系统思考和存在的土著关系方法:关注参与式本体论

IF 1 4区 管理学 Q4 MANAGEMENT
Norma R. A. Romm
{"title":"系统思考和存在的土著关系方法:关注参与式本体论","authors":"Norma R. A. Romm","doi":"10.1007/s11213-024-09672-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article is structured around my locating a lacuna in the (mainstream) literature describing the history of the field of “systems thinking”. I investigate how dominant accounts of this history do not include an account of the contributions of Indigenous sages and scholars’ systemic thinking. Such thinking (and being) is grounded in a relational onto-epistemology and attendant axiology – where knowing is consciously tied to (re)generating reciprocal relations with others – human and more-than-human – as we enact worlds-in-the making. The argument is that at the moment of “knowing/inquiring” we co-constitute with other agents (and not only human ones) the worlds that are brought forth. Otherwise expressed, there are never spectators, only participants in ongoing world-construction. I explore the way of explaining this as proffered by authors from a variety of geographical contexts as a backdrop to indicating how Indigenous critical systemic thinking has not been catered for by those writing the history of the so-called “systems community”. This is despite many Indigenous scholars self-naming their understandings as being systemic. I indicate that exploring global superwicked problems from the standpoint of an Indigenous onto-epistemology includes pointing to, and experimenting further with, radically different options for thinking-and-being than those that thus far have been storied by those writing the history of systems thinking. I indicate why it is important to take seriously this approach, rather than drowning its contribution.</p>","PeriodicalId":51694,"journal":{"name":"Systemic Practice and Action Research","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Indigenous Relational Approach to Systemic Thinking and Being: Focus on Participatory Onto-Epistemology\",\"authors\":\"Norma R. A. Romm\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11213-024-09672-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This article is structured around my locating a lacuna in the (mainstream) literature describing the history of the field of “systems thinking”. I investigate how dominant accounts of this history do not include an account of the contributions of Indigenous sages and scholars’ systemic thinking. Such thinking (and being) is grounded in a relational onto-epistemology and attendant axiology – where knowing is consciously tied to (re)generating reciprocal relations with others – human and more-than-human – as we enact worlds-in-the making. The argument is that at the moment of “knowing/inquiring” we co-constitute with other agents (and not only human ones) the worlds that are brought forth. Otherwise expressed, there are never spectators, only participants in ongoing world-construction. I explore the way of explaining this as proffered by authors from a variety of geographical contexts as a backdrop to indicating how Indigenous critical systemic thinking has not been catered for by those writing the history of the so-called “systems community”. This is despite many Indigenous scholars self-naming their understandings as being systemic. I indicate that exploring global superwicked problems from the standpoint of an Indigenous onto-epistemology includes pointing to, and experimenting further with, radically different options for thinking-and-being than those that thus far have been storied by those writing the history of systems thinking. I indicate why it is important to take seriously this approach, rather than drowning its contribution.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51694,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Systemic Practice and Action Research\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Systemic Practice and Action Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-024-09672-4\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systemic Practice and Action Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-024-09672-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文的结构是围绕我在描述 "系统思考 "领域历史的(主流)文献中找到的一个空白点展开的。我研究了关于这段历史的主流描述如何不包括对土著先贤和学者的系统思考所做贡献的描述。这种思维(和存在)的基础是一种关系认识论和随之而来的公理--在这种认识论和公理中,当我们创造正在形成中的世界时,我们有意识地与他人--人类和超人类--建立(再)互惠关系。我们的论点是,在 "认识/获取 "的那一刻,我们与其他行为者(不仅是人类行为者)共同构成了所创造的世界。换句话说,我们从来不是旁观者,而只是正在进行的世界建构的参与者。我将探讨来自不同地域背景的作者提出的解释方式,以此为背景,说明土著批判性系统思维如何没有被那些撰写所谓 "系统社区 "历史的人所关注。尽管许多土著学者自称他们的理解是系统性的。我指出,从土著认识论的角度探索全球超级病态问题,包括指出并进一步尝试与迄今为止那些系统思维史书写者所描述的思维和存在方式截然不同的选择。我将说明为什么必须认真对待这种方法,而不是淹没它的贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

An Indigenous Relational Approach to Systemic Thinking and Being: Focus on Participatory Onto-Epistemology

An Indigenous Relational Approach to Systemic Thinking and Being: Focus on Participatory Onto-Epistemology

This article is structured around my locating a lacuna in the (mainstream) literature describing the history of the field of “systems thinking”. I investigate how dominant accounts of this history do not include an account of the contributions of Indigenous sages and scholars’ systemic thinking. Such thinking (and being) is grounded in a relational onto-epistemology and attendant axiology – where knowing is consciously tied to (re)generating reciprocal relations with others – human and more-than-human – as we enact worlds-in-the making. The argument is that at the moment of “knowing/inquiring” we co-constitute with other agents (and not only human ones) the worlds that are brought forth. Otherwise expressed, there are never spectators, only participants in ongoing world-construction. I explore the way of explaining this as proffered by authors from a variety of geographical contexts as a backdrop to indicating how Indigenous critical systemic thinking has not been catered for by those writing the history of the so-called “systems community”. This is despite many Indigenous scholars self-naming their understandings as being systemic. I indicate that exploring global superwicked problems from the standpoint of an Indigenous onto-epistemology includes pointing to, and experimenting further with, radically different options for thinking-and-being than those that thus far have been storied by those writing the history of systems thinking. I indicate why it is important to take seriously this approach, rather than drowning its contribution.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
25.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Systemic Practice and Action Research is dedicated to advancing deeper understandings of issues that confront the contemporary world, and better means for engaging with these issues for the benefit of individuals, organizations, communities and their natural environments. To this end, a fundamental rethink of the purposes and methods of science is needed, making it more systemic and action-orientated. The journal therefore seeks to make a substantial contribution to rethinking science as well as to the reflective application of systemic practice and action research in all types of organizational and social settings. This international journal is committed to nurturing wide-ranging conversations around both qualitative and technical approaches for the betterment of people''s lives and ways of working together. It seeks to influence policy and strategy in its advocacy of action research as a primary means to gain vision and leverage in wicked problem areas. All forms of investigation and reasoning are considered potentially suitable for publication, including personal experience. There are no priorities attached to settings for studies and no greater significance given to one methodological style over another - as long as the work demonstrates a reflective and systemic quality. The journal welcomes manuscripts that are original, are well written, and contain a vivid argument. Papers normally will demonstrate knowledge of existing literature. Full papers are normally between 5,000 – 10,000 words (although longer papers will not be excluded if the argument justifies the word count) and short papers are about 2,000 words. Notes and letters are welcomed for publication in the ''notes from the field'' and ''letters'' sections. A rigorous mentoring-based refereeing system is applied in all cases. Officially cited as: Syst Pract Action Res
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信