‘Knowledge Must Be Contextual’: Some possible implications of complexity and dynamic systems theories for educational research

Abstract

It is now widely accepted that qualitative and quantitative research traditions, rather than being seen as opposed to or in competition with each other ( Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995 ; Furlong, 2004) should be used, where appropriate, in some kind of combination (Bryman & Cramer, 1999; Moore et al., 2003). How this combining is to be understood ontologically, and therefore epistemologically, however, is not always clear. Rather than endlessly discussing the relationship between different approaches, this paper explores some of the assumptions of the ontologies that underpin such apparent differences, arguing that approaches which declare themselves to be distinct theoretically are often surprisingly similar methodologically. It is argued that dominant ontologies and epistemologies struggle with the conceptualisation and representation of particularity, difference, process, interactions through time, multiple and de‐centred forms of causation, and dynamic structure. Complexity/dynamic systems theory is then introduced and examined for its potential to offer the basis of a different kind of ontology: one which is able not only to accommodate these things, but which is itself based upon them. In conclusion, the implications of this perspective are discussed in relation to the problems that have been identified, particularly in relation to the conceptualisation of ‘context’.

An Investigation Into the Improvement of Graduate Attributes Within the Egyptian University Sector

“…The interconnectedness of the elements within these types of units is too specific to be useful for the extraction a general principle. In contrast, dynamic systems theories as in figure 1B focus upon the relationships and interactions that occur within open systems (Haggis 2008). A dynamic system consists of a large number of components, processes or activities that are interacting dynamically at a local level (Cilliers 1998).…”

“…Cilliers (1998) differentiates between complex (having many parts, although not all of can be named and not all processes involved can be tracked or described) and complicated (having many parts, but each part can be explained). Haggis (2008) figure 1A (whether in qualitative case studies or in large-scale surveys) discount the relationships which exist with the smaller units bounded by the case, in order to focus on the patterns which can be viewed when these smaller units are viewed in relation to each other (Haggis 2008). The interconnectedness of the elements within these types of units is too specific to be useful for the extraction a general principle.…”

“…The histories of these multiple interactions cannot be tracked, which shift from a focus on cause to a focus on effects (Byrne, 2005). Second, because of this multi-factor causality, elements that are removed, isolated or conceptually removed from the system of connected interactions in effect affect meaning in terms of understanding that system (Haggis 2008). The system itself has to be studied in terms of its interactions rather than identifying key elements in relation to smaller units within the system and comparing these to elements from other systems (Haggis 2008).…”

“…Complexity theory sometimes known as dynamic systems theory, or the theory of emergence (Haggis 2008), appears to provide a different way of conceptualisation. Complexity not only offers another theory, but a completely new departure for theory and also the conceptualisation of method.…”

“…If there are enough number of these interactions, and if they occur over a sufficiently long period of time, specific forms of order or organisation periodically emerge from within the system (Johnson 2001). Causality in complex systems is not A causes B but a state of deterministic emergence from non-linear interactions and thus is unexpected in relation to the principles governing the lower level domain (Osberg 2002 The simplified outline of complexity presented above gives an idea of how an ontology based on these thoughts can produce very different ways of conceptualising and analysing data in social research (Byrne 1997;Haggis 2008). First, the interactions are various and multiple and it is the multiplicity of the interactions through time that produces effects.…”