T205A

T205A



T205A

Question 1

a)

b)

c)

1- Discuss the concept of mental models, as presented in T551, T553, and Concept file 02.

The concept of "mental models" has been vitally important to the field of system dynamics since its inception. Information about the structure and relationships in dynamic systems gleaned from mental models, for example, are what allow system dynamic computer models to be constructed in the absence of written and numerical data. System dynamics researchers have in fact devoted a substantial portion of their research effort to developing a wide variety of techniques and procedures for eliciting, representing, and mapping mental models to aid model building(Bainbridge, 2010: 152-153). And, the goal of most educational interventions based on systems thinking, management flight simulators, or system dynamics model building is to change or improve mental models in order to improve the quality of dynamic decisions(Doyle, 1998:3-29).

Mental models are thus the stock in trade of research and practice in system dynamics: they are the "product" that modelers take from students and clients, disassemble, reconfigure, add to, subtract from, and return with value added. An understanding of exactly what mental models are, what properties and characteristics they have, and how they influence and are influenced by learning and decision making is essential for such an enterprise to succeed. Given their importance to the field, one might expect mental model concepts to be as clearly defined and universally understood as such other centrally important system dynamics concepts as stocks, flows, and feedback. But as we will show, this is not the case: explicit definitions of mental models are in fact quite rare. Those definitions that are available are typically general and vague, and the definitions offered by different authors often markedly disagree (Langan, 2009: 99-112)

The ambiguity and confusion resulting from the lack of a clear, specific, and mutually agreed upon conceptual definition of the term "mental models" has several important consequences for the field of system dynamics(Abel, 2008:77-91). In the absence of consensus different researchers and practitioners develop and apply idiosyncratic conceptions of mental models. This hinders communication among researchers since marked differences of opinion hidden under the same generic name go unnoticed and unexamined. Since research groups employ, to some degree, different techniques for eliciting and mapping mental models based on their unique definitions, it is difficult for research results to cumulate across research programs. In addition, the various definitions of mental models used in the field of system dynamics diverge from the way in which the term is used outside the field, interfering with the ability of system dynamicists to share their insights, techniques, and research results with researchers from other disciplines. Finally, the field's willingness to accept the current level of ambiguity has likely discouraged researchers from developing more sophisticated definitions and descriptions of mental models, which in turn makes the process of incorporating mental models into computer simulation models less reliable(Hodgkinson, 2010:3-26).

Like other research disciplines that have adopted the mental models concept, the field of system dynamics has developed its own definitions and ...