System Methodology as a Conceptual Basis of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary research
https://doi.org/10.26794/2404-022X-2019-9-4-6-14
Abstract
The paper is devoted to the methodological tasks of conducting transdisciplinary research of TI, that have been leading to the tasks of integrating the knowledge of various stakeholders. The methodological framework of the study includes a systematic approach, the provisions of knowledge engineering and social psychology. The methodological basis of TI is formulated, the essence of which is the identification, coordination and integration of individual and collective structures of knowledge. The requirements to the procedure of knowledge integration of different stakeholders are defined: to form an understanding of the complexity of problems, to take into account the diversity of the real world and scientific perception of problems, the link of abstract and specific knowledge of a particular situation, the use of the concept of the common good as a regulatory basis for harmonizing multiple values and norms. Conceptual models are considered as an integration tool. The theoretical and practical significance of the study lies in the rationale for the application of methods of joint conceptual modeling as a tool for integration and coordination of various types of knowledge and organization of communication processes in a stakeholders group.
About the Author
S. G. Zbrishchak
Financial University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Svetlana G. Zbrishchak — Senior Lecturer of the Department “System Analysis in Economics”
Moscow
References
1. Knyazeva E. N. Transdisciplinary research strategies. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta = Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin. 2011;(10):193–201. (In Russ.).
2. Nicolescu B. The transdisciplinary evolution of the university condition for sustainable development. In: Fam D., Neuhauser L., Gibbs P., eds. Transdisciplinary theory, practice and education. Cham: Springer-Verlag; 2018:73–81.
3. Klein J. T. A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In: Frodeman R., Klein J. T., Mitcham C., eds. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010:15–30.
4. Pohl C. Hadorn G. H. Methodological challenges of transdisciplinary research. Natures Sciences Sociétés. 2008;16(2):111–121. DOI: 10.1051/nss:2008035
5. Midgley G., ed. Systems thinking (4 vol. set). London: Sage Publications; 2003. 1492 p.
6. Checkland P. Soft systems methodology: A thirty year retrospective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science. 2000;17(S 1): S 11–S 58. DOI: 10.1002/1099–1743(200011)17:1+<::AID-SRES 374>3.0.CO;2-O
7. Checkland P. From optimizing to learning: A development of systems thinking for the 1990s. Journal of the Operational Research Society. 1985;36(9):757–767. DOI: 10.2307/2582164
8. Clark T. W., Clark S. G. The policy process: A practical guide for natural resources professionals. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2002. 224 р.
9. Hadorn G. H., Pohl C., Bammer G. Solving problems through transdisciplinary research. In: Frodeman R., Klein J. T., Mitcham C., eds. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010:431–452.
10. Gavrilova T. A., Leshcheva I. A., Strakhovich E. V. On the use of visual conceptual models in teaching. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Menedzhment = Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Management Series. 2011;(4):124–150. (In Russ.).
11. Abramova N. A. Reflexive approach and the problem of mutual understanding. In: The human factor in management: Coll. pap. Moscow: KomKniga, 2006:55–87. URL: http://old.virtualcoglab.ru/pdf/Abramova2.pdf (accessed on 03.04.2019). (In Russ.).
12. Carlile R. P. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science. 2002;13(4):355–457. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953
13. Kholodnaya M. A. The psychology of intelligence: Paradoxes of research. St. Petersburg: Piter; 2002. 272 p. (In Russ.).
14. Zbrishchak S. G. Solving problem situations in management on the basis of collective cognitive maps. Ekonomika i upravlenie: problemy, resheniya. 2017;4(3):235–245. (In Russ.).
15. Doyle J. K., Ford D. N. Mental models concepts revisited: Some clarifications and a reply to Lane. System Dynamics Review. 1999;15(4):411–415. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099–1727(199924)15:4<411::AID-SDR 181>3.0.CO;2-R
16. Kitchin R. M. Cognitive maps: What are they and why study them? Journal of Environmental Psychology. 1994;14(1):1–19. DOI: 10.1016/S 0272–4944(05)80194-X
17. Axelrod R. Structure of decision: The cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1976. 400 p.
18. Eden C. Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. European Journal of Operational Research. 2004;159(3):673–686. DOI: 10.1016/S 0377–2217(03)00431–4
19. Mulder I., Swaak J., Kessels J. Assessing group learning and shared understanding in technology-mediated interaction. Educational Technology and Society. 2002;5(1):35–47.
20. Renger M., Kolfschoten G. L., de Vreede G.-J. Challenges in collaborative modelling: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Simulation and Process Modelling. 2008;4(3–4):248–263.
21. Weick K. E., Sutcliffe K. M., Obstfeld D. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science. 2005;16(4):409–421. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
Review
For citations:
Zbrishchak S.G. System Methodology as a Conceptual Basis of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary research. Management Sciences. 2019;9(4):6-14. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26794/2404-022X-2019-9-4-6-14
Views:
947
Email this article 
