A neo-complexity orientation to action research: perspectives on unpredictability and ethics

Solsø, Karina; Crewe, Emma; Chauhan, Kiran

Abstract

The influence of complexity theory on action research scholarship and practice has been kaleidoscopic. Further integrating ideas derived from the complexity sciences could enrich this research tradition, but there are choices to be made about what to prioritise. We distinguish complexity-informed approaches that privilege control from those adopting radical open-endedness. The former often aligns with managerialist assumptions, which tend to deny the messiness and moral dimensions of living and working. In contrast, ‘neo-complexity’ aims to reemphasise the most intellectually, politically, and emotionally radical elements of complexity science: embracing unpredictability, plurality, and practice-based ethics. An example of an action research coalition of Ethiopia, Mursi and UK researchers allows us to describe what this means in practice.

Citation

Solsø, K., Crewe, E., & Chauhan, K. (in press). A neo-complexity orientation to action research: perspectives on unpredictability and ethics

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Acceptance Date: Mar 16, 2025
• Deposit Date: Mar 17, 2025
• Journal: International Journal of Action Research
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Keywords: Complexity, action research, Mursi, South Omo
• Additional Information: References : Allen, P., Maguire, S., & McKelvey, B. (2011). The SAGE handbook of complexity and management. SAGE. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. Jossey-Bass. Axelby, R., Worku-Dix, B., & Crewe, E. (2022). Global partnerships on paper and in practice: Critical observations from inside a Global Challenge Research Fund capacity-development project. Journal of International Development, 34(8), 1496-1508. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3649 Bartels, K., & Friedman, V. (2022). Shining light on the dark side of action research: Power, relationality and transformation. Action Research, 20(2), 99-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503221098033 Bernstein, R. J. (1991). The new constellation. Polity Press. Bradbury, H. (2022). Action research: Time to act with maturity. Action Research, 20(4), 315-317. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503221133981 Blangy, S., Deffner, A., Rixen, A., Couétil, T., Lamalice, A., Donohoe, H., & Labba, N. (2024). The role of participatory action research (PAR) in the emergence of self-determined Indigenous research responding to major societal issues. Research for All, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.14324/RFA.08.1.01 Crewe, E. (2014). Doing development differently: Rituals of hope and despair in an INGO. Development in Practice, 24(1), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2014.867308 Cunliffe, A., Gorli, M., Ivaldi, S., & Scaretti, G. (2020). Emotions as inspiration for reflexivity in action research. In L. Hersted, O. Ness, & S. Frimann (Eds.), Action research in a relational perspective. Routledge. Davison, R. M., Martinsons, M. G., & Wong, L. H. M. (2022). The ethics of action research participation. Information Systems Journal, 32(3), 573–594. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12363 Delgado-Baena, A., & Sianes, A. (2022). Epistemic injustice and dissidence: A bibliometric analysis of the literature on participatory action research hosted on the Web of Science. Action Research, 20(4), 315-317. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503221126531 Eikeland, O. (2007). Why should mainstream social researchers be interested in action research? International Journal of Action Research, 3(1), 38-64. https://doi.org/10.3224/ijar.v19i3.05 Eikeland, O. (2012). Action research – applied research, intervention research, collaborative research, practitioner research, or praxis research. International Journal of Action Research, 8(1), 9-44. https://doi.org/10.1688/1861-9916_IJAR_2012_01_Eikeland Frimann, S., Hersted, L., & Søbye, A. (2020). Action research in the perspective of becoming: The significance of reflexive dialogue. In L. Hersted, O. Ness, & S. Frimann (Eds.), Action research in a relational perspective. Routledge. Halås, C. T. (2022). Praxeological dialogues from within, handling tensions in dialogical praxis-oriented action research. International Journal of Action Research, 11(2), 134-149. Hansen, F. T. (2022). What would an apophatic action research look like? Learning to consider delicate matters of silence and wonder in professional practices. International Journal of Action Research, 18(2), 110-115. https://doi.org/10.3224/ijar.v18i2.02. Hersted, L., Ness, O., & Frimann, S. (Eds.). (2020). Action research in a relational perspective. Routledge. Huchler, N., & Sauer, S. (2015). Reflexive and experience-based trust and participatory research: Concepts and methods to meet complexity and uncertainty in organisations. International Journal of Action Research, 11(1+2), 146-173. Jaeggi, R. (2016). Alienation. Columbia University Press. Lenette, C. (2022). Participatory action research: Ethics and decolonization. Oxford University Press. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Sociological Issues, 2(4), 34-46. McNamee, S. (2020). Action research as ethical practice: Coordinating voices, expanding possibilities. In L. Hersted, O. Ness, & S. Frimann (Eds.), Action research in a relational perspective. Routledge. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. University of Chicago Press. Morin, E., & Kern, A. B. (1999). Homeland earth: A manifesto for the new millennium. Hampton Press. Mowles, C. (2021). Complexity: A key idea for business and society. Routledge. Peirce, C. S. (1877). The fixation of belief. Popular Science Monthly, 12, 1–15. Phelps, R., & Hase, S. (2002). Complexity and action research: Exploring the theoretical and methodological connections. Educational Action Research, 10(3), 507-524. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790200200198 Phillips, L., & Scheffmann-Petersen, J. (2020). Inclusion and exclusion in action research on person-centered health care: A framework for cultivating the tensions in dialogue. In L. Hersted, O. Ness, & S. Frimann (Eds.), Action research in a relational perspective. Routledge. Radford, M. (2007). Action research and the challenge of complexity. Cambridge Journal of Education, 37(2), 263-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640701372582 Ramalingam, B. (2013). Aid on the edge of chaos. Oxford University Press. Bradbury, H., & Reason, P. (2003). Action research: An opportunity for revitalizing research purpose and practices. Qualitative Social Work, 2(2), 155-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325003002002003 Rosa, H. (2020). The uncontrollability of the world. Polity Press. Rosenhead, J., Alberto Franco, L., Grint, K., & Friedland, B. (2019). Complexity theory and leadership practice: A review, a critique, and some recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 30(5), 101304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.07.002 Snowden, D. (2002). Complex acts of knowing: Paradox and descriptive self-awareness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(2), 100-111. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270210424639 Stacey, R. D., & Mowles, C. (2016). Strategic management and organisational dynamics: The challenge of complexity to ways of thinking about organisations. Pearson. Taskan, B., Junca-Silva, A., & Caetano, A. (2022). Clarifying the conceptual map of VUCA: A systematic review. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 20(7), 196-217. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-02-2022-3136 Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567-582. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.5.567.7810 Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298-318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002 Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361 Wood, P., & Butt, G. (2014). Exploring the use of complexity theory and action research as frameworks for curriculum change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(5), 676-696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2014.921841