Tricotyledons, systems and social problems

'If scientists and engineers are to be able to attack social problems with the same validity and effectiveness with which physical problems have been attacked, then a much more sophisticated and rigorous system design methodology is needed.

Such methodology, called the tricotyledon theory of system design, has been developed as a synthesis of: empirical and speculative approaches to system design [2], the methodology of operations research [10], classical optimization techniques [18], results in specialized branches of mathematical system theory [1,4,6,7], and the constructs of general mathematical system theory [12,13,14].

Experimental applications of the tricotyledon theory of system design to several problems in widely differing contexts [3,4,8,9,16,17] indicate that the methodology holds great promise for validity and effectiveness in attacking any large-scale, complex, man/machine system design problem with precision and rigor. There are no theoretical limitations (such as differentiability, linearity, finiteness, or discreteness) for the problems that can be attacked within the tricotyledon theory of system design.

In this short abstract the theory is only described in terms of set and system theoretic concepts as presented in Reference [12), [13], or [14]; no exploitation of the theory, either theoretical or practical is attempted here.' ..' p.224-225.

'The task of defining a large-scale, complex, man/machine system design problem P=(S,T,α,β,γ,D) often requires an interdisciplinary team in practice. An interdisciplinary team requires, in turn, that the above definitions be translated into non-mathematical methodology. This has been done in Reference [15].' p.229.

15. Wymore, A.W., Systems Engineering Methodology for Interdisciplinary Teams, unpublished manuscript. (Another loss?)

Wymore, A.W. (1975) The Tricotyledon Theory of  System Design. In. Category Theory Applied to Computation and Control: Proceedings of the First International Symposium, San Francisco, February 25-26, 1974 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 25) by E.G. Manes (Editor).

See also: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._Wayne_Wymore

http://sysengr.engr.arizona.edu/wymore/bookreview.html 

https://lockywolf.wordpress.com/2019/02/16/a-mathematical-theory-of-systems-engineering-the-elements-by-a-wayne-wymore/ 

style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"

Hollowed out - aka 'No science here' ... 'Limited vision' ...

Individual

|

      INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES               

HUMANISTIC  --------------------------------------  MECHANISTIC      

 SOCIOLOGY  :    POLITICAL 

|

Group

	Policy. Public Protection. Vigilance. Monitoring: Public (mental) health is being (has been) hollowed out? Discuss.

Image: https://sotamedialab.wordpress.com/2014/12/15/adjusting-perspective/

BBC Radio 'File on Four' - DASH to Instrumentalise

Of course, I'd like to see Hodges' model applied to many purposes.

As probably posted at some point, the thought of Hodges' model being instrumentalised goes back a long way. To the time of microcomputers in fact and 'CAPA' which stood for 'Computer-Aided Patient Assessment':

Jones, P. (1986) Computing in Nursing NEWS. Computerised Patient Assessment. Nursing Times. 85: 5. Sep 3-9;82(36):63-5. PMID: 3532039

[Describes 'CAPA', a BBC BASIC microcomputer program for student nurses.]

Even before discovering Hodges' model in the late 1980s, I was sensitive about being seen to mechanise nursing and care delivery. Nursing was still preoccupied with the nursing process and individualised care. The last thing I would want is to be seen as supporting the processing of patients. The person, their social context and identity becoming lost. It was a long-term and ongoing co-author who drew my attention to Hodges' model as an instrument. Which I've considered for each and across the care domains. CAPA was simplistic, even beyond the programming language employed. A dependency score from 1-5 was allocated (it's a long time ago!) to each of the activities of daily living for a patient:

Roper, N., Logan, W., & Tierney, A. J. (2000). The Roper-Logan-Tierney model of nursing: Based on activities of living. Churchill Livingstone.

In healthcare we are trained and become accustomed to the use of many assessment tools, checklists; this includes mental health nursing and specific therapies. Emphasis, is rightly placed upon the safety, validity and hence testing of tools. Some are 'broad brushes'. Others are specific - outcomes, anger, a carer's knowledge, conviction of belief, mood, impulsivity and many more. Drift away from the original goal and purpose and problems can (predictably) ensue. Training will and must be updated, but do all assessment tools have a 'Use By' date? Hopefully there is ongoing development, version control and sustained trials and testing of the instruments themselves.

'File on Four' BBC Radio 4 this evening concerns DASH, which stands for "Domestic Abuse, Stalking and ‘Honour’- based abuse".

Global cost of silencing science BMJ ...

Editorials

Global cost of silencing science

BMJ 2025; 390 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r1370 (Published 10 July 2025)Cite this as: BMJ 2025;390:r1370

'Public trust in scientific integrity is eroded by the politicisation of institutions under Donald Trump’s US presidency. The implications extend far beyond American borders, striking at the core of how scientific knowledge is produced, disseminated, and trusted worldwide.

Recent directives seek to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, cut federal funding to critical health research agencies, and restrict references to gender, race, and climate science in official documentation. Scientific staff at federal agencies face mounting pressure to comply with politically motivated communication policies. Such institutional interference not only distorts scientific findings—it undermines the principles of transparency and editorial independence outlined in the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations.1 As members of ICMJE we feel compelled to speak out.

The ICMJE underscores that “editors should preserve the integrity of the scientific record by critically evaluating manuscripts free from undue influence and without compromising scholarly values.”1 Yet, under the current administration, several US federal science agencies require pre-approval for external publications—a direct contravention of these editorial standards.2 This climate of control stifles open inquiry and discourages evidence based discourse, particularly when scientific conclusions diverge from political narratives.'
...

'Independent scientific communication is equally under threat. Increasing pressure on government researchers to avoid controversial topics or reframe findings to suit political narratives creates an institutional chilling effect. Self-censorship born of fear may be more damaging than overt censorship. Researchers, particularly early career scientists and those from under-represented backgrounds, may choose to abandon public communication or controversial areas of inquiry altogether. This trend further narrows the scope of scientific innovation, limits the range of perspectives reflected in research agendas, and ultimately harms health.'
...

'This is a call for science grounded in ethical principles and dedicated to the service of humanity. Scientific research, especially in medicine and public health, is inherently intertwined with social justice. Silencing DEI initiatives, censoring climate science, and delegitimising minority researchers is not neutrality—it is complicity in perpetuating harm.'
...

Footnotes

This article is being jointly published by The BMJ, Deutsches Ärtzeblatt, Journal of Korean Medical Science, Lancet, La Tunisie Médicale, Medwave, and New Zealand Medical Journal.

References

1. ↵
   International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations. 2025. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/
2. ↵
   Bush V. Science—the Endless Frontier. 75th anniversary edition. National Science Foundation, 1980. https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/2023-04/EndlessFrontier75th_w.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r1370

My source: https://x.com/bmj_latest/status/1944478436489134350

Is it? Can it be? An elevator pitch!

How many times have people asked me?

"If you were to explain Hodges' model as an elevator pitch what would you say?"

So, what would it be?

I wrote this on twitter and think it's a step in the right direction - domains: 

There is -

              *Person, self, individual ..

*Other(s), collective, pop.. 

      (a) person has MIND & BODY (for now!) 

(a) person is supported by ALL Others 

We call this Humanity

For the majority all bridges *cognitively* accessible:

  https://hodges-model.blogspot.com 

n.b. Politicians, policy makers

Call for Participation in NHS Survey

ARE YOU WORKING IN THE NHS? IF SO, HELP NEEDED URGENTLY! Please read this email. 

Glasgow Caledonian University is inviting NHS Staff across the UK to participate in this doctoral research survey to analyse the impact of responsible leadership on improving well-being and organisational trust among NHS Staff members. 

 

To be eligible, you must be an NHS staff member from any area of the UK in any job role. The survey collects no recognisable information and is wholly anonymised to protect participant privacy and confidentiality. It has received full ethical approval, will take around 10 minutes and will help provide an improved understanding of the area of well-being in the profession.

 

Please forward this survey link to everyone in your contacts working for NHS. This will help gain more responses, increasing the study's reach and validity. Your help is highly appreciated, and we thank you in advance.

 

Here's the link for the participant information sheet and survey: 

https://app.onlinesurveys.jisc.ac.uk/s/caledonian/impact-of-responsible-leadership-on-employee-well-being-and-org

Warm wishes
Umm E Habiba Tariq (Chief Investigator)

 

Umm E Habiba Tariq (she/her) | PhD Candidate, MSc, BBA (Hons)

Occasional Lecturer | Department of HRM | Glasgow School for Business and Society (GSBS)

Glasgow Caledonian University is a registered Scottish charity, number SC021474

My source: Nurse-Philosophy List.

"Why models go wrong" BYTE, 1985

Why models go wrong
BYTE

 

"A model can be a physical object: a scale-model of an ancient settlement inferred from archeological evidence, or a physical anthropologist's reconstruction of a skeleton from a few bones and fragments. Most social models, however, are mathematical isomorphisms that specify one-to-one relationships between elements of the model and observable processes or entities. This abstractness gives models great versatility, but it also opens doors to potential problems. You don't need to be a naval architect to see that a model battleship has no bottom, but flaws in an equally defective sociometric model that repeatedly factors a large covariance matrix might escape casual scrutiny." p.151.

My source:
Houston, T.R. 1985. Why models go wrong. BYTE 10(10) : 151-164.

"End of Guidelines - a parody of End of the Line"

individual

|

INTERPERSONAL : SCIENCES

humanistic ---------------------------------------  mechanistic

SOCIOLOGY : POLITICAL

|

group

Original source (edited):

James McCormack, BSc(Pharm), Pharm D
Professor
Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences
UBC, Vancouver, Canada
Co-host - Best Science (BS) Medicine Podcast

therapeuticseducation.org

http://earthcitizenshealth.blogspot.com/2016/05/end-of-guidelines-parody-of-end-of-line.html

Mohammad Zakaria Pezeshki, M.D.

Associate Professor
Department of Community Medicine,
Tabriz Medical School, Golgasht Avenue, Tabriz, Iran.

Hodges' model - Integrating the five vignettes?

Some reading while working on my research proposal:


Vignette methodologies for studying clinicians’ decision-making: Validity, utility, and application in ICD-11 field studies

Abstract

Vignette-based methodologies are frequently used to examine judgments and decision-making processes, including clinical judgments made by health professionals. Concerns are sometimes raised that vignettes do not accurately reflect “real world” phenomena, and that this affects the validity of results and conclusions of these studies. This article provides an overview of the defining features, design variations, strengths, and weaknesses of vignette studies as a way of examining how health professionals form clinical judgments (e.g., assigning diagnoses, selecting treatments). As a “hybrid” of traditional survey and experimental methods, vignette studies can offer aspects of both the high internal validity of experiments and the high external validity of survey research in order to disentangle multiple predictors of clinician behavior. When vignette studies are well designed to test specific questions about judgments and decision-making, they can be highly generalizable to “real life” behavior, while overcoming the ethical, practical, and scientific limitations associated with alternative methods (e.g., observation, self-report, standardized patients, archival analysis). We conclude with methodological recommendations and a description of how vignette methodologies are being used to investigate clinicians’ diagnostic decisions in case-controlled field studies for the ICD-11 classification of mental and behavioural disorders, and how these studies illustrate the preceding concepts and recommendations.

Evans, Roberts, Keeley, Blossom, Amaro, Garcia, . . . Reed. (2015). Vignette methodologies for studying clinicians’ decision-making: Validity, utility, and application in ICD-11 field studies. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 15(2), 160-170. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2014.12.001 

Abstract

Vignette studies use short descriptions of situations or persons (vignettes) that are usually shown to respondents within surveys in order to elicit their judgments about these scenarios. By systematically varying the levels of theoretically important vignette characteristics a large population of different vignettes is typically available – too large to be presented to each respondent. Therefore, each respondent gets only a subset of vignettes. These subsets may either be randomly selected in following the tradition of the factorial survey or systematically selected according to an experimental design. We show that these strategies in selecting vignette sets have strong implications for the analysis and interpretation of vignette data. Random selection strategies result in a random confounding of effects and heavily rely on the assumption of no interaction effects. In contrast, experimental strategies systematically confound interaction effects with main or set effects, thereby preserving a meaningful interpretation of main and important interaction effects. Using a pilot study on attitudes toward immigrants we demonstrate the implementation and analysis of a confounded factorial design.

Atzmüller, C., & Steiner, P. (2010). Experimental Vignette Studies in Survey Research. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 6(3), 128-138. DOI: 10.1027/1614-2241/a000014