Thinkquiry

    Think Different. Ask Different Questions.

    DSRP_color_gel_overlay_Every_thought._Every_time.

    DSRP inspired questions that transform your thinking

    Thinkquiry

    Thinkquiry is the term we use for thinking differently about how we ask questions from a systems thinking approach. What’s different about Thinkquiry is the underlying logic of DSRP which is multivalent.

    Traditional question logic is born of Socratic Logic (which is bivalent logic) and typically employs such rubrics as the 5Ws (Who, What, Where, When, Why). DSRP logic expands on this bivalent logic, which means that these kinds of questions can still be asked, but we are encouraged to penetrate deeper into our topic and ask deeper questions. DSRP stands for the four simple rules of cognitive complexity:
    1. We make identity-other Distinctions (D)
    2. We organized into part-whole Systems (S)
    3. We draw action-reaction Relationships (R)
    4. We take point-view Perspectives (P)
    DSRP is very simple at first, but these four simple rules can be mixed and matched into a nearly infinite number of combinations. As you scroll down, we will increase the complexity and specificity of how we ask them.

    Introductory DSRP Questions

    Research shows that asking these five questions improves systems thinking

    Research shows that asking these 5 "DSRP" questions of an idea, issue, or concept increases systems thinking

    What things am I choosing to see and not see?

    How are these things organized into part-whole groups?

    How are these things related? (and not related)

    Do these relationships have parts?

    From what or whose perspective?

     

    Combining DSRP Questions

    noun-combine-1881821-B31B1B

    Mix and match the simple rules, get different questions. Ad infinitum.

    Combining the 4 Simple Rules

    DSRP questioning helps us to see things about systems but also to consider some of the things we are not seeing. It also helps us to look at systems from multiple perspectives. When we do look at things from multiple perspectives, it doesn't just shift the point of view, it also changes the distinctions we make, the relationships we do or do not see, and the way we organize parts into a coherent whole. Below, you can see that just my combining the Distinctions rule (identity-other or what is and what is not) with the other three rules (S, R, and P) we get a number of very important questions that can be asked universally of any topic, issue, problem, or system.

    D-rule + D-rule

         What distinctions am I seeing?
         What distinctions am I not seeing?
    D-rule + S-rule

         What systems am I seeing?
         What systems am I not seeing?

    D-rule + R-rule

         What relationships am I seeing?
         What relationships am I not seeing?

    D-rule + P-rule

         From what point of view am I seeing things?
         Which points of view am I not seeing?

    Combining DSRP Structures with Information

    noun-dna-1007701-B31B1B

    Different questions. Different Answers.

    Combining the 4 Simple Rules with Information Content

    DSRP structures are similar to DNA in that they organize different information. So, combined with certain information, when we ask different structural questions, we get different informational answers. 

    You can try it below. Simply add two bits of information into the form fiels and watch what happens to the questions!

    Word or concept

    Word or concept (optional)

    Distinctions

    1. What is ?
    2. What is not ?
    3. How would you distinguish between and ?
    4. Can you compare and contrast and ?

    Systems

    1. What are the parts of ?
    2. What is a part of?
    3. Can you name some parts of the parts of ?
    4. What are the parts of the relationship between and ?
    5. What are the parts of when looked at from the viewpoint of ?

    Relationships

    1. What ideas are related to and what ideas are related by ?
    2. What idea relates and ?
    3. How are the parts of related?
    4. How are the parts of related to ?
    5. What are the relationships among and and other things?

    Perspectives

    1. When looking at , can you identify the perspective it is viewed from, and the subparts of that perspective?
    2. Can you think of from multiple perspectives?
    3. How are and related when looking at them from a new perspective?
    4. What are the parts of when looked at from multiple perspectives?

    More Advanced DSRP Questions

    Remember that a Distinction is made up of an identity (what something is) and an other (what something is not). To perform a Distinction analysis, take a step back from your map and ask yourself these questions:

    1. Are these all the identities that you need? Is there something important missing?
    2. Are any of your identities overlapping or redundant?
    3. Do your identities represent specific constructs? Could you add language to make them more distinct?
    4. Do any of your identities cause you to marginalize or overlook other identities?
    5. For each identity you make ask yourself, "What is the cognitive opportunity cost?" Am I okay with that cost?
    6. How does analyzing or deconstructing what-some-thing-(identity)-is-not, help you to define the boundary of what it is?
    7. Do any of your explicit identities communicate implicit bias?
    8. Should you articulate the assumptions (i.e., perspectives) that underlie your choice of language/distinctions?
    9. Are my distinctions MECE/NONG (Mutually Exclusive Collectively Exhaustive / No Overlaps, No Gaps)?
    10. Are my distinctions necessary/sufficient?
    11. From what perspective (set of assumptions) am I making my initial distinctions?
    12. Am I othering (Creating a marginalized other)? Could things be distinguished differently

    Remember that a System is made up of an interaction between part and whole. To perform a part-whole analysis, take a step back from your map and ask yourself these questions:

    1. Would my analysis benefit from turning any distinction into a whole and considering its parts?
    2. Are there parts missing in any of my existing wholes?
    3. Have I considered how the parts are related?
    4. Should I zoom into any part and deconstruct it further into parts of its own? (i.e., make a part a whole)
    5. Do the parts look different from different perspectives? (e.g., named differently, seen or not seen)
    6. Does the existence of parts in one whole indicate a certain part should be included in another whole?
    7. Are there parts that should be a perspective on some part of my map?
    8. Would laying out the parts differently (left, right justified or freehand) make my map easier to read?
    9. How are things organized into part-whole groupings/systems?
    10. From what perspective are my groupings being made? Could things be organized differently? Am I locked into categorical thinking?

    Remember that a Relationship is made up of an action and a reaction. To perform a Relationship analysis, take a step back from your map and ask yourself these questions:

    1. Are these all the relationships that I need? Are there relationships missing?
    2. Should any of my relationships be directional (arrows)?
    3. Should I identify/distinguish any of the relationships? (i.e., give them a block and a name)
    4. Should I zoom into any of these relationship-distinctions and consider their parts? (i.e., create an RDS)
    5. Do the relationships look different from different perspectives? (e.g., named differently, seen or not seen)
    6. Are there relationships between relationships?
    7. Are there systems of relationships? (e.g., short or long feedback loops)
    8. Are there relationships between the parts of 2 or more systems? (i.e., an R-channel)?
    9. Would laying out the Ds and Rs differently (moving things around) make my map easier to read?
    10. Have the parts of systems and subsystems been sufficiently related?
    11. Do any of the current relationships need to be distinguished? Systematized? (RDS)

    Remember that Perspectives are made up of an interaction between point and view. To perform a Perspective analysis, take a step back from your map and ask yourself these questions:

    1. Do the distinctions, relationships, or part-whole organization of my map reveal an implicit perspective (i.e., bias, assumptions, root perspective, etc.)
    2. Would my analysis benefit from adding a perspective(s) or turning any distinction into a point of view?
    3. Are there /missing/important perspectives that would provide insight?
    4. Have I looked at the alternatives to the perspectives I have included?
    5. Should I zoom into any perspective and think of it as being made up of parts which are sub-perspectives? (i.e., many perspectives are not homogenous)
    6. Do the distinctions, relationships, part-whole organization or perspectives taken look different from a different perspective?
    7. If I took a moment to look at the entire map from the perspective of each node in the map, does it reveal hidden and important complexities?
    8. Would laying out the parts differently (left, right justified or freehand) make my map easier to read?
    9. What perspective is the whole system from? Am I okay with that?
    10. Is there anything in the system analysis that should be a perspective on the whole?
    11. Are all of my perspectives “with eyes”? What about conceptual or other non-living perspectives?