Indoor environments have a large impact on health and well-being, so it is important to understand what makes them healthy and sustainable. There is substantial knowledge on individual factors and their effects, though understanding how factors interact and what role occupants play in these interactions (both causative and receptive) is lacking. We aimed to: (i) explore interactions between factors and potential risks if these are not considered from holistic perspective; and (ii) identify components needed to advance research on indoor environments. The paper is based on collaboration between researchers from disciplines covering technical, behavioural, and medical perspectives. Outcomes were identified through literature reviews, discussions and workshops with invited experts and representatives from various stakeholder groups. Four themes emerged and were discussed with an emphasis on occupant health: (a) the bio-psycho-social aspects of health; (b) interaction between occupants, buildings and indoor environment; (c) climate change and its impact on indoor environment quality, thermal comfort and health; and (d) energy efficiency measures and indoor environment. To advance the relevant research, the indoor environment must be considered a dynamic and complex system with multiple interactions. This calls for a transdisciplinary and holistic approach and effective collaboration with various stakeholders.

Leadership development is a multifaceted phenomenon with a multitude of definitions and meanings requiring closer exploration. The aim of this study was to identify and investigate qualitatively different ways of understanding leadership development and categorize them from a complexity perspective. We conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with professionals and managers. Analysis using a phenomenographic approach revealed six categories and different ways of understanding leadership development: (1) one’s own development, (2) fulfilling a leadership role, (3) personal development, (4) leader and organizational development, (5) collective leadership development, and (6) human development. The categories were arranged hierarchically according to increasing complexity. Our contribution recognizes more nuanced interpretations than previously identified and highlights underlying structures of complexity. The results help to empirically ground and elaborate current theories and distinctions within the field of leadership development research where similar patterns can be observed. They may assist researchers in making both their own and other’s assumptions on leadership development explicit, as well as informing the practice of tailoring leadership development activities to better match individuals and organizational contexts.

Adult development (AD) theories have a great potential for use in providing perspective and create new understanding of societal problems and challenges. The use of AD as a lens provides insights into people’s qualitative, different ways of thinking, talking, and acting. The theories are used by researchers and practitioners with various backgrounds in several different scientific domains. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of different approaches on how theories of AD are applied in research, with a focus on the potential of using it and how to eliminate the possibility of reproducing existing knowledge. The results consist of six approaches of how AD is currently presented and used in research: introductory work, creating and refining stages, making comparisons with established models, tracing the dynamics of promoting development, analysis of mismatches in adult life, and societal and organizational development. There are several promising avenues for future research by using a combination of these approaches as a way forward to promote the development of this scientific field.

We trace the first four years of the new theoretical discourse on the definition order 16 of hierarchical complexity. Tasks performed at this order are similarly classified as stage 16 performances. Until this current discourse began, the highest order identified using the mhc was order 15, named cross-paradigmatic. In different groupings, several mhc theorists have discussed the properties and definition of this new order. To this point, an explicitly collaborative effort has yet to be undertaken. To reach agreement on definition and properties of order 16 and task performances at that order will likely require us to agree on more complex than usual hierarchical complexity-based scoring criteria and inter-rater standards. To meet these new challenges, these criteria and standards must be precise enough, complex enough, and general enough to apply across the uncommonly disparate and high-level examples proposed thus far as performances at stage 16. Since these methodological foundations have not yet been developed, to date our discourse is comprised of some who consider the process of defining the new order and empirically demonstrating it further along than others do. This theoretical development terrain promise intense and promising work ahead on this breakthrough in applying the mhc, its contributions to behavioral development theory, and the measurement of the most complex human accomplishments recognized thus far.

Sharecopy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adaptremix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.Under the following terms: Attribution -You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictionsYou may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.