Table of contentsSystemic epistemologyElements of systemic epistemologySynthesisThe concept of diversityPluralism and systemic epistemologyPerspectivism and change of perspectiveGeneralization from systemic epistemologySystemic epistemology vs individualist societal visionConclusionEpistemology involves the study of the criteria according to which individuals know or do not know what constitutes or justifies scientific knowledge. Epistemology is the basis of what researchers imagine as the content of knowledge and its form in the real world. Additionally, epistemology can be seen as a way of understanding what underlies accepted interpretations, descriptions, and mental models of the world. The article 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 Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Systems EpistemologySystems epistemology involves seeking knowledge from a particular point of view and deriving meaning from causality from diverse, perhaps opposing, perspectives. A systemic study must involve different points of view and competing explanations of the content of reality. However, there are systems thinking models that rely on simple causality and are linear and unstructured (Roth & Bourgine 2005). However, using a systems view when examining something involves accepting the possibility of gathering opinions that may not be related to the overall context being studied, but which may lead to the same topic being evaluated. Systemic epistemology has been developed from various philosophical beliefs and, as such, is presumed to constitute an epistemological device in itself (Roth & Bourgine 2005).Elements of systemic epistemologySynthesisThere is a marked difference between analysis, based on causes and effects, and systems thinking by synthesis. The systemic view occurs in a context of open systems where there is an interaction of realities, and it is difficult to understand them if they are divided into small parts. Synthesis is a creative concept that brings together multiple inputs and then makes comparisons in a complicated way (Toomela, 2011). Furthermore, synthesis involves the dialectical conflict of simultaneously perceived ideas and how understanding of problematic perspectives can possibly be improved. As the integration of concepts develops, new systemic knowledge emerges. Additionally, the analysis takes into account the division of elements into smaller parts, instead of considering them as a whole. The concept of synthesis creates space for the merging of different perspectives and holds that previously opposing ideas have some relationship (Toomela, 2011). The concept of synthesis holds that compatibility of ideas is not possible due to the view that everything can be created spontaneously and become valuable. It is the opposing views of conceptual frameworks that lead to a new solution or a new approach to doing things. Analytical thinking leads a researcher to do analyzes based on cause and effect, while systems thinking allows room for multiple 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 arise when various parties and stakeholders believe that their views are correct and others are left out. However, once synthesized without howeverconsidered divergent, there is a shift towards a broader vision that conflicts with initial concerns and solutions. When the synthetic model of causation is viewed through an epistemological lens, it provides a vantage point where versions of reality emerge and are subject to simultaneous scrutiny. The concept of diversity The ideology of diversity involves the ability to transform the appearance of something by looking at it through different approaches. Systems epistemology depends on diversity to shape how real-world phenomena are perceived, because it is based on understanding different dialectical realities. Schhommer-Aikins (2004) argues that social reality involves the cooperation of analytical procedures by which conflicting versions of events revolve around the continued preservation, maintenance, and construction of social functions. Adopting systemic epistemology means understanding that conflicting realities are pluralistic, interrelated and socially constructed. Thus, the study of systemic epistemology aims to understand these interconnections. It is not only interested in the nested features of events, but also in disparate views of social construction procedures that take place in a complex and open systemic context (Schommer-Aikins, 2004). These open perspectives rarely make sense, hence the best way to understand them is to use different thought processes simultaneously. The process of engaging the world through multiple approaches evolves from an interpretive perspective. When systems epistemology is used, it uncovers policy differences or can be used to study research projects from independent and contradictory perspectives (Morelli & Tollestrup, 2009). When systemic epistemology is used, people are interested not only in the bigger picture and its connections, but also in the resulting social and political conflicts that develop into contemporary social challenges. Looking at a problem from a systems perspective means creating a plan that simultaneously uses various concepts 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 matter. Therefore, this provides the reason why systemic epistemology highlights continuous opposing realities, diverse thought processes, and an overall devotion to the multiple facets of dialectical facts (Morelli and Tollestrup, 2009). Pluralism and systemic epistemology The social sciences characterize approaches to pluralism as those that depend on the bringing together of methodologies in single situations or aggregation of social constructions. Meaning is not derived solely from the systemic approach of a study, but from how different schools of thought recognize the problem at hand (Morelli & Tollestrup, 2009). Perspectivism and Perspective ShiftPerspectivism emanates from outcome postmodernism which considers different types of realities. . This aspect states that people cannot understand reality as a single point of reference, but one must consider the continuity of subjective meaning and relative 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 aspects of concerns. Morelli & Tollestrup (2009) posit that an effective systems perspective is a position that recognizes the existence of other points of view. This implies a point of view identical to asystems interaction strategy that recognizes contradictions and similarities between various aspects of the reference (Morelli & Tollestrup, 2009). Systems epistemology calls for recognition and understanding of available models of a strategic position to appreciate conflicting and contradictory aspects. reference voice. It is not a selected methodology, but a complete epistemological source of reference (Ison, 2008). The importance of perfectionism is not the same as synthesis, but rather understanding how to modify approaches to a research problem or 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 complexity and advances in relation to the non-reducible description which encompasses definitions of diversity, pluralism and perspectivism. For example, an individual must work backwards from details to general truths (Ison, 2008). In systemic epistemology, knowledge that can explain various events is sought from different angles. Systemic epistemology adapts to all types of philosophies depending on the situation (Ison, 2008). Systemic Epistemology versus Individualistic Societal View Systemic Epistemology: It involves a set of instruments used by scholars/researchers to discover and organize coherent and derived results and connect the ideas to develop inner maps and direction for themselves. Furthermore, systemic epistemology deals with multiple perspectives, contradictory viewpoints, and several other situations because it operates in a pluralistic context (Yilmaz‐Tuzun & Topcu, 2008). These are therefore generalizations in research that takes place within multiple conflicting, nonlinear, and dialectical conceptual frameworks. Furthermore, it can be described as research into systems of misunderstandings with the aim of searching for 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 societal view: People from an individualistic society tend to have an independent view of themselves. These people perceive themselves as entities distinct from the rest of the community and describe themselves based on their personal characteristics. This is different from what views of systemic (pluralist) epistemology posit. Collectivists often see things from interdependent perspectives. These people view themselves as related to others, their view of themselves is defined based on relationships with others, and project that their characteristics are likely 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 in East Asia are less likely to respond to stressful situations because this information can be difficult in collectivist societies (Yilmaz, 2013). On the contrary, people in East Asia are more likely to rely on welfare, which can involve spending time with close friends, family, and loved ones without talking about a problem that concerns them. Additionally, people from individualistic cultures care less about the well-being of others (Yilmaz, 2013). They always tend to worry about their personal matters. As research, they achieve..