71
Essences of Interaction
ties (Klepper 1996). This structure and narrative that embodies and conditions the model is termed as a theory frame or (referred to a framework). A
framework aids in formulating hypotheses and identifying the “. . . kinds of
causal conditions and process patterns that seem relevant for a given range of
issues, they offer concepts that correspond to these identifications, and they
give reasons for the choices made” (Rueschemeyer 2009).
The essence of models and theory can be explained through frameworks.
A framework is characterized by consistency of logic, and the continuity of
method. However, to be pertinent for systems integration that involves many
disciplines and fields, a framework must also be applicable across disciplines
and scalable from micro- to macrosituations. Frameworks can be used to
analyze situations. A situation is defined as the constrained and limited
characteristics of a set of properties, traits, and attributes.
The goal of the framework should focus on describing a general model of
integration—one that applies equally well to systems, system of systems, and
nonsystems. The allure of general systems theory (sometimes referred to as
“systems theory”) strived to point out the similarities between the disciplines
with regard to their construction, while over time the desire was to develop
models that would more inextricably link at least two different fields of study
(Boulding 1956). The systems theory movement captured the good intentions
that recognized the (1) striking similarities in the system likenesses covered
by the subject matter across various disciplines and fields, and (2) the oftentimes equivalent thinking, knowledge structures, and processes, and models
of various phenomena. But beyond a few intriguing correspondences, on further investigation, nothing conclusive seemed to coalesce into a definitive
theory for any two fields. Two quotations seem relevant.
The voyage of discovery is not in seeking new landscapes but in having
new eyes.
Marcel Proust (1871–1922)
There is a soul of truth in things erroneous.
Herbert Spencer (1820–1903)
Although these two authors were contemporaries, they may not have
known each other; the context of their remarks is not readily apparent, but
their striking correlation in general feeling suggests that there might be more
to what we know than in the way we express what we see. The systems theorists spoke often and kindly about the concept of integration, but not with
regard to bringing ideas together. System theorists observed supposed patterns and suggested principles that indeed are important. Those principles,
once placed in the context of a proper framework, become the gems of discovery that so eluded these early thinkers.
A framework of integration should be operative regardless of the type of
objects that are to be integrated. The concepts of integration should apply
equally well to all objects, systems, the discussion on systems, and systems
Essences of Interaction
ties (Klepper 1996). This structure and narrative that embodies and conditions the model is termed as a theory frame or (referred to a framework). A
framework aids in formulating hypotheses and identifying the “. . . kinds of
causal conditions and process patterns that seem relevant for a given range of
issues, they offer concepts that correspond to these identifications, and they
give reasons for the choices made” (Rueschemeyer 2009).
The essence of models and theory can be explained through frameworks.
A framework is characterized by consistency of logic, and the continuity of
method. However, to be pertinent for systems integration that involves many
disciplines and fields, a framework must also be applicable across disciplines
and scalable from micro- to macrosituations. Frameworks can be used to
analyze situations. A situation is defined as the constrained and limited
characteristics of a set of properties, traits, and attributes.
The goal of the framework should focus on describing a general model of
integration—one that applies equally well to systems, system of systems, and
nonsystems. The allure of general systems theory (sometimes referred to as
“systems theory”) strived to point out the similarities between the disciplines
with regard to their construction, while over time the desire was to develop
models that would more inextricably link at least two different fields of study
(Boulding 1956). The systems theory movement captured the good intentions
that recognized the (1) striking similarities in the system likenesses covered
by the subject matter across various disciplines and fields, and (2) the oftentimes equivalent thinking, knowledge structures, and processes, and models
of various phenomena. But beyond a few intriguing correspondences, on further investigation, nothing conclusive seemed to coalesce into a definitive
theory for any two fields. Two quotations seem relevant.
The voyage of discovery is not in seeking new landscapes but in having
new eyes.
Marcel Proust (1871–1922)
There is a soul of truth in things erroneous.
Herbert Spencer (1820–1903)
Although these two authors were contemporaries, they may not have
known each other; the context of their remarks is not readily apparent, but
their striking correlation in general feeling suggests that there might be more
to what we know than in the way we express what we see. The systems theorists spoke often and kindly about the concept of integration, but not with
regard to bringing ideas together. System theorists observed supposed patterns and suggested principles that indeed are important. Those principles,
once placed in the context of a proper framework, become the gems of discovery that so eluded these early thinkers.
A framework of integration should be operative regardless of the type of
objects that are to be integrated. The concepts of integration should apply
equally well to all objects, systems, the discussion on systems, and systems