Case-based complexity: within-case time variation and temporal casing

Complexity science and its methodological applications have increased in popularity in social science during the last two decades. One key concept within complexity science is that of self-organization. Self-organization is used to refer to the emergence of stable patterns through autonomous and self-reinforcing dynamics at the micro-level. In spite of its potential relevance for the study of social dynamics, the articulation and use of the concept of self-organization has been kept within the boundaries of complexity science and links to and from mainstream social science are scarce. These links can be difficult to establish, even for researchers working in social complexity with a background in social science, because of the theoretical and conceptual diversity and fragmentation in traditional social science. This article is meant to serve as a first step in the process of overcoming this lack of cross-fertilization between complexity and mainstream social science. A systematic review of the concept of self-organization and a critical discussion of similar notions in mainstream social science is presented, in an effort to help practitioners within subareas of complexity science to identify literature from traditional social science that could potentially inform their research.

Originally published as Buckley, W. (1 968). Society as a adaptive system, in W. Buckley (ed.), Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist, Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company. Reprinted with kind permission. Although the phrase complex adaptive is one usually thought to have been coined at the Santa Fe Institute sometime during the 1990s, we can see by the title of this classic paper that the systemsoriented social thinker Walter Buckley had already been using the phrase complex adaptive as early as 1968 and with pretty much the same connotations as it is used today. Thus, similar to how the phrase is contemporarily employed, Buckley explicitly crafted complex adaptive to counter an equilibriumbased, closed view of systems which he felt was endemic at the time of his writing this paper. The idea that the dynamics of social systems were dominated by an equilibriumseeking tendency had become entrenched in social thought ever since the great economist Vilfredo Pareto (who, interestingly enough, had also introduced early speculations on power-law type distributions which are so popular today in complexity circles) had enunciated it strongly in his early version of sociology in the late nineteenth century. For Pareto, as was true among most economists at the time (and, as hard to believe as it is, is still so), equilibriumseeking dynamics were at the core of economic theory (for a discussion of the idea of equilibrium-dominating in social and psychological systems, see Goldstein, 1990, 1995). According to Laurence Henderson (1935), himself an early general systems theorist from within the discipline of physiology (and from which Walter Cannon had derived his own notion of physiological homeostasis), Pareto's thesis at the Polytechnic School of Turin was on the mathematical theory of equilibrium in elastic solids. Pareto had it that a social system was bound by equilibrium, as in any mechanical system so constructed, which meant that the system would automatically return to its former state after any sort of perturbation of its key variables (within a certain amount; see the Appendix below for Henderson's mathematical formulation of this understanding of equilibrium). Henderson also indicated how close Pareto's equilibrium model of social systems was to the equilibrium model of physical chemistry put forward and made a keystone of that discipline Le Chatelier. It was against interpretations of social dynamics as being dominated by equilibrium that Buckley offered his inspired exposition of adaptive systems. Unlike a system governed by a propensity to return to equilibrium after being disturbed, and in so doing losing structure as entropy increased, Buckley's adaptive systems built-up structure as they adapted in the face of new internal and external interactions. Buckley's classic paper Society as a Complex Adaptive System (Buckley, 1968) can be seen as providing a useful bridge between the interests of complexity scientists and those of social entrepreneurs as they struggle to apply the concepts of adaptive systems to societal (social) change and innovation. The paper exemplifies the early sociological formulation of the concepts of complexity and system-adaptation in the context of social value creation and societal change. Buckley's career as an American sociologist spanned the micro-meso-macro social divides by bringing a pragmatic understanding to social contexts that both social entrepreneurs and complexity scientists will appreciate. In general, Walter F. Buckley (1922-2006) is considered a pioneer in the field of modern social systems, sociology, and sociocybernetics. His early academic career resulted in the publication of Sociology: A Modern Systems Theory (1967) in which he constructed a foundation for a very contemporary-sounding dynamic, morphogenic conceptualization of coevolving social structures that was not dependent on the ideas of equilibrium- or homeostasis-seeking processes. …

The reciprocal feedbacks between social and ecological patterns and processes define socio-ecological systems. In urban landscapes these systems can exhibit a high degree of complexity, be hierarchical, and vary by social and ecological context. To measure these interrelationships, this chapter proposes two field protocols — sense of place and land-cover analyses — to quantify feedbacks between social and ecological systems. Many current models of socio-ecological systems tend to be biocentric in focus, meaning that they emphasize the effect of social systems on ecological systems, but tend to simplify the effect of ecological systems on social systems. To account for the reciprocal interactions between social and ecological systems, this chapter proposes linking the concept of complex adaptive systems with structuration theory to create structuration of complex adaptive systems framework. The framework accounts for both social and ecological complex adaptive systems and links them at the point where human actions and landscape dynamics intersect. Through insights gained from how social and ecological dynamics can influence an individual’s decision on how best to manage one’s property in one time period, and monitoring how those decisions affect the social and ecological patterns and processes for the next period, we begin to gain an understanding of the tenets of sustainability.

Complex Adaptive Systems, for our purposes, are social systems that that evolve and display new, emergent properties, and self-organizing behavior of their components; they are based on a reasonably stable infrastructure, on the satisfaction of the most basic needs, and flexible, frequent, and open communication and interaction. Complex Adaptive Systems may be based on a few, simple rules, but can yield complex and unpredictable outcomes. The ‘Hole in the Wall’ project is an interesting case in point in the design of spaces for complex adaptive systems, or complex adaptive networks. In this project, touch screen computers were literally put in ‘holes in walls’ in places where unschooled children congregated. The children were given no instructions on how to use the computers, or what to do with them, but with startling results: the children soon taught themselves how to use the computers and the Internet, and much more (Mitra, 2003).

Complex Adaptive Systems, for our purposes, are social systems that that evolve and display new, emergent properties, and self-organizing behavior of their components; they are based on a reasonably stable infrastructure, on the satisfaction of the most basic needs, and flexible, frequent, and open communication and interaction. Complex Adaptive Systems may be based on a few, simple rules, but can yield complex and unpredictable outcomes. The ‘Hole in the Wall’ project is an interesting case in point in the design of spaces for complex adaptive systems, or complex adaptive networks. In this project, touch screen computers were literally put in ‘holes in walls’ in places where unschooled children congregated. The children were given no instructions on how to use the computers, or what to do with them, but with startling results: the children soon taught themselves how to use the computers and the Internet, and much more (Mitra, 2003).

The environment is both a setting for and a product of human interactions. Understanding the dynamic nature of human-environment interactions is critical for mitigating the impacts of human induced environmental change and understanding how the environment shapes social systems. Current research has focused on the reduced ability of many natural systems to provide ecosystem services and the subsequent impact on human well-being. Furthermore, there has been a proliferation of cases analyzing the impacts of payment programs designed to enhance ecosystem services. However, analyses that link environmental policies through to their ecological results are not common and methods to do so are not thoroughly developed. To better analyze these interactions, a theory or framework is necessary. This article presents a framework of social ecological complex adaptive systems (SECAS). The framework links structuration theory from social science with the theories of complex adaptive systems from ecology to provide an enhanced understanding of the human drivers and responses to environmental change. The framework is presented as a recursive process where social and ecological systems are both the medium for and product of social action and ecological disturbance. A case study of Costa Rica’s ecosystem service payment program is presented as a demonstration of empirical applicability. This framework is proposed as a method to evaluate payments for ecosystem services, conservation policies, urban ecosystems, and for land use change in general.

I argue that the question �what is complexity science?� presents an opportunity to think critically about complexity science, and to ask the question tells us something about what work still needs to be done in understanding complex social dynamics. The paper is a performance of complexity science, putting complexity science to the ultimate test asking, how can complexity science help us answer the question �what is complexity science�? Making a distinction between the study of complex social orders and complex social orderings, I argue there continues to be a problem of establishing the grounds upon which complexity science can be seen to offer an adequate account of social dynamics, in particular because of a continued tendency towards determinism and reductionism. I suggest that the concept of emergence needs to be re-thought, and, drawing upon Luhmann, that a key role for complexity science is to ask, how is ignorance dealt with?

New product development (NPD) is challenging, as it involves mastering new technologies by coordinating appropriate resources efficiently and effectively. Established models of NPD focus on structuring, planning and ordering the innovation process but do not account for complexity and organizational responses and strategies in handling day-to-day resource allocation and decision-making. Our work is theoretically based on ideas from complexity science and NPD procedures. We build on and extend the work on Complex Adaptive System (CAS) and combine it with Socio-Technical System in an innovative approach to analyze, understand and manage NPD complexity by means of network analysis and performance metrics.This paper contributes to existing literature by introducing a framework of complex adaptive socio-technical systems (CASS). It is intended to (1) consider dependencies between product and individuals, (2) provide indicators to measure complexity, efficiency and effectiveness, (3) explain complex phenomena by identifying patterns, and (4) enable NPD governance.We demonstrate the applicability of our framework and metrics using comparative longitudinal case studies using novel and unique data from 4 years of meeting minutes and document exchange in the design phase of the NPD process of a large German automobile OEM. Results reveal new measures for addressing operational, social and technical complexity, providing new insights into complex dynamic behavior. From a managerial point of view, contributions of CASS are twofold: First, new possibilities for NPD governance emerge from performance indicators. Second, the extraction of dynamic socio-technical networks supports project-to-project learning.

Panarchy theory focuses on improving theories of change in natural and social systems to improve the design of policy responses. Its central thesis is that successfully working with the dynamic forces of complex adaptive natural and social systems demands an active adaptive management regime that eschews optimization approaches that seek stability. This is a new approach to resources management, and yet no new theory of how to do things in environmental and natural resources management, particularly one challenging entrenched ways of doing things and the interests aligned around them, is likely to gain traction in practice if it cannot gain traction in the form of endorsement and implementation through specific laws and regulations. At some point, that bridge must be crossed or the enterprise of putting panarchy theory into panarchy practice will stall. Any effort to operationalize panarchy theory through law thus comes up against the mission of law to provide social stability and the nature of law itself as a complex adaptive system. To state the problem in another way, putting panarchy theory into practice will require adaptively managing the complex adaptive legal system to adaptively manage other complex adaptive natural and social systems, all in a way that maintains some level of social order. Panarchy theorists have yet to develop an agenda for doing so. It is time for lawyers to join the team.

In popular dialogues, describing a system as "complex" is often the point of resignation, inferring that the system cannot be sufficiently described, predicted nor managed. Transport networks, management infrastructure and supply chain logistics are all often described in this way. Academic dialogues have begun to explore the collective behaviors of complex systems to define a complex system specifically as an adaptive one; i.e. a system that demonstrates 'self organising' principles and 'emergent' properties. Based upon the key principles of interaction and emergence in relation to adaptive and self organising systems in cultural artifacts and processes, this paper will argue that complex systems are cultural systems. By introducing generic principles of complex systems, and looking at the exploration of such principles in art, design and media research, this paper argues that a science of cultural systems as part of complex systems theory is the post modern science for the digital age. Furthermore, that such a science was predicated by post structuralism and has been manifest in art, design and media practice since the late 1960s.

This paper will explore the concept of resilience from its roots in ecology to the application of this ecological concept of resilience to social and community resilience in the context of climate change. In this context, resilience is seen as a property of complex adaptive communities rather than of individuals. This paper will explore how this ecological concept of resilience has been taken up both by climate adaptation research and by the Transition Town movement. This ecological concept of resilience is at odds with the individualism of both psychological and economic approaches to resilience in relation to climate change.

The Complexity Revolution

Schools as social complex adaptive systems: A new way to understand the challenges of introducing the health promoting schools concept

Organizations and Complex Adaptive Systems explains complexity theory within the organizational studies and discusses the applicability of complex adaptive systems principles for intraorganizational and interorganizational levels. Complex adaptive systems and complexity theory have been studied in many different fields of science. When studying the application of complex adaptive systems within social sciences, not many are seen in real terms in contrary to the myriads of theories and propositions available. The complex adaptive systems perspective is presented in quantitative terms in natural sciences, but a quantitative approach has not been used within social sciences a lot comparatively. This book links the basics of complex adaptive systems to social sciences, focusing on organizational studies and covering interorganizational, organizational, and individual levels. It shows the latest state of knowledge on the topic and will be of interest to researchers, academics, managers, and students in the fields of management, organizational theory and behavior, and strategic management.

BackgroundThe concept of complexity is used in palliative care (PC) to describe the nature of patients’ situations and the extent of resulting needs and care demands. However, the term or concept is not clearly defined and operationalised with respect to its particular application in PC. As a complex problem, a care situation in PC is characterized by reciprocal, nonlinear relations and uncertainties. Dealing with complex problems necessitates problem-solving methods tailored to specific situations. The theory of complex adaptive systems (CAS) provides a framework for locating problems and solutions.This study aims to describe criteria contributing to complexity of PC situations from the professionals’ view and to develop a conceptual framework to improve understanding of the concept of “complexity” and related elements of a PC situation by locating the complex problem “PC situation” in a CAS.MethodsQualitative interview study with 42 semi-structured expert (clinical/economical/political) interviews. Data was analysed using the framework method. The thematic framework was developed inductively. Categories were reviewed, subsumed and connected considering CAS theory.ResultsThe CAS of a PC situation consists of three subsystems: patient, social system, and team. Agents in the "system patient" are allocated to further subsystems on patient level: physical, psycho-spiritual, and socio-cultural. The "social system" and the "system team" are composed of social agents, who affect the CAS as carriers of characteristics, roles, and relationships. Environmental factors interact with the care situation from outside the system. Agents within subsystems and subsystems themselves interact on all hierarchical system levels and shape the system behaviour of a PC situation.ConclusionsThis paper provides a conceptual framework and comprehensive understanding of complexity in PC. The systemic view can help to understand and shape situations and dynamics of individual care situations; on higher hierarchical level, it can support an understanding and framework for the development of care structures and concepts. The framework provides a foundation for the development of a model to differentiate PC situations by complexity of patients and care needs. To enable an operationalisation and classification of complexity, relevant outcome measures mirroring the identified system elements should be identified and implemented in clinical practice.