Social Biomimicry: what do ants and bees tell us about organization in the natural world?

Fewell, Jennifer H.

doi:10.1007/s10818-015-9207-2

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One is concerned with the question whether and to what extent processes of self-organization contribute to observed patterns of complexity in social structure. Self-organization is now recognized as an important determinant of highly structured collective behavior not only in social insects (Bonabeau et al 1997;Fewell 2015) but also in vertebrates on the move (Couzin and Krause 2003;Farine et al 2017), foraging behavior (Farine et al 2014;He et al 2019), dominance hierarchies, and other differentiated relationships (Hemelrijk et al 2008(Hemelrijk et al , 2017Franz et al 2015). Thus, simple behaviors at the individual or dyadic level can give rise to complex patterns at the group level.…”

Section: Defining Social Complexitymentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework for studying social complexity

Kappeler

2019

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

229

243

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social complexity has been one of the recent emerging topics in the study of animal and human societies, but the concept remains both poorly defined and understood. In this paper, I critically review definitions and studies of social complexity in invertebrate and vertebrate societies, arguing that the concept is being used inconsistently in studies of vertebrate sociality. Group size and cohesion define one cornerstone of social complexity, but the nature and patterning of social interactions contribute more to interspecific variation in social complexity in species with individual recognition and repeated interactions. Humans provide the only example where many other unique criteria are used, and they are the only species for which intraspecific variation in social complexity has been studied in detail. While there is agreement that complex patterns emerge at the group level as a result of simple interactions and as a result of cognitive abilities, there is consensus neither on their relative importance nor on the role of specific cognitive abilities in different lineages. Moreover, aspects of reproduction and parental care have also been invoked to characterize levels of social complexity, so that no single comprehensive measure is readily available. Because even fundamental components of social complexity are difficult to compare across studies and species because of inconsistent definitions and operationalization of key social traits, I define and characterize social organization, social structure, mating system, and care system as distinct components of a social system. Based on this framework, I outline how different aspects of the evolution of social complexity are being studied and suggest questions for future research. Significance statement Animal and human societies differ in social complexity, i.e., the number and association patterns of group members as well as the nature and patterning of their social relationships, but the dimensions of social complexity, the processes that generate it, the selective forces that engender different levels of social complexity, and the evolutionary consequences of this variation remain to be comprehensively understood. Here, I offer a conceptual framework for the systematic and comparative studies of social complexity by defining its main components as well as their proximate and ultimate relationships.

show abstract

Section: Defining Social Complexitymentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework for studying social complexity

Kappeler

2019

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

229

243

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Human organizations can also draw inspiration from animal group dynamics. For instance, a bio‐economic study by Fewell () brings to light the potential for social biomimicry from the natural world, whereby human organizations can emulate some of the social interactions and self‐organizational processes of ant and bee colonies, which include effective consensus building in group decisions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What are the lessons from nature for doing well and doing good in different environments? A hybrid perspective of microfinance and slow money

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ten criteria derived from the evolutionary theory allow the comparison of the characteristics of hybrid organizations in India and the United States. The resulting taxonomy enables us to extrapolate management lessons based on our theory building initiative. We contribute to hybrid theory by discussing how hybrid organizations mirror nature. We extend our theoretical framework to social enterprise theory and naturological theory. Finally, we recommend strategies for hybrid organizations to enhance their resilience and balance different priorities.

show abstract

“…Other examples are the social organization of insects, which involves collective efforts and flexible work organization (Fewell, 2015); the collective decision-making in colonies of honey bees (Seeley, 2003); actuations to create life-like motion (Habib & Watanabe, 2012); a robust surface that repels even complex fluids under harsh conditions (Wong et al, 2011); and specific properties or living organisms such as, for example, the adhesive property of gecko-feet hair (Autumn et al, 2000). Of relevance to the human principles of organization, analyses of the behaviour of large-scale social insects have led to attempts to extract a generalized set of organizing principles (Fewell, 2015): large-scale societies organize themselves effectively based on diverse local interactions rather than via external or centralized direction (reflecting distributed systems); cumulative effects of local interactions generate non-linear changes in behaviour (self-organization); and local effects scale up into group-level effects that are more than the summation of individual abilities (synergy). However, biological systems are often not immediately accessible, implying that the investigator needs to focus on models of biological systems (Sartori et al, 2010).…”

Section: Biomimetics: Definitions and Areas Of Applicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

From innovation-as-usual towards unusual innovation: using nature as an inspiration

Ulhøi

2021

J Innov Entrep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Innovation-as-usual employs synthetic input as the key source of inspiration to bring about innovations, whereas unusual innovation is inspired by designs in nature. The use of nature as a key stimulus for innovation represents a fundamental shift in management and business studies. It involves the translation of natural designs into cross-domain and ad hoc synthetic designs. This paper examines and discusses the phenomenon of biomimetics and different examples of its application. Efficient translation of biomimetics involves the critical processes of exploration, explanation and exploitation. This paper discusses a practical case of biomimetic translation and identifies some critical and greatly understudied translational processes. The paper proposes techniques to correct existing translational imperfections and to establish theoretical bridging points to responsible management practices. Before concluding, research and managerial implications are briefly addressed.

show abstract

Social Biomimicry: what do ants and bees tell us about organization in the natural world?

Cited by 10 publications

References 50 publications

A framework for studying social complexity

A framework for studying social complexity

What are the lessons from nature for doing well and doing good in different environments? A hybrid perspective of microfinance and slow money

From innovation-as-usual towards unusual innovation: using nature as an inspiration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About