			Home About us Contact

Complexity Science (complexity + science)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Business, Economics, Finance and Accounting	40%

Selected Abstracts

The facilitating factors for organizational learning: bringing ideas from complex adaptive systems

KNOWLEDGE AND PROCESS MANAGEMENT: THE JOURNAL OF CORPORATE TRANSFORMATION, Issue 2 2003
Ricardo Chiva-Gómez
The importance of the factors that facilitate organizational learning have traditionally been outlined in the literature. However, there is no agreement about what the essential facilitating factors are, as each author emphasizes different features. Complexity science is increasingly being used by researchers and practitioners to improve their understanding of organizations. This exploratory study tries to determine the essential facilitating factors for organizational learning, and demonstrate the importance of the ideas from complex adaptive systems (CAS) to it. In order to do this, we put forward a comparative case study of four heterogeneous companies from the Spanish ceramic tile sector in which we analyzed the facilitating factors for organizational learning, by relating them with ideas from CAS. As a result, we determined that the five attributes suggested by CAS to facilitate organizational learning were present in the innovative companies, which had the most organizational learning facilitating factors, and three of them were only present in the company with the highest performance and the most innovative approach: individuals' relationship with the environment; cultural diversity; and state of equilibrium between formal and informal structures. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]

Complexity and Educational Research: A critical reflection

EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY, Issue 1 2008
Lesley Kuhn
Abstract Judgements concerning proper or appropriate educational endeavour, methods of investigation and philosophising about education necessarily implicate perspectives, values, assumptions and beliefs. In recent years ideas from the complexity sciences have been utilised in many domains including psychology, economics, architecture, social science and education. This paper addresses questions concerning the appropriateness of utilising complexity science in educational research as well as issues relating to the ways in which complexity might be engaged. I suggest that, just like all human endeavour, approaches to research emerge out of discursive communities and can be understood as self-organising, dynamic and emergent over time. In this formulation, complexity represents one such newly emergent approach. I argue that it is important that researchers partake in critical and reflective discourse about the nature of education and conceptual frameworks, as well as about impacts and legacies of utilising complexity, so as to participate in and influence the ongoing emergence of educational endeavour. I conclude by suggesting a series of caveats for researchers considering using complexity in educational research. [source]

Management Strategies for Complex Adaptive Systems Sensemaking, Learning, and Improvisation

PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY, Issue 2 2007
Reuben R. McDaniel Jr.
Misspecification of the nature of organizations may be a major reason for difficulty in achieving performance improvement. Organizations are often viewed as machine-like, but complexity science suggests that organizations should be viewed as complex adaptive systems. I identify the characteristics of complex adaptive systems and give examples of management errors that may be made when these characteristics are ignored. Command, control and planning are presented as managerial tasks that come to the fore when a machine view of organizations dominates thinking. When we treat organizations as complex adaptive systems the focus of managerial activity changes, and sensemaking, learning and improvisation become appropriate strategies for performance improvement. Each of these is defined and described. A modest research agenda is presented. [source]

UPHOLDING THE HUMANUM: SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY'S FOUNDATIONAL CHARACTER1

THE HEYTHROP JOURNAL, Issue 3 2006
PAUL ALLEN
Theologians in the liberal tradition have developed the distinctive method of critically correlating Christian revelation with critical interpretations of history, texts and social realities. Non-foundationalists react to this stance by developing theological anthropologies for which interdisciplinary correlation is deemed unnecessary. In response, this paper argues for a retrieval of a philosophical anthropology that address the advances made in the fields of genetics and evolutionary biology, though aware of the secularizing failings of theological liberalism. In contrast to the anti-religious materialism of scientists such as Daniel Dennett and Steven Pinker, human freedom needs to be argued on the basis of complexity science and the emergent systems it explains. Both correlationist and non-foundationalist theological strategies are unable to respond to the threat to human freedom posed by scientific materialism. The science of emergent complex structures is the most plausible research programme for constructing a viable theological anthropology. To uphold the humanum is to uphold human freedom based on a scature. This leads me to suggest that theology is best characterized as foundationalist in the general sense of its universal scope. [source]