The conceptual development of this research is founded on systems thinking and symbolic interactionism. A systems thinking approach allows for the scrutiny of actors within their social structures, which are amalgamated to shape this research’s system of system analysis. Previous research on the agriculture knowledge system in Vietnam has often focused on one system, such as the extension system or the research system, despite the fact that decisions at the farm level are becoming increasingly dependent upon larger and more complex social environments and conditions. A symbolic interactionist perspective acquiesces in the research objective of delving interaction and communication among actors and groups of actors in the construction and reconstruction of knowledge production, diffusion, and use practices. The combination of the two approaches is reciprocally useful for this research’s microsociological investigation into contextualised everyday knowledge generation and diffusion, while interaction with broader structural environments is taken into account in a knowledge for development system.
Systems thinking
Asian societies, including the Vietnamese since their ancient times, have developed systems thinking applications to aid in understanding the universe, human-environment co-actions, and even the self as a mini universe: for example, Yin-Yang (Am duong), Five Basic Elements (Ngu hanh), or Eight-sign Theory (Bat quai). Today inclusive science is promoted, and Western scientists have recalled the importance of inclusionality18 in viewing our society in interdependent with bio-cultural diversity and complex situations of modern life (Stijkel 2006). Systems thinking is increasingly important in the creation of sustainability (Sandri 2013). Central to a systems approach is that the systems and the relationships between parts of these systems be taken as a whole:
“The systems approach to problems focuses on systems taken as a whole, not on their parts taken separately. Such an approach is concerned with total-system performance even when a change on only one or a few of its parts is contemplated because there are some properties of systems that can only be treated adequately from a holistic point of view. These properties derive from the relationships between parts of systems: how the parts interact and it together. In an imperfectly organized system even if every part performs as well as possible relative to its own objectives, the total system will often not perform as well as possible relative to its objectives” (Ackoff 1971, 661).
Systems thinking has evolved significantly. From a third-generation systems view, Gharajedaghi (2011) claims that a system encompasses the five principles of openness, purposefulness, multidimensionality,
18 In his Inclusionality: The Science, Art and Spirituality of Place, Space and Evolution, Alan Rayner (2004) wrote: “When space is included in our perceptions of boundaries, it becomes inseparable from the energy that makes us alive.
Darkness is included with light, gravity with electromagnetism, and time and matter cannot exist as separable, absolute quantities in their own right. We neither see the world and Universe about us as an incoherent assemblage of independent objects or closed systems surrounded by emptiness, nor do we lose ourselves in a featureless oceanic infinitude. Instead we feel ourselves, with others, as inhabited places, distinct but not discrete expressions, ever-transforming through the dynamic, reciprocally breathing relationship of inner with outer through intermediary space. Aware now of our place as local expressions of everywhere, we are not alone – we belong with, but decidedly not to one another, together, coherent through the connectivity of our common space, unique in our individually situated identities. Identities that we can both express and accommodate, as needs arise for differentiation and integration.”
23
emergent property, and counterintuitiveness19. According to Leischow et al. (2008, 196), some fundamental systems thinking perspectives that are shared across fields include the following: “(1) increased attention to how new knowledge is gained, managed, exchanged, interpreted, integrated, and disseminated; (2) emphasis on a network-centric approach that encourages relationship-building among and between individuals and organizations across traditional disciplines and fields in order to achieve relevant goals and objectives; (3) the development of models and projections, using a variety of analytic approaches in order to improve strategic decision making; and (4) systems organising in order to foster improvements in organizational structures and functions.”
There is a growing body of literature that points to the importance of social networks20 channelling the flow of knowledge among actors (Sorenson, Rivkin, and Fleming 2006, 997). For example, engaging in networks to gain (new) knowledge is discussed in both social network theory and the industrial marketing and purchasing (IMP) perspective. More and more, the network “has the impact on how to gain new knowledge, in terms of knowledge flows and problem solving, which in turn cause changes, in terms of relationship establishment and technology development” (Andersson, Holm, and Johanson 2007, 33). While social network theorists focus on how and why knowledge can flow and be transferred among actors in the network, IMP authors emphasise interaction in the network as the main source of knowledge (Andersson, Holm, and Johanson 2007, 33). In organisations, as Jashapara (2007, 756-758) argues, when new problems or situations arise, the collective consciousness takes place based on the dialogue, discussions, and interactions between individuals. The social network of the organisation (whether it is a team, a department, or the whole organization) determines the nature of the collective consciousness. In discussing the role of a network in knowledge transfer, scholars emphasise the importance of the network structure and or organizational performance, position in the network, tie strength, network cohesion, and network range (Reagans and McEvily 2003). The network can be described as either an open system (when the non-redundant, unique relationship between two actors is the paramount construct) or a closed system (as actors in the network coordinate their efforts
19 Gharajedaghi (2011, 29-54) defines five systems principles as follows: “Openness means that the behavior of living systems can be understood only in the context of their environment.” Purposefulness means that “to influence the actors in our transactional environment we have to understand why they do what they do.”
Multidimensionality is “the ability to see complementary relations in opposing tendencies and to create feasible wholes with unfeasible parts.” Emergent properties are “the property of the whole, not the property of the parts, and cannot be deduced from properties of the parts.” Counterintuitiveness means that “actions intended to produce a desired outcome may generate opposite results.”
20 Networks are in social sciences assumed as some sort of enduring social relationship. Tracing back to Simmels’
fundamental distinction between groups (defined by some membership criterion) and “webs of affiliation”
(linked through specific types of connections), the social network approach has mainly focused on network position and structure, for example, the tertiusgaudens (the third who benefits), “structural equivalence,” non- redundant ties or “structural holes” (Grabher 2006). With Mark Granovetter's (1985) notion of embeddedness that stresses “the role of concrete personal relations and structures (or ‘networks’) of such relations in generating trust and malfeasance,” network governance approach has evolved, in which networks are systematized along two dimensions of stability and forms of governance (from more hierarchical to more heterarchical) (Grabher 2006). Moving way beyond the two dominant tie-and-node imagery network traditions, based on the metaphor of the rhizome, Harrison White draws on publics (special moments or spaces of social opening that allow actors to switch from one setting to another) and polymorphous (of ties and social roles which creates tendencies to switch from one relational setting to another) network domains (Grabher 2006).
24
and actions) (Andersson, Holm, and Johanson 2007, 33-34). Regarding solving problems through collaboration and cooperation, an open system tends to facilitate knowledge transfer, while a closed one deals more with knowledge in the way that new knowledge is created as the actors solve problems rather than simply because new knowledge enters the system from the outside (Andersson, Holm, and Johanson 2007, 34). In this research, social networks are identified at both individual and organizational levels with respect to different types of interdependency related to knowledge and information as used for problem solving. The research covers both formal (membership, partnership and other alliances) and informal (communities of practice) environments21. For example, talking, debating, and participating in occasions, such as exhibitions and conferences or telephone calls, can be a means to convey and receive knowledge (Pyka 1997, 210). The research applies hybrid networks22 so that part of a network that is not recognized prior to data collection can be included and then made available for all subsequent egos to see. The study tries to investigate how the current social formal and informal network/relationships23 assist with gaining the knowledge needed by problem solvers and at the same time how they actively engage themselves in networks from which their required knowledge is accessible.
Giddens’ structuration theory focuses on social structure and human agency. Giddens’ “structure” is not an object or thing being external to actions but instead a holistic model embodying social systems and rules/resources, social order, and social reproduction. “Society only has form, and that form only has effects on people, in so far as structure is produced and reproduced in what people do” (Giddens and Pierson 1998, 77). Giddens differentiates structure, system and structuration as follows:
21 It is useful to link six types of social structures (“patterned or regularized aspects of the relationships existing among participants in an organization” (Scott 2003, 18)) that exist in organizations today: (i) work groups, (ii) project teams, (iii) strategic communities, (iv) learning communities, (v) communities of practice, and (vi) networks (Blankenship and Ruona 2009).
22 Hansen et al. (2008, 13-15) differentiate three types of social network data: egocentric or personal networks (when alters are not known in advance), complete or sociocentric networks (when all members of the network to be examined are defined in advance), and hybrid or snowballs networks (which start as complete networks and then expand based on the addition of alters as egos complete surveys).
23 Communities of practice - informal, independent, off-the-grid employee networks - are an inexpensive and efficient way for experts to share knowledge and ideas (McDermott and Archibald 2010). An example is that:
“Not long ago, a Fluor nuclear-cleanup project team had to install a soil barrier over a drainage field once used to dispose of radioactive wastewater. But environmental regulators mandated that Fluor first locate and seal a 30- year-old well, now covered over, to prevent contamination of the groundwater table. Poor historical data made it impossible to tell if the well really existed, and ground-penetrating radar also failed to discover it. Simply removing the contaminated soil to find the well would have been costly and risky for workers. When the team posted a request to Fluor’s knowledge communities, one of the experts suggested using an alternative technology from a different industry. The team tried it and found the well. In fact, within two months, Fluor went on to use the same method to locate - or prove the nonexistence of - more than 100 wells and suspected wells”
(McDermott and Archibald 2010, 84-85). The authors argue that communities of practice can work better if they are operated in an efficient way that the scare time of experts is respected but at the same time integrating themselves into the organization by focusing more on their human systems, including focus, goals and management attention (McDermott and Archibald 2010).
25
Structure: Rules and resources organised as properties of social systems. Structure only exists as ‘structural properties’24
System: Reproduced relations between actors or collectives, organised as regular social practices
Structuration: Conditions governing the continuity or transformation of structures, and therefore the reproduction of the system (Giddens 1979, 66)’
Structures are rules and resources on which agents draw in their social practices and which are created through the actions of individuals (Giddens 1984). Agency is defined as the ability to reflect on and monitor our own behaviour, the capacity to “make a difference.” As such agency is critical to the transformation of societies. Notably, the subordinates can influence their superior’s activities as all forms of dependency can offer resources – this is what Giddens calls the dialectic in social systems (Giddens 1984, 14-16).
Actor-Network Theory (ANT) further suggests social research is approached in a more-than-human, more-than-social world (Latour 2005). For ANT, “there is no ‘society’ as such, in the sense of a domain consisting exclusively of relations between human subjects, as these relations are always mediated and transformed and even enabled by nonhumans of diverse kinds, whether objects, materials, technologies, animals or eco-systems” (Nimmo 2011, 109). The need to consider social reproduction and self-production has also been emphasised in sociocybernetic research, which emphasises the complexity of systemic interrelation of which solutions are proposed on the reciprocal effects of all appropriate factors (Luksha 2001). In the view of second-order cybernetics, the cybernetics are considered to be observing systems rather than observed systems (Lee, Geyer, Hornung 2000).
Systems thinking when applied to the understanding of natural and social worlds has changed the way scientific knowledge is produced – with an increase of collaborative research. Multiple disciplines not only cooperate within a project but also in a common goal setting. Transdisciplinary even crosses disciplinary and academic boundaries to develop integrated knowledge and theory among science and society (see Figure 1.2). Transdisciplinary research aims for the following:
(i) It grasps the complexity of problems;
(ii) It takes into account the diversity of life-world and scientific perceptions of problems;
(iii) It links abstract and case-specific knowledge;
(iv) It develops knowledge and practices that promote what is perceived to be the common good.
(Mollinga 2010, 4)
24 They are domination (power), signification (meaning) and legitimation (rules). In social interactions, structures are presented in modalities: facility (domination), interpretive scheme/communication (signification) and norms/sanctions (legitimation) (Giddens 1984).
26
Figure 1.2: Typology and features of (non) disciplinary research
Disciplinary Non-disciplinary
Lower integration Higher integration
(a) Disciplinary
- Within one academic discipline - Disciplinary goal setting - No cooperation with other
disciplines
- Development of new disciplinary knowledge and theory
(b) Multidisciplinary
- Multiple disciplines
- Multiple disciplinary goal setting under one thematic umbrella - Loose cooperation of disciplines for
exchange of knowledge - Disciplinary theory development
(c) Interdisciplinary
- Cross disciplinary boundaries - Common goal setting - Integration of disciplines
- Development of integrated knowledge and theory Academic participants (d) Participatory
- Involves academic researchers and non-academic participants - Exchange of knowledge, bodies of knowledge not integrated
- May be disciplinary or multidisciplinary - Not necessarily research, goal may be academic or not
(e) Transdisciplinary
- Crosses disciplinary and scientific/academic boundaries - Common goal setting
- Integration of disciplines and non- academic participants
- Development of integrated knowledge and theory among science and society
Academic and non-academic participants Notes:
Source: Adapted from Tress, Tress, and Fry (2006)
Hayek’s (1937, 50 cited in Richter 2003, 40) claim is precise here perceived as “how combining the fragments of knowledge, residing in different minds, can bring about results which, if they were to be brought about deliberately, would require a knowledge on the part of the directing mind which no single person can possess.” Schửn’s ([1973]2010) concept of “learning systems” can pave out a direction for developing applicable knowledge management mechanisms.
“The loss of the stable state means that our society and all of its institutions are in continuing processes of transformation. […]
We must learn to understand, guide, influence and manage these transformations. We must make the capacity for undertaking them integral to ourselves and to our institutions.
We must, in other words, become adept at learning. We must become able not only to transform our institutions, in response to changing situations and requirements; we must invent and develop institutions which are ‘learning systems’, that is to say, systems capable of bringing about their own continuing transformation” (Schửn [1973]2010, 5-6).
The learning system serves a basis for development of learning societies and learning organisations.
However, I would argue that the use of learning systems in the two aforementioned notions is reduced discipline
non-academic participants goal of a research project movement towards goal cooperation
integration
thematic umbrella academic knowledge body non-academic knowledge body discipline
non-academic participants goal of a research project movement towards goal cooperation
integration
27
to individual and/or organisational knowledge management and learning processes. Knowledge governance needs to create mechanisms to initiate inter-learning between learning systems so that fragments of knowledge of a learning system can be cooperated and continually developed. Therefore, knowledge management and governance by nature facilitate institutions to enhance knowledge processes and learning for social systems themselves as well as inter-learning among social systems with their differences. I am indeed arguing for societies where knowledge processes are institutionalised for the sake of single learning systems, but also for societal problem solving and development through inter-system learning.
Interactionism
Symbolic interactionism is identified as having some parallels with the action frame of reference developed by Max Weber, yet it was mainly outlined and articulated by the Chicago School of Sociology (Cuff and Payne 1979; 1984). Even though the ideas of George Herbert Meade, the founder of symbolic interactionism, received various criticisms and comments, the theory has been applied to numerous studies and important subjects (Mazzotta and Myers 2008). From the perspective of symbolic interactionism:
“Society is a web of communication or interaction, the reciprocal influence of persons taking each other into account as they act. Interaction is symbolic, proceeding in terns of meanings persons develop in interaction itself. The environment of action and interaction of humans is symbolically defined.
Persons interact using symbols developed in their interaction, and they act through the communication of these symbols” (Stryker and Vryan 2003, 3-4).
Symbolic interactionism is often criticised for its social structure neglects.
“For those who emphasise the macro-sociological strategy of structuralism, the Symbolic Interactionist approach ails because it does not attempt to take some overview of the total societal organisation. In so far as it does give an account of the overall organisation of society, then, for many sociologists, it overplays the significance of ethnic, religious and similar divisions at the expense of those arising from social stratification. On that argument, the Symbolic Interationalist approach is closely allied with the liberal-pluralist view of society; it neglects the extent to which the society is a system - and a class-system as that.” (Cuff and Payne 1979;1984, 148-149).
Symbolic interactionism is also not a unified perspective; the interactionist approach is alive in pursuing a course of development by integrating within its general stance a reasonable conceptualization of social structure (Stryker 1981). Stryker developed structural symbolic interactionism by placing emphasis on the impact of social structures on social interaction:
“Society shapes self shapes social interaction. The frame then takes as its starting point sociology’s sense of social structures as patterned interactions and relationships, emphasizing the durability of such patterns, resistance to change, and capacity to reproduce themselves. This view sees social differentiation as a continuous process countering homogenization of interactional experience and the structures within societies. It sees society as composed of organized systems of interactions and role relationships and as complex mosaics of differentiated groups, communities, and institutions, cross- cut by a variety of demarcations based on class, age, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. It sees the diversity of parts as sometimes interdependent and sometimes independent of one another, sometimes isolated and insulated from one another and sometimes not, sometimes cooperative and sometimes conflicting, sometimes highly resistant to change and sometimes less so. It sees social life as largely taking place not within society as a whole but within relatively small networks of role relationships, many - perhaps most - local” (Stryker 2008, 19).