.
1998. “Action Research: Its Nature and Validity” Systemic Practice and Action Research 11(1): 9-21.
Checkland, P.B. and J. Scholes.
1990. Soft Systems Methodology in Action.
Wiley. Chichester.
Clemson, B. 1984. Cybernetics: A New Management Tool.
Abacus Press.
Collin, A. 2009. “Multidisciplinary,
interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary collaboration: implications for
vocational psychology” International Journal
for Educational and Vocational Guidance 9(2) July. Springer: 101-110.
Flood, R.L. and E.R. Carson. 1988. Complexity: An Introduction to the Theory
and Application of Systems Science. Plenum Press. London.
Flood, R.L. and M.C. Jackson. 1991. Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems
Intervention. Wiley. Chichester.
Francois, C. 2006. “Research Paper:
Transdisciplinary Unified Theory” Systems
Research and Behavioral Science 23(5). Wiley: 617-624.
Ho, J.K.K. 1996. Development of Multi-perspective,
Systems-based Frameworks, Doctor of Philosophy thesis submitted to Faculty
of Engineering, University of Hong Kong July. (url address:
http://hub.hku.hk/handle/10722/34952) [visited at February 8, 2014].
Hodgson, A. 2012. “Research Paper: A
Transdisciplinary World Model” Systems
Research and Behavioral Science 29(5). Wiley: 517-526.
Hummel, D., S. Adamo, A.d.
Sherbinin, L. Murphy. R. Aggarwal, L. Zulu, J.G. Liu and K. Knight. 2013. “Inter-
and transdiscplinary approaches to population-environment research for
sustainable aims: a review and appraisal” Population
and Environment 34(4). Springer: 481-509.
Jackson, M.C. 2000. Systems Approaches to Management. Kluwer
Academic/ Plenum Publishes. London.
Jackson, M.C. 2003. Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for
Managers. Wiley. Chichester.
Kasperskaya,
Y. and M. Tayles. 2013. ‚The role of causal links in performance measurement
models” Managerial Auditing Journal 28(5). Emerald: 426-443.
Lang, D.J., M. Bergmann, M.
Stauffacher, P. Martens, P. Moli, M. Swilling and C.J. Thomas. 2012.
“Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles,
and challenges” Sustainability Science
7 (Supplement 1) February. Springer: 25-43.
Literature on transdiscipline Facebook page, maintained by Joseph K.K. Ho (url
address: https://www.facebook.com/transdiscipline/?fref=ts).
Managerial Intellectual Learning Facebook page, maintained by Joseph K.K. Ho (url
address: https://www.facebook.com/managerial.intellectual.learning/timeline).
Mitroff, I.I. and H.A. Linsone.
1993. The Unbounded Mind: Breaking the
Chains of Traditional Business Thinking. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Müller, D.B., S.P. Tjallingii and
K.J. Canters. 2005. “A Research Paper: A Transdisciplinary Learning Approach to
Foster Convergence of Design, Science and Deliberation in Urban and Regional
Planning” Systems Research and Behavioral
Science 22. Wiley: 193-208.
Nicolescu, B. 1994. “The Charter of
Transdisciplinarity” Interdisciplinary Documentation on Religion and Science
2003-2015. Editorial Office Address: via del Pianellari, 41-00186 Rome, Italy
(url address: http://inters.org/Freitas-Morin-Nicolescu-Transdisciplinarity) [visited at December 15, 2015].
Park, J.Y. and J.B. Son. 2010.
“Transitioning toward Transdisciplinary Learning in a Multidisciplinary
Environment” International Journal of
Pedagogies and Learning 6(1): 82-93.
Perry, C. 2013. “A Reflection of
Continued Appreciation for Transdisciplinary Foundations in Times of Economic
and Academia Related Uncertainty” Systemic
Practice and Action Research 26(5) October. Springer: 467-470.
Ramadier, R. 2004.
“Transdisciplinarity and its challenges: the case of urban studies” Futures 36. Elsevier: 423-439.
Rasmussen, B., P.D. Andersen and K.
Borch. 2010. “Managing Transdisciplinarity in Strategic Foresight” Creativity and Innovation Management
19(1) March. Blackwell Publishing: 37-46.
Russell, A.W., F. Wickson, and A.L.
Carew. 2008. “Transdisciplinarity:
Context, contradictions and capacity” Futures 40. Wiley: 460-472.
Sahamie, R., D. Stindt and C. Nuss.
2013. “Transdisciplinary Research in Sustainable Operations – An Application to
Closed-Loop Supply Chains” Business
Strategy and the Environment 22. Wiley: 245-268.
Schaltegger, S., M. Beckmann ane E.G.
Hansen. 2013. “Transdisciplinarity in Corporate Sustainability: Mapping the
Field” Business Strategy and the
Environment 22. Wiley: 219-229.
Schneider, F., and S. Rist. 2013.
“Envisioning sustainable water futures in a transdisciplinary learning process:
combining normative, explorative, and participatory scenario approaches” Sustainability Science 9(4) October.
Springer: 463-481.
Schoderbek, P.P., C.G. Schoderbak
and A.G. Kefalas. 1985. Management
Systems: Conceptual Considerations. Business Publications, Inc. Plano,
Texas 75075.
The Multi-perspective, Systems-based Research Facebook
page. Maintained
by Joseph K.K. Ho (url address: https://www.facebook.com/The-Multi-perspective-Systems-based-Research-1630606813892045/).
Wikipedia. 2015. “Transdisciplinarity”
Wikipedia.org (url address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transdisciplinarity) [visited at December 16, 2015].
Appendix
Appendix 1: A glossary on the key Multi-perspective,
Systems-based (MPSB) concepts (re: Ho, 2013).
Key MPSB concepts
|
Descriptions
|
1. MPSB Research
|
A research programme that
makes use of critical systems thinking to review management disciplines with
a view to developing knowledge structures of management disciplines as a path
to make theoretical advancements in systems thinking.
|
2. MPSB frameworks
|
Knowledge structures of
management disciplines that are generated as a result of the review of
management disciplines based on critical systems thinking.
|
3. Perspective
|
The theoretical
orientation of either a problem-solver or a methodology. It could be
considered as a theoretical paradigm. In the MPSB Research, 5 main
perspectives are identified, i.e. (1) the hard systems perspective, (2) the
soft systems perspective, (3) the emancipatory systems perspective, (4) the
postmodern systems perspective, and (5) the critical systems perspective.
|
4. A perspective switch
|
The switching of
perspective by the problem-solver from one moment of reflection based on one
perspective (e.g., the hard systems one) to another moment based on another
perspective (e.g., the soft systems one).
|
5. A migration of perspective
|
The modification or a
shift in perspective of a methodology (e.g., migration of Systems Dynamics
based on the hard systems perspective to the soft systems perspective), as
reflected in the loosening of some of the original components of the
methodology concerned.
|
6. Perspective anchoring
|
The intellectual effort
to explicitly relate a methodology to a particular perspective so that it
explicitly respects the rationality of such a perspective.
|
7. An MPSB rich picture building exercise
|
An exploratory exercise
conducted on a problem-context based on multiple images of organization that
are affiliated with different perspectives. It is similar to the Stream of
Cultural Analysis in the soft systems methodology of Checkland and Scholes
(1990). Rich picture building is a problem-situation expression technique in
the soft systems methodology of Checkland.
|
8. An MPSB knowledge compiler
|
A set of techniques based
on critical systems thinking used to examine a management discipline at
either an individual concept level or the whole discipline level, resulting
in the construction or enhancement of MPSB frameworks that make the
management disciplines coherent and understandable from the critical systems
perspective.
|
9. The in-built tension of pluralism
|
The feeling of tension
arising from the difficulties in considering and respecting fundamentally
different perspectives in an intellectual exercise (e.g. a problem-solving
endeavor or a theory-developing exercise) that utilizes the MPSB cognitive
filters.
|
10. MPSB cognitive filter for management
|
A set of inter-related key
MPSB concepts that are used by managers to make sense of the various
management approaches and management viewpoints that they encounter from time
to time in the world of management practices.
|
11. Enlightening management education
|
Management education that
endorses critical systems thinking and makes use of the MPSB Research as a
main method of management learning.
|
12. Key MPSB concepts
|
The concepts that have
been identified as highly relevant for the conduct of the MPSB Research.
|
Appendix 2: An MPSB knowledge supply chain framework
(Ho, 2014).
Comments: The FMA research model for
transdisciplinary research (re: Figure 1) mainly works along Path 1a (re: appendix 2). In this case, the
MPSB Research (MM1) (re: appendix 2) chiefly
focuses on the study of ideas from various disciplines, as identified in the F
component (re: Figure 1) of the FMA
research model. For further details on the MPSB knowledge supply chain framework, please refer to Ho (2014).
[1]
Being holistic
means endorsing the notion of holism,
i.e., respecting
“the profound interconnectedness of the parts and concentrates on the
relationships between them and how these often give rise to surprising outcomes
– the emergent properties” (Jackson, 2000).
[2]
The key
MPSB concepts have been employed to review various management disciplines
and, recently, other social sciences subjects, e.g, housing studies. It
indicates that they are capable of serving for concepts bridging in
transdisciplinary research.
[3] Jackson (2000: page 3) reminds us that in the 1980s,
there were already competing strands of systems thinking which endorse
“different uses and meanings” of the system
notion.
No comments:
Post a Comment