Search

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to shed light on the question: how can we study clusters from a systemic perspective?Design/methodology/approachFirst, clusters are discussed from a strategic point of view, then it is determined what is meant by a systemic perspective. In part two of the paper systemics applied to the study of clusters is discussed. In the last part of the paper a systemic research strategy for the study of clusters is discussed.FindingsThe paper produces a research strategy based on three main entities: composition, environment and structure.Originality/valueThe paper develops a systemic research strategy for the study of innovation based in clusters.

PurposeConceptual discussion of central viewpoints of Heinz von Foerster including parallels to the thinking of Gregory Bateson. Application to systems theory and social problems.Design/methodology/approachAnalysis and discussion of selected publications of both authors.FindingsCoining the term of “systemics” instead of “second‐order cybernetics”, limits of systemic thinking, flaws in ignoring these limits for example, in the systems theory of Niklas Luhmann.Originality/valueDefinition of “systemic”, parallels between Foerster and Bateson.

Upholds the equivalence between the sociological notion of reflexivity and the idea of self‐reference, which epistemologically and structurally distinguish those complex systems where humans participate as elements. Once there is a conceptual bridge between sociology and cybernetics, the reflexivity processes are analysed, and the expression feed‐before is proposed for the corresponding circuits, as they operate after the input, but before the output characteristic of the other complex systems is produced. After distinguishing between micro‐ and macro‐reflexivity, studies mutual connections and submits graphic designs of both types of circuit. Also briefly analyses the tempo of social reflexivity, while deducing the consequences regarding the predictability of social dynamics.

Considers the question: how can we study organizational fields from a systemic angle of incidence? First determines what is meant by a systemic perspective, and then what is meant by an organizational field. Designs a superior methodological scheme, where the main entities in the systemic approach are clarified. Looks at the underlying process for each of the main entities in the research scheme. Develops a systemic research strategy for the study of organizational fields.

Agonistic antagonistic general system theory and praxis were born in the medical field, but may be defined now from an epistemological and biomathematical point of view, and are used in other fields. Reviews classical notions in General Systems Theory (GST), such as auto‐organization, hierarchy, the “middle way” etc. Discusses bilateral strategies, which are seemingly contradictory and the paradoxical unilateral strategy. Suggests that, if the efficient control of certain systems is at stake in such strategies, they ought to be scrutinized by the cybernetical community.