COMPLEXITY THEORY

What is complexity theory?

For Laplace and Newton, the universe was rationalistic, deterministic and of clockwork
order; effects were functions of causes, small causes (minimal initial conditions)
produced small effects (minimal and predictable) and large causes (multiple initial
conditions) produced large (multiple) effects. Predictability, causality, patterning,
universality and ‘grand’ overarching theories, linearity, continuity, stability, objectivity,
all contributed to the view of the universe as an ordered and internally harmonistic
mechanism in an albeit complex equilibrium, a rational, closed and deterministic system
susceptible to comparatively straightforward scientific discovery and laws.

From the 1960s this view has been increasingly challenged with the rise of theories of
chaos and complexity. Central to chaos theory are several principles (e.g. Gleick, 1987;
Morrison, 1998):

 Small-scale changes in initial conditions can produce massive and unpredictable

changes in outcome (e.g. a butterfly’s wing beat in the Caribbean can produce a
hurricane in America);
 Very similar conditions can produce very dissimilar outcomes (e.g. using simple
mathematical equations (Stewart, 1990);
 Regularity and conformity break down to irregularity and diversity;
 Even if differential equations are very simple, the behaviour of the system that
they are modelling may not be simple;
 Effects are not straightforward continuous functions of causes;
 The universe is largely unpredictable;
 If something works once there is no guarantee that it will work in the same way
a second time;
 Determinism is replaced by indeterminism; deterministic, linear and stable
systems are replaced by ‘dynamical’, changing, evolving systems and non-linear
explanations of phenomena;
 Continuity is replaced by discontinuity, turbulence and irreversible
transformation;
 Grand, universal, all-encompassing theories and large-scale explanations provide
inadequate accounts of localized and specific phenomena;
 Long-term prediction is impossible.
 Order is not predetermined and fixed;
 Social behaviour, education and learning are emergent, and are marked by
recursion, feedback, evolution, autocatalysis, openness, connectedness and self-
organization (e.g. Doll, 1993);
 Social life, education and learning take place through the interactions of
participants with their environments (however defined, e.g. interpersonal, social,
intrapersonal, physical, material, intellectual, emotional) in ways which cannot
be controlled in an experiment;
  Local rules and behaviours generate diversity and heterogeneity of practice,
undermining generalizability from experiments about ‘what works’.

Complexity theory has entered the world of social sciences and is providing not only a
significant challenge to existing research methods, but is suggesting alternative ways of
conceiving the world and, thereby, of researching it (c.f. Morrison, 2002; 2003). Here we
outline some key features of complexity theory, and tease out its implications for
educational research.

It is a truism to state that society is changing, and that the paradigms for understanding
society, themselves, are changing. Change is ubiquitous, and stability and certainty are
non-concepts in complexity theory. Educational research can be viewed through the lens
of complexity theory, replacing positivism with complexity theory (Lewin, 1993;
Morrison, 2002). The elements of complexity theory are set out in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Components of complexity theory

Complex adaptive
systems

Connectednes Emergenc
s e

Distributed Uncertainty
control and
unpredictability

Dynamic Nonlinear
al systems
systems

Holis Diversity
m
COMPLEXIT
Open systems Y Networks

Feedback Organizational
and recursion learning

Relationship Communicatio
s n

Selforganized Order
criticality without
control
Selforganization
Complexity theory looks at the world in ways which break with simple cause-and-effect
models, linear predictability, and a dissection approach to understanding phenomena,
replacing them with organic, non-linear and holistic approaches (Santonus, 1998, p. 3) in
which relations within interconnected networks are the order of the day (Youngblood,
1997, p. 27; Wheatley, 1999, p. 10).

Through feedback, recursion, perturbance, auto-catalysis, connectedness and self-

organization, higher and greater levels of complexity and differentiated, new forms of life,
behaviour, systems and organizations arise from lower levels of complexity and existing
forms. These complex forms often derive from comparatively simple sets of rules – local
rules and behaviours generating emergent complex global order and diversity (Waldrop,
1992, pp. 16-7; Lewin, 1993, p. 38; Åm, 1994). General laws of emergent order can
govern adaptive, dynamical processes (Waldrop, 1992, p. 86; Kauffman, 1995, p. 27).

Figure 2: the rise of emergence in complexity theory

EMERGENT STRUCTURES

GIVE RISE TO
INFLUENCE INFLUENCE

LOW LEVEL ELEMENTS

In Figure 2 the interaction of individuals feeds into the wider environment which, in turn
influences back into the individual units of the network; they co-evolve, shaping each
other (Stewart, 1991). Bar-Yam (1997) suggests that a complex system is formed from its
several elements, and that the behaviour of the complex system as a whole is greater than
the sum of the parts (see also Goodwin, 2000, p. 42).

Fixity in the environment and its components does not exist; stability is the stability of the
mortuary. Stable systems, as Stacey (1992, p. 40) reminds us, ultimately fail. Indeed
April (1997, p. 26) suggests that change and unpredictability are requirements if an
organism is to survive: ‘a butterfly which flies in a straight line without zigzags will fall
prey very fast’. A heartbeat is marked by regularity immediately prior to cardiac arrest.
Change and movement are necessary for survival. Disequilibrium is vital for survival.
The caterpillar must cede to the butterfly if the species is to survive.

Feedback must occur between the interacting elements of the system. Complexity
theorists (Waldrop, 1992; Cilliers, 1998) have turned to Hebb’s (1949) views on learning
in respect of feedback for development. Hebb’s operates on an associationist or
connectedness principle (‘joined-up thinking’): if X and Y occur together then an
association between the two is formed in the brain synapses; if there is recurrence of the
association between X and Y then the strength of that connection is increased into strong
‘cell assemblies’; if recurrence is minimal or non-existent then the association decays and
dies. If, each time I encounter mathematics, I experience pain, then, naturally, I will tend
to associate pain with mathematics, and this will shape my reactions to it. I may avoid
mathematics or take steps to reduce the pain etc., i.e. I have learned something and it
affects my behaviour.

Negative feedback – for example learning that one has failed in a test – brings
diminishing returns (Marion, 1999, p. 75); it is regulatory. Positive feedback brings
increasing returns and uses information not merely to regulate but to change, grow and
develop (Wheatley, 1999, p. 78). It amplifies small changes (Stacey, 1992, p. 53;
Youngblood, 1997, p. 54). Senge et al. (2000, p. 84) cite the example of a baby animal
whose eating is voracious. The more it eats, the faster it grows; its rate of growth
accelerates. Once a child has begun to read she is gripped by reading, she reads more and
learns at an exponential rate.

Not only can feedback be positive, it also needs to be rich. If I simply award a grade to a
student’s work, she cannot learn much from it except that she is a success or a failure, or
somewhere in between. If, on the other hand, I provide rich feedback she can learn more;
if I only point out two matters in my feedback then the student might only learn those two
matters; if I itemize ten points then the student might learn all ten of them. We have to
recall that the root of ‘feedback’ is ‘food’, nourishment rather than simply information of
low-level curriculum facts.

Connectedness, a key feature of complexity theory, exists everywhere. In schools,

children are linked to families, teachers, peers, societies and groups; teachers are linked to
other teachers, other providers of education, support agencies like psychological and
social services, policy-making bodies, funding bodies, the legislature, and so on. The
school is not an island, but is connected externally and internally in several ways. Indeed,
many schools sink under internal communication and connectedness, through
memoranda, meetings, paperwork, assessment data, inspection data, working parties,
policy and curriculum development groups, e-mail, voice mail and a host of other forms.
The price of communication is high in terms of teacher stress.

Connectedness is exemplified neatly in another setting. Take a rainforest; in it ants eat

leaves, birds eat ants and leave droppings, which fertilize the soil for growing trees and
leaves (Lewin, 1993, p. 86). As April et al. (2000, p. 34) remark, nature possesses many
features that organizations crave: flexibility, diversity, adaptability, complexity, and
connectedness. Connectedness is required if a system is to survive; disturb one element in
the connections and either the species or system must adapt or die; the process is
inexorable. Connectedness through communication is vital. This requires a distributed
knowledge system, in which knowledge is not centrally located in a command and control
centre or in a limited set of agents (e.g. a government); rather it is dispersed, shared and
circulated throughout the organization and its members.
If learning through feedback is to take place, if connectedness is to work successfully, and
if knowledge is to be collected from a distributed, dispersed system, then an essential
requirement is effective communication and collaborative learning. Communication and
collaboration are key variables (c.f. Peters, 1989; Cilliers, 1998). Communication is
central to complexity theory.

Emergence is the partner of self- organization. Systems possess the ability for
self-organization, which is not according to an a priori grand design – a cosmological
argument – nor to a deliberately chosen trajectory or set of purposes – a teleological
argument. Rather, self-organization emerges of itself as the result of the interaction
between the organism and its environment (Casti, 1997), and new structures emerge that
could not have been envisioned initially (Merry, 1998).

The movement towards greater degrees of complexity, change and adaptability for
survival in changing environments is a movement towards ‘self-organized criticality’ (Bak
and Chen, 1991; Bak, 1996), in which systems evolve, through self-organization, towards
the ‘edge of chaos’ (Kauffman, 1995) (defined below). Take, for example, a pile of sand
(Bak, 1996). If one drops one grain of sand at a time a pyramid of sand appears.
Continue to drop another granule and a small cascade of sand runs down the pyramid;
continue further and the sand pile build up again in a slightly different shape; continue
further and the whole pyramid falls down like a house of cards. This is chaos, and
complexity theory resides at the edge of chaos, at the point just before the pyramid of
sand collapses, between mechanistic predictability and complete unpredictability (Karr,
1995, p. 3; Bak, 1996):

Linear Systems  Complexity  Non-linear Chaos

Stacey (2000, p. 395) suggests that a system can only evolve, and develop spontaneously,
where there is diversity and deviance (ibid., p. 399) – a salutary message for command-
and-control teachers who exact compliance from their pupils.

The exact movement, reconfiguration and subsequent catastrophic destruction of the sand
pile mentioned above are largely unpredictable. At the point of ‘self-organized criticality’
the effects of a single event are likely to be very large, breaking the linearity of Newtonian
reasoning wherein small causes produce small effects. The straw breaks the camel’s back,
and a small cause has a massive effect; a single grain of sand destroys the pyramid.
Change implies, then, a move towards self-organized criticality, and such self-organized
criticality evolves ‘without interference from any outside agent’ (Bak, 1996, p. 31); it
emerges. In the sand pile, Michaels (1995) and Bak (1996) suggest that it would not exist
were it not for the grains of sand relating to each other and holding each other together.
Recalling Hebb’s account of learning earlier, if association is to be strengthened then this
requires collaboration. A significant factor here is that the closer one moves towards the
edge of chaos, the more creative, open-ended, imaginative, diverse, and rich are the
behaviours, ideas and practices of individuals and organizations, and the greater is the
connectivity, networking and information sharing (content and rate of flow) between
participants (Stacey et al., 2000, p. 146).
The above considerations suggest that linear, mechanistic models of research may no
longer apply, and networks and dynamical, ever-changing systems and turbulent
environments are the order of the day. Put simply, ‘complex adaptive systems’ (Waldrop,
1992, p. 294-9) scan and sense the external environment and then make internal
adjustments and developments in order to meet the demands of the changing external
environment. This is the ‘law of requisite variety’ (Ashby, 1964), which states that
internal systems, flexibility, change and capability must be as powerful as those in the
external environment. In the setting of education, in making internal changes in order to
fit the law of requisite variety, school-based, collaborative research is required (Morrison,
2002).

Out go the simplistic views of linear causality, the ability to predict, control and
manipulate, and in come uncertainty, networks and connection, self-organization,
emergence over time through feedback and the relationships of the internal and external
environments, and survival and development through adaptation and change. Society and
societal systems are open; closed systems, as Prigogine and Stengers (1985) remind us,
run down and decay into entropy unless they import energy from outside. They either
adapt or die.

The implications of complexity theory for educational research

Chaos and complexity theories argue against the linear, deterministic, patterned,
universalizable, stable, atomized, modernistic, objective, mechanist, controlled, closed
systems of law-like behaviour which may be operating in the laboratory but which do not
operate in the social world of education. These features of chaos and complexity theories
seriously undermine the value of experiments and positivist research in education (e.g.
Gleick, 1987; Waldrop, 1992; Lewin, 1993.

Complexity theory argues to replace an emphasis on simple causality with an affirmation

of networks, linkages, feedback, impact, relationships and interactivity in context (Cohen
and Stewart, 1995), emergence, dynamical systems, self-organization and distributed
control (rather than the controlling mechanism of an experiment), and open system
(rather than the closed system of the experimental laboratory) (Morrison, 2003). What is
being argued here is that, even if one could conduct an experiment, the applicability of
that laboratory procedure to ongoing, emerging, interactive, relational, changing, open
situations, in practice, would be limited, even though some gross similarities might be
computed through meta-analysis. The world of classrooms is not the world of computed
statistics.

Schools exhibit many features of complex adaptive systems, being dynamical and
unpredictable, non-linear organizations operating in unpredictable and changing external
environments. Indeed schools both shape and adapt to macro- and micro-societal
changes, organising themselves (maybe in response to external constraints and pressures),
responding to, and shaping their communities and society (i.e. all parties co-evolve).
Linear systems demonstrate Newtonian mechanistic predictability and controllability.
Small causes bring small effects and large causes bring large effects. Chaos occurs when
small causes can bring huge effects and huge causes may have little or no effect, i.e.
where unpredictability and uncontrollability reign. Complexity breaks the mechanistic
determinism of linear systems but not in the unpredictable, uncontrolled way of chaos; as
systems move away from linear predictability, the emphasis on creativity, divergence and
fecundity are maximised but are still ordered, before they spill over into the breakdown of
order that is chaos. Complexity theory suggests that the tenets of positivism are highly
questionable. Control, predictability, manipulation and straightforward relationships
between cause and effect no longer hold true in the complex world.

Circular causality and feedback are central elements in complexity theory. Fuchs (2003:
16) indicates that the term social self-organization is implied and

refers to the dialectical relationship of structures and actions

which results in the overall re-production of the system. The
creativity and knowledgeability of actors is at the core of this
process and secures the re-creation of social systems within and
through self-conscious, creative activities of human actors. . . .
The term self-organization refers to the role of the self-conscious,
creative, reflective and knowledgeable human beings in the
reproduction of social systems. (Fuchs, 2003: 16)

Marx’s remark is fitting here and applies to self-organization: we create our own history
but not in circumstances of our own choosing; we are affected by external conditions.

Complexity theory provides a robust critique of positivist approaches to educational

research, for example in experiments. The purposes of experiments are clear – to
establish causality and predictability through control and manipulation. The impact
of complexity theory and chaos theory (Gleick, 1987; Waldrop, 1992; Lewin, 1993;
Kaufmann, 1995) suggests that predictability is a chimera. In educational settings,
Tymms (1996: 132-3) suggests that different outcomes might be expected even
from the same classes taught by the same teacher in the same classroom with the
same curriculum; if something works once there is no guarantee that it will work
again. Hence, if utilization is an important focus then experiments may have
limited utility.

With respect to research methodology, complexity theory suggests that educational

research should concern itself with: (a) how multivalency and non-linearity enter into
decision making in education; (b) how voluntarism and determinism, agency and
structure, lifeworld and system, divergence and convergence interact to bring about or
impede educational change; (c) how to both use, but transcend, simple causality in
understanding the processes of school development and change; (d) how viewing a system
holistically, as having its own ecology of multiply-interacting elements, yields greater
insights than an atomized approach.
Complexity theory suggests that phenomena must be looked at holistically; to atomise
phenomena into a restricted number of variables and then to focus only on certain factors
is to miss the necessary dynamic interaction of several parts. More fundamentally,
complexity theory suggests that the conventional units of analysis in educational research
(as in other fields) should move away from, for example, individuals, institutions,
communities and systems (c.f. Lemke, 2001). These should merge, so that the unit of
analysis becomes a web or ecosystem (Capra, 1996: 301), focused on, and arising from, a
specific topic or centre of interest (a ‘strange attractor’). Individuals, families, students,
classes, schools, communities and societies exist in symbiosis; complexity theory tells us
that their relationships are necessary, not contingent, and analytic, not synthetic. This is a
challenging prospect for educational research, and complexity theory, a comparatively
new perspective in educational research, offers considerable leverage into understanding
societal, community, individual, and institutional change; it provides the nexus between
macro and micro-research in understanding and promoting change.

In addressing holism, complexity theory suggests the need for case study methodology,
action research, and participatory forms of research, premised in many ways on
interactionist, qualitative accounts, i.e. looking at situations through the eyes of as many
participants or stakeholders as possible. This enables multiple causality, multiple
perspectives and multiple effects to be charted. Self-organization, a key feature of
complexity theory, argues for participatory, collaborative and multi-perspectival
approaches to educational research. This is not to deny ‘outsider’ research; it is to
suggest that, if it is conducted, outsider research has to take in as many perspectives as
possible.

In educational research terms, complexity theory stands against simple linear

methodologies based on linear views of causality, arguing for multiple causality and
multi-directional causes and effects, as organisms (however defined: individuals, groups,
communities) are networked and relate at a host of different levels and in a range of
diverse ways. No longer can one be certain that a simple cause brings a simple or single
effect, or that a single effect is the result of a single cause, or that the location of causes
will be in single fields only, or that the location of effects will be in a limited number of
fields.

It is untenable to hold variables constant in a dynamical, evolving, fluid, idiographic,

unique situation. It is a commonplace truism to say that naturalistic settings such as
schools and classrooms are not the antiseptic, reductionist, analyzed-out or analyzable-
out world of the laboratory, and that the degree of control required for experimental
conditions to be met renders classrooms unnatural settings. Yet the implications of this
are perhaps understated in advocating experiments – randomised controlled trials – the
‘gold standard’ of research. Even if one wanted to undertake an experiment, to what
extent is it actually possible to identify, isolate, control and manipulate the key variables
in an experiment, and, thence, to attribute causality?

For example, let us say that an experiment is conducted to increase security and reduce
theft in two schools through the installation of a closed circuit television (CCTV). The
effect is a reduction in theft in the experimental school. Exactly what is the cause here?
It may be that potential offenders are deterred from theft, or it might be that offenders are
caught more frequently, or it might be that the presence of the CCTV renders teachers
and students more vigilant, and, indeed, such vigilance might make the teachers and
students more security-conscious so that they either do not bring valuables to the school
or they store them more securely. The experiment might succeed in reducing theft, but
what exactly is happening in the experimental school? Are the changes occurring in the
teachers, the students, or the thieves, or some combination of these?

We simply cannot infer causes from effects, and it is a pretence to believe that we can
isolate, control and predict social behaviour from, and in, naturalistic settings. Indeed the
successionist conceptualization of causality (Harré, 1972), wherein researchers make
inferences about causality on the basis of observation, must admit its limitations in really
understanding how an intervention or experiment actually works in practice. Yet it is
precisely this explanatory understanding that should be informing practice. The
experiment is still a comparatively opaque black box, disabling the identification of
detailed causal mechanisms that produce treatment effects (Clarke and Dawson, 1999:
52), and it is precisely these detailed mechanisms that we need to understand in complex
situations.

An experiment, as Pawson and Tilley (1993: 8) observe, might be ‘splendid

epistemology’ but it is ‘lousy ontology’, as programmes are mediated by their
participants. People in the programme might choose to make an intervention work or not
work, and teachers’ and students’ motivations in, commitments to, and involvement in an
intervention might be the critical factors. This is a crucial matter, for experiments require
exactly the same intervention or programme across the control and experimental groups,
i.e. to ensure that the protocols and procedures for the research are observed and are
identical. Yet this is impossible. Because sentient people tailor their behaviour to each
other, their behaviour will differ, and, therefore, the planned intervention or program will
alter.

Social processes at work in the experiment may well be determining factors, and
experiments may be quite unable to control for these. This is the well-rehearsed problem
of causality – behind or alongside an apparent cause (A causes B) lurk other causes (C
causes A which causes B, and D causes A and B respectively). The search for simple
mono-causality is naïve; indeed it may be the interplay of causes and factors that is
producing the effects observed (a feature of complexity theory); it is unclear how an
experiment can disentangle this. It is akin to a person taking ten medicines for a stomach
pain: she takes the medicines and the pain is alleviated – which medicine(s) was/were
effective, or was it the synergy of some or all that caused the relief?

The butterfly beating its wings in the Caribbean and causing a hurricane in another part
of the world frustrated Lorenz’s attempts at long range prediction of weather patterns
(Gleick, 1987); so it is in classrooms. Small events cause major upsets and render long
term prediction or generalizability futile. How do we know what the effects of small
changes will be in an experiment? In the short term school inspections might improve
academic results, but, in the longer term, they could lead to such demoralization of
teachers that recruitment and retention rates suffer, leading to falling academic results.
The thirst for improved grades in schools might lead to an initial improvement in
performance but contributes to a testing and cramming culture of nightmare proportions
(Noah and Eckstein, 1990; Sacks, 1999).

One might find, for example, that constant negative harassment of teachers by a school
principal might increase the amount of time they spend on lesson preparation, which
might (or, indeed might not) improve lesson quality. The results might be effective in the
short term and in the longer term, but such behaviour might also be counter-productive,
as the poor interpersonal relations, the hostile atmosphere, the ‘blame culture’ and the
demotivation of teachers caused by the principal’s behaviour might lead to rapid staff
turnover and the reduction in teachers’ commitment to their work. Further, though the
intervention here might be judged a success in the principal’s eyes, in the eyes of the staff
the harassment is a dismal failure; ‘what works’ for one party does not work in the eyes
of another. Increasing homework may be effective according to a school principal, but
may demotivate students from lifelong learning – clearly a failure in the eyes of students.

There is a problem in experiments, in that a single intervention does not produce only a
single outcome; it produces several. A treatment for cancer can cure the disease but it
might also bring several side-effects, for example hair loss, amputation, sickness and
gross lethargy. A reading intervention programme may raise students’ measured
achievements in reading but may provoke an intense dislike of books or reading for
pleasure. Experiments are inherently reductionist and atomizing in their focus and
methodology; they are incapable of taking in the whole picture (Cohen and Stewart,
1995: ch. 6).

Complexity theory not only questions the values of positivist research and
experimentation, but it also underlines the importance of educational research to catch the
deliberate, intentional, agentic actions of participants and to adopt interactionist and
constructivist perspectives. Addressing complexity theory’s argument for self-
organization, the call is for the teacher-as-researcher movement to be celebrated, and
complexity theory suggests that research in education could concern itself with the
symbiosis of internal and external researchers and research partnerships. Just as
complexity theory suggests that there are multiple views of reality, so this accords not
only with the need for several perspectives on a situation (using multi-methods), but
resonates with those tenets of feminist research that argue for different voices and views
to be heard. Heterogeneity is the watchword.

A quantitative research methodology that respects this has to break with simple linear
models (e.g. simple linear correlations, regression and multiple regression analysis) and
adopt a multi-lateral and multi-directional view of causality (e.g. in log-linear and
curvilinear analysis, multiple analysis of variance, structural equation modeling, a
recognition of the inevitability of heteroscedasticity of lines of relationships).

Complexity theory provides not only a powerful challenge to conventional approaches to

educational research, but it suggests both a substantive agenda and also a set of
methodologies. It provides an emerging new paradigm for research.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Åm, O. (1994) Back to Basics. Introduction to Systems Theory and Complexity.

http://www.stud.his.no/~onar/Ess/Back-to-Basics.html.
April, K. (1997) An Investigation into the Applicability of New Science, Chaos Theory, and
Complexity Theory to Leadership, and Development of Guiding Principles for the Modern
Leader and Organisation. Research Report. Capetown: Graduate School of Business,
University of Cape Town.
April, K. A. Macdonald, R. and Vriesendorp, S. (2000) Rethinking Leadership.
Capetown: University of Capetown Press.
Ashby, W. R. (1964) Introduction to Cybernetics (London: Methuen).
Bak, P. (1996) How Nature Works. New York: Copernicus.
Bak, P. and Chen, K. (1991) Self-Organized Criticality. Scientific American, January, pp,
46–53.
Bar-Yam, Y. (1997) Dynamics of Complex Systems. New York: Perseus Press.
Capra, F. (1996) The Web of Life (New York: Anchor Books).
Casti, J. (1997) Would Be World. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Cilliers, P. (1998) Complexity and Postmodernism. London: Routledge.
Cohen, J. and Stewart, I. (1995) The Collapse of Chaos. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Fuchs, C. (2003) Structuration theory and self-organization. Systematic Practice and
Action Research, 16 (2), pp. 133-67.
Gleick, J. (1987) Chaos. London: Abacus.
Goodwin, B. (2000) Out of control into participation. Emergence, 2 (4), pp, 40-9.
Hebb, D. O. (1949) The Organization of Behaviour: A Neuropsychological Theory. New
York: John Wiley and Sons Inc..
Karr, B. (1995) Complexity Theory and Rhetorical Invention.
http://english.ttu.edu/courses/5361/papers/paper1_karr_420.html
Kauffman, S. A. (1995) At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of
Self- Organization and Complexity. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Lemke, J. (2001) Toward Systemic Educational Change: Questions from a Complex
Systems Perspective. (New England: New England Complex Systems Institute).
http://www.necsi.org/events/cxedk16_3.html.
Lewin, R. (1993) Complexity: Life on the Edge. London: Phoenix.
Lissack, M. R. (2000) Complexity Metaphors and the Management of a Knowledge Based
Enterprise: An Exploration of Discovery. http://lissack.com/writings/proposal.htm.
Marion, R. (1999) The Edge of Organization: Chaos and Complexity Theories of Formal
Social Systems. London: Sage.
Merry, U. (1998) Organizational Lifespan LO17822.
http://www.learning-org.com/98.04/0206.html
Michaels, M. (1995) The chaos network on-line. The Chaos Network,
http://www.prairienet.org/business.ptech
Morrison, K. R. B. (2002) School Leadership and Complexity Theory. London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Morrison, K. R. B. (2003) Complexity theory and curriculum reforms in Hong Kong.
Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 22 (2), 279-302.
Prigogine, L. and Stengers, I. (1985) Order out of Chaos. London: Flamingo.
Robson, C. (1993) Real World Research. Oxford: Blackwell.
Santonus, M. (1998) Simple, Yet Complex.
http://www.cio.com/archive/enterprise/041598_qanda_content.html.
Stacey, R. D. (1992) Managing the Unknowable. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stacey, R. D. (2000) Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics (third edition).
Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Stacey, R. D., Griffin, D. and Shaw, P. (2000) Complexity and Management: Fad or
Radical Challenge to Systems Thinking? London: Routledge.
Stewart, I. (1990) Does God Play Dice? Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Stewart, M. (2001) The Co-Evolving Organization (Rutland, UK: Decomplexity
Associates Ltd.). http://www.decomplexity.com/Coevolving%20Organization
%20VU.pdf
Tymms, P. B. (1996) Theories, models and simulations: school effectiveness at an
impasse. In J. Gray, D. Reynolds, C. T. Fitz-Gibbon, D. Jesson (eds.) merging
Traditions: the Future of Research on School Effectiveness and School Improvement.
London: Cassell.
Waldrop, M. M. (1992) Complexity: the Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and
Chaos. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Wheatley, M. (1999) Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic
World (second edition). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Youngblood, M. (1997) Life at the Edge of Chaos. Dallas, Texas: Perceval Publishing.