This editorial accompanies the proceedings of the International Society for Systems Sciences Annual Conference of 2024. The meeting was held in Washington D.C. The theme concerned influence. The speakers were divided between academics, practitioners and both—academics who apply their knowledge. The geographical reach of the practice spanned from Mexico to Hong Kong to Sudan. To complement the breadth and intent of the conference, we held it in an unconventional space: Open Gov Hub—a shared workspace for NGOs working to make the world a better place. It was a hospitable and rich environment for the conference. The technological support allowed us to successfully have our first hybrid conference where some participants joined us online. The proceedings this year are thin. In fact, they include only one paper—that of Gary Smith—that brings systems sciences together. To be honest, the thinness of the volume worried me at first. The reasons there were not more papers are: systemic (the journal and review system), coincidental (personal matters) and partly a choice of practitioners to not submit an article to an academic journal. However, we should remember to look for quality, especially in this day of bombardment of information. Gary Smith's paper is a gem. He really does give a framework for thinking about systems sciences. He very carefully defines science and system, so that we make no mistake. Moreover, his paper is very much a product of our society. He incorporates many of the prevailing concepts we discuss as a matter of course: nodes, relations, holons, leverage points, purpose, feedback loops, context, holism and values. They are mapped and systematized without prejudice, bias or championing. In the past, I was sceptical about such projects, but I can safely say now that there is at least one level-headed framework for navigating the many systems sciences. Bravo. The paper is not an introduction to the systems sciences. I recommend to those who are unfamiliar with systems sciences that they should study one systems science, or maybe two. It is with a little curiosity and ambition that one starts to look at more systems sciences, but suddenly one feels overwhelmed. What are all these sciences? Are they really different from each other? Do the words really mean different things? Do the sciences all have the same strengths? How would I know to apply one in this case, for this system and another science, in another case for the same or a different system? Without a knowledge of all systems sciences that have stood the test of time, it is difficult to speak with confidence. And there are many systems sciences. Those who speak with confidence probably know very few of the systems sciences, and Gary is quite right that it is at the juncture of the plurality of systems sciences that we lose credibility, not only in our own eyes as systems scientists but also in the eyes of the newcomer too quickly exposed to a multitude of vocabulary, sciences and theories. For this reason, the paper is for the somewhat seasoned systems scientist, or student of systems sciences, who at some point starts to feel overwhelmed. The confidence which comes from knowing a little is lost with exposure to more theories. This paper gives enough framework to re-gain the lost confidence, but now with much more depth and subtlety; and to give us the courage and strength to navigate further and continue our education and exposure to the systems sciences. For this reason, it is a timely and valuable contribution to the systems sciences society, a tour de force.
Michèle Indira Friend (Tue,) studied this question.