Exploring Reconnection to Self, Others, and Nature Through Systems Thinking and Theory U

This paper explores the role and history of systems theory and thinking in the fields of instructional/educational technology and design. The foundations of ID/ET as fields are rich in behavioral, systematic, and positivist notions of process, but we assert that it is weaker in the reflective, thoughtful, deep and meaningful orientations. Woven into the history of the role of systems in ID/ET are connections to constructivism, learning sciences, qualitative research, holistic ontological and epistemic philosophy as foundations to the impact of systems theories on our field. Understanding systems theory histories without the broader contexts of the other similarly focused and highly influential movements in educational change keeps the perceptions within the field as unidimensional. A more complete and textured analysis of the history of systems theory and thinking is offered through the interdisciplinary lens of intersective, but heretofore rarely integrated, perspectives on related disciplines and their force upon the implementation of systems thinking and theories in our field. The ultimate assertion here is to push the envelope of the history of our field toward interpretive or anti-positivist boundaries. Our purpose in this paper, however, goes beyond just history. While historical perspective is useful and important in and of itself, we are interested in a different kind of generativity. Specifically, we wish to begin to explore the edges of where we might go next. Ideally, the proper integration of systems theory within ID/ET can gradually move us toward anti-positivist approaches which we believe will then lead us out of the philosophical desert toward a form of ID/ET for human flourishing and profound living. With the foundations and backdrops of the history of systems theories including those mentioned above, we believe that the intellectual history can then feed a synthetic activity and a potential new direction. We believe that the recent work in profound learning can offer a new direction where we can see beyond our current milieu. We assert that Educational Technology, Instructional Design, Learning Sciences are all in a bit of a philosophical desert at present. A potential endpoint in profound learning and living can help to inform and expand the broader sense of systems thinking. This paper adds significantly to the theoretical discussions of systems theory and thinking.

Qualitative research is inherently critical, interpretive, and multi-method in function, and Denzin and Lincoln (2005) argue that the current status of qualitative research sees the social sciences as a place for critical conversation. This highlights the task at hand for qualitative educational researchers, and their responsibility in bringing a critical view to methodology, promoting social justice, and engaging with systems of education by seeking to identify and address the problems within them. While the problems in education are complex, the application of systems thinking for identifying and solving complex problems has largely been absent. Critical Systems Theory (CST) brings a systems-thinking lens to help educational researchers understand the complex nature of educational systems and problems, while incorporating critical perspectives in both methodology and broader research objectives such as emancipation and social justice. CST is derived from both systems theory and critical social theory. In the mid-twentieth century, systems theory was established by a multidisciplinary group of researchers who believed that studies of science had become increasingly reductionist and the various disciplines isolated. The term system has been defined in various ways, but the core concept is one of relations between components, which together comprise a whole. Among the first to establish systems theory, Bertalanffy (1968) noted the existence of principles and laws that could be generalized across systems and their components regardless of the type of system or its relations to other systems. Ultimately, systems thinking entails identifying the components that make up a system, understanding relations between them, and how these components impact the larger system, external systems, and supra-systems, and vice versa. Systems theory continued to be of large influence in management sciences and research over the last half of the twentieth century, and underwent significant change, including the development of traditional (positivistic) and soft (interpretive) approaches to systems thinking. During the early 1980s, scholars called for a more critical, socially-aware approach to systems thinking and practice (Jackson, 1982; Mingers, 1980). This critical perspective was further developed based on the epistemological views of Habermas, influencing systems theory into the 1990s (Flood & Jackson, 1991; Jackson, 1991a, 1991b). Today, CST is defined by its core commitment to three ideas: critique, emancipation, and pluralism (Schecter, 1991). While CST's history has largely been within the management and operational sciences, its principles and methodological tools offer significant insight to qualitative researchers in many disciplines within social science. This is particularly true for the field of education, where many researchers are focusing on critical, emancipatory research and employing multi-methods for the proper exploration of diverse topics in education. The following section details the development of systems thinking to embrace a critical approach and how the fusion of critical and systems theory resulted in critical systems theory, a theory that merges systems thinking with a critical lens and can provide practical methods to the qualitative researcher for understanding and changing systems with inequalities. We further detail the core commitments to critique, emancipation, and pluralism that form the foundation of CST. Finally, we describe a system of system methodologies to contribute to and guide the selection of critical research methods for qualitative researchers in education. Development of Critical Systems Theory Hard Systems Thinking The early days of systems thinking represented a hard systems approach, reflecting a positivist epistemology, and the research methods focused on concepts such as prediction and control within the natural sciences. …

Systems thinking has become synonymous to developing coherent understanding of complex biological processes and phenomena from the molecular level to the level of ecosystems. The importance of systems and systems models in science education has been widely recognized, as illustrated by its definition as crosscutting concept by the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS, 2013). However, there still seems no consensus on what systems thinking exactly implies or how it can be fostered by adequate learning and teaching strategies. This paper stresses the theoretical or abstract nature of systems thinking. Systems thinking is not just perceived here as ‘coherent understanding’, but as a learning strategy in which systems theoretical concepts are deliberately used to explain and predict natural phenomena. As such, we argue that systems thinking is not to be defined as a set of skills, that can be learned ‘one by one’, but instead asks for consideration of systems characteristics and the systems theories they are derived from. After a short elaboration of the conceptual nature of systems thinking, we portray the diversity of educational approaches to foster systems thinking that have been reported in the empirical literature. Our frame of analysis focuses on the extent to which attention has been given to the matching of natural phenomena to one of three systems theories, the integration of different systems thinking skills and the role of modelling. Subsequently, we discuss the epistemological nature of the systems concept and we present some conclusions on embedding systems thinking in the secondary biology curriculum.

Systems thinking, the ability to reason about systems in abstract terms, fosters students’ coherent understanding of biology. This study aimed to determine to what extent the integration of systems thinking in Dutch biology education is in line with perspectives from systems theories and experts. We related the perspective on systems thinking of systems biologists (n = 7) to those of biology teachers (n = 8) and educators (n = 9). The resulting perspectives were interpreted in terms of three systems theories, General Systems Theories (GST), Cybernetics and Dynamical Systems Theories (DST). Thirdly, we determined to what extent and how teachers and educators pay attention to systems thinking in their teaching practice. This was all done by the use of open-ended interviews and online questionnaires. The results show that the systems biologists and teacher educators involved implicitly refer to three systems theories, whereas the teachers refer to the GST and cybernetics only. Despite this, the results suggest that the implementation of systems thinking in Dutch pre-service teacher training and secondary biology education falls short of expectations. These outcomes underline the importance of teacher (educator) professional development on teaching systems thinking to bridge the gap between research and teaching practice.

Nurses need to take a lead in reducing medical errors. Formal education of systems thinking (ST) can be a catalyst for error prevention. Integration of ST in RN-BSN education has not been studied. A descriptive, cross-sectional design using survey methods was used. Deans of accredited RN-BSN programs across the Midwest reported on ST integration across their RN-BSN programs. Gaps in ST integration were identified as (1) a lack of evaluation tools to determine mastery of systems theory, thinking and awareness, and the application of quality and safety competencies for systems-level synthesis and (2) program outcomes emphasizing autonomy of systems-level decisions. Systems thinking was integrated across curricula among most accredited RN-BSN programs in the Midwest. Recommendations are to integrate systems theory into program outcomes and to develop evaluation tools that validate ST mastery.

This chapter introduces Complex Adaptive Systems Thinking (CAST) into the domain of Intellectual Capital (IC). CAST is based on the theories of Complex Adaptive System (CAS) and Systems Thinking (ST). It argues that the CAST, combined with Intelligence Base offers a potentially more holistic approach to managing the Intellectual Capital of an organization. Furthermore, the authors extend this IC management with additional dimensions proper to a social entity such as an organization. New organizational design methods are needed and the capability approach is such a method that supports IC in virtual and real organizations. The characteristics of Intellectual Capital are discussed in the iterative process of inquiry and the Cynefin Framework, guaranteeing a holistic view on the organization and its environment.

In the operating conditions of the 21st century it is impossible to be competent alone' (O'Hara & Leicester, 2019, p. 16). Competence in leading and managing, as in any professional practice, is best understood as the ability to work with others to meet important challenges in complex human systems (Rychen & Salganik, 2003). Systems thinkers such as Oshry (1999, 2007, 2018, 2019, 2020) recognise that competence is a function of systems and culture; that is, of relationships. This insight acknowledges the importance of being able to work effectively in group settings but goes further in recognising that our lives are always lived in complex patterns of relationships with others (O'Hara & Leicester, 2019).

Systems thinking is the practice of holistic thinking, which can be informal or based on systems theory. Success has always depended on holistic rather than one-sided thinking. Empirical findings about the innovative society can exemplify this statement, though there seems to be no universal agreement as to what the basic attributes of systems thinking are, and we offer a summary of them. To test them, we investigated an industrial latecomer country and found that the understanding of both the innovative society and the systemic thinking are rare: one-sidedness prevails. What do we do to come closer to holistic thinking? Neither the General Systems Theory nor most other systems theories (except the Dialectical Systems Theory) provide a methodology supportive of holism; however, the case of the visionary companies proves that informal systems thinking can be very powerful. Hence, systems theories should work more on informal systems thinking.

This study reviews systems theory and thinking (ST&T) as a foundational discipline or theory in human resource development (HRD) research and practice. Using systematic evidence review (SER) of the literature and mapping analysis of HRD curricula across some leading U.S. universities, disconnect between theory and practice of ST&T is discussed. The use of SER of the literature in HRD research is an important aspect of this study. The study recommended the incorporation of more ST&T courses into the HRD undergraduate and graduate curricula. Recommendations of how systems thinking can become more relevant to HRD research and practice are offered.

Healing and place are inseparable. (Wilbert Gesler, 2003, p. 1) Florence Nightingale stands out as the first nursing leader to understand the impact of place on the healing process. In her writings she laid the groundwork for a holistic approach to patient care. "Volumes are now written and spoken upon the effect of the mind upon the body. Much of it is true. But I wish a little more was thought of the effect of the body on the mind" (Nightingale, 1860). She also is credited with being one of the first to record this impact in her statistical representation of public health issues. She understood that the element of place (nature, site location, and building design) needs to be integrated with elements of people (spirituality) and with processes (care delivery) to create an Optimal Healing Environment (OHE). Nightingale practiced nursing more than 150 years ago, but her insight into the creation of OHE leaves a legacy for us all. She proposed no formulaic response to the role of place in optimal healing but documented her experiences and observations with her patients as well as the larger community. Our challenge is to discover frameworks to help us identify elements that create optimal healing environments within our own communities. The American Holistic Nurses' Association's Standards of Holistic Nursing Practice (1998) include therapeutic environments as part of their core values. The standards state that "each person's environment includes everything that surrounds the individual, both the external and internal (physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual), as well as patterns not yet understood." This article will introduce systems thinking as a framework for identifying and studying the elements of OHE. Application of this framework also allows subtle patterns, including the interactions between elements, to be made explicit. With billions of dollars of spending anticipated in healthcare construction both nationally and internationally before 2020, it is imperative that means to improve the healthcare environment be explored to ensure optimal work, healing, business and cultural outcomes. (Stickler, 2007, p. 11) DEFINITIONS OF TERMS Optimal Healing Environments The word "healing" comes from the Anglo-Saxon word haelen , which means "to make whole." Healing environments are designed to promote harmony or balance of mind, body, and spirit; to reduce anxiety and stress; and to be restorative (Kreitzer & Zborowsky, 2009). The OHE are created when people, place, and care processes converge at a particular time and within a particular culture. Some of these elements are universal while others may be unique to each community. Systems Thinking Systems theory was developed in the 1940s by biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy as a reaction against reductionism and the attempt to revive the unity of science (Heylighen & Joslyn, 1992). Von Bertalanffy emphasized that real systems are open to and interact with their environments, and that they can acquire qualitatively new properties through emergence resulting in continual evolution. Rather than reducing an entity to the properties of its parts or elements, systems theory focuses on the arrangement of and relations between the parts that connect them into a whole. Systems theory is applied to many disciplines such as physics, biology and sociology to provide a holistic framework to areas of study (Heylighen & Joslyn, 1992). OHE and Systems Thinking Applying systems thinking to the creation of OHE allows a holistic perspective into their creation. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between the major elements of OHE. Systems thinking allows a broader, more integrated view of this concept. Rather than focusing on the individual parts, systems thinking allows a perspective of how the parts relate to each other. The elements can be better understood when examined in relation to each other and to the synergy that exists between them. …

PurposeThe corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an essential topic of both life and sociocybernetics. It requires businesspersons and other decision makers to be broad and hence to apply inter‐disciplinarity incorporating many, mutually partly different and therefore interdependent, viewpoints for requisite holism. To do so, they should use systems thinking. But the modern diversity of systems theories, including cybernetics, opens the issue: which systems theory and/or cybernetic should one use? Aims to discuss the dialectical systems theory (DST), its definition of holism and its definition of the seven principal groups of notions making systems thinking possible, when applied in a synergy. This may lead to a requisite holism, and hence to efficiency and effectiveness of the work on and of the CSR; it has often been done so in the 30 years of DST.Design/methodology/approachDesk research and indirect field research were used. The concept of CSR is a rather soft topic. It demands a holistic treatment and hence a plural theoretical foundation following recent trends in economics (business and environmental), management as well as systems thinking. The problem was investigated empirically from the systems‐oriented perspective supported by DST, because it tackles human personality and impacts over it and by it, rather than offers tools for people to use for whatever purposes.FindingsThe CSR concept belongs in sociocyberbetics linking cybernetics, systems theory and social aspects of the reality. The definition of CSR requires humans to think, decide, and act on a very broad basis rather than to reduce their horizons to the narrow habit of businesses to find profit only essential. CSR links the hard‐systemic and soft‐systemic versions of modern systems theories. It could be seen as an attribute of human personality and as a process between humans and organisations.Research limitations/implicationsAs CSR has many dimensions (economic, environmental and social ones, at least), the research focused on the requisitely holistic performance of an organisation being aware of diversified needs of multi‐stakeholders (including its own employees, as well).Practical implicationsThe research findings and conclusions can support endeavors to implement the CSR concept in practice: in organisations, among different stakeholders and broader public audience (including governmental institutions and communities).Originality/valueThe paper provides the theoretical foundation to raise and improve socially responsible activities by supporting a maturing management philosophy approaching the viable, balanced organisation.

Systems theory has become a worldview aimed at holism, and a methodology supportive of holism. But it has also become a sophisticated mathematical and philosophical approach, which limits it to rather few intellectuals and systems theorists. This is not enough for humankind to do well. An insight into the most successful companies, called the visionary companies in the analysis briefed here, let us see that an informal, implicit, indirect, systems thinking might be as important as the systems theory (which still remains important as its aide). The point is double, at least: (1) systems thinking practices holistic thinking that implicitly attains the requisite holism on a high level, (2) systems theory is not a theory aimed at itself, but at supporting the holistic rather than one-sided thinking, by building bridges between mutually different specialists. Informal, implicit systems thinking can do equally much good as the one backed by systems theory.

Implementing the sustainable development goals (SDGs) adopted at the UN Summit in September 2015 specifically invites the creation of “an integrated, holistic, multi-stakeholder approach”. This implies the need for systems thinking in practice, a tradition that draws on systems theories, tools and techniques able to facilitate better conversation and cooperation between agencies. As an approach it goes beyond development of competencies through formal education programmes. This paper focuses on SDG 17—the means of implementation—and the role of systems thinking in practice for supporting both competence and SDG implementation capability. Two inter-linked initiatives led by systems thinking practitioners in the field of sustainability science are reported; one is an action research inquiry exploring the praxis (theory-informed-action) challenges of applying systems thinking in practice in contemporary workplaces ranging from in-field development projects to government administrations and business ventures, and another which built on the findings from this inquiry—a proposal for developing an action-learning platform for SDG implementation. Experience suggests that implementing SDGs requires not only competence in systems thinking but a capability of putting systems thinking into practice in a dynamic way, as praxis. The proposed action-learning platform can also be regarded as a learning laboratory in the sense that it will offer learning support and a chance to collaborate and experiment. This platform aims to be co-designed with multi-agency practitioners from international development, government planning, business/social enterprise and NGOs. The proposed platform draws on open-source resources, and ideas of social learning, developmental evaluation and systems thinking in practice traditions.

This study aims to identify trends in systems thinking research within the context of science education over the past decade and providing education researchers with a global perspective on the development of systems thinking. The bibliometric analysis research method is a quantitative approach used to analyze scientific literature to identify trends, publication patterns, collaborations between authors or institutions, and emerging research topics in a field of science. The data used for bibliometric analysis is the research trend of systems thinking in science learning from 2014 to 2024, based on the Scopus database, utilizing the R Package Bibliometric and VosViewer Software. The obtained articles were then processed using thematic analysis techniques with the R Bibliometric Package to analyze primary information, annual scientific publications, article citations per year, total citations of top journals, Sankey diagrams, top author production, countries with the highest productivity, most productive affiliations, and thematic maps. The findings of this study indicate that research on systems thinking in science learning has experienced an annual growth rate of 9.6% and an average citation rate of 13.6 citations per document. Furthermore, it analyzes the thematic mapping of the obtained keywords, where the motor themes in this study such as curriculum, teaching, elementary school, student learning, and system theory are well-developed and essential for shaping research in systems thinking in science learning. The thematic mapping reveals a strong interconnection among three key themes: systems thinking, science learning, and elementary schools. These themes hold significant potential and are highly relevant for further exploration due to their high centrality, yet they remain relatively underexplored to date. The study of systems thinking skills in science learning should also consider previous research findings related to sustainable development goals, climate change, gender similarity, and conceptual frameworks.

Basic Structures of Systems