SYSTEMS THEORY-BASED CONSTRUCT FOR

SYSTEM S THEORY-BASED CONSTRUCT FOR IDENTIFYING M ETASYSTEM PATHOLOGIES FOR COM PLEX SYSTEM GOVERNANCE by Polinpapilinho F. Katina B.S. May 2009. Old Dominion University M.E. May 2011. Old Dominion University

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty o f Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment o f the Requirements for the Degree o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ENGINEERING M ANAGEM ENT OLD DOM INION UNIVERSITY August 2015

Approved by:

Adrian V. Gheprghe (Membe:

Patrick T. Hester (M ember)

ProQuest Number: 3664120

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest Que ProQuest 3664120 Published by ProQuest LLC(2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

ABSTRACT SYSTEMS THEORY-BASED CONSTRUCT FOR IDENTIFYING M ETASYSTEM PATHOLOGIES FOR COM PLEX SYSTEM GOVERNANCE Polinpapilinho F. Katina Old Dom inion University, 2015 Director: Dr. Charles B. Keating

The purpose o f this research was to develop a systems theory-based construct for metasystem pathologies identification in support o f the problem formulation phase o f systems-based methodologies using an inductive research design. Problem form ulation has been identified as one o f the most critical stages in complex system developm ent since it influences later stages in com plex system understanding. In m odem society where the operating landscape is characteristically ambiguous, mired by com plexity, em ergence, interdependence, and uncertainty, the concept o f problem form ulation is used to ensure right issues affecting com plex systems surface and addressed to meet expected system perform ance and viability. In this research, this role o f problem form ulation is exam ined in systems-based methodologies in connection with systems theory. While the literature indicates the importance o f problem formulation phase in systems-based m ethodologies, the conceptual foundations o f systems theory that form the basis for ‘system ic’ thinking in these methodologies is not clearly inculcated into the problem formulation phase. This research addresses this gap by providing the necessary detailed discussion linking systems theory to problem formulation. The research focused on the lack o f explicit use o f systems theory in problem formulation and metasystemic issues o f a higher logical order beyond single system o f interest. A rigorous approach em ploying grounded theory method was used to analyze systems theory (laws, principles, and

theorems) in term s o f problem formulation to develop a construct - M etasystem Pathologies Identification and derived systems theory-based pathologies (circumstances, conditions, factors, or patterns) that act to limit system performance. A case study was then undertaken to face validate the applicability o f em erging systems-theory pathologies in an operational setting were possible utility were developed. Fundamentally, this research presents a new approach to problem formulation where systemic thinking is at the foundation o f identifying systemic issues affecting system performance. A significant promise for those interested in problem formulation is the inclusion o f system s theory-based pathologies during problem formulation phase o f systems-based approaches.

Copyright, 2015, by Polinpapilinho F. Katina, All Rights Reserved.

V

For Elizabeth And the proposition that a great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within - Ariel Durant

A CKNOW LEDGM ENTS

I express my deepest appreciation to my dissertation advisor. Dr. Charles B. Keating, who has provided a rigorous and innovative environm ent enabling challenging and unsurpassed rewarding doctoral experience. Dr. Adrian V. Gheorghe, Dr. Patrick T. Hester, and Dr. Jam es Pyne patiently provided tim e and expertise as members o f the dissertation committee. My appreciation is extended to fellow colleagues including W alt Akers, Dale Baugh, Dr. Joe Bradley, Dr. Behnido Calida, Jennifer Shauger, Joe Sisti, D rew Smith, M ike Smith, and David Walters. Finally, my siblings, you deserve special recognition for your patience and insightful reminders, surely whoever thinks is standing securely should watch out so he/she doesn't fall.

PREFACE

This research was conducted to contribute to ongoing research efforts dedicated to understanding and developing solutions to contemporary issues in com plex systems. Many disciplines in engineering management and systems engineering are moving tow ards systems theoretic approach in dealing with issues affecting systems prevalent in 21st century systems. As it is increasingly becom ing apparent that com plex systems do not operate in isolation, there is a need to understand such systems as interdependent and com plex - being affected by a multitude o f issues that can hinder expected performance and viability. This requires that we think systemically about these systems and the ways we use to address such systems. In conjunction with this thinking, there were two primary motivations for the current research: First, the researcher grew up in different countries and becom e keenly interested in how humans deal with problematic issues affecting livelihood. These issues include but not limited to energy and food, healthcare, transportation, manufacturing, terrorism , and natural disasters. These issues appear to be accelerating, without end insight, and challenging the very existence o f hum an being. Convenient exam ples include the 1995 Kobe earthquake, the 1998 ice storm in Canada, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the 2002/2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreaks, the 2004 tsunam i in South Asia, the 2005 devastation o f New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, the 2010 Deepw ater Horizon oil spill, and the 2008 global financial crisis,. It most certainly appears that dealing with such issues, be it before, during, or afterwards, requires a holistic approach that m ight involve technical, human/social, organizational/m anagerial, policy/political elements as well as their interrelationships. As I have come to learn, cause and effect in these instances is not easy to articulate. Often,

there is a need to think holistically about these situations. Second, as I undertook my graduate studies in the Department o f Engineering M anagem ent and Systems Engineering o f the Frank Batten o f Engineering and Technology, it become apparent that (1) the academic w orld has devoted time to develop numerous approaches, often referred to as systems-based methodologies, to confront com plex issues affecting hum an w ell­ being. However, (2) the availability o f such approaches has not translated into systemic understanding com plex systems as evidenced in frequency o f occurrence and consequences o f issues affecting society. I wanted to do research that has the potential to contribute to this area o f research by focusing on utility o f systemic thinking as espoused by systems theory. Systems theory is taken as an alternative to reductionism which is closely aligned with the scientific method (holding that a com plex organism is nothing but the sum o f its parts, and therefore they can be reduced to constituent elements). A specific philosophical paradigm for systems theory, the need to holistically deal with entities as organizations and taking account o f their interrelations rather than isolated parts, was a m ajor influence. This is exem plified in the idea that concepts and insights o f one discipline can be used to contribute other disciplines. This appears to be supported by developm ent and application o f principles and laws irrespective o f their particular kind (Adams et al., 2014; Strijbos, 2010; von Bertalanffy, 1968). Specifically, it was importance for me to see how different concepts o f systems theory could be used to address different aspects o f complex systems. Ultimately, this research focused on the area o f problem form ulation. Consequently, the inductive nature o f this research prom pted a design as well as selection o f grounded theory as a method for the execution o f this research. In Chapter III, the

research paradigm from which this research was conducted is further elaborated upon along the dim ensions o f methodology, epistemology, ontology, and hum an nature. The figure below captures the different elements o f the inductive-subjective approach, com patible with the holistic thinking o f systems theory, which was undertaken for this research.

ist A p p ro a c h

O b jc c tiv ist A p p ro a c h

Methodology

N o m o th e tic

Epistemology

Ontology

Human Nature

D e te rm in ism

Figure 1: A Research Paradigm for this Research, Adapted from Burrell & M organ. 1979

W hen an inductive-subjective paradigm is undertaken in connection with methodology (means for investigating to obtain knowledge about world), there becomes a need to get first-hand knowledge about the world. This can be done through an attem pt to understand how individuals create, modify, and interpret the world. Epistemologically (understanding and com m unicating knowledge), this research was undertaken from the perspective that know ledge is soft and subjective and therefore based on insights o f a personal nature. This is necessary as people could hold different views on the same issue. Ontologically (the nature o f reality), this research was undertaken from the perspective o f nom inalism where ‘reality’ becom es a construct dependent on the interpretation o f the observer. In this thinking, reality includes accounting for individual consciousness where

X

concepts provide m ajor utility in structuring reality. Finally, the nature o f human beings as voluntaristic was undertaken to suggest that humans are free-willed beings capable o f creating their environment. This becomes apparent in how humans address issues affecting them, including different activities associated with problem formulation. This view o f the world has several implications that are addressed in this research in connection with the concept o f systems theory-based pathology and the M etasystem Pathologies Identification construct for problem formulation in the systems-based methodologies that we use to intervene complex systems. Specifically, conclusions from the research indicate current utility o f the research and a wide range o f future research. In practice, this research provides practitioners with the means to integrate systems theory and its aspect o f holistic thinking in problem formulation and hopefully a better grasp o f reality for dealing with complexity.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PR E F A C E ...........................................................................................................................................vii LIST OF T A B L E S...........................................................................................................................xiii LIST OF F IG U R E S .........................................................................................................................xvi CHAPTER I: IN TRO D U CTIO N ......................................................................................................1 1.1 STATEM ENT OF THE PR O B L E M ................................................................................... 2 1.2 GENERAL BACKGROUND OF THE PR O B LEM ........................................................4 1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STU D Y .................................................................................................5 1.4 RESEARCH Q U E S T IO N S ................................................................................................... 7 1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STU D Y ..................................................................................... 9 1.6 LIM ITATIONS AND D ELIM ITA TIO N S.......................................................................11 1.7 O RGANIZATION OF THE D O C U M EN T......................................................................14 1.8 CHAPTER SU M M A RY ....................................................................................................... 16 CHAPTER II: LITERATURE R E V IE W .....................................................................................17 2.1 SYNTHESIS OF RELEVANT LIT E R A T U R E ..............................................................18 2.2 LITERATURE C R IT IQ U E .................................................................................................92 2.3 RESEARCH SETTING FOR M ETASYSTEM PATHOLOGIES CO N STR U CT 97 2.4 CH APTER SU M M A RY .....................................................................................................100 CHAPTER III: PERSPECTIVE OF THE R E S E A R C H ........................................................ 102 3.1 RESEARCH PA R A D IG M S..............................................................................................103 3.2 GROUNDED THEORY M ETH O D ................................................................................ 117 3.3 CASE STUDY M ETH O D ................................................................................................. 128 3.4 M ITIGATING C R IT IC ISM S............................................................................................135 3.5 CHAPTER SU M M A RY .....................................................................................................148 CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH D E S IG N ......................................................................................149 4.1 M ULTI-PHASE RESEARCH D E S IG N ........................................................................ 150 4.2 DETAILED PHASES OF R ESEA R C H ......................................................................... 155 4.3 CHAPTER SU M M A RY .....................................................................................................199 CHAPTER V: RESEARCH R E S U L T S .................................................................................... 201 5.1 CONSTRUCT OF M ETASYSTEM PATHOLOGY IDENTIFICATION [M PI]203 5.2 MPI CONSTRUCT FACE V ALIDA TIO N ................................................................... 235 5.3 CHAPTER SU M M A RY .................................................................................................... 241 CHAPTER VI: CONCLUSIONS AND RECO M M EN D A TIO N S..................................... 242 6.1 RESEARCH C O N CLU SIO N S....................................................................................... 243

xii

6.2 RESEARH IM PL IC A T IO N S........................................................................................... 249 6.3 FUTURE RESEARCH D IR E C T IO N S ..........................................................................252 6.4 CHAPTER SUM M A RY .................................................................................................... 259 R E F E R E N C E S ................................................................................................................................261 APPENCICES A; CODEBOOK FOR SYSTEM S T H E O R Y ..........................................................................287 B: CATEGORIES FOR SYSTEM S THEORY-BASED PA TH O LO G IES...................... 321 C: GUIDELINES FOR THE OUTSIDE E X P E R T .................................................................404 D: PATHOLOGIES STATEM ENTS FOR A SSESSM EN T.................................................407 E: THE RAW RESULTS OF ASSEM ENT IN THE UNIT OF A N A L Y SIS ...................414 F: AN EXAM PLE OF APPLICATION OF SYSTEM S THEORY-BASED PA T H O LO G IES............................................................................................................... 419 V IT A ..................................................................................................................................................422

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

1: A Cotemporary View o f Systems Theory................................................................................29 2: Varying Perspectives on C om p lex ity .......................................................................................39 3: Characteristics o f Complex S y stem s........................................................................................40 4: Characteristics o f Systems o f S y stem s.................................................................................... 41 5: SoS Problem L an d scap e............................................................................................................. 42 6: Differentiating Linear and Complex S y stem s........................................................................44 7: System -based M ethodologies and C lassification..................................................................48 8: Overview Description o f Systems-based M ethodologies.................................................... 51 9: Breadths o f Concepts Related to Problem F o rm ulation...................................................... 62 10: The Role o f Problem Formulation in Systems-based M ethodologies............................. 66 11: System Status P athologies........................................................................................................75 12: Expanded VSM P athologies.................................................................................................... 78 13: Summary o f VSM F unctions................................................................................................... 86 14: Systems o f Systems VSM -derived Pathologies................................................................... 88 15: Research Gaps Related to M etasystem P athologies........................................................... 96 16: Qualitative Research M ethods and Fit Selection...............................................................110 17: Criteria for Selection o f Research M eth o d ......................................................................... 130 18: Two Dim ensions o f Canons o f Science and Their In d icato rs........................................ 137 19: Distinction between Qualitative and Quantitative R esearch .......................................... 141 20: Research Design Consideration Issu e s................................................................................ 143 21: Basic Information Pertinent to this Research D esig n ....................................................... 145

xiv

Table

Page

22: M easures Undertaken to Improve Research T rustw orthiness........................................147 23: The Three M ajor Phases o f R esearch.................................................................................. 156 24: N otes on Research Q u estio n s................................................................................................ 160 25: Criteria for Inclusion o f Literature D ata..............................................................................161 26: Criteria for Inclusion/Exclusion o f Systems Theory C o n cep ts......................................166 27: Criteria for Outside Expert Q ualifications.......................................................................... 171 28: A List o f Comm on Concepts Systems Theory Not Used in A nalysis.......................... 174 29: Activities o f Grounded Theory M ethod...............................................................................175 30: Properties o f Initial Codebook for System T heory........................................................... 177 31: Criteria for Reviewing Systems Theory-based P athologies........................................... 185 32: A Seven-Point Scale for Assessing P^................................................................................. 189 33: A Seven-Point Scale for Assessing P c................................................................................. 189 34: Q ualifications for an Acceptable Unit o f A nalysis........................................................... 192 35: A Range o f Possible Reponses to the P^ A ssessm ent.......................................................194 36: A Range o f Possible Responses to the Pc A ssessm ent....................................................194 37: An Initial Research Perspective on M etasystem Pathologies.........................................210 38: M ajor Themes for Categorizing Systems Theory-Based P athologies..........................212 39: Y oung’s (1964) Categories o f Concepts o f Systems T h e o ry .........................................214 40: Seven Axioms o f Concepts o f Systems Theory............................................................... 215 41: Attributes and D imensions for Systemic Dynamic M etasystem P athology

220

42: Attributes and D imensions for Systemic Goal M etasystem Pathology....................... 222 43: A ttributes and D imensions for Systemic Information M etasystem Pathology

223

XV

Table

Page

44: Attributes

and Dimensions for Systemic Process M etasystem P ath o lo g y ................. 224

45: Attributes

and D imensions for Systemic Regulatory M etasystem P athology........... 225

46: Attributes

and D imensions for Systemic Resources M etasystem P athology.............227

47: Attributes

and Dimensions for Systemic Structure M etasystem Pathology............... 228

48: Attributes

and Dimensions for Systemic Understanding M etasystem P athology.... 229

49: Overall N um bers o f the Survey R esu lts............................................................................. 237 50: Reflections for the Case A pplication................................................................................... 240 51: Research Perspective for M etasystem Pathologies Identification C onstruct.............. 245 52: A Com prehensive Listing o f Codes and Categories Supporting Systems TheoryBased P athologies............................................................................................................. 323 53: Outside Expert Q ualifications................................................................................................405 54: A Partial Table Used in Capturing Expert Feedback....................................................... 406 55: Pathology Survey S tatem ents................................................................................................408

xvi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

Page

1: A Research Paradigm for this R esearch ................................................................................... ix 2: Organization Diagram for Chapter 1........................................................................................... 2 3: Research Purpose, Objectives, and Q uestions..........................................................................9 4: Organization o f Dissertation C hapters......................................................................................15 5: Organization Diagram for Chapter II........................................................................................ 17 6: Three M ajor Streams o f R esearc h .............................................................................................18 7: Literature Review Threads.......................................................................................................... 20 8: Developmental cycles o f systems scien ce...............................................................................35 9: A Logic o f System Function-based Pathologies.................................................................... 82 10: The Logic o f M etasystem in Relation to a Governed S ystem ..........................................84 11: An Emerging Construct for Systems Theory M etasystem Function-based Pathologies............................................................................................................................ 92 12: Organization Diagram for Chapter I I I ................................................................................. 103 13: Two M ajor Paradigms o f R esearch ......................................................................................105 14: Research Perspectives and their D im ensions......................................................................117 15: D imensions o f Canons o f S cien ce........................................................................................ 136 16: Organization Diagram for Chapter I V ................................................................................. 150 17: Overall Research P hases......................................................................................................... 153 18: A Partial D ata Accounting Log for ‘System P ath o lo g y '................................................. 158 19: Activities o f Grounded Theory M ethod............................................................................... 163 20: An Exam ple Codebook Page for Principle o f Em ergence................................................ 168

xvii

Figure

Page

21: An Exam ple o f a M emo Taken to Capture Insights Related to the Concept o f Transcendence.....................................................................................................................170 22: Results from Systems E x p erts...............................................................................................172 23: A Screenshot o f QSR International’s NVivo 10 Used in this R esearch.......................178 24: The Interrelated Activities o f GTM Undertaken in this R esearch.................................185 25: Activities o f Case Design A pproach.....................................................................................187 26: An Illustration o f Intersection o f P e and Pc for this R esearch........................................193 27: M ajor Regions for Pathological Conditions in this R esearch.........................................195 28: A Participant Perspective Assessing six Different Pathologies......................................196 29: An Exam ple o f Six Participant Perspectives on the Same Pathology........................... 197 30: An Exam ple o f W hat Appears as D iverging Perspectives on the Same Pathology . 199 31: Organization Diagram for Chapter V ..................................................................................203 32: Partial Data Text, Codes, and Category for a Systems Theory Concept o f C om plem entarity................................................................................................................205 33: A Partial Evolution o f Codes, Categories, and Statement o f Systems Theory-Based Pathologies.......................................................................................................................... 209 34: Fifteen Groupings for Systems Theory-based Pathologies............................................. 213 35: A Graphical Representation o f Emerging M etasystem Pathologies............................. 218 36: A Model for Supporting Deviation from Systems T h eo ry ............................................. 232 37: A Graphical Representation o f the Construct for M etasystem Pathologies Identification.......................................................................................................................234

Figure

Page

38: Three Regions and Percentages o f Composite Pathology Profile for the Unit o f A nalysis................................................................................................................................238 39: Percentages o f Composite by Grid for the Unit o f A n aly sis......................................... 238 40: Different Perspective on the Pathology o f C om plem entarity........................................ 239 41: Chapter VI Layout D iagram ..................................................................................................242

1

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

The purpose o f this chapter is to establish the foundation for research to address a significant deficiency in the body o f knowledge concerning initial phases o f systemsbased methodologies intended to provide understanding o f the problem domain. Descriptors such as 'form ulating the m ess’ (Ackoff, 1974; 1981a; M ajone & Quade, 1980; M ason & M itroff, 1981; M itroff & Emshoff, 1979), 'problem articulation' (W ellington, 1887), ‘problem bounding’ (Checkland, 1993), ‘problem context’ (Crownover, 2005; Jackson, 1991; 2003), ‘problem definition’ (Dery, 1984; Blanchard & Fabrycky, 2006; Gibson, Scherer, & Gibson, 2007; Warfield, 1976), ‘problem fram ing’ (Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996; Keating, Peterson, & Rabadi, 2003a; Adams & M eyers, 2011), ‘problem identification’ (M ajone & Quade, 1980), ‘problem setting’ (M ajone & Quade, 1980; M iser & Quade, 1988a), and ‘problem situation’ (M iser & Quade, 1988b) represent different ways to which this critical phase o f inquiry is described. However, there is a paucity o f rigorous research related to the identification o f systemic issues in the initial phase, ‘problem form ulation’, o f systems-based approaches to address com plex systems and their derivative problems. This research is directed towards developm ent o f a system theoretic construct for identification o f systemic pathologies, endemic to complex systems. The organization o f Chapter I is depicted in Figure 2 below.

2

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Presentation o f the issues o f concern for this research

GENERAL BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM Discussion o f the problem setting for this research

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Presentation o f the overarching research purpose statement

RESEARCH QUESTIONS Two research questions are introduced and explained

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY Significant contributions the study are presented

LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS Limitations o f the study and constraints scoping research are discussed

ORGANIZATION OF THE DOCUMENT Structure o f the dissertation

CHAPTER SUMMARY Summary o f Chapter I

Figure 2: Organization Diagram for Chapter I

1.1 STATEM ENT OF THE PROBLEM 21st century com plex systems, such as healthcare systems, energy systems, transportation systems, security systems, operate under conditions o f ambiguity, com plexity, emergence, interdependence, and uncertainty (Flood & Carson, 1993; Katina, Pinto, Bradley, & Hester, 2014b; Skyttner, 2005). In the face o f these conditions, systems-based methodologies (e.g., critical systems heuristics, interactive planning.

3

sociotechnical systems, soft systems m ethodology, systems o f systems engineering methodology, systems analysis, systems engineering, and the Viable Systems Model) have em erged as preferred approaches to understanding complex systems and bringing about change (Jackson, 2003). Problem form ulation is a key theme am ong these systemsbased approaches. It provides an initial entry into the problem space and is a fundamental aspect o f the analysis critical to eventual formulation o f com plex situation solutions (Dery, 1984; Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996; Flood & Carson, 1993; Jackson, 2003; Keating, Sousa-Poza, & Mun, 2004; Kimball, 1957; M ingers & Rosenhead, 2004; M intzberg, Raisinghani & Theoret, 1976; M itroff & Featheringham, 1974; M osteller, 1948). However, while problem formulation is discussed in the literature, there are two principal criticisms: (1) there is a lack o f explicit use o f systems theory grounding problem formulation phases, and (2) an absence o f focus on problem form ulation at the metasystem level. For present purposes, metasystem is synthesized from the literature (Beer, 1979, 1981, 1985; Djavanshir, Khorramshahgol, & Novitzki, 2009; Djavanshir, Alavizadeh, & Tarokh, 2012; Krippendorff, 1986; Keating & Katina, 2012; Rios, 2012) as a governing structure that provides coordination and integration o f subsystem s in complex systems and system s o f systems to achieve overarching goals, functions, and missions beyond those capable o f individual constituent subsystems. The resulting state o f knowledge leaves a significant deficiency in addressing problem form ulation at the metasystem level in system-based approaches for complex systems. The following sections o f this chapter introduce research background information on the issue o f problem formulation at the metasystem level, purpose o f the study, research questions, significance o f the research, lim itations and delimitations, and

4

organization o f the document. The chapter concludes with organization o f the dissertation and a chapter summary. 1.2 GENERAL BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM U nderstanding and bringing about change in complex systems and systems o f systems requires that we properly formulate the problem. A ccording to M intzberg et al. (1976) problem formulation “is probably the single most important routine, since it determ ines in large p art... the subsequent course o f action” (M intzberg et al.. 1976. p. 276). It is also referred to as “the most critical stage” in policy problem analysis (Dery, 1984, p. 3). Similarly, Keating et al. (2004) refer to problem formulation as “the most critical p hase...since errors in this phase will be am plified at later phases and throughout the cycling o f the SoSE [systems o f systems engineering] effort” (Keating et al., 2004, p. 10).

M oreover, the conditions under which complex systems operate m ight make it difficult for the analyst to “understand the object o f such pursuits” (Dery, 1984, p. 14) and thus one runs the risk o f developing what Dery (1984, p. 29) referred to as “pseudo­ solutions” to “pseudo-problem s” without a proper frame o f reference. The im portance o f problem form ulation in com plex systems cannot be overstated. There is need to pay attention to diagnosis rather than “focus[ing] on the selection routines” (M intzberg et al., 1976, p. 274). understanding “why problem situations occur” (Jackson, 2003, p. 204), and avoiding solving the wrong problem, otherwise known as Type III error (Adams & Hester, 2012; Kimball, 1957; M itroff & Featheringham, 1974; M osteller, 1948). The foundation o f this research provides a rigorous exploration o f the systemic underpinnings

5

supporting these thoughts and ideas regarding the importance o f problem form ulation in efforts involving complex system understanding, design, (re)design, and transformation. 1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose o f this research is to develop a systems-theory based construct for metasystem pathologies identification for problem formulation in systems-based approaches using an inductive approach o f grounded theory. Glaser and Strauss (1967) first articulated the grounded theory method as an approach for developing theoretical constructs for a broad range o f data. Details on the applicability and utility o f the grounded theory method for this research are provided in Chapter III. Typically, a com plex system is com posed o f interconnected parts that, as a whole, exhibit one or more properties not obvious from the well understood properties o f the individual parts (Joslyn & Rocha, 2000). As such, complex systems exhibit one or more o f the following attributes: “ 1) significant interaction; 2) high num ber (o f parts, degrees o f freedom or interactions); 3) nonlinearity; 4) broken symmetry; and 5) nonholonom ic constraints’'' (Yates, 1978, R201). The concepts o f system-based approach, problem formulation, and metasystem pathology are described in detail in Chapter II; however, in order to provide an essential foundation in relationship to the purpose o f this research, it is necessary to elaborate on the use o f these term s with respect to the present research. For the purpose o f this study, a system-based approach is taken as a systematic methodological approach, grounded in theoretical underpinnings based in systems, enabling exploration o f com plex systems and their constituent problems. A methodology, according to Jackson (1991), is a set o f "‘procedures for gaining knowledge about a systems and structured processes involved in

6

intervening in and changing systems" (p. 134). Problem formulation is the initial phase or activity in gaining knowledge and understanding and transform ation o f problem atic situation into a more clearly defined problem (Dery, 1984; Keating et al., 2004; M intzberg et al., 1976). “This process usually takes not only extensive com m unication between the analysts and those responsible for deciding what to do about the situation but also a great deal o f disciplined effort by both parties; it also requires inquiry into, and agreem ent on, the goals, constraints, and lim itations on what is to be investigated" (M iser & Quade, 1988b, p. 22-23). While a metasystem is a logical higher order governing structure that provides coordination and integration o f subsystems to achieve overarching capabilities beyond those o f individual subsystems (Beer, 1979, 1981, 1985; Djavanshir et al., 2009; 2012; Krippendorff, 1986; Keating & Katina, 2012; Rios, 2012), a pathology is defined as “a circum stance, condition, factor, or pattern that acts to limit system performance, or lessen system viability, such that the likelihood o f a system achieving perform ance expectations is reduced (Keating & Katina, 2012, p. 253). Hence, a m etasystem pathology is a pathology that acts to limit performance or lessen viability o f a system at the m etasystem level. This research addresses the gap in systems body o f knowledge concerning: (1) the limited explicit use o f systems theory during problem form ulation and (2) the lack o f focus on pathologies at the metasystem level during problem form ulation phases in systems-based approaches for complex systems. The approach is driven by developing a system theoretic construct for establishing and articulating metasystem pathologies in support o f problem formulation phases for system-based methodologies. As used in the purpose statement, a construct is a set o f related concepts forming a building block

7

enabling understanding o f situations (Bunge, 1974; Krippendorff, 1986; Linsky, 2012). This construct is referred to as the M etasystem Pathologies Identification (M PI) to support the problem formulation phase o f system-based methodologies. To meet purpose o f this research, there is a need to further articulate how the research will be conducted and what the research will achieve. The following section elaborates two central questions that serve to focus the research effort. 1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS The foundation o f this research rests on systems theory and concepts related to the problem formulation phase in systems-based approaches related to studying complex systems. This research is specifically focused on two research questions:

1. How can systems theory be used to generate a metasystem pathologies identification construct to support problem formulation phase o f systemsbased methodologies? 2. What results from the deployment o f the metasystem pathologies identification construct in an operational setting? As used above, the term systems theory refers to a “unified group o f specific propositions which are brought together to aid in understanding systems, thereby invoking improved explanatory power and interpretation with m ajor im plications for systems practitioners” (Adams, Hester, Bradley, M eyers, & Keating, 2014, p. 113). These propositions have basis in different fields o f science and have been used to explain and understand system phenom ena (Adams et al. 2014; Angier, 2007). This research seeks to extend the use o f systems propositions to the problem formulation phase o f systemsbased methodologies. The first question is focused on establishing a relationship between

8

propositions o f systems theory and problem formulation for com plex systems with em phasis on metasystem pathologies identification. The thrust o f this question is to develop a construct for metasystem pathologies identification, based in systems theory, with applicability to the problem formulation phases o f system s-based methodologies for com plex systems and their constituent problems. Grounded theory m ethod is used discover such potential relationships, interconnections, and interdependencies that systems theory provides for metasystem pathologies. For Research Question 1, the output is a theory (i.e., construct) o f M etasystem Pathologies Identification (M PI) and its supportive systems theory-based pathologies. In the second research question, the developed construct is applied to an operational system. The thrust o f this research question is to establish a "face’ validation for the construct through application to an operational system. A single operational system serves as the focus for investigation using a case study method (Yin. 2009). Figure 3 depicts research questions, objectives, and the purpose o f this research.

9

Dev elop a sy stems theory-based constnict for identify ing metasy stem pathologies for problem form ulation phase o f sy stem -based approaches using an inductive approach

Inductive]' develop a metasy stem

I >eploy the developed constnict

pathologies identification constnict describing a relationship

in an operational setting such as

betw een system s theory and problem form ulation phase of

energy, healthcare, transportation. _______ and w ater system s_______

svstem s-hased m ethodologies

How can sy stem s theory be used to generate a metasy stent pathologies identification M constnict to support problem form ulation ™ phase of sy stents-based m ethodologies '

W hat results from the deploy m ent o f the metasy stem pathologies "

identification constnict in an operational setting'.’

Figure 3: Research Purpose, Objectives, and Questions

As a result o f addressing these two questions, this research makes substantial contributions to the systems body o f knowledge. First, it extends the use o f propositions o f systems theory to problem form ulation phases o f systems-based methodologies. Second, this research is concerned with the use o f systems propositions in problem formulation phases o f systems-based m ethodologies, focused at the metasystem level. Thus, this research is concerned with m etasystem pathologies as an essential elem ent o f problem form ulation in complex systems. 1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY The importance o f systems-based m ethodologies in understanding and bringing about change in com plex systems is established in literature and elaborated further in Chapter II. Central to systems-based methodologies is the concept o f the problem form ulation phase and its critical role in the analysis o f com plex systems. Therefore, the basis o f this research in bringing a rigorously developed construct for metasystem

10

pathologies identification in complex systems makes significant contributions to systems body o f knowledge by: -

Contributing to research methodologies in the systems engineering and related fields o f engineering management using grounded theory. Grounded theory method “is the most widely used qualitative interpretative framework in the social sciences today” (Denzin, 1994, p. 508) including sociology, psychology, inform ation science, education, and healthcare (Bryant, 2002; Locke, 2001). Thus, applying grounded theory in systems domain provides opportunities for an enhanced capacity to conduct inductive research into the systemic issues endemic to the domains related to systems, including such dom ains as engineering management, systems engineering, and systems o f systems engineering. Adding to the existing body o f know ledge in systems theory, system-based methodologies, and problem form ulation by developing a construct drawing upon the propositions o f systems theory and projecting them to the com plex system problem form ulation phase in system-based methodologies.

-

Providing a basis for including metasystem pathologies in the analysis o f com plex systems, thereby enhancing the problem formulation phase o f systems-based methodologies. M aking a significant contribution to the practice related to problem formulation phases that m ust be undertaken as an initial activity in virtually any complex system s-based inquiry. Foundations for developm ent o f a new set o f technologies, methods, tools, and techniques to support M etasystem Pathologies Identification will be informed from the research.

11

This section has discussed significance o f this research to methodology, theory, and practice. Limitations and delimitations o f this research are the basis for the following section. 1.6 LIM ITATIONS AND DELIM ITATIONS This section presents the lim itations (restrictions on the generalizability and projection o f research results) and delimitations (established boundary conditions) guiding this research. Together, these two aspects provide the scope o f this research with respect to how the findings and im plications resulting from the execution o f the research design can be interpreted. 1.6.1 Limitations There are three limitations o f this research. Detailed discussion on research limitations, steps taken for mitigations, and im plications with regards to grounded theory and the case study method are discussed in detail in Chapter III. However, to frame the research, it is necessary to explore lim itations related to, credibility, confirm ability, and generalizability. Concerning credibility (the degree to which the research is ‘believable’ and trustworthy from the perspective o f the participants), this research takes into account several steps including use o f w ell-established research methods and triangulation in the local case application (G laser & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). However, this provides a limitation for extensibility o f the research beyond the case application. This research uses a grounded theory m ethod to enhance problem form ulation phase through pathology articulation based on systems theory. Steps taken to explain the relationship between systems theory and problem form ulation and their im plications are elaborated

12

upon in Chapter II. A single real world com plex system was investigated using case study method (Yin, 2009) to examine the degree to which the theoretical construct can transfer to an operational setting. The judgm ent o f the ability to transfer to the operational setting m ust be established from the perspective o f the participants with respect to the trustw orthiness o f the results o f application. Confirm ability o f the research establishes a limitation o f the research concerning availability o f data and the procedures upon which the research findings are based. In qualitative research, “confirmability builds on audit trails...an d involves the use o f field notes, memos, a field diary, and process and personal notes, and a reflexive journal” (Denzin, 1994, p. 513). The use o f readily available research methods (i.e., grounded theory and case study) combined with accessible data (i.e., databases, books, and journal articles) and QSR International’s NVivo 10 software package for coding provide the basis for confirm ability o f the research. Steps undertaken to ensure confirm ability o f the case study are elaborated upon in Chapters III and IV. Generalizability (the ability to project the results o f the research beyond the research application), there is an inclination for concepts o f metasystem pathologies to be generalizable beyond the research. However, the nature o f qualitative research design and the use o f grounded theory and case study methods provide a list o f challenges for generalizing beyond the scope o f the study. Douglas (2003) insists: The explanatory pow er o f grounded theory is to develop predictive ability - to explain what m ay happen ...the wider the theoretical sam pling fram e develops the more em bedded the theory becomes; a n d general theory generation becomes achievable ...transferability to other research areas depends on the degree o f sim ilarity between the original situation and the situation to which it is transferred, (p. 51)

13

Hence, while the construct linking systems theory to problem formulation at the m etasystem level m ight be generalized, the results o f application o f the construct will vary based on the context o f different com plex situations (Patton, 2002; Yin, 2009). The generalizability o f the theoretical construct is held with the validity provided by the grounded theory method. However, the generalizability o f the application is limited by the application to the specific nature o f the context surrounding the case study. Therefore, a limitation for application, based on the case study method, must be considered. 1.6.2 Delimitations This section discusses four delimitations o f this research. These delim itations provide the boundary o f this research: problem formulation, construct for metasystem pathologies, systems theory, metasystem pathologies. Problem form ulation - the area o f focus for this research is limited to support for the problem formulation phase as it relates to systems-based approaches to complex system understanding. As such, the research is not about an end-to-end analysis o f com plex systems as expected in application o f a system-based m ethodology em ployed to understand, devise change, transform ation and evaluation o f complex systems. However, as indicated in Chapter II, metasystem pathologies can be considered an essential part o f the problem formulation phase for any systems-based endeavor. Construct fo r metasystem pathologies - the m ajor part o f this research is the developm ent o f a construct linking systems theory to metasystem pathologies within the context o f the problem formulation phase o f systems-based methodologies. This construct is best described as conceptual model for problem form ulation in metasystems and therefore it does not represent a model o f any real world problem formulation.

14

However, it can be applied in any real world situation related to problem form ulation at the metasystem level from a systems theory perspective. The results o f applying the construct are unique to the case study and, as an application significance, are bounded to the specifics o f the case study situation. Systems theory - this research focuses on propositions o f systems theory and how such propositions can be used to inform developm ent o f problem form ulation phase o f systems-based methodologies and articulation o f pathologies. This research is not about developing new propositions; rather it only uses existing systems propositions to develop ideas about metasystem pathologies identification and pathologies using grounded theory approach. M etasystem pathologies - this research focused on pathologies at the metasystem level o f com plex systems and thus concepts o f governance, integration, and coordination beyond functions, goals, and missions o f individual systems (Beer, 1979, 1981. 1985; Djavanshir et al., 2009; 2012; Krippendorff, 1986; Keating & Katina, 2012; Rios, 2012) take precedence. As such, the concept o f pathologies is limited to understanding circumstances, conditions, factors, or patterns that may act to limit expected performance within the scope o f problem form ulation phase for systems-based m ethodologies. The metasystem view presented in this research is directly drawn from m anagem ent cybernetic (Beer, 1979). I.7 O RGANIZATION OF THE DOCUM ENT This section introduces the organization o f the rest o f this document. In Chapter II, critique o f literature pertinent to problem formulation is established along w ith a research setting for need and the developm ent o f the M etasystem Pathologies

15

Identification (M PI) construct. Chapter III describes research perspective including theoretical underpinnings o f grounded theory and case study methods as an inductive research approaches necessary for developm ent o f the construct. This discussion includes applicability and key concerns regarding the use o f grounded theory and case study methods. Chapter IV describes the research methodology and lays out the research design, research phases, data collection, and the analysis process with respect to grounded theory and case study methods. Chapter V provides an in-depth discussion o f the research results including detailed relationships between systems theory and problem formulation, the em erging theory o f metasystem pathologies identification, the application and the results o f the developed construct in real system. The research concludes with Chapter VI, which provides conclusions, recom m endations for application o f the results, and future research. Figure 4 depicts the flow o f chapters and the rem ainder o f this dissertation.

CHAPTER II I.ITFRATl.'RF RF.V1F.W R ev iew o f p rev io u s litera tu re o n re s e a tc h p ro b lem

CH APTER 111 RESEARCH M ETH O DS PERSPECTIVES D iscu ssio n

011

lu id eip in n u ig s o f g ro u n d ed th e o ry a n d ca se sm d y ap p ro ac h es

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH ML IH O DO LO GY R esearch d esig n , p h ases, d ata co llectio n an d ap p licatio n o f m etlio d s

chapter

v

resu lts

or

tut sttdv

D iscu ssio n o f rese a rc h re su lts an d m c tasy stcm p a th o lo g ie s co n stru ct

CH APTER VI. CO N C L U SIO N S A N D RLCOM M LNDA1 IONS D iscussion o n c o n c lu sio n s, reco m m en d a tio n s, an d fu tu re research

Figure 4: Organization o f Dissertation Chapters

16

1.8 CHAPTER SUM M ARY This chapter provides the foundation o f the research developed to address a significant deficiency in systems body o f knowledge. It provides a statement o f research pertinent to problem formulation in 21st century complex systems, background inform ation on the im portance o f problem formulation, and the purpose o f study as related to use o f systems theory in the problem formulation phase o f systems-based methodologies. Furthermore, this chapter articulates two research questions, offers significance o f the study in relation to contributions, and lays-out the study's limitations and delim itations along with the organization o f the rest o f the document. The following chapter, Chapter II, is a literature review on systems body o f knowledge aimed at illustrating the gap o f using systems theory in problem formulation phases o f systems-based approaches.

17

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter I demonstrated the role o f problem form ulation in systems-based approaches when dealing with 21st century systems operating under the conditions o f ambiguity, com plexity, em ergence, interdependence, and uncertainty. This chapter reviews the literature relevant to problem formulation. A synthesis o f the literature is developed across systems-based perspectives to obtain threads and concepts pertinent to the research idea o f problem formulation at the metasystem level. This chapter also articulates shortcom ings pertaining to use o f systems theory in identification o f metasystem issues. This is followed by a research setting which frames this current research and how the proposed research addresses gaps in the systems body o f knowledge. Figure 5 is provided to represent the organization o f this chapter.

SYNTHESIS OF RELEVANT LITERATURE Common threads in literature including systems theory7, systems-based methodoloaies. and problem formulation

1 LITERATURE CRITIQUE Scholarly criticisms o f the body o f literature including research gaps and problem areas

1 RESEARCH SETTING: METASYSTEM PATHOLOGY Developing a metasystem pathology perspective based on literature threads, _______________________synthesis, and critique_______________________

CHAPTER SUMMARY Summary o f Chapter 11

Figure 5: Organization Diagram for Chapter II

18

2.1 SYNTHESIS OF RELEVANT LITERATURE The literature review includes the three m ajor areas o f systems theory, systemsbased methodologies, and problem formulation, as depicted in Figure 6. The literature on systems theory forms the body o f literature relevant to topics o f systems, complex systems, systems o f systems, and systems-based methodological approaches. Literature on system-based methodologies discusses different approaches used to intervene in 21s1 century system problems. The area o f problem formulation discusses the role and im portance o f proper problem formulation in the eventual success o f a system. In order to sufficiently establish the concept o f metasystem pathologies within the systems theory body o f knowledge, it was necessary to include topics on laws, principles, and theorems that can be used to understand and explain system behavior and thus enhance an analyst's ability to intervene in systems. M oreover, the topic o f metasystem is included in this research since the research is concerned with understanding problem form ulation at the m etasy stem level.

Figure 6: Three M ajor Streams o f Research

19

The streams o f research that em erged from the literature review serve as the basis for Figure 7, which are inclusive o f issues related to complex systems, com plex problem formulation, system pathologies, systems o f systems, metasystem, systems theory, and systems-based approaches. This research contributes to com plex problem form ulation at the metasystem level as indicated by the red-dotted line connecting the concepts o f ‘problem form ulation' and 'm etasystem ' in Figure 7. This contribution is directly rooted to laws, principles o f systems theory (Adams et al., 2014) which is the basis from understanding complex systems (Hammond, 2002; von Bertalanffy, 1968; Warfield, 1976).

Complex

fo rm u latio n . sy stem s-b ased

oIT _^ I I v5 " ^ IY w i it c ■ p -a * £ fj ' < t i t u- u. 0 ' £ fc- sv S M c * £*e < 4> . •C x 2

43 ^ CD , X £

o

co fu

3

a

’■£ 2 4) • -

cd

CD

O

* .s

to

Table

View 1: A Cotemporary

CL 75 •ST

.2 w

« fa CO X 4) O 3

-e w co a _

2fa

c » a

•*■ 3 e« u L o a x o u

u ^

o

S .2 £ .£ -CO 2 3

~ O 4"* CO -a a 4) o 3 4) .-2 X -

03

cd

T3 75 o .2 3 O 4> 4) X >

O

£

—'

o

r-

■■

B Z JU ~ S X-*-*4)

4> o s 4) c 4) X X

•C I 3 4) £ g 73

.2 X C PJ

M o 4) — X ~ -*-* •-*

C a TD o r^> 13 ut- *4—> O G 75 O 0) u> QD *+-» 43 o 4-* o a G 75 CD Vm ta> G CL 4-* 75 c > 5uU 33 I

X 55 £

.22

^

£ | 4) 2 75 -75 C o

£ c — x

£ o

4> o 3 X

axw axo C cd C o a

3 ^ Ji o x

g c E > O a — I CO

S g X£

3C c s

-C td

X

a3

a

8

icd 43 CD C

*3 u 3 3 «4-* U -*

^

£

o ^

*B

.s

1 1

u*

00 a> 1Za c £ 4-1

G£ G

I s

75 » — 045> j j O CD

2

CD a>

43 43

CD u m U cd r n Sw r ^ Qs

5 cJ D 4C— * cd 0*

£ 3 3 u. X ^ S 4) I s. JiQ. OO (N £ 2 o , W x o CO

X a> c o U

co co a>

*?

4) X — X

• *•

£ 3 CTi Q O' >. X X co


o > I £ 43 4» .22 to « -S-X 4 3 3 x 4) 4-» 4—• « ^4> * ^ > > 4 1 ^ '£ G * 4> a 73- c 00« O

3 2 « 3 3 43 2 XX £ < •s w S a X x H T3 ’1_> co

CD

c CD 75 cd C •3 CD h Of— o V .5 < -> o 75 CD 75 i2 "S a cd 43 ^cd -= +-* i— 1 ^ OD 4— O- 75 -*-• 75 < L > 2 U G j G

X (N

£75 2 *-* cn

jS

.2

Cl o

£n

Q.

52 d

H

IE1 o i— C/3 o c

3 3 O -4cu —* m

C/3 U.

‘• 5 - cd S -^ o 4C/ 3 *

3

03

c o ‘S3 c

C/3

.2 *•*-*

o

-C 2 t) 3 CL cn

3 £ ^

o

£ e g U U . 2 +-> JrJ "ti J= ^-1 ^0) c s u cd C «> c C/3 O 2 g D 4->

ni_

C/3 >* s> h C/3 .£ o 3 >. c _C •c .2 -S « T3 c— on .. cu 3 o o.

a/ 3 J 3 cd CL & C/3

c

cu Cd c/3

C •t5 o td G 5 o£

c

C/3

0 3 H a cd

2 ^ -*-» o^

O

(D \ 3

"a> X S

>

73

>> d X D "a. £ o u

-O

a>

co

to

a>

> >x CO *-*

g >; o •§ o d co «-H £ 5 'o .Si g cd o ^ a X 3

73

— > 3

c w3 N "P d

73

73

C3 D C i . i p 2 o ~o 73 d a c - o -a > S> w d c3 !S v x a .a 3 £ ^ CO > d o cd cd 3 i_ 5J) C o o o c x x 00 fc-l *1—1 a> £ v- a> 73 jj r °CO ^ S2 S CO >, 6

O 3 73 ifs t:

£ *=

a>

cu

O

?CD £d

d d 2 x o« is >, c £d u o CO £ 73 Tt d • -r

22

o

3 = CCS CD a cx Pcd

^

•r

> a ••-4 xfc- 13 £

e

— 00 C

3

£ £

’ ob

h

■i ^ ■ p

d£ «c x .2

3 d _o

o

73

o S 3 l< x s c^ D w d **" d Q

S DO

>

73

73 «2

o V (U Cu 73 c d £ o p

d 3 -d 0/

.2

vo O

2. O" ^ p cj

*

CD

CO

£

=3

>v 73

73

a- 2

00

• mm

p

I E

£1-1 273 -71

CO

CO

S dP du ^^ 3

= d 2 '1 o D E d

Table

°

s _ , .2 ^

■u

£



3

§ .2 «-» X

i£ o p — C/S "P p £ p a .M e >0 2 ccS CO s—' £ c ex .X 2 • p >v oo p C O TO 73 C 3- X t-l CX O ’3 ! o tc I3 3 t c0 o o ~0 c al w p d 53 3 CD

« i , a ^ •S g CO (D • cd £ S .^ 73 O TO .a ° .—Oc >. £ .£ 3 *•£ P Li p -o' O -a

S -S * * o co

3

2

2

©

•p ££ t> Cd i-

£ o

c

< 1 > p

X

"2 w C3 U.

c

rnr

Si a 73 3

cd

a

>>

c

.3 fcn XI

to .d ■4— 4 c x* CO

G CL 3

!c «r §c

> .£

T03> X ■4— >o

.2 >

V-

^ 3 _-, «> o ■P 3 • £

c o

p

.a p *a d 0i) -*-» cd

P

d

p



< L >X > £) ■ *— * o cd & cd

u ,o

3

> 3 D k-

00

3 Cm X C

°

Urn

75 (11

o> X

O C

.2

3

22 ^

3 .H trt

•2

5

|

d

3 3 D O. > 3

3 D g

im-t /— 5 > X O O £ 2 QJ X x ^ 75

D D X * —*1 ~* +-»

1 53 3 D oo ,2

iD

c3 D ’■w D X ’S C/3 05 X .2 X D 05 D 75 k-*-* X O 75 *3 a ■■ i- ”* ’S C/3

3

-2

O

s a g

00

o

75 oo

75 33

3 '-2 co

r-

/i

/3 D C m C _> ° D ‘ob

>, •S

3

D T3

>» o ‘5 3 S 3 33

o

u> £2 JS -3

.2 X 3 x — 5b| D 3

. .

—



00 W 2 x £^ 3 k- O x H 3 o x H .23 x Sa t« > 7* 2 .3

D o

3 O

Os

D

X

■P D H

00

X q

rj

roi

w 3 ir> £ fc. ^ O' TJ V * 2 -

3Os kH

D C

D D

3 kT 52 4 « W -*

Table 1 (cont.)

u

C 3

Os kD D

cn

*

»

S

c s

•3i < i

O' G

D 'X

D

o

X

x

O r^-

^ St: JS Os o — V m r 08 fct E •W M sC3

PS 3


T3

O

o r •— aj ‘cfl T3 13 uoo "3 C 6 0 > 3 CO . >>.C ”rJ o C/3 cS «> cd Z 00 o c^S •*- c O ‘w . R 1 ° > Xcj o .S .2? _opO 0) "S u. T3 Lh i> r < U 03 fa L. R 2h hh s oo H ■§ Q. - c« u < U X < u c3 4 — » C/3 op g R m > C x: w Q cd, Q O 1> 0s-) cf* O -o N x: B X X 1 ■*-* CO ."3 r -*

‘C > £

5^

'E

D c OJ _ o X ! ’X

03

C .0 33 OJ

& G 03

X C/5

SI)

oj

cd

G

L+

1O C OJ

OJ

so

33

71

H

Cl>

G O OJ « x

>

C/5

flj T 3 G-* OJ

o

H

(i)

X cj

.22 O & 3

^

a oj

J

X

C/5

b “

*c

X

C I 03 -3 OJ S

uG 20

o3 x

t o

OJ 73 70 .OJ

03 G

X! CJ

3

o

0 cj 1/5 G 0+-H cj e O OJ O 75 T3 OJ a 0J >

n>

2

£

OJ

3

2

»

r2

£ T3 C

o 0

cd

E

* c .2 CL fmm "3 0J £ N -0 0 C 0 G CJ cd G X SD O u c O 0J OJ £ X c CJ

r G O C/5 J* CJ cd •“ i .r rvs O'

C/5

2

*•*-» ‘5 >

JJ

x )

■ § -X

0

TS

3

>

I* tA

'o

O 71

C/5

X u

c

OJ 3

>*U

cj

w E oj'

OJ

°

G

g

03



0

si)

o &

O

° 3

0J

OJ -E *-

.£ E Si 0J

G JS 33

o ^ ^ 71 DtC

^ j_ r

I

O

"O n

0+-


33 0J OJ _> 33 OJ (U X 33 0J £ X 0t— 3 3 G C 3 c _o 7 3 G 33

_3

.2 **

OJ

G

03

Si 03

7° 1

i

O

OS CN

o

^

5

8 2 O OJ (Nr c c

^4

C/5

C o

V-

O

C/5

o

o u ■4—1

c

o a O £ 3 so 3 X0J . £

0

OC —c 00

xC/5

G x2

X

"0

cd

c cd .

Cd

S3

03

oj O 2a> o^ /■*“N Sf cd

-E cd

C/5

C/5

cd

XCL OJ

C/3

OJ Xt > ^O o

'S 3

33 33

s >* 71 fc ^ O * o O ^W 3-23 S3 1O

n 2 o ■£ ‘>

OJ

0J 71

3 ‘C 03 G

OJ . 3

CJ

"cd a>

O

!—i £ SD 0J +-* Xcd C C /3 c cd 3 *75 O O' X0 CJ O' 0 — £ •+ -> C/5 u £ OO 3 c 0 OJ C/5

o

c^

O

r! ° .E

C/5

■*-» QJ C/5

(N

O

.

^

-C

0

73

cd 30 o

0J

3 c O'

cj

70 • —

2 3

1 o3 E Q

^

3 OJ

OJ

g \ 2

3 OJ N 30 33 ’E c 3 on ■M i 00 • S o 00 . £ S 0J E u

3

3 3

c «

G

>> G

II

33

CO

1J

E

2 S

3

_ 33 3

00 3

‘I

O

OJ

E

C 3

0

T5 £ '5 O 3 2 OJ c3 o . 0 x i 2 27 1 OcJ - a . - •— * ■*—< 2 3 > > OJ c 3 - x £ ou u C/3 C/D oj E • 3£ ,> 3 ES OJ Xb ^ OJ - .^ ,3 3 G

£ “|

l i

c

Ofi c

£ o

■s 3 2 E W "o 0J 70 2 - § S o 0J-» S + cd > X C/5 4-X cj OJ £ ^ C OJ 3 3 fc o 73 ^ 2 C/5 73 CJ #C/5 3 *-S 00 CJ cd JS G cd 0J ."C 2? 7 01 13 S •- £ 0 r-v c3 Cd c/5 tC3M— * g ^ 23 c , c

Cj k. 5S

Table 8 (cont.)

3 O X

VO 0J

-^1

A

C/5

3

g

S i

i> -4-»

-*->

£ CL)

_c X 3 cd 3 ’C G 71 O OJ 0J C/5 Q H w u

*T3 a>

B

JS o U> a

c/f cd o> C/5 >> Q OJ E X CL OJ O O SD cd cd O 2^ \ C/5 G J-H f* s

73 e S cd o£

.OJ

’ 55

33 e

X lj G

^

c

30 3

(A

cd

XI

71

v-

~r* Sfi 3 G _C 3 3

33

C/5 CJ

•5

OJ 33

0

X

O

cd

/5 >» 5rv Si) o O §

"5 so cd "S3 IEl £O < G oj cd CJ ✓— v 0 X 0 XE 0Jr 0 0 G G (N s3 G-* a x Si) 2 e OJ 0 U OJ CJ

G g 2 cd 0 0 75 i 73 c 8 G 0J 2 G — c / 3 •O . £c 3 £

c 33

5

C/5

-*-*

03

OJ

!

£ o

2 o

OJ

|

£ X

« , OJ .T Xcd (N 50 S£) CL r ^ a rG v s .£ O ' T3 G-J OJ 1— o .£ cd > CJ 0J 2 i2 £ .2 T3 X £ 5 "cd C/5 *-3 OJ cd 0J sp w 33 X c & cd 'sO 0 X ■*—* CJ £ r* 03 S M cd X OJ 0J-4 > 0J c C/5 zs C/5 0J 2

-*-»

03

T5

» ^ © §

o

>

lS3 l 03

E

-O

x

OJ £ C/5

cd OJ G H cd g

3 33

aj

oj 2 x 00 > x x (3 w qj

X

CQ i- t sO x x cd *■ *

cj

*° -o

73 a>

o aj -© o C

~

£

irT

3 ~aT

Q, > N cd x l-4 aj -*-* . — aj E 73 3 • CJ 00 cd

^ c

CJ 7 3 C d x

73

c

OJ a o 3 o x

C

o

£

CJ

aj "5 x ^X xaj S >. x > aj 2 cd § 0 ^ 0 Q x ® E E

Table 8 (cont.)

&

s:

.g s K Ss

Sc *c

O

O

c _o *+-* £ cd C L ) N

*- X o tj x .b +- X

£ c/3

c re X

aj X

cd

o u. C o. .2 x 'm C U « flj C^

2X co .2 x - ! jr 3 .2 «3

* 1

B

cd

c Ctu oo b E S 2 x (U

"o O. £ S

£ ? ^

gOJ ^ U

£ S

-4-4 o c

aj m

3

7

aj o

X

O

.2 ‘C

4-> 4C/3 -4 C/3

a o

cd

2 3

w x aj aj •_ — aj

cd x:

7

4

0/

£

CJ "q .

cd

s

H -g

2

&x

cd

aj * £

g

U

o

S

S

£

U c oC/3

C/3 2 •a o u .* C/3 cd s4-4 £ o£ 00 G £ O 0> 0Ux> 2 o h5 *a OUm g oC/3 g £ 40C/3-^) 13 40C/3-4) u0) > >> C/3 -2 O

cd

£ ^ 3 cd 0) a x

’£

aj

^

u X *-»

cd

7

^

co £

£ a> X) >>

£

^ © cl aj

aj

u c ’C Cu o *4—» a>

aj x

CO x

- a

0/3

aj in

> o X X

I

O J=

>— >

cd

-4aj-J •- o C ■ 'o ' 00 'Cf ^ fc X o £ ■ 5 '" , £ E aj xx S c o 3 ^>%.2 -g 7 3g f» . co > CO X — &

£

o * X 3 cd

Xi - m' w O x aj o aj X (N C . O cd c z — o ^ aj g xc x x

cd x

O 0/ X)

c

Q- 0>

o

X5

00

-4— >

o*

/3 CJ 73 X C/3 4C cd -n 00 OO C/3 aj C/3 -C

w _aj "o -c

© ^c +-'

X C/3 E ocd 73 X 3s ~ C/3J i X■cd*-» 73 G £

_o

U U U)t > 2X- 1u,S xO J4 2) cd ou CU cd a G o 22 "o j= 6 O C/5 ^ e & o O U -i s o a> w _. cO 2P S 5=1 cd 3

g .£ cu tj 03 o - o "O o ^ a ! ° ~ < u c £CD X2 -3 o (U +-» cd e « H3 o U* 0> — (U V5 +i C■U o c 3 3 1/1 T 3 0) *- O c3 vo cr~- C/5 -C w2 a u c2 Z G o 3 , |s T3 2 o “■ u cu 1/3 c3 C/3 X .° O *- X > • £ -so 5 •5 0/ ^ JU

(U - C 'd

-D

G

cd

O'

’Q ^^3 ‘ -2 to ^ £ -s Z 2C/l

CO


V3 G> U T3 -*C — i 00 G C O _s G C O "co Lh 3 3 O J > O G , £ c/i 73 £ 3

£

4)

£

4J C/2

O

§ TJ a 4> O H * CX i - o

o X b?

O o "3 t- G -4—* _r G g y .2 4= c 4 — < cd ~ * y y 3 D~. Cl c/3 — “ .3


w C/5 bp # a i? c u o x° 33 ~2 E ° S W 2 C/3 00 8 « 8 5 G s _o o r»- O cd H --S ^ s_ X *>-» jG C/3 3 2 O h— ° o y C/3 «J u. -a 3 X x u. 3 o S C/3 3 ^3 1 2 S b £ 00 X « -r / 3 •S « T3 r-* t/) c b ’ c/3 .5 y E 1 1 s yy c/3 ' £ ^ X 00 pp o O 3 Xt 2 t/3 X CD G £ 2 “o. — t- Q . (U C/3 cd £ x g J j* < Cu C/5 S 3 x CD 00 ° 3 ® 3 ■ § s ^ fi C/5 tt X ■ s. 5 3 00 O 3 ©* cd e ‘n y 8 . 2 £ 2 ^ . s E 3, O g 3 c G T3 t 3 £ X ~ v-. 0 0 oo > H-* 3 3 o u 3 3 T3 S . 1 a o 3 D O 3 3 0 0 c/3 XOO Xt/3 Q 2 XD xo 2O ’ c3 Q O H C /D 3 W3 3 'C 3 O “ •O a) > V 'X 0^ x tS o O CX 00 « o 3 >£ " > ^2 y -£ a) -o C/3 o T3 < X ^ O a v 3 w C /5 c U T3 D . < H 3 X

>5

a .N .£? 5 5 a DC (3

O'

ft ■*—< E ^ rA i 2S 3 X O w ^ X 532 u X ’5 ^ .2 + -»

co’ a c

H

G ^

i-

> ° 3 2 2 £ ri *- > *© S g *C/5 a> . 3 C/3 3 s ! X C _ o a= S3 cj -*•

3 X ~ /—° SO O o .2

g ^

3 3 lE O a/ oo E 3 X

£2 to 3 ^ .£ ^ §

(U X cu ® 73 E X 2 2 CO CO I « « X CJ a £ §. .& S co £ T3 V O u CJ • * u. 7 £ w « - n 2 oj X, C/3 . i o o . 2 £ E m w2 o S t >"> -o*■ > . .£ — .2 Fg^ao in N — C/3 >4 oo 23 ^ s U ts5 vC -2 § g o « ^— oo rT X _o 00 c u- o c - a ! 2 "o ^ o o. "o > >4 o 6 7 CO T3 as

_ r

-o c 3

3 , 3 3 07 -S P £ .O Cu , 3

& _o

1

O

cd e E

^

^

i-i 3

•3

S

> , 3 07 OS 07

. o*-.

SO US 3

07 t X! 3 a. C X i_ cd

C/3

C/3

x

0) C/3 O C/1 _

3 (U

(U

c/3

.£ X

cu X

«

3

T3 .2

** ■a -m c °

o °u. T >> ^ 2 2 ,r O o ^ Cu -O -O X C/3

o 'O u 2E ..2« ^_N 3 X cd X! £ CD 3 ^ C H3 «■ . _ — ' u 'C O 75 cd Cd 3 75 75 QJ

Table

10 ( c o n t .)

X UO i n « O Os

9 ~r ~^ a/ GA —5 Z2 a/ cd cd X)

c

"

E

g 2

X

X

«

£

75 3 .2 ‘C cd >

-a 2

“ QJ

ti o 3 3 E -C C/3 CU

cd o3 ___ 3 .T 3

a

M ■3 T3

cu

s

c

CU

2 —

c

CU

.£

00

H -g C/3

3

.

3 3

T3 3 U3 3! E CJ

3

(/j 3'3 Xoo 3

3 (U £ 75 O X _ U a> U £ £ O o 3 £3 « toS .2 3 ^ 2 o •> —' ° 12 c/3 c n X trS 3 £ O, s

. 2 ”s

C/3

„

D . c«

C

3

T3

° 3 CJ >-* .£• 00 d —4 3 c/3 i_ .£ cd

C/5

o 3 c/3 0- ”P5 GO*

3

X

2 JS

3

c/ X

1/3

a- ^

^

3

C/3

s

S, g

>> P - S? 3

^

cd 3

Q

U S3 7 5 W 2 JO .X O O

.s

2

C/3

O

U

(U

X

E (U E *• *- > XT X0) ^u E oC/3 .3 -a "3 Uh j j

00

s-S .

C/3

scd O . r. T3 "O C E 0) cu 75 3 = -*-* « C/5 8 o & - 0 r3 C/51 a < £u C/5 *a> , S_ Ja> Vi " >, 00 > c/3 3 2 a> C/3 c/3 "P w 73 75 0) ,2 C *H 03 -C aj ••3 X 3 a o

o

« 3 M X cu

C/3 C/3 . 1 1 (U Q . ^ u. oq

3 O

x> 2

CU

oo c/3 — .E c/3 cd 'r t o 3

-D X oJ- D .23 •s ^ o cx 4 > ^ ■3-c > c a> -p o -CJ 73 -rt Cd ■° 2 JO rsr u v 5 _C cd » 2 C/5 G 35 — _c

04

H S Oft o °

_C c

T3 ^3 ’o § x 03 _>

~ c t! '3 « .5 § ^ • 0— 3» •* 00 u. 04

2

C

£13 | O > £

X Oft “t, O o

*

C

X 03 03 3 X X «

1e jft2 ^ft

0 ^3 ft ft 13 go

£

C /2 u. JD 0/ £ N T3 13 2 c o O _ > 03 o *j -a 0 x C qj 5 OS) ' > _ ft > CO C3 cS G ^ 3 cd cd +-* ^ C O U v< a

'E ft

1 -3

O

c

00

3 5 J£ .- 5 cd u

O X J -o .S cd E C/2 1) iC L > !^3 x : > 04 _ c/2 cd 04 cd y o 33 C/2 > u C 1/ 3 g CL ^ -11> 04 C 1 £23 < u- 4— * 03 1— ( -♦—> 3 a 2 ^ 04 c -ob ri 00 C/2 a o ■ . '0 I c 33 2 0 ■4—•

, & tS § 2

g

C

X X CL O 33 ■ " .03 ft x3 os ftC H o 3 03

03 52 _g *5 CL

2 o£ OJ t o

C

S

03 g "5.

X 2 o U x« X r2

03 f t x 3 •— 03

ft *■* ^

03

C /3 w

03

n

e

o

x

£

"

§

CD a

8

2

i

g ^

C/3 W & cd a/ 03 >> C /2 c 2 g. — o * C ^/2 cd — 0 cH 75 C /2 /— s t: c C/2 a> c < D — C /2 cd N 3 2 C 2 00 3

35

O 3 .x o £ xcd ^5 VC, a> u O o c

,

3 OO H . f t O rK ‘5 O' X 13 « > W 04 c x ft 3

ft ft ft

c 03

o —

03

a ’. ~ E £ C 1/ ft 03 S' o . £ 13 £ 03 w

oo

CD C i—

_ cd £ B e £S jj _ 03 > > *ri 3 £ 3 C ft £ « a & L00 T 5: ft cd O

i— 3 O 03 . § O ft, —• .t0 co C/3 ft op-S 3 O 03 CS ft ft 13 — . X 3 03 03 T3 ft .52 e J2 x> X e * '55 -3 03 32 £ O , c/3 X 03 03 3 O. S — ' IS c ^ >

’33

a

£

oS >>

o

o ft ft < ftU c CD c ' o 13 2 ft ts 0 2 !» ft 03 u M CS 1/3

OS)

c

2

.2 § cd

O X

ft-

o

C

c /2

IT)

^ X

E & « I -

T

3

CS



J

c

4> -o

S i

Vi 4 3 i d C/I CJ c 3 -C cd

_3

"c j 3

’I 4=

C/5

o

CU 75

CU

QJ

C

£— • — r/5 72 JU

5? +-1 O C/5 T3

C/5

■—

c c/i - 3 a o> * CVi/2 O •s o5 o 3 e £ •. 2S 3o ‘33 cu • C/2 •3 > -3

O 00 ! m

+ -*

n —

v

03 _

-G x

o H g 4 3

-

| ^

o ooo o ™ «o 00 e .4

)— >—H

I . cd d j ^ &.-S X> X O ) dJ 00 X

dJ 73

O V3 23 < U a-* i—i 3 o C

X

3 _c

00 H g o

>

X aj

a 3 o

c c *'4— *

Lw

00 "2 s3 X c

3

3

CJ

L—i -4-/

o

.2 ’C aj Cl T 3

cd •4-> cd T3

X © a£

X

.S

o > 0/ XCd 1/ La

s .

a 273 73 ©

nQ

C/3

OJ 4-» oo c c cd X X T 3 1) O

cn ^ q> O ll

o

— © 0 ^ 2

73 © £



CX © £

c/a

co

X

§ £,.© © dj 00 73 o o 1 r©i % oL> 1X f— C cd B o ^ a cd £ X r* x 13 © B ^ « ^ O * 8 4-i rS XC c T5 c 73 dJ 33 fcdJ 3 X ^ O. C u 2 o cx 5 r* ^ XLaa ■© «* — SK .d J dJ L— rrt CO c

^ *-•

«

« 2 o X 3 CJ

o c (U La eg «

b 3 •§ £ ■fi 1/3 x oj 2 § ©- u X S £ C£ O £

!2 § ts

M 00 g

1) • E x 00 £ 73 73 la P . *5 > 'a«C

S g o 3 u c « Cd

a § g xd J O b X£

3 00 C

73 3 dJ >

o

73 C l dJ La

3 T3

« g 2 o

C l GCO31j *C-J JoD "3 $ t 3> QJ > T3 X 3 33 > > *S o G w go G c CO xCJ c j io • ,“ 75 CJ •— • ‘C -ou - C *4-» 3 4x> DC/3 O£ < c0 O X)«*-» CJ 3 CU O >. x O u 3 3 cu C w 5 CuJw jD 8 0 3 .X C *3 3 .£• -4-* X CJ 75 "o3 a- 2 . 2 C/3 3 C J QJ> 3 £ t: -2 Q J T3 £ X 3 cd TO§ I51 O ® £ >, o S S D O J CJJ X S O X .C 3 C C xCJ 2 £ .2 CJ c CJ c/i c/3 x .2 2 cj CJ 3 X £ x ’C * * 3 CJ X 3 £ | I 2 : cj , • x XCJ CXJ 3 33 CCJ 3g i» 3 73

— i

cj

cj

C/3

C/3

Table 16 (cont.)

C/3

73

X ts

H. X 3 X —3 cj

3£ se 1 *1/3 ' CJ

O

CJ

73

73

C

«CJ cu & id 3 ^ 3 to *3 O CJ O ,p c/3 O Uh

, Uh

C+ h

C/3

3 T3 CJ 3 Xo 3 a, o 2Cuis> C 3uxCJ

do

73

S3

CJ X c/3

O

3CJ £Cu _o

£ 3 O3 ci: ^x

3CJ

CJ +- X

DO c

H

73

73

3

r

C/3

75

C/3

75

C/3

-4—»

75

O }>M

C/3

75

*+3

*

C/3

cj

C/3

c £

73

O

cj

-«-»

75

75

73

•

)

h

C/3

3CJ CC/3J

03 tCO Z

75

« Pd

2

-4-*

>

jzo C 3 a>

2 x £O 23

3 -o

o

cO £ DO 03 3 c XN X J2 3 3 u D ”cj> .Si o CU-C 3 3 0) 75 C J 2 o ^ t ‘H 2G *c X CO,3 G D CO « u DD u, 2 X 33 < .£ f o | ^ x -g .£ r o a> " T -g 2 'g C - C3 c" 3 • .2> N5S w 01 +-* c0 O i i XX X 2o CJ ON g ’53 8 2 t: *-’ 3 3 1- o 2 o ,S -c 3 5 a oo x . CJ o u 2 O cu S £ CJ X *£ " c S H a> x3 O xCJ £O ^£ Uh 3 CJ £ 3 . ^ • £ | X +-3 3 o CJ3 C Jc^/3 >. " 3 ° 3 2 J c4) ^ (U fc OD 3 U 3 X — 2£ •§ £ _o CJ £ 5 CO IcdI y •x- oo •£> £_ X > J3 CJ * X CJ x u X) Xu ^^r- U ! c 3CJ 3 3 O h ■3— 3 ••5 2 g cH XOJ X•"■ ^ III cj a. *C T3 £ x ,^'S ■*-» > CJ XCJ « 3x (N O > '5ob ^52 £ ° 3 3 3 ts *c 53 ‘x 3 C J # o u cSi X 2* c/3 o 3 X3 i i ^ 3 ■S 3 n 75 X ~ fc 5 .£- C 3 ‘ X 3 ^ 2 *-* CO cd CJ ^ -G .— a3 3 . 2 CJ X CJ 3 O X 52

Jh'* 00 _o o X +w

73

-___ •

Cl o3 'gO ° £ a

x

O. 3(U xc c

3 a. o o o O

10 X H £ CU X3 d +-* 73 X Xcu x cu t 4> U h CJ 3 CU

>

o 5S /+ 3

° g o a3 O £ 3 73 *■' C/3 X X

•£ +-

—* X

*-

aj

O £ us a O. ~ X X 73 2 £ 3 X O O3 « 75 Q J 73 75 cO G Q J £ V * cO 75 75 +-» ■ 4 — ►c C O G 75 .9Q lmJ '3 Q J t: C O

pG

-+-* CU

~o QJ G

C O -S — * V m /■ 75 Q O o G £ 7 5 co > CO c* On a 5 _cu c .-H CO qj . t i ’3 .2 IS m o ^f CO C O kn ON cu CU 75

£ QJ

c

o o co JU X 3 f—

o cs

x

•n 3 I •£ .2 2 3 < 3 o J2 a-

113

3.1.2 Epistemological Perspective An epistemological aspect o f research deals with how a researcher (i.e., a system observer) begins to understand problematic situations and communicate knowledge to fellow researchers or observers. This dimension provides the form o f knowledge, how knowledge is acquired, and what is considered to be True' or ‘false’ (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). There are two opposite extremes o f epistemology: positivism and anti-positivism. A positivistic approach to research indicates that “knowledge is hard, real, and capable o f being transm itted in a tangible form" (Flood & Carson, 1993, p. 247). This stance o f epistemology supports the idea that it is possible to “explain and predict what happens in the social world by searching for regularities and causal relationships between its constituent elem ents... [and] that the growth o f knowledge is essentially a cum ulative process in which new insights are added to existing stock o f knowledge and false hypotheses elim inated” (Burrell & M organ, 1979, p. 5). In contrast to positivism, the anti-positivism approach to research opposes positivism ’s view o f knowledge as a hard, concrete, and tangible. This approach does not search for “laws or underlying regularities in the social affairs...[but supports] that one can only ‘understand’ by occupying the frame o f reference o f the participant in action” (Burrell & M organ, 1979, p. 5). In anti-positivism, “knowledge is soft, more subjective, spiritual, or even transcendental - based on experience, insight, and essentially o f a personal nature” (Flood & Carson, 1993, p. 247). The researcher, well-aware o f scarcity o f literature supporting explicit use o f systems theory in problem formulation and concepts o f metasystem pathology, sided with the anti-positivistic view o f knowledge. This research supports the notion that knowledge

114

on the topic o f m etasystem pathologies is subjective and based on individual experiences - as articulated in literature o f participants. Certainly, this is the case when

. .people

hold different views on (a) whether there is a problem [or metasystem pathology], and if they agree there is, (b) what the problem [metasystem pathology] is” (Vennix, 1996, p. 13). Certainly, a successful developm ent o f a construct fo r metasystem pathology identification and testing o f the construct's ability to articulate metasystem pathologies requires an anti-positivistic perception o f pathological knowledge - knowledge about metasystem pathology is socially constructed. 3.1.3 Ontological Perspective An ontological aspect o f research deals with existence o f entities and how such entities can be grouped based on similarities and differences. M oreover, ontology can also describe how “an observer views the nature o f reality or how concretely the external w orld m ight be understood” (Katina et al. 2014a, p. 49). Two opposite extrem es o f ontology are realism and nominalism. Based on Burrell and M organ (1979) and extrapolations from Flood and Carson (1993), realism is captured as “external to the individual imposing itself on individual consciousness; it is a given ‘out there’” (p. 247). Realism suggests that reality is objective in nature. On the other hand, nom inalism describes reality as a product o f individual consciousness. More significantly, nominalism ascribes to the assumption o f individual cognition. U nder nominalism . Burrell and M organ (1979) note that “the social world external to individual cognition is made up o f nothing more than names, concepts and labels which are used to structure reality” (p. 4). The utility o f ‘concepts,' ‘labels,’ and ‘nam es,’ is based on the

115

convenience they offer as tools that can be used to make sense and describe reality (Flood & Carson, 1993). In this research, a nominalistic view o f the nature o f reality informs the nature, development, and interpretation o f metasystem pathologies. This is necessary since the idea o f metasystem pathology identification construct are em erging and the constituent systems theory-based pathologies are partially dependent on cognition o f observers especially the ideas o f ‘existence’ and ‘consequences’ o f pathologies as later articulated in the case application o f the developed construct. 3.1.4 The Nature o f Human Beings A final dim ension o f research paradigm is the nature o f human beings. This aspect is essential since it provides a stance on man and his activities in society. It has been suggested that two opposite extremes o f determinism and voluntarism can describe the nature o f human beings (Burrell & M organ, 1979; Flood & Carson, 1993). A deterministic view o f human beings suggests that a researcher views human beings as “m echanistic, determined by situations in the external world; hum an beings and their experiences are products o f their environment; they are conditioned by external circum stances” (Flood & Carson, 1993, p. 247). On the other hand, voluntarism suggests that human beings are “completely autonomous and free-willed” (Burrell & M organ, 1979, p. 6) and therefore they have a “creative role [in their environment] and [can] create their environm ent” (Flood & Carson, 1993, p. 247). Burrell and M organ's (1979) research also indicates that to the extent that social theories are concerned with human activities, a theory must be disposed to either implicitly or explicitly to one these viewpoints or an intermediate that can used to address human activities.

116

Given the nature o f the research objectives and the descriptions o f the nature o f human and his activities, the researcher fe lt that it was necessary to view human beings as voluntaristic. This suggests, fo r example, the need to account fo r different views when identifying the degree o f existence o f system s theory-based pathologies. M aking this point explicit allows for the influence o f voluntaristic nature o f humans to shape research design, the activities involved, and interpretation o f research results, particularly the case application. In Chapter I, the purpose o f the research was presented. Fulfillment o f this purpose will produce a construct for metasystem pathologies within the selected research paradigm. The research paradigm does not suggest that, regardless o f design and execution rigor, the em ergent construct will define absolute truth concerning metasystem pathologies. This is consistent with selection o f Grounded Theory M ethod. In fact, Goulding (1999) states that “grounded theory will not appeal to the researcher in search o f absolute certainties, neatly defined categories and objectively measured explanations’" (p. 19). Figure 14 is drawn to illustrate the line o f dem arcation for this research along the dim ensions o f m ethodology, epistemology, ontology, and nature o f hum an beings. This distinction is important, as it establishes the frame o f reference, within which the research design and execution is planned, executed, and appropriately interpreted.

117

Subjectivism Nomothetic

R e a lism

Human Nature

Figure 14: Research Perspectives and their Dimensions

3.2 GROUNDED THEORY M ETHOD In this section, the Grounded Theory M ethod, selected for conducting this research, is introduced. As will be established, the Grounded Theory M ethod aligns with a more subjective, interpretivist, and qualitative paradigm o f social sciences. This research stance is consistent with the developed perspective on metasystem pathologies and congruent with the tenets o f the research paradigm articulated for this research. Grounded theory is one o f the qualitative research methodologies supportive o f the idiographic dimension o f methodological perspective in the research paradigm. This method has been widely used when researchers are interested in building theoretical constructs (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The ultimate output o f this method is a grounded theory. A grounded theory is discovered, developed, and verified within a dataset from which it emerges. Thus, Strauss and Corbin (1990) could declare that a grounded theory is a theory “that is inductively derived from the study o f the phenom enon it represents” (p. 23). First developed in the

118

1960's by two sociologists (Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss), the Grounded Theory M ethod operates in a reverse mode to the traditional scientific mode o f research where a hypothesis is first proposed for a phenom enon (Allan, 2003; G laser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). In grounded theory, a researcher does not begin with a theory and then attem pt to ‘prove’ or ‘disprove’ it. Rather, research begins with data collection in a relevant area o f study. The researcher then allows the data to drive the research until a theory (construct) emerges (Glaser, 1992; M oghaddam, 2006; Strauss & Corbin. 1990). This method is suited for researchers who “believe that the developm ent o f theoretically informed interpretations is the most powerful way to bring reality to light...and believe that theories represent the m ost systematic way o f building, synthesizing, and integrating scientific know ledge” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 22). As a methodology, grounded theory emerged as a response to what G laser and Strauss (1967) called a “trend tow ard em phasizing verification” (p. 10) where it was widely accepted that “our ‘great m en’ forefathers (W eber, Durkheim, Simmel, Marx. Veblen, Cooley, M ead, Park, etc.) had generated a sufficient num ber o f outstanding theories on enough areas o f social life to last for a long w hile” (G laser & Strauss, 1967, p. 10). The next jo b was therefore, the applications and modifications o f the already generated theories. However, with the passing o f time, some researchers began to realize that the ‘great m en’ had “not provided enough theories to cover all areas o f social life” (G laser & Strauss, 1967, p. 11). Even more troubling was the lack o f m ethods for generating theories from data. Glaser and Strauss (1967) contended that “some theories o f our predecessors, because o f their lack o f grounding in data, do not fit. or do not work, or are not sufficiently understandable to be used and are therefore useless in research,

119

theoretical advance and practical application” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 11). Therefore, Glaser and Strauss set out to develop m ethodology that “enables discovery o f theory from data” (G laser & Strauss, 1967. p. 1) using processes o f com parative analysis to generate conceptual categories that can be used to predict, explain, interpret, and apply in different settings (Goulding, 1999). In Chapter II. it was indicated that there is a lack o f explicit use o f systems theory and identification o f systematic pathologies during the problem formulation phase o f systems-based methodologies. Given the essence o f the Grounded Theory M ethod, there is a match to the purpose o f this research. Consequently, the idea o f attem pting to establish possible relationships between system s theory and problem form ulation to articulate metasystem pathologies fits within the scope o f the Grounded Theory Method. A dditionally, Egan (2002) established that the Grounded Theory M ethod is appropriate when little to nothing is known about the phenom ena o f interest. As indicated in Chapter II. there is scarcity o f literature describing how systems theory is related to problem formulation especially at the metasystem level. Therefore, the researcher selected the Grounded Theory M ethod because o f (1) its ability to help develop grounded theoretic constructs that makes the relationship between systems theory and problem formulation more explicit and (2) a grounded construct can help in inductive developm ent and articulation o f systems theory-based as well as metasystem pathologies. The term theory in ‘grounded’ theory has a specific, and yet, broad meaning. Strauss and Corbin (1990) suggest that the term ‘theory’ is best described when contrasted to yet another term - description. They suggest that while the term 'theory' can be described in terms o f a set o f related concepts that propose a reasonable explanation

120

to explain a phenom ena under study, a ‘description’ might only provide themes and summaries o f data with “little, if any, interpretation o f data” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 29). M orse’s (1994) definition enhances this view o f theory when she writes that theory provides "the best com prehensive, coherent and simplest model for linking diverse and unrelated facts in a useful and pragmatic way" (p. 25). In this instance, a theory enables making the im plicit relationships or links explicit using a variety o f mechanisms including questions (Goulding, 1999). Therefore, the idea o f developing a construct, metasystem pathologies identification, that helps explain how systems theory can be used to enhance problem formulation including at the metasystem level, is w ithin the scope o f the Grounded Theory Method. Rather than a theory, this research uses the term ‘construct’ to project the idea that the discovered relationship, between systems theory and problem form ulation - in terms o f systems theory-based and metasystem pathologies, may have to go through several revisions before reaching a maturity level expected for a well-established theory. N eedless to say, the developed construct is “a set o f well-developed categories (e.g., themes, concepts) that are systematically interrelated through statements o f relationship to form a theoretical framework that explains... [systems theory-based pathologies in complex systems]” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 22). The Grounded Theory M ethod is not restricted for use in a particular research domain. In fact, one o f the original developers o f the method notes that “Grounded theory is a general method. It can be used in any data or com bination o f data” (Glaser, 1999, p. 842). M oreover. Strauss and Corbin (1990) proclaim that “One need not be a sociologist or subscribe to the interactionist perspective to use it. What counts are the procedures and

121

they are not discipline bound” (p. 26). Since its introduction in the 1960s, grounded theory “has gradually spread beyond its initial concentration, and ...is making inroads into other practical fields and other disciplines” (Dey, 1999, p. 13). In this research, the researcher selected the Grounded Theory M ethod as a viable approach for developing a construct for metasystem pathology identification. This selection is largely based on the researcher's initial m ethodological epistem ological and ontological perspectives on the topic o f research. Literature is replete with different applications and utility o f the Grounded Theory M ethod. However, the Grounded Theory M ethod is not without criticism. 3.2.1 Criticism s o f the Grounded Theory Method Just like any other approach, the Grounded Theory M ethod is with by no means faultless and without criticisms. Thus, the purpose o f this section is to articulate criticism s associated with grounded theory research method and their im pact on the research. A subsequent section, Section 3.4 o f this chapter, identifies specific strategies for mitigating such criticisms. Since its inception, the Grounded Theory M ethod has encountered noteworthy criticisms. In a large part, these criticisms em erged due to the founders’ attack on well-established Togico-deductive’ approaches (Crownover, 2005) as well as confusion brought by the method founder’s use o f ‘positivistic' language (Keddy, Sims, & Stem, 1996). In fact, Keddy et al. (1996) posits that the founders o f Grounded Theory Method “used the language o f positivism: variables, hypothesis, properties, theoretical sampling, theoretical ordering, and so on. It is often this discourse that causes the frustration for the qualitative researcher” (p. 450). Their major criticism s appear to be

122

at the forefront o f challenges for grounded theory as a viable approach to conducting rigorous research. One o f the recent criticisms o f the Grounded Theory Method is the question o f 'th e o ry' being a product o f application o f the method. Thomas and Jam es (2006) write, “The ‘theoretical’ notion in grounded theory, in other words, conflates and confuses two processes in inquiry. It conjoins the spark to inspiration...w ith the predictive function o f theory in the natural sciences and in functionalism. For describing what happens in qualitative research, the use o f the term ‘theory’ only confuses what is going on. The former type - involving tacit patterning, interpretation and inspiration - really a vernacular em ployment o f the te rm .. .and is part o f everyday reasoning.. .The latter is about generalization following systematic and extensive data collection, and the testing o f the generalization following systemic and extensive data collection, and the testing o f the generalization for the purposes o f verification or falsification” (p. 772). The first part o f this criticism suggests that what Glaser and Strauss (1967) call ‘theory’ is simply everyday common knowledge. Glaser and Strauss would clearly object to this idea since their grounded theory has to be discovered “from data systematically obtained from social research” (p. 2).

In this research, the researcher was interested in generating a constructfo r metasystem pathologies based on the analysis o f an extensive dataset as indicated in Chapter I V The developed construct (theory) and the derived systems theory-based pathologies as well as clusters o f metasystem pathologies are grounded in a variety o f the dataset describing various laws, principles and theorems o f systems theory.

123

Thomas and Jam es's (2006) second criticisms has to do with the utility o f the developed grounded theory. They argue that there is need to test and verify the developed theories. This criticism appears to be supported by earlier research. Specifically. Keddy et al. (1996) suggested that the language used in original text on grounded theory seems to suggest that the method is positivistic and therefore subject to traditional quantitative canons o f verification. However, when the Grounded Theory M ethod was first introduced as a research method, the purpose was “to build theory that is faithful to and illuminates the area under study” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 25). There was a lack o f theories and means to develop grounded theories. M oreover, Glaser and Straus’s (1967) work clearly states: “While verifying is the researcher’s principal goal and vital task for existing theories, we suggest that his main goal in developing new theories is their purposeful systematic generation from the data o f social research .. . . Thus, generation o f theory through com parative analysis both subsumes and assumes verification, and accurate descriptions, but only to the extent that the latter are in the service o f generation” (p. 28). Additionally, the very selection and the application o f the Grounded Theory M ethod “forces the analyst to verify and saturate categories” (Glaser, 1978, p. 58) because “While coding we are constantly moving between inductive and deductive th in k in g .. . There is a constant interplay between proposing and checking. This back and forth movem ent is what makes our theory grounded!” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 111). Furthermore, researchers em ploying this method “do not follow the traditional quantitative canons o f verification. They do, however, check the development o f ideas with further specific observations, make systematic com parison and often take the research beyond the initial confines o f one topic or setting” (Goulding, 1998, p. 55).

124

Therefore, in this research, verification is maintained within the dataset used f o r the development o f metasystem pathology identification construct and the derived systems theory-based pathologies using procedures o f open, axial, and selective coding. Moreover, the researcher took measures to provide a fa c e ’ validation o f the articulated systems theory-based pathologies through a case application as indicated in Chapter IV. A second shortcoming o f grounded theory is the fa ilu re fo r researchers to go beyond what appears to be simple surface data analysis. Benoliel (1996) claim s that a grounded theory should “explain how social circumstances could account for behaviors and interaction o f people being studied” (p. 413). This criticism has been brought against the Grounded Theory M ethod because it appears that many researchers fail to “analyze data fully and especially to develop more abstract ‘conceptual and theoretical c o d e s '... [that form] the building block o f theory” (Dey, 1999, p. 14). To be clear, Glaser and Strauss (1967) suggested that the Grounded Theory M ethod is defined as “the discovery o f theory from data” (p. 2). The researcher is responsible for data collection and sense-making through the process o f coding. A researcher is encouraged to use “constant com parative method o f joint coding and analysis ...to generate theory more systemically than allowed by ...explicit coding and analytic procedures” (Glaser. 1965, p. 437). Four stages o f this grounded theory (i.e., com paring incidents applicable to each category, integrating categories and their properties, delimiting the theory, and writing the theory) enable a researcher to go through a “continuous growth process - each stage after a time transform s itself into the next - previous stages remain in operation throughout the analysis and provide continuous developm ent to the following stage until

125

the analysis is term inated” (Glaser, 1965, p. 439). Failure to follow these foundational process m ight result in “fail[ure] to transcend an initial ‘in vivo' coding and ...failjure] to move beyond the face value o f their data” (Dey, 1999, p. 14).

In this research, conceptual and theoretical codes fo r systems theory-based pathologies as well as the subsequent metasystem pathologies identification construct were developed based on the systems theory the dataset. The researcher developed and used several tools to ensure that theory (construct) was consistent with the dataset as well as intent o f the research. A related issue that forms another criticism o f grounded theory is use o f pre­ conceived notions. The use o f the Grounded Theory M ethod suggests that the researcher lets a theory em erge from the data. Thus, the researcher relies on his/her theoretical sensitivity to recognize important concepts pertinent to the research and his/her ability to give meaning to data (Glaser, 1978; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The researcher is assumed to limit the use o f pre-conceived notions. In other words, a researcher is urged to have ‘‘as few predeterm ined views as possible, especially logically deduced, prior hypotheses” (Urquhart, 2002, p. 49). It turns out that there is a divide between G laser and Strauss on the issue o f theoretical sensitivity. The seminal work o f Glaser and Strauss (1967) suggested that theoretical sensitivity is accomplished when a researcher identifies an ‘em erging’ theory from data without use o f pre-conceived theories or hypotheses. In a later work, G laser (1978) refers to ‘theoretical coding’ as means to ‘‘conceptualize how the substantive codes [codes developed ad-hoc during ‘open coding’ - the first stage o f the coding process and relates to the empirical substance o f the research area] may relate to each other as hypotheses to

126

be integrated into a theory” (Glaser, 1978, p. 72). Theoretical codes em erge from “cues in the data” and can work to “weave the fractured story back together again” (Glaser, 1978, p. 72). However. Strauss and C orbin’s (1990) work on ‘theoretical sensitivity' suggests that coding should be based on a pre-selected theoretical perspective (Kelle, 2005) or a “coding paradigm '’ (Strauss, 1987, p. 28). A coding paradigm, which consists o f four items (i.e., ‘conditions,’ ‘interactions among the actors,’ “strategies and tactics,’ and ‘consequences'), is the essential piece that enables the researcher to structure data and clarify codes and their relationships (Kelle, 2005; Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Strauss, 1987). Thus, on one hand, the Glaserian approach encourages having as little preconceived concepts as possible on the area o f study (Glaser, 1992, p. 22) while the Straussian approach advocates for use o f guides that may enhance understanding (W alker & M yrick, 2006). The Straussian approach is appealing. A researcher is able to develop a grounded theory “without taking the risk o f drowning in the data” (Kelle, 2005, p. 7) because o f use a priori guiding frame o f reference. However, the researcher must acknow ledge possible limitations associated with use o f a priori knowledge especially if the research is exploratory (inductive) rather than deductive (Glaser, 1992; Kelle, 2005). On the other hand, G laser’s (1992) criticism o f Strauss and C orbin’s ‘coding paradigm ' suggest that a researcher m ight ‘force' categories into data rather than letting categories to ‘em erge’ from the data appears to have merit. Glaser (1992) goes as far as suggesting “not to review any o f the literature in the substantive area under study” (Glaser, 1992, p. 22). However, this does not mean a researcher has to develop a grounded theory from a clean slate. In fact, U rquhart (2002) reminds researchers that “The ‘tabula rasa' idea remains a popular misconception about GTM [Grounded Theory M ethod]...there is nothing in the

127

GTM literature that specifically precludes looking at relevant literature before entering the field'' (p. 50). Regardless o f this criticism, both perspectives recognize the importance developing a theory from data. M oreover, a researcher is encouraged to “mix the two approaches with caution, aware that they may violate philosophical underpinnings o f both; boundaries between the two should be maintained rather than a synthesis attem pted” (Heath & Cowley. 2004, p. 147). Furthermore, it appears that the Glaserian approach “presents a w ider range o f perspectives on data than [Straus and C orbin's approach of] the coding paradigm ” (Dey. 1999, p. 107). Cleary, the use o f initial literature review to provide a guide for theoretical sensitivity for this research fits within the frames o f the Grounded Theory M ethod. M oreover, a variety o f mechanisms -

including personal and professional experience, and the analytical process itself (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) could be used to enhance the theoretical sensitivity o f the research. This provides a convenient place to remind the reader that the researcher took a constructivist-subjective approach to grounded theory. The subjective perspective o f grounded theory “assumes emergent, multiple realities, indeterminacy; facts and values as linked; truth as provisional; and social life as processual” (Charmaz, 2006, pp. 126127) and as such, the researcher “sees both data and analysis as created from shared experiences and relationships with participants and other sources o f data” (p. 130). By taking this perspective, the researcher assumes to develop a general metasystem pathology identification construct that respects specific situations and context from which different pathological conditions m ight emerge. However, the above criticism s appear to

128

suggest that the Grounded Theory M ethod is not suitable as a research approach. In fact, Bryant (2002) writes. “Given the foregoing discussion, why not simply jettison GTM [Grounded Theory M ethod] in its entirety? The weaknesses o f GTM [Grounded Theory Method] are evident” (p. 34). The response is simple: “the strengths o f the methodology far outw eigh its shortcom ings” (Crownover, 2005, p. 80). Section 3.4 indicates how adhering to the procedures o f Grounded Theory M ethod and canons o f qualitative research helped to mitigate these criticisms. 3.3 CASE STUDY M ETHOD The proceeding discussion provides a critique o f the Grounded Theory M ethod and its appropriateness in developing a metasystem pathology identification construct. One o f the key products o f this research is the articulation o f systems theory-based pathologies. During the course o f this research, there emerged an opportunity to ‘face’ validate the utility o f ideas o f pathologies em erging from the research. In connection with this opportunity, a research method, a mixed case study method, selected for 'face' validating pathologies is introduced. Literature on the case study method (e.g., see Rouse & Boff, 2003; Stake, 1995; Thomas, 2011; and Yin, 2009) suggest that this m ethod is suitable for situations when one is interested in a focused analysis for a given unit o f analysis. This is in line with the objective o f the second research question. The second research question states: “ What results fro m the deployment o f the

metasystem pathologies identification construct in an operating setting ? ” The purpose o f this question is to provide a ‘face' validation o f the developed construct in a specific setting. The obvious methodological choice is a case study approach. A case study method can be used to provide a story about something pertinent to the study (Stake,

129

1995). Specifically, Yin (2009) suggests, “ ...y o u would use the case study method because you wanted to understand a real-life phenom enon in depth, but such understanding encom passed important contextual conditions - because they were highly pertinent to your phenomenon o f study” (p. 18). By using a case study, the researcher is then capability o f drawing preliminary conclusions regarding a developing theory (i.e., metasystem pathologies identification), insights into the phenom enon under study (i.e., linking systems theory to problem formulation) as well as constituent elements o f systems theory-based pathologies and proposed future research. Taken as a research method, a case study offers a rigorous approach for data collection, analyzing, and interpretation o f observations and data (Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 1992). In this capacity, a case study becomes a research design or a blueprint for addressing study questions, identifying data to collect, and how to analyze data (Philliber, Schwab, & Samsloss, 1980). Thus, a case study is expected to “describe what happened when, to whom, and with what consequences in each case” (Neale, Thapa, & Boyce, 2006, p. 3). These ideas where appealing to the researcher since, there is a chance to provide immediate feedback on the utility o f the construct. Specifically, the researcher is interested in the construct’s utility in articulating the systems theory-pathologies, conditions affecting system performance, in different settings as well as identifying changes, if any. that need to be make the construct (theory) o f metasystem pathologies identification to better contribute to problem formulation. In this research. Y in's (2009) well-established approach to the case study method is used as the baseline for face validating the developed systems theory-based pathologies identified in the theory

130

developm ent phase. A detailed discussion on the activities undertaken during mixed case study is provided in Chapter IV. Several factors influence the selection o f case study as an appropriate research method. These are stipulated by Yin (2009) as: (1) the type o f research question. (2) the extent to which the researcher has control over actual behavioral events, and (3) the degree o f focus on contemporary as opposed to historical events. Table 17 represents Y in's (2009) criteria for selection o f a research method. Given the nature o f the second research question, the methods addressing the ‘w hat' type o f questions are o f interest to the researcher. Interestingly, Yin (2009) suggests that the ‘w hat' type o f questions is related to exploration or enum eration o f phenom ena under study. The exploratory-type o f ‘w hat' might yield relevant propositions that could further be explored to understand a situation under study. In such a situation, “any o f the five research methods can be used” (p. 9) by a researcher. However, the enum eration-type o f ‘w hat' is mainly concerned with, for example, ‘a num ber o f w ays' to improve a given situation. In such a situation, a survey or archival method would be a preferred approach (Yin, 2009).

Table 17: Criteria for Selection o f Research M ethod, Adapted from Yin, 2009, p. 8 M ethod

Experiment Survey Archival Analysis History Case Study

(1) Form o f research question

(2) Requires control o f behavioral events?

how, why? who, what, how many, who, what, how many, how, why? how, why?

yes no

(3) Focuses on contem porary events? yes yes

no

yes/no

no no

no yes

where, how much? where, how much?

131

A survey design is appropriate for this research. It can be used to enum erate pathologies in a given unit o f analysis. However, the researcher is also interested in variability in participants’ view on pathologies (e.g.. existence o f pathologies, potential consequence, organizational resilience against pathologies, organizational susceptibility [state o f being easily affected] against pathologies). This calls for specifically designed case that goes beyond enum eration o f pathologies. M oreover, it is possible to have varying perspectives on the same pathology in the same unit o f analysis or different units o f analysis. Therefore, the researcher used a mixed approach to explore the results the

deployment o f the developed construct. The detailed design o f this mixed approach is presented in Chapter IV. Furthermore, the choice o f a case study mixed research design reflects a long standing philosophical paradigm consistent with the dim ensions o f methodology, epistemology, ontology, and nature o f human being identified as grounding for this research. M ethodologically, the researcher is interested in understanding different perspectives underlying different individuals or settings related to pathologies. Thus, this research supports the id io g rap h ic dim ension o f m ethodology, which assumes that “one can only understand the ...w orld by obtaining first-hand knowledge o f the subject under investigation” (Burrell & M organ, 1979, p. 6). Epistemologically, this research suggests that knowledge about existence o f pathologies o f an organization “is soft, more subjective, spiritual, or even transcendental - based on experience, insight, and essentially o f a personal nature” (Flood & Carson, 1993, p. 247). Thus, this anti­ positivism perspective o f the results o f deploym ent o f the construct suggests that we can expect different degrees o f existence and variability in m easures for pathologies.

Ontologically speaking, then the concept o f metasystem pathology would have to be “a product o f individual consciousness’" (Flood & Carson, 1993, p. 247). This is indicated by the variance in case study results captured in Chapter V. Finally, the nature o f human beings is taken to be voluntaristic since different people in the same organization may have a varying perspective on the same pathology. By taking a more inductive-subjective approach to the case study, a researcher is then able “to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics o f real-life events - such as individual life cycles, small group behavior, organizational and managerial processes, neighborhood changes, school performance, international relations, and the maturation o f industries” (Yin, 2009, p. 4). The literature is replete with different applications and utility for the case study approach. However, ju st like the Grounded Theory M ethod, the case study method is not without criticism. 3.3.1 Criticisms o f the Case Study Method The purpose o f this section is to articulate criticisms associated with case study approach and their implications for the research. Subsequent sections (3.4) identify research design responses for mitigating such criticisms. Four dominant criticism s o f the case study method for research are addressed in this section. A first general criticism o f case study method is that it lacks rigor (Neale et al., 2006; Yin, 2009). Surely, this criticism stems for the fact that the case study method is associated with qualitative research. Neale et al. (2006, p. 4) suggests that the case study m ethod is “still considered unscientific by some and in many cases...[additionally] case study researchers have not been systematic in their data collection or have allowed bias in their findings” (Neale et al. 2006, p. 4). M oreover, researchers claiming to use case study method have been “sloppy, [have] not followed systematic procedures, or [have] allowed equivocal

133

evidence or biased views to influence the direction o f the findings and conclusions” (Yin, 2009. p. 14). This may as well be the case since the case study method is not widely used and therefore may have lacked specific guidelines that a researcher must follow (Yin. 2009). A second com mon criticism o f case study method is that case study results are not generalizable. The question here is, “How can you generalize from a single case?” (Yin 2009, p. 15). It turns out that critics fail to realize that scientific facts are rarely based on single experiments (Yin, 2009). Conversely, a researcher doing a case study must realize that multiple replications are needed before making concrete statements about generalizability o f results to other settings. Nevertheless, Yin makes a point to distinguish between ‘statistical" and ‘analytical" generalization. Rather than focusing on statistical generalization (stem ming from enum erate frequencies), the researcher doing a case study should focus on analytical generalization (expand and generalize a theory) in different conditions (Yin, 2009). In this research, the case study is only used to fa ce validate

pathologies articulated during development o f metasystem pathologies identification construction. The purpose o f the research served by the case study is to provide initial insights regarding construct’s utility in form ulating factors and issues affecting system performance. A tendency to have long narratives o f the cases forms the basis for a third criticism against case studies. A researcher is advised to have a rich description o f the case study using “detailed information [and] using a variety o f data collection procedures” (Creswell, 2009, p. 13). Consequently, the narrative may be too long and therefore “massive [and] unreadable” (Yin, 2009, p. 15). However, a researcher can avoid

134

creating a massive and painstakingly unreadable docum ent by using current readily available com puter-based tools. M oreover, a researcher can adapt better writing and displaying tactics (e.g., Data Accounting Log, Conceptually Clustered Matrix. Effects Matrix, etc.) as described in M iles, Huberman, and Saldana (2014). In this researcher,

the researcher utilized QSR Inter national’s NVivo 10 software package (Edhlund & Mcdougall, 2013) to aid in organization o f coding and construct development in addition to implementing matrixes and displays to manage and analyze datasets. A noteworthy final criticism o f case studies is that they are not ‘true experiments." The role o f true experim entations is to indicate '"'casual relationships - that is, whether a particular ‘treatm ent’ has been efficacious in producing a particular ‘effect"’ (Yin, 2009, p. 16). Case studies are often not taken seriously because they are not designed to show causal relationships. However, Yin (2009) suggests that this criticism is superficial because true experiments do not address the question o f ‘how ’ or ‘w hy' a specific treatm ent worked. In this research, the researcher is interested in utility o f the

developed construct especially in aiding to articulation o f pathologies. The case is not used to draw conclusions o f causal relationship to pathologies, why there are divergence in participant perspectives or whether a particular treatment is effective treatment does not take place in this research. M oreover and in accordance with the purpose o f this research, deploym ent o f the developed construct in an operational setting is meant as an initial application to attempt to address issues affecting systems from a systems theory perspective. Therefore, the results o f the case application might be o f valuable com plem ent to future experimental research and treatm ent o f systems pathologies rather than an alternative.

135

3.4 M ITIGATING CRITICISM S Throughout this research, the importance o f active accountability for research design decisions was purposefully maintained in selection o f research methods. The purpose o f this section is a two-fold. First, achieving trustworthiness in qualitative research based on rigorous canons o f science is described. Second, specific measures undertaken to mitigate criticism s to grounded theory and case study m ethods are described. At a general level, all research, qualitative or quantitative, is judged based on the degree to which four elements (canons o f science) are met: significance, generalizability, consistence, and neutrality (Creswell, 2009, Guba, 1981; Leedy & Ormrod, 2010; Miles et al. 2014; Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Yin, 2009). Significance deals with truth-value and ensuring that the findings are credible based o f a set criteria. Generalizability is the extent to with research findings are transportable to other situations beyond those o f the original study. Consistence deals with the repeatability o f research findings. N eutrality deals with ensuring that the findings are not biased by the researcher or the selected research design. M oreover, the divide between inductive-based qualitative and deductive-based quantitative research approaches forms the basis for differing criteria forju d g in g the efficacy o f each research approach. In an inductive type o f inquiry, the research is judged along the lines o f credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Lavrakas, 2008; Patton, 2002). Conversely, deductive type o f inquiry is judged along the lines o f internal validity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity (Creswell, 2009; Yin, 2009). Figure 15 is

136

drawn to identify the differing perspectives forjudging research along the dim ensions o f qualitative - induction and quantitative - deductive distinctions.

CANONS OF SCIENCE Quantitative research

Qualitative research Credibility

Significance

Internal validity External validity

Consistence

Reliability

Figure 15: Dimensions o f Canons o f Science

Additionally, Table 18 presents further distinctions between canons o f science for inductive and deductive research. Each column provides indicators that can be taken to enhance each element o f the selected element o f the canons o f science. This suggests that criticism s to research have to be acknowledged in relationship to the specific type o f research being pursued.

r^ © 3 7

©

U

1) 3 !& X »-4 D3 C 3 © © © X * X © 3 o © & & 3 3 O ■i—* _3 3 00 3 3 ’C H

Table 18: Two Dimensions of Canons of Science and Their Indicators

a

8

0) 3

s.

© 1) N ~o C 00 «

oo - r

3 ro

■s

a a a ts =8

x © 3x72 o o X ON "O

©

03 © 0-» *3 M © © -* c 3 I S * « 3 © H e 03 01 t/S © I .g g X X

X

£

c 3 3

a

a

s s i

$ ■I a

-3 ob fc

6

72 a a a a

© ^ © © c *C § a § S3

t;3

2 «£ x o

T3 1*/3 ^:S a. 0) X 72 eu 5? 3 k©* a 3 2o ■« x 3 "O S £ o X3■u © 3 w r C x ^ 7 2 {rt © " 2 00 »- c s . £ °I '■Oft 0s Q \ X ■© .2 •W o r- •- © a3 ”3 — c P to J£ © 3 1/5 3 X T3 © r

1 § 2 oc

as .3 .© 03 ^

3

U X ’c _00 c/5

3 S.

3 3

go

o* _

X

c

X

S “

3

O

3) U

X

7 *7 © X -4~* o X

+-* X

-d o X © X -l-» 3 © 7 © O ~o +-* © © 00 © k* u. © 3 > 3 3 O 2 © X ©O 2

X

© © 3 © C/2 0t -)

72

.. © 3 X

•3

© X o X © X ■♦-* X

3

X

3W

3

© > '£3 O Ofl 7

3 = ! 0X1 & ft 1 1 1 C t« 2»i c 3 3u 3 O 3 2c £x ••“ 2 2 x .S x x c o o Si X 73 7© oD D

X e 3 00 X 3

C ’£

3 .2 e5 1 7« .2 3 is w

cr

.7

53

c 3

o

00 c X © « X ©

^

T3

C

-+-J

c

.& ’© c

“

c3 CJ g> g .2

© 3 .>; X r, t3 |s 09/3 ft > « §u* 2C 5{) c 3 o frcotv ^O -T3 r^ ’£ u7 3 3 i5 J2 *7 D i s D E

V3 C X3 .2 a 3 g © 7 X ©

3

o «

3 X

^ C7

c

c? 0 0 3 X

» «—«

X .« 3

Sn

.s o*r 2 x ■3

3 I I u os uS U £ V- J-( .S V nj (£ ^4-^ 3 t-M O

C

©

_E 3O y3

>. © © C o o -r

o© X© Qa>. X 3 V H CQ ©

00

ro

4)

X! •£“ x£* ao s — 3O u x-*-•

H

3 _N

c/5 03 C /5

3

%

£

* § ^ 3 w 8 c r no

00

.2 t: "3 u

CL)

£3

C/2

CT

00 3 3 X ■3 .2P .22 3 x ° «3 D. o 2 U

0O •*-* N x CD c ™3 ^4-h _a> 3

4)

P

c/2

u 3 C /2 o &. 3 k.

X

C O ft •— ■§ 0) TO C /2 & o x cl 2 £ D

X

3 72 ^ -£

s

"O ° g CN

sO 1c

CN co

■2 3 es « n to X 0) 3

C+-.

•£ 3 > CO I O . 3 C O X^ > 3 f t 3 i- ~ .ftCkH 3 k n > 5) _N 4) o - V- o t_ X O 4) £ £■ 3 »- 3 O , . o c—u x__ ° X 2 • 3 < *+-) C/3 O M y r-N 3 0 2 C Ok ° u C l. O X ^ o k. o S -S I Os X (1 ) 3 u3 a> 3= O 3 _ V T3 1- 3 0) C 3 " ^ £ O 0 00 & >5 O cn a" H ~ o

u>

&

Table 18 (cont.)

U

x X 3 N is

3* X •— X

3k-. X .« j) a

3 34) ^ o S

O'

CM

£

c/5

03

^ c/5

°y ? .is 2 (23 ’

J> T? JC

1> T3

4)

c/5

a-

4>

Cd

ex. a) U o

cd

5 o5 T3

to oo V- O'

O—

x>

t

03

cd x>

cd

03

c =3 ”3 3 ^ g (T -t 3 15 Cd g g Xc ©S -o « > 4C/5 ) ■&§ ‘3 4> cr ta c g c«

IS



J"O

*c

cd

JO S3 e a>

a 4>

Table 18 (cont.)

Q

4)

CJ

c

4> C/5

£

o U

4)

= f « £ X

”73 C OJ O u

S sS g o

« x tS oo u

cd 2 T -

■s.I k.

S •S X ■S ~ ^

~

r U S 3 « O

4)

b fl T 3

♦ w*

i/

xj

2

g

o « u 0> *■* 4)

U a. O

c/a ir O

jc a c .2

•-«

C/5

C/5

cj

a O JB e £ Q C/5 O o°

a =3 Ck , 3

c/5 a

a c O X g 00 ■H D c c C k^ * X O < e CJ cSO OJ "C X C/5 T3 CJ OJ i t 3 •o C/5 C o ‘o O/5 o > k- > ^ < o c < ■— , 00 ■oj

cd

. .

-s £ •S

OJ

C cd

C/5

C JC a> cj t-

4>

"c/5 03 X

C/5

2 cr

cj

73 u u3 „4) l ° l ‘7cd3 o 2 00 > 3 _> M o ^ - o op •M ^O C/3 3 *-*-* ■5 r u . X ) • s u e S3 5!1 u1 t4); O -C 7 3 8 9 « 2 S •*3 i-J _0 U a £ C J 3 0 3 8 8 X Q Q G c 10 3 o (U o •i? « > l G .3o 4c> cr ■ 7 2 3 O O 3 cd £ £ C • 3 4» £ 7L3h 3> -sc/3 C/3 « a "* ^Ov X OJ 3 4) m x M J C/3 OJ O g | S m CJ Xi -+-* S 'S a V CJ 0 o (N O -S I 8 M ’S G - 41 G > £ 3 .£ N «N XI ,£e O CJ G C 4* *0 Xa> > 3 ^ I 1 1 CO l, CJ S. s ‘c 3 ^ cd > 5 2 x CJ 7 s 3 £ 5 xT 4) u o § ■ o 8 * 3 0/d CJ

o

OJ OJ

m

u* OJ cd o Z c &0 £ e O M OJ V, ’> S M OX) 3 £ . 2 Z .ST S3 -S S -T c 0CD ^^ Z x: z CJ -*-» C J* « u . OJ C /3 O D X) H -*-* m

C/3

>>

c/3 OX) 3 8 H 300 9 1 0u cd & ~ .2 ■ ■ a> ' S ' ? "o 3 "8 ! C/3 QJ 3CL>0 5o> — -0 fe. 0) 3 3 °-' >> zv*» O 4) OJ cd ■o o O § C/3 3 CD 3 -3 1 X cd < 2 3 .22 cd ex— < cr^r 4 > O J M C/3 3 .22 x < C 0o O }-J c00 n t2 (N 3 w 4) < -o J 3 O OJ : > m 1• c" Ca.x Xc/3 u ^ £U ’> £3 cd X ^ o £ F * -* -J c C CJ cn «-> jo OJ 3 c« C 3 OJ 3 X O 3 X 4> (J 3 , U cr o 5 2 £ ( s ^ C/3

00 c Q J* 3Ui ■♦ — Cd dV>3

c _o td Z Id > a>

C+-« O CJ

.£ •£ cn £ 00 22 3 O £ ^ 8 0 m X 2 VM

X OX)

« 8I 3 .2 O tM 00 *-M £> w X o P M< OJ c d j dj "o 4-. X k. o CJ >, cd 73 MJ Z s JO 3 O J — C/3 c M Td C/3 — X) u OJ C/3 b "5, § § s O J C /3 3 o S o | O *0 c/3 c^ 22 OJ "~l p wx $13/5 £8 rg O J C m T J 22 cu 8 OJ Td m

m

141

In addition to adhering to the ‘appropriate’ the canons o f science, a researcher may consider doing an evaluation o f the research question to help decide an appropriate research approach to research - qualitative or quantitative. Table 19 is adapted from the work o f Leedy and Ormrod (2010, p. 96) to distinguish between qualitative and quantitative research.

Table 19: Distinction between Qualitative and Quantitative Research, Adapted from __________________ Leedy and Ormrod, 2010, p. 96________________________ Quantitative - deductive Qualitative - inductive Question ■ To explain and predict ■ To describe and explain What is the p u rp o se o f ■ To confirm and validate ■ To explore and interpret resea rch ? * To test theory ■ To build theory * Focused ■ Holistic What is the nature o f the ■ Known variables research p ro c e ss? ■ Unknown variables ■ Established guidelines ■ Flexible guidelines ■ Predetermined methods ■ Emergent methods * Somewhat context-free ■ Context-bound ■ Detached view " Personal view ■ Numeric data • Textual and/ image-based data What a re the d a ta like, an d ■ Representative, large sample ■ Informative, small sample how are they co llected? ■ Loosely structured or non■ Standardized instruments standardized observations and interviews ■ Searches for themes and ■ Statistical analysis H ow a re d a ta a n a lyzed to ■ Stress on objectivity categories determ ine th eir m eanin g ? ■ Deductive reasoning ■ Acknowledgment that analysis is subjective and potentially biased ■ Inductive reasoning ■ Numbers ■ Words H ow are the fin d in g s ■ Statistics, aggregated data ■ Narratives, individual quotes com m unicated? ■ Formal voice, scientific style ■ Personal voice, literacy styles

Once a research effort is classified as qualitative or otherwise, the researcher can then use such insights to focus on different elements o f the selected research type to

142

ensure that the appropriate instantiation o f the canons o f science are employed. Table 20 is also drawn from Leedy and Ormord (2010, p. 107) to elaborate on key features that guide a research in a selection o f an appropriate research approach. A researcher can use these suggestions to aid in development o f a defensible research design.

cn

C/5

oo

E

■a

Leedy and Ormrod, 2010, p. 107 Table 20: Research Design Consideration Issues, Adapted from

—

£ o^> 5 hr E 2 C

a> o

x ^Q u

73

4-»

QJ

C .*2x

C/5

cd

CO

c/5

xq j coy I s 8 -3 qj

C/5

C/5

i-

£ § © S -o 0J >» > C

2 S QJ « u.

C d QJ

C/5

C/5

QJ

47

Q . QJ

C/5 qj L.

•—

■8 e 72

47 o « C « 5 H 3 F f— ^QJ

H

qj

C/5

C Cd

"O 3 C/5

o o

X 4-7

QJ

4-* 4—»

_QJ

£ -o c «4- cd o b

■*“ * C/5

47 > c X) \ 5 CO .2 O "3 u. cd a C/5

4-» •—

QJ

X

C

C/5

47

.h

7 3 QJ -o — js c 43 cd -2 ca O Cl — O — 47 QJ CL a. £ 00 c -O Cd

QtT .fi­ E le

S Si

+*

u 3 > 4-4 E QJ u. X) , o

§3 2o 3 I -s= ’aj

.

oj

C/5

>> C C/5

qj

Cd

4 -4

-*-» 72

•C & 9C/5 o

x4-*

C/5

X

CL 47 47

c

cd

QJ

qj

72

0) X -a c rti

1> >

C/5

qj

1qj2 2o j T3 .ti

O C 47 lC

c — 3 C QJ *“

« CM «- i) 72 s: CO *-* * & H 3 to H 2

.b 73 c/5

O

-a < =u ~ r» c/5 w> 2 x Q^ cd a .—

© « -o 4->

4—* U.

C/5

C/5 OJ

S co CJ

2 'ob E o cE ^© C u. QJ 3 ‘So 3a > o 3 u^5 o 73 3 ‘ cS >> to ts c (U E 8 s > oj i CO td ^5 X -O Q. x cd QJ a) X u O £ 0) O c ^ 1) © U cd C 3 JZ JO c00 C/5 5C qj 4- O C 2 'E C ft C O £ o 4-» cd 1) © qj -C j

73 qj

L.

72

C/5

f lj

j-

4—4

C/5

C/5

72

4J

X

“2

CO

cd

h- cd © a: 2 E

c

T3

C

4> > ’•3 y ^QJ O y 3« -s 2

T3

Oj > .

3

4J >• 0J T3 QJ C ^ a. O 3 CL t o >> 3 4> O 72

_ o

f § cd

c cd

3 O'

C

+■•

a

72

y 3 cd r Cd QJ f- H E

< jj cr3£ .9- aj ^ 3 : *rr >, 3 r r X) | -g oE L « J2 s m « 2 3 w .■c/5£ is -3 JC/5 ^ QJ C '-o f o o o

cd

cd

QJ >

QJ

O.

^

c

u.

QJ

0£)

cd

E Urn

o

o

> *■3 QJ

Csi

17 L.

3

3

C/5

QJ 4-^

C/5

QJ

JZ CD

■a QJ

QJ

0^

CO

00 c _

is

00 o

CL 47

QJ cd “3

c

-a

QJ >

*X

UJ

QJ

^

47

>

X) 47

CJ

E □

QJ

>

C/5

O

cd i— cd * " •"" © _o .— 3 O- C l £ cd 04- X uu O

C/5

cd

.2 0X) *E c JZ oQ J h*

C

a . ■5 aU. CL

JC

c/5

43

3

c

>

QJ 3

-O _ qj cd Q to

X, "O

> QJ

L. QJ

>* QJ > > O U

C QJ

C/5

• c c/5

QJ

47

t: o

C/5

-D

■>

2! 50. S 42

•S ’5

I , >5

J ^ £

2J

.a

0j

-L

• i:

0j

2 © 43 O ^ 5 “S -© 'S © £ L. -X so J; ©

-a 4^ c Jo

>x ^ '©"• a va

a c © X ©

QU L.

5 a©1 52 4a o> ^5 rs 0C 0j a -a ■L?. C a L.©

144

3.4.1 M easures to reduce criticisms Section 3.4 provides a general distinction between qualitative and quantitative research as well as measures that can be undertaken to ensure that research fits w ithin a selected research paradigm. The purpose o f this section is to elaborate on specific m easures undertaken to increase credibility, transferability, dependability as well as confirm ability (i.e., trustworthiness) in this research concerning grounded theory and case study methods. The Grounded Theory M ethod was exclusively used in developm ent o f systems theory-based pathologies as well as the metasystem pathologies identification construct. The face validation o f the pathologies was undertaken in a mixed case-survey study that focused on identification o f pathologies a unit o f analysis. Table 21 is drawn to identify research methods, purpose o f the methods, area o f focus, elements o f data collection, and means for data analysis.

145

C/5

OD .£ -o ” 3 ? VI

«

S

< s B O O S a

c

o

3

o

o

.s **

C/5

JD 'Z

CJ

cd C J

qj

g>-s .= = c

«

-2 E

m * 3 r < D o oo « 3 Lb « -2 3

.2 I ’l I » Cu c le O o — cd C/5 C/5 4=

o

fc °CD o 2 u S » Q £*

“ O

is C ../5z

O

a0/ *

o JC

C/5

■ o J*

jd

~ S as 1c/5

-O \e ,U cd ^ "T T o

£

VI •a

Cl a >

^

c j

c ts

•3 o CL 3 o 2 c/3 c a/ o o c U *o • X o

___

c

>

2

4>

4>

m

Lb

c

x •£ 2 CO 4 >

55

4>

c »• E

^ o O O' O S

= E| su

O E c/3

o 3 C O 0)



£4 1

4/

t o

C

L . 3

a.

o X

M

g

^ Xi 2 ^L-

C/5

CL

e

Xi - B

o T3

««o C 2 4=

O

P

'3 3

o 4) *0 41

«, E S .2

C/5 E ■2

C/5 >> C/3

a/ Lb 3 3 Lb (L>

(D 2 > 3 •r r 3 Lb ob 3 o > !— E 0) E •3 o h X •*“ * > ’o C/5 4) 3 a E 0/ 2 O — C /5 L/ r> C/3 t— " 3 3

(N JJ 3 3 H

3 C J

*2 « 1 £> O 2 .£P 3 (/5 C/5 O O 0/ 0/

C* fi O H

C/5

I^ “3£ •= ts S cd

t/5 "5

o

O X-

^

00 80 = ° '5 S « > 3 c/5

-o 3 5? 3 U

C 3 c < u 6

D

>2 * o JZ

E o

Overall, the trustw orthiness o f this research was improved by m aking o f different mechanisms. The advice drawn from Creswell (2009), Eisenhardt (1989), Guba (1981), Leedy and Ormrod (2010), Shenton (2004), and Yin (2009) are used to address trustworthiness o f the different areas o f this research. M ore specifically, Eisenhardt (1989) research on reason for improving research is adapted to this research. Table 22 provides a summary o f activities undertaken to improve quality o f this research. Additionally, it’s worth noting that some o f mechanisms (e.g., QSR International’s NVivo 10 software package for coding) are obvious from the beginning. However, other measures had to be developed as the research unfolded given the emergent nature o f this research.

r-i-

U. c /3

JC a l. 3

-a C P > *5 cj c oa

C P C/3

C P

,5 'C a. o Q. a, Cd

c p

l-

c p

C/3 C/3

Table 22: Measures Undertaken to Improve Research Trustworthiness

O a. < + -. c /> O C P

k . c/3 C c/3 ST1 t . 2 P t U 5 < u t/5 w c © Ji 3? o t C/3

•+-> — •

>

La

CJ 3

CJ

CP

JC

4 -4

La


OJ

4> C/3

C/3 c

! Q Si u3

>a § S

C O C L

£ o CJ a. 4J CJ c oCJ TJ £CO *co =

ccp

4J

©

u

JC

e o

u o ■O CO c • - CJ o1/5 00 32 •S oo *C CO cj .£ Q. E 1 S> O = U ocj O

a.

> c^ C £D O £

oj

U. 3

-o

£ cd C/3

0/ C d 3 t -O ^ X o 0) 2 oS— O • r— 5 a. E .2 O > c 0 * .2 s cd .2 ° cd C/3

Cl -

C O£ C OX >

C s "O « IX «c 1 cSi CJ CO 3 .ti

o *j:

g- C J Q .

C/5

Q UJ < D

CP

3 £

“O £cd

.2 .2

La

< u CJ £ O cj C/3

T4P) O u c/3 q ,) n 4/ CP C d TP + -»

^ o> o E-» w * cd V £3 B o •=. C J

£ O CJ

L« ^ O CP

qj ’T J

O CP

£

as

l

C P

>

CJ "P qj

00

Su cd #5 a cp 0) § C/3

.E is c2 c UJ

a£ 3 c d L a a£P L „ *c« qj CP £ £ CL CP * •” C/3 O oc cj O oo 3

« O c cj •“ o 2J c.S C cd -a L a C u §

O 4 > 00

£ *5. cd sz C/P

C/3

CP

00

.E IE

o > O O £

CP 3 'cd

CP >

" a . 00 Cl 00 3 3C/3

00

Z oC ^*3Cd 3

£

TP 3 VCJ

4 > Cl

r-

C/3

CP

h-

.2

"a. E b oCJ JE i—

C/3

C P La

CP La

3

4 -4

a TP £ 3 C/3

CP on

C/3

CP £

J*

3 CJ £

1

as C/3

3 C P

TP TP CJ L a CP O a .£ E CJ E CP L a c > 3CP 3 CP C/3 CJ T3 CP CP L a "a c. .£ -4-*

CJ

C P La

3

148

3.5 CHAPTER SUM M ARY This chapter introduced a philosophical paradigm in support o f this research. Specifically, two contrasting approaches to formulation o f a rigorous research paradigm were presented in regards to knowledge claims. This chapter indicated that dim ensions o f methodology, epistemology, ontology, and nature o f human beings form the basis o f any research. Using information presented in the preceding chapters, this research was identified as following an idiographic view o f m ethodology were knowledge is subjective. Knowledge on pathologies is also soft and based on experiences and insights o f the individuals making the attribution. Thus, elements o f cognition and environm ent are essential elements o f understanding systems theory-based pathologies for problem formulation. In preparation o f the second research question, this chapter dem onstrated the level o f appropriateness o f the Case Study Method in face validating the em erging metasystem pathologies identification construct. A review o f the method, its weaknesses, and the means to address criticism s were provided. This chapter forms the foundation for Chapter IV, which discusses details o f the specific research design undertaken to execute grounded theory and deploy a mixed case-survey research design.

149

CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH DESIGN

This chapter discusses the research design for theory (construct) development and case application to respond to the research questions. Information pertinent to different activities in each o f the research designs is discussed. The chapter builds upon research questions articulated in Chapter I, supported by pathology perspectives in Chapter II, and com plim ented by philosophical underpinnings presented in Chapter III. The research design enables developm ent o f the theory and supported through a case study to provide face validation. The theory development section discusses the Grounded Theory Method and the different activities that were undertaken during data collection and the coding that permitted construction o f the systems theory-based pathologies. The outcome is the grounded theory-based phase o f the research design is a theory (construct) for m etasystem pathologies identification along with articulated pathologies that can be used to inform problem formulation in systems-based approaches. The case application phase discusses details o f the m ixed-survey case study application design that provided ‘face' validation for the articulated systems theory-based pathologies. This face validation serves to dem onstrate the capability o f the theoretical construct for metasystem pathologies to be deployed in an operational setting. The findings from execution o f this research design are presented in Chapter V. Chapter VI, which concludes this research, discusses im plications and insights gleaned through the execution o f this research as well as future proposed research directions based on findings. Figure 16 provides the organization o f this chapter.

150

RESEARCH DESIGN An outline o f overall activities o f the research design

MULTI-PHASE RESEARCH DESIGN Introduce exploration, theory development, and case application phases

EXPLORATORY PHASE (Re)introduce pre-research, researcher interests, and research questions

THEORY [CONSTRUCT! DEVELOPMENT PHASE Phases o f grounded theory method including data collection and analysis

CASE APPLICATION PHASE Detailed activities for face validation o f systems theory-based pathologies

CHAPTER SUMMARY Summary o f Chapter IV

Figure 16: Organization Diagram for Chapter IV

4.1 M ULTI-PHASE RESEARCH DESIGN This section provides the overall plan and stages o f the research design. Figure 17 depicts the high-level organization o f the research design. A key aspect o f this research is the role o f literature and familiarity with key concepts o f research. To keep research aligned with tenets o f the Grounded Theory M ethod’s call for avoiding preconceived notions, the researcher made it a point o f emphasis to consciously avoid influence from previous research. However, it should be noted that the literature review section provided the basis for the research questions undertaken in the research. The scarcity o f theoretical

151

concepts explicitly linking systems theory to the problem formulation phase o f systemsbased methodologies supported the objective o f avoiding preconceived concepts o f systems theory-based pathologies and the subsequent theory (construct) o f metasystem pathologies identification. The early exploration research and familiarization with em erging and evolving key concepts in literature aided in developing a 'w orking' definition o f systems-based pathology as well as an ‘em erging' perspective on metasystem pathology. This is does not violate the tenets o f the Grounded Theory Method. In fact, Urquhart (2002) reminds us that we do not have to start with a “tabula rasa...[since] there is nothing in the GTM [Grounded Theory M ethod] literature that specifically precludes looking at relevant literature before entering the field” (p. 50). G laser's (1992) warning to researchers: “there is a need not to review any literature in the substantive area o f study" (p. 31) is m eant to ensure that codes, categories and eventually theory (construct) em erge from data, not preconceived prior to the analysis. T he ex p lo ratio n p hase o f the research design represents a wider-range o f literature including systems literature that formed the basis for devising research purpose, objectives and research questions. In this phase, the research was largely unstructured and involved insights from various venues including classes undertaken in the m aster’s program, interests o f the researcher, spinets o f discussions with the dissertation advisor, and inputs provided on the dissertation proposal. In addition, the week-long process o f candidacy exam ination and input from the dissertation com mittee provided a muchneeded input to shape concepts in this research. During this phase, a working ‘definition' o f system s-based pathology took shape and as well as developm ent o f a perspective on metasystem pathologies. This phase concluded with the formulation o f research purpose.

152

objectives, and research questions. Section 4.2.1 provides a detailed account o f activities in this phase o f research. In addition, these preparations provided the ‘theoretical sensitivity’ identified by Glaser (1978) as a critical com ponent o f the Grounded Theory Method.

MO

H *

o

3 y £

o c a ,• o o , V « i .> -o ,. o ;5 I -o if y ^ *— ~V 0*0 1

t/5 •2* -/ & 1 < y< 2 3 13 o

« 2

w-O u? X 3. o O i8"Qa O 3C CO

.

.

1 «P

o * *

§ ^ ^ a ^

o V, < L >C «* 2 8 < -S —

S ) T3

w § 8L O 2-SiS 5 5«J s n *-•

§1

6 J1 § Uo il

.s i

•

e

C/3

CJ C/3

ctf X CL

JC U a 03 o "2 •- "a -J

2

u

g

& ~ Cl 5 X H » 4/ cd > £>

os

o

^

§

. 2 ^

■ 3 3 -M

C /D 3 cn

^

3

CJ " 3 O X

3 s-

cn C m

3 j_ )

3 ^ 0 3

QJ

G _ o a 3

a

g c « 2 o > £

"3

U 2

£ cS £

•♦-* cd u o

»—

o

o n S o a

O

3

Os

o 3o CN O CN c"

^

r— i X 3 U 3 3 cn 3

c>

C b o £ *

o

UO

C/D C/D 3

cd cd u< u •4—< +-» o . %U.: H &

a. k.

3 t* 4-4 (Z> ■3 a a rr

S ^ S 52! ? W

SJk

N,

2. CRITERIA FOR DATA SELEC TION

Expand ‘systems theory ' as articled by Adams et al ( 2 0 1 1) to include other concepts (i.e.. law s, principles, and theorem s)

M

o o

s | v -S

x Cu

(N a" a 01) w

;,-s ~v : JD

< f" ■< a

S*

is

CL

srs ;V •£ s i2 II C Sr nfB. ~■ a St 5a = § e . I t «5 111 X 00 X §W5 ^SP -4-> s O 0 3r CD c /3 o CD CJ G § ■ 0 2 g>.§ 8 Xc /3 c £• 3w ^' / C /3 3 (U CD G < u J— -4-» o 2 § X O, c /3 0 3 X _o £ y 3 H £ /-s G X 03 R 8 . 1 g o « C R 03 -L -* D. S s33 c CO o p • acu C /3 C /3 c S' oo 2 » X • O 00 a R a '•*—» Ct. CU c x £- § O. o

>^3 o o c o c 03 X ■+■>* (U X-

5oB -o o U

O

00

* ^G

1

-4-> »f— CU c/3

a -c > c a> g CJ Q « g GG x £ o a +- O -

sg ji'-S3 8 a s cao •— Jc, _> 00 • 3 > ’C -r5 ■" ca

h ft -73 o r 7 3

. £ C

00 —

JO o W Sc O 00 A^) ’75 _c — ^ '"5 cd C c C *^ o ca u Cl > a 73 L S

o

*

£

>

B Lh

3

C /3

-g ^ 1/3 00

c

73

"3 c

0f l

sl, C

1 .s L* 4> - £P D. 0 o j* > :s •£ 3 3 W -C X .1 2 | .H 2 I o £ “O CL W >. a .5 I ’S S .8 •s «C5 g

Table 52 (cont.)

S

c*-. O

00 .£ o p JO O 7) o '2 ^3 .5g CL, 3 3

4> L.

« w * y __ — C3 ,p ■ 1 b n a > «o >■, , « 8 tO e y a -m y 5. © E 2 >> X ccj oC/3 =f 3 O fa .2 P o 3 fc © o x c .52



•© «aH • ° *" 3 J— *2 OO xy ^ CS © CD c & c © CO©

>

u

o X

C/3

X

© X

U

« 1 0- £

s cs

^

233 xs

§

*

5> «

.2

x *2■“ X

* D

'S

CO T3
oo .22 —I .5 c/3 £ c3 cL t+-i s ^ X ^ .5 ° 1 ^ OTn O J3 2 i> 2 > > . 2. < o 0) /5 b O n cu ? s XI' CU E Ti i3 J= o O O ON T3 3 S§ TJ -C O 3 ® C C+_ X ) c 3 0 o 213 C £ ^ 33 X O b 2 r - C/5 0 0 is *X ° S o 1 2 e3 - 0 cn ^ § 1/2 35 03 -+-> .5 £ . 2 c a c a c E x £ _o o 3 £ a> O X3 • 03 §s C O o £> cj ON &£•§ _ ju O C o !? 3 a> x as 5 3 •£ < aS '*-' »C/3 ^ OX) o 13 2 , 3 cu 1 4 2 '2 — 2 'n o .£ oo 2 • -

3 t> 00 C3 C i. •s

IS ^ 'S M '5

■—

£ £

DC C -a T3 2 3 C Oc T3 CCS 3

Table 52 (cont.)

io

U-5

o o

ND

-4—>

0m

o

^O 0

IP

C/5

C/3

d 1> w

2

C£

X

O rs

o

c>

c

e* S o .2 c _ 3 'c n C T c3 o _N >4 -* ’£ C3 73 3 +£ ca J" sr 00 l- d

u c , W 00 (U o .ti

o .2

d

3

CU

S'

c5

G op

00

0 0 "S 4) G ^ £ o d ■5 4) d §O >o1 X 4> -+-* GCO 0 c/) a 2 _> 4-* 00 C 4) '3? 3 2 /3 3 C /3 d SP 2 O 3 o § o .S hf> 03 O 3 73 3 '-3 G TGJ a t gj _c> O O (U

^ -M a?? ■ rt 73

4>

_>

*7

1 £ d

3

a

yi

3

2

ft> a o W « ! d o O 3 4-* i *-* O ' .S o •ds w oo d oo o' T> ° d 4» 4) 3 C/3 c x 2 2p .^^ Ti l- yj 73 d2 d73 d a o w T3 c 3O 33 u d ° § (u g

s i , t 60 1 *

u £ u O 4> _g ■£ S £ 73 3 O £ « o 2 o a d W ^ cx jc fe 3 yj O. N 2 ^ d O - a “I C 0> ~~ -X a y O' c a S S & O d "d o o o 4J w iSi 3 O' 2 d *- 3 to •*«*

2q £co GGh -O GO 3 a G C

o °

i *

ON CN

X

rn

©

© JO © £ $ O

£ e

c _o *+-* cd 3

CO

3

x

o

*

£* G

.2 '2 3

00 u-

o c 3

*S cd >

U-

o

*5«

■§ g* > o ^ 4-» o>

£ «

cd

*"3 g>

s 2 2

-«

cd

f-

2.1

*3 .

x I e r c o +d 2h W Q , c f .2 U« x o +* ■+-* H-» 3 C 3 jg 3 '2 e © 00 2 0) x X >- 33 •*— ©» ■*C/5 £ © « 0- JO .3c ^75

S *C /5

o

&

.2

0)

a* 2 ©

- >. /"“V ■*-> rj- ©

00 ON

g

*55 x cd _ 3N i

o c ^

‘C

oN> 3 3 M 3 o © © .2 fc“ © © 22 © G S o X -s o0 "© u © c x C H P r© .2P 00 S . 2 > x© T3 § 2 > CO 3 CO C © 00 3 © © 3 b © 3 -t3 G . 3 * :3 ®o u- O X E 3 2 o © 7 7 • X i O Xi

2

a

•c

c ^

2 g

X co

cd

3

33

Cd '♦-* -rn

5 §1

%2 | £ 2 co

3

* •§

«

2

3 3

•55 .M co X X +•CO

co

O

T7 +O-> 3 —«

© X _ O ■*—


. 3

Table 52 (cont.)

^5

S

(D r .1

w

■C4/5-J * 73 scd

^

S-g

■*—*

X

l -h

00

CD

J5

C/5

< cd

*n e c | ^ 2 g a> CO 8 O X' c c o OJ c /5 o * ca

.2

G 0> G G G O i-H >

G

0)

O D r c 0> a £ La O 4— 5 T3 4-» in C/5 0 4-5 3 >» § 3 Cd C/5 >> C/5 15 L. 1- D C/5 a 3 U 3 3 0) X -♦-* '5 . 3 ; ST. g CO 3 C/5 X 3 . O u ^ £ § , U C/5 3 ( E ool E La 3 •4 « 13 . 2 o 3 © (D CO o La 2 s ^ 3 C /5 c 15 15 o O 15 U 3 .2 P 3 « 00 72 G ^ 8 15 ° g H 00 ”2 ^ 2 3 3 45 3 c15 T3 .3 La 3 7 15 15 *a-a 15 O 3 n a 1) 3 La 15 7 3 © Q c/5 3 o La 3 a3 7 00 TD O T) 7 T J . 3 T3 S o .3 O 3 S 15 7 O 3 O QD 8 s K 3 3 0 " -3 u- c3 3 3 aS O . 7 15 "O OX) 05 V* o

O

4-*

Oa

© o 3

in co

15

■g ^ ’S

3 o 7 15 a-a 3

4O -*

O

13 w a- a 3 £ S * C/5 « bO o t? op > v 3 ^

O 00 c^

4->

^

OS 3 0 . ' “

3 ^

.3

75

fN

8. £ 8" B

TS

o

3

•3 — 3 3 3

£0) |> 3* £ 3

o o

3

s T3 —< ”S

T3 'U X «3 2 75 , g "X 0 s & 3

o

V P, o

.s

13 *ox

-2 S •5 .2

as

00 8 ^

75

•fts - a 33 G

> a

o

o 33 ft & U ■§ CO 7 >3 ^ t> 00 • S ; . LU O s, s-c 0 3 £r> 00 ‘ 1 -S S w 8 -co £ T !72 V c/5 .ft *i p co 2 ^ T3 X* — ^ C D CO S 72 “ 8a * 7 &0 u . t s 3 m £ "5 22 -o c -s c ’' 2 r —t O 00 c2E S S SO ,W 75 eO «S o CO' ^ C cd O o - ft w O o o o o 2 22 ‘m CO so c ■— O ‘Z3 3 O •= o

«D « S «

_c OJ ’S s_ S CO "3 cd

0)

cd

>» eg s c/2 X

O

c/2 "O

C oo . S3 W . co J2 CO QJ CT £> *5, ° s £ s a G (u C -C J2 >» S S to c D 00 o cO ID c >. o Uco d> ip , C h cd c /2 o o c £ ®o s £ d) ■*-> "O CO £ u c g i> fe " Z x 4~* Cd cd JC G..tE •S3 OJ -C

CN X) cn eg

Tt

.'

c/3

C* « © 4? .£ 00 _c 2 2 2 2 cd r-t S C O ^ CO CO i©3 t y a j ‘S X c 2 c>> 3 O ° 1 NC > ^M O C /3 X i © £ © 8 2 o X .*- s __ S c fi oo

^

CO

0©

oo

>o o o

O '

>3

CN

X © c

1 /3

> 3

T3

00

S *5 0 J .

tO

2 2 « & 00 3V 3 S ' .5 c§ “3

jS o^2 V & E x; x © M Cm © T3 3 s C/5 ^ C /3 § T3 © >. © X j cd co a *> co 35 t +O- C/5cd > . 2 £ S O © P 3 »- c © H ^ 2 -2 o }h m co a g © 2cd3 ca> W D ^r; ,Cd u. 1>H— .to c/3 3 3 J C C/5

C/5

TD

0>

Q>

O

o

X

C

. s

X

fa

m

o ©

c

© /vs 02

cd

> 73 fa x « E Cd fa gfa — 3 "y fa -T c U f 5 g o § & 60- — '■£ « C 33 2 T3 1 1 M f c 0-3 do 3 c/3 ni c '• £ I I oy ® c fa lc C /3 a N °73 T3 d> © © .— /3-> O y * s U td X) E -O -2 c ^

5^ o 3 w y S- G 5

-SP.2 r

1 3 CQ

£ |

g

o tS ^ C

o ^2 "O 3 ^DO do 22 O .22 a> yn t+'M- y •2 15 3 *o2 +-^ C o fa fa f a o ^1- 3 O O c O c a > o —. c cd fa c 73 c > 3g . "S u . -> 3 o £fc 73 - 73 y-i tu < v o -2 7y3 — 73u ^U 00 73 N cd c — £ fa j u> 73

c 98 f a ^ 73 |f a f2a 0c , 2I «i c "O d> U S tW Il - S 3 cd >« • £y Ca ) W .2 « a ^ o O 00 3 73

73 cd 73 7> (U

5 O O O ■*-> 0>

t-

73 3o w 73 c T3

c0Dd

60 r-« +-< .£ e

fa y

ft

do

3 .£ 6>

N

13 S ? d> fa « 73 x: •S ^ 6 m •fa f a 3 +-4 £ y < 6 y 0 0 £ 6c fa 22 o 73 3 0 2 *“ 2 3 >* c 0 g '% -id — 73 C > f oa •> f t G zs 0 _o o y U 3 71 S O § 1 X 73 f ) 3 pC O £'C C3 fa .22 y •fa fa Q , d) ^ W . ’G i-> y« .227 O9 . ’ qfay "5 0a £ o o fa -4— * 0 ,0 £ -£ & .£ ^ +a■* '+* tS .£ "S .52 £ ^ a of s 2 £ u o ^1JT CD to 0> 2 >-> ‘ "™ £ a +■' e £ io o _ (U 34) Xu — -s a -= .£ xa s/ oo o" g •*-* o x a to w . C 2 ^ « k X to “ a K^t 50 _ 5 £ *-E >* 03 jO o CO -t-» g i> £ O CO cO X X c/3 a v « ^ 0) 3 C ° 2 x "S ? o trt 33 ^ > & £ "3 5? 3o £ D g g 0 0200 4-. a> c 1/3 X O-S *j > o X o» s o x fa c /3 > . O to x 2r v 1X 2 X 33 X u x a 2 O tu +■4 4-4 X X O a g | 8 X ^ t3 « 4 a o 5 o c & 4-» * .S o e o CCS— C C/1 cd t. X •*C/3 V o x X .2 2 V 0> cu g IS uH o < /3 C/3 C CQ c/3 > %c C /3 ro .2 cd "© 43 ua> X +4 o ccs a IS o 0o

m

s s I § £> > C

60 o G SO



C/3

O CU

X

^ c

> ?

c £ O

too •—

X

I « c g

CCS

~ .2 CCS h i w-1 4 4 S3 C 0)

3 c/3

fcH

.2 x > ^ c 'o •2 2 *-< cd

ts

g § H o 5

%-*

C/3

2 "3 >>

c

CCS

(U

O - C/3 •X ca 25 «> xx xc

O

0>

O C/3

g S“

5O

G

O

CCS

CU

U3

o

§

Table 52 (cont.)

O > . .a 0£» *-* O 3

c*_ 4cu 4

cu X C/3

O

G

au C/3 .

C/3 £2 0) H ts C > O X cu o °>-r C Q . »3 > 0/ X & a 2s T3 C/3 o • 2 3 c 0 G CU•—

r

3 t> § 2 ft) *C 4*-*

c H

o 72 3 £ " o 4 -4 f t ) > C x 3 4) 3 ft) ^ 47 — ft) 0 . co" 00 ft) — £ g i 2 ' : co c Scd ft) 0 x CD 3 * _ ) 0 3 a>-H £ •* "2 2P > ■ CS CCS c B X co 3 •—j ft) 1) u I H ft)3 ft) co c3 O£ i - s o -*0-1 C™ h 33 >4 \ O C X C' O "* 3 X X £ 13/1 o S 3N X c . On ■o' Xco 4 7 2 3 O C X ft) U*i C /2 s ■£ 3 -4- * c£ ^t : ft) .2 7 2 ft) ! X 3 ’X «> co « o < 4 -1 X 33 X 4-* 00 co Q . o X •• . a . C O ft) 00 -o Q. ® ! co 3 ft) t- 7 2 o c X 3 ON 3 *-* c d . ftg 3 ft) — •o o c S -2 O X 4-* s a> •— J-H s S3 ft) C /2 ■3" .-2 3 ft) o o o ^ S O -X Xfi D. 3s 0) > ft) cu £ o £ ft) oQ . ‘I > > S o d . 3 ft) X ■*-* £ 72 co o X 72 5 J‘ Si ft) o 3 rx c C^ ft) X x X 7 2 °2 x 2 Cd X S i 7>% s

*

cd + -*

C O

72

72

£

Ui ts H cd 72 § • §

Table 52 (cont.)

72



c 0) > w cd

o 2 p2

"5

£

U 72

72

G

£0>

U

>

72

o

G cS cd 03 e ^ X

a -'

03

y ,

a > 2 C' (jj c CN Q. £ U 00 co ^ .2 ' •£ >% u < 3 S?.g « g> 03 x a> co fi 00 x c co y co £ y u - a _*i 03 03 x x £ 2 _c » I X O 03 y _c3 a 2 3 x £ o 0 0 2 X ft* .2 C /5 + 3 15 < to ■> 2 2 O £ . *—« Q O y _co oy -7-r 11 * •4-4 >C/3> a1) 03 2 Q f , o o ^ 2 o c G a b w 00 i o x .2 2 2 C U2 c /3 co xy y3 y yG f t x 00 c e— t -1 3 ft c r j f t C O < X £ -E £ y x 22 f © o _o * X O G 03 * 2 Xs X— 3 O' 3 — f t 203 e s 3 — y

3

t i oo

3 X

3 00

>

X

O y cn

3

G

> 0/

s .s ’5

■4— •

.5

Table 52 (cont.)

*3

f t* o **^

00 O o

x 2 0*

2 c r* * *

C 3

“, "2 c o X

■r X 2;

o

y £

■4—*

G

G .2 4-4 O *■cd cb cn G T3 tG 3 £ a> 3 O h hH a>

y

y x■4-4

CO vrt ft

a> ^

.2

•—

2

o 5 Cl &• ^

2

2

x o o

O. Q.

c

y c o

ft

’>

G

y O co c y 00 00 y 0 o> £ S -i 2 o® oo £ g £ o Xy 3ft r-1 +-*



c x:

■J!

+3 cn ^ — j-h £3 22 x03 03 • — .t! cn X X CO “ 5 c O y S 3 ^ ^ .2 .2

x

3 3 .ts

X ft< °

"o

—

o c o

^ £ -ft

cn Q 1 a,

£

c w o r o .2 C /3 © JS Ut 3 .22 c 3 c£ C /3 t- £ 8 - C “ 0> cd

CU

23 -S _ ,

0 / N

>

CQ oo

(U •—

-4 - *

C />

L-h c _3 3 ■c

O S > 3

©

3

• !-«

C N

3

"3 c

C

© -4 - »

V

o

u

> > •4— »

(U

*5 3u *3 X © -a 00 0) o C/3 © X M— C4- ■a O C/3 c o £ *;■ ^ 0u 3o c X) C/3 C/3 O 3 £ 0/ o cd o • - 2 Z. 00 -a 0 2 C /3 cu 3 JJ 00 2 -4-* o _o X /3 *— o c CU C/3 )-, X cu o lc C OX) u C* cd OX) . & c— , CU — c— U -a *55 cu *cd c/3 Sm ^ .2 § T3 s £ a au © -4-> c •S c 2 D " C/3 s a d u ^ •o^c -fi •*cd-> cd o C/3 bO cn T£ C 3 C/3 0X) >< »-H Vh a , x O cu ' C/3 u.

o

1

>

z

c

•g x

•—x

c gp g* £cu « « S 7 2 o *g 41 O o o CD D O kx 00 a u u Cu o T3 a . .3 £ U X £ PW - ■*-» £ *

C/2 £ i i O x

Q

VO 00 O'

O'

o o o

CN v-T u

£S3

a

-'3-

O'

k-

o "O c 41 G CUh £ ~kx O c 00 co _o

oo E O 1 " "» n 1 7 .£

00 OS -3 _00 c c i> c

G _ o

x

■cu *-* ‘a . X

Table 52 (cont.)

CT - 3 3} .3 u > 3 lO§ ^ 3 0_ — cn «— < cn g o 00 £ ? o _£ .2 O ^ ^ 4) O 3 fe C l -C too c 2 h -s X3 cO C X ^ ^2 O *6r +-* On /3 ■-< § 2 u C/2 ^ 4) •S on 60 £ cu ; |Oft) S -§ 1*8 X c j— i c C U C U W a m cu c cd 0 k-‘r 3 JJ 'C cn Jj .O o ^ S C/3 "“ > -C c '*0 2 3 X) Cl. M , . O C O *- £ 'C u c2 C hh £ t. £ 3" £t S 2oo 3 cu -O -I +3 4) O 3 0fih3 S hd o u> C rj 3 4 ) ^ C 3 4 £3 XS 3C 03 3 C o jg Oh O. c/5 . 5 cr x4— w a 4) *3 cn cn 3 £ £ c/3 C 3 Cd

. —

• r-

.

00

05

05 05

k-. 4> 4>

c

3

m o (N

CQ “O a>

i-« cn X ^ 'Sj a> "* u— _L, U. C 1- T3 C n — 3 OX) a-> a> 3 j ; '53 X * X >, 3 % c 2 J5 OX) ^ r? 0 3 3 c c 3 .3 0 > >> 2 4-» fl> 4> +3 d3 *h C 1141- 41 3 2 •2 3 2 X •— 3 3 O 3 0 3 © cu £ al c X cd 1 3

1 8|

Table 52 (cont.)

1

o >5 00 g 1 £ -£ -S 3 3 a. 4>

I

X 2- "3 § 8 — (U 3 3 X o a X c " E . o a> o 2 u o 5 « .9 to o s ° X O' o > 3c/3 T 9O o4) TO X O 03 — C/3 ?

c3

° -53 CO

CU

a> -o c

X

fi TO

X

V

3 r?

TO

2

a-g © 2

2

(U — 4 -p-p

8

_o (4o

X 3 T OX

§ 2

CO

> G ‘n 8 8 c/3* . C/3 O X cu ■*— 9 < u c TO O TO „o 0) 3 3 &- X o >? « 9 JD w S 3 O TO 4~» u 3 ■O 9 > •2>3 E 2 “c xrZn co X • cu E E x 0) © o 38 2 9 o 2 x 2- C/3 U 3 TO « ^Cu X) U c TO S dox 3 x x 4) C/3 U "O » 3TO «x ^*§ u c *- o o o E G D-l C O § TO X tX O T O t U c3/3 o o CTOxX TO XC C aj x X 8 o a

a. — o 3 & y £ 4o> X o

|

Table 52 (cont.)

/

S .-2 ^

D p's X o O X X

o

4-

TO

c X X 4—P

TO U o9 CL. < U X

2

DO

VO Tf

co - o

00 o

I s 7„5 c 3CO o CJ C /3

r

• SI

r>

a>

£

4 —4

$

u

3 O

u co ^

'>

CJ

L> cd *5 cd E 4 -4 O h CJ C/5 cd J J 4-4

4-4 g CJ 4—' ’ c/5 t/5 0

tm scu .2 X V5 s co cd 00 3 cd c 75 Q T3’ § C C

c x



•’- cu tS co 2O. 3cc

75 c CJ > CJ 2*-> c(U e O - t i s 2 o- 3 J3 cu G •G -a 3 T 5

J2

73 TO JC O IS cu £ 00

.'I 13 u« 03 "O 0D 3 .2 .2 -5 73 G *> TO oi— O C 3 a , 2 CJ

aj

T able

52 ( c o n t . )

CJ

O w >> 00

c a> Lh C+-H cu i c £ +-* O CO O I* £ ^ 00 4m c/3 O £> 43 i-C — US C 43 3c/3 cd ^ 4>3 >,. b 2 C ../5 “ -C 2 £ M £ r- 43 M Cl co g © u V i c/3 43 qj 43 CO 4 m XJ 43 O ^ 03 12 £

C/5 O o £ > O 0 X) e cd 0 =5 a> cd c 0 0 x: ■*-» cC c

cd

.£ 15 ■*-» *> C/5 up C c a> 't >

§D C/5 ^/5 C

73 U G

T3

O C O

CO

o V)

cn

«

as

1

2

B

X .a

x

.G

p

cc 1 X

g

C § x C/5

e

X

OJ

5P

X O OX)

J2 0 X c/5 td OJ CU

I 5 1 -i § £ X

‘oo to cd

75

V

X • Od

oo-o ° 52 es c

~ .£ o.

V, ©- 0

+3

2 c2 ° 03

u>

X 4--* 75 ■*—»

2 0 CJ 0 0) i-

^

oo

£

• s s e vs

C v

~

00 *2

.2 J*T.E 1 ) "5 as "55 *3 +-> ;S -? > 03 «J 0> 3 1) 2 53 ■' vs 1) C 0D -2 ' B 2 s©*rs o 0 0D £ > •S £ 75 'M X P

U

JsS vs

c

>

cd £

03 00

-o

td 0© ^ O c C >OJ _o 0)

03

*■4— »

*E •3 •(—» cd

OJ

O

03 03

_c *-*33 vs

03 00

c

03

o 03 — ■+3 j : 03 X T3 s*. * — 0) c » _ o fi S — O

^

I

X X

^d .2P CU X

ell c 1-^ — oas 43 43

XS

v-

> 'E

03 03

03 ■ f 2t 3

c u

i 5 H 0/ b03 x•*—»

O

cd i-m O P

i

,-

X

a> X -♦-*

G G O

>1 CJ

& 75 X

cd Lh OJ

G 0D X

15 X

+* cd

a 75

X -«—* c

X 0 cd -«—t 75 75 QJ T 3 CJ

43

^

&

75

m 75

75

£ 2

X

X G +-*

X)

1

=

OJ

s

S

a I VS 3 a 03 -©

i-

*4

w

© 15 > x 03 O o « S £ c c =+- O c 13 o 8 .2 03 03 O . £ < - O C l

*3

-a

td Id > 3 75 *E © O cd

U 5 3

00 00

.2P

as a, o

C 2 O 75 U -, cd a> O CJ 75 . 2 2 ° L h 75 £ •*-* O 75 . OJ /I \ i*4 2 r

0

v->

ap o

00

0> • O X > QJ H 5 G 3 -0 3 ( N C S — 1 ' O Xc/3 4 2 oj 03 OJ J O On oj G x> J cOJ O CD O .2 ° CJ 3 = CD’£ 5 C L © k"E C /3 CD 7 3 ~ 4 2 C D .S -2 ’E O J c/3 .£ 375 7o5 c2 3 *£ S£ ’£ X C c/3 CO E — T3 g _■5 e ^ /3 3 c 7 5 .5 cd G .2 E 42 CU 4-4 cG 8. 2 Sc S & 3 C+H V G C DG O C/3 O l . P G OJ rS 3 w u > 3 CJ E 44 OJ oj Uh B | ° k Cfl *-G cd 75 cd X 3 C cojd • * ! C J * 3 c>d S-L O 0D « 75 cd .2 oj 5 O J cud £ C L > p4 C-4 4t~ G -4\ G C/3 03 O o -G 2 T > < C o ^ C/3 CJ D oj 0 r-N 4-4 O -2 OJ OJ 00 " o OJ c 42 r f G ^ ° . J2 Vh O 73 -» OJ J CL O a G £ J 3 O -4-4 C G ■£ G cd 2L cl « ^ ’o pC c G- o 3 , c n « a i.tS C & GT TO ^ a> OJ 42 ^O -2 oj to p ° -T u>> OJ 2 cd *- •s ^ 4 2 c3/3 43 3 C/5 C J u. 3 CL 42 °c •§ > ^

OJ

Table 52 (cont.)

C/3 C/3

O >.

OO _o

"o E C/5 t;cd ■ — o1

42

CL 42

o

-. c OJ 3 E C OJ cd 0 0 3 C/3 c c t: cd cd cd fc 75 CL cd . 2 O C ‘4 4 cd 75 kH -4 G C O O O *4C J .*4-4 2 *3 OJ G C k3 0 T3 GJ 3 G cd E G cd cd cCd tfojt C U X OJ OJ eft CX CJ > , OJ 3 § 3 oj O oj +_>' g c/3 (ft 3 ■O ^ -J ,0J tft « taa c 3 c • -33 0+3 0> •£ £ § O S 03 _C U 5 C OJ OJ r ^ l 00 so C u< . c* c « C/3 X *^ OJ ™ S ©v ^ as c* + -> __ o > a oj ^ *s O X — OJ OJ d> (ft

03 CJ

'3 ? e

•=

c

cd j3 1/5 cd , ,2 eft

a *£ 2© Oi

£

00 .2

!O M E © * ® J* ci

C/3 OJ *55 0 0 OJ G , C Xcd O d> CJ OJ

2

Is *•*-»

B §

1 c

§ £ eft B 00

f1- ■£ .£■ §

T3 cj c OJ . o s

c © C/3 CO 0) d>

O'

C J OJ

"et"

CQ

O'

00

TD C cd

e+D u, O

TD

e o

u

> O' CQ

o O ~ 23 TD

•8 g '§OJ >2 0 0

CX (X

CJ O ' OJ O '

OJ > '-= cd

C

OJ

eft

cd

5

S-H cd

x ;

> C 2 ’eft . £

£ ®^

/3 S C a> cu ^

-a © x

c .S .2 0 0

a

£

c

C/3

t

>cu *-j d>

cd

>

C/3 3 u

g c2 r | 2 o ■O ts? ^3

•S ’I -cd 8 1 X ,S O cd D X i £

G

133

Table 52 (cont.)

1) ^ d) o SjdJ fl) ,d3 X 2 ^ c x J> *0 x 'd ccd • C3 .S_ OJ 4O— O cd (ft . ^ p o © c cd j j X 2 -*3-* X +-J C/3 ^4— < o £ £ oj £ aV3

o .2 yj .

Q cd OJ) 4-»

o 5/2 o

X

"8

a- x

C/3 ^N C/3

cd

ex

£

oj

0 is

cd

c 03

Om »C ’X

5

00

>

c _o

O S cd eft »g .53 OJ T3 c OJ 1 CJ o > ! cOJ X ■S C cd 1 00 cd Cu 1/5 tft I JS V -I i 5/3 eft o J C cd O ♦-* £>* 2a (—. - O e V^ ds 00 o 3 o VO 42 tft 03 CJ 00 O OJ OJ eft 3 C/3 2 »JS x> © H cd 1 ° J4-H 1 o CU O eft Cd /- n T3 a> O 2 X ‘3 E CO g

OX)

CO

cd

>x

!cd' §.t3 a c

is ^ -*©-> C/3 '—' © j= -* C X u«5 oj (V> c OJ *1 C/3 s ^ 2 c ffi cd C o l § 3 .3 ■ *-> t s ’g E o ^ E JO 0 0 c tft .22 eft C i c e - - 3 © T3 03 OJ o j 5 C OJ o C S 2 O 2 ‘-C Cd 'ob S - Coj *X ^ OJ 3ft C O sOJ —S C £ X *— Td X £ £ OJ TD CJ fl> OJ c O OJ o - g l ft « C/5 OJ OJ «" tJ-> o c o eft OJ *>> r""\ c 5 § Cu eft X oj c io x U c > o E OJ CJ cd

E

g»

fl

j o +-' 3

0 0

§C seft § . sCJ oj cd oj S 'SOJ

^

JS

■P

00

o

’E.

-2 I B e+-. OJ R

eft tft OJ cd £ X5 -a +_. OJ ^ oj *3

^_N ‘E

3 E hs "Si .SP >. - S C/3 3CJ X

.2

173

00

C O cS o

M «> E “ TD 3? OJ s^ s cj oj © o • s 2 S OJ w ”3 g > -3 £ o I cx i 2 2 fa .2 ^ OJ (ft o OJ .S p OJ TD 00 o S o o O OJ § S TD 3 1O C "o ' C e OJ E cd OJ o ^ a S n 5 * cx 3 2 ^ 0 XI cx a S o S ^ Cd C4_, IT5 C 0 (N U5 eft s ! £ •= Boj B| S?* .22 00 3 '5 ^ O 00 E .S ci s § o oj e £ 1/3 2 E 00 o c; OJ OJ o 1 o> C3 •S O' e j s 2 £ on ^ E -5 0 0 2 00 o 3 ^ O' o

'

Tt in

T3 OJJ

c n

Cd

0> c 2 O ■© o oj

c

2 oj

o H '■£ >; 2 2

£ _i C .X — * is Oi 2O t*O J

u

O >2 00

kx

-a

X- C - S■i x , 00

T3

c

50 O

cd Ci—

-3 O «



3 C >, 3 oo H ° £ OJ “

% a —

c OJ

_

CJ

O 0)

X 0) JC > td o cd 2 . c* 0 © 2 0) o x ac Ox o CI CJ 3 (N > X0> xT?33 VO

0)

j_ oj

G X

0

IS £ .5 c

.2 g

3 *

£5

G 1 C o • rm +* a u

qj

% «- -P -4-^ -O «- 00 S o co oj 1/3 t> *■' £ p '-3 g a _o b cca -§ * c+- S3 O OO 3>- c/3 >» — 00 cu o , 2 3 3 0 ^ O .S s “ 3 (U 43 X ° OJ -i 3 C *1 43 i l l o n cci (U > CJ e 8 £ 3 S S C "/5 ao ~ ^ T § 5 .2 8 -S 3 3 3 O S c b C/5 CJ O h u 7 3 ca > > b •a cr i. - a (U 2 ~ c2 * °o S 23 0CJ) 1 -o .£ ® = | Sw -*« a> ’> T3 "£ J3> c/3 "T 3 -r CU43 43 M OJ os- C„/5 > 1 C /3 U VP ' S ; 3 c/3 O C 73 ca C/5 O as a o ^ OJ o ccs «c c S 3 C a> O •S c^ aS M .£ c ■G j/3 o . £ •= OJ t+3 _o S c/3 C+-h • - o O 3 (N + j U 2 2, O J G oo b :6 ^ J3 ■3 2 b • ^op p^ -*-* OJ cx .33 8 pc o3 — j) o 22 CCS •" P ao S S3 P -H OJ X> J3 _ i^p, oj G •P P 'c G ^5 O J O J + 3O H o c £ P x oj O 73 •r- s a o c^ .G S3 8 *^V />' £r* °1U /3 .2 c “2 -ca .cc/3 •'— C« C ~ OJ Q ,P ca to 73 5 D 33 ^00 23 60 c sO • .£ £ £cu a. ” CCS O -3 c /a O S 3 ^ CU 3 Xl ^ S3. 73 gI* i+-> ica ^ ^ S b ta r£ b o ■ .33 £ OJ O •b 2 £ n v 1/3 £ b P 3 C3 r»n S- !03 S3 2 O C © >» c § I s .CJ > bL| 43 -«-» (U 3£ CJ c/5 C s«^ c2 .2 ^ o > oC/3 C t33 ^ OJ CJ u G oj ^ >4-4 U X G C- 4-» •2 8 O J 2 o 23 X OJ cj ^ oj *-» C/5 oG OJ X 81 Cm !a G > X G 7 ‘S C /5 C O OJ O J O f -*n-«4• OD -4ca o C u X cu 2, OJ — /5 OJ OD C/5 C 73 G C-4 /5 . ao O J £ ■- 2 1 T D OJ o £ OJ /■M OJ . £ *o | £ 13 £ oo £ o *-4— » c3 — O J O D O O J £ G a 8 c « £ O 3 8 I S _ .s OJ £ £ 2 p 4-> O £ bGh ot- a o cu .73 O C/5 o as o CJ o » S3 b e X ^ C J *3 S 3 .33 " C S .33 £3. -33 C + 3 C X 7 G C/5 4*C 73 03 CJ

Table 52 (cont.)

4 -j

Xh o 00 o eo o ■*-< 43 7 as OJ CX +■>

■4—*

sD cd cd OD cd cm 75 C 75 *B j= ° 3 CJ C 24 - * 75 c QJ 3 * d O *3

2 .2

c .2 ■

£ ^ 3 73 T3

~ £ C/3 ■" a> T3

3 4> 12 £ T J •s § 3 3 4> 3 t J r- ^ t 3 3 t «3 £ C/5 £ QJ §G o C /5 cd c cd 45 cd 4—* 2 s c/5 45 CJ « "2 • s

© s

qj 45 u-

43 1) 4-4 ? 01 4—* .£ lc o * u-* o £ o J 3 £ 45 4 -4 cd £ Cu

*

22 a

£

S £

'O

oo

O'

3O' 00

fe C+H u. o

O' "Ct O'

TO 3

CJ

fc

3. .& "C

C/3 3O

CJ

0) a - ^ 45 > 3 > £ w £ O ^ QJ ’“ ■* cd "S £ Um £ 3 35 3 ^ S 45 m *J5 C/5 C$3 13 *3 75 J SO co QJ QJ Q u 'S £ fe QJ fli ^ ^ 4—* > 75 J5 O -td C/5 T3 C 2 /5 2 2 8 C«M r-1 • a * /5 Id C r t/3 a C/5 QJ £ * O .tt £ -d "5 •- 3 > 13 QJ . b QJ cu >> D 45 S 5? 2 2 91 3 4-* 8 l vs .o 'l-1 ^ "C 0) O ‘c« "~ oo c V T3 c c r3j 0*QJ QJ C 2 3 O CJ .£ QJ 45 QJ £C/5 22 0) 4—> 3 C d c / 5 CJ C/5 2 u 3 45 ^ QJ +-> +5 ft “ P s O X ) 8 §> § OD a h 2 « O X ) *- 75 45 3 +- td CJ . £ g> C /5 cd QJ • o £> CJ jC*-42 • — ^ > uD 35 o 3 C J CJ V £ 45 o x » o 5J « v-. 1/5 • •- c 2 3 -c 3 C J O -*~J C-H QJ 3 0 ^ KJ 3c« «> , 0 3 < U 3 u 45 a , - s .£* 4 * o .S o> 35 & s ■a 1/51 CJ N ”3 £ T3 S s- 3 o U "O u« U cd c .£ C Q J QJ O E ? ^ r s-< Q J 4 = 2 C/5 (>U o £ X - -*= £ * jU 00 o 2 2 ft -* £ .X co X

v> U o &.

>. ft hn ft &J3 3

_o O X

■*-> 03

CU

03 o

flv

£

•

3

£

30

0+-» I— cI

^3 uX X"

4-*

o 3

ft

CU

« > ft o .2

£u

*■— *

to

— cd

s ^ E

£

^ 2 " S

Qfi CU cd X03

C/5 00 '£3 .£ 3 X -ft

ft

1 23 75 Cd cB £) f1t -ft 60 C/5 (U u to £ 2 uCU. 3; "O u £ ^ £ X c/5 42 ft >,C*-. X 2 c ft 0

*3

co O

1 o 3 _. X2 +CU co S au O "-< to S2 3 > > — £ •— 5o x o e 2a - c2 ^ X s i co cg x® 1/3 2 « 3 cu o X O +-* < D. £ 4co> 1i ■*“ "g +§co -* Bto •*-4 ■*— X s » ■*-'+-' co C O S $Of CU 54-» •^ . 3 co 3 c x 5 /2 co Q r3 < u ■a u CO 2 u •S o e oox 3 S* O v ’■£ -§.g 0000 ^2 o ’o C r£ £ g, ITO ^fl) IS x oo 3 X w ,2 5> 2 -> 2 — 4.J X X X 3 ’5 t o £o • O j! S £ 1 Ov v 2 u o * 3 _ cu O. C U CP 6 3 CO Pn io "O £ uu. 2 I X« *S0 C3O OX .

X r(X

oo X

o X

3 3 cu a> (U X 3 (U O 0) x-3 ’5 1) X 3 _ 3 x^ cu £ 3 O C/3 X "5 * X '3 < u 9r u. c ^Cu-x ° — °, B .ts 3 •-* c 1 *td 5 -a 3 3 £ c3 2c/3 3 g 3 o ■S 13 XC/3 *^ *c■* B *E:n S X1) S 2 g "O X +-* ’> © 03 O oo' x C/3 -e < D S >> X ecd X £ x ? oo £> a + -> 3 C/3 C X 00 3 03 P a & C/3 O 3 ON OCX) CQ *p“ 2c •a p o .S * “ 3 o i 3 S o 3 o — cl 3 p e* ’3 o k p *-* -M 3 c p N « p 2 S p/ j C /3 03 C Q X N c 2 0 3 B B *S c >> & O 3 p C cd • .£P B oo _/ /3 3 ■ * > ‘5 4 -» o B p o ^a § 0 3 *++ wm o cd § & C c oo 3 2 cp/3 X "b I >> 0 , 1 u c Xp «O X© -* p 73 • CQ C/3 C/3 Pi c e C/3 ~ 3 o oo X c i j J i p .£- -o (D O )-, p 3 © B • > Q X -*-* be w > > x O C/3 o ^ J ea 3> 03 0S3 0c S .2* 2 cd cd o O X! c/3 c c 3 .2 -c G 5 « o -5 03 1-1 o a o _C p o x X ^p Ip fa X X P X ll ■> X P X P S. § 00 x ts 3 . sp 22 o5 3 ‘p 3 .SP P — « X t3 S O X X 3 X "3 S 3 03 h a p1- 0^3 ft- £ X 03 P ■

M

OO 00

ON N

ON ON

3 X P

P P

c3 CQ

CQ

0P3 o p

00 g a e-

•2 •X

cu X ■*-» 3 a> Cu 73 T3 C "a w 3p o -3 ,2 x c 00 tJ

Table 52 (cont.)

a p 73 73 a ^ 1) O oo 73 X

3

P

3 ^ "O Cd

v- 2 © »>-»*o22 op es O N a/ o c 3 X «J w 3 db o Cl- O p

03 o .ac o 1 1 3 3 I js o 5 a j2 ^ £ X © P 1’3 iP - X2 C X W 3 O 3 >1 C P 03 03 P

X "c« C o ©x fi cd c "O 73 u c cd < c 0> 73 co U *-> ^o —

75 S, t!

•S t I '> x a g .2

o /> ^

CN vO

cd

X 4— * JC

|

a> * 2 oo-r • co o 03 Ja a "o ■3 00 i 2 0 3 /3 0> > C > co X 8 m 3 £ •s » % o > cd oo j c Oc o /3 » ox C c .£ T3 C *Xz= co 03 _o w c- +-• T 3 2 | to o 5cd-. & 4=5 ^ c/3 2 t o O C/5 Cd o ^ ^ oO ^" TO O c t3co c>/% oo O O .£ 3co H 3 cd * 0 00 C C/3

. 2 c .)

CJ

O 4—*

T 3 w

in

4—

J S

X

4 -»

0 -

_op

"3 iU T3 C TO ja oo TO 00

ON oo O' 2 3 o O

>

c cd o >> ooo C/3 £ ja T3 c X TO 1Oh m o cd O C/3 *o o - ^o 73 2 -r? 13 c. fli — N > .2 TO o 2P "T £ O i3 £ xj oo 3

0) U

Oh

v a o X ® s ~ 22 c sa xs ^w (U o 2 13 Gm o "5 c§ a g 03 ^i - c£ o VcO CO CO CO CO s o O , 3 c/5 3 3 2 f? ° .£■ . a . £ P ^ -o H •4— 4

8

ul-l G O

i/2

0) "3

JU CX 3 O u

£ o C 3 = « 2 12 £ u C

O 3 O co

3 3 X)^

uc Eo

o >, c/5 .t 3 -

a ° £ x ;3 CO cu _2r* oo rn

a a/

C CO

> .£c/5 XX oV C O

i/i

— 03 rs

X!

SO

m

0 s £

s

.£

X)

3

O vVO p

u x-4—* Um

' 1 1 *oo o H 2 3 sc - c/5

•^t o

00 2 .£ •T3

"3

C

tU

oo 'ob ~G V 4-> c

cd 3 3

cd

3 o ©I B "3 (-■ OO CO £ £ -5a> OS £ O ' u > . a/ o 3 cd '3 O oo 3 >> •T3 T3 c e r •>, feC/5 C/5 e r "C ’o ^5 C d I I 3 C ‘ X> ■*—> 3 r £C/5 £^ 1 •£ s£ x> c/3 C X 33 < U “ 3 CO s ”5 •§ b ^ x iS =* u. (U e£ U < cr » >, £ > x2 X < D * » ■ — i is C /5 x ^ 2 x ' o so sD> ■a x 55 C/5 *0 C/5 1X < 3 > — CD 4— 4) • o « * Cd CD C/5 — ® x &co o I I er o 1 S3 S £o a> Lh £ fa -*_r C3 >» 3° 3-3 w X -c S 5 -o 2 t o * 2 ° c 5 s » =l-- X 2 » u ; - > , X . X X

C/5 £ , C/5 X* 1)-* -fe o CD c c o y feo 4-4

Table 52 (cont.)

rrnu es

5p x O X •MX 3

cu

•c i4

X

“■» O 0 “ C/5 cd bo > § 2 ™ .2 c 3 C O. M C/3 2 £ T3 G X uS 2G * & & c * 73 73 ‘> ^3 75 _3 O — c3 5 /•—s 3 2 *3 O J < U 8. s £ x < u U io & '£ 4-» < a °u oo o 2 3 3 X 3 G t*- u T3 OO D Q \ Q . 3 73 3 ■ 3 2 > § ON •to T3 X U 3 -g = 1 ? c t - s 2 0/3 X — 1 O £ o £ ^ £«* 1. ,3^ C +-1 , t£ .. n o X cu o o £o C 13 to 2 C/3 ■■ • O oo oto M- h5? < 7— 3 .2 03 C/3 C o to * c O . 3 •3 ' ■ ■ * ' 2 >> & 03 £ .£ 3 vri i> M M C* X 43 " 3 3 £ .2? 71 3 CU 3 U X ‘5c/3 ■c/3§ 13 5 £ B £ ^ — 03 5 3 03

i

-to

pm

in x Ov

oo

o

X 3 _o 3 U 3

c o73 _3 U 73 3 3 1/5 .2 3 > o

71 X3 *3 2 00 03 X £ P >-

Cm © "O 3 3

O

73 O 373 X> , -a ■*-' > 3 2 X X 733 •x 03 03 3l— X3 ^03 Xto 3 iO

4m*

73

—

Table 52 (cont.)

3

Cm

O

a

O ^ >> 2 oo S xo ^ - 2 | 2 £ c £ 'B -£ 2 £ 03 ^ " B^o oc cu M CU 3

(X

73

C o G

rsO r^)

c/5

v

"O 0> &D O

O O T3 >» •uP C /5 "> < u .ts o 3 0> c/5 E 00 !»« X C => 3 g *C " 3 .£ u C* 2 T 3 X cR "o ’3 *- /5 CQ C hu *c 4-» 2 s*— i 2 ° .2 S £ IS §* — .2« cr 'C oC a0 / oC 3c gs* > c >*— CD io o o O o .s c ,

,

C M

CQ i

.,

c CO *•c /3 j- j c g u 3 tM x) CO £ Oo &

00 o M3 U

-2 c

o .2 -3 — 2CL sw*

1 u , CO 2 £ £ 1 © .2 G G § s | ■-- - - £ u O u3 3 g Q . >o 00 £ C/3 Ccd O -K co Cd£ 2

r

X

X o

2

cu

o 3cj3

£

3

VC

•3

■>

V

3

2

32

o

X i_ 3

co

>> u

*oj

u td ■3 cr u

D. o

3

C

d-

C

co ••“

c+- " S £

O

to

-3

s-

cn

O >-* 4-» C/3 do 3 CO

E = 3 -§ b

3

2 CO 9~ - e

E 5 x133 CO o r CU

CU

"O kd 2O USi td 3 co *- 3 Q C/3 C « •— 3 O • " 8

6 O'

S 3 -O 3 ? -*4> -* 60 f e » c (N 3 C « -3 .2 Xu. 73 G eo N Xi £ G ° c 00 13 4) 3 e o 73 !S .5 co 00 OJ 4> X G £O =3 G 3 X G a £ G O ■c*-* 6 C • — 03 cc oo O 60 u o 4/ 60 3 cd ’5 c -4-4 O • " X TO X -4-4 - c K o Cm C/3 £ o C/3 C/3 C/3 % fe X X o C 13 2 X o G G C "S cd CA 2 o 3 i f * a § 3 60 c x 8 .2 00 3 00 ’ 55 4> X X -M Cm G ^ o Qs w £ c 2 t o G O 4» C/3 O f-N cd X 3 > > cd < 5 o 4) 73 X C/3 U ^ X 60 X G G Uh Q O c CU fe 4> “G C fe X D- 0> £ CU X H G u > 3 .b "5 75 x © 03 G O o X cu cd x - £ * s d) >> , O >d) d> ^ v . ^ £ o -< » « in T) C T5 X D ^-«-» G vO 75 V cu 3 >-* co •— cd Ov 75 2 ** ■£ 8 c S C d > 00 « 5 C+-< (U 4) < 7 5 § 3 _© Q> d> O X to X O' co co F"j to 1/5 tn *; e o G r - -S co o ^ i— 7 5 w © .5 X> *75 75 • —1 c* +>4 -* a> © S cc c "O A# 'S 5 C/5 O v£? co^ o O ^ 5 C Z G £03 C* 25 ^ co cd c 3 G ^7 5 +S 75 co f E co > X < g 7 5 3 co d> £ >> H I £ . 2 X © C-D «M 2 ■a p t-4 75 G T3 -*-' O co c g .2 cS © ■£ 8 © OC +H d/ -4 -J C/5 S G co © © b \J1 G c tS ^ c1) £ c cd >> £4 >>.£ 3« t05 >» i s

co xQ .£ 8D- - g 305 05 . 3 iC C—X 3 « £ o c

£

3

"cd

5

C/5 tC n>

GO 3

a

S

cd

C -G 2G XJ O

2 3 ‘cfl

3

S < s

c

x

•2

-4— *

^§ 1 o 3 O ^ £

D 5 >1 05 c

o oo -2 ° -2 u .22 -G O ~Z VI g j 05 2 3 m> ^ t i 0 aj ° o _, ^+r -a 05 “ c o05 X .£ S - 2 05 O ~T *x 2 ' 5 — ^3 C O 04 w ‘P — £ £ V , ~ ^ 10 •*-* 2 o 72 O r■Si 7 P ° o c § S £ 7 3 CU 2- i ; o o P .24 "P s P C O ^ P to « 3 g r U co £ " CO a c ^ cu 3 a -O 72 ^ 2 -2 « O X). > cd S a> -w 'sD * 3 o ^ , < 2 « oc

T3 C

.£ co CO o

U T3 C

CL

P .

CO

00 co

Q> +-*

-a

+£-* M -♦W — > cd o O 3 72 X o X3 34> 0) 72 X 4o — 1d £

3L- -4 (U — * 73 (U C C

C ft o o 3 e O C4O_, O O 00 o E " g o .£ c . C3 > - u —o ^ G 75 £3 ^ a> cs t o 3 0 0 ^ .£ . > * 2o D. _ U 2 3 3 3 P 35 3 3 3 1) 00 .£ O x 3 X JO 3 3 3 o £ o s o 75 3 X oo ,£ .£ 3 _ Q ‘n * * o o < CO 00- oo O (U r3 X! tt 3 to . O 3 25 3 2 ft § C3 f t ^ 3 ft oo^ 3 X % -rt x c O H ° Q> c § .£ -3a 75 c 5 C x > £ 3 X £ 1-J 1^ sN s3 «>. I* D ft 3 O -ft o x 3 o ' >G ft. ^ g ^ X B S ft C M '5 ' - U S f B £ ~ ft 02 3 x C 3 C U 75 *1 »3 3 3 .£ o S 1 X3 £ft 33 ^ a> > Cu 3 mi-i o x 3P? 3> xS3 O J-. ^ "td >>£ > .x .2 X > g , 00 b0 33 3o 2 o O 3ft "5j Mr £75 ”3 r e 2^ 8X 0 3 * £ > ,' C /3 3 cd ^ 4> C -C o a ^ O -ft fa *o*■ ^ ? > 3 O S3 . £ rS 3 3 ft c ° 3 iS 3 •> X -O § ^ .£ o " a . 5§ 2 ^ 1 § .2 £ " S o 0 to 'X -3 4) 53 5 a-jj X f t J 3 X to a> O to 00 O ■“ o O £ o O 3 X . 5 N £ 3 75 Cd _N C S 2 » 3 O ^ 3 .1 £ S « '9 Mt2 S, O. o s I3 33 t: x ft 2 7) ZJ r . >2 33 3to X£ V w^ o ^ JS a. ‘S WO + 3 O t— a, (j co ‘c

.

ir t

^

3

_

11

§■•2

CO) o o (N

^S ^ 0 x

o c H—» .—• >, X yj X O _> o > c

O£ c

o o e o3

Table 52 (cont.)

3 £ fe 33 *2 o J*-. 3 co 3

"3

3C -3 O to fa 3 ®2 a S co 3 O 3 _S X 3 O o >» X X x a> o ^ X o ^ — 00 X) >> o o

o o

3 JO "3

>

3 3

> 75

oo o O "ft 00 fe 3 0 3 X X 3 0 O

17 qi C to

S

^

>

J•¥*S

JS 75 C cd . .

cu a

ft

ro r~On

U-* ® 3 >. O 00 o O 3 O O' •S ^3 3 O Cl .

OL

cd

a.

_o o to 3 £

2

J= o

75 75 > O

a

^3 ■« | .£ T3 C c« co — C cd 3 O Uh 3 O e 3 t3 cd t 2 w 3 3 T3 ^ >• 3 3 •- C ^3 O g M 0 1- cd a . d

u< cd

Q>

a> 5* JS 47— c (U a J -< — * £ 00 * cd U

13 a >> ucd C'S O

0

0 >

0t-

D. £

Up cu o au 00 3 o “ O X C 3 E fc. ** 00 is to cd c O co xs e ti: e.S co .3 On cO >4

C/3 c

4 -»

4 -*

44

-4 4

Cd cd

X

O OJ a cd a> cd

O

QJ C/5

E ■*=



O o

x tr>

CM

O'

>

X X co

4 —*




G

CJ 0S— 1

■a 4(U -*

a Xu c _o *J£

Table 52 (cont.)

CO c C/3 C/3 C/3 .2 .2 G (D u > m trl f e 4i 2

C G fe

ao JS » -§

g> C

^

O

41 41

3

S fe Cu

is

"g -3 QJ °

-C

co

3 ^ o CG J S *•1 o z l 00 >> 3 — O 41 o ^ .2 3 u 2 ■*-* i n 33 . c/2

JS

© g c 3 ■§ 3 3 3 e 3 I 3 3 JS a J3 - 3 C/2 .2(£ CG S •*41= C/2 c/2 00 R* C l M _ -•-* o 1> 3 U CO 3 § « S fe l—1 fe ■s s oo.£ S 's ! § -c ~ 3 X+-* C/2 C O •r; 3 £ .2 . OX) 3 co zj £c * (^11 iS 3 3— 3 a, o c S C 3 41 O * 3 fe s ■■v ” ,£ oo ^ « .£ 8=6 C c •*-* s 41 3 £ ~ J S 3 eg C4- n S t j 3 •*-« G Q> 0 o ci 4- fe t+M C 00 41 O 0) < 00 31 t« 4 1 3 oco i c/2 33 »1 O B c2 41 -m JS .2 '£ 1 •a £ Vi

C/2 41 3

0O o . « 41 & ^ 00 Ov • - O £ 3 • - £ (N

00

-a

3

2

CO

g -S 41

41

J= ^

.41 fe

J S

3

£ ^ £

*3 G £> ts o - a ^ tos J to g £ ^O a s O x °- +-* c •c ^ cr o t3 a I S s l U x / »w* « o< T *>*-> o o p £a> -CO to3 X^ C O oo G 2 co 5CO 1CO .SPg j,^ £ H S2 I O X to G J£ X ™ « SC “ o "3 s ^ T3 S *5 x 'O -2 ~a ~ > £*.£ jo1 oo “ d c C0/53 o C/2 « 3 r /i c .22 ■So a> T3 £ . 2£ ■ cd D S « S O X T3 4-* CD £ D 00 H B & . "5 cd S 2 43 c3 m u 1) >> cd o * o "cd *2 U 3 D o u.(D s* 00 3 C/2 4 > a CD D ob,D D ® ^O.3 G £o C/2 0— O- D Ci—i cn ft- -5 £ 3 cn l

•—

,

O '" !

f" O N D

O O

D

CN

O tu c o >

T3 oo O C /3 00 c D OX) 'E* U-. c3 D *o o w D > «a CD1 ^ .£ o D SO 3 4-4 o ~ v- C c o P Q CD 3 4-* ,^ *3 cd D 0 > 'O C/2 a> T3 V- a a £ *&, r-* | s O -> -4 .33 75 03 . E

-

O

-ft 22 § & §> c H © S &p X =S 3

D .

75

, 75 y 2 • cd W w £ « I X « \3 2 o v P- U £ ^ OT

a

w

£

-3

0£) > O D O C+0

3

3o



3



ffl

3

X

75 3

T3 dU

S2

k-

5

*3

cr

3

04 |

o S.

o 3 X-4—• c/5 c 7 5 S CO • kkH 3X O -3 O u. C X ^ £ a u u O 75

Table 52 (cont.)

75

>5 00

_o X

3 '5 CL. 3

fll

C

CU 75

o

o

-4— *

_C

c

2c 3 D

.2 ? c

3

£ X

©

c

>% ^

.

cd

t i

u

3

S Si .2 S3 © c ’£ e3 »5 5 -C X X 3 O 3 c c

=0 2 c

_c

V-

3

O

£ « ^7 i . •£- £g 5^ .sp 73 «£ o> 75 QJ "Tl 2 h TO a3 ^ u « ? *> r © o "S X M •*-* -*-* 2 U. V5

c /-> © « 2?

00

^

c 3

’3

y

1 P

^

3

>

X

§ 3 .22

o (N

■n oo ON

C s

3

l/~i

x

00

-o >. g X u J 2 £ * «3 X *• t303 © u S cn cd < D en 4 -» C/3 a>

a/ X

S

cn

3 x

co ^

i s ■Eg

c o i>

o o

a> X ^ •*-> ° 3 J £as co £ § 3 ^ O 03 « X X X 2 -*-» C . oo $4 “1_ 4— xc a> ' X

00 X £ *«r is* 2 x xs x CO 5P .2 £ ^ _g 3 03 _g 2 « cn 75 3 Gn -4-^ x u 3 to ^ c ‘3 X S u &o -n > ^ c 303 3CO •u,O5 1>) s > ^ > *-*-» -a u 3 X T3 3 S _ e ”3 X 03 u u co •— 0) > , * 3S- £ O X 03 u c x h CO X «-c CO ^* a. 2 B T3 S c % 3 n ^ X to ^ 1 1) ,o X "a O o -S £ I O co u O 3 T5 03 f t a c £ C w C 2 s c 2 n o 5 .s 'C . 2cn . . c3 CS 03 ° £ X o £ 3 3 •H« SL 0) 5^ o '' O W _ cd « _Q o . £ cd Xcd a> § o oo .2 tu — u . x a. CO M p Q\ U S o u o a. o "S X h +-» a> ° » 00 03 S - c s - f d ♦ ^ * J -* S *5 " 3 > X ! S C/3 £ « I 3 3 !> 2 00 £3G • 5 3> it* CO co on & ft 3 -rn ^ E -2 cn £ o O to c i s O' o *§ s ° £ a> X 0> •*-* ^ 3 u ‘S co I 3 .2 •M cd a cn CO • — c/5 .2 S c c o 13 > . at (U 3 T3 O 'co f t ics c £ 2 /—V t.-3 G c 2 '»-. « 03 £ & 3 J2 o o o £ 3 co • 2 s 1) H . |- Cd l-H O rg a CO SO G +-* r CO £ 2 ^ 3 S On * § "-S C CQ S ^ N ' I & > ; £ , 2 .3 ao •£ rt £ c £ s X "3 O ua> -C r 3 3 03 X ft Its d £ co O 3 X 3 x X g > o _co — X ^60 cs 2 3 u 5 cd co 3 03 C to ta co +- C/3 03 r-0 c 3 co fiu X) 03 5o‘ - 5 >3 ’> < X U 03 ’co to £ 3 GO 03 —j

M-H

X ^

co ■4 2 < oo w> 3 3 C x -- u

s^

>%

4 -»

4 -»

4 -4

~

-4—»

i

4 -4

O

CN

OO O'

3

ON

U co

O'

£

3 X


O 3 X X 3 .2

a- >

C 1>

>- s

£ U

C*0

a. cn 3

£ a> to 0 T3 i^> G d cn w 3 C4 -H 2 as 3 cn O co X 3 s C 00 00 0) O 4 -* 3 C cn *4 - 4 3 *3 a> • 3 . £ G cn CiJ 3 X 0 -S o 3 3 4G- 4 3 X X 3 X cn >> £

1/ 4 -4 3 3

cn

£ co 2 — co X >,

d

x 3 t3 c >> O *- £ 3 X 3 3 us X Q. £ "g

,o t+H X

o

£ o X

C « ^4 C bM -c« xo ^3 3 _c 3 «t X

3„ c, u U -m A cn X ^ cn . 5C n 4- fl) O *3

3 CO

o

D X

^ 6

•3

.2 < -> 3 a

x33

a> >

"3 CO

4> k. c« o g DJ

£ acd

P

s

cd

co c S c .2 .2 2 '■4—* 3 y -2

3 3 .*—1 9" 3 0a> cn ^ c £ >> 3 3 4 -* cn X cn 3 O X o *-* G o a> cn b cn oo 3 G •3— - 33 O 0> X . £ G o a> A c '3 3 o 4> 00 4 -> a o s 3 X !— 3 (U O O o o •*-00 4 -> cn cn X 3 cn

2 3

3" oo On

r~~

Of>£.

Table 52 (cont.)

OJ X

4 -*

O. co

X

cd

4 -4

>-

cn ^ i 3c - O 3 -S

.2 g. 00 3 a> .£

3

>* > S o o x £

CO

2 "co 3 « 3 X

SO 00 u m C c3 TO 00 TO

w CN

CO TO O — Ol TO ^ "5 X TO T >O 00.X < E-

T3 2o TO § &* rD O 2 a _ o§* _c cd Q * E ^3

Table 52 (cont.)

C ~O .2< n

u 1 o CD u ® « o E S TO TO C L. O

CD C /3 «-> c W-* cd _o X •+-!» X ■ 4 — *V . i-H C T O r/-3 T3 s > C ■< oH +L -/3 * t* C _ c c C /3 .2 -+ — » a cO d .2 T #c N »> U *c2d cd J< u .2 0 J )"5 X U h c o D o _c c E < E *2 o o oi o 2 to 5 CO 3 c = > c .2 £cO CO cO o u CO >C % U to co .S2 n> jy 2, o .S £ u o ^x x 2 G G s ' o '5 § tog o & I CO & 5•. oo 4—> d> c G c ^(D.y ^ C/5>> C2 =3 £ D G n w £ oO > o,^ 00 I— o C U 0) G > < g •S § 03 to X -♦— * 2 co 1) X « £2 s * r-

C/5’

C/5

C/5

Table 52 (cont.)

a>

CO

to

° g o a o S x o CL3 Xa

c *G t: a>

u X

>-* ■'

a> +-* c /5

C/5

C/5

T3



V

*G

< L >c v-. 3 o C/5 2 O c o c o & c d 'cn 3 X C D " C/5 5 C/5 O ■> -4-* C/5 *G *C/3 p < D X! E3 CD '2 X OD O d < L > cn r o cd < 00 c O fC «_ C O . E >> > . C cn C D > c .2 .£ 3 X y> x D oa> 2 . cn Vh c ^ c ^ 2 2 £ X es y oo cn e >» $ i5 o vbb § " 2 t-. x "o £ 13 2 a ' + -< oo■ -2 cn >• ft i_ O D > g D

X

2

fli cd ^ cd N •* -*

g 03 S cd d.) cd

cn O i-

0

Table 52 (cont.)

1

tj,

cn ’cn

© g 00 8) •5 ^ £ & x S

C c >> c £D £ 0 C d> e i; > 2 o c / 3 2 P > > 6 . dj .5 C /3"O js « D o i) ^*2 on ^2 oo ■S 1/1 < Z §i *-G5 I '>, c .S ,* 00 c/5 0 d ^ 4 — d o ,e < L >w C g * 3 c . CQ £ "3 "Si c « s’o u. O c S * -* 1~1i"3 Jc o •sa-> ,o JO £'■2 22 £2 •c*-' J■ 3 .O & 3 3 CO O 73 r l H 2 3 c < 4 > JrS o g V • ? ,- J 3 O 22 c o O 3 O +-* JD u 22 O ^ fa ^73 > a * o,- o s s ,a w -5; c >> ^ ‘C ( U O o *- C X -2 u o s o 5 U *73 £ Q g S O *j o •sG O 00 C ✓-4-> c a > +-4 < L ) C 73 A X ,C L >w t_© — to O O < £ : c _ a> ^ 3 -? 3 s 0) "”■ u cd ^ © . '% — '* 3 o-» B* &22 ) T3 “ 1 O D. 3 J> g- u o o 2; 0 c3 1 :3 1-. 13.2 £ cd O -c S) 73 X3 0H Jj 'B E E 2 3 00 2 Cd — UX Ju S

-4-4

3

00

> u O J 03 ~o c 3

O '

o C C U D . C l.

T3

i—

3 > O

O ' O '

,2 — 0s OQ

Table

52

( c o n t .)

a> . B 00 73

^ £ 3 cu

£ & § 2

0D

00

71 1)

G O0/ X ^

N

to 0)

X) X

cd cd

flj o cx

ts i u -C u e O & ■o• O 0)T l> 00 a> a) S W> O co e

U JC

o o

oo o

N

o

CN| c cO H

liP *■*-* C/D

Table 52 (cont.)

CD c KJJ _* J3 o 2 -2 a/ o _> ^ ‘35 > IS ’5 a> u CD -§ o

?/

cd O

-^ CO &3 « w s ^ £ .£ (U U 33 E w £ Xo) c Spc*. 3 O 0 o co C/3 3-© < 5 E o ti «S —o.‘ “ ST -3 3 3 3 < u JO « 8 -3 c , •£ JS © c3 *-* E '■§ E U ^ C/3 1 o 3a - 5 3 & (U

"S

CQ

^2

o H 3

a> CO o

O 3

— 3 S 3

3D ."2 ^ 3 O

.2

to .£ J «> "O ■♦—•’ w

Table 52 (cont.)

3

3

3

> (U 00> >

co > 3 cd cd JS -O u c 4> to 2

a

c/5

CQ

"cd cn > >

Table 52 (cont.)

fan -2 O 2 c t— . 15 £ cd cd rss T3 cd c > 3 cd x*

00 P o .2 8 23 -fa 0> CO a>

a> B >! co ■» U D co -c +-• c o a>

-fa co

CO

ofa sto

5J Ofi

O)

Q. to O co

JS

00

co to

■c ^ -g

-*—
iC/3—* J S O C /%3 *3 00 •fa fa O IB

Cn

cS sc> n



o

>» 00 S o

0 +3

1 s cd cx

d d 3

.2 "©

a/ 00 in vs > % -* 2 c § o C£ O V3 3 0) ,3 _ 73 IS12 3 ”“ ts ° o H •© O rP M c 3 ° 33 G T- 3 X o > 2 00 + ■ > c •*-• -TZ -4— •£ C/2 _ o £ >> £0> 0 ^ o I £ -a 1 s i a 3 2 “ 1— ’k-» 3 « > 3 - 2 to 3 3 U 3 3 O § ? £ 2 X •§ •M 3 O a ^ g>f>> 3 0) T3 C J 42 X) — 42 42 /-v \ p ci ^ -3 /2X .2P m •2 0 “ ** 3 a O fa Oh k«* 3 cd C o 3 0 1 3 o s42 > 42 o C/2 £ e 00 232 3 3 42 0 > k -> S c 0 1) 3 42 g 1/2 c ( 1 / 3 3 c 2: ■ -S "O 3 U si • . fsm CO CO O O o fa *3 < U £ o 3 a < u £ | o s fa ° oo 2 O a> *- -3 t - > gt - t oC ■kk ** 342 f c ' l - S aa l* a u 23 to 3O gd 5y cd. 00 cd fa 3 •*o-> -*—* c« X • r\ 3 . "2 kk -a 3 3 ^ i c X) .g •a £ SO k H -S “ s42 c S ^ (U a . Sk. c u - a u O h 0u 1o/2 < 1/5 2 e£ 00 I-u 50 . .'£ ^ H- •- ts 0 'a . S a oo m 2 o 42 3 3 11 .2 3 S x •R « £ g ® is 5 3 3 £H i ’«M 3g 3« Qg? g C 00 > 42 M X co c**

cd

e

3

x

“ o

bO M w

F 1 §8 a. CT 2 fa =3 o

3

,o 4-- g3

«

2

«

&

03 M fa O >

^ 'oo.a 00 O 3 u cd * 0,-C 2 9" 0 o , M 00 42 O l" fas 3

I3 I

P-. co

?

«a 1

a

a>

'$

zs CO £ S o 4-* cd 5T o £ * % Z 00 2 u CJ 7 5 0 o cd Ut £ c c 'fa s ■1U • « ® g CO4-> 0p S ® X -*— CO O fl ° 2 H > 3 ^ 2 -4-«l £L Bc 33 C u . CO ^ h33 ,— •. 2 3 O k^ %(L) &0 -E

T a b le

( c o n t .)

y

00

”y

C /3 y 00 CJ

c+h

o jd

|•2t 5C =3 2l» CSl, yCTC

§

2

75 75 Xcd is o

-4-^ -4-»

H "3

^

£

IS

o

.2 ■4—4 75 cd

CD G T3 cd 75 X • •m o *-4-* *"• 0D c c tT *•4—> Xa> c o X £ a a X cd X 3

JJ

-4—* ■4-4

aj

X

X

X

cu

o

X

oo

_o o

Z

c c

o

4>

X s .2 o cu cu o CO

i

7

d)

Si es du C

u

■g 2 2

X

.2 2 u .u 0 ^3 £i Js

§>*5 X du

JZ

00 00

C U

cu s . ® 0) 73 3 cd 3 X Si 7 £ g § g 3 o X c ’S 2 X o N 00 to d7 U cu cd s ^o 3 O 33 7 .£5 2 ° 2 x Op - 5o 00 c x C o _-£2 Q P, G £ t °- -7«u 5

27 dU o >, 7 U " 4 & 7 7 ____ V d3 3 o O X c 7 g- O 3

£ 00 §

O C ° ' 5O ^c X " £ § 7

o e £O fc 3

^

0

^

6 3

C/5 « X

T3

cd w/5 f1 C

.5

C

CJ

o

cn i ~

Table 52 (cont.)

O .T 3 T3

3 O C § >. o 00 X o o X (U ■£ 75 CU co

.2 c % 2 C/3 2 D O « 00 G O C/3 o « C C g § G 3 £ O G _o X t! s i D C2/3 cd c n o »5 .£ 4> c ’- 3 C /3 "o C O G•“ CJ « c" >>*n < U CU 2 aj £ C^T 1) o G co cd on « ccd m co 'o »cwm w CO CU CU X & d> '& 52 f>0 C/3 X 8 «4 a, g o + -• 2 * 5 *N c>' £ c/3 O G m w c/3 c •C 1 /3 C u -C cd cd d> GX & S SJ +-* £ h£ 0) C/3 ^ .22 a nJ o cn „ o G cd G o 2 2 B n 0£> o TP3 ' O d i 2

C/3

1/3

DO

cd

£

a> + -* IS

£

"0O > uh X a> V C "3 cd O V T> X d> 0) in r s U u l) ‘55 X G 4-* O o cd JG a > O o < D X u * £ u ■ § 1 GD G O o V 3 § cd c > OG -M D £ 2 3 ‘EL GC D £ JG Si to C /3

4—*

•4— *

C/3

C/3

Table 52 (cont.)

C /3

. 2

Un 00

o o d> _ x '* " |J « >. G X C/3

4~>

404

APPENDIX C: GUIDELINES FOR THE OUTSIDE EXPERT

Background. The researcher is conducting an inductive research study intended to develop systems theory-based pathologies inform ing problem form ulation phase using concepts o f systems theory. In contemporary systems research, systems theory-based pathology is defined as the inadequate use o f system s theory in problem formulation, expressed as either the lack o f application, misapplication, or disregard o f laws, principles, and theorem s o f systems theory (Katina, 2015a; 2015b). This notion o f pathology is supported by Keating and Katina (2012) who suggested that pathology includes “circumstance, condition, factor, or pattern that acts to limit system performance, or lessen system viability, such that the likelihood o f a system achieving performance expectations is reduced” (p. 253). An integral part o f this inductive research is to develop survey questions that will be used to ‘face' validate the inductively developed pathologies. Specifically, the survey will be used to assess 1) the degree o f existence ofp a th o lo g y and (2) the degree o f consequence o f pathology. Degree o f existence o f pathology is defined as the degree to which a particular pathology exists in an organization. A seven-point standard convention scale o f strongly disagree, disagree. disagree som ew hat, undecided. agree somewhat, agree, and strongly agree will be used to indicate both; the degree o f existence o f pathologies and the degree o f consequence o f pathologies.

405

You have been identified as meeting the criteria to act as a qualified outside expert reviewer for participation in the research. Table 52 indicates the qualifications o f an outside expert.

Qualification Education

Experience

Table 53: Outside Expert Qualifications Criteria Earned doctorate in com plex systems, engineering management, systems engineering, systems o f systems engineering, or engaged in a doctoral level program in one o f these areas. Experienced in the field o f systems, well-read researcher, author, or speaker with com mercial or government systems engineering and systems-based methodologies.

Requested Action. In order to enhance both content validity o f the research design as well as the scope and depth o f the survey design, the researcher requests your review o f systems theory-based pathologies, listed in the following table, considering the focus area o f the study, provide your input on the nature questions that could be developed for use in an operational setting. Specifically, pathologies as listed in the following table are in system s theory language. This language m ight not be suitable in a practitioner setting. The researcher needs to develop corresponding sets o f statement(s) for practitioners before running a survey. Should you not be familiar with these concepts, please send the researcher an email to obtain an electronic copy. M ethod o f Response. Please make your com ments and/or additions directly into the table below and email your completed response to the researcher.

406

# 1.

Table 54: A Partial Table Used in Capturing Expert Feedback Expert Reviewer’s Descriptions o f pathology Comment Pathology o f com plementarity - a situation in which an organization ignores other perspectives/m odels that are not entirely com patible with the established-predom inate perspectives including missions, goals and objectives. An organization in this case mistakenly assumes that there is only one ‘right’ perspective (Bohr, 1928; Mehra, 1987). Thus, different truths contained in different perspectives are shunned. M urdoch and M urdoch (1989) suggest that this pathology is more likely related to a m anagement style that assumes that the organization operates under ‘ideal’ conditions. M oreover, too many perspectives, especially the ones not being made explicit and understood, could cause “mass confusion” (Clemson, 1984, p. 207) in an organization. This pathology is expected in an operation landscape characterized as ambiguous, complex, interdependent, and uncertain

References Katina, P. F. (2015a). Emerging systems theory-based pathologies for governance o f com plex systems. International Journal o f System o f System s Engineering, Vol. 6, Nos. 1/2, pp. 144-159. Katina, P. F. (2015b). Systems theory as a foundation for discovery o f pathologies for com plex system problem formulation. In A. J. M asys (Ed.), From problem fra m ing to problem solving: Applications o f system s thinking and soft operations research in m anaging com plexity (in press). Geneva, Switzerland: Geneva, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Keating, C. B., & Katina, P. F. (2012). Prevalence o f pathologies in systems o f systems. International Journal o f System o f Systems Engineering, Vol. 3, Nos. 3/4, pp. 2 4 3 267.

407

APPENDIX D: PATHOLOGIES STATEMENTS FOR ASSESSM ENT

The theory (construct) development phase o f this research used grounded theory to develop a construct o f metasystem pathologies identification for problem formulation by considering systems theory. The design that was undertaken is provided and the results are provided in Chapter V. These results include 83 systems theory-based pathologies that act to limit performance o f com plex systems. W ith respect to problem formulation as addressed in Chapter II, identification o f these pathologies lies within the purview o f problem formulation. The validity o f the theory is maintained within the different phases o f Grounded Theory M ethod. However, utility o f the theory could be illustrated in term s o f ability to move from the theoretical lens to the operational setting. Specifically, the researcher thought to show utility o f results o f theory development in an operational setting. The initial outlook was that one could simply ask if such pathologies are present in a given organization. However, it was discovered that the language used in connection with pathologies is not com m on and m ight not easily be understood by a practitioner. In light o f this issue, 88 simplified statements were developed from the 83 pathologies for use in survey assessm ent tool while still maintaining the original meaning o f pathologies. These pathologies statements are listed in this appendix and were targeted tow ards capturing participant perspective on agreem ent/disagreem ent to existence/consequences o f pathologies.

408

# 1

2 3 4

5 6

7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Table 55: Pathology Survey Statements Survey Statement The Pathology of Complementarity (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) does not encourage consideration o f multiple perspectives In efforts to increase productivity, (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) Diminishing frequently expends resources in excess o f the gains realized returns There are not adequate procedures at appropriate levels to Requisite maintain (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) performance hierarchy (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) does not have sufficient knowledge Requisite o f (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) to effectively respond to knowledge externally driven changes (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) assigned work responsibilities are Requisite beyond what we can be reasonably expected to manage parsimony (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) priorities are not well defined or Requisite frequently shift saliency (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) lacks sufficient capacity to absorb Requisite variety environm ental flux w ithout degrading our performance We have difficulty adapting to circum stances generated external Adaptation to (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) lacks sufficient independence for Autonomy making decisions and taking action Combined under #65 , Viability Balance o f tensions For (SYSTEM OF INTEREST), results from new initiatives Basins o f frequently fall short o f intentions stability In (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) there are not enough reserve Buffering resources to accom m odate unexpected shifts in work demands (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) tends to oversim plify complex Circular interrelationships causality O ur intended purpose for (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) does not Consequent match w hat we actually achieve in execution production (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) external relations do not provide Cybernetic adequate stability in the midst o f turbulence stability (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) behaves as if we have complete Darkness in a understanding o f our operations when in fact we don't situation Dialecticism 1 We are not effective in detecting errors in (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) We are not effective in correcting detected errors in (SYSTEM Dialecticism 2 OF INTEREST)

409

Table 55 (cont.) 18

Emergence

19

Environmentalmodification

20

Equifinality

21

Equivocation

22

Eudemony

23 24

Events o f low probability Feedback 1

25

Feedback 2

26

Flatness

27 28

Frame o f reference Hierarchy

29

High-flux

30

Holism

31

Homeorhesis

32

Homeostasis

33 34

Internal elaboration Iteration

35

Least effort

(SYSTEM OF INTEREST) does not act effectively when situations em erge in ways we can't predict (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) reacts to changes in the external environm ent rather than proactively attem pt to change the environm ent (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) subscribes to the idea that there is usually one best way to proceed Comm unications within (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) are frequently misinterpreted (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) overem phasizes financial considerations often creating an im balance with other important considerations (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) has difficulty in differentiating among com peting priorities For (SYSTEM OF INTEREST), feedback from the external environm ent is not effectively incorporated to maintain stability In (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) small deviations frequently escalate into more serious issues In (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) excess adm inistrative emphasis negatively impacts productivity (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) lacks sufficient overlap in perspectives to provide consistent interpretations The levels o f hierarchy are not appropriate for (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) to function effectively A dequate resources are not provided in a timely m anner to address (SYSTEM OF IN TEREST) failures (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) tends to focus more on the details o f parts rather than the bigger picture o f the whole. (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) has difficulty maintaining course after experiencing a disturbance We do not actively m onitor essential variables o f (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) to ensure performance rem ains constant The level o f form alization is excessive in (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) is ineffective in iterating decisions and actions to produce better results (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) frequently expends more energy or resources than necessary to address issues

410

Table 55 (cont.) 36

Maximum power

37 38

Minimal critical specification Multifinality

39

Omnivory

40

Organizational closure Over­ specialization

41

42

Pareto

43

Patchiness

44

Polystability

Redundancy o f potential command 46 Redundancy o f resources

45

47

Relaxation time

48

Resilience

49

Robustness

50

Safe environment

51

Satisficing

52

Self-organization

(SYSTEM OF INTEREST) does not adjust well to demands for increased capacity (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) is overly prescriptive in defining how things must be done (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) suffers by assum ing that successful past approaches will be equally successful for new issues (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) lacks flexibility to accommodate utilization o f different resource types (SYSTEM OF INTEREST)'s identity lacks sufficient clarity to provide continuity in the midst o f change. Specialization w ithin (SYSTEM OF IN TEREST) limits the ability to respond to opportunities that cut across multiple specialties We do not adequately distinguish between different factors contributing to (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) performance Limited diversity in sources o f (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) resources creates vulnerability to shifts in resource availability (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) has difficulty maintaining stability when its subunits are in continual flux (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) decision and action is overly constrained by higher level entities (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) lacks sufficiently redundant resources to effectively respond to unforeseen opportuniti es/threats Frequency o f changes does not permit (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) to operate in stability (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) has difficulty returning to previous levels o f execution following disturbances (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) can only absorb a limited range o f external disturbances without the need for modification (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) is not proactive in attem pting to stabilize environmental flux (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) seeks to identify the best possible solution to an issue rather than one that is satisfactory (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) lacks sufficient flexibility concerning how to accom plish work

411

Table 55 (cont.) 53

Separatibility

54

Steady state

55

Sub-optimization 1

56 57

Sub-optimization 2 Subsidiarity

58

System context

59

First cybernetic control Red Queen

60

63

Second cybernetic control Third cybernetic control Transcendence

64

Ultra-stability

65 66

Undifferentiated coding Unity

67

Viability 1

68

Viability 2

69

Viability 3

61

62

Very small disturbances or changes by one (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) individual or entity can quickly escalate into major issues (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) does not sufficiently focus on the mem ber entities Even though individual entities in (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) are performing well, (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) performance as a whole is lacking. Even though (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) as a whole is performing well, performance o f individual entities is lacking Local level (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) issues frequently escalate to a higher level for resolution (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) issues are frequently simplified by avoiding the w ider context in which they are embedded (SYSTEM OF IN TEREST) lacks an adequate baseline against which performance can be assessed (SYSTEM OF INTEREST)'s rate o f developm ent is not sufficient to keep up with other related organizations. Comm unications within (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) are not sufficient to enable desired levels o f performance Changes are introduced in (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) even though performance expectations are being met

In (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) we do not accept the premise that there are issues that lie beyond our capacity to understand N ew or novel (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) disturbances that are unfam iliar present a particularly difficult challenge to our existing structure (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) prefers to view issues from an objective versus subjective perspective (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) lacks a clear purpose that serves to internally unify and externally distinguish the organization (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) does not balance change and stability well (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) does not have a good balance between the interests o f the whole organization and those o f individual entities (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) does not have an appropriate balance between 'ad hoc' design and purposeful design

412

Table 55 (cont.) The current (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) frame o f reference is not adequate to address the problem s that must be confronted (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) information exchange does not effectively assure that the right inform ation is transm itted Frequent structural changes in (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) result in instabilities (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) resists change in favor o f maintaining the status quo (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) undertakes initiatives without adequate consideration for their potential im pact on other initiatives or entities W ith respect to fulfilling the (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) purpose, achievem ent falls short o f intentions (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) lacks a clear understanding o f the larger organization in which it is embedded (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) lacks a clear understanding o f the entities that com prise (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) has difficulty m oving abstract ideas into concrete plans and actions (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) com m unications lack effectiveness in providing relevant inform ation in a timely m anner For (SYSTEM OF INTEREST), inform ation flows are not effectively adjusted to com pensate for organizational changes (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) has a hard tim e dealing with problem s that cannot be objectively analyzed for cause and effect

72

GodeVs incompleteness Information redundancy Morphogenesis

73

Morphostasis

74

Pareto optimality

75 76

Purposive behaviorism Recursiveness 1

77

Recursiveness 2

78

Reification

79

Channel capacity

80 81

Genesis o f structure Synchronicity

82

Communication

(SYSTEM OF INTEREST) communications frequently result in misinterpretation o f the intended meaning

83

Control

84

Dynamic equilibrium

85

Punctuated equilibrium

(SYSTEM OF INTEREST) lacks effective constraints necessary to ensure performance expectations are met (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) does not effectively balance its interactions with the external environm ent to maintain performance (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) work m oves from periods o f relative calm to periods o f crisis without know ing when the shift will occur

70 71

413

Table 55 (cont.) 86

Sociotechnicality

87

S ystem boundary

88

S ystem en vironm ent

(SYSTEM OF INTEREST) tends to focus more on the technical aspects o f problems to the exclusion o f the social aspects (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) has difficulty establishing boundaries that clearly delineate (SYSTEM OF INTEREST), its work, and its problems from those that are external The critical aspects o f the external environm ent that influence (SYSTEM OF INTEREST) are not well understood

414

APPENDIX E: THE RAW RESULTS OF ASSEM ENT IN THE UNIT OF ANALYSIS

In Appendix D, the survey statements that are used in the survey tool are presented. In this Appendix, the raw data associated with the results o f the survey tool for assessing the level o f participant’s agreement with ‘existence’ o f the pathologies statement and their ‘consequence’ are presented. In all, 111 participants responded to the survey instrument. The first raw o f the table represents the 49 different grids corresponding to the X (i.e., existence) and Y (i.e., consequence) plot. For example. [SD, E] is one grid. It represents the intersection o f {Strongly Disagree} for ‘existence' and {Extreme} for ‘consequence’ o f pathologies as described in Chapters IV and V. The colum ns are labeled 1 through 88 and there numbers directly correspond to the 88 different survey statements for pathologies as indicated in Appendix D. The num bers in different grids represent the num ber o f participants who selected a specific grid. For example, eight participants noted that they ‘D isagree’ with the statement for pathology statement, which is labeled as 1 and corresponds to: SYSTE M O F INTEREST) does not encourage consideration o f multiple perspectives. The same eight participants note that consequences associated the pathology under evaluation could be ‘Very H igh.'

c

-

©

©

©

©

-

©

_

_

©

©

©

-

-

©

©

©

-

©

©

-

©

©

©

©

-

©

-

©

©

©

”

-

©

©

_

—

©

—

—

©

©

©

©

©

-

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

_

©

fN

fN

rf

fN

_

—

o

©

©

©

-

_

©

©

©

©

©

©

-

fN

rf

_

-

rf

fN

fN

rf

fN

fN

rf

-

“

rf

—

rf

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

c

©

-

©

“

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

—

—

©

©

©

©

©

-

-

©

-

-

©

~

fN

rf

-

rf

(N

©

-

©

©

-

-

-

fN

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©



©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

_

©

©

-

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

-

©

©

©

"

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

o

©

-

©

©

©

©

fN

©

©

©

©

©

©

-

©

-

-

©

-

-

-

©

©

©

-

©

_

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

© fN

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

-

®

-

©

©

_

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

rf

fN

-•

-

-

rf

fN

-

rf

©

fN

-

"■*

rf

©

rf

rf

-C

fN

rf

if,

fN

©

rf

-

“

©

©

-

fN

©

©

©

“

-

©

©

-

©

©

fN

-

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

_

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

-

©

©

©

©

©

_

©

©

_

©

©

©

©

-

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

—

—

-

fN

rf

fN

rf

©

©

rf

©

fN

IT,

-

rf

rf

rf

fN

fN

©

rf

Tf

rf

rf

rf

_

©

©

-

(N

fN

©

©

®

©

-

—

©

_

©

®

©

fN

—

—

rf

fN

—

rf

'f,

©

©

Tf

sD

OC

if,

r-

rf

rT

—

©

•f,

—

r-~

—

f-

©

00

rf

if,

rf

rf

rf

Tf

fN

rf

fN

if.

sO

r~-

rf

rf

fN

rf

©

-

©

©

-

©

fN

©

-

©

_

©

©

©

©

-

©

-

-

rf

rf

--

nC “

rf

rf

rf

if,

©

oe fN

©

-

©

©

©

-

-

-

©

©

©

fl

-

©

-