Ventana software support forum

Posted by ""Malczynski, Leonard A"" <lamalcz@sandia.gov>
Perhaps I am too young for a historical perspective. What has happened to the application of the methodology in social science? Recently there have been suggestions that we publish in domain journals, i.e. outside the SDR.

This brings to mind a couple of publications - ""Computer Assisted Theory
Building: Modeling Dynamics Social Systems,"" Robert Hanneman (1988), ""The Maya Collapse Revisited: Internal and External Perspectives,"" J. Robert Sharer and ""Simulation Model Development: A Case Study of Classic Maya Collapse,"" Dorothy Hosler, Jeremey Sabloff and Dale Runge both in Social Process in Maya History Edited by Norman Hammond (1977).

Where is the impact of these? What happened? I recall doing an SSCI search on Hanneman's book with little result. His web site is not promoting SD.

Regards,
Len
Posted by ""Malczynski, Leonard A"" <lamalcz@sandia.gov>
posting date Tue, 6 Sep 2005 15:37:33 -0600

Posted by Jim Duggan <jim.duggan@nuigalway.ie>
Hi,

While not an direct answer to your query, I think
it is worth mentioning that System Dynamics is described
as one of many simulation approaches for Social
Scientists in the book:

""Simultion for the Social Scientist"" by Nigel
Gilbert and Klaus G. Troitzsch, Open University
Press. 1999.

best regards,
Jim.
Posted by Jim Duggan <jim.duggan@nuigalway.ie>
posting date Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:53:57 +0100

Posted by ""Jim Thompson"" <james.thompson@strath.ac.uk>
Leonard Malczynski asks, ""What has happened to the application of the methodology in social science?"" Here are a couple of references that might help answer the question.

David Lane, Operational Research Department of the London School of Economics and Political Science, wrote a distinguished paper that explores the relationship of system dynamics with social sciences. (Social theory and system dynamics practice, D.C. Lane, European Journal of Operational Research 113 (1999) 501-527) From the Abstract: ""This paper explores the social theories implicit in system dynamics (SD) practice. Groupings of SD practice are observed in different parts of a framework for studying social theories.""

Nelson Repenning, Management Science and Organization Studies at the MIT Sloan School of Management, addresses how to use system dynamics to do research that is acceptable to scholars from other social science communities, reflects upon his experience, and outlines several errors that reduced the accessibility of his work to those outside the system dynamics community. (Selling system dynamics to (other) social scientists, Nelson P. Repenning, System Dynamics Review 19 (2003) 303-327) Jim Thompson Posted by ""Jim Thompson"" <james.thompson@strath.ac.uk> posting date Thu, 8 Sep 2005 08:23:29 -0400

Posted by ""geoff coyle"" <geoff.coyle@btinternet.com>
It is certainly worth publishing in journals other than SDR; one reason being that SDR obviously has limited capacity.

A better reason is that one gets useful feedback from referees who are not steeped in SD. An even better reason is that one has to learn how to talk to people other than the SD community. On top of that, the insights of SD are exposed to a wider analytical community. That is important as publication in prestigious journals such as, for instance, Journal of the Operational Research Society shows the outside world that SD produces high-class work that can withstand critical review from people in the other analytical disciplines.

I've published in about 15 non-SD journals and I've always found the experience to be very worthwhile.

Regards,

Geoff

Visiting Professor of Strategic Analysis,
University of Bath
Posted by ""geoff coyle"" <geoff.coyle@btinternet.com>
posting date Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:26:43 +0100

Posted by Justin Lyon <justin1028@yahoo.com>
Leonard and Jim,

Here are two other interesting papers that touch on
the applicability of simulation science (including
agent based modelling and system dynamics) to social
science modelling.

I've cc'd Stephen Guerin, one of the authors of both
articles, to let him know of this posting on the
System Dynamics listserve.

The first paper challenges the common belief held by
the medical community that illegal drug use is a
disease. Instead, the authors argue that illegal drug
use is better understood thru a 'marketing' lens. That
is, results of the analysis suggest the drug epidemics
can be better understood as diffusion of a commodity
rather than as infection by a disease, the view of the medically dominated substance abuse field. This has important policy implications.

The second paper describes the combination of System
Dynamics modelling (Aggregated ""super agents"") and
Agent-Based Modelling. The result of this work was the development of a hybrid model that combines a simple system dynamics approach with an agent-based model. The distinctive approach used in this work integrated modeling with practical ways of enabling people to engage in strategic policymaking, while taking into account the complexities of the criminal justice system. The agent-based framework developed to meet these needs models the criminal justice system, provides the ability to assess policy across the system, and allows sharing of model output to improve cooperative efforts among departments.

Agar, M., Guerin, S., Holmes, R., Kunkle, D., (2004). Epidemiology or Marketing? The Paradigm-Busting Use of Complexity and Ethnography. In: Proceedings of Agent 2004:Challenges in Social Simulation

Boyle, S., Guerin, S., Pratt, J., and Kunkle, D.
(2003). Application of agent-based simulation to
policy appraisal in the criminal justice system in
England and Wales. In: Proceedings of Agent
2003:Challenges in Social Simulation

Both are available here:
http://www.redfish.com/research.htm

Best,
Justin Lyon
Posted by Justin Lyon <justin1028@yahoo.com>
posting date Fri, 9 Sep 2005 08:52:43 -0700 (PDT)

Posted by ""geoff coyle"" <geoff.coyle@btinternet.com>
A further comment on this question of publishing in journals addressing other domains is the importance of becoming reasonably knowledgeable about the domain. That takes time, but is vital if the paper is not to be rejected out of hand and SD not to be derided. Without identifying anyone, I have reviewed papers in two domains about which I like to think I know a little; one being the subject of my first degree, the other an area in which I have worked for many years. Some of those papers showed knowledge of the field together with good reasons as to why SD had something new to contribute. They were accepted for reputable journals, after the usual minor changes. In one or two other cases, I literally burst out laughing at the sheer ignorance of what had been 'modelled'. I had to reject those papers out of hand for prestigious journals but one of them turned up a year or so later in another, and had to be rejected again. It is very poor professionalism to keep submitting a previously rejected paper in the hope that someone will accept it. You can never be sure that the same referee won't see it again!

Another key aspect of getting SD work accepted in a journal which does not usually get SD submissions is to show how SD adds value. I have seen work which had strong overtones of ""I thought I'd use SD for this domain (because I like using SD)"". That is unlikely to work - we need to justify why we want to use SD as opposed to whatever techniques are in common use by existing practitioners in that domain. When doing that one has to be very careful not to give the impression that they have been doing it all wrong for years but SD will come to the rescue. Common sense suggests that such an approach will go down like a lead pudding.

So, it's good to publish SD to the wider analytical community, but take care.

Regards,

Geoff

Visiting Professor of Strategic Analysis,
University of Bath

Posted by ""geoff coyle"" <geoff.coyle@btinternet.com>
posting date Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:01:42 +0100