Sign in or 
Share this
SDD as 3rd Phase Science
Gerard de Zeeuw (1996) advocates a distinction between “First Phase, Second Phase, and Third Phase Science.” The definitions that he presents place the challenge of stakeholder participation in the forefront of contemporary thinking about second order cybernetics.
“Science” refers to all (research) actions that aim to construct high quality observations which make it possible to improve on action; science can be differentiated into different forms, each using alternative interpretations of the notion of observation presented above:
- “First phase science” refers to that form of science in which it is assumed that the construction of high quality observations can be fully separated from the actions that are to be improved by their use (e.g., astronomy);
- “Second phase science” refers to that form of science in which it is assumed that the construction of high quality observations fully depends on the actions that are to be improved by their use (e.g., medicine, first order cybernetics);
- “Third phase science” refers to that form of science in which it is assumed that the construction of high quality observations fully include the actions that are to be improved by their use (e.g., second order cybernetics; this phase seeks the transfers that support the development into a ‘collective’ such that the efforts of maintaining the transfers are minimal).
“Linguistic structure” refers to the constraints on the words, signs, tokens, symbols that are needed to implement the transfer that is intended to improve on action. Structured Dialogic Design is designed to construct a consensual linguistic domain - this language-based approach to action is supported by Gadamer's hermeneutics, Habermas' Communicative Action, and new research in design language. “Getting a voice in science” refers to the need for developing and using linguistic structures in the construction of high quality observations that are different from what the ‘first phase of science’ allows.
I read de Zeeuw as offering the following definition of science. It is all research actions that aim to construct high quality observations and make possible improvements on action. There are three distinct phases of scientific evolution.
“First Phase Science” assumes that the construction of high quality observations can be fully separated from actions that are to be improved by their use. “Second Phase Science” (e.g., first order cybernetics) assumes that constructing observations fully depends on those actions. Third Phase Science (e.g., second order cybernetics) fully includes the actions to be improved within the construction of high quality observations.
Third Phase Science grounds its legitimacy in engaging stakeholders as “expert observers” of the situation in which they are embedded. They are the ones that should decide how to take action in their situation, since they are those most affected by the existing situation and its evolution. This grounding stands in contrast to first and second phase sciences, which assert that “academic experts” or authorities are more qualified to design the “systems” on behalf of the community of stakeholders.
Professor de Zeeuw takes the position that science can no longer be what it used to be during the last two or three centuries. It has to become more democratic and move into its Third Phase. It has to respond to the needs of the users of science who have an interest not only in what science studies, but also in how and why it studies a situation.
Invitation to dialogue: We have generated ideas and questions via email - I invite participation on these issues raised and on your questions.
References: Find de Zeeuw's paper at:
Gerard de Zeeuw. (1996). THREE PHASES OF SCIENCE: A METHODOLOGICAL EXPLORATION.
Working paper 7, Centre for Systems and Information Sciences, University of Humberside
ISBN 1 86050 025 0.
Other interesting related references:
Radical Constructivism (A llinked list of current papers on 2nd order cybernetics)
peterjones |
Latest page update: made by peterjones
, Feb 22 2007, 12:49 PM EST
(about this update
About This Update
Rename
- peterjones
No content added or deleted. - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
Dialogic design
System Science
Third Phase Science
More Info: links to this page
|
| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tom_Flanagan | Post-Normal Science as a rediscovery | 4 | Aug 13 2008, 6:55 AM EDT by vvratusa | ||
|
Thread started: Jan 3 2007, 5:57 PM EST
Watch
The output of Post-Normal Science ... increased questions, insights, and understanding of interrelationships (http://www.edgelab.ca/CSCW/Workshop2004/papers/carpendale-cscw04-workshop1.pdf) doesn't seem to differentiate this practice from Normal Science.
Indeed, Jerry Ravetz begins a recent discussion of Post-Normal Science stating that "Once upon a time we were all sure that Science would provide the true facts that would entail the correct policy decisions" and then goes on to say "Of course, the practice of high-quality science at the research front is largely post-normal in this sense." (http://www.postnormaltimes.net/blog/archives/2005/05/postnormal_scie_1.html) My sense is that the battle ground around this term of art reflects the expanding need for pluralism in (environmental) decision making where -- as in business decision making -- one needs to operate on less than complete information, regardless of whether we take a realist or a pragmatist view of what constitutes truth. In essence, the goal becomes the quest to consistently improved decisions about how to act when we KNOW that we DON'T KNOW what we need to know. Is such a basic effort to improve the quality of decisions when information is incomplete a legitimate SCIENCE? I am content to agree that it is in spirit ... if its methodologies are themselves subject to falsification. I see this "science" emerging in many corners of the world ... as a slowly evolving sociotechnology. It is a cornerstone of modern business management and it is an ancient reality that has pressed upon the human condition for ages. The awkwardness that environmentalists are facing at this point in time seems to reflect the fusion of social science and physical science at the prescriptive edge of systems thinking. Environmentalism is traditionally rooted in descriptive systems. Moving from prescriptive to descriptive is one small step for man and one giant leap for mankind. t |
||||
| kenb | Radical Constructivism, Post-Modernism, Third Phase Science | 2 | Jan 14 2007, 3:06 PM EST by Aleco | ||
|
Thread started: Jan 4 2007, 12:07 PM EST
Watch
Radical Constructivism holds that all our knowledge is at root devised by animal and human construction that have been adopted because it works or systemically explain our experience. . Constructivism does not necessarily imply extreme forms of post-modernism that claim that all truth is relative. Costructivism holds that some "truths" are reliable because they have been redundantly verified by experience and descriptive scientific investigation.
Descriptive science deals with shades of redundant truths as shaped by the guidelines of first and second phase science. Prescriptive science goes further and deals with what is to be done in a particular situation. It has a practical urgency and demands decisions even when there is no agreed upon description of what the facts are. Prescriptive science is the realm of third phase science and post-normative science. In addition, third phase science is not expert-driven. While they do recognize the contributions of experts, the people in a situation make the observations, state their needs, describe their situation, and decide on the remedies and projects. Their attitude and involvement is encapsulated in the oft-quoted phrase of a handicapped woman in an SDP workshop: "Nothing about us, without us." |
||||
| peterjones | Postmodern or Post-Normal Science? | 0 | Jan 3 2007, 4:54 PM EST by peterjones | ||
|
Thread started: Jan 3 2007, 4:54 PM EST
Watch
Tom draws our attention to the Wikipedia entry for "post normal science." Seems to me it never gained any traction at all (I haven't checked for more recent cites, but the Wikipedia shows the latest at 1993). Is this postmodern science, which at least ties it to a philosophical grounding? (Except that the high-stakes/urgent decision orientation suggests pragmatism). Some philosophical basis is inherent in the formation of all paradigms and methodologies, and in "post-normal", the philosophy is unclear.
Quoted as: "Post-Normal Science is a concept developed by Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz, attempting to characterise a methodology of inquiry that is appropriate for contemporary conditions. The typical case is when "facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent". In such circumstances, we have an inversion of the traditional distinction between hard, objective scientific facts, and soft subjective values. Now we have value-driven policy decisions that are 'hard' in various ways, for which the scientific inputs are irremediably 'soft'." Aleco suggests this is consistent with Third Phase Science, but Post-Normal seems to miss the central point of von Foerster's 2nd order cybernetics, which is turning the lens and loop on the observer. In 3PS, the observer is commiited to the situation in which high-quality observations are made. |
||||
Showing 3 of 3 threads for this page
