Index Systemic epistemologyElements of systemic epistemologySynthesisThe concept of variegationPluralism and systemic epistemologyPerspectivism and perspective shiftGeneralization from systemic epistemologySystemic epistemology vs. individualistic social visionConclusionEpistemology involves the study of the criteria according to which individuals know or do not know what constitutes or guarantees scientific knowledge. Epistemology is the basis for what scholars imagine the contents of knowledge and its form might be in the real world. Furthermore, epistemology can be defined as a way of understanding what informs accepted interpretations, descriptions, and mental models of the world. The article in this position seeks to explain systemic epistemology and how it differs from the individualistic perspective of human behavior. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Systemic Epistemology Systemic epistemology involves the pursuit of knowledge from a particular point of view and draws the sense of causality from several perhaps opposing perspectives. A study of systems should involve different points of view and competing explanations of the contents of reality. However, there are systems thinking models that deal with simple causality and that is linear and unstructured (Roth & Bourgine 2005). However, using the systems view when looking at something involves embracing the possibility of bringing together opinions that may not be related to the overall context that is under consideration, but may lead to the same topic being evaluated. Systemic epistemology developed from different philosophical beliefs and for this reason it is presumed to have an epistemological structure in its own right (Roth & Bourgine 2005). Elements of systemic epistemologySynthesisThere is a clear difference between analysis, based on cause and effect, and systemic thinking informed by synthesis. Systems vision occurs in an open systems context where there is an interaction of realities, and it is difficult to understand them if broken down into small parts. Synthesis is a creative concept that brings together multiple inputs creating and then comparing in a complicated way (Toomela, 2011). Furthermore, synthesis involves the dialectical conflict of simultaneously perceived ideas and how the understanding of problematic perspectives can possibly be improved. As the integration of concepts develops, new systemic knowledge emerges. Furthermore, the analysis takes into account the breaking of things into smaller parts, instead of considering them as a whole. The concept of synthesis creates space for the fusion of different perspectives and argues that previously opposing ideas have some relationship (Toomela, 2011). The concept of synthesis holds that the compatibility of ideas is not possible due to the belief that anything can be created spontaneously and become valuable. It is the opposing views supported by conceptual frameworks that lead to a new solution or a new approach to doing things. Analytical thinking leads a scholar to make analyzes based on cause and effect, while systems thinking creates space for different perspectives to take center stage (Schommer-Aikins, 2004). In systemic epistemology, synthesis is not a linear concept; everything is subject to integration. According to Toomela (2011), fragmentations emerge when various parties and stakeholders believe their views are correct and others are excluded. However, when synthesized even if not considered divergent, there is an evolution of a larger picture that conflicts with the initial concerns and solutions. When the synthetic model of causality is perceived throughthe epistemological vision allows for a vantage point from which versions of reality emerge that are subject to simultaneous examination. The concept of variegation The ideology of variegation involves the ability to transform the appearance of something by looking through different approaches. Systemic epistemology depends on variegation to shape how real-world phenomena are perceived because it is based on understanding different dialectical realities. Schommer-Aikins (2004) argues that social reality involves the cooperation of analytical procedures whereby contrasting versions of events revolve around the ongoing preservation, maintenance, and construction of social functions. Embracing systemic epistemology means appreciating that conflicting realities are pluralistic, interconnected, and socially constructed. Therefore, this makes the study of systemic epistemology a study that seeks to understand these interconnections. It examines not only the interconnected characteristics of events, but also a consideration of disconnected views of social construction procedures that take place in a complicated and open systemic context (Schommer-Aikins, 2004). These open perspectives rarely make sense, so The best way to understand them is to use several mental processes at once. The process of engaging the world through multiple approaches evolves from an interpretive point of view. When systems epistemology is employed, it brings political differences to light or can be used to study research projects from independent and contradictory perspectives (Morelli & Tollestrup, 2009). When systems epistemology is employed, people are interested not only in the bigger picture and connections, but also in the resulting conflicts, social and political, that develop in contemporary social challenges. Looking at a problem from a systems perspective means creating a design that uses various concepts simultaneously and captures issues of strategic importance (Morelli & Tollestrup, 2009). Furthermore, a correct systemic model must not ignore the concerns of power, politics or coercion that are part of its subject. Therefore, this provides the reason why systemic epistemology highlights continuous opposing realities, different thought processes, and a general devotion to the multiple facets of dialectical facts (Morelli & Tollestrup, 2009). Pluralism and Systemic Epistemology Social sciences label approaches to pluralism as those that depend on the congregation of methodologies in unique situations or aggregation of social constructions. Meaning is not only derived from a study's accompanying systems approach, but through the ways in which different schools of thought recognize the problem at hand (Morelli & Tollestrup, 2009). Perspectivism and change of perspective Perspectivism emanates from final postmodernism which considers different types of reality. The aspect states that people cannot understand reality as a point of reference, but requires consideration of the continuity of subjective meaning and related points of interpretation. According to Morelli & Tollestrup, 2009), perspectivism constitutes one of the positive results of the postmodernist school of thought because it recognizes various worrying aspects. Morelli & Tollestrup (2009), postulate that an efficient systems perspective is that position that recognizes the existence of other points of view. This implies a point of view identical to a systems interaction strategy that recognizes the contradictions and similarities between the various reference aspects (Morelli & Tollestrup, 2009). Systemic epistemology requires recognizing and understanding available models of a strategic position to appreciate conflicts andcontradictions in reference items. This is not a selected methodology, but an exhaustive epistemological source of reference (Ison, 2008). The meaning of perfectivism is not identical to synthesis, but to understanding how to shift approaches in a problem or research situation. From a pragmatic point of view, it goes beyond understanding how to manage change (Ison, 2008). Generalization from systemic epistemology A systemic definition takes into account the complexity and advances from the non-reducible description that embraces definitions of variegation, pluralism, and perspectivism. For example, an individual is required to work backwards from specific to general truths (Ison, 2008). In systemic epistemology, knowledge capable of explaining various events is sought from different points of view. Systemic epistemology adapts to all types of philosophies depending on the situation (Ison, 2008). Systemic epistemology vs. individualistic social vision Systemic epistemology: involves a collection of tools used by scholars/researchers to unearth and organize coherent and derived findings and link ideas together to develop internal mappings and orientation for oneself. Furthermore, systemic epistemology deals with different perspectives, contrasting viewpoints, and many other situations because it operates in a pluralistic nature (Yilmaz‐Tuzun & Topcu, 2008 ). These are therefore generalizations in research that takes place in multiple nonlinear conceptual frameworks that are contrasting, nonlinear, and dialectical. Furthermore, it can be described as research into systems of misunderstanding with the aim of seeking non‐conflicting, linear, and singular versions of contexts, as if there were a meaningful concept intended to explain world events (Yilmaz‐Tuzun & Topcu, 2008 ). Individualistic Social View: People from an individualistic society tend to have independent opinions about themselves. These people perceive themselves as separate entities from the rest of the community and describe themselves based on personal characteristics. This is different from what systemic (pluralistic) epistemology postulates. Collectivists often see things from interdependent points of view. These people see themselves as connected to others, their self-view is defined regarding relationships with other people, and they project that their characteristics are prone to change depending on different situations (Yilmaz‐Tuzun & Topcu, 2008). Individualistic communities view relationships as voluntary and it is typical for individuals to end relationships that they perceive as irrelevant. According to psychologists, people from East Asia are less likely to face stressful situations because such information can prove challenging in collectivist societies (Yilmaz, 2013). In contrast, people from East Asia are more likely to seek social help, which may involve spending time with close friends, family and relatives without talking about an issue that challenges them. Furthermore, people from individualistic cultures are less concerned about the well-being of others (Yilmaz, 2013). They always tend to worry about personal affairs. As research they are rarely able to intervene to assist other individuals who may need their help, which is not the case in collectivist communities where friends, relatives and family and even the community at large can mobilize each other in solidarity with one of their own who may be in difficulty (Yilmaz, 2013).lRemember: this is just an example. Get a custom article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom EssayConclusionThe article in this position has attempted to offer a description of epistemology.