LC 00490: verschil tussen versies
Geen bewerkingssamenvatting |
Geen bewerkingssamenvatting |
||
| (3 tussenliggende versies door dezelfde gebruiker niet weergegeven) | |||
| Regel 1: | Regel 1: | ||
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 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.{{Include lesson learned|Lesson learned=LL 00030|Description=Stakeholders' worldviews may differ.|Reference=LC 000346}} | 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}} --> | |||
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 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. | ||
| Regel 17: | Regel 8: | ||
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. | 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. | 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. | ||
{{LC Book config}} | {{LC Book config}} | ||
{{Light Context | {{Light Context | ||
| Regel 32: | Regel 23: | ||
|Show VE button=Ja | |Show VE button=Ja | ||
|Show title=Ja | |Show title=Ja | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{LC Book additional | {{LC Book additional | ||
|Preparatory reading=LC 00491 | |Preparatory reading=LC 00491 | ||
|Continue reading=LC 00492 | |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.
- Lees hiervoor:
- Lees hierna: