13
D I V E R S I T Y A N D S T R U C T U R E D I N T E R A C T I O N S
Action
Arena
Interactions
Outcomes
Evaluative
Criteria
Exogenous Variables
Figure 1.1 The focal level of analysis—an action arena.
sity) or of individual species (such as trophic level) (see Tilman 1999;
Tilman, Lehman, and Bristow 1998). Extensive field research, analytical
modeling, and simulations now enable ecologists to make relatively
strong predictions about some of these interactions. “Increasing species
diversity is likely associated with more complex community structure, as
species with unique ecological roles are added. The introduction of new
ecological roles may be stabilizing or destabilizing, depending on how
species function within the community. For example, the addition of a
third trophic level to an otherwise stable community with only prey and
predators could potentially destabilize the system” (Ives, Klug, and Goss
2000, 409). Social scientists are slowly gaining greater capabilities for
understanding multilevel complex systems, but until we develop the ap-
propriate theoretical language for analyzing these systems, we will con-
tinue to condemn all complex communities of interacting human organi-
zations as chaotic, as was the dominant view of urban scholars during the
last half-century (see, for example, Hawley and Zimmer 1970).
Action Arenas as Focal Units of Analysis
The focal level for this book is the holon called an action arena in which
two holons—participants and an action situation—interact as they are
affected by exogenous variables (at least at the time of analysis at this
level) and produce outcomes that in turn affect the participants and the
action situation. Action arenas exist in the home; in the neighborhood;
in local, regional, national, and international councils; in firms and mar-
kets; and in the interactions among all of these arenas with others. The
simplest and most aggregated way of representing any of these arenas
when they are the focal level of analysis is shown in figure 1.1, where
exogenous variables affect the structure of an action arena, generating
interactions that produce outcomes. Evaluative criteria are used to judge
the performance of the system by examining the patterns of interactions
and outcomes.
Outcomes feed back onto the participants and the situation and may
transform both over time. Over time, outcomes may also slowly affect
14
C H A P T E R O N E
some of the exogenous variables. In undertaking an analysis, however,
one treats the exogenous variables as fixed—at least for the purpose of
the analysis. When the interactions yielding outcomes are productive for
those involved, the participants may increase their commitment to main-
taining the structure of the situation as it is, so as to continue to receive
positive outcomes. When participants view interactions as unfair or other-
wise inappropriate, they may change their strategies even when they are
receiving positive outcomes from the situation (Fehr and Ga¨chter 2000b).
When outcomes are perceived by those involved (or others) as less valued
than other outcomes that might be obtained, some will raise questions
about trying to change the structure of the situations by moving to a
different level and changing the exogenous variables themselves. Or, if the
procedures were viewed as unfair, motivation to change the structure may
exist (Frey, Benz, and Stutzer 2004).
Similar efforts to identify a core unit of analysis, such as the action
arena, that is contained in many diverse environments have a long history.
Core units of analyses identified by other scholars include:
• collective structures (Allport 1962);
• events (Appleyard 1987; Heise 1979);
• frames (Goffman 1974);
• social action and interaction settings (Burns and Flam 1987);
• logic of the situation (Farr 1985; Popper 1961, 1976);
• problematic social situations (Raub and Voss 1986);
• scripts (Schank and Abelson 1977);
• transactions (Commons [1924] 1968); and
• units of meaning (Barwise and Perry 1983; Raiffa 1982).
Because the IAD framework is a multitier conceptual map, the simplest
schematic representation of an action arena shown in figure 1.1 will be
unpacked—and then further unpacked and unpacked throughout the ini-
tial chapters of this book. Action arenas include two holons: an action
situation and the participant in that situation (see figure 1.2). An action
situation can, in turn, be characterized using seven clusters of variables:
(1) participants (who may be either single individuals or corporate
actors), (2) positions, (3) potential outcomes, (4) action-outcome link-
ages, (5) the control that participants exercise, (6) types of information
generated, and (7) the costs and benefits assigned to actions and outcomes
(see figure 2.1 in the next chapter). Thus, an action situation refers to the
social space where participants with diverse preferences interact, ex-
change goods and services, solve problems, dominate one another, or fight
(among the many things that individuals do in action arenas). In chapter
2, we will zoom in and unpack the action situation as a focal unit of
analysis. We will illustrate the working parts of an action situation in