The Margaret t-shirt series

CLICK HERE TO SEE OUR MARGARET SERIES T-SHIRTS

My wife, Maggie--who is a member of the art and science factory team--is known by friends and family for her humorous turn of a phrase or otherwise funny quips. A common response made by others to her is, "You have to put that on a t-shirt!" So we did. Or, at least, we are now starting to do so.



Our first t-shirt is "the stupidity is killing me," which is our laugh-out-loud reaction to the increasing inability of people to come together to discuss, address or solve even the simplists of problems; or, alternatively, the failure of people to act in a civilized, caring manner. Is it asking too much?
CLICK HERE TO SEE OUR MARGARET SERIES T-SHIRTS


.

I recently ran across some very interesting art work by James Moss, who describes himself as an "Artist/Educator - integrating science and spirit through the interconnected phenomena of emergent complexity, self-organization, self-similarity, and consciousness, to reveal a larger unifying fractal paradigm underlying individual and cosmic evolution."

What I like about his work is his attempt to transfer the pictoral representation of mathematical dynamical systems--fractals, etc--onto the canvas, rather than simply generating them via computer. Paint always has the element of time involved, because it simply takes time to paint, and so the images always come across richer and more interesting--at least that is my bias.

To check out his work, go to his blog, Metamorphoptics

Complexity Theory, Managerial Science and the Problems of Definitions

This post continues my discussion about the challenges associated with how one goes about testing the validity and utility of the particular definition of a complex social system one uses.

I ran across an excellent article in the journal Educational Management, Administration and Leadership by Keith Morrison, titled Complexity Theory, School Leadership and Management: Questions for Theory and Practice [2010, 38(3):374-393]. Morrison has written extensively about the utility of complexity science for the field of education, primarily in terms of leadership issues.

What makes the article so good is that it rigorously deconstructs how the management literature fails to effectively distinguish between the metaphorical versus prescriptive versus descriptive use of the term complex system. Too often (and I personally think almost always) scholars in the management and leadership literature (particularly in the field of education) write about a phenonomena such as autopoiesis as if they can move back and forth between their various uses of the term. For example, in the same argument they will treat autopoeisis as something that is real, something you can cause to happen, or just a really cool way to see things. Or, one finds these scholars saying such things as "Principals needs to teach their faculty to think of their schools as complex, self-organizing systems, because schools are alive and autopoietic, so that they can create a nonlinear learning environment." What does such a sentence mean? Can a school be alive? Can you create a nonlinear working environment? What would such an environment be--one where lots of work leads to little change; or little work leads to sudden great change?

The above sentence is the type of conflated intellectual sloppiness that Morrison addresses in his article. I hihgly recommend reading it.

making definitions of complexity clear

This post continues my discussion about (1) the need for researchers to be clear about the definition of complexity they use and (2) to make sure that they test or demonstrate that the system they are studying actually meets the criteria of their definition.

As I have said in previous postings, I am not advocating a strict realist definition of complexity, such that the definitions researchers use and then test have to reveal the fundamental reality of the object they are studying as complex. One can use complexity as a metaphor (as in the case of postmodern complexity), as a proactive concept (as in the case of the leadership literature) or as a empirically useful way of describing something (as in the case of the natural and artificial sciences). What I am saying, however, is that one's definition should be rigorously applied.

My second and related point is that we need rigor in our definitions to bring together the otherwise disparate areas of study in complexity science. Synthesis in complexity science will not come through the construction of a singular definition. Instead, synthesis will come from researchers empirically, proactively, or metaphorically demonstrating that the definitions they use form a gestalt--a whole that is greater than its parts. And, it should be clear to readers and fellow researchers how the components of one's definition go together.

As a final point, researchers need to be careful that they do not move in and out of empirical to proactive to metaphor in their definitions. To me, this type of intellectual slippage is one of the major ways that scholars in the social sciences and humanities get into trouble with their usage of complexity science.

For example, a scholar will empirically demonstrate how a particular system of study is self-organizing. With this success, the scholar will proceed to make a whole bunch of additional definitional assumptions that the proof of self-organization means the system is also agent-based, network-like in structure, and nonlinear (one of the most misused mathematical terms by social scientists and humanities scholars). The term nonlinear, for example, is almost always used in a metaphorical way by social scientists and humanities scholars, to suggest that a social system is messy, not easily managed or controlled or not easily understood via statistical method. In actuality, nonlinear means that the system or, more specifically, the equation or equations used to understand a system are such that their output is not directly proportional to their input. In other words, when the term 'nonlinear' is used in a realist sense, it means that the system being studied and the factors of which it is comprised cannot be written as a linear combination. Furthermore, as a system, these equations are therefore usually impossible to solve, except through computational methods that provide proximate solutions; and the problems are often unstable, that is chaotic, operating near chaos, etc. So, if the researcher has empirically demonstrated that a system is self-organizing but uses the term nonlinear in a metaphorical manner (which may be close to its correct usage but not quite), then the researcher is really causing definitional confusion through a lack of rigor and clarity. For such a researcher to proceed to response to critics (who are rightfully confused) by arguing that the lack of clarity in his or her work is a function of studying complexity--when it is really a failure in the usage of some of the components in her or his definition--is to perpetuate rather than solve the problem they are working so hard to address.

Defining and Test Complex Social Systems

As regular readers of this blog know, I am currently working on a community health study with my colleague, Galen Buckwalter, wherein we are testing to see if the complex system definition used by current researchers has any degree of cohesion and if this definition, in its totality, applies to the typical community of study. I am also working on a study of public school systems with my brother, John Castellani, who is at Johns Hopkins, to see if and how best a public school system can be conceptualized as a complex social system.

In my literature review, I came across the following article. In the 2010, Volume 70Issue 10 edition of Social Science and Medicine, Keshavarz, Nutbeam, Rowling and Khavarpour published their empirical article, “Schools as Social Complex Adaptive Systems: A New Way to Understand the Challenges of Introducing the Health Promoting Schools Concept."

The article fits with my recent discussions about definitions because the goal of the article is to determine the “relevance and usefulness of the concept of ‘complex adaptive systems’ as an approach to better understanding ways in which health promoting school interventions could be introduced and sustained” (p. 1468).

To arrive at their definition of a complex social system, they reviewed the literature. For them, a complex social system—which they call social complex adaptive system—is comprised of a key set of characteristics, which they list on page 1468 of the article. I will not review these characteristics here. Suffice to say, they did what I have been talking about: they outlined a definition and proceeded to use empirical data to determine if their system of study (a school system) meets the criteria of their definition. They used two data sources: public school reports and qualitative interviews.

Using this data, they went through each component of their definition to see if it provided them an empirically relevant and useful way of thinking about their educational system of study. Related, their ultimate goal was to see if the utility of each component lent itself to an improved way of understanding how health promotion programs should be implemented. In other words, if schools can be adequately framed as complex systems, then what does each component of their definition add to their understanding of how health promotion should be effectively accomplished.

In addition to their attempt to empirically examine the utility of their definition, toward the end of their article they outline many of the issues I have been discussing lately. On pages 1472-1473, they state:

"Utilising complex adaptive theory to guide enquiry into a discrete phenomenon (such as a health promoting school) is a challenging task, in part due to the complexity of the theory itself, and in part because of the continuing uncertainty on a clear definition of complex adaptive systems (Rickles et al., 2007; Wallis, 2008). While there has been a recognition of complexity, and steady increase in the use of complexity theory in the study of health care and public health interventions (Keshavarz, Huges, & Khavarpour, 2005; Resnicow & Page, 2008; Shiell et al., 2008) there has been relatively little critical analysis of the concept, and no single and clear account of the components of complex adaptive systems theory and how these components relate to each other (Dooley, 1997; Rickles et al., 2007; Wallis, 2008). Furthermore, as Chu et al. (2003) argue there are few experimental studies that test complexity theories, and there exists even less research into practice informed by the insights that might be provided by complexity science. Correspondingly, application of a complex adaptive systems framework to a social system requires considerable caution, but suggests the need for continued exploration."

-----------------
What makes the article by Keshavarz, Nutbeam, Rowling and Khavarpour even more important to read is that it was followed by a Commentary by Tamsin Haggis, who provided her own very sympathetic yet useful and critical reading of their article. In turn, the first authors were allowed to published their response to Haggis' critique.

Rather than make a case for which argument I think wins out in the end, I recommend others go read the articles and decide for themselves. Actually, I think both sides have some important points to make, and it is not really a matter of who wins, but how their arguments work together to help make some important advances.

Complexity Art at the SF MOMA

Over the past year I have been making an argument for the emergence of a movement i call, for the lack of a better term, complexity art.  This movement is not a singularity and the artists working in or near or along side its central ideas are by no means confined to it.  Nonetheless, the term, for me, points to something taking place in the current globalized art world.

Having said that, I recently wrote a brief description for one of the artists (Damon Soule) that i see involved in this work, who recently had a book signing at the San Francisco MOMA.  The reviewer of their work kindly mentioned my notion of complexity art.  CLICK HERE TO READ THE ARTICLE

SACS Toolkit and Baltimore County School System

My brother and I are at the International Sociological Association, presenting our paper on the SACS Toolkit and its application to the study of Baltimore County Public Schools as a complex system. The conference is in Goteborg, Sweden with the RC51 (Sociocybernetics) gang. If you want a copy of our paper, go to my Center for Complexity in Health Website. It will be uploaded by Thursday, the 15th.

Tack

How Should Complex Systems Be Tested?

This post extends a conversation I began on 19 May 2010, titled testing the validity of complex systems. This is the fifth post on this topic since then.

The argument I am making is that researchers need to do some sort of complete (holistic) test of their topic, to: (1) make sure that the definition of a complex system they are using applies; and(2) make sure that their topic fits this definition.

The question I want to address here is how should such holistic testing be done?

Again, this will take a bit of blogging, but it seems to me that testing can be thought of at two basic levels.

1. Deep/Thorough Testing: The first and most rigorous level would require one or more studies devoted to a sort of deep or thorough testing to determine if one's definition of a complex system applies to a give topic and, related, if that topic can be validly and reliably called a complex system.

This first type of testing is the focus of the community health science study I am doing with my colleague, Galen Buckwlater. For the last couple years, researchers have been explicitly or implicitly treating communities and their health as if these things are complex social systems. Our research question is: is such an assumption valid and reliable? In other words, can one assume that the commonly used definition of a complex system applies to the study of communities and their health and, conversely, can communities and their health be called a complex system?

To conduct this type of test, we did the following. (A) First, we reviewed the literature to determine what the common definition of a complex system is that researchers use. (B) Next, we found a case study that represented the average community researchers typically study and collected data on it. (C) Then, we took each descriptor from the common definition of health and ran a series of tests. For example, a commonly held assumption is that communities are self-organizing. To determine if this is true, we examined if the conception of self-organizing used by these researchers to determine exactly what they mean by this concept. Then, we empirically tested this concept of self-organization to see if our community actually engaged in this behavior. In total, we ran ten individual testsn on the commonly used definition of complex system used in the community health science literature. It was a tremendous amount of work. And, in the process we used a wide arsenal of techniques, including hierarchical regression, curvilinear regression, correlation, k-means cluter analysis, the self-organizing map neural net algorithm, network analysis, qualitative case-based comparative method and computational (agent-based) modeling.

One can think of this first type of testing as helping a field along by increasing the rigor of its concepts and its knowledge of the type of complex system it it studying.


2. Shallow/Preliminary Testing. The second type of testing is what we might expect all researchers to do before and during the process of modeling a particular topic as a complex system. In this case, one would begin by explicitly outlining the particular definition of a complex system one is using. Then, one would conduct some type of preliminary tests to determine if one's topic is, indeed, a complex system.

The testing in this second case is likewise rigorous but it is more background work. Also, it is something that takes place before and during the model building process. The quality of one's results is something that is reported in the methods section of a study.

I have used this type of testing in a couple studies we have done. The first one was my research with Fred Hafferty on medical professionalism and the second was the book on sociology and complexity science that I wrote with Fred as well. In both instances we articulated the definition of a complex system we were using and tested to see if our topic fit it reasonably well.

This second type of testing involves the development of what we call a meta-model, and it is one of the first steps in the SACS Toolkit modeling process--this is the new method Fred and I developed for studying complex systems. SACS stands for sociology and complexity science. For more about our method, see our BOOK

Developing a meta-model (a model of one's model) allows researchers to determine, right from the beginning, if their definition of a complex system is rigorous and if their topic is (empirically speaking) a complex system. In addition to the development of a meta-model, the SACS Toolkit has a total of nine built-in procedures that researchers are expected to use to explore their definition and topic in complex systems terms. My brother John and I are writing a paper on how the SACS Toolkit does this and will be presenting it this summer in Sweden at the International Sociological Association Meetings. I should be done with the paper in the next couple weeks and will post it on here. I also plan to blog more about the SACS Toolkit so that readers can get a better sense of the method.

Complexity Definitions Need to Best Tested as a Whole

This post extends a conversation I began on 19 May 2010, titled testing the validity of complex systems. This is the fourth post on this topic since then.

Okay, I am getting a bit closer to what I am trying to say about testing. When I say definitions needs to be empirically grounded and tested I mean that the entire definition, as a whole, needs to be empirically grounded and tested. To date, most empirical inquiry in the complexity sciences focuses on parts of the complexity science definition. Researchers study networks or they study dynamics or they study emergence, autopoiesis, self-organization (a.k.a swarm behavior) and so forth. Two things are held as true in these studies. First, that the things being studied are actually complex systems. Second, that the part of the complexity science definition the researcher is studying naturally integrates into the larger complex systems scheme of things. My questions is, how do you know both of these things are true about the topic one is studying?

One way I think researchers can be sure is to do a complete (holistic) test of their topic, (1) to make sure that the definition of a complex system they are using applies and (2) to make sure that their topic fits this definition. For example, if researchers assume that a complex system is self-organizing, emergent, comprised of a large network of interacting agents and open-ended, then these researchers should have a series of tests to validate if this definition (in its entirety) applies to the topic they are studying. Alternatively, such a complete set of tests makes sure that the topic these researchers are studying is actually a complex system, or at least the type of complex system they seek to study.

Operationalizing metaphor

This post extends a conversation I began on 19 May 2010, titled testing the validity of complex systems.


I my last two posts I've argued that one should have a way to determine empirically if the topic one is studying is actually a complex system. Related, I've argued that the definitions complexity scientists use to identify a topic as a complex system should likewise be empirically grounded and tested. In this post, I want to comment further why I think doing such things is important.

Two words: operationalizing metaphor. I have read far too many articles and books in the last couple years that are little more than undisciplined, metaphorical labyrinths verging on the same sort of nonsense that took place at the high point of the postmodern movement in the 1990s. I've read articles talking about turning one's business firm or one's educational system into a self-organizing, emergent, agent-based network in order to optimize profits or learning, as if one could make a social system self-organize. Is that not contradictory? How does one make a system self-organize, given that a self-organizing system is one where there is no guiding external force controlling the systems's organization? Or, how about pushing one's business to the edge of chaos in order to profit from its nonlinear dynamics? What does something like this mean? Do these writers really understand what nonlinear (which, last I looked is a mathematical term) means? Related, what is nonlinear management? Or, how about talking about any and all social change as if they were the product of tipping points? When I hear such discussions I am reminded of the first time I heard a politician talk about "deconstructing" some political process to get to the bottom of things. Worse, when I hear such complexity science nonsense, I fear the next Sokal Hoax. Remember how the physicist, Alan Sokal, submitted his completely nonsensical postmodern text to the periodical, Social Text, and got it accepted, only to reveal later that the entire text was garbage. Sokal's hoax was done with complete seriousness. He was not trying to say that postmodernism was useless. Instead, he felt that postmodernism had some important things to offer, but only by increasing its rigor. I'm not saying that some of the complexity science literature has reached this point. But, it is close. If complexity science is going to make important inroads into mainstreet science, many of its new practitioners need to be more empirically rigorous and discerning in the definitions they use and the topics they call complex systems.

Is what you are studying a complex system?

This post extends a conversation I began on 19 May 2010, titled testing the validity of complex systems.

My basic argument is that we simply too often assume that any topic we are studying is a complex system simply because we say so--regardless of the definition we are using.

Now I know that the definition of a complex system is encyclopedic, such that many definitions exist. And, of course, I am not arguing for a single standard by which all topics should be judged worthy of being called a complex system.

But, I am arguing that, regardless of the definition researchers use, they should have some way of testing their topic to see if and how it acts like a complex system.

For example, pretend one assumes that complex systems have the following characteristcs: they are self-organizing, emergent, operating near chaos, and agent-based. Definition in hand, one then goes out to study a local community, a formal organization or some social network. Before one begins, however, shouldn't there be some set of preliminary tests done; some sort of way to determine if what one is studying is actually self-organizing, emergent, etc? Related, what would one look for to determine if such characteristics exist? What tests would one use? What methods would be relevant to conduct these tests? And, what if one finds that one or more of these characteristics is lacking, or only exists in a modified form? What then?

Again, I am not saying that one test or definition fits all. But, I am saying that the definitions complexity scientst use to identify, model and study various topics as complex systems should have a bit more empirical rior. These definitions should be tested and held up to empirical validity and reliability. One should be able to talk intelligently about what one means when one is calling something a complex system.

testing the validity of complex systems

I could be wrong here, and I am not entirely sure about the argument I am making, but it seems to me that much of the work being done in complexity science has yet to reach a point where topics are tested to see if and how they function as complex systems. There is lots of work on the network structure and dynamics of various systems; there is lots of agent-based modeling, and some of this work has gotten along enough to do both agent-based modeling and network analysis. Then there are various forays into emergence, self-organization, autopoiesis, swarm behavior, dynamics, chaos, evolution, and measurments of complexity. But, there is yet to be any sort of criteria set by which researchers can go out and determine if and how some topic of study is and acts like a complex system.

I am not setting up a straw person here. I know our field is very new; in fact, in some ways there is no complexity science; there are, instead, the complexity sciences. I know there are multiple definitions of what a complex system is; and i know we work in a broad range of fields, making any sort of singular statement both impossible and, at least from my perspective, unncessary. we can accept that complexity is an encyclopedic term and leave it at that.

So, for sake of discussion, let's just focus on the social sciences. In the social sciences, there does not seem to be much research actually applying the full force of complexity science to the study of a topic. Researchers do not seem to often take a topic, apply some criteria or empirical tests to see if it functions like a complex system, and then proceed on to examine the topic in complex systems terms.
Instead, it just seems that most topics are assumed to be complex systems, and some aspect of them is studied, say their network structure or the role agent-based interaction plays in their emergence.

My colleague, Galen Buckwalter and I are working on a paper now that does just the sort of thing we are talking about. Our work is in community health science. We are trying to take a topic and say, "okay, we think this community can be studied as a complex system; we think it acts like a complex system, and we have all these methodological tools that we can use to explore the empirical validity of our conjectures, so, let's proceed, in litmus test fashion, to determine if and how our community acts like a complex system."

Why do we think this is important? Well, I guess I will need to blog on it a bit, but for now I think the main answer is that, without some type of empirical and methodological rigor established (start with a, then move to b, etc), it becomes impossible to pull together the arsenal of tools, theories and concepts complexity scientists have created over the last three decades to get the most out of studying any given topic in the social sciences in complex systems terms. That is all for now, but i will try to say more and say it better.

Michelangelo and Complexity Part 2

Okay, so a few of my personal art critics asked me to push the painting you see above a bit further. To see the older version, click here The argument was that I needed to develop the network more, to make it stand out. I think it was a very good recommendation and I like this version of the painting much better. So, here is it.

Homage to Michelangelo and Complexity

Michelangelo and Da Vinci's work are a major source of inspiration for my artistic and scientific work in complexity. Their Renaissance attitude is, in many ways, what complexity science, with its multi-disciplinarity and systems perspective is all about.

In the painting I have posted here I had a very specific goal. I wanted to do a painting in the manner of Michelangelo: a painting that focused on the human body and that celebrated the mathematical and scientific dimensions of art. However, I wanted to create a painting that fit with my own 20th century attitudes.

So, the first step was to determine how I wanted to approach the body. I stayed away from the over-muscular work of Michelangelo, opting instead for a more realistic portrait. I also wanted to have the person pose in a somewhat more humble and less grandiose manner--something that honored the dignity of humans but without going overboard. In the complex, global society in which we live, humility and a recognition of one's deep interconnectedness to the world, at least for me, is an important ethical position. I wanted to reflect that in the painting.

The second step was to incorporate a Zen Buddhist perspective into the painting. For me, the symbolism I primarily focused on revolves around the sky, clouds, and the circle, which have a lot to do with systems thinking, holism, interconnectedness, meditation and bodhichitta.

The final step was to incorporate some of the latest developments in complexity science and mathematics, namely networks and fractals. Math and science were an important part of Renaissance painting, and they are likewise important in my own work. In a fractal-like manner, there are levels of scale in the painting: there are large circles, which suggest a larger network that cannot be entirely seen; then there is the specific network structure surrounding the figure.

So far, reaction to the painting has been mixed. That is understandable because I struggled with the painting myself. I would like to continue exploring this type of painting, working next with more than one person or playing off of different poses that Michelangelo used in his own work.

Complexity in Health Group

It has been a while since my last post. My research colleagues and I have been busy creating a new research center for studying health and health care via the tools of complexity science. It is called, appropriately enough, the Complexity in Health Group. Much thanks to Michael Ball and Kenny Carvalho for their incredible viking work.

CHECK OUT THE SITE: cch.ashtabula.kent.edu

HERE IS A QUICK OVERVIEW OF THE CENTER'S MISSION STATEMENT AND AREAS OF RESEARCH

The Complexity in Health Group (CHG) promotes the application of complexity science to the study of health and health care through a cross-disciplinary program of teaching, training and research. The CHG’s application of complexity science includes complex systems thinking, computational modeling, network analysis, data mining, and qualitative and historical approaches to complexity. The CHG is specifically committed to collaborating with health care centers and practitioners in Ashtabula County, Ohio; and to students and faculty at Kent State University. The CHG is affiliated with the Robert S. Morrison Health and Science Building, Kent State University at Ashtabula. Other affiliations we are working on include Kent State University’s College of Public Health and the Kent-Summa Institute for Clinical and Translational Research.

The Group will have several foci:

• Becoming a leading international research center in the application of complexity science to the study of health and health care;
• Generating revenue for our campus through extramural funding;
• Fostering interdisciplinary research with faculty at the Ashtabula campus, as well as Kent State University and other universities;
• Developing our undergraduate student population’s skills in science, technology and mathematics in application to health and health care, particularly public health;
• Developing collaborative research relations with local health agencies and businesses to promote the public health of Ashtabula County.

The current topics of the CHG are:

• Studying how communities, as complex systems, impact residential health, particularly in disadvantaged communities;
• Developing new tools for measuring and teaching medical students, residents, and clinical faculty about the challenges of medical professionalism in today’s complex health care system, both nationally and globally;
• Using network analysis to research how medical learning environments shape nurses and physicians;
• Studying how public educational systems impact the health and wellbeing of children.
• Developing the SACS Toolkit, a new method for studying health and health care from a complexity science perspective.

Westside Market, Cleveland Ohio, Complexity Photo

Balcony View of the Westside Market, Cleveland Ohio, 1971 & 2010



This photomontage highlights how Cleveland’s past is part of our present moment and how, in many ways, our city’s past remains alive for us, if we only take a moment to look. The focus of this montage is one of Cleveland’s most important landmarks, the Westside Market. Located at the corner of West 25th Street and Lorain Avenue, Cleveland’s Westside Market has been in business since 1840.

TO PURCHACE A COPY OF THIS PHOTO, "CLICK HERE"

Description of the Photomontage
The photos in this montage were taken at two different points in time. The black and white photos were taken circa 1970, courtesy of the Cleveland Public Library. The color photographs were taken in 2010 by the artist.

Some things stay the same: Much of the Westside Market, despite the many years, remains the same: fans on walls, posters, light fixtures, etc. What is odd about these remains is that, while some are very important, others continue for no apparent reason. It is as if somebody forgot about them or nobody ever thought to take them down. In the far left side of the picture, for example, is a really old fan. Why is it there? Does it still work? It begs the question about how history comes to us; perhaps, sometimes, as remains or leftovers from the past; things people forgot about or were too busy to clean up. Funny! Then there are those things that remain because of the important value they hold: the architecture, style of the booths, etc. Perhaps the best example is the old steer’s head on the butcher’s booth in the lower left side of the picture—it is still there, some 40 years later.

And then things change: History is not just the study of the past; it is also the study of how things have changed. Much has changed at the Westside Market over the last 40 years. For example, looking at the montage, it appears that the only booth from the 1970s that is still operating today is Fernengels—see the middle right side of the photograph. Other changes can be found in the montage as well: clothing styles, eyewear, hats, the types of produce sold in the booths, etc. If one had enough time, a rather interesting anthropology of Cleveland’s culture could be constructed from this montage.

Similarities and differences aside, the people in these photographs all seem to be enjoying the same thing: the food! Food is such an important part of our lives, and places like the Westside Market struggle to keep the “open-market” approach going—not an easy task in a world full of suburban-based, giant-sized, high-convenience food stores. It is great to see the Market still thriving after all these years! Long live the traditions of Cleveland.

The Increasing Complexities of Professionalism

My colleague, Fred Hafferty, and I have been working for the past five years to articulate a grounded theoretical frame for understanding medical professionalism, primarily by applying the tools of complexity science. Our work, to date, has been mixed methods--historical, qualitative, numerical, networks.

We finally published a somewhat comprehensive overview of what we mean when we say "medical professionalism is a complex system."

Click here for a summary of our article "The Increasing Complexities of Medical Professionalism"
The article is our second major statement on professionalism from a complexity science perspective.
The first, published in 2006, can be found here:
"The Complexities of Professionalism: A Preliminary Investigation?

There is still lots of work to do and, in part, many of our ideas are tentative and somewhat vague. But, we at least have a reasonably solid grasp of the point we are trying to make.

The article was published in the February 2010 Edition of Academic Medicine, which is a special edition for the Flexner Centenary. (Click here to learn more about Flexner)

Dad/Son Inside/Outside Summer/Winter

Here is another assemblage photomontage. The photos are by my nephew, Kevin Rusnak, and by me.

21st Century Dinner Party—Cathy’s House

The following photo is part of my new series of work.
In what follows, I provide a series of powerpoint slides that explain what is going on in this photo. Just click on the slide to enlarge and read it.

Slide 1


Slide 2


Slide 3


Slide 4


Slide 5


Slide 6


Slide 7


Slide 8


Slide 9

Cesar Hidalgo: Complexity Art and Science

If you spend any time regularly visiting Barabasi's website, you have seen the incredible work he has done with Cesar Hidalgo--as the above picture shows.

Cesar Hidalgo is a Research Fellow at Harvard University's Center for International Development. His doctoral work is in physics at Notre Dame, where Barabasi worked before moving to Northeastern University.

In terms of research, Hidalgo has done some absolutely incredible stuff, applying the new science of networks to the study of global economy and (working with colleagues, particularly, Gonzalez) mobility within networks.

In terms of global economy, you need to see the supporting website for his work with Barabasi and colleague on the product spaces of various nation-states. CLICK HERE

In terms of his work with Barabasi and Gonzalez on mobility patterns within networks, CLICK HERE.


What I also find fascinating about Hidalgo's work is that he approaches networks as objects of art--something I obviously take rather seriously, as my recent posts have shown. To see some of Hidalgo's network art, CLICK HERE.

Much is made of the C.P. Snow's two cultures--art and science. However, if you spend any time looking at the networks created by Barabasi, Hidalgo and colleagues, it is clear that the boundaries between art and science need not be so rigid. Looking at their networks is an act of both science and art. They are both intellectually incredible and artistically brilliant!

Festivus Art Show

Thanks to everyone who came out to see our work at the Festivus Art Show, held by the most excellent Cleveland Gallery WALLEYE. What a great opportunity to buy local for the holidays and support Cleveland Artists. The WALLEYE Gallery is doing a great job!! CLICK HERE to read more about the gallery.

Also, thanks to the WALLEYE Gallery, you can buy some of our stuff for the next couple shows at their Boutique, located in the basement of the gallery.

Small Assemblage Photos

Here are examples of the 3D photo cut-ups I have been working on the past couple weeks. These are photos that I have taken of family, friends or my art work, which I then use to create 3D cut-ups. Most are small--4X6 or 8X10 inches, so they work in a variety of smaller environments. They are mounted on canvas board.

Odd Mall Was a Success!

Here is a picture of my wife, Maggie, and our daughter, Ruby at the OddMall Show--the art show in Hudson Ohio we set up shop at this past weekend. We had a lot of fun, got to meet some great people, and we actually sold a few things. Not bad for a day's work. Thanks to everyone who came to our booth and supported us. See you soon at the next OddMall Show.

Click here to get information about the show

Complex Network Sculpture

Here is a complex network sculpture I did. I used foam-core, toothpicks, wooden sticks(all painted in acrylic) to create this sculpture. I wanted to see what a network would look like in 3-D. The networks currently used in science are usually compressed into a 2-D space. Here is what I came up with. I think it is rather nifty.

Odd Mall Show, Saturday, Nov 7th

Click here to get information about the show

For local folks, the Art & Science Factory (my business) will be selling its wares at the Odd Mall Show in Hudson Ohio! This is one of the best art venues in Northeastern Ohio. Incredibly great art and lots of "out there" stuff. We went last year and spent lots of money. This year will be even better because we are in the show! Ha!

Network Musings

This is a painting I recently completed that addresses several influences I have been wrestling with. On the scientific side is the new science of networks; on the artistic side is Italian art, surrealism, abstraction and pop. More specifically, my goal was to find the middle grounded between a scientific and artistic approach to social networks. The network in this painting is from my research on social networks in medical education.

The painting is mixed media: acrylic paint and cut-out, 3-D foam core and poster board. The painting is 24 X 48 inches.

MFA in Computational Art

Okay, this is amazing! At Goldsmiths, University of London, you can get an MFA in computational art.

Here is a description of the program.

Here is a link to projects.

What is Generative Art? Complexity Theory as a Context for Art Theory

Okay, this is about as "out there" as art gets. I found this fascinating article by Philip Galanter, of the Interactive Telecommunications Program, New York City, USA.

The title of the article is:
What is Generative Art? Complexity Theory as a Context for Art Theory.

Here is the abstract from the paper:

Abstract
In this paper an attempt is made to offer a definition of generative art that is inclusive and provides fertile ground for both technical and art theoretical development. First the use of systems is identified as a key element in generative art. Various ideas from
complexity theory are then introduced. It is noted that systems exist on a continuum from the highly ordered to the highly disordered. Citing examples from information
theory and complexity science, it is noted that highly ordered and highly disordered systems are typically viewed as simple, and complex systems exhibit both order and disorder. This leads to the adoption of effective complexity, order, and disorder as organizing principles in the comparison of various generative art systems. This inclusive view leads to the somewhat surprising observation that generative art is as old as art itself. A number of specific artists and studies are discussed within this systems and complexity theory influenced paradigm. Finally a number of art theoretical questions are introduced to exercise the suggested generative art definition and implicit paradigm.

As I understand this paper, generative art follows the guidelines of complexity science and, more specifically, Joshua Epstein's work on generative computational social science. Here, the idea is that art is generated from the bottom-up by some iterative artistic process, followed to its logical conclusions, forming some type of emergent system. The rules can be anything--paint right, then left, then up, each turn of the paint being a different color, to produce some painting.

These paintings can be highly ordered or fall into total chaos. One can catalogue these various systems paintings, and so forth. In my mind, Chuck Close's abstract portraits is a good example of a highly ordered complex system. Galanter may disagree. Either way, it is a very interesting and provocative paper worth reading.

Complexity and Art

For the past couple weeks I have been touring the web looking for anything I can find on the relationship between complexity and art. To my surprise I've found some very amazing stuff.

One of the first things I found is a book my the well-known mathematician and complexity scientist, John Casti and a colleague of his, Anders Karlqvist, of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. It is called Complexity and Art.


(Click here to see a preview on Google Books)


The book is the outcome of a one-week meeting of complexity scientists and artists in Sweden, during which they explored how artists conceptualize and deal with complexity. In this case, they explored complexity as both an aesthetic and empirical topic. The meeting took place in 1998 and the book was published in 2002. Albeit a bit old, the book is very fascinating and worth an explore!

The Big Duh Self-Portrait

This past week I painted my first self-portrait. My brilliant nephew, Kevin Rusnak, took the photo of me at a family barbecue.

I decided to call this painting The Big Duh Self-Portrait, in homage to Chuck Close's Big Self-Portrait and to Richard Avedon--two of my favorite artists. Despite all my interest in complexity, I am ultimately drawn to the human face and portrait. Painting this picture was a lot of fun--albeit a bit weird, as I have never painted myself before. As you also can see, I very much enjoy self-deprecating humor--not something as widely celebrated in highbrow art as it should.

Here is a SLIDE SHOW of the portrait as I worked on it.

cartoon comics complexity -- or, one big mob

I have always been a huge comics fan. I wasn't so much into the superhero genre, though. I was drawn more to humor, social critique and science-fiction comics. In particular, I was a huge fan of MAD Magazine. My specific heroes were Don Martin, Sergio Aragonés, and those drawing during the 1970s, early 1980s.

For some reason, I have always treated comics as something worthy of the canvas. As such, for years, I have been painting, as well as drawing, comic characters. Most of my work aims at creating complex forms. My inspiration comes from complexity science--in particular, fractals, chaos theory, and dynamical systems--and, in terms of art, the complex forms created by many Asian wood and ivory carvings, and by the various battle and group scenes sculpted, carved or painted during the Renaissance. In fact, many of my cartoons are 3-D: i start with some backdrop (canvas, wood, foamcore board) upon which i glue various 3-D figures. it is very time consuming and tedious, but the result is very satisfying.

I call my cartoon complexity OneBigMob.

For more pictures, visit my website.

If you really dig these images, see my cartoon t-shirts at my Cafe Press store.

Pockets Full of Memories -- Complexity Art

On 1 Sept 2009 I posted on the "SOM for qualitative data" work done by Timo Honkela and colleagues at the Helsinki University of Technology. Exploring Timo Honkela's work further, I found out that he and his colleagues are also involved in the application of the SOM to the world of art.

They were involved (2003-2006) in an incredible interactive exhibition at the Centre Pompidou Museum of Modern Art in Paris.
Here is a brief description of the exhibition from the website--which you can visit by clicking here.

"Pockets Full of Memories" is an interactive installation that consists of a data collection station where the public takes a digital image of an object, adds descriptive keywords, and rates its properties using a touchscreen. The data accumulates through-out the length of the exhibition. The Kohonen self-organizing map algorithm is used to organize the data, moving the images of the objects into an ordered state according to similarities defined by the contributors’ semantic descriptions. The archive of objects is projected large-scale on the walls of the gallery space showing various visualizations such as the objects positioned in the 2D matrix, their movement over time, and textual descriptions. The audience can also interact with the data online to access descriptions of the objects and to contribute comments and messages to each object from anywhere in the world.

Grounded Neural Networking

If you are into neural nets, you know about the Laboratory of Computer and Information Science at the Helsinki University of Technology. One of the Department's most important professors is Teuvo Kohonen, the creator of the self-organizing map algorithm (SOM). The deparment also provides one of the best shareware downloads (SOM Toolbox) for using the SOM--it runs in the MatLab environment.

As I discussed in a previous blog (4/01/09), in 2003 I published an article in Symbolic Interaction exploring how qualitative researchers can use the SOM to conduct grounded theoretical investigations of large, complex, numerical databases. For the next six years, I sat around hoping someone other than myself would find the idea interesting and useful. Nothing happened! I know that publishing on mixed methods seldom goes anywhere, but I thought that, with the incredible advances taking place in complexity science and informatics and the internet, qualitative researchers would eventually consider the idea.

They have yet to do so. But, perhaps the latest article by Nina Janasik, Timo Honkela, and Henrik Bruun of the Helsinki University of Technology can change people's minds.

The title of their article is TEXT MINING IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH. The purpose of the article is to show qualitative researchers how to apply the SOM to qualitative data.


Here is the abstract:

---------------------------------------------
ABSTRACT
The article provides an introduction to and a demonstration of the self-organizing map (SOM) method for organizational researchers interested in the use of qualitative data. The SOM is a versatile quantitative method very commonly used across many disciplines to analyze large data sets. The outcome of the SOM analysis is a map in which entities are positioned according to similarity. The authors' argument is that text mining using the SOM is particularly effective in improving inference quality within qualitative research. SOM creates multiple well-grounded perspectives on the data and thus improves the quality of the concepts and categories used in the analysis.
---------------------------------------------

When I read this article I was more than a little excited! I cannot tell you how much time I spent between 2001 and 2003 at the Helsinki website trying to learn about the SOM and figuring out how to use the SOM Toolbox. Let's just say it was a lot and leave it at that. I also cannot tell you how much respect I have for the researchers there. Incredible research; they make their work and software freely available to others. It is just fantastic.

I also have to say that Janasik, Honkela, and Bruun do an excellent job addressing the limitations of my 2003 article--in particular, how I did not go far enough in demonstrating just how useful the SOM is for qualitative work. As such, I agree completely with their critique. And, I agree that any qualitative researcher trying to figure out how to do their work in the digital age should read this article.

Enough said...





Key Words: grounded theory • constructivism • self-organizing map • text mining • document interpretation

Mother & Daughter Assemblage

Here is a photographic example of the assemblage process. In this photo a mom and her daughter are integrated to form a system and yet their differences remain. Note the similarities in eyes, chin, nose, etc as these part are assembled into one another to form the picture.

Reuben Margolin -- think Leonardo Da Vinci meets Complexity Science

Okay, just in case you do not agree with my art postings about the connection between art and complexity science, you need to look at the work of Reuben Margolin. He is a modern day Leonardo Da Vinci! If you did not think art and math and dynamical systems had anything to do with one another, then it is time for you to change your mind.

Reuben Margolin does kinetic sculptures--sculptures of geometry, dynamical systems, waves, etc. it is art meets math.

Click here to watch a great video of his work.

Or, you can visit his website, which has lots of video links on YouTube.

I am just in awe of this guy's work!

Space Madonna 2 -- a complexity theory painting

Here is a second version of my Space Madonna. The focus in this painting, as in most of my work, is the creation of a multi-singularity; that is, an assemblage of disparate elements (multiplicity) that form a whole (singularity).

Space Madonna -- a complexity theory painting

Here is a painting I recently completed, or one version of it. It combines cubism, abstract expressionism, pop, illustration, icons, and surrealism into one painting, with the focus on my approach to art--see previous post.

Urbino Sociocybernetics Conference Papers

Well, I am back from a couple weeks in Europe where I attended the sociocybernetics conference in Urbino. The conference focus was life on the web, and related to this topic, e-science and web science.

Here is a link to the conference website.

Here is a link to the papers presented at the conference.

Here is a link to the paper I presented, including my powerpoint. NOTE: click on Paper #6.

My paper and presentation explore how the SACS Toolkit is useful for modeling complex systems using web-based (digital) data.

It was a fantastic conference and I met a bunch of really great people! Thanks to Fabio Giglietto and his graduate students for hosting a great conference!

Foucault & Complexity

The past several days I have been searching the web for articles or books that explore the connections between Foucault's work and complexity science. I am happy to report that I have found a few very interesting things.

First, Kurt Richardson and Paul Cilliers (who have written some incredible stuff on complexity and management and complexity and philosophy) have a book Explorations in Complexity Thinking. It is an edited book comprised of the pre-proceedings submitted for the two-day Complexity and Philosophy workshop held 22nd-23rd February 2007, in Stellenbosch, South Africa.

One of the pre-postings is by Ken Baskin, who is affliated with The Instititute for the Study of Coherence and Emergence (ISCE), which originally grew out of the New England Complex Systems Institute's Organizational-Related Programmes department in mid-1999.

Baskin's paper is Foucault, Complexity, and Myth: Toward a Complexity-based Approach to Social Evolution (a.k.a. History). (You can preview the paper by opening the cover in Amazon and going to it--it is the first chapter in the book)

Second is Mark Olssen's Foucault as Complexity Theorist: Overcoming the problems of classical philosophical analysis. Published in Educational Philosophy and Theory. Olssen is at the University of Surrey.

As I come across more articles and books I will post them.

The Built Environment: Communities as Complex Systems

One of the fastest growing areas in the study of community health in complex systems terms is the built environment literature.

The built environment refers to the human-made surroundings that provide the setting for human activity, ranging from large-scale civic surroundings to smaller settings such as work and home.

The term is also now widely used to describe the interdisciplinary field of study which addresses the design, management and use of these human-made surroundings and their relationship to the human activities which take place within them. The field draws upon a wealth of disciplines and areas of study including geography, urban planning, epidemiology, computational and spatial economics, law, medicine, health care, medical sociology, management, architecture, and design and technology.

An excellent website that has devoted considerable attention to this topic is The Prevention Institute. Check it out for more information, in particular their PDF on eleven communities that have implemented programs to improve the built environment.

Other places to explore include:

1. The Center for the Built Environment at Berkeley.

2. The Built Environment Blog.

3. The Built Environment and Health at Columbia University.

Social Science & Medicine: Special Edition on Health & Complexity

In 2007, the periodical, Social Science & Medicine (one of the leading journals in community health science) published a special edition on the complexities of studying community health--65, Nov 2007, starting page 1281.

The theme of the special edition was PLACING HEALTH IN CONTEXT. As the editors of this edition, James Dunn and Steve Cummins state, "While there is a long history of interest in place and health in the geography of health, in the past decade or more a number of disciplines have witnessed an increasing interest in the ‘effect’ that attributes of collective social organization and the local built environment at neighbourhood scale have on a variety of social outcomes, including health, health behaviours, early child development, youth delinquency, crime and deviance, political behaviour, employment outcomes and other economic opportunities" (p. 1821).

While Dunn and Cummins agree that significant advances resulted from the research surrounding the community-as-context model (see earlier post), there is much still to be done. Put simply by me (and I do mean simply), the community-as-context model needs to be replaced by the community-as-complex-system model. That is not quite what they say, but it works for a general sense of the articles. The community-as-context needs to get sophisticated; as it stands currently, it lacks the theoretical and methodological rigor to get the job done.

As data for my statement, here, for example, is a quote from Dunn and Cummins toward the end of their editorial overview: "The collection of papers presented here that sow the seeds of debate, for example, on the role of neighbourhood preference in understanding associations between context and health, is a potential lightning rod. Similarly, the use of complexity theory, given its novelty and its dissimilarity to the conventional ‘black box’ approach of investigating the effects of interventions should also spark responses in the literature. All of the papers in this Special Issue point us in compelling new directions for research that places health in context. We hope that this special issue sparks debate and new lines of inquiry and look forward to its future repercussions" (p. 1821).

The list of authors that Dunn and Cummins draw upon is impressive. The arguements made by these authors is even more incredible. Agree with them or not, you need to read this special edition and consider the arguments its authors make!

Interview with David Byrne

The following is a brief interview I conducted with British Sociologist and Complexity Scientist, David Byrne.

Dr. Byrne is Professor in the School of Applied Social Sciences at Durham University, England, where he is also Director of Postgraduate Studies. Dr. Byrne is the author of several books and a long list of articles, including his 1998 book, Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences--the first book to critically review and explore the application of complexity science to sociological inquiry. His most recent book, edited with noted sociologist and methodologist, Charles Ragin is The SAGE Handbook of Case-Based Methods

Dr. Byrne is an expert in methods, urban planning, community health, social policy, social exclusion and complexity science.

-----------------------------------------------
INTERVIEW WITH DR. BYRNE

CASTELLANI: Dr. Byrne, thanks so much for taking the time to do this interview. Your research agenda is rather vast in its scope—ranging from the philosophy of complexity science to method to urban planning to health care inequality. If you do not mind, I am going to narrow in on method first, given its wider implications for those reading this blog—most of whom are students and researchers new to the field of complexity science and its practice within sociology.

A. Case-Based Research
CASTELLANI: For the last several years, you have been a major advocate of a case-based approach to research. You specifically endorse what you and Charles Ragin refer to as Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). First, how do you define QCA?

BYRNE: It is a method which is ‘set theoretic’ i.e. it understands causal relations in the social world in terms of relationships in combination – sets, rather than the unique contribution of single variables. It is based on systematic comparison – essentially an extension of John Stuart Mills’ method of differences. It requires careful qualitative engagement with specific cases as the foundation of that comparison.

CASTELLANI: Of the three major types of QCA (crisp-set, multi-value and fuzzy set), which do you find most useful and why? Or, do you approach the distinctions within QCA a different way?

BYRNE: I generally work with crisp set techniques and actually almost never go beyond the truth table. So I use QCA as a kind of mix of exploratory / explanatory – often focusing on ‘contradictory configurations’ in which the assemblage of elements in the line of the truth table – the configuration – generates different outcomes. That makes me look at those cases for what else is different about them. I see multi-value QCA as an extension of crisp set but it is much more complex to use. I frequently use Cluster Analysis as a data reduction technique and binarize membership of a cluster. Fuzzy set is very interesting and I have thought about how we might use distance from a cluster centre as a fuzzying principle but I have never managed to bring it off.

CASTELLANI: For researchers and graduate students new to case-based research, what is your best argument (apologetic) for including QCA in their toolbox of techniques?

BYRNE: For me the crucial things about QCA are the following:

•It allows for complex causation – lots of things acting together to generate an outcome. Conventional statistical modelling can do this in a limited sort of way through interaction.

•It allows for multiple causation – different combinations – in QCA terms configurations – can generate the same outcome. More than one way to skin a cat.

•It really makes us think about ‘what is a case’ – what Charles Ragin calls the processes of casing – just as important to specify the character and boundaries of cases as to be careful about operationalizing in measurement of what I prefer to call attributes or variate traces rather than variables.

•It really does have qualitative phases – conventionally at the beginning because the researcher really does have to engage closely with cases using qualitative techniques in order to establish attribute values. If you start, as I have often, with a data set of pre-given measures, you often have to move on to qualitative investigation to explore further differences.

•That word – differences – QCA is founded on distinctions.


B. Epistemology

CASTELLANI: Your research agenda is grounded in what you refer to as a complex/critical realist approach. What is complex/critical realism?

BYRNE: The term comes from David L. Harvey and his collaborator Reed. It involves a synthesis of the critical realist perspective of Roy Bhaskar (but the early Bhaskar) and complexity theory. So it says most of the world is made up of complex systems – although see Paul Cilliers’ important work on how such systems are both real and the products of scientific construction – the complexity part. Then it endorses critical realism’s deep ontology of the real as generative mechanisms, the actual as the contingently and contextually expressed outcome of those mechanisms (I wish we had another word than mechanisms), and the empirical as what we as scientists make from those mechanisms in action in the actual. Note ‘make’. This is a constructionist position but one which says that the real also has a say.

CASTELLANI: Why should researchers consider your epistemological approach important enough to adopt?

BYRNE: I would say it is David L. Harvey’s and I adopted his approach because it enabled me to make sense of social causality and allows agency, including conscious and informed agency, into play with the potential for knowledge to actually be applied in a meaningful and useful fashion. Does that for me and I recommend the treatment to others for the same reason.

C. The Complexity of Place, Space and Health.

CASTELLANI: Our Q&A is situated within the larger theme that I have been blogging on for the past couple weeks: how to improve the community health science literature by adopting a complexity science perspective.

You may disagree, but a major theme that I see in your work over the last decade is your rigorous and nuanced attempt to develop a methodological-epistemological framework researchers can use to develop better models of the complexities surrounding place, space and health. This includes the complexities of social exclusion, urban planning, spatial inequality, and the challenges surrounding the relationship between individuals and the communities in which they live. For example in your chapter, Complex and Contingent Causation—the Implications of Complex Realism for Quantitative Modeling (found in Carter and New’s Making Realism Work, 2004) you address one of the biggest challenges facing the community health science literature today: the inability of researchers to create a satisfactory way to address the relationship between micro-level health outcomes and aggregate level phenomena such as the neighborhood effect.

You state: “Multi-level modeling has been proposed as a way of resolving the difficulties of cross-level relationships among individually expressed health and social conditions. This interesting approach does represent a genuine effort to confront problems which are central to the relationship between the collective and the individual. However, this chapter will argue that the approach remains unsatisfactory, precisely because it ‘disembodies’ both aspects of the complex individual and aspects of the complex social systems through which individuals lead their lives” (p. 51).

CASTELLANI: What do you mean that researchers tend to “disembody” complexity?

BYRNE: Disembody is a specific kind of abstraction. Abstraction is necessary – I think Katherine Hayles is great on this in her How we became post-human but we also have to be very careful. I was using Chris Allen’s arguments – which I found interesting, well put and provocative – to frame my own argument. Chris was saying: don’t lets regard agentic human beings as physiological dopes ‘determined’ by the external and their own attributes in interaction. He pointed out that there is real variation in outcome – the reality of any probabilistic form of explanation of cause e.g. in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). I agree up to a point but think that we can move towards a better account if we think really hard about complex and contingent causation. I have written elsewhere about how I don’t have TB despite being exposed to cases in adolescence and having a very strong Heaf test reaction at that point. Too well fed, too well housed, and with parents who didn’t get the disease or die of it whilst they both had siblings who did and did so bred for resistance. But if I get AIDS or am starved in conditions like a WWII Japanese prisoner of war camp, then I will get TB. That is complexity expressed in my individual body and I want a modelling process which moves towards allowing for that.

CASTELLANI: As a solution, how do you think the methodological-epistemological framework you have developed helps researchers to preserve the complexity of their models?

BYRNE: First by making us think about it. Second, by looking for and using methods, quantitative and qualitative, which respect the complexity of the real as opposed to artificial (I owe this distinction to Elias Khalil) world. So always be skeptical about simplicity. It might be there but mostly it isn’t.

CASTELLANI: Related, you and others (such as Paul Cilliers and Charles Ragin) have criticized complexity scientists for making the same reductionistic mistake as multi-level researchers: complexity scientists still seem to reduce to an unnecessary level the complexity of systems. Why do you think complexity scientists fall prey to this reductionistic tendency? How do they get out of this trap?

BYRNE: See Morin’s excellent essay on this very point at: http://cogprints.org/5217/1/Morin.pdf

My take is that the kind of complexity which says we can always generate complexity from simple interactions following for example rules – note always, I have no quarrel with sometimes here – ends up with specifications which ‘look like’ the laws of Newtonian science although of course they are nothing of the kind. However, they are reductionist – you can do this if not in a white coat then in a techy sort of way which makes you look like a proper scientistic scientist. There is a real battle to be fought here although interestingly there are physicists – Peter Allen’s excellent work for example – and lots of eco centred biologists – as well as medics – who are beginning to recognize that they cannot deal with problems of explanation and action without dealing in what Morin calls general complexity.

D. The Future of Sociology

CASTELLANI: Without creating a straw-person, I think it is fair to say that sociologists, particularly those in the main-street of the profession have been slow to embrace or involve themselves in a critical dialogue with complexity science. What is your best argument for why sociologists should involve themselves in the new science(s) of complexity?

BYRNE: Because it allows us to deal with systems without falling into the Parsonian trap (although note that Parsons did have a sense of the complex from time to time). It also is a way towards agentic intervention. My first degree was in Sociology and Social Administration – we would usually but not necessarily correctly talk about Social Policy instead of administration today – and my Master’s was in that field rather than mainstream Sociology. I am an applied social scientist and complexity pushes towards action. It also is a way of getting past what frankly I see as the dead hand of much of contemporary sociological theory. Post modernism is a dead end but I am thinking here as much of Giddens and even of Bourdieu (and I have a deal of respect for Bourdieu). We need to engage empirically and get beyond the absolutely necessary preliminary task of empirical description into a serious and non-positivist engagement with social causality. That is what complexity lets me do.

---------------------
CASTELLANI: Dr. Byrne, thank you so much for your time. For more information on Dr. Byrne's work, visit his website by clicking here.