Cilliers, P. (2001). Boundaries, hierarchies and networks in complex systems. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(2),135–147.
A - very - brief summary of Paul Cillier's article, Boundaries, Hierarchies and Networks in Complex Systems (2001), and a connection to wicked problems.... In their article, Inescapable Wickedity (2014) education researchers Jordan, Kleinsasser, and Roe might present the problems of education as, among other things, those which are difficult define and have no clear right or wrong answers. To large extent, the challenges of wickedity are artifacts of the complex system in which educational systems operate and interact with. These are ideas are further articulated in Cillier’s Boundaries, Hierarchies and Networks in Complex Systems (2001). Cilliers describes how the various boundaries a which operate between systems are both ambiguous and shifting. He questions the notion that traditional methods of examining flat hierarchies, network interactions and non-linearity as particularly conducive to developing a theory of complex organizations.
Cilliers, P. (2001). Boundaries, hierarchies and networks in complex systems. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(2),135–147.
0 Comments
Adding to the complexity of educational systems created by the degrees of coupling within organizations and structure is the inherently human-centered and social nature of education. Educators are dealing with human beings who are emotional and social creatures who often do not respond in logical or consistent fashion to stimuli. Consequently, where humans are involved, the solution to a problem in one scenario may very well prove to be inconsequential or even detrimental in another.
There really are no true boundaries to the educational system. As with anything, the further one moves from the nucleus of activity, the less direct the influence on the activity itself. In the case of educational systems, one might consider the nucleus of activity as the classroom. Yet, the classroom activity is influenced by building level, district, state and federal level actors. As well, the general trends of society and cultures, events of the world, and technology affect what happens in the classroom as well.
It is in the point of this article, precisely, that the muddiest point - and indeed, the whole challenge of education, itself - exists. Education is a complex problem, at both individual and social in nature, at times more so and at others less so. Methods to study education, to be useful, must take into account not only a great number of variables, but must also take into consideration the interplay of those variables themselves. The authors quote Artiles et. all (2005) in stating that within each category of individuals to studied, there are subcategories of individuals, and within those categories, more subcategories. Ultimately, each individual student is unique.
Further complicating matters, Garcia recognizes that traditional categories used to study differences rely on markers that are often times not static. That is to say a sort of marker - such as English Language Learner - used to identify an individual or group of individuals in one instance, may ultimately shift or change. The markers upon which researchers use to categories groups are not static. Consequently, the changing nature of the markers must be considered in addition to the continual interplay between them. And finally, it is not just that individuals may fall into multiple categories or that the markers used to define those categories are fluid, but the categories and markers themselves, frequently hold unstated power or status connotations which also must be considered in their research. All of these factors suggest that the study of educational problems in general (and in the case of the authors’ point - special education issues in particular) extremely challenging. As educational researchers Jordan, Kleinsasser, and Roe might say, the wicked problems of education seem to have become even more wicked. And muddy. Why not just treat each individual as… individual? Increasingly, research is demonstrating that the multitude of factors which influence learning requires students to be treated as individuals. As the author states, “...an intersectionality framework engages researchers in a multi-layered analysis that seeks to uncover the processes by which the experiences of subgroups within a larger identity category are marginalized, through understanding the cultural construction of identities within and across individuals, and uncovering how social, institutional, and political structures shape and reinforce identify formation, and influence identity salience across contexts.” (Garcia, p37) The intersectionality framework, then, encourages both the educational researcher and the educational practitioner with several questions to consider as they engage their topic of study or their students. Among these are, “What are my perceptions, assumptions, and views of difference? Is my (our) cultural understanding sufficient to conduct culturally responsible research that will contribute to more equitable and accessible educational outcomes for all groups of learners?” (p37). The educational researcher has an easier time dealing with these issues. They are not faced with making the minute by minute decisions that the educational practitioner is, and at the end of the day, the educational researcher can incorporate an escape hatch into their conclusion of their research, “..further research is warranted.” The classroom teacher, the practitioner, however is not afforded such novelties. To do her job well, the practitioner must consider the intersectionality in their decision making, and at the end of the day, their decisions have real consequences on real people. When the practitioner makes a misjudgement about the interplay between the various attributes of an individual and the interplay of those attributes and the attributes of another, or how the culture or context interplay (or, in Garcia’s terms - intersect), there are real people who lose out on the best learning experience possible. References: Jordan, M. E., Kleinsasser, R. C., & Roe, M. F. (2014). Wicked problems: inescapable wickedity. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(4), 415-430 Garcia, S.B. & Ortiz, A.A. (2013). Intersectionality as a framework for transformative research in special education. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(2), 32-47. Learning is an accumulation of knowledge, feelings, and processes and assimilation thereof into pre-existing cognitive frameworks. It occurs at all times, all times of consciousness. In any moment the brain receives stimuli, it is processing the stimuli - or the effect of them - by incorporating them into short or long term memory. Increasingly, brain researchers such as John Medina and others are recognizing that stimuli such as environmental surroundings, those that trigger emotional responses, and other stimuli not traditionally associated with ‘learning’ are, in fact, quite significant in the processes of learning.
From a purely evolutionary and naturalistic perspective, one might argue that learning provides an evolutionary advantage to an organism. In this case, an organism which is more able to identify dangers in its surroundings, or develop an ability to manipulate objects, remember locations of food sources, etc. is more well adapted - and thus more able to survive - than those that cannot. If one is, instead, of the inclination to believe in a higher power - a being who created the universe, presumably for some purpose of its own - learning may be argued to be a path to realizations of one’s own place in that creation. The former makes learning seem a necessary survival tool in the ruthlessness of national selection, the latter gives learning a more noble tone. I fall more inline with the latter.
Creswell describes quantitative data collection processes to be more close-ended (p. 19). That is to say, there are pre-defined outcomes (values) to responses. In the case of the ‘hard’ sciences, such pre-defined outcomes may be recognized frequently as the measurements of units, themselves. However, when quantitative methods are applied to ‘soft’ sciences, these pre-determined outcomes take on the form of categories which have been defined by the researcher. Qualitative research, in contrast, is open ended. The research concerns themselves chiefly with information that is difficult to apply numerical values to, or - as is frequently the case - is even able to predict potential outcomes. Consequently, the researcher is relegated to post-facto interpretation of results.
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative (pp. 146-166). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. There is a trend to identify individual character traits through surveys, then assume the survey results will bestow one with game-changing insight about their ability to lead. Businesses have been built on this idea. Far too much credit has been given to it. In considering the impact of an individual’s learning style on their ability to lead change, it’s important to remember that each of the styles indicated in this survey - Pragmatist, Activist, Reflector, and Theorist - is a spectrum, and one’s tendency towards one does not exclude tendencies in another; it is entirely possible that an individual is both a pragmatist and reflector, or a theorist and an activist, or some combination of all three, or all four. In his book, End of Average (2016) Harvard’s Todd Rose describes these sorts of character classifications as largely situational. For example, where an individual might be outgoing with colleagues in a work environment, they may be introverts in other social settings. While not identical, the learning styles described by Honey and Mumford (1992) are similar; an individual may be more reflective in one situation and more pragmatic in others. The spectral and situational natures of learning styles and personalities aligns well with the principles described by Laurence Peter and Raymond Hull (1969) in their work, the Peter Principle. Peter and Hull describe how the selection of candidates for promotion is based on their abilities in a particular role, and those selecting assume that those characteristics will transfer into new and higher roles. However, as situations and responsibilities change, an individual’s approach to those situations often changes as well. Consequently, individuals often are promoted until they reach a level at which they are incompetent. This is a scary thought. Attributes which made one successful in a particular scenario may make one less successful in another. In trying to lead change in education, one must consider their own style in approaching problems. Are we pragmatic, are an activist, a theorist, or reflective? To what extent, and in what situations, and in which situations will tendencies be useful? An activist, for example may be particularly adept at leading a charge, getting a project started, and able to garnering enthusiasm. They may be willing to move forward in the midst of great diversity and great uncertainty. Consequently, a leader who is an activist may be very successful in adverse situations, where obstacles seem insurmountable, and where building consensus around an idea is key. Activists contrast theorists who tend to like well organized strategies. Theorists want to examine an issue thoroughly before proceeding. As a result, theorists may find more success in situations where time is less of an issue, and where consequences of small mistakes are high. Pragmatists - people who like to get on with what works and are keen to solve problems - may be particularly adept leaders in situations where incremental changes are preferable to monumental initiatives. But if one’s tendencies towards these styles is situational, then perhaps a tendency towards the last of the four - reflector - is most important. A reflector prefers to observe and think prior to acting. They consider their own experiences and the experiences of others, and caution is important. The tendency towards reflection, allows leaders to gauge not only the skills and validity of others in approaching a problem, but - importantly - their own. An individual seeking to be a change leader in education should rightly consider the ways and extent to which they are an activist, theorist, or pragmatist. But we should all be seeking to strengthen our leadership as reflectors, as ones who carefully consider data, enjoy learning from observing others, and seeing the big picture. In being a reflector, one might be more inclined to recognize in oneself the spectral and situational nature of their own styles and avoid assuming their competence to tackle a problem based on their success in tackling a previous one. A reflector, then, may also be more inclined to let others take the lead when it is most appropriate for them to do so. In a break with the Peter Principle, a leader who is a reflector may remain in a position of competence - rather than being promoted to a level of incompetence - because they rightly recognize the personal traits which made them successful in one position may not translate well into another. References: Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992). The manual of learning styles, 3rd. Maidenhead: Peter Honey. Rose, T. (2016). The end of average: How to succeed in a world that values sameness. Penguin UK. Peter, L. J., & Hull, R. (1969). The peter principle (No. Book). London: Souvenir Press.
Sutton, R.I. and Rao, H. (2014). Scaling up excellence: Getting to more without settling for less. London, UK: Penguin Random House. The Quora website is essentially a question and answer forum, which allows individuals to customize their inquiries and seek answers from the larger community. The site also allows individuals to add personal credentials, which one would assume is intended to lend credibility to answers that they provide. No verification of credentials appears to be made, however. The content of the site is almost entirely composed of user-generated questions and user-generated answers, with an individual user’s personalized feed curated using a computer generated algorithm based on user-defined variables such as people of interest and topics of interest. The most direct beneficiaries of the educational activities are the users. In posing questions they are interested in, and being able to receive feedback from community ‘experts’ (which occasionally, may actually be true experts) the users are able to engage directly in useful and productive dialogue. On a wider scale, the site has enabled an ability to download or view questions and responses in a printable format, as well as embed or copy links to the site’s version of the questions. This functionality allows much wider dissemination to a broader community. As would be expected in today’s social-media centric age, the site also allows for sharing of the questions and responses through popular sites such as Facebook, and Twitter, further increasing the audience available. The site has an integrated login with a Google (or facebook) account, which allows for seamless integration with educational institutions that are utilizing a Google Apps environment. A significant concern in the moment of ‘fake-news’ concern, is the potential abuse of what the site calls “upvoting” to answers that are deemed as most appropriate or most favorited for particular questions that have been published. This process of upvoting theoretically leads to answers which are increasingly factual however I suspect that it could also be easily abused, or even lead to upvoting of answers that are written by individuals who are particularly popular for insignificant reasons, or of a particular political bent that is popular. Problems in education are not only wicked, but they are also pervasive! One finds that nearly all of the on-going problems are, indeed, wicked. That is to say, they are ones in which there seem no definitive solution. Likely, this is because those problems which aren't wicked, are actually solved very easily when you have a bunch of good minds and passionate educators eager to tackle them. The wickedness of the problem is really in that neither the problem, nor the variables that go into it can be clearly defined. And there is something else as well, which the authors Rittel and Webber (1973) have either neglected or intentionally ignored (perhaps because it is a white elephant); in order for something to be classified as a 'better' solution than other, there must be some metric upon which it is gauged. Any such metric is a scale, which is in one direction moving closer to 'the best' and in the other direction moving towards 'the worst'. It may very well be that we can't see the ultimate end of those scales, but we are acknowledging that there is such a scale. That, unfortunately, is where the politics of the wicked problem comes in. On the whole, we can't agree what that metric is. For example, if all of society agreed that the end-goal of education was to 'sort' students into different classes to grease the economic machine, then many of the 'wicked' problems would largely disappear. That's a rare position these days, but not so much at the dawn of the 20th century. Today, most agree the goal of education is something to do with providing a 'quality' education for all students. That's nice enough, and most people agree with the general statement, probably because the statement itself lends itself to a huge amount of interpretation, so much so that nearly anyone can find a way to fit their own worldview into it - a worldview which will vary significantly depending on one’s background, race, religion, creed, gender, etc. Surely, as each individual is different, so too is a ‘quality’ education for that individual. The problem lies in defining what a 'quality' education looks like. I suspect this basic principle is the seed from which much of the push towards personalized learning is currently coming from. References:
Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169 A well-respected mentor once told me that the most challenging decisions he has to make as a Head of School are the ones where multiple solutions seem to be good. This idea came to mind frequently as I read recently read through a part of Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber's 1973 work, Dilemma's in a General Theory of Planning. As Educators, we are frequently dealing with issues of a social nature where, because of the great diversity in human experience, solutions to problems are almost impossible to develop consensus around. It seems that every problem can be defined multiple ways and every solution to every problem is like by some people and disliked by others. Further, because solutions to problems almost invariably require systems change - where the end result and effects of a decision are often not immediate - there is inherently a degree of speculation, rather than assured outcome. Indeed, as Rittel and Webber illustrate, even defining the problems clearly in the first place is challenging. I couldn't help but laugh at the final sentence of the passage I read, which lays claim that the most wicked problem of all is that such problems themselves are, in fact, wicked.
As a science educator I can well understand the distinction the authors were trying to make between the sorts of well-defined problems dealt with by those in the 'hard' sciences and those who are trying to develop solutions to societal conditions. In science the ultimate goal is to arrive at a conclusion which can be tested and evaluated under very strict conditions by other individuals; it is a given that in doing a science experiment - or for that matter working in fields like structural engineering where one is dealing with the laws of physics rather than the social realm - there are very clear parameters in which one works, and feedback loops can be largely eliminated. In contrast, in issues of a social nature there are a nearly limitless number of variables, each interconnected, that in trying to adjust or change any, one inevitably produces changes - sometimes foreseen, but often not - in another. Education is, indeed, filled with wicked problems. References: Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169 |