The discipline is still being written. Help write it.

The Institute holds its theoretical claims to the standard of evidence that would be required to elevate them from hypothesis to finding. That standard can only be applied if the claims are subject to intellectual challenge from those with the knowledge and standing to challenge them.

The Institute is particularly interested in challenges that: identify specific theoretical claims that are empirically falsifiable and offer evidence that falsifies them; provide alternative theoretical frameworks that explain the phenomena DSE describes with greater precision or parsimony; or point to domains or contexts in which DSE's constructs do not map onto what is observed.

If you have read the research and have a substantive disagreement, the Institute wants to hear from you.

Evidence contributions can take several forms. First, structured case study participation: the Institute works with your organisation to map and analyse a specific decision system or governance challenge. This is a research engagement, not a service engagement. Second, documented evidence contribution: you share internal analyses, post-incident reviews, or structured accounts of governance challenges that bear on the questions DSE is investigating. Third, convergence cases: you believe your organisation has independently developed governance practices consistent with DSE principles, without knowledge of the Institute's research. This is precisely the evidence the convergence hypothesis requires.

All evidence contributions are governed by confidentiality agreements appropriate to the sensitivity of the material. The Institute publishes findings, not sources. Where case studies are published with organisational identification, consent is obtained in advance. Where organisations prefer to remain anonymous, that preference is respected absolutely.

Research participation is structured to be useful to both parties. The Institute gains access to the evidence and perspectives it needs to test and refine its theoretical claims. Participants gain early exposure to the Institute's applied frameworks, structured engagement with the governance questions their organisations are facing, and the knowledge that their experience is contributing to a discipline that may eventually reshape how those questions are answered.

Those interested in participating should have substantive engagement with the governance questions DSE addresses, either as practitioners dealing with the challenges in their organisations, or as researchers working on adjacent questions.

Substantive correspondence is correspondence that engages with the Institute's research on its own terms. It does not have to be formal. It does not have to be extensive. But it should be about something real: a governance challenge you have faced, a theoretical disagreement you have, an observation about the application of DSE's constructs in your own context, or a question the research raises that you cannot answer from the published material.

The Institute reads all correspondence and responds to what is substantive. Write clearly about something real: a governance challenge, a theoretical disagreement, an observation from your own context, or a question the research raises.