Este es un espacio en el que socios y amigos del GESI co-laboramos para estudiar, investigar, y difundir la perspectiva, metodologías y aplicaciones prácticas de las ciencias de la complejidad. Para conocernos mejor, enriquecer miradas, abrir senderos en diversidad de ámbitos y ofrecer respuestas a desafíos actuales.
Este espacio no está destinado a la publicación de artículos, pero dado que el Blog con ese fin se encuentra en proceso de organización y dados este artículo estará disponible con libre acceso sólo por algunos días. Por ese motivo lo compartimos aquí.
Autores: Ricardo A. Rodríguez Ulloa • Alberto Montbrun •
Silvio Martínez Vicente
Palabras Clave: Metodología de Sistemas Blandos; Dinámica de Sistemas;
Metodología de Dinámica de Sistemas Blandos; Seguridad ciudadana
Resumen
Este trabajo expone una aplicación de la metodología de dinámica de sistemas blandos (SSDM).Estametodología surgió como fusión de dos metodologías bien conocidas en el movimiento de investigación de sistemas: la Dinámica de Sistemas y la Metodología de Sistemas Blandos.
La SSDM incluye diez pasos para instrumentar e implantar cambios en sistemas sociales, basados en un enfoque multimetodológico y multiparadigmático como resultado de la combinación de las metodologías mencionadas.
Después de una breve introducción el trabajo empieza por explicar brevemente las etapas y problemáticas de la DS y la SSM,para luego referirse a la SSDM, sus raíces filosóficas y etapas, yterminar con una comparación entre las tres.
A continuación presenta el problema de inseguridad ciudadana en Argentina, específicamente en la provincia de Mendoza, donde la SSDM fue aplicada en el estudio del tema.El trabajo se completa con una explicación de los aspectos de aprendizaje que surgieron del uso de la SSDM en este estudio,y sugerencias para próximasinvestigaciones sobre seguridad ciudadana y SSDM.
El dia 11 de octubre de 2011 llegaron, como de costumbre, los diarios La Nación y El País (edición argentina) a mi casa. Fue interesante ver en dos textos, publicados el mismo día, lo que parece indicar, ¡por fin! que algunos economistas ,aparentemente, siguen, conscientemente o no, el enfoque sistémico en los problemas económicos. Mientras otros, galardonados recientemente con el Premio Nobel de Economía y un comentarista de sus trabajos continúan estancados en el método científico tradicional, caracterizado por la relación “causa-efecto”. En efecto, el Dr Mario Blejer en un trabajo titulado “Hay que eliminar las distorsiones “ hablando de la economía mundial dice “Tal vez simplificando en exceso, debido a la interacción entre todos los elementos del sistema, es posible clasificar en tres categorías los riesgos que hoy acechan a la economía mundial…..” No sé si el Dr Blejer tiene conocimientos del enfoque sistémico pero es obvio que , aunque quizá sea como Mr Jourdan que hablaba en prosa sin saberlo ,, está en línea con nuestra metodología, En cambio según una noticia publicada por el diario “El Pais” los recientes premios Nobel de economía Thomas Sargent y Christopher Sims, siguen hablando de “analizar las causas y efectos de las políticas y expectativas económicas” y en un comentario a esta noticia, en la misma página, Ramón Marimón titula su notacomo “Un premio al método científico” ¿Cuando los economistas dejarán de ser reduccionistas y comienzan a mirar su campo de investigación con el Macroscopio y no con el microscopio….?
La Licenciada Elisa (Tina) Chisleanschi participará delVI Congreso Bienal Internacional en Cuba, en representación del GESI.
Este VI Congreso, que tendrá lugar del 10 al 13 de enero del 2012, estará dedicado a:
“Complejidad en las Ciencias Sociales y Naturales:
Morfogénesis, Ontogénesis e Intencionalidad”
Aquí la invitación de los organizadores:
La Cátedra para el Estudio de la Complejidad de La Habana y la Sociedad Cubana de Psicología de Cuba se complacen en invitarles a participar en el 6to Congreso Bienal Internacional acerca de las Implicaciones Filosóficas, Epistemológicas y Metodológicas de la Teoría de la Complejidad, COMPLEJIDAD 2012, que se desarrollará del 10 al 13 de enero de 2012, en el Palacio de Convenciones de la Habana, Cuba.
Será un gran placer tenerlo con nosotros durante el Congreso y darle una cordial y calurosa bienvenida en nuestro hospitalario país.
El evento científico tiene entre sus objetivos propiciar el debate sobre el alcance y el rango de este prometedor enfoque de la Complejidad. Para ello, centrará la atención en el tópico “Complejidad en las Ciencias Naturales y Sociales: Morfogénesis, Ontogénesis e Intencionalidad”.
El Congreso será una ocasión apropiada para debatir los desafíos más
trascendentales en este importante y nuevo campo del saber. Después de los muy exitosos Congresos Bienales celebrados en enero 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, que acogieron figuras tan relevantes como Fritjof Capra, Isabelle Stengers, Gregorie Nicolis, John Casti, Edgar Morin, Brian Goodwin, Richard Levins, Pablo González Casanova, Enrique Dussel, Enrique Leff, Enrique del Percio, Dora Fried Schnitman, Alicia Juarrero, Carl A. Rubino, Robert Ulanowicz, Álvaro Moreno, Daniel R. Brooks, Niles Eldredge, Michael Turvey entre otros.
Elsistemista australiano Ockie J. H. BOSCH (B.Sc. M.Sc D.Sc.), es experto enEcología Cuantitativa y Administración Vegetal.
Es vicepresidente de la International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS) ymiembro de la International Academy ofSystems and Cybernetics Sciences (IASCYS).
Se desempeña como docente en la School ofAgriculture and Food Sciences
de la University of Queensland, Australia.)
IASCYS & Social Responsibility
Dear Academicians
In our own work to establish Learning Laboratories for managing complex issues on a global scale, it has become very clear that “there are always humans behind the decisions and their actions. Thus, “social responsibility is a part of responsibility as a general concept”.
Recent years have seen a growing recognition of and attention to developing human capacity as a key leverage for sustainable economic, social, and ecological development. However, recent literature on the success of external actors and agencies in implementing effective change in (especially) developing countries shows poor outcomes across the board (Umaña 2002; Land et al. 2009; Thomas and Amadei 2010). Fresh and radically different approaches to interventions and capacity building, based on Systems approaches and complexity management, are emerging as promising breakthrough outcomes. The world-wide establishment of Learning Laboratories for dealing with complex issues (as part of the UNESCO/MAB Global LLab NET) is a demonstration case for these approaches (Work of me and my team in Integrative Systems at the University of Queensland). Our work has been adopted by UNESCO/MAB as a pilot and model for potential extension to all the Biosphere Reserves around the world (more than 560), and is also being extended by my Group at UQ to any complex issue facing different countries, businesses, groups, etc. All these LLabs form the Global LLab NET, which is meeting once a year to share their own experiences and reflections on strategies being implemented to achieve identified goals (ranging from enhancing pro-poor tourism in Cambodia; balancing agricultural production economics and biodiversity in China; to improving the social responsibility of business in various countries and developing sustainable management of Biosphere Reserves around the world). This annual meeting is combined with the annual conference of the Australia and New Zealand Systems Society (ANZSYS) and every three years with the ISSS annual conference. The first of these fully combined conferences will be held in 2013. This is part of the efforts we are making towards global learning through sharing of experiences with systemic interventions and bringing systems scientists and practitioners together in one venue.
“Instead of pushing corporations to be socially responsible to "save the planet", you can argue that empowering human and community development (which, by definition, embodies social responsibility) is actually good for the long-term bottom line”. Thus, education/capacity building to educate future generations of citizens (local, national and global citizens) to manage information and make socially responsible decisions is of very high priority. We have found that capacity building in systems approaches for decision makers and managers help to ensure their involvement in the establishment and maintenance of Learning Laboratories for Managing Complex Issues. As Matjaz has said “People involved in the IRDO institute for development of social responsibility do not like the limitation to 'corporate', because all organizations are decisive tools for the humankind's fate”. Social responsibility goes far wider than the business world, and includes all managers and decision makers from all walks of life (environmental, sustainability, poverty alleviation, agriculture, health systems, governance, etc.).
I agree with Pierre that “talk about education of social responsibility”, one talks about “education towards a holistic behaviour”. “Social responsibility is linked with systemic behaviour”. However, when it comes to the education of social responsibility and its direct link with systems, the different areas or “walks of life” often have different capacity building needs. Thiscreates a significant pedagogical challenge in that current university education tends to be focused on discipline specific teaching which has no room for a wider systems approach. To address this problem we need innovative curriculum designs and learning environments that address academic paradigms as well as industry requirements, or more specific, address the different approaches towards social responsibility (that would vary from ethical, moral, operating sustainable, democracy and “cultural values such as justice (/trust) integrity, and valuing diversity”.
In relation to the call for “a team to work on the challenges and opportunities of global education, with particular reference to online modalities”: I would be most happy to collaborate and provide inputs towards building up such a team. As Vice President of the ISSS with the portfolio Systems education and Coimmunication, I am currently working with various people in developing a growing Systems Education Network of systems educators in University schools/departments and individuals in order to
-create an active group of systems scientists from around the world that could collaborate in activities such as the development of teaching material, sharing of knowledge and tools, addressing the different needs for systems education and overcoming the challenges of maintaining a Systems Education Network.
-create and nurture educational systems that serve human needs while also protecting our resources (intellectual, aesthetic, moral, cultural and natural resources) for future generations
I am happy to extend this network to include/integrate the concept of social responsibility into the mission of this network. If I have the support of the IASCYS members, I can initiate this “marriage” of ideas at the next ISSS conference in July. I need your advice on this matter and also how to make a marriage that will actually not end in a divorce!
These were just a few thoughts from my side. I am also enthusiastic about a workshop and the possibility to contribute towards a book as suggested by Matjaz and Pierre. I do believe that one of the best ways to think about this book, is to develop it as a text book that could be used by various fields in Universities, but also for capacity building courses in the workplace. Social responsibility is talked about a lot within our own University – while training in systems approaches remains to be regarded as a technical subject suitable for engineers, scientists, quantitative ecologists and mathematicians and hence beyond the reach of other disciplines. This is changing slowly through me getting more grey hair, but having an alternative way to bring systems into curricula through the concept of social responsibility seems like an excellent opportunity.
The future growth of systems and social responsibility education will depend on how well systems educators around the world are able to relate systems thinking to topical issues and complex challenges that managers and decision-makers are facing today.
Maybe, by focusing on social responsibility, which has to be linked to systems (the “technical subject suitable for engineers”), we as systems scientists can “infiltrate” the educational world without anyone realizing that we have done so! – and in that way make a very useful contribution to society
