Dear Richard,

I guess there are several, although not that many, researcher who are doing this. We, for example, have used Luhmann's theory to analyse shifting relations between legal and other forms of coordination in nature conservation policy. 

Article Contested Delineations: Planning, Law, and the Governance of...

Thanks very much - I look forward to reading your work.

Yes, Asst. Professor of Sport Sociology, Dr. Nikolaos Patsantaras of the University of Athens (email: [email protected]) has been using Luhmann's theory in all his scientific publications and books.

Thank you for taking time - will look up this work.

Dear Richard,

I'm using this. I'm applying Luhmann 's teory to analyse several  orders issued by criminal court  about organised crime.  Have you ever read Karl A Ziegert 's chapter: Systems Theory and Qualitative Socio-Legal Research? If you heave not read yet the chapter , you can find this in Reza Banakar and Max Travers (Eds.), Theory and Method in Socio-Legal Research, (pp. 49-67). Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing (2005). Might be useful for you research interests

Excellent work and thank you also for the chapter - will look up asap.

Yes, I used Luhmann analytically in my PhD (UNSW, Australia) and more cursively in a postscript to that work - Reflexive Governance in Urban Catchments: a case of deliberative truncation (2008) Environment and Planning A, 40(6). I guess my work is Habermasian - but I used Luhmann to think about the transaction costs, and SSK to think about the bounded rationality, involved in democratic deliberation. 

Bravo - can you send a copy? Though with only 5 answers to that question in a month from a global academic website it would still seem that there are few of us doing so and the application of Luhmann in social sciences or even in legal studies is still in early days.

Dear Richard, 

every tow years there is an international conference in Dubrovnik (Croatia) where researchers discuss applied systems theory for one week. I have been there twice and it is the best conference I have ever attended. It could be exactly what you are looking for. 

More Information here: https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/luhmann_danish/conversations/messages/2266

Greetings, 

Franz

Very much appreciated - sounds excellent and I'll be checking this link.

Something to keep in mind! I take it the next conference will be in 2016

I used Luhmann's theory in my dissertation. Based on him and Ilya Prigogine I created the set of criteria for self-renewing systems. 

Ståhle, P. 1998. Supporting a system's capacity for self-renewal. Department of Teacher Education. University of Helsinki. Research Report 190. Academic dissertation in educational sciences. 

best wishes,

Pirjo Ståhle

Cheers - my doc research sounds rather similar. I utilized Luhmann's thinking and  constructs [perturbation, structural coupling, functional systems, autopiesis] to elecit themes in a grounded theory comparative study of human rights education in Canada and Scotland with data collection in Geneva, New York, Canada and Scotland. The above paper discussed a set of 'portable constructs' but no one has ever gotten back to me with their version. I also published a paper in the Int. Journal of Children's Rights (2005, 13(3): 315-331) based on that study.

Thanks for your reponse. I'll try to track down your thesis - did you publish any papers from it?

I have published only a few papers based on my dissertation, mainly theoretical. The original study focused on quality of communication and how it increases self-renewal capability of a system (in this case a group of teachers and students).

Thanks - initially it cost me dearly to make these claims, btw. I had the good fortune and extreme privilege of having the 2nd set of reviewers for my doc include one Prof. Phyllis Stern from Indiana Perdue who was cognizant of the distinctions between GT ala Glaser and the interpretive methods used to make sense of my dataset thru autopoietic constructs. Gracious kind and intelligent woman who has since left the mortal coil and who was introduced to me by one Barry Robinson (Sheffield?) who has done similar GT/autopoietic work. Hardcore Luhmannians eat their young so watch out - they can be quite vicious like the one who first reviewed my work. Little did I know at the time he didn't actually possess a PhD himself although he spat mine out with vigour ;-)

I have however lived to write and once in a while to gloat.

I have been working on an adaptation of Elinor Ostrom's institutional analisys and development framework to a system-theoretic key, and deploying it to analyse the legal structure referred to the educational system. How does that sound?

Interesting at the least but does Luhmann's complex systems thinking  influence Ostrom's work anywhere? I would be grateful to see that if it exists but have looked at a couple of her pieces thru the years and have not seen any evident reference to autopoiesis. 

Interesting at the very least but does Luhmann's complex systems thinking  influence any of Ostrom's work anywhere? I would be grateful to see references to that, if they exist, but have looked at a couple of her pieces thru the years and not seen any evident reference to autopoiesis. Grounded theory was originated by US sociologists Glaser and Strauss  and that intersection is what caused me grief with a couple of very concrete examiners first time out - no matter. Ideas are always interesting and my theoretical development has moved from integrating GT and Luhmann's systems thinking methodologically, to thinking about complex systems and the reform movement of 'transdisciplinarity'.

Well, the straightforward answer to that is no, Ostrom does not seem to have been influenced by Luhmman's systems theory. But this reminds me of Luhmann's criticism to the "classics", in that paying too much attention to the authors may  lead to paying too little attention to the theories. Ostrom first spent a sabbatical in Bielefeld in the early eighties, during which she steeped herself into game theory under the auspices of Reihhard Selten, in the Center for Interdisciplinary Research at Bielefeld University. Then again she went back to Bielefeld some time later to work with Franjo Weissing, mathematician and biologist, on game theory. 

I see IAD and systems theory are akin in many ways. Both share with game theory the fact that their basic units (institution, system, game) are produced in/by the recurring selective interplay of their own operations and in/by the confirmation of their identity over time. IAD, like systems theory, is a radically interdisciplinary enterprise, and it is designed to incorporate other theories and to accept adaptation and evolution... Some of their points of contact are not very visible at first, but they are so superficial you can actually stumble on them. Anyways, I basically use IAD as device to chop the situation under analysis in an orderly fashion, and, being a legal scholar, I also find IAD's categories and levels of rules very useful.

I got to know grounded theory via your article... I am also interested in complexity and transdisciplinarity. But I am mostly convinced the there is a huge "practical" potential in Luhmann's concepts/differences yet to be properly explored..

Thanks for the background on Ostrom's early days - similar to Luhmann studying with systems sociologist Parsons in the US it strikes me. I totally concur with the notion that Luhmann's complex systems thinking has been overlooked and under-utilized. Having said that, I paid a steep price that few would knowingly undertake for venturing deeply into this inter - yea trans-disciplinary - human rights field thru my doc study. I don't doubt others might feel intimidated at doing so, but thanks for your replies. It also  seems unlikely that many legal theorists would give quarter for social science adaptations, although I note both Gert Verschraegen [2002] and Boaventura de Sousa Santos [1987] had similar interests, with both of their papers in the J of Law and Society. Time will tell.

PS  a dental prof at Sheffield named Barry Robinson has also linked GT and Luhmann and in the day introduced me to Barney Glaser's (GT originator) interests in autopoiesis as a 'theoretical code' … he also connected me to one of Glaser's former students/nursing prof emeritus at Indiana Perdue (now deceased Phyllis Stearn) who looked over my work and got what I was claiming - thus rescuing my erstwhile career. As I say that's a price few would risk and only in hindsight do I now appreciate and understand how ruthless disciplinary silos are when one dares to explore the limits to their boundaries.

In Bielfeld in the early eighties Ostrom was indeed side by side with Luhmann, who was then at full blast as a researcher and writer in that very same institution. It dears me to think they were part of the same intellectual environment, though he as a theoretician, and she was more of a roll your sleeves type and was interested in the laboratory. Of course there are potential problems in this conjunction, as with the fact that Ostrom's take on action theory and her reliance on models of individual behavior to deduce institutional results are problematic for systems theory, but I think this can be overcome with realative ease.

On the other hand, thank you VERY much for sharing your experience, it enlightens me in many ways. I am currently working on my PhD in the oldest, most important and traditional law school in Brazil... say "ruthless" again :-/   Recently was I "convinced" my proposal is not a thesis, and that I should rewrite the whole thing, as to "find a question" and "narrow my object" (aka my mind). Well... maybe I am pushing it too far into legal academia, especially considering that I decided to abandon all the propedeutical decyphering of Luhmann's concepts and verbiage you usually see in almost every dissertation (this urge Luhmanniacs have of producing glossaries and reviews) and go straight into the core stuff. But all I want now is to get my "black belt" and go on with my own research. Do you read Portuguese?

Unfortunately, no, to your final question. I would urge you though to look into de Sousa Santos' work from Portugal's U of Chambria since he has done lots of critical legal and systems theorizing also from Latin American contexts. And yes I would urge you as well to get to your [successful] Viva Voce then onto publishing findings. Thanks for your common interests in these arcane intersections of theory and action.

We have used Luhmann's approach in 1987 in a study on the development and social and organizational implications of automation projects in companies in various economic sectors. Semantic fixation of managers and technicians appeared to be a major factor influencing success or failure of such projects, as well as the communication channels developed to cros the borders between disciplines and interests.

.  

Dear Richard,

the late Michael Bommes applied Luhmann for migration research

https://www.imis.uni-osnabrueck.de/personen/ehemalige_langjaehrige_mitglieder/michael_bommes/publikationen.html

e.g. by focusing on the role of migrants for sustaining institutions in different functional domains, but also by combining functional differentiation with social inequality.

German researchers for systemic family therapy and/or for systemic organisational development heavily drew from Luhmann, e.g. the great Fritz Simon http://www.fritz-simon.de/index.php

mainly as an analytical tool to distinguish between different observers and/or communicative context.

Personally, I made use of 'circular questioning', which was invented by Selvini Palazolli, and tried to introduce it as a tool for qualitative research in the framework of Luhmann's theory:

Pfeffer, Thomas (2004) Die (Re-)Konstruktion sozialer Phänomene durch 'zirkuläres Fragen'. In: Moser, Sibylle (Hg.) (2004) Konstruktivistisch Forschen Methodologie, Methoden, Beispiele. Wiesbaden (VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften), S. 67-92. http://www.iff.ac.at/hofo/pfeffer/2004_Pfeffer_re-konstruktion_zirkulaer.pdf

Pfeffer, Thomas (2004) Das 'zirkuläre Fragen' als Forschungsmethode zur Luhmannschen Systemtheorie. Heidelberg (Verlag für Systemische Forschung im Carl-Auer-System Verlag). (1st edition 2001). http://thomas-pfeffer.wikispaces.com/file/view/pfeffer_2004_zirkulaeres_fragen.pdf

Sorry for the late reply, I just stumbled across your interesting question.

best

thomas

Cheers - not late whatsoever since there appears to be few who have accomplished this feat ;-) I appreciate finding this today and will look into these papers asap. I paid a steep price for using Luhmann to analyze interview and observational data to understand how human rights communications were being transmitted to individual States through their education systems. My first PhD viva in Scotland in 04 was rejected by British Luhmann biographer Michael King - firmly. Fortunately I had the same work - verbatim - passed a year later in the US with a nursing scholar familiar with how grounded theory works and have made my way since with some success. I've found Luhmann is neither well known nor well understood here in N.A. Best for now and thanks again for your response.

PS I see you've got Bateson in your first paper and some complex systems which I've begun to ponder a bit in my writing...have you run into his affiliation with William Thompson's Lindisfarne Association starting in the 70's? Interesting story that.

Many thanks for your kind feedback. Yes, it is very challenging to apply Luhmann to empirical research and to get academic rewards for it, especially since many research field are dominated by other paradigms, e.g. neo-institutionalism. However, my work on systemic interviewing helps me to distinguish and interrelate the perspectives of different observers. Beyond that, Luhmann can help to find new research objects and questions, and to overcome methodological individualism and/or nationalism. See for example:

Pfeffer, Thomas / Stichweh, Rudolf (2015) Systems theoretical perspectives on higher education policy and governance. In: Huisman, Jeroen / de Boer, Harry / Dill, David / Souto-Otero, Manuel (eds.) The Palgrave International Handbook of Higher Education Policy and Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, p. 152-175. http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/The-Palgrave-International-Handbook-of-Higher-Education-Policy-and-Governance/

Regarding Baetson: no, I was not aware of this connect. However, for me, he was an important link between/predecessor of Luhmann and Selvini-Palazzoli.

Dear Richard, the following two articles of Cristina Besio, who is herself an expert on Luhmann's system theory, might be of help to you. Best Arnold

Inside organizations and out. Methodological tenets for empirical research inspired by systems theory

C Besio, A Pronzini - Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 2011 - JSTOR

Niklas Luhmann as an empirical sociologist: methodological implications of the system theory of society

C Besio - Cybernetics & human knowing, 2008 - ingentaconnect.com

You are looking for English speaking contributions, I guess. That makes a tough one a bit harder, actually.

Already mentioned: Cristina Besio, M. Bommes and (based upon Bommes and Luhmann: Christina Boswell

For environmental topics see Kristof van Assche or Joren Jacobs

For law, participation, transparency see several works of Alfons Bora , Fran Osrecki ,

For media, (science and) technology see https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan-Felix_Schrape2, Sascha Dickel (https://mediensoziologie.soziologie.uni-mainz.de/jun-prof-dr-sascha-dickel/)

If I may, I'd like to recommend parts of my own work:

Article Sustainability as a Change Agent? Lessons From the European ...

Article Irritation expertise. Recipient design as instrument for str...

Chapter Shaping pressure: On the regulatory effects of publicity

Gentlemen - many thanks for these resources. Having integrated grounded theory methods with systems thinking for my doctoral work years ago led me to a raft of transdisciplinary (TD) publications over the past decade plus. Drawing upon cybernetics and chaos thinking TD was a natural flow from Luhmann who is not as well known in the NA academy as he is in UK or European settings.

I used Luhmann in a number of empirical works,

• Grothe-Hammer, M. (2018). Organization without actorhood: Exploring a neglected phenomenon. European Management Journal.
• Grothe-Hammer, M. From Membership to Contributorship: Managing the Inclusion of Individuals into Organizations.
• Grothe‐Hammer, M. (2017). Preparing for the Field by Topics: A Systems Theory Inspired Strategy for Improving Social Access. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 34(1), 41-50.
• Grothe-Hammer, M., & Berthod, O. (2017). The programming of decisions for disaster and emergency response: A Luhmannian approach. Current Sociology, 65(5), 735-755.

And there is more to come. I honestly never understood why it is allegedly so "challenging" to use Luhmann in empirical research.

Also noteworthy are the (often quantitative) works by Steffen Roth and co. E.g.:

• Roth S., Valentinov V., Agustinaitis A., Mkrtichyan A., and Kaivo-oja J. (2018), Was that capitalism? A future-oriented big data analysis of the English language area in the 19th and 20th century, Futures, Vol. 98 No. April, pp. 41-48
• Roth S., Clark C., Trofimov N., Mkrtchyan A., Heidingsfelder M., Appignanesi L., Pérez-Valls M., Berkel J., and Kaivo-oja J. (2017), Futures of a distributed memory. A global brain wave measurement (1800-2000), Technological Forecasting and Social Change,  Vol. 118 No. April, pp. 307-323

A PhD student (Ji Hong, Bielefeld) showed me this request today. Many interesting sources! I am adding two of my own research (based on my PhD thesis some time ago). All best, Thomas

Heinze, T. (2005): Science-Based Technologies, Organizations, and Networks. An Analysis ofthe Coupling Process Between Science and Economy. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 34: 60-82 (in German), see attached.

Heinze, T. (2009): Institutional Interfaces of the Science System and the Economic System. pp. 67-84 in: Bechmann, G., Gorokhov, V., Stehr, N. (Ed.): The Social Integration of Science. Berlin, available here:

https://www.org-soz.uni-wuppertal.de/fileadmin/soziologie/org-soz/files/publications/pub_th/Heinze_2009.pdf