LC 00490: verschil tussen versies

Geen bewerkingssamenvatting
Geen bewerkingssamenvatting
 
(6 tussenliggende versies door 2 gebruikers niet weergegeven)
Regel 1: Regel 1:
Het begrip grens staat centraal in de systeemtheorie. Wat de grens van een systeem is en hoe makkelijk die te beschrijven is, is afhankelijk van de systeemvariant die men voorstaat. CSH sluit meer aan bij de interpretivistische zachte-systeemvariant.
The notion ‘boundary’ is central to systems theory. What the boundary of a system is and how challenging it is to describe it, depends on the type of system. CSH is more in line with the interpretivistic soft systems type.


Het uitgangspunt hierbij is de aanname dat de wereld, of wat beperkter de situatie die wordt onderzocht, oneindig complex is. Iedere belanghebbende heeft een bepaald perspectief op de situatie, met vaak onuitgesproken aannames en overtuigingen. Door de focus te verleggen van de situatie zelf naar waar de perspectieven op de situatie vandaan komen, wordt inzicht verkregen in de beweegredenen van de belanghebbenden. Hiermee wordt de weg geopend naar een constructieve dialoog voor het vinden van breed gedragen verbeteringen in complexe situaties.
The main principle in this, is the assumption that the world, or to narrow it down a bit more: the situation that is being researched, is endlessly complex. Every stakeholder has a certain perspective on the situation, often with unspoken assumptions and beliefs. By shifting the focus from the situation itself to the place where the perspectives on the situation originate, insight is gained into the motivations of stakeholders. This opens the way to a constructive dialogue in which widely supported improvements for complex situations can be found.
<!-- {{Include lesson learned|Lesson learned=LL 00030|Description=Stakeholders' worldviews may differ.|Reference=LC 000346}} -->


Principle: concentrate on how to look, instead of what to see.
The stakeholders’ motivations are exposed by posing questions about boundary judgements that are, consciously or subconsciously, used. Examples of boundary judgements are: which stakeholders are involved and which are not, which moral judgements are used and what is right and what is wrong.


De beweegredenen van de belanghebbenden worden blootgelegd door het stellen van vragen over grensoordelen die, al dan niet bewust, worden gehanteerd. Voorbeelden van grensoordelen zijn welke belanghebbenden worden betrokken en welke juist niet, welke morele oordelen worden gehanteerd en wat is goed en wat is fout.
The goal of the shift from focus on the situation to focus on boundary judgements aims to level the playing field for all stakeholders by reflecting critically on motivations, assumptions and convictions. In theory (but practice does have a way of rearing its ugly head) all those involved (such as civilians, experts and authorities) can explore each other’s motives critically. This puts them at equal footing. CSH aims to develop a practical and realistic work form for Habermas’ ideal speech situation. Boundary judgements that a stakeholder has, are not necessarily better than those of others, but will be tested for their merits by means of critical reflection.


Met de verschuiving van focus op situatie naar focus op grensoordelen wordt beoogd een gelijk speelveld te creëren voor alle betrokkenen door kritisch te reflecteren op beweegredenen, aannames en overtuigingen. In theorie (maar de praktijk is weerbarstig) kunnen alle belanghebbenden (zoals burgers, deskundigen en machthebbers) elkaars motieven kritisch bevragen. Hiermee komen zij op gelijke voet te staan. Met CSH wordt getracht een praktische en realistische invulling te geven van de ideal speech situation van Habermas. Grensoordelen van een bepaalde belanghebbende zijn niet noodzakelijk beter dan die van anderen, maar zullen door kritisch te reflecteren op hun merites worden onderzocht.
Please note that the CSH approach can be compared with second-order cybernetics and second-order observations. Please also note that Ulrich has developed CSH based on the ideas of Churchman and Kant.


Merk op dat CSH aanpak te vergelijken is met tweede-orde cybernetica en tweede-orde observaties. Hierbij moet worden opgemerkt dat Ulrich CSH heeft ontwikkeld op basis van de ideeën van Churchman en Kant.
<accesscontrol>Access:We got to move</accesscontrol>
{{LC Book config}}
{{LC Book config}}
{{Light Context
{{Light Context
Regel 19: Regel 18:
|Sequence numbers=;
|Sequence numbers=;
|Context type=Situation
|Context type=Situation
|Heading=Grenzen Verkennen en Verleggen met CSH
|Heading=Exploring and Pushing Boundaries with CSH
|Show referred by=Nee
|Show edit button=Ja
|Show edit button=Ja
|Show VE button=Ja
|Show VE button=Ja
|Show title=Ja
|Show title=Ja
|EMM access control=Access:We got to move,
}}
}}
{{LC Book additional
{{LC Book additional
|Preparatory reading=
|Preparatory reading=LC 00491
|Continue reading=
|Continue reading=LC 00492
}}
}}

Huidige versie van 24 jun 2022 om 22:11

The notion ‘boundary’ is central to systems theory. What the boundary of a system is and how challenging it is to describe it, depends on the type of system. CSH is more in line with the interpretivistic soft systems type.

The main principle in this, is the assumption that the world, or to narrow it down a bit more: the situation that is being researched, is endlessly complex. Every stakeholder has a certain perspective on the situation, often with unspoken assumptions and beliefs. By shifting the focus from the situation itself to the place where the perspectives on the situation originate, insight is gained into the motivations of stakeholders. This opens the way to a constructive dialogue in which widely supported improvements for complex situations can be found.

The stakeholders’ motivations are exposed by posing questions about boundary judgements that are, consciously or subconsciously, used. Examples of boundary judgements are: which stakeholders are involved and which are not, which moral judgements are used and what is right and what is wrong.

The goal of the shift from focus on the situation to focus on boundary judgements aims to level the playing field for all stakeholders by reflecting critically on motivations, assumptions and convictions. In theory (but practice does have a way of rearing its ugly head) all those involved (such as civilians, experts and authorities) can explore each other’s motives critically. This puts them at equal footing. CSH aims to develop a practical and realistic work form for Habermas’ ideal speech situation. Boundary judgements that a stakeholder has, are not necessarily better than those of others, but will be tested for their merits by means of critical reflection.

Please note that the CSH approach can be compared with second-order cybernetics and second-order observations. Please also note that Ulrich has developed CSH based on the ideas of Churchman and Kant.
























Overgenomen van "https://projectenportfolio.nl/wiki/index.php?title=LC_00490&oldid=90428"