| |
Response and Reflection
Weick, Karl E. 1976.
Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 21(1), pp. 1-19.
This particular article is written in an abstract form to discuss the
concept of coupling in an educational context with strong roots in
organizational theory and systems theory. The article discusses,
in great length, the concepts of both loose and tight coupling with
somewhat of an intent to set a research agenda in educational research.
I found it interesting that this article combines systems theory
with more functional approaches, however.
Systems theory, as presented to me and in my readings, suggests that
some phenomena are too complex to study in functional relationships.
It embraces notions like the butterfly effect in which a
butterfly flapping its wings in Thailand could cause a hurricane for
Florida. Sensitive inputs to a system can have catastrophic
effects on subsystems or connecting systems - two loosely coupled
events. To some degree, systems theory denies the
functional approach in that functionalism assumes that cause and effect
relationships can be identified. I enjoy aspects of both
approaches, but I do see them as somewhat dichotomous.
The author does provide some easily understandable and potential
loosely coupled relationships relevant to social sciences to illustrate
his ideas. For example, the authors make note of the loosely
coupled relationship between attitudes and behavior and the
inconsistency in measures which might lead to tighter coupling.
The author uses this as an example to emphasize the importance of
"fleshing out" the loosely coupled relationships in a domain to improve
the overall quality of research.
Another example is that of intention and action. The author
suggests these are also loosely coupled. The author then moves on
to define some cause and effects about loose coupling and imperfection.
For instance, the author states that "if intentions are not clear
and unambiguous, then the use of them to select actions which will
fulfill the intentions will be imperfect" (p. 15). I assume he
meant ambiguous. This statement seems reasonable, but
imperfection is not clearly defined, nor understood. Thus, it has
little value in explaining anything.
I especially like how the author concludes the article saying that we
should accept the perspective that an educational organization should
be viewed as mega-system of loosely coupled subsystems. He then
continues to outline the research agenda to apply this concept to
educational research.
The concept of loose coupling is not new to me. This context and
application of it is, however. Coupling is a concept that is
applied in software engineering literature in speaking of two software
systems and the relationship between these systems. As a general
rule, we strive to develop highly cohesive and loosely coupled
software. Therefore, a software system that is tightly coupled is
a poor software design because a change to one system will undoubtedly
change the other. Having highly cohesive and loosely coupled
systems means that changes to one system will not always impact the
other. What is important is the function of the systems and the
interaction between the systems. On this note, I am surprised
that the author did not bring the concept of stimulus
and response to the discussion. He does speak of links between
multiple systems, just as we speak of interconnected stimulus and
response relationships between.
In reading the article, I am still not sure whether the author
perceives loose coupling as good or bad, or even if this is important.
However, I do believe the author describes this concept as a
natural phenomena, and thus beckons further analysis. I would
agree - especially since we apply this concept in so many things.
|