mdh.sePublications
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 5 of 5
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Barros-Castro, Ricardo A.
    et al.
    Pontificia Univ Catolica Peru, Peru.
    Midgley, Gerald
    Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Innovation and Product Realisation. Univ Hull, Sch Business, England; Victoria Univ Wellington, Victoria Business Sch, Wellington, New Zealand; Univ Canterbury, Sch Polit & Social Sci, New Zealand; Univ Queensland, Sch Agr & Food Sci, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
    Pinzon, Luis
    Univ Los Andes, Dept Ind Engn, Bogota, Colombia.
    Systemic Intervention for Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning2015In: Systems research and behavioral science, ISSN 1092-7026, E-ISSN 1099-1743, Vol. 32, no 1, p. 86-105Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper presents a systemic intervention approach as a means to overcome the methodological challenges involved in research into computer-supported collaborative learning applied to the promotion of mathematical problem-solving (CSCL-MPS) skills in schools. These challenges include how to develop an integrated analysis of several aspects of the learning process; and how to reflect on learning purposes, the context of application and participants' identities. The focus of systemic intervention is on processes for thinking through whose views and what issues and values should be considered pertinent in an analysis. Systemic intervention also advocates mixing methods from different traditions to address the purposes of multiple stakeholders. Consequently, a design for CSCL-MPS research is presented that includes several methods. This methodological design is used to analyse and reflect upon both a CSCL-MPS project with Colombian schools, and the identities of the participants in that project. Copyright (c) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

  • 2.
    Midgley, Gerald
    et al.
    Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Innovation and Product Realisation.
    Pinzón, L. A.
    Universidad de Los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia .
    Systemic mediation: Moral reasoning and boundaries of concern2013In: Systems research and behavioral science, ISSN 1092-7026, E-ISSN 1099-1743, Vol. 30, no 5, p. 607-632Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper outlines a new systemic mediation approach, based on the idea that the most important thing for many participants in mediation is to have their moral reasoning understood and appreciated. This is frequently more important to people than financial reparation. We compare our mediation approach with others to demonstrate that many previous approaches share the assumption that once the interests of a participant have been identified, these should not be questioned. In contrast, our systemic mediation approach encourages participants to explore their own and other people's moral frameworks to enable critical reflection on their interests. Indeed, the concept of an 'interest' can be reframed as the boundary that a participant uses to delimit his or her concerns, and boundaries can be shifted in response to moral reasoning. Our mediation approach aims to generate both personal insights and improvements in mutual understanding. The mediator plays a facilitative role but cannot be neutral: the morality of the mediator unavoidably influences his or her facilitative interventions. Therefore, personal reflection by the mediator on his or her own moral framework is essential, so that its influences can be made visible and the facilitator can thereby be held accountable for them in dialogue with his or her peers. Tools are provided in our systemic mediation approach to support reflection on moral frameworks and boundaries of concern, and a practical example of their use in Colombian mediation practice is provided.

  • 3.
    Midgley, Gerald
    et al.
    Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Innovation and Product Realisation. University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom; Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand; University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, Adelphi University, Garden City, NY, United States .
    Wilby, J.
    University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom; Adelphi University, Garden City, NY, United States.
    Learning across Boundaries: Exploring the Variety of Systems Theory and Practice2015In: Systems research and behavioral science, ISSN 1092-7026, E-ISSN 1099-1743, Vol. 32, no 5, p. 509-513Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 4.
    Rajagopalan, R.
    et al.
    University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom.
    Midgley, Gerald
    Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Innovation and Product Realisation. University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand; University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand; University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia .
    Knowing Differently in Systemic Intervention2015In: Systems research and behavioral science, ISSN 1092-7026, E-ISSN 1099-1743, Vol. 32, no 5, p. 546-561Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper makes the case for extended ways of knowing in systemic intervention. It argues that the deployment of formal (even reflective) thinking and dialogue methods are inadequate, on their own, to the critical tasks of comprehending larger wholes and appreciating others' viewpoints. Theory and techniques need to go further and access other forms of knowing, held in experiential, practical or symbolic ways. This could offer a better basis to incorporate marginalized people and other phenomena that are affected by interventions but do not have a voice, such as ecosystems and future generations.

  • 5.
    Torres-Cuello, M. A.
    et al.
    Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.
    Pinzón-Salcedo, L.
    Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.
    Midgley, Gerald
    Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Innovation and Product Realisation. Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand; University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand; University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom; University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia .
    Developing a Systemic Program Evaluation Methodology: A Critical Systems Perspective2018In: Systems research and behavioral science, ISSN 1092-7026, E-ISSN 1099-1743, Vol. 35, no 5, p. 538-547Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In recent years, there has been an increased interest within the program evaluation field in the introduction of systems thinking concepts. However, most of these introductions have been primarily directed towards supporting the practice of evaluation and not towards making theoretical advancements. This article is focused on introducing systems thinking, and specifically perspectives and concepts from the work in critical systems thinking (CST), at a theoretical level in the program evaluation field, towards a reframing of Fourth Generation Evaluation methodology. The process for carrying out such a reframing is introduced, as well as a description of the major changes produced in the evaluation methodology from incorporating the CST perspective. A new model is proposed, and how this model may be beneficial for conducting an evaluation is discussed. Finally, recommendations are made for future developments. 

1 - 5 of 5
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf