[opening paragraph]: For the past decade or so, I have been engaged in a research project of sorts, examining the consequences and entailments of operating – in effect, living – from a second order cybernetic perspective. This engagement has included, as domains of interest, practices such as researching, “helping” (organizational consultancy, community development, family therapy, etc.), and teaching/ learning. However, I have also been concerned with blurring the distinctions between these different practices (such as, research as intervention, helping as research (or, at least, helping as reflective practice), etc.). Of course, this has involved my own work as a kind of autoethnography of second order cybernetic practice – but it has also involved work with diverse others. It has, for example, involved students studying a change process in their own organizations, with all of the reflexive issues involved in such an endeavor. This last, from a cybernetic standpoint, involves bearing in mind my own relationship to the students, as they become “subjects” and “researchers” (as do I) in the same interview process. My questions to them provide opportunities for a reexamination (and change of) their own research/ managerial work, as well as for mine.

This paper expounds a way of seeing organizations that fits with second order cybernetics. It shows the relationship between cybernetics and radical constructivism and discusses the meaning of autonomy as it is used by cyberneticians. Implications for organizational members, managers, researchers and interventionists are elaborated.

Review of von Foerster, H. (2014). The Beginning of Heaven and Earth Has No Name: Seven Days With Second-Order Cybernetics (A. Müller & K. H. Müller, Eds., E. Rooks, Trans.). New York, NY: Fordham University Press. 236 pp. $95. 00 (hardcover). ISBN: 9780823255603.

Context: The relationship between design and science has shifted over recent decades. One bridge between the two is cybernetics, which offers perspectives on both in terms of their practice. From around 1980 onwards, drawing on ideas from cybernetics, Glanville has suggested that rather than apply science to design, it makes more sense to understand science as a form of design activity, reversing the more usual hierarchy between the two. I return to review this argument here, in the context of recent discussions in this journal regarding second-order science (SOS). Problem: Despite numerous connections to practice, second-order cybernetics (SOC) has tended to be associated with theory. As a result, SOC is perceived as separate to the more tangible aspects of earlier cybernetics in a way that obscures both the continuity between the two and also current opportunities for developing the field. Method: I review Glanville’s understanding of design, and particularly his account of scientific research as a design-like activity, placing this within the context of the shifting relation between science and design during the development of SOC, with reference to the work of Rittel and Feyerabend. Through this, I summarise significant parallels and overlaps between SOC and the contemporary concerns of design research. Results: I suggest that we can see design research not just as a field influenced by cybernetics but as a form of SOC practice even where cybernetics is not explicitly referenced. Implications: Given this, design research offers much to cybernetics as an important example of SOC that is both outward looking and practice based. As such, it bridges the gap between SOC and the more tangible legacy of earlier cybernetics, while also suggesting connections to contemporary concerns in this journal with SOS in terms of researching research. Constructivist content: By suggesting that we see design research as an example of SOC, I develop connections between constructivism and practice.

Key words: Science, design research, second-order cybernetics, second-order science, practice, Ranulph Glanville

Context: The design of academic conferences, in which settings ideas are shared and created, is, we suggest, of more than passing interest in constructivism, where epistemology is considered in terms of knowing rather than knowledge. Problem: The passivity and predominantly one-way structure of the typical paper presentation format of academic conferences has a number of serious limitations from a constructivist perspective. These limits are both practical and epistemological. While alternative formats abound, there is nevertheless increasing pressure reinforcing this format due to delegates’ funding typically being linked to reading a paper. Method: In this special issue, authors reflect on conferences that they have organised and participated in that have used alternative formats, such as conversational structures or other constructivist inspired approaches, in whole or in part. We review and contextualize their contributions, understanding them in terms of their connections to constructivism and to each other. Results: While this issue is of relevance across disciplinary boundaries, contributions focus on two fields: that of cybernetics/systems, and that of design. We identify the way that conference organization is of particular importance to these fields, being in self-reflexive relationship to them: the environment of a design conference is something that we design; while a conference regarding systems or cybernetics is itself an instance of the sorts of process with which these fields are concerned. Implications: Building on this self-reflexivity and, also, the close connection of design and cybernetics/systems to constructivism, we suggest that conference organization is an area in which constructivism may itself be understood in terms of practice (and so knowing) rather than theory (and so knowledge. This in turn helps connect ideas in constructivism with pragmatic fields, such as knowledge management, and recent discussions in this journal regarding second-order science. Constructivist content: As a setting for the creation of new ideas, the design of conferences is of importance where we understand epistemology in constructivist terms as a process of knowing. Moreover, the particular fields drawn on - design and cybernetics/systems - have close connections to constructivism, as can be seen, for instance, in the work of Ranulph Glanville, on which we draw here.

Key words: Conference, knowing, design, cybernetics, systems, tacit knowledge, reflection, double-loop learning, feedback, knowledge management, communication, second-order science, second-order cybernetics

Purpose: This paper aims to present the argument that Heinz von Foerster’s portrayals of non-triviality in his non-trivial machine (NTM) and in surprising human behavior are not isomorphous. It also demonstrates that the NTM does not account for spontaneity as it is observed in humans in general, nor for von Foerster’s own invention of the NTM in particular. Design/methodology/approach – Demonstrating an isomorphism between the NTM and the Enigma cipher machine, the paper shows differences between the NTM and non-trivial human behavior, which von Foerster implied to be isomorphous. It speculates why von Foerster may have accepted this inconsistency. Findings: von Foerster’s NTM and the Enigma cipher machine are shown to be isomorphous. Multiple portrayals von Foerster offered of non-triviality, however, are neither isomorphous, nor do they satisfy criteria von Foerster himself set for theories of living beings. Speculations are offered as to why von Foerster nonetheless used these portrayals of non-triviality, and regarding a possible lineage of inspiration that connects the Enigma machine to the NTM via the work of Alan Turing and Ross Ashby. Research limitations/implications – The presented research is informal and speculative. Originality/value – The paper’s originality and value arise from its questioning of the apparent isomorphism of multiple portrayals of non-triviality, from its speculation about choices von Foerster made while facing the dilemma of defending spontaneity in terms of mechanisms, as well as from speculation about his sources of inspiration.

Key words: Creativity, idea, non-trivial machine, trivial machine, unpredictability, wonder, enigma, circular causality, linear causality, variety amplification

First paragraph: In class I presented the view that the book we are assembling should be thought of at least in part as a handbook for making a scientific revolution, where the field to be revolutionized would be the social (behavioral) sciences. This view assumes that cybernetics has much to contribute to social science and that this promise has not yet been realized. Because of this disparity, I first interpreted the phrase “cybernetics of cybernetics” as the application of cybernetics principles to achieve acceptance of cybernetics theory by the relevant disciplines. That is, use cybernetics as the theory to guide the revolution.

In Robert Trappl’s opening remarks on the first day of this conference he raised the issue of the usefulness of the theories that we debate with each other at these conferences every two years. Stafford Beer in his address made a similar point when he suggested that we confront the way things are. I follow their lead by suggesting that we really know quite a lot about how to solve social problems and how to make social organizations more effective. But for some reason we are not using the knowledge we have. Why we do not make better use of our current knowledge is the issue that I would like to explore. My method of exploring will be to investigate the history of ideas in the field of cybernetics and general systems theory.

In the last two decades an intellectual movement associated with the term “second order cybernetics” has taken shape within the systems theory and cybernetics community. The ideas associated with this movement promise to have an important impact on the philosophy of science. However, the ideas have spread slowly. This paper reviews the strategies that have so far been employed in attempts to win acceptance for second order cybernetics. Four strategies are discussed: develop the new point of view; develop applications of the new ideas to show their usefulness; reconstruct the philosophy of science incorporating the new ideas; and contrast the philosophical origins of cybernetics with that of the dominant scientific world view.

Key words: Second-order cybernetics, epistemology, knowledge, constructivism, scientific revolution.