*2.3. Paradigms*

While a worldview is a personal philosophy, it is usually not completely unique per person. As mentioned above, when a group of people hold a worldview in common then it (or the part of it held in common) is called a "paradigm," and hence we have such designations as the "scientific paradigm," "the Christian paradigm," a "research paradigm," etc. There is a rising interest in paradigms in areas such as peace education, sustainable development, social policy and so on, and from work in these areas, and areas more historically interested in worldviews such as theology, we now have several models in the academic literature documenting paradigmatic worldviews (i.e., types of paradigms and comparisons between their tenets) or paradigmatic approaches to specific worldview components, e.g.:


There also now exists good scholarship on the subject of how to develop and validate measures of people's worldview beliefs [29,32] and how to analyze results of such surveys, e.g., to test the coherence of a worldview or to expose their potentials and pitfalls [29,30,33,34].

However, across this academic space, there is substantial variety in what academics identify as the components of a worldview. As we will show later on, there is substantial overlap between different models but also significant differences and omissions. We suppose that to some degree this reflects the interests or motivations of the researchers. Checkland's SSM discussed above provides a case in point, for although the methodology on the face of it claims to be documenting the stakeholder's *weltanschauung*, in fact it only tries to establish what the stakeholder would value in the project outcome. Checkland has confirmed that SSM's "worldview" interest is meant to be narrow in this way [35], but practitioners have suggested that a more comprehensive worldview exploration would improve the quality of the analysis [5].

#### **3. The "Worldview Inquiry Framework"**

#### *3.1. Development of the Worldview Inquiry Framework*

We have been doing research for several years into the structure and systemicity of worldviews, the concepts employed to frame the tenets that make up a worldview, and how these tenets systemically interdepend. Initially our motivation was to understand how worldviews might be challenged by research findings in frontier science, but as we developed the framework we realized that it might be a useful contribution to all of the fields we have drawn on in developing it, including anthropology, religious studies, social science, theology, cosmology, psychology, philosophy, and systemology, e.g., [9,21,22,25,29,30,34,36–49]. We realized early on that systemology would provide a natural home for our work in this area, because:


In order to develop our understanding of the structure, systemicity and conceptual terrain of worldviews, we drew extensively on philosophical literature (especially ontology and metaphysics) to find ways of reconciling different uses of the same terms (e.g., what is meant by terms such as existence, purpose, God, matter, value, etc.). From the outset, we were convinced that it would be possible to arrive at a usefully consilient outcome, despite the diversity of perspectives, terminologies, and purposes presented in the academic literature on worldviews. Over the period of our study, we and our collaborators presented various aspects or early models of our emerging perspective on worldviews in publications, workshops, seminars, and conference presentations, e.g., [28,31,50–59]. In this paper, we bring together, and extend, the high-level findings of this research programme. We were also able to generalize our approach to exploring worldviews to create a framework for exploring information categories in other scenarios, which we have presented in a paper and a workshop [60,61] that inspired two case studies, the results of which are scheduled for presentation at two upcoming conferences [62,63].

#### *3.2. High-Level Overview of the Worldview Inquiry Framework*

We now present, at high level, our Worldview Inquiry Framework in Table 1. Each row illustrates aspects of one component of a worldview. In the first column, we provide our recommended categories for the components of a worldview. This choice of categories was driven by the need to separate the components in a clear way while remaining as close as possible to the divisions suggested by other researchers [64].<sup>5</sup> Please note that the terms used for these categories have multiple meanings in standard usage. For example, "axiology" typically refers to a philosophical discipline concerned with the nature of values, investigating what values are, how they arise, how they are applied, and what their criteria of merit are. Against this, a particular person may have various "axiological beliefs" that represent their personal value system and beliefs about what an appropriate grounding for a value system is. This set of beliefs then forms that person's "axiology," i.e., the values-related component of their personal philosophy. This latter sense of the term is intended in Table 1, but it should usually be clear from the context how the category terms are to be understood.

The second column illustrates the kinds of questions that are the focus of each worldview category, and column 3 gives an overview of the scope of the inquiry in each category. To frame appropriate questions and relevant beliefs one needs appropriate concepts, and we give some examples for each category in column 4. The aim of an inquiry into worldviews is to explore the beliefs a person holds in each category, and we give some examples of possible answers one might receive in column 5. Note that these are illustrative examples only and are not a set meant to represent any specific worldview, and we do not intend with these examples to recommend some beliefs over others. For example, in row 4 (cosmology of nature), the illustrated belief that physical nature arose via the Big Bang and has since evolved naturalistically is one possible option for a belief about the origin and history of nature, but others options also exist e.g., the belief that physical nature was created by and is unfolding under the governance of God, or that physical nature is an illusion arising within a personal or universal consciousness, or some combination of such beliefs. The plausibility or coherence of alterative options are not here at stake, and can only be assessed in the light of beliefs in other components (e.g., epistemological commitments about what counts as authoritative sources of knowledge and why).

Note that, from an information-gathering perspective, the logical sequence in which the components are addressed can be rearranged to suit the context, so there is no special significance to the sequence of the rows in Table 1. For example,


Note also that the extent to which information needs to be gathered in any area depends on the needs of the particular inquiry. The framework provides a guide to options, but it is not obligatory to pursue them all. For example, in a systemic intervention, different stakeholders may have different reasons for considering a project important, but these may not be in conflict with each other, in which case, the project can proceed in a consensual way (e.g., in a railway project the same solution can provide both jobs for the locals and a low-carbon transport system for the economy). However, if the stakeholder values are conflictual, then the inquiry will have to "dig deeper" in order to expose the roots of the conflict and mediate a resolution (e.g., in a railway project, the environmental harm of building the railway system must be reconciled with the social benefit of the project).

<sup>5</sup> The most controversial case is the ontology/metaphysics split. In the philosophical literature, some academics regard the ontology/metaphysics division as superfluous and settle for just the one or the other, some regard ontology as a subset of metaphysics, some regard metaphysics as a subset of ontology, and some regard the split as meaningful but only one of the two to be a feasible undertaking. For an accessible discussion, see [64]. A basic illustration of the possible distinction is this: the claim that "gravity" exists, and claims about what its identifying features are, are ontological claims; claims about the nature of gravity (e.g., that it is a force field or a curvature in space) are metaphysical claims.



#### *3.3. Comparison with Other Worldview Models*

With the clarifications given in Table 1 in mind, we can now compare the Worldview Inquiry Framework with representative examples of other worldview frameworks, as given in Tables 2 and 3. We have selected only proposals with a reasonably rich structure, each containing at least five components. Most literature sources discuss only 1–3 components. For reasons of space, we present the comparative data across two tables, and align them by repeating the first column. As will be seen in Table 2 Part 1 and Part 2, the other worldview framework proposals map fairly well onto the components and questions of the Worldview Inquiry Framework but are not as comprehensive. For reference purposes we list in the first row the name of the author, the key years of publication of their framework, a citation of the key publication, their description of what their framework is about (in curly brackets), and the discipline they are from (in triangular brackets). Where authors have categorized their worldview questions, we report their category labels. Sometimes, their questions under one label span several categories of our framework, and in such cases, we split their categories and numbered the segments to indicate the fragments. Where authors have numbered their own subdivisions, we use their numbering (a case in point is de Witt et. al. in Part 2 column 4).

Note to Table 2 Part 2: The questions reported in Column 4 for the Integrative Worldview Framework (IWF) are paraphrased by us to represent what we take to be the intent of groups of survey questions in the IWF. We formulated this paraphrase to enable comparison with other frameworks, but we acknowledge that de Witt et al. might summarize the intent of each question set differently. In the other columns of Table 2 (Parts 1 and 2), we use the researchers' own expressions in posing their questions or propositions.

The comparisons given in Table 2 demonstrate that the other frameworks are subsets or special cases of our proposed framework and hence that our framework could stand in for any of these other application areas. On this basis, we conclude that our proposed worldview framework is comprehensive in scope, and hence would be suitable for use in any context where worldviews, or aspects of worldviews, are at issue.

#### *3.4. An Extended Worldview Inquiry Framework*

To make the Worldview Inquiry Framework easier to use, it is helpful to expand each component into subsections under which related questions can be grouped. To frame appropriate questions, and document their answers, specific concepts are needed, and it would be helpful to develop a standard set of concepts so this work can be done in a consistent way. We make a first proposal along these lines in Figure 1, where we use the Worldview Inquiry Framework to give structure to a concept map that identifies some of the relevant concepts in each area. Further work is needed to refine the concept lists and disambiguate each concept, and we elsewhere discuss a methodology for doing such work [66]. This is an important task still to be done, because as mentioned in the Introduction, it is known that presentation format and terminology affect how people respond to information even beyond the content of the information.

As we noted above, there are good methods already present in academia for developing worldview questions, validating the survey instruments and analyzing the interview results. What was lacking, in our view, was


The tools we have introduced so far in this paper are offerings toward closing these gaps.





**Figure 1.** An extended Worldview Inquiry Framework and a mapping of relevant concepts.

#### **4. The World as a System, Modelled in Terms of the Worldview Inquiry Framework**

We earlier mentioned that worldviews are systems without defending or exploring that assessment. However, now that we have defined the components of a worldview and their correlated areas of belief, we can return to consider the nature and the implications of the systemicity of worldviews in more detail.

According to one systems definition, due to Anatol Rapoport and popular in the systems science community, a system as a whole that functions as a whole because of the interactions between its parts [67]. This is consistent with the definition of systems now emerging in the systems engineering community, according to which "A physical system is a structured set of parts or elements, which together exhibit behaviour that the individual parts do not" and "A conceptual system is a structured set of parts or elements, which together exhibit meaning that the individual parts do not" [6,68].

In the sense of these definitions a worldview is a conceptual system. A worldview's systemicity is evident in the way that the content of the components of a person's worldview change not only to accommodate new information but to strive toward coherence—that is, to make sense as a whole. It is also evident on a larger scale, where, as Thomas Kuhn explained, paradigm shifts occur when the coherence of a current paradigm (a worldview shared by a group) cannot be maintained given cumulative new evidence and current beliefs, and hence a shift to a new balance is triggered. This happens via a "revolution" that adjust beliefs so as to incorporate the new evidence in a way that allows the overall set of adjusted beliefs to come back into coherence as a whole [10].

Of course, a worldview is not only a conceptual system but also a "map of reality," a view on the actual world, which (at least under the perspective of scientific realism) is a system also, and a worldview is a model of the structure and coherence of the concrete world, in the sense of Robert Rosen's "modelling relationship" [69].

It is instructive to sketch a "systems model" of the world in terms of the components and interdependencies of the Worldview Inquiry Framework proposed earlier. In Figure 2, we present a diagram that shows one way of illustrating some of the correspondences between the components of a worldview (right hand side) and the aspects of the world that they represent (left hand side) together with some of their interdependencies (linking arrows).

This is not a unique or a comprehensive model of the systemicity of the world, but it is sufficient for illustrating the basis of the implications we draw out below.

Recognizing that worldviews are conceptual systems and that they model a systemic world, and being able to provide a comprehensive framework for representing this, are valuable advances for two reasons.

First, the structure of the model tells us something important about how worldviews underpin people's behavior. We can see here that actions depend on judgments, which in turn depend on values. Values depend on beliefs about the nature of people and the world, natures that are manifested via their powers and limitations. The existence of people and the world, and their powers and limitations, depends in turn on the types and natures of ultimate substances. The implication is that people's values depend deeply on their ontological and metaphysical beliefs. This is clearly seen in how people's assessments of the meaning of their lives and their actions vary depending on whether they consider "ultimate reality" to be, e.g., physical matter, or consciousness, or an alien simulation programme, or God. From a scientific perspective the nature of "ultimate reality"is far from settled, and hence we have ongoing controversies and conflicts about meanings, rights, and duties across different stakeholder communities. This underscores the importance of current research into these "frontier areas" [50,70–72]. For the moment, though, understanding the dependencies among components of a worldview is important for systems practitioners because, in the case of conflicts between stakeholder perspectives, it enables the practitioner to trace the roots of those differences via these dependencies, and hence places the practitioner in a position to facilitate a conversation between the stakeholders to bring about convergence of or at least mutual understanding or respect for these differences.

**Figure 2.** A systems model of the world from the perspective of the Worldview Inquiry Framework.

Second, the systemicity of worldviews holds important lessons about the dynamics of worldview change, e.g.,


becomes too large to easily ignore or credibly reject, and so *has* to be incorporated, the systemicity of the worldview/paradigm ensures a 'ripple effect', so that change propagates throughout the worldview/paradigm *system* to establish a new balance that renders the whole coherent again (as described in Thomas Kuhn's works [10,11]).

(c) From a systems point of view, the last point explains why paradigm change is the most powerful leverage point for bringing about change for a group, as proposed by Donella Meadows [73].

#### **5. The "General Inquiry Framework"**

#### *5.1. Generalizing the Worldview Inquiry Framework*

The Worldview Inquiry Framework can be generalized to produce a multi-purpose inquiry framework in the following way.

A worldview that is adequate for guiding a person though all life's potential scenarios will have to contain beliefs about every aspect of reality. According to the Worldview Inquiry Framework, there are six kinds of beliefs in a worldview (not seven, because the Worldview Inquiry Framework divided cosmological beliefs into two aspects). This entails that there are six aspects to reality, each of which one could have beliefs about. Knowledge is "warranted true belief," i.e., a belief counts as knowledge if it is believed, if what is believed is true, and if it is believed for valid reasons (a belief that is accidentally true is not knowledge). A worldview can contain many beliefs that do not count as knowledge, but relevant knowledge will always fit into a worldview. From this we can infer that there are potentially six kinds of knowledge one could have about reality, or any subset of reality, and thus potentially six kinds of knowledge one could seek about any actual situation. In this way we could envision a general framework for organizing knowledge about anything, or any scenario, based on the six categories employed in worldview beliefs. This suggests that we could inquire after these kinds of knowledge by posing general questions framed after the manner of the ones used in formulating a worldview. Having noted this possibility, we proceeded to devise a generalization of the Worldview Inquiry Framework, producing what we call the "General Inquiry Framework." We explain it below and then show how it can be tailored for application in different contexts such as problem solving, product design, and foundational research.

#### *5.2. General Questions for a General Inquiry Framework*

We develop this framework in two stages. The first step is generalize how the worldview component names are interpreted, so they reflect the kind of information that is at stake, rather than kinds of beliefs or kinds of disciplines. Most remain unchanged as terms except for the clarifications of the 'cosmology' terms. In a worldview, the primary concern is centered on the person whose worldview is at stake, for whom the worldview answers how they should live. The person and their nature, history and potential is therefore, in general terms, the "subject of interest" in a worldview (Cosmology II). To work out the foundations of the person's purpose and motivation, the worldview tries to work out the place of the person in "the grand scheme of things", that is to say, in general terms, their "context" (Cosmology I). Once we generalize by seeing the person as a special case of a "subject of interest" and their place in the world as a special case of the "context" of a subject of interest, we can generalize all the other categories, as shown in Figure 3. Apart from the subtext of Cosmology I and II the other terms are retained as they were but their focus is slightly altered, as made clear by insertions in brackets after the component labels and the forms of the questions following. The main change here is that, having established the categories of "Cosmology of Subject of Interest" and "Cosmology of Context", we can now recognize that both these categories are grounded in a more general "Area of Interest", which provides us with the foundational concepts needed via answers to ontological and metaphysical questions. The other terms are retained as they were but their focus is slightly altered, as made clear by insertions in brackets after the component labels and the forms of the questions following.

The main change here is that, having established the categories of "Cosmology of Subject of Interest" and "Cosmology of Context", we can now recognize that both these categories are grounded in a more general area of interest, which provides us with the foundational concepts needed via answers to ontological and metaphysical questions. For example, if a scientist were to take "salamanders" as their subject of interest, and hence aquatic environments as "context", the "area of study" would be characterized by the core concepts of *biology*, as characterized by "biology's ontology" (broadly, answers to the question "what variety of biological entities exist and how are they identified?") and "biology's metaphysics" (broadly, answers the question "what are the powers and limitations of kinds of biological entities?").

Note that, as discussed before in the context of the Worldview Inquiry Framework, the context of the inquiry will determine in what sequence the inquiry components are addressed, and to what depth any component is explored.


**Figure 3.** Components for a General Inquiry Framework, based on worldview components.



#### *5.3. Adapting the General Inquiry Framework for Different Contexts*

From Figure 3, it is now clear that the Worldview Inquiry Framework is a special case of the General Inquiry Framework, where the subject of interest (Cosmology II) is a person, the context of the subject of interest (Cosmology I) is everything in nature (which includes social and cultural systems), and the area of interest (Ontology) is ultimate reality (what some refer to as "the ground of being").

With the General Inquiry Framework in mind, we can now propose specialized kinds of questions to be asked in specific alternative scenarios, as shown in Table 3, adapted from the general questions given in Figure 3.

The specialized varieties of the General Inquiry Framework in Table 3 are illustrative only, and not meant to be exhaustive. However, given this example, an investigator could expand these examples or tailor the General Inquiry Framework for other scenarios.

It should be noted that multiple tailored inquiry frameworks could be applied in the same project. For example, a project may at the outset implement a Problem-Solving Inquiry Framework but then apply the Worldview Inquiry Framework to the stakeholders in that scenario and use a Product Design Inquiry Framework to explore potential contributions to a solution.
