اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 508 |
| تعداد مقالات | 4,389 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 8,221,789 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 4,215,493 |
تبیین مبانی فلسفی مطالعات پویاییشناسی سیستم با استفاده از رویکرد استقرایی: طبقهبندی پارادایمی از مدلهای مطالعات پویاییشناسی سیستم | ||
| اندیشه مدیریت راهبردی | ||
| مقاله 4، دوره 5، شماره 1، فروردین 1390، صفحه 125-168 اصل مقاله (720.38 K) | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30497/smt.2011.153 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| حمیدرضا فرتوک‌زاده1؛ محمدرضا ذوالفقاریان* 2 | ||
| 1عضو هیأت علمی دانشگاه مالک اشتر، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2کارشناس ارشد معارف اسلامی و مدیریت صنعتی، دانشگاه امام صادق (ع) | ||
| چکیده | ||
| روششناسی پویاییشناسی سیستم با ادعای شناخت ساختارِ اصلی تعیینکنندة رفتارهای اجتماعی، اقتصادی و فنی، پژوهشگران حوزههای مختلفی را به سوی خود جلب کرده است. بیتردید، مبانی فلسفی و نظری پویاییشناسی سیستم یا همان پیش‌فرض‌‌های آن، در نحوه اجرای فرایند مدل‌سازی برای تبیین و سناریوسازی مسائل مختلف، نقش مهمی ایفا خواهد کرد؛ به گونهای که ممکن است فرایند مدل‌سازی و خروجی آن با مبانی مختلف، تغییر کند و با انتظارات مدل‌ساز از این روششناسی، در تناقض افتد. با توجه به اینکه مبانی نظری پویاییهای سیستم، از ابتدا، به خوبی تبیین نشده در این مقاله بر آنیم پس از مروری گذرا بر نظرات مطروح و بیان علت پراکندگی آنها، به تبیینی جامع از مبانی فلسفی پویاییهای سیستم برسیم. بدین منظور در رویکردی استقرایی (جزء به کل)، به بررسی مبانی فلسفی مدل‌‌هایی که تاکنون با این روش طراحی شده است پرداختیم. خروجی استفاده از این رویکرد، طبقهبندی مدلهای پویاییشناسی سیستم بر اساس مبانی فلسفی حاکم بر آنها بود. بر اساس این طبقهبندی می‌‌توان ادعا کرد که رویکردهای متعددی به عنوان مبانی فلسفی مطالعات پویاییشناسی سیستم وجود دارد و پیشنهاد نویسندگان برای این عنوان، کثرتگرایی تلفیقی است که بنا بر نوع مسئله مورد نظر، پارادایم خاصی در فرایند مدل‌سازی حاکم خواهد بود. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| مطالعات پویاییشناسی سیستم؛ مبانی فلسفی؛ پاردایمهای علوم اجتماعی؛ کثرتگرایی تلفیقی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Explanation of the Philosophical Foundations of System Dynamics Using Deductive Method: Paradigmatic Classification of System Dynamics Models | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Hamid Reza Fartokzadeh1؛ Mohammadreza Zolfagharian2 | ||
| 1Faculty member of Malek Ashtar University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2MA of Industerial Management | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| System dynamics methodology has attracted researchers in different fields with the claim of recognizing the main structure of techno-socio-economic behaviors. Undoubtedly, philosophical and theoretical foundations of system dynamics or it's assumptions play an important role in the modeling process for the explanation of a problem and policy-making such that there might be different modeling processes and subsequently distinct outcomes with different foundations and also, there might be conflict between the modeler's expectations from this methodology and what would happen, in reality. However, system dynamics philosophy hadn’t been explained well from the beginning and years after its emergence and its being developed in other fields, there was a declaration from SD’s specialists in this regard. Subsequently, suggestions that are sometimes dissimilar were proposed. Thus, in this research, after reviewing proposed ideas and explaining the reasons of their dispersal; we have tried to reach a holistic explanation of system dynamics philosophy. In this regard, by using a deductive approach, philosophical foundations of SD models designed with this method are surveyed. The outcome of this survey is a paradigmatic classification of system dynamics models based on their dominant philosophical foundations. These are: positivist system dynamics, post positivist system dynamics, critical pluralist system dynamics, pragmatist system dynamics, constructivist system dynamics, transformative-emancipatory-critical system dynamics, and interpretivist system dynamics. According to this classification, it can be claimed that there are different approaches as the philosophical foundations of system dynamics. The author’s suggestion is a combined pluralism, which means based on the surveyed problem a special kind of paradigm will dominate the modeling process | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Budget, municipalities, MADM approach, SAW Model | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
ذوالفقاریان، محمدرضا (1389)، تبیین مبانی فلسفی پویاییهای سیستم و دلالت‌های آن در حوزه مدیریت با استفاده از روش قیاسی و استقرایی، پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد معارف اسلامی و مدیریت، به راهنمایی حمیدرضا فرتوک‌زاده و مشاوره رضا اکبری، تهران: دانشگاه امام صادق علیه السلام. محمدپور، احمد (1389)، روش در روش (درباره ساخت معرفت در علوم انسانی)، تهران: جامعهشناسان. Barlas, Y. (1996), “Formal Aspects of Model Validity and Validation in System Dynamics”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, Pp. 183-210. Barlas, Y. (1989), “Multiple Tests for Validation of System Dynamics Type of Simulation Models”, European Journal of Operations Research, Vol. 42, No. 1, Pp. 59-87. Barlas, Y. & Carpenter, S. (1990), “Philosophical Roots of Model Validation: Two Paradigms”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, Pp. 148-166. Barton, J. (1999), “Pragmatism, Systems Thinking and System Dynamics”, In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society and 5th Australian & New Zealand Systems Conference, Wellington, New Zealand: The System Dynamics Society, Accessible at: http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/1999/PAPERS/PLEN2.PDF Bell, J. A. & Bell, J. F. (1980), “System Dynamics and Scientific Method” In J. Randers (Ed.), Elements of the System Dynamics Method (Pp. 3-21), Cambridge MA: Productivity Press. Bell, J. A. & Senge, P. M. (1980), “Methods for Enhancing Refutability in System Dynamics Modeling”, TlMS Studies in the Management Sciences, Vol. 14, Pp. 61-73. Coyle, R. G. (1977), Management System Dynamics, London: John Wiley and Sons. Id. (1998), “The practice of system dynamics: milestones, lessons and ideas from 30 years Experience”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, Pp. 343–365. Id. (2000), “Qualitative and quantitative modelling in system dynamics: some research questions”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 16, No. 3, Pp. 225-244. Id. (2001), “Rejoinder to Homer and Oliva”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 17, No. 4, Pp. 357-363. Coyle, R. G. & Alexander, M. (1997), “Two approaches to qualitative modelling of a nation’s drugs Trade”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 13, No. 3, Pp. 205–222. Coyle, R. G. & Exelby, D. R. (2000), “The Validation of Commercial System Dynamics Models”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, Pp. 27-41. Crotty, M. (1998), The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process, London: Sage Publications Ltd. Eden, C. & Jones, S. (1980), “Publish or Perish?--A Case Study”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 31, No. 2, Pp. 131-139. Forrester, J. W. (1961), Industrial Dynamics, Cambridge MA: Productivity Press. Id. (1968a), “Industrial Dynamics: After the First Decade”, Management Science, Vol. 14, No. 7, Pp. 398-415. Id. (1968b), “Market Growth as Influenced by Capital Investment”, Industrial Management Rev, Vol. 9, No. 2, Pp. 83-105. Id. (1980), “System Dynamics -- Future Opportunities” In A. A. Legasto, J. W. Forrester, & J. M. Lyneis (Eds.) System Dynamics (Pp. 7-21), TIMS Series in the Management Sciences, Vol. 14, Amsterdam: North Holland. Id. (1985), “The Model Versus a Modeling Process”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, Pp. 133-134. Forrester, J. W. & Senge, P. M. (1980), “Tests for Building Confidence in System Dynamics Models”, TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences, Vol. 14, Pp. 209-228. Higgs, J. (2001), “Charting Standpoints in Qualitative Research” In Bryne-Armstrong, H., Higgs, J. & Horsfall, D. (Eds.), Critical Moments in Qualitative Researh, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Homer, J. (1997), “Structure, data, and compelling conclusions: Notes from the field”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 13, No. 4, Pp. 293–309. Homer, J. & Oliva, R. (2001), “Maps and models in system dynamics; a response to Coyle”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 17, No. 4, Pp. 347-356. Howard, M., Vidgen, R., Powell, P. & Powell, J. (2005), “Exploring the use of QPID: A collaborative study of B2B in the automotive industry”, Omega, International Journal of Management Science in press, Vol. 35, No. 4, Pp. 451-464. Kenneth, D. B. (1994), “Typologies and Taxonomies: An Itroduction to Classification Techniques”, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication, Inc. Lane, D. C. (1994), “Social Theory and System Dynamics Practice”, In Proceedings of the International System Dynamics Conference, Sterling, Scotland: System Dynamics Society, System Dynamics: Methodological and Technical Issues: 53, Accissible at: http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/1994/proceed/papers_vol_1/lane53.pdf Id. (1995), “On a resurgence of management simulations and games”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 46, No. 5, Pp. 604-625. Id. (1999), “Social theory and system dynamics practice”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 113, No. 3, Pp. 501-527. Lane, D. & Oliva, R. (1998), “The greater whole: towards a synthesis of system dynamics and soft systems methodology”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 107, No. 1, Pp. 214-235. Liddell, W. & Powell, J. (2004), “Agreeing access policy in a general medical practice: a case study using QPID”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 20, No. 1, Pp. 49–73. Meadows, D. H. (1989), “System Dynamics Meets the Press”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, Pp. 68-80. Meadows, D. & Robinson, J. (1985), The Electronic Oracle, Computer Models and Social Decisions, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Mingers, J. & Rosenhead, J. (2001), Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. Morecroft, J. (2004), “Mental models and learning in system dynamics practice”, In Pidd, M. Systems modelling: theory and practice (101-126), Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Neuman, W. (2007), Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Oliva, R. (2003), “Model calibration as a testing strategy for system dynamics models”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 151, No. 3, Pp. 552–568. Pruyt, E. (2006), “What is System Dynamics? A Paradigmatic Inquiry”, In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Nijmegen, The Netherlands: The System Dynamics Society, Accessible at: http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2006/proceed/papers/PRUYT177.pdf Richardson, G. (1996), “Problems for the future of system dynamics”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, Pp. 141-157. Id. (1999), “Reflections for the future of system dynamics”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 50, No. 4, Pp. 440-449. Smith, B. & Thomas, A. (1998), “Axiology” In Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy, London: Routledge. Stave, K. A. (2002), “Using System Dynamics to Improve Public Participation in Environmental Decisions”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 18, No. 2, Pp. 139-167. Sterman, J. D. (2000), Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill. Vazquez, M. & Liz, M. (2007), “System Dynamics and Philosophy, A constructivist and expressivist approach” In Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Boston: The System Dynamics Society, Accessible at: http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2007/proceed/papers/VAZQU501.pdf Vazquez, M., Liz, M. & Aracil, V. (1996), “Knowledge and Reality: Some Conceptual Issues in System Dynamics Modeling”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, Pp. 21-37. Warren, K. & Langley, P. (1999), “The effective communication of system dynamics to improve insight and learning in management education”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 50, No. 4, Pp. 396-404. Winch, G. (2000), “System Dynamics: from Theory to Practice”, In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Systems Thinking in Management, Deakin University, Accessible at: http://ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-72/K02%20Winch%20Theory.pdf Wolstenholme, E. (1999), “Qualitative vs quantitative modelling: the evolving balance”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 50, No. 4, Pp. 422-428. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 3,599 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,955 |
||