Search

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to highlight the importance of “freedom of science” (“academic freedom”) for the advancement of society and mankind, which, however, is permanently endangered by powerful organisations, groups and individuals, who in pursuit of their one-sided interests are seeking to constrain information about the truth. As a broad term, freedom of science embraces freedom in research, learning, teaching and publication. All of these activities should be dedicated to identifying the truth and learning about the truth. Design/methodology/approach Three theoretical approaches are of importance for framing issues related to freedom of science, which in this paper are integrated into the framework of mindset agency theory: freedom is a value; “freedom” is claimed by agents who pursue specific interests (goals), which might constrain others; and individuals are agents who are interacting with each other within a social system – cooperation, ignorance or conflict. Findings Freedom as a value is at the core of intellectual autonomy. Intellectual autonomy is a necessary condition for innovation and advancement of knowledge. The observable modes of interaction/coexistence among researchers are influenced by individual research goals and by the researchers’ access to resources, which may be deliberately constrained by opponents or other researchers as competitors. Research limitations/implications For further research, which is beyond this paper, the authors can refer to: analyses of challenges of “academic freedom” – in terms of ethics, protection of individual human rights, political pressures and conflicts of interests; the issues of truth, i.e. the impact of fake news and creation of “alternate facts”; and the relation between academic freedom and employment (academic tenure) in present-day societies. Owing to lack of space, this paper cannot deal with the danger emerging from powerful organisations or powerful individuals, who are challenging freedom of science. Social implications If there is no freedom of science then social progress is constrained. If there is no access to right data, decisions will be wrong. Originality/value So far, a comprehensive cybernetic model was not published, which supports systems thinking about scholars and teachers (inter)acting in research organisations.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to put forward a way that ethics may be applied recursively to itself, in the sense that how we speak and reason about ethics is an activity to which ethical considerations and questions apply. Design/methodology/approach The paper is built on parallels between design and cybernetics, integrating elements of ethical discourse in each field. The way that cybernetics and design can each act as their own meta-disciplines, in the design of design and the cybernetics of cybernetics, is used as a pattern for a similarly recursive approach to ethics. This is explored further by drawing parallels between Heinz von Foersters’ criticism of moral codes and concerns about paternalism in designing architecture. Findings Designers incorporate implicit ethical questioning as part of the recursive process through which they design their design activity, moving between conversations that pursue the goals of a project and meta-conversations in which they question which goals to pursue and the methods they employ in doing so. Given parallels between designing architecture and setting out an ethics (both of which put forward ways in which others are to live), a similar approach may be taken within ethical discourse, folding ethics within itself as its own meta-discipline. Originality/value The paper provides a framework in which to address ethical considerations within ethical discourse itself. Recursive ethical questioning of this sort offers a way of coping with the incommensurability of values and goals that is commonplace given the fragmented state of contemporary ethics.

Purpose Ranulph Glanville has argued that ambitions of strict control are misplaced in epistemic processes such as learning and designing. Among other reasons, he has presented quantitative arguments for this ethical position. As a part of these arguments, Glanville claimed that strict control even of modest systems transcends the computational limits of our planet. The purpose of this paper is to review the related discourse and to examine the soundness of this claim. Design/methodology/approach Related literature is reviewed and pertinent lines of reasoning are illustrated and critically examined using examples and straightforward language. Findings The claim that even modest epistemic processes transcend the computational means of our planet is challenged. The recommendation to assume out-of-control postures in epistemic processes, however, is maintained on ethical rather than on quantitative grounds. Research limitations/implications The presented reasoning is limited in as far as it is ultimately based on an ethical standpoint. Originality/value This paper summarizes an important cybernetic discourse and dispels the notion therein that epistemic processes necessarily involve computational demands of astronomical proportions. Furthermore, this paper presents a rare discussion of Glanville’s Corollary of Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety.

PurposeThis paper aims to contribute to the understanding of novelty emergence in the context of an “off-line” open innovation system. Several contributions address novelty generation implying open innovation that is typically mediated by IT systems, while fewer address open innovation that takes place off-line, through new forms of collaboration happening in the so-called “physical spaces” and in widespread creativity contexts involving whole cities and territories. This research aims to clarify what the critical elements for novelty generation are, and how and why they interact in producing novelty.Design/methodology/approachThis paper presents the case study of the Blackshape, a high-tech start-up that has become the Italian symbol of a new bottom-up economy that is grounded on high-education, a mix of territorial competencies and young initiative, and produces the development or growth of territories experiencing present or foreseen economic retardation for various reasons. This is a case in which novelty is emergent and takes place through exaptation. The case is used to elaborate an inductive understanding of the process of novelty generation through exaptation and follows a “conceptual composition” format (Berends and Deken, 2019).FindingsThis paper shows that initiatives building widespread creativity on the territory play a prominent role for emergent novelty generation, as they provide the context that sustains the efforts to keep on trying of entrepreneurs, welcomes unforeseen interaction and keeps interesting people on the territory that can be involved in random encounters. This paper adds that crucial contributions for the definition of the innovative project come from contributors that are expected to provide suggestions in other areas. Such prominent contributors are engaged in a sense “by mistake”, and here the randomness perceived by the actors experiencing it, because they are perceived to be able to provide some contributions, while they provide others that are more important to the project. This paper argues that such “perceived randomness” sustains a mechanism of selection of novelty generation partners that allows to go beyond the ability of actors themselves to design and foresee other actors’ contribution into the project. Finally, two other elements play a role: how the project is narrated, as well as, how the entrepreneurial team communicates their entrepreneurial competence for the project.Research limitations/implicationsThis theoretical understanding builds on only one case study; further research might validate the critical role of our understanding of novelty generation elements and help develop their dynamics further.Practical implicationsMany elements in our understanding of novelty generation have typically been understood as resulting from luck and randomness, leaving, therefore, very little hope to actors’ interest in supporting them. This paper claims that such elements and such dynamics can be sustained and novelty generation can indirectly be supported, for instance, by suggesting a high openness and sharing of one’s own project even to accidentally encountered actors, as one’s own ability to foresee how they might contribute to the project is very poor.Originality/valueThis paper provides a tentative understanding of the elements and dynamics of novelty generation through exaptation building on theoretical elaboration that is inductively triggered and stimulated by empirical evidence.

Purpose– The governance of the relationship between humans and the biophysical world has been based on a paradigm characterized by dualistic thinking and scientism. This has led to the Anthropocene. The purpose of this paper is to reframe human-biosphere governance in terms of “cyber-systemics”, a neologism that is useful, the authors argue, not only for breaking out of this dualistic paradigm in human-environmental governance but also of the dualism associated with the use of systems and cybernetics.Design/methodology/approach– In this paper the authors draw on their own research praxis to exemplify how the intellectual lineages of cybernetics and systems have been mutually influencing their doings, and how new forms of governance practices that explore different framing choices might contribute to building innovative governance approaches attuned to the problematique of the Anthropocene, for instance through institutional designs for cyber-systemic governance.Findings– The growing popularity of the Anthropocene as a particular framing for the circumstances, if it is to transformative and thus relevant demands informed critique if it is to help change the trajectory of human-life on earth. The authors offer arguments and a rationale for adopting a cyber-systemic perspective as a means to avoid the dangers in pursuing the current trajectory of our relationship with the biophysical world as, for example, climate change. The essay frames an invitation for a systemic inquiry into forms of governance more suited to the contemporary circumstances of humans in their relationships with the biophysical world.Research limitations/implications– The research essay challenges many taken-for-granted epistemological assumptions within the cybernetics and systems intellectual communities. A case for radical change is mounted; the means to effect this change, other than through changes in discourse remain unclear though it is apparent that changes to praxis and institutional forms and arrangements will be central.Practical implications– Cyber-systemic capabilities need to be developed; this requires investment and new institutions that are conducive to cyber-systemic understandings and praxis.Originality/value– Understanding the global environmental crisis as an emergent outcome of current commitments to dualistic governance choices demands a reframing of much of what humans have done, re-investment in cyber-systemics offers a moral and practical response.