|(27 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)|
|−|The theoretical foundation of the [[Structured Dialogic Design Process]] Methodology. |+|
theoretical foundation of the [[Structured Dialogic Design Process]] Methodology.
| || |
| || |
The ultimate objective of this
"People Science " is to support people from all walks of life for practicing authentic participative democracy by applying the Co-Laboratories of Democracy approach in designing their social systems. |+|
The ultimate objective of this PeopleScienceis to support people from all walks of life for practicing authentic participative democracy by applying the Co-Laboratories of Democracyapproach in designing their social systems.
| || |
The Domain of Science Model (DOSM), proposed by Professor John N. Warfield in 1987, is being employed as the contextual typology for assigning the component artifacts of the DDS in the four distinct domains of the DOSM, namely
: (A)Foundation, (B)Theory, (C)Methodology, and (D)Applications. To view the assignement of the components of DDS to the four distinct domains, and also the linkages among the principal components of the science click: |+|
The Domain of Science Model(DOSM), proposed by Professor John N. Warfieldin 1987, is being employed as the contextual typology for assigning the component artifacts of the DDS in the four distinct domains of the DOSM, namely:
| || |
|−|The six foundational axioms for dialogic design science are: | |
|−|1. The Complexity Axiom: Social systems designing is a multi-dimensional challenge. It demands that observational variety be respected when engaging observers in dialogue, while making sure that their cognitive limitations are not violated in our effort to strive for comprehensiveness (John Warfield). | |
|−|2. The Engagement Axiom: Designing social systems, such as health care, education, cities, communities, without the authentic engagement of the stakeholders is unethical. It results in inferior plans that are not implementable (Hasan Ozbekhan). | |
|−|3. The Investment Axiom: Stakeholders engaged in designing their own social systems must make personal investments of trust, committed faith, or sincere hope, in order to be effective in discovering shared understanding and collaborative solutions (Thomas Flanagan). | |
|−|4. The Logic Axiom: Appreciation of distinctions and complementarities among inductive, deductive and retroductive logics is essential for a futures-creative understanding of the human being. Retroductive logic makes provision for leaps of imagination as part of value-and emotion-laden inquiries by a variety of stakeholders (Norma Romm, 2001; 2010). | |
|−|5. The Epistemological Axiom: A comprehensive science of the human being should inquire about human life in its totality of thinking, wanting, telling, and feeling, like the indigenous people and the ancient Athenians were capable of doing. It should not be dominated by the traditional Western epistemology that reduced science to only intellectual dimensions (LaDonna Harris). | |
|−|6. The Boundary-Spanning Axiom: Stakeholders act beyond borders to design social systems that enable people from all walks of life to bond across cultural and religious barriers and boundaries as part of an enrichment of their repertoires for seeing, feeling and acting (loanna Tsivacou, 1997). | |
| || |
| || |
|−|1. Variety. The Law of Requisite Variety demands that an appreciation of the diversity of perspectives and stakeholders is essential in managing complex situations. The Law of Requisite Variety is attributed to William Ross Ashby. |+|
|−|2. Parsimony. The Law of Requisite Parsimony states that structured dialogue is needed to avoid the cognitive overload of stakeholder/designers. The Law of Requisite Parsimony is attributed to George Miller and John Warfield. |+|
The of of the of and .
|−|3. Saliency. The Law of Requisite Saliency states that the relative saliency of observations can only be understood through comparisons within an organized set of observations. The Law of Requisite Saliency is attributed to Kenneth Boulding. |+|
|−|4. Meaning. The Law of Requisite Meaning states that meaning and wisdom are produced in a dialogue only when observers search for relationships of similarity, priority, influence, etc, within a set of observations. The Law of Requisite Meaning is attributed to Charles Sanders Peirce. |+|
|−|5. Autonomy and Authenticity. The Law of Requisite Autonomy and Authenticity in distinction- making demands that during the dialogue it is necessary to protect the autonomy and authenticity of each observer in drawing distinctions. The Law of Requisite Autonomy and Authenticity is attributed to Ioanna Tsivacou. |+|
The is to .
|−|6. Evolution of Observations. The Law of Requisite Evolution of Observations states that learning occurs in a dialogue as the observers search for influence relationships among members of a set of observations. The Law of Requisite Evolution of Observations is attributed to Kevin Dye. |+|
|−|7. Action. The Law Requisite Action predicts that any action plan to reform complex social systems designed without the authentic and true engagement of those whose futures will be influenced by the change are bound to fail. The Law of Requisite Action is attributed to Yiannis Laouris. |+|
. of the . is George Warfield... of that the of .
The of . . . of a of , , of . is and . The -to the and The . of . the members ... The the of
by of .
Dialogic Design Science (DDS) is the theoretical foundation of the Structured Dialogic Design Process Methodology. In most publications, the methodology and/or the process is often referred to simply as Structured Democratic Dialogue, or Structured Democratic Dialogue Process.
The Institute for 21st Century Agoras,  holds the service mark (a collective trademark) from the US Patent and Trademark Office for the commercial use ofStructured Dialogic Design in the field of social system design. The AGORAS does not wish to restrict scientists and practitioners from across the globe in using and further developing the science and the methodology, but it is interested in maintaining high standards and ensuring that applications are implemented in strict compliance with the science. The AGORAS also certifies participation in official informational events, as well as achievement of levels of proficiency of practice through its certified SDD training and apprenticeship programs. Future Worlds Center is the first international body that has implemented an SDD Certification Scheme in collaboration with the AGORAS.
The ultimate objective of this People's Science is to support people from all walks of life for practicing authentic participative democracy by applying the Co-Laboratories of Democracy approach in designing or re-designing their social systems.
The Domain of Science Model (DOSM), proposed by Professor John N. Warfield in 1987, is being employed as the contextual typology for assigning the component artifacts of the DDS in the four distinct domains of the DOSM, namely:
The Agoras Group, under the leadership of Aleco Christakis is credited for the development of DDS in its current format. DDS represents a much cleaner, simpler and more efficient implementation than the original John N. Warfield version. Its greatest advantage is that, along the model of science, it foresees a continuous feedback from the arena. Its original format was grounded on four Foundational Axioms of Dialogic Design Science, six Laws of Dialogic Design Science and a number Key Definitions used in Dialogic Design Science. Later, the community converged to six axioms and seven laws
The theory comprises primarily of understanding the Laws of Dialogic Design Science, the roles of various actors, and certain key scientific process and phenomena including the Interpretive Structural Modeling algorithm, Erroneous Priorities Effect, Spreadthink, Situational Complexity, Theory of Change, etc.
The Structured Democratic Dialogue Process is grounded on the theory and expects Facilitators to fully comply with all requirements imposed by Dialogic Design Science.
The John N. Warfield group has developed a DOS implementation of Interactive Management in which the [[Interpretive Structural Modeling] algorithm was embedded. This software is given away for free on George Mason University's page. When Aleco Christakis founded CWA Ltd. in 1989, his team developed Cogniscope v.1 and later Cogniscope v.2, which run on Windows 95/XP computers. In 2010 Christakis donated the source code of Cogniscope v.2 to Future Worlds Center with the agreement that its technology associate Ekkotek Ltd. upgrades it to Cogniscope v.3, which was released a few years later. Future Worlds Center has developed IdeaPrism and Concertina and the Ministry of Education in Michigan has developed Logosofia.
The first applications of DDS were conducted by the John N. Warfield group in the late 80s, early 90s. The methodology was then referred to as Interactive Management (IM). His Handbook of Interactive Management summarizes a few dozen of applications upon which the science was grounded, as well as individuals who at the time were certified to conduct IM workshops. Aleco Christakis, an associate of both John N. Warfield and Hasan Özbekhan is credited for spreading the science and the methodology. The two books co-authored by him Ken Bausch and Tom Flanagan also catalogue more than 100 applications conducted world-wide. Benjamin Broome also an associate of Warfield has introduced IM to the Cyprus Conflict Resolution Trainers Group, or which several Future Worlds Center associates were members (i.e., Yiannis Laouris, Harry Anastasiou, Marios Michaelides). The Cyprus Conflict Resolution Trainers Group conducted at least 50 IM applications between 1995-2002. Future Worlds Center introduced the methodology in many of its projects in 2005.
This is a comprehensive list of all Co-Laboratories organized by Future Worlds Center.