A neo-complexity orientation to action research: perspectives on unpredictability and ethics
Main Article Content
Abstract
The influence of complexity theory on action research scholarship and practice has been kaleidoscopic. Further integrating ideas derived from the complexity sciences could enrich this research tradition, but there are choices to be made about what to prioritise. We distinguish complexity-informed approaches that privilege control from those adopting radical open-endedness. The former often aligns with managerialist assumptions, which tend to deny the messiness and moral dimensions of living and working. In contrast, ‘neo-complexity’ aims to reemphasise the most intellectually, politically, and emotionally radical implications of complexity science: embracing unpredictability, plurality, and practice-based ethics. An example of an action research coalition of Ethiopia, Mursi and UK researchers allows us to describe what this means in practice.
Keywords: complexity, unpredictability, agro-pastoralists, research methods
Una orientación neocomplejista hacia la investigación-acción: Perspectivas sobre la imprevisibilidad y la ética
La influencia de la teoría de la complejidad en la investigación-acción académica y la práctica ha sido caleidoscópica. Una mayor integración de las ideas derivadas de las ciencias de la complejidad podría enriquecer esta tradición de investigación, pero es necesario tomar decisiones sobre qué priorizar. Distinguimos los enfoques basados en la complejidad que priorizan el control, de aquellos que adoptan una perspectiva radicalmente abierta. Los primeros a menudo se alinean con los supuestos gerencialistas, que tienden a negar el desorden y las dimensiones morales de la vida y el trabajo. En contraste, la “neocomplejidad” busca volver a enfatizar los elementos más radicales intelectual, política y emocionalmente de la ciencia de la complejidad: la adopción de la imprevisibilidad, la pluralidad y la ética práctica. Un ejemplo de una coalición de investigación-acción de investigadores de Etiopía, Mursi y el Reino Unido nos permite describir lo que esto significa en la práctica.
Palabras clave: complejidad, imprevisibilidad, agropastoralismo, métodos de investigación
Bibliography: Solsø, Karina/Crewe, Emma/Chauhan, Kiran: A neo-complexity orientation to action research: perspectives on unpredictability and ethics, IJAR – International Journal of Action Research, 1-2025, pp. 43-58.
Article Details
Literature
Allen, P., Maguire, S., & McKelvey, B. (2011). The SAGE handbook of complexity and management.
SAGE.
Argyris, C., &Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. Jossey-Bass.
Axelby, R., Worku-Dix, B., & Crewe, E. (2022). Global partnerships on paper and in practice: Critical observations from inside a Global Challenge Research Fund capacity-development project. Journal of International Development, 34(8), 1496–1508. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3649.
Bartels, K., &Friedman, V. (2022). Shining light on the dark side of action research: Power, relationality and transformation. Action Research, 20(2), 99–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503221098033.
Bernstein, R. J. (1991). The new constellation. Polity Press.
Blangy, S., Deffner, A., Rixen, A., Couétil, T., Lamalice, A., Donohoe, H., &Labba, N. (2024). The role of participatory action research (PAR) in the emergence of self-determined Indigenous research responding to major societal issues. Research for All, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.14324/RFA.08.1.01.
Bradbury, H. (2022). Action research: Time to act with maturity. Action Research, 20(4), 315–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503221133981.
Bradbury, H., & Reason, P. (2003). Action research: An opportunity for revitalizing research purpose and practices. Qualitative Social Work, 2(2), 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325003002002003.
Crewe, E. (2014). Doing development differently: Rituals of hope and despair in an INGO. Development in Practice, 24(1), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2014.867308.
Cunliffe, A., Gorli, M., Ivaldi, S., &Scaretti, G. (2020). Emotions as inspiration for reflexivity in action research. In L. Hersted, O. Ness, & S. Frimann (Eds.), Action research in a relational perspective. Routledge.
Davison, R. M., Martinsons, M. G., & Wong, L. H. M. (2022). The ethics of action research participation. Information Systems Journal, 32(3), 573–594. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12363.
Delgado-Baena, A., &Sianes, A. (2022). Epistemic injustice and dissidence: A bibliometric analysis of the literature on participatory action research hosted on the Web of Science. Action Research, 20(4), 315–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503221126531.
Eikeland, O. (2007). Why should mainstream social researchers be interested in action research? International Journal of Action Research, 3(1), 38–64. https://doi.org/10.3224/ijar.v19i3.05.
Eikeland, O. (2012). Action research – applied research, intervention research, collaborative research, practitioner research, or praxis research. International Journal of Action Research, 8(1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1688/1861-9916_IJAR_2012_01_Eikeland.
Frimann, S., Hersted, L., & Søbye, A. (2020). Action research in the perspective of becoming: The significance of reflexive dialogue. In L. Hersted, O. Ness,&S. Frimann (Eds.), Action research in a relational perspective. Routledge.
Halås, C. T. (2022). Praxeological dialogues from within, handling tensions in dialogical praxis-oriented action research. International Journal of Action Research, 11(2), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.3224/ijar.v18i2.04.
Hansen, F. T. (2022). What would an apophatic action research look like? Learning to consider delicate matters of silence and wonder in professional practices. International Journal of Action Research, 18(2), 110–115. https://doi.org/10.3224/ijar.v18i2.02.
Hersted, L., Ness, O., & Frimann, S. (Eds.). (2020). Action research in a relational perspective. Routledge.
Huchler, N., & Sauer, S. (2015). Reflexive and experience-based trust and participatory research: Concepts and methods to meet complexity and uncertainty in organisations. International Journal of Action Research, 11(1+2), 146–173. https://www.budrich-journals.de/index.php/ijar/article/view/26650.
Jaeggi, R. (2016). Alienation. Columbia University Press.
Lenette, C. (2022). Participatory action research: Ethics and decolonization. Oxford University Press.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Sociological Issues, 2(4), 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x.
McNamee, S. (2020). Action research as ethical practice: Coordinating voices, expanding possibilities. In L. Hersted, O. Ness,&S. Frimann (Eds.), Action research in a relational perspective. Routledge.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. University of Chicago Press.
Morin, E.,&Kern, A. B. (1999). Homeland earth: A manifesto for the new millennium. Hampton Press.
Mowles, C. (2021). Complexity: A key idea for business and society. Routledge.
Peirce, C. S. (1877). The fixation of belief. Popular Science Monthly, 12, 1–15.
Phelps, R., & Hase, S. (2002). Complexity and action research: Exploring the theoretical and methodological connections. Educational Action Research, 10(3), 507–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790200200198.
Phillips, L., & Scheffmann-Petersen, J. (2020). Inclusion and exclusion in action research on personcentered health care: A framework for cultivating the tensions in dialogue. In L. Hersted, O. Ness, & S. Frimann (Eds.), Action research in a relational perspective. Routledge.
Radford, M. (2007). Action research and the challenge of complexity. Cambridge Journal of Education, 37(2), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640701372582.
Ramalingam, B. (2013). Aid on the edge of chaos. Oxford University Press.
Rosa, H. (2020). The uncontrollability of the world. Polity Press.
Rosenhead, J., Alberto Franco, L., Grint, K., & Friedland, B. (2019). Complexity theory and leadership practice: A review, a critique, and some recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 30(5), 101304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.07.002.
Snowden, D. (2002). Complex acts of knowing: Paradox and descriptive self-awareness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(2), 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270210424639.
Stacey, R. D.,&Mowles, C. (2016). Strategic management and organisational dynamics: The challenge of complexity to ways of thinking about organisations. Pearson.
Taskan, B., Junca-Silva, A., & Caetano, A. (2022). Clarifying the conceptual map of VUCA: A systematic review. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 20(7), 196–217. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-02-2022-3136.
Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567–582. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.5.567.7810.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002.
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361.
Wood, P.,&Butt, G. (2014). Exploring the use of complexity theory and action research as frameworks for curriculum change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(5), 676–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2014.921841.