this page created: 2005.01.30
based on earlier work: "Beth's Areas of Research Interest" 2002 (formerly at www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/mbldemps/web/)
substantive revisions:2005.01.30, 2006.02.04
most recent substantive revisions: 2006.04.27

Theoretically, the heart of my research lies in the continued conceptual development of sympoietic systems - collectively-selfproducing, boundaryless systems - a notion first introduced in Dempster (1995)^ref. The attributes I define as characteristic of these systems include conventional and non-conventional system attributes.  [I have wondered if I might claim to pursue a poststructural conceptualization of systems...]

[2] Given my emphasis on systems as heuristics, the attributes have a wide range of applicability - a central reason for their development and their subsequent use in grappling with the concerns underlying my research. Among and arising from theses concerns/attributes are some core themes:

• Focusing on the "big picture"
  It was a long time before I realized that I had to point out that my focus was the" big picture".  Frequently, describing the broad sweep of interests inclusive of sustainability, planning, politics and epistemology was taken as setting the context for my research, which would presumably focus on a small corner of this broad and general challenge.  Yet this broad and general challenge is the focus of my research.  The point is to consider how to cope with it, how to grapple with it, and how to keep it whole and interconnected as we do so. 
• Questioning boundaries
  I define sympoietic systems as boundaryless - a notion that raises concern among systems-thinkers: "If it hasn't got boundaries, it can't be a system!" Yet to me, the essential characteristics of "system" are relation and wholeness - neither of which (as I see it) require boundaries. Outside of the systems-thinking community, I find the notion of relinquishing or dissolving boundaries gaining currency. People in a range of disciplines and vocations call for boundaryless connections between races, sexes, cultures; between disciplines, knowledges; between decision-makers and stakeholders; between self and other; between humans and 'nature;' and so on. Once you start looking for 'no-boundary' thinking, it seems to be all over the place... [boundaries]
• Acknowledging collectively-selfproducing processes - a notion also emphasized by the concept of sympoietic systems, which emerge through the complex interaction among many different components and factors and which are especially notable in contrast to autopoietic systems. Descriptions that reflect what I call sympoietic characteristics - as well as those reflecting the autopoietic-sympoietic distinction - also seem to be common among many disciplines. These commonalties provide potential for furthering generic conceptions, subsequently leading toward linkages and means for encouraging transdisciplinary understanding.
• Accounting for the second-order observer - primarily through the development of reflexive methodologies, which I see emerging from epistemological and poststructural critique that could be linked to systems-based (especially soft-systems based) identification methodologies. In addition, I believe the notion of poiesis (selfproduction) - and the factors involved in poietic processes - can make a contribution toward understanding the recursive complexity involved here.

[3] I must admit to a slight bias in favour of postmodern/poststructural tendencies and subsequently my intent to develop systems concepts that encapsulate some postmodern/poststructural notions. My hope is to make the latter accessible to theorists and practitioners more familiar and comfortable with conventional scientific-type thinking (although I agree that any potential for mutual understanding would be even more desirable). In particular, my concern is for encouraging different styles of thinking, leading toward different styles of planning and management with respect to human-environment interactions.