Complexity Thinking: A Middle Way for Analysts (original) (raw)
Related papers
In his new book, New Thinking in Complexity for the Social Sciences and Humanities: A Generative, Transdisciplinary Approach, Ton Jo ̈rg aims at nothing less than to develop the foundation for a new science of complexity (ScoC) for the social sciences and humanities. The “new thinking” that Jo ̈rg refers to in the title of the book is soon revealed to be thinking that involves “the reframing of complexity as a new concept and a new tool for use in our science”. By “our science” he means the social sciences and humanities, which will be transformed by complexity thinking.
Thinking (in) complexity: (In) definitions and (mis)conceptions
Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 2019
The rise of complexity sciences has led to the development of new language about systems. Concepts such as 'complex systems thinking' or 'complexity thinking' have appeared in the literature, appealing to ways of thinking (in) complexity. The notion of 'complex thinking,' may be considered as referring to a mode of thinking more congruent with the complexity of the world. The widespread and sometimes undifferentiated usage of these concepts results in a lack of clarity and terminological confusion, which jeopardizes their heuristic and pragmatic value. We identify literature using terms related to thinking (in) complexity and use a combination of computational and qualitative methods to extract definitions and analyse their usage. We map the relationships of the concepts and their usage across different intellectual communities. Our goal is to clarify these concepts and to strengthen their pragmatic value for the promotion and management of positive changes in complex systems.
Complexity, network theory, and the epistemological issue
Mazzocchi F. 2016. Complexity, network theory, and the epistemological issue. Kybernetes 45(7): 1158-1170; DOI 10.1108/K-05-2015-0125
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contribute to refine the conceptual framework of complexity. For such a purpose, a number of epistemologically oriented remarks are provided, arguing about the relevance of second-order considerations for complexity and the importance of pluralism in scientific research. Design/methodology/approach – At first, the paper focuses on one of the topical areas of complexity research, i.e. network theory, but uses this for drawing the attention to more general issues. The underlying assumption is that scientific and philosophical research might complement each other, and that this is especially crucial for the advancement of complexity. Findings – The paper suggests three ways for refining the scheme of complexity: analyzing it at the right level, i.e. not focusing on single principles or theories (e.g. network theory), but rather on the overall frame; including both ontological and epistemological considerations; and recognizing how the epistemological implications of complexity foster the adoption of a pluralist stance in scientific research (and beyond). Social implications – The way in which science (complexity) is portrayed, i.e. as “perspectival” and inclined to pluralism, could impact on how it is thought, designed and socially perceived. Originality/value – Complexity is one of most promising fields of contemporary science, but still lacks of a coherent frame of analysis. This requires an investigation from different point of views, as an object of interdisciplinary cooperation. The main paper’s value consists of providing second-order considerations which puts scientific findings in perspective and can contribute to a better understanding of their meaning from a philosophical standpoint too.
Review of "The Science and Praxis of Complexity
1986
to name a few. The 384 pages of this volume contain most of their contributions, organized in five sections: understanding complexity, complexity in focus, complexity in nature, complexity in society, and overviews.
Book Review_New Thinking in Complexity for the Social Sciences and Humanities
In his new book, New Thinking in Complexity for the Social Sciences and Hu- manities: A Generative, Transdisciplinary Approach, Ton Jo ̈rg aims at nothing less than to develop the foundation for a new science of complexity (ScoC) for the social sciences and humanities. The “new thinking” that Jo ̈rg refers to in the title of the book is soon revealed to be thinking that involves “the reframing of complexity as a new concept and a new tool for use in our science” (2). By “our science” he means the social sciences and humanities, which will be transformed by complexity thinking.
The science of complexity: epistemological problems and perspectives
Science in context, 2005
For several decades now a set of researches from a wide range of different sectors has been developed which goes by the name of "science of complexity" and is opposed point by point to the paradigm of classical science. It challenges the idea that world is "simple." To the reductionist idea that each process is the sum of the actions of its components it opposes a holistic view (the whole is more than the sum of the parts). The aim of the present article is to analyze the epistemological status attributed in the science of complexity to several fundamental ideas, such as those of scientific law, objectivity, and prediction. The aim is to show that the hope of superseding reductionism by means of concepts such as that of "emergence" is fallacious and that the science of complexity proposes forms of reductionism that are even more restrictive than the classical ones, particularly when it claims to unify in a single treatment problems that vary widely in nature such as physical, biological, and social problems.
In this paper, seven researchers reflect on the journeys their research projects have taken when they engage with and synthesize complex problems. These journeys embody an adaptive approach to tackling problems characterized by their interconnectedness and emergence, and that transcend traditional units of analysis such as ecosystems. In this paper we argue that making such a process deliberate and explicit will help researchers better combine different research paradigms such as expert-driven and participant-directed work, thus resulting in both broad explanations and specific phenomenon; research tensions traditionally defined as oppositional must be approached as complimentary. This paper includes researchers' personal journeys as they dealt with the emergent properties of complex problems and participant involvement. This paper argues that that research journey should be more than accidental but is a methodological necessity and should guide the theoretical and practical approaches to complex problems.