Paradigms and Disciplines as Adaptive Emergences

Barry White

University of Auckland

What is it about?

Like paradigms and disciplines complexity is not an objectively given characteristic but a characteristic of a description (Fioretti & Visser, 2004). It is in this context that complexity theory seeks to understand phenomena as part of a fabric of relations (Alhadeff-Jones, 2008). In decentralized systems with sufficient mass, internal redundancy, richness of interactions and reproductive instability the result (Mason, 2008), as in the case of paradigms and disciplines, is emergence: unpredictable but self-organizing, self- transformative, non-linear, patterned and adaptive processes. It is these processes of emergence that theories of complexity are concerned with understanding. In this case an understanding is sought of the nature of paradigms and disciplines as complex systems and of the dynamics of the interaction between them.

Why is it important? 

Disciplines are the dominant principle around which contemporary universities are organised. It is important, therefore, to understand how they evolve. As complex systems disciplines respond to changing epistemological insights and social needs by developing new relationships and interrelationships with one another (Rowland, 2006). In this sense they exhibit a central feature of complexity: autocatalysis, the ability of systems to evolve. But, because they are stable enough to recognize over time disciplines also exhibit homeostasis, the ability of systems to maintain a coherent identity (Smith & Jenks, 2006). They also exhibit autopoiesis, unique characteristics that enable complex adaptive systems to create conditions for their own survival. In addition, disciplinary norms are constraints on semiosis: as in complex systems parts sacrifice their plasticity to serve the needs of meta-systems, in this case of paradigms.

How the session will be run 

Classification is necessary for cognition but disciplinary work gives rise to a dilemma: where does the work fit in the whole if there is a whole for anything to fit in (Crusius, 1991)? Can complexity theory help resolve or at least assist in coming to terms with the dilemma? After discussing the case for comprehending paradigms and disciplines as adaptive emergences questions such as this will be posed.

References

Alhadeff-Jones, M. (2008). Three Generations of Complexity Theories: Nuances and

            Ambiguities. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 66-82.

Crusius, T.W. (1991). A Teacher’s Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics. Urbana:                            

             National Council of Teachers of English

Fioretti, G., & Visser, B. (2004). A Cognitive interpretation of organizational complexity. 

             Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 6(1-2), 11-23.         

Mason, M. (2008). What is Complexity Theory and What are its Implications for Educational

             Change? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 35-49.

Rowland, S. (2006). The Enquiring University: Compliance and Contestation in Higher

             Education. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open 

             University Press                                

Smith, J., & Jenks, C. (2006). Qualitative Complexity. Abingdon: Routledge