'Knowledge must be contextual': Some possible implications of complexity and dynamic systems theories for educational research
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Educational Philosophy and Theory 40 (1):158–176 (2008)
It is now widely accepted that qualitative and quantitative research traditions, rather than being seen as opposed to or in competition with each other ( Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995 ; Furlong, 2004) should be used, where appropriate, in some kind of combination (Bryman & Cramer, 1999; Moore et al., 2003). How this combining is to be understood ontologically, and therefore epistemologically, however, is not always clear. Rather than endlessly discussing the relationship between different approaches, this paper explores some of the assumptions of the ontologies that underpin such apparent differences, arguing that approaches which declare themselves to be distinct theoretically are often surprisingly similar methodologically. It is argued that dominant ontologies and epistemologies struggle with the conceptualisation and representation of particularity, difference, process, interactions through time, multiple and de-centred forms of causation, and dynamic structure. Complexity/dynamic systems theory is then introduced and examined for its potential to offer the basis of a different kind of ontology: one which is able not only to accommodate these things, but which is itself based upon them. In conclusion, the implications of this perspective are discussed in relation to the problems that have been identified, particularly in relation to the conceptualisation of 'context'.
|Keywords||ontology case study methodology educational research complexity theory epistemology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Loet Leydesdorff (1996). The Possibility of a Mathematical Sociology of Scientific Communication. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 27 (2):243-265.
Daniéle Bourcier & Gérard Clergue (1999). From a Rule-Based Conception to Dynamic Patterns. Analyzing the Self-Organization of Legal Systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2-3):211-225.
Richard Dazeley & Beyong Ho Kang (2008). Epistemological Approach to the Process of Practice. Minds and Machines 18 (4):547-567.
Péter Érdi (2000). On the 'Dynamic Brain' Metaphor. Brain and Mind 1 (1):119-145.
Lesley Kuhn & Robert Woog (2007). From Complexity Concepts to Creative Applications. World Futures 63 (3 & 4):176 – 193.
Teed Rockwell (2005). Attractor Spaces as Modules: A Semi-Eliminative Reduction of Symbolic AI to Dynamic Systems Theory. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 15 (1):23-55.
Peter Jedlicka (2007). Physical Complexity and Cognitive Evolution. In Carlos Gershenson, Diederik Aerts & Bruce Edmonds (eds.), Worldviews, Science, and Us: Philosophy and Complexity. World Scientific. 221--231.
Erich Schweighofer & Doris Liebwald (2007). Advanced Lexical Ontologies and Hybrid Knowledge Based Systems: First Steps to a Dynamic Legal Electronic Commentary. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (2):103-115.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads13 ( #122,430 of 1,102,742 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #296,833 of 1,102,742 )
How can I increase my downloads?