IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v14y2024i2p21582440241255180.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring Systems Thinking Typologies and Paradigms

Author

Listed:
  • Katrina R. Alford
  • Nicole L. P. Stedman
  • James Charles Bunch
  • Shirley Baker
  • T. Grady Roberts

Abstract

Today’s agriculture, food, and natural resources (AFNR) sectors face many wicked problems like climate change. Addressing these complex problems will require people to have both social and technical knowledge. However, having knowledge is insufficient. Individuals must be able to think about things as they occur in complex systems. Systems thinking has been proposed as a way of tackling complex problems. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a continuum of systems thinking paradigms, beyond the hard systems thinking and soft systems thinking dichotomy proposed by Checkland. A novel research method called Q methodology was used, which included two steps: (a) the collection of data that forms the Q-sorts and (b) the by-person factor analysis of the Q-sorts. Overall, the findings from this study support the idea that systems thinking occurs on a continuum which includes (a) Hard systems thinking, (b) HARDsoft systems thinking, (c) SOFThard systems thinking and (d) Soft systems thinking. HARDsoft and SOFThard systems thinking were newly discovered in this research. The four systems thinking paradigms identified in this study better reflect the nuances and complexities that are associated with human thought and can provide a more specialized approach to solving complex issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Katrina R. Alford & Nicole L. P. Stedman & James Charles Bunch & Shirley Baker & T. Grady Roberts, 2024. "Exploring Systems Thinking Typologies and Paradigms," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(2), pages 21582440241, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:2:p:21582440241255180
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440241255180
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241255180
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440241255180?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Huutoniemi, Katri & Klein, Julie Thompson & Bruun, Henrik & Hukkinen, Janne, 2010. "Analyzing interdisciplinarity: Typology and indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 79-88, February.
    2. Costigan, Robert D. & Brink, Kyle E., 2015. "On the prevalence of linear versus nonlinear thinking in undergraduate business education: A lot of rhetoric, not enough evidence," Journal of Management & Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(4), pages 535-547, July.
    3. Rountree, John H., 1977. "Systems thinking--Some fundamental aspects," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 247-254, October.
    4. Trochim, W.M. & Cabrera, D.A. & Milstein, B. & Gallagher, R.S. & Leischow, S.J., 2006. "Practical challenges of systems thinking and modeling in public health," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 96(3), pages 538-546.
    5. Jason M. Randle & Mirella L. Stroink, 2018. "The Development and Initial Validation of the Paradigm of Systems Thinking," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(6), pages 645-657, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jian Xu & Yi Bu & Ying Ding & Sinan Yang & Hongli Zhang & Chen Yu & Lin Sun, 2018. "Understanding the formation of interdisciplinary research from the perspective of keyword evolution: a case study on joint attention," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 973-995, November.
    2. Edmond Daramy-Williams & Jillian Anable & Susan Grant-Muller, 2019. "Car Use: Intentional, Habitual, or Both? Insights from Anscombe and the Mobility Biography Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Núria Bautista-Puig & Jorge Mañana-Rodríguez & Antonio Eleazar Serrano-López, 2021. "Role taxonomy of green and sustainable science and technology journals: exportation, importation, specialization and interdisciplinarity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 3871-3892, May.
    4. Paul Stock & Rob J.F. Burton, 2011. "Defining Terms for Integrated (Multi-Inter-Trans-Disciplinary) Sustainability Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(8), pages 1-24, July.
    5. repec:plo:pone00:0170296 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Meijun Liu & Sijie Yang & Yi Bu & Ning Zhang, 2023. "Female early-career scientists have conducted less interdisciplinary research in the past six decades: evidence from doctoral theses," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, December.
    7. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2012. "Identifying interdisciplinarity through the disciplinary classification of coauthors of scientific publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(11), pages 2206-2222, November.
    8. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    9. Rahi Jain & Prashant Narnaware, 2020. "Application of Systems Thinking to Dent Child Malnutrition: A Palghar District, India Case Study," Millennial Asia, , vol. 11(1), pages 79-98, April.
    10. Goldman, Alyssa W. & Kane, Mary, 2014. "Concept mapping and network analysis: An analytic approach to measure ties among constructs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 9-17.
    11. Gerd Lupp & Aude Zingraff-Hamed & Josh J. Huang & Amy Oen & Stephan Pauleit, 2020. "Living Labs—A Concept for Co-Designing Nature-Based Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, December.
    12. repec:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2024:i:2:p:213-227. is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Ran Xu & Navid Ghaffarzadegan, 2018. "Neuroscience bridging scientific disciplines in health: Who builds the bridge, who pays for it?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 1183-1204, November.
    14. Ingyu Oh & Kyeong-Jun Kim & Chris Rowley, 2023. "Female Empowerment and Radical Empathy for the Sustainability of Creative Industries: The Case of K-Pop," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-18, February.
    15. Kelley E. Dugan & Erika A. Mosyjowski & Shanna R. Daly & Lisa R. Lattuca, 2022. "Systems thinking assessments in engineering: A systematic literature review," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(4), pages 840-866, July.
    16. Dellaportas, Steven & Xu, Lina & Yang, Zhiqiang, 2022. "The level of cross-disciplinarity in cross-disciplinary accounting research: analysis and suggestions for improvement," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    17. Jason M. Orr & Jonathon P. Leider & Margaret J. Gutilla, 2023. "System approaches in governmental public health: Findings from an analysis of the literature," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 159-169, January.
    18. Francisco Ibáñez-Carrasco & Catherine Worthington & Sean Rourke & Colin Hastings, 2020. "Universities without Walls: A Blended Delivery Approach to Training the Next Generation of HIV Researchers in Canada," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-12, June.
    19. Stephens, William & Hess, Tim, 1999. "Systems approaches to water management research," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 3-13, March.
    20. Solomon, Gregg E.A. & Youtie, Jan & Carley, Stephen & Porter, Alan L., 2019. "What people learn about how people learn: An analysis of citation behavior and the multidisciplinary flow of knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    21. Wolfgang Glänzel & Koenraad Debackere, 2022. "Various aspects of interdisciplinarity in research and how to quantify and measure those," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5551-5569, September.
    22. Saïd Unger & Lukas Erhard & Oliver Wieczorek & Christian Koß & Jan Riebling & Raphael H Heiberger, 2022. "Benefits and detriments of interdisciplinarity on early career scientists’ performance. An author-level approach for U.S. physicists and psychologists," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(6), pages 1-20, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:2:p:21582440241255180. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.