[1] At present, my dissertation has five-plus-one core research areas: sustainability, systems, onto-epistemology, planning, praxis/methodology - and hypertext navigation. The rationale for chosing this set of areas can be found in the basic argument underlying my dissertation. Each of these key subject areas is covered in a different way and to a different degree. For example, although I name sustainability as a research area, it is more of a motivation than a comprehensive subject of study. Additionally - due to the exploratory nature of writing this dissertation online - hypertext has become an ancillary (yet vital) research area, although not one that is explored in full depth.

[2] I am, however, somewhat unclear as to whether this list of areas is accurate and/or complete, hence the two question marks in the list on the right. One raises the possibility that there is a yet-identified research area.  The other raises uncertainty regarding the appropriate term for referring to research interests around notions such as civics, politics, praxis, research and methodology.  I began using the latter term since the common factor is an orientation towards process - the fact of (or act of) bringing the diverse ideas and discussions together, especially as manifest through practice. 'Praxis' is another possibility, in particular because it tends to relate theory and practice. (See conceptual maps on themes.)

[3] Earlier, I also included "examples" as a theme, with the title (and its inclusion) arising from more of an organizational point of view than a research one. I have since recategorized such key nodes as just that: key nodes, with this particular page as another such node.  The 'examples' node links to descriptions of various phenomena - each interpreted through a systems lens - that are relevant to inquiry for the other themes. It includes topics such as knowledge, science, biological systems, rhizomes, the self, power, feminism and others.

[4] Other organizational or navigational schemes include:

• basic argument 
• discussion threads 
• list of all files in the presentation

 

sustainability

[U1] The underlying motivation for my research lies in a general concern for both current and future conditions. This concern arises from four interacting and interconnected observations.

• It appears to me that gross inequities of many different kinds, types and scales exist. I believe such inequity is likely unsustainable and certainly inappropriate.
• I believe our species is ultimately dependent on ecological systems for sustenance, yet I believe we impact these ecological systems in a manner that may not be conducive to continued existence of our species.
• I have a sense that the western-scientific culture I am embedded/participant in, currently dominates. While I believe this culture has many admirable qualities, other qualities seemingly lead to the aforementioned problems. While many people and groups illustrate the admirable qualities, the others seem to carry great weight.
• Finally and fundamentally, these impacts, their underlying influences, these qualities, and their underlying principles, appear to emerge with limited awareness: entrenched habits of mind and behaviour blind us to crucial issues, including the consequential influence of these very habits. In addition, entrenched habits reinforce the very same entrenched habits, which reinforce...

 

[U2] To catch the essence of these concerns, I base my research on the notion of sustainability, applying a definition that incorporates both ecological and ethical dimensions. However, my research is not about sustainability, but about the tension between how we do and how we should think about sustainability, how we do/should define sustainability, how we do/should structure understanding of sustainability, and - ultimately - how we do/should "plan" for sustainability.

[U3] My focus is to question how we might move toward manifesting equitable and sustainable societies and may most appropriately be articulated as research about the development of appropriate epistemologies and methodologies. My intention is to explore and develop heuristics that encourage different ways of conceptualizing that-which-exists to facilitate the potential for change. >> to (un)sustainability

 

 

systems

Given the concerns regarding sustainability and planning, we need to consider many questions: How do we gain understanding of the complexities involved? How might we understand what needs to change and what the alternatives might be - with respect to planning process as well as ecological conditions and socio-cultural habits? How can we decide on - and move toward - the desirable alternatives? How do we attempt to ensure the incorporation of all necessary concerns and opportunities?

[2] To address these questions, I have turned to systems thinking and theory - most notably - to complex, self-organizing systems thinking and theory. I believe that new concepts and theory emerging in these areas provide useful perspectives and heuristics for attempting to understand and incorporate the range of relevant concerns and opportunities. Although some may argue that systems theory has been applied to planning already - and unsuccessfully - I believe newer ideas, further developed and appropriately applied, have potential. I make four particular points:

1. I agree with the perspective emphasized by Weinberg that "systems are a way of looking at the world." They are heuristics - conceptual devices that serve to point out aspects of that-which-is or that-which-might-be. Their intent and value is to aid us in structuring understanding, but not, however, as an aid to prediction enabling control, which has often been considered to be their value.
2. By incorporating notions of complexity, emergence, evolution, uncertainty, self-reference, and more, I believe the newer systems concepts and theory suggest alternative ideas and perspectives that may lead to more appropriate understanding. Yet the new concepts seem immature, and somewhat limiting, which has prompted me to direct my research towards the development of new systems concepts. In particular, to describe complex, collectively-selfproducing, boundaryless systems, which I have called sympoietic systems.
3. Understanding systems as heuristics emphasizes the importance of accounting for the role of the observer and - if not the same entity - of the researcher. Either the system concepts themselves must incorporate definition of the observer/researcher, or the concepts must be embedded in a methodology that identifies the observer/researcher, or these two categories must be taken as convergent or...?
4. I do not posit systems-heuristics as value-neutral, but rather emphasize that the value and validity of their application will depend on the care and consideration with which they are applied. For example, the systems perspective is not immune to becoming entrenched in the same problematic manner alluded to above. I believe this points to the need for caution in their application. In order to explore and evaluate such concerns, I incorporate the philosophy of inquiry as an area of interest.

>> to systems

 

 

onto-epistemology

Each of us, as we live our lives - manifesting our being through interpretations, choices and actions - work with a set of beliefs, assumptions and rules of reasoning that will influence our questions, interpretations, choices and actions. While the paradoxical, self-referentiality of making such a statement does not escape me, I note that it cannot be overcome except by appealing to other assumptions. The rationale for including onto-epistemology as a research theme lies in just such arguments and the questions that precede them.

• What influences the way I look at the world, the kinds of questions I ask, and the responses that seem reasonable to me?
• How can I, as an individual (researcher, planner, friend, citizen), be aware of my own beliefs and assumptions, including ethical, cultural, epistemological, axiological, ontological, etc.?
• How can I recognize and be aware of the rules of reasoning that I use? How can I evaluate their validity?

>> to onto-epistemology

 

 

planning 

Moving toward more desirable conditions needs to address current conditions and challenges related to equity and sustainability. In addition, such changes need to recognize the normative aspect of defining what is 'desirable.' Who decides what this might be?

 

[2] As the practice that mediates between past, present and future, planning - generally and broadly interpreted - seems an obvious research direction for trying to understand how we might manifest such changes. Yet, as so many others, I question the potential for conventional approaches to do so. I turn my focus, then, toward collaborative, adaptive, participatory planning approaches. More specifically, I focues my research on the exploration and development of heuristics, methodologies and processes relevant to encouraging and implementing planning, decision-making and management approaches that address the noted concerns. Questions that arise include:

• Who decides who decides?
• How can we ensure that the appropriate people, others-with-interests, values, perspectives, etc. are included in any planning, decision-making or managing processes?
• Can we ensure an equitable and ethical outcome through an equitable and ethical process?
• In particular, how do we achieve these ideals, given uneven distributions of power?
• How do we determine an appropriate balance between institutionalized processes and evolutionary or revolutionary change?
• How can we guard against entrenchment? How do we achieve the manifestation of a process that is continually creative and open?

>> to planning

 

 

methodology/praxis

Underlying each of the other themes are questions about how to proceed. This has prompted me to include methodology as another area of interest. Relevant questions include some of those raised in the sections on planning and onto-epistemology, and others emphasizing aspects of inquiry:

• How do we cope, given our fundamental ignorance? How do we 'know' that we have been comprehensive enough? How do we 'know' that we have been detailed enough?
• How can we ensure that the appropriate people, others-with-interests, values, perspectives, etc. are included in the process of research and the validation of knowledge?
• How can we manifest plurality, while recognizing the need for reduction?
• How can we guard against entrenchment? How do we achieve the manifestation of a process that is continually creative, open and evolutionary?

[2] As concepts, or ideas, these methodological issues - especially those relevant to planning for sustainability - and their subsequent responses arise in many areas. Their intentions are evident in the phrases used: collaborative planning, consensus-based negotiation, participatory decision-making, deliberative democracy, discursive ethics, civics, adaptive management, soft-systems methodologies, learning organizations, reflexive practitioners, extending the peer community, interactive adaptive approaches, etc.

[3] There are key themes common to these approaches - themes that are reflected in the systems notions I develop and the planning approaches I visualize. More specifically:

• How can I incorporate recognition of these questions into the conceptualizations I develop?
• As I develop new systems theory, how can I incorporate an understanding of their conceptual limitations into their application?
• Given the apparent impossibility of ever looping out of our skin (or minds or language), what reflexive methodologies exist or can be developed to encourage emphasis on the role of the observer/researcher?
• As I develop and evaluate methodologies, how can I guard against their unreflexive application?
• How can I recognize, identify, and reflect on complications that are relevant to applying 'systems' as heuristic, metaphor and methodology?

>> to methodology/praxis

 

 

hypertext

Given the interconnected web of concepts and directions that have emerged in my research - coupled with my systems-orientation - using a webbed presentation format seemed a suitable choice. This has subsequently led to the inclusion of 'hypertext' as another theme - albeit one treated more lightly than the others. Here there is a more narrowly defined functional intention: learning what is required to develop the presentation and defend the choice of this particular medium.

 

>> to hypertext
>> to hypertext and online dissertations
>> to navigation page, with some discussion on hypertext...

 

 

``` 

introduction

• sustainability
• systems
• onto-epistemology
• planning
• ? praxis/methodology
• hypertext
• ?

this page created: 2004.01.18
previous substantive revisions:2004.02.19, 2004.07.21, 2005.01.30
most recent substantive revisions: 2005.09.30