The word diagnosis is taken to generalize among users, students, parents, a discourse on the current study of an object or a subject. Classifying them in: diagnosis of learning, diagnosis of finances, diagnosis of a patient and diagnosis of infrastructure of companies.
By intervening in this, the prognosis appears, it is the mediation that suggests an intervention, be it pedagogical, economic, medical, architectural, in which the actions that are projected, the current improvement or maintenance of the subject or object are concentrated.
The term comes from the Greek diagnikós for the prefix day "through" and gnosis "knowledge" "know through" or "know through" it feels like identifying problems, the need for a change or solution, state of knowledge, intervention or forecast.
For Richmond cited by Munera G (2001: p 21-28) “the social diagnosis arises in charitable organizations in England, according to the author the charitable organization and the social diagnosis occurs when they take the idea of a comprehensive study of the individual in its social environment, although it was oriented to data only. This diagnosis "obtains results with the support of various techniques in the collection of information (qualitative and quantitative) and then designs and executes different social proposals" (Molina Arenaza Eugenio, 2005)
Another position in the organizational field where Belohlavek develops the concept as an action "diagnose, forecast and organize" from conceptual tools that allow going beyond the experimental application and projecting to know the causes of what happens to plan alternative paths for the change.
For the term of institutional diagnosis defined by Rivera V. (2000: p) « Research procedure that is carried out to assess the efficiency of the internal communication systems of a company, based on the discourse of weaknesses and strengths without specifying the relativism that can occur between them, however communication processes in social dynamics are important ».
Regarding the pedagogical diagnosis, he initially focused on the analysis of individual differences with the aim of selecting and classifying students, taking into account their capacity, aptitudes and interests. Its appearance is due to authors such as: Francis Galton, psychologists such as James Mckeen and Albert Binet.
For his part, Álvarez Rojo (2001, p: 615-631), pedagogical diagnosis is a way of organizing and collecting information about an educational event related to a subject or a set of subjects and involves establishing objectives, analyzing, interpreting and evaluating the information that is collected, and then make decisions that favor the development of curricular adaptations.
In another equally important term, the psycho-pedagogical diagnosis appears, it is another conceptual position by Brasseras (2001) “It is the analysis of the situation of students with difficulties in the framework of the school and the classroom to provide the teacher with the guidelines and instruments that they make possible the modification of the manifested behavior ”.
Although located in different disciplinary fields, a similar structural approach is maintained that requires elements such as: collection of information to detect needs, the subject or object affected, intervention to address the problem, and improvement of the problem, these elements provide guidance of diagnosis that focuses on a cause-effect relationship determined by action.
Disciplinary knowledge mediated by pedagogical and educational theory must constitute a discourse that enables significant differences to the diagnostic models coming from other disciplinary knowledge. There must be a theoretical position that accounts for the actions proposed so far from positivist approaches. Luhmann's theory of complex thought is then proposed as a theoretical dimension that allows interactions to be generated with the disciplinary component of the pedagogical and the educational and to configure a new diagnostic concept. This implies theoretically addressing the components of complex thinking that makes such construction possible between them: communication and communicating systems, self-referential self-organization, autopoiesis and empowerment.
The diagnostic actions develop communicative processes that are characterized by verbal and non-verbal actions of subjects who are restricted by power relations, that is, the other communicates the discourse expected by the outsider. Likewise, two independent communication systems can be considered in the case of learning diagnosis, which focuses on the application of instruments that generate a discourse for the evaluator in terms of characterization and learning needs and another that differs from that first discourse and that is It can place the needlessness of the learning constructed by the evaluated person.
Luhmann, from complex thinking, proposes that communication is a system that brings together joint actions of conventional conceptual interactions for a social group, that is, that a system manages to interact self-regulate and self-organize because they have generated communicating processes that allow subjects that belong to the self-reference system, that is, think from the same system. In this new proposal, the fundamental thing in the communication process is the establishment of communication systems that are peer as their own and not external to them, therefore the knowledge-power relationship, the traditional dynamic, vanishes due to the lack of communicating elements that consolidate the subjects. participate in your own self - referentiality.
From this proposal, generating peer communicating systems within a diagnostic dimension implies that the teacher is not external to the other, does not establish lines of knowledge - power, and carries out communicative actions aimed at generating peer systems where the other is self - referring, therefore both the other does not know the need raised by an outsider, if he does not build it from his process of self - reference. Likewise, the linear cause-effect relationship disappears as the other is capable of generating conscious transformation processes.
Another fundamental aspect is self-reference where the consenting subject is evaluated in relation to the system itself, the subject builds his own structures by referencing himself with the system that he himself has come or building, but which is shared by others, who likewise they have built… also allowed to structure their own evaluative indices, self-regulating in the communication system, without the external one becoming the only guide to establish the needs, which are equally biased because they are thought by the other and for the other.
In this conceptual construction, the autopoiesis defined by Luhmann appears as the determination of the next state of the system, based on the conscious reflection of it and that takes into account the limitations that determined its operation, allows its transformation, because it implies the Reflection of the next state, where it wants to go transcribes the needs constructed by the other that has generated processes of self - reference and with it autopoietic.
Another concept is self-organization and empowerment, the first is the construction of structures typical of a system within the same system, it is the need for a system to generate its own forms of organization that is determined by self-referential processes, autopoiesis of the same systems, and with it their members, who are the system. Empowerment refers to the proper way of understanding to act in a communicating system, which implies that the subject is empowered within the system by carrying out comprehensive processes of said system that allows him to self-reference and generate autopoietic processes
These concepts from a diagnostic position forces that the subjects or objects of the diagnosis must generate processes of self - referentiality, autopoiesis, self - organization that generate transformation of the subjects themselves and of the system. A conception of diagnosis from Luhmann's theory of complex thought must respond to the configuration of even communicating systems that observe in a reality built by a set of interconnected elements that allow for the configuration of needs through interactions, successful dialogue, self- referentiality, autopoiesis and self. Organization, thereby generating conscious transformations.
A diagnostic dynamic from this perspective forces us to rethink pedagogical and educational elements, which, as initially stated, should constitute the discourse of the disciplinary of diagnosis.
The school is not the only one responsible for training, but it forces a teacher to think that generates communicating lines within social systems that emancipate the subjects. Thus, the school does not produce communication systems for itself but for society, where it belongs, breaking the paradigmatic vision of cause - effect or factual reality.
Thus, the reality at school is characterized by changes that demand a good use of knowledge but also adapt to this changing environment. Institutions must modernize, involving the different sectors of society and making proposals to improve local regional development and from there the national and global.
In the pedagogical and educational aspect, the need to think about a change has been manifested, however it is necessary to project it as a social transformation, which forces us to restructure what until now have been called the basic elements of the pedagogical act, among them: diagnosis, the pedagogical intervention, the evaluation and the school management, to consolidate communication systems where autopoietic processes are generated and of empowerment of the subjects and the society to generate significant transformations.
