Sometimes engineers fail when addressing the inherent complexity of socio-technical systems because they lack the ability to address the complexity of socio-technical systems. Teaching undergraduate engineering students how to address complex socio-technical systems, has been an educational endeavor at different levels ranging from kindergarten to post-graduate education. The literature presents different pedagogical strategies and content to reach this goal. However, there are no existing empirically-based assessments guided by a learning theory. This may be because at the same time explanations of how the skill is developed are scarce.
My study bridges this gap, and I propose a developmental path for the ability to address the complex socio-technical systems via Variation Theory, and according to the conceptual framework provided by Variation Theory, my research question was “What are the various ways in which engineers address complex socio-technical systems?”
I chose the research approach of phenomenography to answer my research question. I also chose to use a blended approach, Marton’s approach for finding the dimensions of variation, and the developmental approach (Australian) for finding a hierarchical relationship between the dimensions. Accordingly, I recruited 25 participants with different levels of experience with addressing complex socio-technical systems and asked them all to address the same two tasks: A design of a system for a county, and a case study in a manufacturing firm. My outcome space is a nona-dimensional (nine) developmental path for the ability to address the complexity in socio-technical systems, and I propose 9 different ways of experiencing the complexity of a socio-technical system. The findings of this study suggest that the critical aspects that are needed to address the complexity of socio-technical systems are: being aware of the use of models, the ecosystem around, start recognizing different boundaries, being aware of time as a factor, recognizing the part-whole relationships, make effort in tailoring a solution that responds to stakeholders’ needs, find the right problem, giving voice to others, and finally be aware of the need to iterate
","abstract_html":"<p>Sometimes engineers fail when addressing the inherent complexity of socio-technical systems because they lack the ability to address the complexity of socio-technical systems. Teaching undergraduate engineering students how to address complex socio-technical systems, has been an educational endeavor at different levels ranging from kindergarten to post-graduate education. The literature presents different pedagogical strategies and content to reach this goal. However, there are no existing empirically-based assessments guided by a learning theory. This may be because at the same time explanations of how the skill is developed are scarce.</p> <p>My study bridges this gap, and I propose a developmental path for the ability to address the complex socio-technical systems via Variation Theory, and according to the conceptual framework provided by Variation Theory, my research question was “What are the various ways in which engineers address complex socio-technical systems?”</p> <p>I chose the research approach of phenomenography to answer my research question. I also chose to use a blended approach, Marton’s approach for finding the dimensions of variation, and the developmental approach (Australian) for finding a hierarchical relationship between the dimensions. Accordingly, I recruited 25 participants with different levels of experience with addressing complex socio-technical systems and asked them all to address the same two tasks: A design of a system for a county, and a case study in a manufacturing firm. My outcome space is a nona-dimensional (nine) developmental path for the ability to address the complexity in socio-technical systems, and I propose 9 different ways of experiencing the complexity of a socio-technical system. The findings of this study suggest that the critical aspects that are needed to address the complexity of socio-technical systems are: being aware of the use of models, the ecosystem around, start recognizing different boundaries, being aware of time as a factor, recognizing the part-whole relationships, make effort in tailoring a solution that responds to stakeholders’ needs, find the right problem, giving voice to others, and finally be aware of the need to iterate</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Mendoza Garcia, John A"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Engineering Education","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Monica E. Cardella","William C. Oakes","Sean Brophy","Charles R. Kenley"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2016,"date_issued":"2016-08-01T07:00:00Z","date_published":"2016-08-01T07:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:54:02Z","subjects":["Systems Science","Applied sciences","Education","Engineering education","Socio-technical systems","Systemic design","Systems engineering","Systems thinking","Variation theory","Science and Mathematics Education"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_dissertations/812","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Monica E. Cardella","William C. Oakes","Sean Brophy","Charles R. Kenley"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Mendoza Garcia, John A"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Engineering Education"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Systems Science","Applied sciences","Education","Engineering education","Socio-technical systems","Systemic design","Systems engineering","Systems thinking","Variation theory","Science and Mathematics Education"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_dissertations/812"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Sometimes engineers fail when addressing the inherent complexity of socio-technical systems because they lack the ability to address the complexity of socio-technical systems. Teaching undergraduate engineering students how to address complex socio-technical systems, has been an educational endeavor at different levels ranging from kindergarten to post-graduate education. The literature presents different pedagogical strategies and content to reach this goal. However, there are no existing empirically-based assessments guided by a learning theory. This may be because at the same time explanations of how the skill is developed are scarce.
My study bridges this gap, and I propose a developmental path for the ability to address the complex socio-technical systems via Variation Theory, and according to the conceptual framework provided by Variation Theory, my research question was “What are the various ways in which engineers address complex socio-technical systems?”
I chose the research approach of phenomenography to answer my research question. I also chose to use a blended approach, Marton’s approach for finding the dimensions of variation, and the developmental approach (Australian) for finding a hierarchical relationship between the dimensions. Accordingly, I recruited 25 participants with different levels of experience with addressing complex socio-technical systems and asked them all to address the same two tasks: A design of a system for a county, and a case study in a manufacturing firm. My outcome space is a nona-dimensional (nine) developmental path for the ability to address the complexity in socio-technical systems, and I propose 9 different ways of experiencing the complexity of a socio-technical system. The findings of this study suggest that the critical aspects that are needed to address the complexity of socio-technical systems are: being aware of the use of models, the ecosystem around, start recognizing different boundaries, being aware of time as a factor, recognizing the part-whole relationships, make effort in tailoring a solution that responds to stakeholders’ needs, find the right problem, giving voice to others, and finally be aware of the need to iterate
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["A phenomenographic study of the ability to address complex socio-technical systems via variation theory"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Monica E. Cardella","William C. Oakes","Sean Brophy","Charles R. Kenley"],"dc:creator":["Mendoza Garcia, John A"],"dc:description.abstract":["Sometimes engineers fail when addressing the inherent complexity of socio-technical systems because they lack the ability to address the complexity of socio-technical systems. Teaching undergraduate engineering students how to address complex socio-technical systems, has been an educational endeavor at different levels ranging from kindergarten to post-graduate education. The literature presents different pedagogical strategies and content to reach this goal. However, there are no existing empirically-based assessments guided by a learning theory. This may be because at the same time explanations of how the skill is developed are scarce.
My study bridges this gap, and I propose a developmental path for the ability to address the complex socio-technical systems via Variation Theory, and according to the conceptual framework provided by Variation Theory, my research question was “What are the various ways in which engineers address complex socio-technical systems?”
I chose the research approach of phenomenography to answer my research question. I also chose to use a blended approach, Marton’s approach for finding the dimensions of variation, and the developmental approach (Australian) for finding a hierarchical relationship between the dimensions. Accordingly, I recruited 25 participants with different levels of experience with addressing complex socio-technical systems and asked them all to address the same two tasks: A design of a system for a county, and a case study in a manufacturing firm. My outcome space is a nona-dimensional (nine) developmental path for the ability to address the complexity in socio-technical systems, and I propose 9 different ways of experiencing the complexity of a socio-technical system. The findings of this study suggest that the critical aspects that are needed to address the complexity of socio-technical systems are: being aware of the use of models, the ecosystem around, start recognizing different boundaries, being aware of time as a factor, recognizing the part-whole relationships, make effort in tailoring a solution that responds to stakeholders’ needs, find the right problem, giving voice to others, and finally be aware of the need to iterate
"],"dc:identifier":["https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_dissertations/812"],"dc:subject":["Systems Science","Applied sciences","Education","Engineering education","Socio-technical systems","Systemic design","Systems engineering","Systems thinking","Variation theory","Science and Mathematics Education"],"dc:title":["A phenomenographic study of the ability to address complex socio-technical systems via variation theory"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Engineering Education"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:54:02Z"}