Abstract:This E-Special Issue collects together 11 articles from the archives of Theory, Culture & Society. These articles all articulate and debate the contribution of what some have described as either 'complex complexity' or 'general complexity'. In contrast to reductionist or restricted attempts to understand complexity, the articles collected here move away from the tendency to assume mastery of complexity by expounding a set of universal and simple laws. Rather, the position of general complexity is that we canno… Show more
“…31-32). In other words, it is necessary to exclude certain aspects of the phenomenon to be investigated (e.g., creating boundaries for the systems, or considering some characteristics of the system and ignoring others) so that the world becomes intelligible to us (Human, 2016). What is in question is (1) what aspects to exclude (e.g., where the boundaries are placed, or what characteristics are considered), and ( 2) under what paradigm, and ( 3) on what rationalities are they established?…”
Background: Complexity theory (CT) has been used in response to the need for a different mindset than the classical engineering paradigm. The engineering education research (EER) community may benefit from the knowledge of how CT has been used in the field.Purpose: Aiming to provide a broad view of CT in EER, the following research questions guided the study: How has CT been applied in EER, and how does it contribute to addressing the challenges of classical engineering education? What are the different complexity engineering approaches, and how can they be integrated into the context of EER?Method: A systematic literature review was conducted. The review process was divided into three stages: planning, conducting, and reporting. Fifty-eight journal articles and five book chapters were submitted to an iterative process of organization, categorization, analysis, and synthesis. Results: Complexity schools of thought were integrated into EER. The research was organized into thematic categories: epistemological and ontological perspectives; complex thinking and competences; pedagogical approaches; complexity, sustainability, and transdisciplinarity interdependence; engineering axiology; and systemic transformation of engineering education. For each category, main contributions were integrated, and gaps were identified.Different meanings of complexity engineering were discussed and related to complexity schools of thought.Conclusions: Defining the type of complexity approach used is essential to advance knowledge, as there are fundamental epistemological, ontological, and methodological differences. Thematic categories help future researchers position theoretical contributions and be precise about how their findings contribute to understanding complexity applications in EER. Overcoming the limits of classical engineering requires a paradigmatic discussion, and CT proves valuable for this.
“…31-32). In other words, it is necessary to exclude certain aspects of the phenomenon to be investigated (e.g., creating boundaries for the systems, or considering some characteristics of the system and ignoring others) so that the world becomes intelligible to us (Human, 2016). What is in question is (1) what aspects to exclude (e.g., where the boundaries are placed, or what characteristics are considered), and ( 2) under what paradigm, and ( 3) on what rationalities are they established?…”
Background: Complexity theory (CT) has been used in response to the need for a different mindset than the classical engineering paradigm. The engineering education research (EER) community may benefit from the knowledge of how CT has been used in the field.Purpose: Aiming to provide a broad view of CT in EER, the following research questions guided the study: How has CT been applied in EER, and how does it contribute to addressing the challenges of classical engineering education? What are the different complexity engineering approaches, and how can they be integrated into the context of EER?Method: A systematic literature review was conducted. The review process was divided into three stages: planning, conducting, and reporting. Fifty-eight journal articles and five book chapters were submitted to an iterative process of organization, categorization, analysis, and synthesis. Results: Complexity schools of thought were integrated into EER. The research was organized into thematic categories: epistemological and ontological perspectives; complex thinking and competences; pedagogical approaches; complexity, sustainability, and transdisciplinarity interdependence; engineering axiology; and systemic transformation of engineering education. For each category, main contributions were integrated, and gaps were identified.Different meanings of complexity engineering were discussed and related to complexity schools of thought.Conclusions: Defining the type of complexity approach used is essential to advance knowledge, as there are fundamental epistemological, ontological, and methodological differences. Thematic categories help future researchers position theoretical contributions and be precise about how their findings contribute to understanding complexity applications in EER. Overcoming the limits of classical engineering requires a paradigmatic discussion, and CT proves valuable for this.
“…It is [L]argely inspired by the complex means through which nature regenerates and maintains order under constantly changing conditions … general complexity realizes that complex systems are constantly negotiating a fine line between being robustly structured whilst at the same time being open to the constant possibility of change and adaptation. (Human, , p. 7)…”
The field of Second Language Acquisition/Development (SLA/D) has evolved to a point where the paradigm gap between SLA/D and world Englishes (WE), identified by Sridhar and Sridhar (1986), has narrowed. The closing of the gap is due in part to SLA/D and WE leaving behind their ontological inheritance of a static competence from linguistics and finding common ground in a view of language as a complex adaptive system. While differences between the two fields are real and will rightly prevail, there may now exist an opening for a dialogue that can lead to a closing of the gap.
80
“…As these examples suggest, a crucial feature of emergence in complexity theory is that the emergent order does not reside ‘in’ the individual components, but between them. In the words of Human, the emergent phenomena ‘cannot be found inside the individual properties of the components but [are] a result of their interaction’ (Human, 2016, p. 428). 6 The examples also do a good job at indicating how order and chaos are not dialectically opposed or antagonistic, but are instead part of the same continuum or spectrum.…”
For many decades, scholars working within the broad paradigm of complexity studies/theory have explored the nonlinear dynamics that contour physical and social systems. In doing so, radical theories that contest both Newtonian and neo-Darwinian understandings of reality have been posited, augmenting how we think about processes of change. But throughout these developments, the modern idea of progress has arguably remained insufficiently contested. This article seeks to show how the framework of complexity can offer conceptual resources for rethinking progress. Key characteristics of complexity are articulated and critically examined with the aim of pinpointing how they might contribute to a conception of progress that is worthy of the name yet divergent from its dominant ‘modern’ form.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
