Scholarly Work - Business
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://scholarworks.montana.edu/handle/1/9306
Browse
6 results
Search Results
Item Minding the abstraction gap: approaches supporting implementation(Wiley, 2024-07) Black, Laura J.; Greer, Donald R.Regardless of insights gained from building and analyzing dynamic models, the only strategies people can act on are those in their heads. The strategies people internalize are related to their perceived capacities to act—the verbs they believe they can do. If we want others to implement model-informed policies, then we must connect model abstractions with new situated, concrete actions stakeholders can take. We can emphasize opportunities to act with SD representations, navigating levels of abstraction cleanly, identifying flows as verbs, and choosing variable names that signal who is acting. By drawing on social-science theories as we offer our grammar of accumulations, activities, and relationships in the language of actions accessible to stakeholders, we help connect experiential understandings to richer, dynamic explanations people can internalize and so discover situated steps to implement policies informed by modeling. © 2024 The Author(s). System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society.Item Reflecting on Zagonel's dichotomy of microworlds and boundary objects(Wiley, 2024-07) Black, Laura J.Aldo Zagonel's distinction between “microworld” and “boundary object” approaches to modeling suggests we ask ourselves pointed questions about what we are valuing, under what conditions, as we involve stakeholders with system dynamics representations. Reflecting on developments in both participatory modeling and large system simulations, I propose that Zagonel's dichotomous descriptions lie along a continuum, with room for scholars and practitioners to explore more explicitly the multiple ways we adapt system dynamics methods to the needs and capacities of the stakeholders with whom we are working at that time. Regardless of approach, whether simulation models or causal diagrams, modifiable in the moment or fixed by design, the goal of using system dynamics representations remains focused on fostering intelligent action among the stakeholders facing the problem of focus. © 2024 The Author(s). System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society.Item Reflecting on Zagonel's dichotomy of microworlds and boundary objects(Wiley, 2024-07) Black, Laura J.Aldo Zagonel's distinction between “microworld” and “boundary object” approaches to modeling suggests we ask ourselves pointed questions about what we are valuing, under what conditions, as we involve stakeholders with system dynamics representations. Reflecting on developments in both participatory modeling and large system simulations, I propose that Zagonel's dichotomous descriptions lie along a continuum, with room for scholars and practitioners to explore more explicitly the multiple ways we adapt system dynamics methods to the needs and capacities of the stakeholders with whom we are working at that time. Regardless of approach, whether simulation models or causal diagrams, modifiable in the moment or fixed by design, the goal of using system dynamics representations remains focused on fostering intelligent action among the stakeholders facing the problem of focus. © 2024 The Author(s). System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society.Item Using Visual Representations as Boundary Objects to Resolve Conflict in Collaborative Model-Building Approaches(2012-03) Black, Laura J.; Andersen, David F.In the context of facilitated, technology-supported efforts to resolve complex problems, we recognize the critical role that visual representations can play in both the content and process of collaboration. How these representations are wielded by facilitators and interpreted by participants determines whether they help resolve conflicts or close down conversations. We identify three key attributes of scripted problem-solving facilitation, as well as three key attributes of visual representations that function as boundary objects, to gain insights into pivotal experiences when group problem-solving efforts turned from collaboration to conflict and vice versa. We draw on three vignettes from facilitated group problem solving to illustrate how these attributes can be deployed to move conflict-mired conversations into collaborative discussions. This paper contributes to collaborative problem solving by using the formal sociological theory of boundary objects to offer a deeper, richer understanding of successes and shortcomings of visual representations as drivers of conflict resolution in model-building approaches.Item When Visuals Are Boundary Objects in System Dynamics Work(2013-08) Black, Laura J.Using modeling representations as boundary objects provides an important aid to collective meaning-making. By understanding the construct of boundary objects, which arises from sociological studies of cross-boundary work, we can increase our effectiveness in using visual representations to facilitate shared understanding for joint action. This paper draws on theories of social construction, distributed cognition, and boundary objects to build the argument that visual representations provide the crucial pivot between the system dynamics modeling method and socially constructing shared meaning. I highlight the role of visuals particularly in the context of group model building because it provides an explicit occasion devoted to shared meaning-making through facilitated execution of the system dynamics method. Many system dynamicists use the model-building process and simulation analyses to socially construct shared understanding among people with differing domain expertise, and the theoretical principles and practical guidelines described here can usefully inform efforts beyond participatory modeling workshops.Item Learning from Our GWAS Mistakes: From Experimental Design to Scientific Method(2012-01) Lambert, Christophe G.; Black, Laura J.Many public and private genome-wide association studies that we have analyzed include flaws in design, with avoidable confounding appearing as a norm rather than the exception. Rather than recognizing flawed research design and addressing that, a category of quality-control statistical methods has arisen to treat only the symptoms. Reflecting more deeply, we examine elements of current genomic research in light of the traditional scientific method and find that hypotheses are often detached from data collection, experimental design, and causal theories. Association studies independent of causal theories, along with multiple testing errors, too often drive health care and public policy decisions. In an era of large-scale biological research, we ask questions about the role of statistical analyses in advancing coherent theories of diseases and their mechanisms. We advocate for reinterpretation of the scientific method in the context of large-scale data analysis opportunities and for renewed appreciation of falsifiable hypotheses, so that we can learn more from our best mistakes.