Within Interdisciplinary Studies (IS), the effectiveness of Integrative Studies has been hampered by the difficulty of effectively integrating/synthesizing theories among multiple disciplines. Without effective integration, we cannot generate theories that will enable highly effective action. This paper presents Integrative Propositional Analysis (IPA) – a tool based on an emerging stream of research on the structure of theories. Using a few simple rules, IPA provides a concrete visual-mapping approach to integrating theories. And, of equal or greater importance, IPA provides an effective method for measuring ‘how integrated’ or ‘how coherent’ theories are as a new way to predict how useful the theory will be for representing our understanding of complex situations and improving the ability of individuals, organizations, and coalitions to take effective action based on those theories. This is expected to be particularly useful for students and interdisciplinary teams for integrating theoretical perspectives in an initial assessment of problems and situations.
AckermannF., and EdenC.. 2004. “Using Causal Mapping – Individual and Group, Traditional and new.” In Systems Modeling: Theory and Practice, edited by PiddM., 127–143. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
2.
AppelbaumR. P.1970. Theories of Social Change. Chicago: Markham.
3.
AxelrodR.1976. Structure of Decision: The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites. Princeton: Princeton Universtiy Press.
4.
AxelrodR., and CohenM. D.. 2000. Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier. New York: Basic Books.
5.
BakkerJ. I. H.2011. “North Central Sociological Association Presidential Address: Pragmatic Sociology: Healing the Discipline.” Sociological Focus44 (3): 167–183.
6.
BammerG.2013. Disciplining Interdisciplinarity: Integration and Implementation Sciences for Researching Complex Real-World Problems. Canberra: ANU E Press.
7.
BatesonG.1985. Steps to an Ecology of the Mind. New York: Ballantine Books.
8.
Beaulieu-BP., and DufortP.. 2017. “Introduction: Revolution in Military Epistemology.” Journal of Military and Strategic Studies17 (4): 1–20.
9.
BrownS. L., and EisenhardtK. M.. 1998. Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
10.
BrysonJ. M., AckermannF., EdenC., and FinnC. B.. 2004. Visible Thinking: Unlocking Causal Mapping for Practical Business Results. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
11.
BurrellG.1997. Pandemonium: Towards a Retro-Organizational Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
CalasM. B., and SmircichL.. 1999. “Past Postmodernism? Reflections and Tentative Directions.” Academy of Management Review24 (4): 649–672.
13.
CañasA. J., CoffeyJ. W., CarnotM.-J., FeltovichP., HoffmanR. R., FeltovichJ., and NovakJ. D.. 2003. A Summary of Literature Pertaining to the Use of Concept Mapping Techniques and Technologies for Education and Performance Support. Report to the Chief of Naval Education and Training.
14.
ChecklandP.2012. “Four Conditions for Serious Systems Thinking and Action.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science29 (5): 465–469.
15.
ClarkS. G., RutherfordM. B., AuerM. R., CherneyD. N., WallaceR. L., MattsonD. J., and WilshusenP.. 2011. “College and University Environmental Programs as a Policy Problem (Part 1): Integrating Knowledge, Education, and Action for a Better World?” Environmental Management47 (5): 701–715.
16.
CraikK.1943. The Nature of Explanation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
DanekeG. A.1999. Systemic Choices: Nonlinear Dynamics and Practical Management. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
18.
DennardL., RichardsonK. A., and MorçölG., eds. 2008. Complexity and Policy Analysis: Tools and Concepts for Designing Robust Policies in a Complex World. Goodyear, AZ: ISCE Publishing.
19.
DentE. B., and UmplebyS. A.. 1998. “Underlying Assumptions of Several Traditions in Systems Theory and Cybernetics.” In Cybernetic and Systems ‘98, edited by TrapplR., 513–518. Vienna: Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies.
20.
DisessaA. A.2002. “Why “Conceptual Ecology” is a Good Idea.” In Reconsidering Conceptual Change: Issues in Theory and Practice, 28–60. Cambridge: Springer.
21.
DiSessaA. A.2006. “A History of Conceptual Change Research: Threads and Fault Lines.” In The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, edited by SawyerR. K., 265–281. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
DubinR.1978. Theory Building. (Revised ed.). New York: The Free Press.
23.
EdwardsM.2010. Organisational Transformation for Sustainability: An Integral Metatheory. New York: Routledge.
24.
FinkG.2017. “Power Systems: How Power Works in Different Systems.” In Evolution of the Post-Bureaucratic Organization, edited by Fabrizio MaimoneC. C. P. M., 41–60. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
25.
FiskeD. W., and ShwederR. A.. 1986. Metatheory in Social Science: Pluralisms and Subjectivities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26.
FlowerL.1989. “Cognition, Context, and Theory Building.” College Composition and Communication40 (3): 282–311.
27.
ForresterJ. W.1994. “System Dynamics, Systems Thinking, and Soft OR.” System Dynamics Review10 (2): 245–256.
28.
GentnerD., and ToupinC.. 1986. “Systematicity and Surface Similarity in the Development of Analogy.” Cognitive Science10 (3): 277–300.
29.
George-WalkerL. D., and TylerM. A.. 2014. “Collaborative Concept Mapping: Connecting with Research Team Capacities.” Education Research International2014 (Article ID 836068): 1–10.
30.
GoltzS. M.2017. “Enhancing Simulation Learning with Team Mental Model Mapping.” Management Teaching Review2 (3): 211–224.
31.
GoodierC., AustinS., SoetantoR., and DaintyA.. 2010. “Causal Mapping and Scenario Building with Multiple Organisations.” Futures42 (3): 219–229.
32.
HammondD.2003. The Science of Synthesis: Exploring the Social Implications of General Systems Theory. Boulder, CO: University Press.
33.
HillT., and WestbrookR.. 1997. “SWOT Analysis: It's Time for a Product Recall.” Long Range Planning30 (1): 46–52.
34.
HoffmannM. H.2011. “Analyzing Framing Processes in Conflicts and Communication by Means of Logical Argument Mapping.” In Framing Matters: Perspectives on Negotiation Research and Practice in Communication, edited by RoganR. G., KaufmanS., and DonohueW. A., 136–164. New York: Peter Lang Inc., International Academic Publishers.
35.
HolbrookJ. B.2013. “What is Interdisciplinary Communication? Reflections on the Very Idea of Disciplinary Integration.” Synthese190 (11): 1865–1879.
36.
HoodW. W., and WilsonC. S.. 2002. Analysis of the Fuzzy Set Literature using Phrases. http://www.springerlink.com/(cr0i2qj0newdei45tpvbeuj4)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,7,10;journal,36,57;linkingpublicationresults,1:101080,1.
37.
HoustonD., WrightB., and WallisS. E.. 2017. “Re-structuring Evaluation Findings into Useful Knowledge.” Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Evaluation30: 29.
38.
Jean-PierreV. M. H., and EdwardA. G.. 2000. “Metadisciplinarity, Belles Lettres, and Andre Malraux: A Bibliometric Exploration of Knowledge Formation.” The Serials Librarian37 (4): 51–68.
39.
JohnsonL.2016. Agent-based Model Basics a Guidebook & Checklist for Policy Researchers. Washington, DC: Westpahlia.
40.
Johnson-LairdP.1980. “Mental Models in Cognitive Science.” Cognitive Science4: 71–115.
41.
KaplanA.1964. The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company.
42.
KleinJ. T., and NewellW. H.. 1997. “Advancing Interdisciplinary Studies.” In Handbook of the Undergraduate Curriculum: A Comprehensive Guide to Purposes, Structures, Practices, and Change, edited by J. Gaff and J. Ratcliff, 393–415. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
43.
Knorr-CetinaK.1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
44.
KrathwohlD. R.2002. “A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview.” Theory Into Practice41 (4): 212–218.
45.
LedouxL.2012. “Philosophy: Today's Manager's Best Friend?” Philosophy of Management11 (3): 11–26.
46.
LewisM. W., and KelemenM. L.. 2002. “Multiparadigm Inquiry: Exploring Organizational Pluralism and Paradox.” Human Relations55 (2): 251–275.
47.
LightP. C.2016. “Vision + Action = Faithful Execution: Why Government Daydreams and how to Stop the Cascade of Breakdowns That now Haunts it.” Political Science and Politics49 (1): 5–20.
48.
MansillaV. B.2010. “Learning to Synthesize: The Development of Interdisciplinary Understanding.” In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, 288–306. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49.
MaturanaH. R., and VarelaF. J.. 1998. The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding(R. Paolucci, Trans.). Boston: Shambhala.
MeehlP. E.2002. “Cliometric Metatheory: II. Criteria Scientists use in Theory Appraisal and why it is Rational to do so.” Psychological Reports91 (2): 339–404.
52.
MenkenS., and KeestraM.. 2016. An Introduction to Interdisciplinary Research: Theory and Practice. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
53.
MinatiG.2008. New Approaches for Modelling Emergence of Collective Phenomena. Milan: Polimetrica.
54.
MüllerK. H.2011. The New Science of Cybernetics. The evolution of living research designs. Volume II: Theory.
55.
MüllerK. H., and ToŠN.. 2012. “New Cognitive Environments for Survey Research in the age of Science 2.” Društvena Istraživanja [Social Research - Journal for General Social Issues]21 (2): 315–339.
56.
NewellW. H.2001. “A Theory of Interdisciplinary Studies.” Issues in Integrative Studies19 (1): 1–25.
57.
NewellW. H.2007. “Decision Making in Interdisciplinary Studies.” Public Administration and Public Policy123: 245–264.
58.
NovakJ. D.2002. “Meaningful Learning: The Essential Factor for Conceptual Change in Limited or Inappropriate Propositional Hierarchies Leading to Empowerment of Learners.” Science Education86 (4): 548–571.
59.
NovakJ. D.2010. “Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations.” Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society6 (3): 21–30.
60.
ÖzdemirG., and ClarkD. B.. 2007. “An Overview of Conceptual Change Theories.” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education3 (4): 351–361.
61.
PanettiE., ParmentolaA., WallisS. E., and FerrettiM.. 2018. “What Drives Technology Transitions? An Integration of Different Approaches Within Transition Studies.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management30: 993–1014.
62.
PearlJ.2000. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. New York: Cambridge University Press.
63.
PopperK.2002. The Logic of Scientific Discovery(K. Popper, J. Freed, & L. Freed, Trans.). New York: Routledge Classics.
64.
PorterT. M.1996. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
65.
QuineW. V. O.1969. Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press.
66.
QuineW. V. O.1980. From a Logical Point of View(2, Revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
67.
ReeseD. D.2009. “Structure Mapping Theory as a Formalism for Instructional Game Design and Assessment.” Paper presented at the New frontiers in analogy research: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on analogy (Analogy ‘09).
68.
RepkoA. F., and SzostakR.. 2017. Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
69.
Ruiz-PrimoM. A., and ShavelsonR. J.. 1996. “Problems and Issues in the use of Concept Maps in Science Assessment.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching33 (6): 569–600.
70.
SengeP.1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
71.
SengeP., KleinerK., RobertsS., RossR. B., and SmithB. J.. 1994. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
72.
ShackelfordC.2014. “Propositional Analysis, Policy Creation, and Complex Environments in the United States’ 2009 Afghanistan-Pakistan Policy.” Doctoral Dissertation, Walden, Minneapolis, MN.
73.
ShawD. R., and AllenT. F.. 2012. “A Systematic Consideration of Observational Design Decisions in the Theory Construction Process.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science29 (5): 484–498.
74.
ShoemakerP. J., TankardJ. W.Jr., and LasorsaD. L.. 2004. How to Build Social Science Theories. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
75.
SosaE.2003. “In Search of Coherentism.” In Epistemic Justification: Internalism vs. Externalism, Foundations vs. Virtues, edited by SosaE., Vol. 7, 240. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
76.
StaceyR. D., GriffinD., and ShawP.. 2000. Complexity and Management: Fad or Radical Challenge to Systems Thinking. New York: Routledge.
77.
StinchcombeA. L.1987. Constructing Social Theories. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
78.
SuedfeldP., and RankA. D.. 1976. “Revolutionary Leaders: Long-Term Success as a Function of Changes in Conceptual Complexity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology34 (2): 169–178.
79.
SuedfeldP., TetlockP. E., and StreufertS.. 1992. “Conceptual/Integrative Complexity.” In Handbook of Thematic Content Analysis, edited by SmithC. P., 393–400. New York: Cambridge University Press.
80.
SzostakR.2002. “How to do Interdisciplinarity: Integrating the Debate.” Issues in Integrative Studies20: 103–122.
81.
SzostakR.2007a. “How and why to Teach Interdisciplinary Research Practice.” Journal of Research Practice3 (2): 17.
82.
SzostakR.2007b. “Modernism, Postmodernism, and Interdisciplinarity.” Issues in Integrative Studies25: 32–83.
83.
ŠešeljaD., and StraßerC.. 2014. “Epistemic Justification in the Context of Pursuit: A Coherentist Approach.” Synthese191 (13): 3111–3141.
84.
TrochimW. M. K., and CabreraD.. 2005. “The Complexity of Concept Mapping for Policy Analysis.” E:CO – Emergence, Complexity, and Organizations7 (1): 11–22.
85.
UmplebyS. A.1997. “Cybernetics of Conceptual Systems.” Cybernetics and Systems28 (8): 635–651.
86.
UmplebyS.2010. “From Complexity to Reflexivity: The Next Step in the Systems Sciences.” Paper presented at the Cybernetics and Systems 2010, Vienna, Austria. http://www.gwu.edu/∼umpleby/cybernetics_papers.html.
87.
Van de VenA. H.2007. Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. New York: Oxford University Press.
88.
von BertalanffyL.1972. “The History and Status of General Systems Theory.” Academy of Management Journal15 (4): 407–426.
89.
WallaceJ. D., and MintzesJ. J.. 1990. “The Concept map as a Research Tool: Exploring Conceptual Change in Biology.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching27 (10): 1033–1052.
90.
WallisS. E.2006. A Study of Complex Adaptive Systems as Defined by Organizational Scholar-Practitioners. Santa Barbara: Fielding Graduate University.
91.
WallisS. E.2008a. “From Reductive to Robust: Seeking the Core of Complex Adaptive Systems Theory.” In Intelligent Complex Adaptive Systems, edited by YangA., and ShanY., 1–25. Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing.
92.
WallisS. E.2008b. “Validation of Theory: Exploring and Reframing Popper's Worlds.” Integral Review4 (2): 71–91.
93.
WallisS. E.2009. “Seeking the Robust Core of Organisational Learning Theory.” International Journal of Collaborative Enterprise1 (2): 180–193.
94.
WallisS. E.2010a. “The Structure of Theory and the Structure of Scientific Revolutions: What Constitutes an Advance in Theory?” In Cybernetics and Systems Theory in Management: Views, Tools, and Advancements, edited by WallisS. E., 151–174. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
95.
WallisS. E.2010b. Toward a Science of Metatheory. Integral Review, 6 (Special Issue: “Emerging Perspectives of Metatheory and Theory”).
96.
WallisS. E.2010c. “Towards Developing Effective Ethics for Effective Behavior.” Social Responsibility Journal6 (4): 536–550.
97.
WallisS. E.2010d. “Towards the Development of More Robust Policy Models.” Integral Review6 (1): 153–160.
98.
WallisS. E.2011. Avoiding Policy Failure: A Workable Approach. Litchfield Park, AZ: Emergent Publications.
99.
WallisS. E.2012. “The Right Tool for the job: Philosophy's Evolving Role in Advancing Management Theory.” Philosophy of Management11 (3): 67–99.
100.
WallisS. E.2013. “How to Choose Between Policy Proposals: A Simple Tool Based on Systems Thinking and Complexity Theory.” E:CO – Emergence: Complexity & Organization15 (3): 94–120.
101.
WallisS. E.2014a. “Abstraction and Insight: Building Better Conceptual Systems to Support More Effective Social Change.” Foundations of Science19 (4): 353–362. doi:10.1007/s10699-014-9344-4.
102.
WallisS. E.2014b. “Evaluating Explanations Through Their Conceptual Structures.” In Modes of Explanation: Affordances for Action and Prediction, edited by LissackM., and GraberA., 197–202. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
103.
WallisS. E.2014c. “Existing and Emerging Methods for Integrating Theories Within and Between Disciplines.” Organisational Transformation and Social Change11 (1): 3–24.
104.
WallisS. E.2014d. “A Systems Approach to Understanding Theory: Finding the Core, Identifying Opportunities for Improvement, and Integrating Fragmented Fields.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science31 (1): 23–31.
105.
WallisS. E.2015a. “Are Theories of Conflict Improving? Using Propositional Analysis to Determine the Structure of Conflict Theories over the Course of a Century.” Emergence: Complexity and Organization17 (4): 1–17.
106.
WallisS. E.2015b. “Integrative Propositional Analysis: A new Quantitative Method for Evaluating Theories in Psychology.” Review of General Psychology19 (3): 365–380.
107.
WallisS. E.2016a. “The Science of Conceptual Systems: A Progress Report.” Foundations of Science21 (4): 579–602.
108.
WallisS. E.2016b. “Structures of Logic in Policy and Theory: Identifying sub-Systemic Bricks for Investigating, Building, and Understanding Conceptual Systems.” Foundations of Science20 (3): 213–231.
109.
WallisS. E., and JohnsonL.. 2018. “Using Integrative Propositional Analysis to Understand and Integrate Four Theories of Social Power Systems.” Journal on Policy and Complex Systems4 (1): 169–194.
110.
WallisS. E., and ValentinovV.. 2016a. “The Imperviance of Conceptual Systems: Cognitive and Moral Aspects.” Kybernetes45 (9): 1437–1451.
111.
WallisS. E., and ValentinovV.. 2016b. “A Limit to our Thinking and Some Unanticipated Moral Consequences: A Science of Conceptual Systems Perspective with Some Potential Solutions.” Systemic Practice and Action Research30 (2): 103–116.
112.
WallisS. E., and ValentinovV.. 2017. “What Is Sustainable Theory? A Luhmannian Perspective on the Science of Conceptual Systems.” Foundations of Science22 (4): 733–747. doi:10.1007/s10699-016-9496-5.
113.
WallisS. E., and WrightB.. 2015. “Strategic Knowledge Mapping: The Co-creation of Useful Knowledge.” Paper presented at the Association for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning (ABSEL) 42nd annual conference, Las Vegas, CA.
114.
WallisS. E., and WrightB.. 2016. “Integrative Propositional Analysis: The Missing Link for Creating More Effective Laws.” Science of Laws Journal2 (1): 10–15.
WeickK. E.1989. “Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination.” Academy of Management Review14 (4): 516–531.
117.
WexlerM. N.2001. “The Who, What and Why of Knowledge Mapping.” Journal of Knowledge Management5 (3): 249–264.
118.
WongE. M., OrmistonM. E., and TetlockP. E.. 2011. “The Effects of Top Management Team Integrative Complexity and Decentralized Decision Making on Corporate Social Performance.” Academy of Management Journal54 (6): 1207–1228.
119.
WrightB., and WallisS. E.. 2019. Practical Mapping for Applied Research and Program Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
