Academic literature on the topic 'Processus sociaux et complexité du système'

AbstractIn education, the ‘Nordic model’ refers to the similarities and shared aims of the education systems developed in the five Nordic countries—Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and Norway—after World War II. Traditionally, there have always been many similarities and links between the Nordic countries through their historical connections and geographical proximity. The common experience of solidarity and political oppression during World War II also created the basis for a common political orientation in the postwar period, which was also reflected in the education systems during the development of the countries’ economies and their establishment of welfare states. At the same time, this very process has been strongly supported by social-democratic governance in these countries in the 1960s and 1970s (Blossing, Imsen, & Moos, 2014). The model is based on a concept ofEducation for All, where equity, equal opportunities and inclusion are consistently cited as the goal of schooling and orientation (Blossing et al., 2014; Telhaug, Mediås, & Aasen, 2006). This corresponds to the egalitarian idea of a classless society, which is characterised by individual democratic participation, solidarity and mutual respect and appreciation for all. This idea was manifested in, for example, major reallocations of economic resources through the tax systems and free schooling for all, which arose out of the principle that parents’ lack of economic resources should not prevent children from obtaining a good quality education. The equalisation of structural inequalities and creation of equity was—and still is—the task of the education system in the Nordic countries. Worldwide, especially within the Nordic countries, the view is being shared that the education system should be fair and provide access and opportunities for further education, regardless of where someone lives, the status of the parental home, where someone comes from, what ethnic background someone has, what age or gender someone is, what skills one has or whether someone has physical disabilities (Blossing et al., 2014; Quaiser-Pohl, 2013). Some special features of the Nordic system are therefore deeply embedded in the school culture in the countries, for example, through the fact that access to free and public local schools and adapted education is statutory, which is in contrast to many other countries, even other European ones (further developed and discussed in Chap.10.1007/978-3-030-61648-9_2). The Nordic model is widely considered a good example of educational systems that provide equal learning opportunities for all students. Achieving equity, here meaning the creation of fairness, is expressed concretely in political measures to distribute resources equally and strengthen the equality of marginalised groups by removing the barriers to seize educational opportunities, for example, when mixed-ability comprehensive schools are created or the educational system is made inclusive regarding students with special needs (UNESCO, 1994; Wiborg, 2009). Equality is roughly connoted with ‘sameness in treatment’ (Espinoza, 2007), while equity takes further in consideration also the question of how well the requirements of individual needs are met. Thus, the goal of equity is always linked to the concept of justice, provided that an equality of opportunities is created. If, however, one looks at individual educational policy decisions on the creation of educational justice in isolation, one must weigh which concept of equity or equality is present in each case. For example, it is not enough to formally grant equal rights in the education system to disadvantaged groups, but something must also be done actively to ensure that marginalised groups can use and realise this equality. The complexity of the terms becomes even greater when one considers that to achieve equality, measures can be taken that presuppose an unequal distribution of resources or unequal treatment and, therefore, are not fair e.g., when resources are bundled especially for disadvantaged groups and these are given preferential treatment (will be further developed and discussed in Chap.10.1007/978-3-030-61648-9_2). Thus, equality and equity rely on each other and are in a field of tension comprising multiple ideas (Espinoza, 2007).

Information systems evaluation is embedded in many social and organisational processes, and thus is a particularly complex decision process. Evaluation happens in many ways (e.g. formally, informally), uses diverse criteria (e.g. financial, technical, social), follows rigorous methodologies or gut feelings and often becomes a political instrument which influences the balance of organisational power. The existing literature (Ballantine et al., 1995; Farbey et al. 1992; Willcocks and Lester 1994; Ward et al. 1996) identifies noticeable gaps between academic theories, commercially available methodologies, and actual evaluation practice within organisations. Such gaps between theory and practice are not unusual and they have been reported in other research areas. Hsia (1993 p.14) for example argues: “The truth is that most companies have two sets of practices; one real, the other recommended.” In other words there are the formal evaluation practices promoted by organisational rules and structures, the informal practices implemented by stakeholders involved, and finally the academic recommendations which in many cases recognise the delicate nature of evaluation and suggest more interpretive considerations. The better theories tend to emphasise the complexity and richness of the evaluation problem situation or context while the available methodologies tend to oversimplify the process through cookbooks that focus on the more measurable aspects of the outcome of IT/IS investment. Meanwhile, the actual use of such methodologies in practice is often largely determined by the subjective views of individual stakeholders facing a combination of business, organisational and technological pressures.

This chapter illustrates and discusses the use of agent-based artificial societies to explore possible trajectories into social complexity through the integration of ideas from both anthropology and agent technology. Particular attention is paid to the role of rational cooperation, collective belief, and emotional dynamics in these trajectories. Some methodological problems associated with the use of artificial societies to build social theory are also discussed, especially how best to reduce the impact of our own cultural preconceptions. Computer simulation work in archaeology and anthropology is more than 25 years old (see Doran and Hodson 1975, chapter 11; Doran 1990; and compare Halpin to appear). After a period of enthusiasm in the early 1980s interest waned, but recently there have been a number of important computer-based studies of (human) social phenomena using so-called agent-based modeling (e.g., Kohler et al. this volume) and agent-based artificial societies (e.g., Epstein and Axtell 1996), and more are in progress. Both types of study involve (software) agents, that is, according to a standard textbook definition, entities which perceive and act in an environment (Russell and Norvig 1995:49). Reactive agents are typically built around a small number of relatively simple situation-to-action rules. Deliberative agents are more complex, typically posting goals and then forming and executing plans to achieve them. It is this rapidly developing "agent technology," largely based upon artificial intelligence studies, that is the driving force behind the new work. The methodology associated with both agent-based modeling and agentbased artificial societies emphasizes the ability to address explicitly processes of cognition, and hence phenomena that previous models could not tackle, and also the ability to explore what could happen rather than what has happened or is happening. However, unlike agent-based modeling, artificial societies are, in essence, models without a specific target system, and it has been argued that this type of modeling permits the study of societies and their processes in the abstract (Epstein and Axtell 1996; Doran 1997). An underlying assumption is that it is possible and useful for social scientists to explore wide-ranging and abstract social theories and that these theories can be expressed in terms of computational processes.

In the current environment, knowledge constitutes the starting point for the development of all economic and social agents’ activities and behaviors (Castells, 2000). Knowledge, as an internal resource, can be used intensively, which makes it possible to consider it as a productive factor as well as an important strategic element for obtaining a key source of competitive advantages (Vilaseca, Torrent-Sellens, & Jiménez Zarco, 2007). Certain works, such as the ones developed by Vilaseca et al. (2007) and others, consider the process of economic globalization, the demand changes, and the intensive use of ICT responsible for the emergence of an economy based on knowledge. Nevertheless, from a business point of view, the intensive use of ICT can be regarded as the most important factor. Thus, the globalization of markets together with the changes in demand are challenges, although the intensive use of ICT provides strength for responding to the new environmental changes and even transforming them into opportunities. Depending on the ability of firms to transform challenges into opportunities—which can be sometimes achieved through a systematic use of ICT—good results can be achieved. In order to face the growing complexity and competitiveness of the environment as well as give quick and suitable responses, the firm must consider ICT as an internal strategic factor (Bond & Houston. 2003). Hence, by favoring the accumulation and use of knowledge in all organizational activities and encouraging the organization’s flexibility, the use of ICT permits a quick adaptation of the organization to this new context as well as the development of customized competitive strategies. In contrast, the intensive use of ICT in organizations will not only influence the marketing, post-sales, and human resources departments (Vilaseca & Torrent, 2003), but also induce the development of new organizational, productive, strategic and managerial models. Thus, the intensive use of ICT facilitates both in the mmedium-and-long run the generation of more flexible schemes, more efficient and economical productive processes as well as strategic models based on the generation, processing, and use of information and knowledge (Johnson, Sohi, & Grewal, 2004).

In the current environment, knowledge constitutes the starting point for the development of all economic and social agents’ activities and behaviors (Castells, 2000). Knowledge, as an internal resource, can be used intensively, which makes it possible to consider it as a productive factor as well as an important strategic element for obtaining a key source of competitive advantages (Vilaseca, Torrent-Sellens, & Jiménez Zarco, 2007). Certain works, such as the ones developed by Vilaseca et al. (2007) and others, consider the process of economic globalization, the demand changes, and the intensive use of ICT responsible for the emergence of an economy based on knowledge. Nevertheless, from a business point of view, the intensive use of ICT can be regarded as the most important factor. Thus, the globalization of markets together with the changes in demand are challenges, although the intensive use of ICT provides strength for responding to the new environmental changes and even transforming them into opportunities. Depending on the ability of firms to transform challenges into opportunities—which can be sometimes achieved through a systematic use of ICT—good results can be achieved. In order to face the growing complexity and competitiveness of the environment as well as give quick and suitable responses, the firm must consider ICT as an internal strategic factor (Bond & Houston. 2003). Hence, by favoring the accumulation and use of knowledge in all organizational activities and encouraging the organization’s flexibility, the use of ICT permits a quick adaptation of the organization to this new context as well as the development of customized competitive strategies. In contrast, the intensive use of ICT in organizations will not only influence the marketing, post-sales, and human resources departments (Vilaseca & Torrent, 2003), but also induce the development of new organizational, productive, strategic and managerial models. Thus, the intensive use of ICT facilitates both in the mmedium-and-long run the generation of more flexible schemes, more efficient and economical productive processes as well as strategic models based on the generation, processing, and use of information and knowledge (Johnson, Sohi, & Grewal, 2004).