Sunteți pe pagina 1din 16

Social Systems Engineering

Foundations of a New Discipline


Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D.
kent@palmer.name
714-633-9508
http://kdp.me

Copyright 2011, 2016 K.D. Palmer.


All Rights Reserved. Not for distribution.
Started 1/15/2011; Version 09; 1/16/2011; sse01a09.docx;
edited 20131114-15; re-edited 2016.04.21
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5298-4422
http://schematheory.net
Researcher ID O-4956-2015

Abstract

This paper describes the interface between Sociology and Systems Engineering and the

foundation of a new discipline called Social Systems Engineering. That foundation is described as

being related to Special Systems Theory which is a part of General Schemas Theory. Special

Systems theory describes a mathematical basis for modelling Life, Consciousness and the Social.

By placing Social Systems Engineering on a firm foundation that is mathematically based it is

believed that some of the trepidations about the rigor of social science might be allayed. General

Schemas Theory provides a foundation for both Systems Engineering and for understanding the

emergent properties of the social via Special Systems Theory. Concern with the social impact of

technological systems has increased over the past few years with the arising of social networks

and other technological systems that facilitate social networking. The new discipline would

concentrate on understanding and building systems that focus on the social interface of the

technological infrastructure.

Keywords: sociology, systems engineering, socio-technical systems, social engineering

Introduction

1
This paper will present the need for a new discipline that brings together Sociology and Systems

Engineering and examine the augmentation and facilitation of social networks by technological

systems. We can read the title of this new discipline as Social Systems Engineering or Social

Systems Engineering. But, of course, we want to distinguish it from what is called “Social

Engineering”, which is characterized as the means of obtaining identity information by some sort

of trickery. Social Engineering is seen as something wholly bad even if it is not connected with

Scams because it could mean the engineering of social structures, such as in Corporate Re-

engineering, which seeks to design the organization as if it were a machine. Rather, Social

Systems Engineering reflects the augmentation and facilitation of spontaneous and non-fabricated

social systems by technological systems that are designed, such as social networking systems, or

market exchange systems, or other types of systems like online games that allow the free

connection of individuals within the social system to have representation and communication

within the social network. This is the meaning of Social Systems Engineering, which is the

engineering of systems to support social interactions. On the other hand, Social Systems

Engineering has to do with the production of designed social systems, for example, organizational

structures that are redesigned so that they can interface with technological and other systems in a

more effective way. Social Systems Engineering is part of the discipline of Organizational and

Communication studies and has to do with studying the efficiencies of different structures and

processes of organizations and teams. Social Systems Engineering brings together all these

aspects that are scattered and dispersed within different disciplines and are normally side issues in

other disciplines. Social Systems Engineering could be used to study how to combat Social

Engineering, or how to create better designed social structures and processes so that they may be

facilitated and augmented technologically, or it may study the technological infrastructure that

does augment and facilitate social interactions that are normally voluntary, informal, and freeform

within society. We are really talking about the interface between social structures that are studied

by sociology, psychology, and anthropology and the technological infrastructure that is

2
ubiquitous within our culture, be it through the internet and web, or mobile devices, or other

means of connection and communication between various appliances and machines that we

interact with and operate within our environment. Our society is being transformed by networking

technologies and devices that are interlinked by networks. Social Systems Engineering will study

the new types of social structures that are needed within this new ubiquitously networked

environment as well as the technological infrastructure of such devices. Social Systems

Engineering can examine the way the network needs to be designed in order to reflect the social

structures that exist now and how they may change in the future due to their unforeseen modes of

facilitation and augmentation that could cause unexpected consequences within society and its

institutions. For example, we have social networking on the web through publically accessible

sites, but what happens when we try to implement that within corporations? How would that

change corporate culture? How would the social networks themselves have to be modified in that

context? And what effect does that have on the actual social networks that exist when they

become visible within some medium within the company? Or, consider the effect on the

globalization of social network representations in various parts of the world. When we have these

social network representations that are worldwide, how does that change the flow of information

between various countries and cultures? All of these are the types of questions that Social

Systems Engineering might seek to answer and there is an infinite variety of such questions that

form a problematic.

The problematic of Social Systems Engineering relates to the interaction between the soft human-

centered sciences and their representations of social phenomena within the concrete

manifestations of hard technological sciences and engineering disciplines. Their interaction is

pushed to the periphery in both those hard and soft disciplines whereas Social Systems

Engineering will bring what is peripheral in these Hard and Soft Sciences and Engineering

disciplines to the fore and make this interaction the key focus of study and engineering practice.

3
Of course, we need to distinguish between Social Systems Science, which would study this

interaction, and Social Systems Engineering, which would talk about the specific interface

between the Social Systems and the Technological infrastructure that is augmenting, facilitating,

and creating new avenues of interaction. Social Systems Engineering needs to be founded on a

Social Systems Science that studies the phenomena of the interaction of the phenomena and

artifacts that appear when the hard and soft science and engineering disciplines interact. In

academia, these two areas remain very distant from each other and, in fact, it is hard to find any

papers that talk about this interaction from a theoretical point of view. For that reason we need to

consider the possible theoretical foundations of that interaction and the discipline that studies it.

Because I am both a Sociologist and a Software Systems Engineer I have been thinking about this

problem for a long time. Most technologists know little about social sciences, and, on the other

hand, Sociologists do not tend to study Technologists or the ramifications of technology within

society except in terms of extrinsic relationships. It is also true that both Software and Systems

Engineers normally do not know much about Systems Theory either, so, although engineers are

engaged in building technological systems, they do not fully understand the general theory

underlying those systems. Systems theory has made a much greater impact on Sociology than it

has on various the Engineering disciplines. Now there is a new discipline of Systems Engineering

that is trying to make in-roads into academia and it is trying to establish its own foundations. This

foundation should be Systems Theory, or Systems Science, which will provide the link for

Sociology and other Social Sciences to connect with Systems Engineering. However, Systems

Theory may not be enough to describe what is going on in the Systems Engineering milieu; a

higher order theory called Schemas Theory is better adapted to capturing some of the richness of

the Systems Engineering environment that is dealt with in Systems Design. Various separate

schemas are used by different disciplines but they are not unified into a general theory. So, for

instance, there is no Pattern Science, Form Science, or Domain Science in the manner that

4
Systems Science exists as an interdisciplinary subject of study. Here, we suggest that Schemas

Theory could serve as a rich foundation for Social Systems Engineering, which would connect

Sociology and the Social Sciences to Systems Engineering and the other technological disciplines

that support it, such as Computer Science, Software Engineering, and Hardware Engineering, as

well as other specialty engineering disciplines like Human Factors Engineering. In this paper we

will explore this deeper foundation and its implications as we generate conversations and mutual

tolerance between the soft and hard sciences and engineering disciplines. Disciplines have been

counterpoised in their domains of specialty for a long time but we will have to find common

ground if we are to study the phenomena that is peripheral to each.

Towards a Foundational Theory of Systems Engineering

General Schemas Theory was developed as an answer to the question concerning the foundations

of Systems Engineering as a new discipline within academia. It is clear that Systems Science or

Systems Theory should be at least one of the foundations of Systems Engineering, and that

Systems Engineers need to be cognizant of the advances made in Systems Theory over the last

half century. At this point in time Systems Engineers do not study Systems Theory as part of their

curricula. Rather, their curricula mostly transmit received wisdom from industry about how things

should be done, which have been codified into standards, best practices, and process descriptions.

But, Systems Engineering is ripe for a paradigm change as it begins to look at its own practice

from an academic perspective. Software Engineering has undergone several paradigm shifts such

as the object oriented approach, which has gained dominance over the earlier functional approach

to programming. Now a new type of formal mathematical functional programming is starting to

influence and transform the object oriented paradigm and we can see that there is a new paradigm

on the horizon represented by hybrid programming languages such as Scala. But the same kind of

paradigm changes have not, for the most, part occurred in the academic research in Systems

5
Engineering1. Software Engineering has Computer Science as its Academic basis, but Systems

Theory never became more than an interdisciplinary subject and has seldom had its own

department within the university, so Systems Engineering cannot rely on an institution that is in

place (like Software Engineering that has relied upon Computer Science) for its academic basis.

Also, for many years Software Engineering has had the Software Engineering Institute and other

consortia that support research in the area of software development, whereas government funding

for Systems Engineering has only recently begun. It is interesting to note that when we try to

ground Systems Engineering in Systems Science we find that there is more to Systems

Engineering than is covered by General Systems Theory, and this is what instigated the search for

what is missing from Systems Theory. Eventually it was realized that we needed to go up yet one

more level of abstraction from General Systems Theory to General Schemas Theory. The

question that leads to General Schemas Theory is: What constitutes the next higher emergent

level of abstraction above Systems Theory? And, What else is there like a System but essentially

different? The answer to this is General Schemas Theory and the best introduction to that subject

is Umberto Eco’s book Kant and the Platypus. This book discusses the history of Schemas within

our tradition. As Engineers, we are concerned with just one type of schema that he identified,

which called the ‘Geometrical and Mathematical Schema’, i.e., the schemas that organize

spacetime ‘a priori’ as templates of pre-understanding for phenomena. When we look at our

tradition we see that there are many different schemas that are used by various disciplines to

understand the phenomena that they focus upon such as Pattern, Form, Domain, World, etc. Thus,

we realize that normally when we talk about emergent hierarchies we are talking about ontic

hierarchies such as string, quark, particle, atom, molecule, macro-molecule, cell, complex cell

with organelles, multicell organism, social group, species, ecosystem, or gaia. Yet, there is

another completely different set of projected organizational constructs that are ontological, such

1
The one exception is perhaps the extension of the idea of Systems to “System of Systems”
which is a recursive application of the system to itself to produce the super-system.
6
that they are ‘a priori’ projections of templates of pre-understanding on Spacetime. These various

schemas have different scopes and different organizations from each other, and several of them

can be applied to the same level in the ontic hierarchy as a tool in order to understand a particular

emergent level. The ontological and ontic hierarchies have become mixed up in our thinking

about phenomena within individual disciplines, and the ontological schemas with their own

hierarchy have not been fully understood because there is no interdisciplinary study of them

except for the System. Now, once we understand that schemas of different scopes exist that are

different from the ontic emergent hierarchies, then the question is: What are the schemas that

exist and how are they related to each other? In order to kick start the study of schemas I decided

to come up with a hypothesis I call S1 that says that there are ten specific schemas: facet, monad,

pattern, form, system, meta-system, domain, world, kosmos, and pluriverse, which appear as a

hierarchy of increasing scope but are related to dimensionality such that there are two schemas

per dimension and two dimensions per schema, and also such that they reach from the negative

one dimensionality all the way up to the ninth dimension. String Theory takes over above the

ninth dimension. This hypothesis, S1, allows us to actually begin testing our theory of the

schemas in order to find out what may be wrong with it. For instance, the first thing is to make

sure that phenomenologically there are no gaps in the nesting of these schemas. So far none has

been found. But it also allows us to begin thinking of the set of schemas as a whole as we try to

find out what their properties are separately and together. Thus, once we reach the level of

abstraction that General Schemas Theory has to offer above that of Systems Theory, we can then

begin exploring this new theoretical space. And what we find is that it allows us an approach to a

unifying science that is stronger than Systems Theory alone, because many disciplines use

multiple schemas to describe the phenomena that they study. These templates of understanding

are immersed in their background assumptions and the schemas themselves do not come to the

fore until we study them in terms of General Schemas Theory, which moves across disciplines

where we can view the schema across various phenomena and under various terminologies

7
because different terms in various disciplines can indicate the same schema. Len Troncale refers

to these multiple names for the same thing as “disonyms”.

Now that we have the idea of General Schemas Theory in place as the deeper foundation beyond

the Systems Theory of Systems Engineering, we understand that we should really be calling this

discipline Schemas Engineering and these implications have been developed in a series of papers

about Schemas Theory presented at CSER conferences by the author. But perhaps since it is

unlikely Systems Engineering will change its name we should consider General Schemas Theory

as part of Design Theory, which operates as one of Systems Engineering’s core processes.

Implications of General Schemas Theory for Social Systems Engineering

What we want to do here is explore the consequences of Schemas Science and Schemas Design

Engineering for Social Systems Engineering, and the first thing we will note is that this is a subset

of Social Schemas Engineering. We can take this back to E. Durkheim who said that the Kantian

Categories were socially constructed. The Kantian Categories are related to time through his

concept of the Schema. Schemas, as we understand them, are ‘a priori’ projected templates of

pre-understanding of phenomena of different scopes. And we note that one use of the schemas is

in Design, i.e., whenever we design something we design it according to the schemas. Thus,

Engineering in terms of design is about the projection of the schemas onto nature to produce

artifacts that do not appear in nature naturally but are cultural objects produced by society.

Schemas are socially constructed and projected as ways to understand phenomena, so, when we

consider Science and Engineering, we see that schemas are merely a study of nature through the

‘a priori’ schemas or the production of artificial products based on the projected schemas. So,

suddenly Social Schemas Science and Design Engineering can be seen as one thing, the social

projection of schemas on nature and their use for creating cultural artifacts through design.

Thus, what seems peripheral to Systems Engineering, i.e., social relationships, and what seems

8
peripheral to Sociology, i.e., technological infrastructure, now becomes central to the enterprise

of both, because we realize that Sociology and other Sciences as well as Engineering Design all

use Schemas to understand the phenomena that they study. Furthermore, Science and Engineering

combine to explore how nature is used to create artificial products with emergent properties that

exemplify the projected schemas in a pure form. Basically, all design uses schemas as the

building blocks for their structuring of artifacts, and this is based on the fact that spacetime (as an

‘a priori’ projection) is not a plenum as Kant thought, but is separated into various kinds of

projections that nest with each other to cover all experience. We express this by saying that the

spacetime projection is not a smooth plenum, but is striated with nested scopes of templates of

pre-understanding.

Now suddenly Social Schemas Science and Engineering become something central to our

concern because the projection of spacetime underlies all categorical projections. Social Schemas

Science is a projection of a singular that is the basis for all other idealistic projections including

both Kantian (thing-like) and Aristotelian (linguistic topical) categories. In our tradition the

concept of Schemas has always existed although it has been in the background and not focused on

explicitly. Now it has suddenly come to the fore as a central conceptual structure necessary to

produce a vantage point from which the new discipline of Social Systems Engineering can view

its phenomena. H. Dreyfus says that in a paradigm shift, or episteme shift, which is a shift in how

we look at the world, there are some concepts that were central that become peripheral and others

that were peripheral that become central. By positing Social Systems Engineering as a topic we

are drawing from the periphery of two disciplines and making that central to our concerns in this

new discipline, and this is facilitated by the concept of the schema because it gives us a higher

level of abstraction than the system. This applies to both the technological infrastruture and the

social milieu that interfaces with the technological infrastructure.

9
Just as we can use Systems Theory to understand Social Systems, we can use other schemas to

understand social phenomena. And just as we use Systems Theory to understand Systems

Engineering and its design of technological infrastructures, we can use other schemas to further

our understanding of the design of artifacts and its context. Schemas can be used to bridge

between these two disciplines, which ordinarily would have little to say to each other because,

generally, we design in a vacuum without considering context and view while the unintended

consequences that result from the social ‘fall out’ from technological changes in society are dealt

with separately. When we begin to look at social relationships and their facilitation and

augmentation by the technological infrastructure (as in social networks) then suddenly the two

disciplines (Engineering and Sociology) cannot ignore each other anymore. Schemas Theory, as

the next higher level of abstraction beyond Systems Theory, can serve as a bridge between these

two disciplines.

There is another important point that must be made in the context of the study of Schemas

Theory. In Schemas Theory all the various schemas are well defined within our tradition except

for that which I call the Meta-system. “Meta” in the context of Schemas Theory means: the

schema beyond the System Schema, but before the Domain Schema. We may also refer to ‘meta-

systems’ as “Open-Scapes” because the word ‘scape’ captures much of the meaning of this

Schema (although it is imperfect because it must always have a co-term like landscape, seascape,

mindscape, etc.). For our purposes we will just refer to schemas within the meta-system as Scapes

even though that is not a proper term normally. In our tradition we have a blindspot for meta-

systems as a schema. We tend not to see them because they blend into the background even

though they define the context, situation, circumstance, etc. that refer to various environments,

ecosystems, media, etc. All the manifestations of the meta-system are conceptually fragmented

from each other unlike the other schemas in our hierarchy. This is probably why we have such

problems designing our systems so that they will be environmentally and contextually

10
appropriate. It is also important to note that Systems and Meta-systems are inverse duals and that

they lie at the center of the scale of schematic scopes. And while we can define things structurally

(i.e., using patterns) to prove things formally and to explain things systematically, we can only

indicate things in a meta-system. This means that Social Systems are more like Meta-systems

rather than Systems. We can think of Social Systems as Systems, i.e., with boundary, but we are

better served if we think of them in terms of environments and ecologies with fuzzy horizons.

The relationship between Systems and Meta-systems is like Russian dolls. The dolls are the

Systems and the spaces between the dolls are the Meta-systems. The social fabric is more like the

field of the Meta-system than the hard determinate boundaries of the system, even though social

structures can be seen as systems. On the other hand, engineering artifacts are more like systems

than meta-systems, even though meta-systems are a needed perspective such as in testing

environments, or operational environments. So, we see from this that Social Systems Engineering

has another dimension to it that relates systems and meta-systems to both the social fabric and the

engineered technological artifacts. Each can be seen in terms of both schemas although there is an

intrinsic emphasis on meta-system fields that is related to social systems that characterize them as

fuzzy and soft sciences with indeterminate horizons, while on the other hand, technological

infrastructures and products are more easily seen as systems with determinate boundaries.

This indicates the paradigm change that we are looking for. Systems Engineering is increasingly

more responsive to social factors in the production of its products and social phenomena is best

approached as a meta-system. We see that the term Social Systems Engineering encapsulates the

duality between systems and meta-systemic scapes. We want to augment social relations with

technological systems in social networking applications in order to produce determinate

representations of what is essentially a soft and fuzzy phenomena. We have more kinds of

relationships than “friends”. Social relationships are amazingly complex. And if we oversimplify

the phenomena of social relations then there are going to be unintended consequences that will

11
adversely affect these relationships through our reification and oversimplification. Technological

systems always impose determinate relationships on the phenomena that they model. But the

social fabric is inherently indeterminate and context sensitive and dependent on circumstances.

So, there is a fundamental challenge in bringing these two different types of phenomena together

within one discipline.

Social Schemas Science and Engineering and Special Systems Theory

To increase the complexity of the situation, we find that when we delve into General Schemas

Theory there are partial thresholds that are a mixture of systems and meta-systems of various

degrees that we will refer to as the Special Systems. They exist between the System and Meta-

system (Open-Scape) schemas. These Special Systems only become visible when we have a very

specific idea about the difference between the System and the Meta-system. We can think of the

System as Emergent and as a whole greater than the sum of its parts, i.e., like a gestalt. The

inverse dual of the System is the Meta-system, which is de-Emergent and is a whole less than the

sum of its parts, i.e., a de-emergent field. Systems can be represented as Turing Machines but

Meta-systems are like Universal Turing Machines, i.e., operating systems that run other Turing

machines. Systems take the Gödel Statements into account within their whole, while Meta-

systems exclude them. The Gödel Statements cannot be proved to be inside or outside the system.

If we consider them inside we get emergent properties, while if we consider them outside we get

de-emergence. The system as a gestalt has forms as figures on its background that are

circumscribed by a determinate boundary. The meta-system is the Open-Scape panorama that can

be seen from a specific spot in the landscape to the horizon in all directions. Thus, a meta-system

has a determinate boundary on the inside and an indeterminate boundary on the outside, while a

system has a determinate boundary on the outside and an indeterminate boundary on the inside.

That is why the two schemas can interleave in their mutual nesting like Russian dolls.

12
Once we understand that Systems and Meta-systems are inverse duals in this way, then we can

consider the third possibility that there may be systems that are exactly equal their sum, neither

with excess or lack. Three such Special Systems exist. They are called Dissipative Ordering, as

defined by Prigogine’s Dissipative Structures, Autopoietic Symbiotic, as defined by Matarana

and Varella (except that they are disunified instead of unified), and Reflexive Social, as defined

by John O’Malley and Barry Sandywell in their ‘Reflexive Sociology’. The Autopoietic Special

System is like the perfect number whose divisors add up exactly to the whole number (6, 28 etc.).

The Autopoietic Special System when seen as two Dissipative Ordering Special Systems can also

be likened to the Amicable numbers, which are two numbers whose divisors add up to each other.

This interlocking of mutual production is like two Dissipative Structures that are mutually

ordering each other. The Reflexive System is like the Sociable numbers, which are a ring of

numbers that, in sequence, add up to each other in a cycle. These numbers were discovered in

1904. All other numbers are excessive or lacking when we add up their divisors. These special

numbers together are called Aliquot numbers. This is the simplest mathematical representation of

them. There are more complex analogies for them in mathematics like the Hypercomplex

numbers or non-orientable surfaces, but we will suffice with this simple mathematical analogy as

a basis for understanding what they are like. What we want to concentrate on here are the

ramifications of their existence for Social Systems Engineering.

The key is that these Special Systems have some form of ultra-efficacy, which we see in the

Internet with its speed and low cost of communication. The Reflexive Social Special System is a

definition of the Social Level of emergence that is beyond that of Life at the Autopoietic level

and Consciousness at the Dissipative Ordering level. Life, Consciousness, and the Social are the

three most important emergent levels that we have to deal with in our lives and that makes our

lives worth living. In terms of Hypercomplex Algebras these Special Systems can be seen as

concatenations of facing mirrors, where the dissipative ordering is two facing mirrors, the

13
autopoietic symbiotic is three facing mirrors and the reflexive social is four facing mirrors.

Beyond that, mirrors must either be spaced apart or warped to interact. The special properties of

these systems come from the fact that they are regular concatenations of mirrors in reflexive

structures and somehow we need to take this reflexive nature of social networks into account in

our design of them. That reflexive nature comes from the fact that we can consider at least four

levels of meta-cognition in our social relationships before we begin to lose track. We can consider

‘what he thinks of what she things about what he thinking that she is thinking’, etc. This inherent

reflexive structure is one of the key things that make us human and it is hard to represent this in

determinate representations such as we see in the software and hardware that connect social

networks.

Schemas Theory brings us a theoretical approach that is inherently social. In fact, we can see that

the Reflexive Social System represents a model of the social while the Dissipative Ordering gives

us a model of the designing and building activities that we employ to order our environment by

building things such as the internet, the web, and ultimately Web 2.0 sites that have social

networking built into them. So, we can see that social schemas engineering can represent its

social aspect in one special system and its engineering part in another special system, which both

flank the autopoietic, self-producing, special system that represents the viable living human being

who both designs engineering products and interacts socially with others. The autopoietic

symbiotic special system is a conjunction of two dissipative ordering structures that are mutually

ordering each other. This mutual ordering can be seen as an image of the exchange of givens,

data, information, knowledge, wisdom, insights, and realizations internally, which then spill out

as practices in terms of desiring, absorbing, avoiding, and disseminating within the reflexive

social field. At the pattern level this entails flux, structure, value, and sign as types of projected

discontinuities. Part of this can be seen in the theory of Deleuze and Guattari in Anti-Oedipus in

which they define desiring machines as the opposite of the socius while they play down the

14
bodily integrity of the individual as an organism. They develop the idea of the rhizome, i.e., the

non-hierarchical network and the body without organs as the nexus of desiring machines. We

augment this theory by thinking of what they call machines as practices (following Foucault)

while adding avoiding, absorbing, and disseminating practices to the mixture so that we can

understand the basic dynamic at the level of pattern in the social network, which is engaged in

exchanging representations and repetitions of partial objects.

When we apply social networking to Systems Engineering design teams who are producing the

requirements for a social network technological infrastructure, then we can see the essential

reflexivity of Social Systems Engineering: the team uses the product that they have designed and

implemented. The team is a social network that is augmented and facilitated by the technological

infrastructure that it designs and produces by using a version of that infrastructure to support the

whole development process. This essential reflexivity in which the social network of the team is

designing and producing social networking systems shows that Social Systems Engineering can

be a completely reflexive structure and that the production of such systems (that are then used

beyond the team) is a dissipative ordering of the online environment that represents the social

relationships of those beyond the team. When we look at it this way we can see social networking

as self-producing while we facilitate and augment the spontaneously forming social networks

between people that occur within organizational structures and teams. Because social networks

are part of our social being they are reflected into the artifacts that we produce, and until recently

this has been an ignored part of our social existence that has not been facilitated and augmented

by the technological infrastructure. Yet, that is changing. Social Systems Engineering focuses on

this interface between Systems Engineering technological artifacts and the social spheres of our

lives as they are expressed and represented online and in other ways such as in markets and

games. Having a theoretical foundation that can be tested makes this new field more accessible

and easier to explore because we can focus on the relationship between the System and Meta-

15
system and then on the Special Systems as a framework for considering the phenomena that we

are studying and this is where Social Sciences and Technology interface.

16

S-ar putea să vă placă și