Researchers in cybernetics and systems science work in a sometimes difficult academic environment.
In many ways both the subject matter and methodologies of cyberneticians are
in direct conflict with the methods and products favored by the academy.
The methods of traditional academic and scientific work cannot and do not
reflect the properties of cybernetic systems, and thus cybernetics and systems science are in
conflict with the nature of traditional academic work and development.
Traditional analytic methods tend to focus on individual, simple subsystems
in isolation, while only occasionally (and frequently inaccurately)
extrapolating to group traits. Temporal and physical levels of analysis are
abstracted and isolated, and disciplinary divisions cut off consideration of
their interaction.
This inadequacy is reflected in the actual products of academic and
scientific work, the books, papers, and lectures which are the coin in
trade for academic workers. Such works (like all traditional publications)
have a linear structure, ranging from long treatises to collections of
short paragraphs or sections (e.g. the work of Aristotle \cite{AR43} or
Wittgenstein \cite{WIL58}). Various indexing and other methods are
available to gain "random access" within documents. Dictionaries,
encyclopedias, and other reference works partially introduce nonlinear
structures through internal references (e.g. \cite{EDP67,KRK84,FLA79}).
Some authors have made halting efforts in the direction of nonlinear
documents \cite{MIM86}; others have used pictures and graphical notation to
aid in understanding \cite{VOH81,ABRSHC85,VAF75,HAD88}. And certainly the
use of formal systems (mathematics and logical notations) have given the
ability to construct large, complex linguistic systems.
Nevertheless, over the years the fundamental linear textual form has been
maintained. Works are produced by single or at most small groups of
authors. Collaborative work among more than two people remains next to
impossible. Work proceeds almost entirely in natural language. The
development of large, complex systems of philosophical thought in
non-formal domains has been difficult. Once published, the works sit on
library shelves in mute inactivity. They are not even open to revision
except through further publications and errata. The connections among and
within works are revealed only through laborious reference searches and
synthetic works by diligent authors. Tracing the historical development of
ideas is as laborious as that of bibliographical relation. The physical
form of texts required that the products of one author or the writings on
one subject be physically scattered throughout a vast published literature,
leading to a cacophonous din of argument and discourse.
The disciplinary divisions of academic work also place a regimented,
linear, and highly specific structure to the categorization of published
books and papers. Cybernetics and systems science researchers, on the other hand, typically
utilize a great deal of the library shelves, including mathematics, all the
traditional sciences, psychology and sociology, philosophy, linguistics,
etc. In fact, ultimately there can be little doubt that cybernetics and systems science are not
"academic disciplines" at all in the traditional sense of the word. As
the trans- (inter-, meta-, anti-) disciplinary studies of general systems
and information systems, cybernetics and systems science has long fought against the traditional
disciplinary divisions of intellectual specialization.
This critique can be extended to the ultimate reflexivity of cybernetics and systems science, in
which the academic milieu in which they operate is regarded as another
cybernetic system, and therefore an object of study which itself should be
understood through cybernetic principles.(Similarly, Turchin \cite{TUV77} describes the ultimate
end of science as the reflexive study of the scientific process.)
