Applying Complexity to Qualitative Policy Research: An Exploratory Case Study

Journal of Social Science for Policy Development 1(1); June 2013 pp. 01-14 Liz Johnson

Applying Complexity to Qualitative Policy Research: An Exploratory Case Study

Liz JohnsonComplex Systems Institute

The George Washington University8813 Covey Rise Court.

USA

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to explore acomplexity science paradigm shift, as itrelates to the role, relationship, andmethodological implications of complexityin qualitative policy research. The studyinvestigated whether and how each of themajor qualitative methods encompassescomplexity. To better understand the role ofcomplexity science in policy research, thisexploratory case study investigated thedifferences, similarities, and synergiesbetween qualitative paradigms and acomplexity paradigm, by means of atabular side-by-side comparison. The studyfound a majority of the qualitative inquirystrategies used for interpretation andanalysis in policy research matched theelemental structures and functions ofcomplexity. Yet the qualitative methods didnot account fully for complexity. Thisinvestigation found a complexity paradigmcan augment, supplement, subsume, andimprove research in policy, if effectively

applied. Additionally, complexity can betriangulated into qualitative inquiry astheory, data, and methodology. Finally,complexity provides a unique context inwhich to think about policy problems,interpret results, and answer researchquestions in new ways. This research putsforth foundational arguments that, acomplexity science paradigm providesvaluable theory and systematic methods forpolicy research, when conductingqualitative inquiry. This allows forcapturing more complexity than with solelytraditional research tools. A researcher’s goal may not be to capturemore complexity. Yet further research iswarranted to define and develop theappropriate role of complexity science inqualitative inquiry research in policy.

Key words: Complexity,complexity science, qualitativeinquiry

© American Research Institute for Policy Development 1 www.aripd.com/jhp

http://www.aripd.com/jhp

Journal of Social Science for Policy Development 1(1); July 2013 pp. 01-20 Liz JohnsonIntroductionA major goal of policy researchshould be advancing scientificinquiry toward achieving greaterunderstanding of theinterconnected systems of policyreplete with complexity.Complexity can be understood andacted upon as a science,metaphor, approach, methodology,tool, and even a paradigm. InThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions,Kuhn asserts observation andevaluation take place within ascientific paradigm (Kuhn,1996).For exploration purposes,I propose we are in the midst ofparadigm shift withcomplexity.iAs a result, thisresearch will pursue the uniqueopportunities from this dramaticshift. As a complexity advocate, thisresearch is the means forestablishing foundationalrationale for incorporatingcomplexity science, for morethorough research in policy.The method of investigation isan exploratory case study on the

potential integrating complexityinto qualitative policyresearch.

A recent review of the seminalworks in qualitative theoryrevealed an abundance ofcomplexity language (Christians,2011; Coffey & Atkinson, 1996;Creswell, 2007; Crotty, 1998;Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Fine,Weis, Wessen, & Wong, 2000;Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011;Maxwell, 2005; Tracy, 2010)(SeeDiagram 1 below).

It seems natural to connect thelanguage, theories, andcompeting paradigms to see whatcould emerge and how it couldstrengthen policy research. Mypersonal research relationshipis as a “translator of culture,”drawing on my “own experiences,knowledge, theoreticaldispositions…getting the factson the topic” (Glesne & Peshkin,1992, p.157).

Diagram 1.



Journal of Social Science for Policy Development 1(1); July 2013 pp. 01-20 Liz Johnson

In order to explore howqualitative inquiry andcomplexity could co-evolve inpolicy research, backgroundinformation is needed, as wellas a statement of researchperspective. There continues tobe abundant interest incomplexity from diversedisciplines and businesses(Johnson, 2009; Miller & Page,2004; Pagels, 1988; Wolf-Branigin, 2013). As complexitygrows in popularity applied topolicy studies, it can evolve asa path to better understandresearch, interpret, and connectthe world (Johnson, 2009). Yetwhat is our role as researchers,and how should we connect withcomplexity’s connectivity? Howcould a complexity paradigm andqualitative inquiry interrelateand what is their combinedpotential in policy?

Creswell (1998) statesqualitative inquiry is themeans, to explore social andhuman problems building complex,holistic interpretation.

Maines (1977, 1983) assertsqualitative research spans themicro-macro spectrums andincludes both structural andinteracting processes. Gall,Borg, and Gall (1996) addqualitative approaches realizethe importance of multifacetedinterpretations of humanexperiences, and the iterativerelations within social andcultural systems. These aptdescriptions of the qualitativerealm match closely with commoncomplexity vocabulary andconcepts (Johnson, 2009). So a joint exploration ofqualitative and complexityparadigms can prompt us torecognize new patterns, phase



Journal of Social Science for Policy Development 1(1); July 2013 pp. 01-20 Liz Johnsontransitions, and trends inpolicy research, while buildingknowledge in a moreconnectionist way. Givel andJohnson (3013) assertmethodological analyses ofpublic policy should be tied tothe observable nature ofpolicymaking, which is complex.

Yet policy theories do not fullyaccount for how policymakingoperates or intersects in thereal world (Givel & Johnson,2013). Miles and Huberman (1994)issue a warning about ignoringcomplexity and only focusing onresearch elements. When studyingresearch design features ofconceptualizations, datacollection, coding, conclusions,and reporting close-up, it iseasy to lose sight of theoverall connected ecosystem theyall form (Miles & Huberman,1994).

Not only is it easy to losesight of the ecosystem, but alsoof the macro systems thatdirectly impact the researchecosystem of interest. AsYoungman purports, people needto get the message that,“Everything is complexity,” and“If you don’t recognize thiscomplexity, you are going to

miss something” (Johnson, 2012,p. 3). The objective of thiswork is to recognize “thiscomplexity,” as not to “misssomething” in policy research.

Research Purpose

The purpose of this research isto explore and examinemethodological implications ofqualitative inquiry within acomplexity paradigm, in a“creative and insightful way”(Tracey, 2010, p. 846). Theresearch phenomena of interestare: Firstly, what are potentialbenefits to policy researchintegrating complexity scienceand qualitative inquiry?Secondly, what could therelationship between complexityscience and qualitative researchbe to further policy knowledgebuilding? Thirdly, what is therole of complexity in policyresearch? According to Corbin(2008), The world is very complex.There are no simple explanationsfor things. Rather, events arethe result of multiple factorscoming together and interactingin complex and oftenunanticipated ways. Therefore,any methodology that attempts tounderstand experience and



Journal of Social Science for Policy Development 1(1); July 2013 pp. 01-20 Liz Johnsonexplain situations will have tobe complex.

We believe it is important tocapture as much of complexity inour research as possible, at thesame time knowing that capturingit all is virtually impossible(Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 8).Complexity guiding the researchprocess with interdisciplinarycollaboration, along withcombined methodologies, canprovide a more completerepresentation of reality andaddress Corbin’s issues. Yet notall researchers are motivated topresent a more completerepresentation of reality andrespond to Corbin’s concerns. Iconcur with Corbin, it isimportant to “capture as muchcomplexity in policy aspossible,” which is a majorfocus of this research. Incorporating a complexityparadigm, with complexityscience constructs throughoutthe research process, is a meansto capture more complexity thanwith traditional paradigms.Simply, a complexity paradigmcan account for the complexprocesses, mechanisms,simultaneous interactions,

interations, and emergence inqualitative and quantitativeresearch (Johnson, 2009). Kuhn(1962) states paradigms cannot bereconciled with each other. Ashift in paradigms occurs whennew information and researchfindings substantially counterold paradigms, which thisresearch addresses.

Specifically, a complexityparadigm is based on whatinteractions are observed, newkinds of questions that can beasked, how results areinterpreted, and how theresearch puzzle pieces arebridged in the context ofcomplexity. If the researchprocess is based on a linearparadigm, then the research willlikely be incomplete orinaccurate (Givel & Johnson,2013). If the research processis based on a non-linearparadigm (like qualitativeparadigms) and not a complexityparadigm, then the research willmost likely benefit fromcomplexity bridging constructsand systematic application of acomplexity context.

In relation to the primaryresearch questions, at present



Journal of Social Science for Policy Development 1(1); July 2013 pp. 01-20 Liz Johnsonthe role of complexity in policyresearch has not been fullyestablished or formalized inqualitative or quantitativeresearch. At present, thepotential relationships betweencomplexity science andqualitative policy research havenot been fully established orformalized. Finally, thepotential benefits ofintegrating complexity scienceand qualitative policy inquiryhave not been fully establishedor formalized. Consequently,this research will explore acomplexity paradigm forsystematic application intoresearch, to support theestablishment of the role,relationships, and benefits ofintegrating complexity scienceinto qualitative policy inquiry.

Theories That Inform This Research

There are a number of theoriesthat inform this work. Theyrange from the philosophy ofscience to complexity science,in order to apply directly toqualitative theory. On themacro level, there is thePopper’s falsifiability as the meansdistinguish science from non-science (Popper, 2002) andKuhn’s (1996) work in scientificparadigms.

This research is a means toexplore building foundations forqualitative integration ofcomplexity, in creatingscientific knowledge.Complexity science can serve as“the unifying theme” in thedevelopment of knowledge in ourcomplex world, which is directlyshaped and molded by theinteractions of complexity(Rescher, 1998, p. xi). Denzinand Lincoln (2011) argueparadigms are nets that hold theontology, epistemology, andmethods of researchers. Maxwell(2009) asserts it is notessential to “adopt in total asingle paradigm” (p. 224).Maxwell (2009) furthers, “it ispossible to combine aspects ofdifferent paradigms,” thoughassessment of compatibility isneeded (p. 224). This researchexplores combining aspects ofqualitative and complexityparadigms and assessingcompatibility.

Additionally, complexity couldpotentially serve as theunifying paradigm in qualitativeinquiry. Yet what iscomplexity and how can it beused effectively in policyresearch? There is currently no



Journal of Social Science for Policy Development 1(1); July 2013 pp. 01-20 Liz Johnsonagreed upon definition ofcomplexity science. In fact,definitions vary within andacross disciplines. Complexityscience is based on the simplepremise that the whole isgreater than the sum of itsparts. It is aninterdisciplinary scientificstudy of complex systems. Theconsensus view is that complexsystems, like in policy, areusually made of many parts,which at times, are referred toas elements and constituentparts. These parts dynamicallyinteract with other systemparts, as well as theenvironment, to influence theirown futures. The combination ofthe parts interacting at theindividual or micro level, giverise to system-wide, global, ormacro behaviors. The micro andmacro level systems can co-influence each other, whileinteracting in a dynamicenvironment. System-widepatterns can emerge from theinterdependent interactions ofadaptation, from autonomousagents at the individual level(Johnson, 2009).

A focus of complexity science isto identify consistent patterns,trends, and tendencies soappropriate strategies can be

developed, like for policyenhancement. Complexity sciencehas been successful in studyingphysical phenomena in the fieldsof physics, biology,engineering, and neurobiology.Researchers now have theopportunity to apply thediscoveries and insights gainedfrom studying physical systemsto policy systems in qualitativeinquiry (Johnson, 2009).

According to Wolf-Branigin(2013), complex systemcomponents include iterativeprocesses, feedback, self-organization, boundaries,emergent behavior,heterogeneity, and agent-based.Related concepts includepatterns, common meaning forpatterns, simple rules thatguide behavior, scalability, andcircuitry (Wolf-Branigin, 2013).

Understanding how a system worksrequires systematic questioningabout complexity concepts(McCaughan & Palmer, 1994).Lemke and Sabelli (2008) detailrelationships features amongsubsystems and levels, andsupport questioning tounderstand how systems operate.For example, what features of



Journal of Social Science for Policy Development 1(1); July 2013 pp. 01-20 Liz Johnsonsystems are determinate? Whatdetermines constraints on thedynamics of the system? Howdoes the systems and environmentform an interdependentecosystem? (Lemke & Sabelli,2008)

According to Maxell (2009), aparadigm is comprised uniqueontological and epistemologicalassumptions, as well as uniquemethodological strategies linkedto its assumptions. Thecomplexity paradigm is comprisedcomplexity science’s uniqueontological and epistemologicalassumptions, as well as uniquemethodological strategies linkedto its assumptions. Thecomplexity science paradigm cansubsume and bridge themetaphysics of qualitativeinquiry, which includesinterpretivism, critical theory,post-modernism, constructivism,and positivism. According toMaxwell (2009), the goals ofqualitative studies are tounderstand meaning, context, andprocess, as well as identifyunanticipated phenomena anddevelop causal explanations(Maxwell, 2009). The complexityscience paradigm can subsume andbridge Maxwell’s goals forqualitative studies.

MethodsThis analysis employs anexploratory case study withqualitative inquiry as a boundedcase. This allows focus oncomplexity in research, withholistic analysis, as to“uncover the interactions ofsignificant factors”characteristic of complexphenomena (Merriam, 2009, p.43). The approach was designedto present qualitative inquiryresearch questions,interpretation strategies, andanalysis strategies in aqualitative context, foropportunities in applyingcomplexity.

This approach meets the needs ofinitial exploration, in order tolay the groundwork for laterwork in detailed application ofspecific qualitative areas(Creswell, 2007; Stake, 1995).Additionally, Yin (2008) states,in case study it is not possibleto separate the variables ofphenomena from context. Ifresearch phenomena are complex,then the context of complexityshould not be separate.

There are criterion andrationale for sample selection



Journal of Social Science for Policy Development 1(1); July 2013 pp. 01-20 Liz Johnsonof qualitative inquiry for casestudy. “An adequate sample depends onthe type of question posed, thecomplexity of the model studied,availability…of texts, and thepurpose of the study.” If thepurpose is to generalize totheory the sample may be rathersmall” (Ambert, Adler, Adler, &Detzner, 1995, p. 885). Thepotential methodologies for thiscomplexity research includequantitative, qualitative, andmixed-methods. The criterionrequired an approach thatvividly colors “the meanings,motivations, and details ofwhat…research can convey only inbroader aggregates” (Ambert etal., 1995, p. 885). Qualitativeinquiry fulfills thoserequirements. Qualitativeresearch, by its very nature,can provide data and raisequestions that no quantitativemethod could generate, in greatpart because it allows foremergence of the unexpected(Ambert, 1994). Qualitative isa natural fit with complexitysince there is often congruentlanguage and constructs in theirrespective systems approach(Coffey & Atkinson, 1996;Creswell, 2007; Crotty, 1998;Fine et al., 2000). The goal of

this analysis is to developarguments for complexityapplication to quantitativepolicy research.

Methodological StrategiesWhereby there is not astandardized integration methodfor complexity application, thisresearch uses complexityconstructs and andtriangulation.

With respect to this, this studyfocuses on whether and how eachof qualitative theoriesencompasses complexity (Givel &Johnson, 2013). The case studyemploys a tabular side-by-sidecomparison of the fivetraditions of case study,ethnography, grounded theory,narrative, and phenomenology(Merriam, 2009). The comparisonincludes for each of thesequalitative theories, howscientific questions arestructured, and how scientificresults are interpreted andanalyzed (Givel & Johnson,2013).

Additionally, the researchaddresses if and how complexitycomponents match or benefit the



Journal of Social Science for Policy Development 1(1); July 2013 pp. 01-20 Liz Johnsonqualitative method of inquiry.This research uses thestructures and functions ofcomplexity, as the means to showhow qualitative traditions canvary in complexity indramatically different ways(Rescher, 1998).

ResultsThe Qualitative Inquiry ParadigmComparisons to Complexity (CX) ParadigmTable 1.1 includes case study,ethnography, grounded theory,narrative, and phenomenology.Comparisons and matches ofqualitative inquiry paradigm anda complexity paradigm elementsare investigated in areas ofresearch questions, traditionalinterpretation and analysisstrategies, and full accountingfor complexity.

Who, what, where, how, and whyquestions in bounded casestudies, can be used forresearching complex phenomena.Traditional interpretation andanalysis strategies in casestudy include pattern matching,synthesis, categoricalaggregations, and statistically(Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 2009;Yin, 2009). Qualitative inquiryelements that match complexityparadigm’s structures and

functions include: patternmatching-pattern discernment incomplexity;synthesis-Micro/meso/macroanalysis in complexity;categorical aggregations-convergence in complexity (Lemke& Sabelli, 2008; Wolf Branigin,2013).

Given the metaphysics, researchquestions, and traditionalinterpretation and analysisstrategies in case study,complexity is not fullyaccounted for in this researchmethod

Ethnography questions inresearch firstly includescientifically and objectively,what is culture and what isgoing on? Secondly, questionscan impressionistically querywhat is culture and what isgoing on? These questions canbe used for researching complexphenomena. Traditionalinterpretation and analysisstrategies in ethnographyinclude analysis culturalthemes, identify patternedregularities, contextualizeinformation into broaderframework, and thick descriptionof culture (Creswell, 2007;Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Merriam,



Journal of Social Science for Policy Development 1(1); July 2013 pp. 01-20 Liz Johnson2009; Whitehead, 2004).Qualitative inquiry elementsthat match complexity paradigm’sstructures and functionsinclude: analysis culturalthemes-diverse perspectives incomplexity; identify patternedregularities-pattern discernmentin complexity; contextualizeinformation into broaderframework-meso/macro systemanalysis in complexity (Johnson,2009; Lemke & Sabelli, 2008 WolfBranigin, 2013). Given themetaphysics, research questions,and traditional interpretationand analysis strategies inethnography, complexity is notfully accounted for in thisresearch method

In grounded theory, the researchquestions are broad and canchange during data collectionand analysis. These questionscan be used for researchingcomplex phenomena.Traditional interpretation andanalysis strategies in groundedtheory include linkingcategories, variations and/orconsequences for relationship ofcategories, theoretical scheme,and relationship of theory toknowledge (Creswell, 2007;Denzin & Lincoln, 201; Merriam,2009).

Qualitative inquiry elementsthat match complexity paradigm’sstructures and functionsinclude: linking categories-interconnectedness in complexityvariations and/or consequencesfor relationship of categories-emergence in complexity(Johnson, 2009; Lemke & Sabelli,2008; Wolf Branigin, 2013).Given the metaphysics, researchquestions, and traditionalinterpretation and analysisstrategies in grounded theory,complexity is not fullyaccounted for in this researchmethod.Narrative research questionsfirstly ask what are theinteractional moments andexperiences that mark a life?Secondly, what is the chronologyof unfolding events? Thesequestions can be used forresearching complex phenomena.Traditional interpretation andanalysis strategies in narrativeinclude description in largecontext for larger meaning ofstory, patterns of meaning,chronological linking,progressive/regressive,



Journal of Social Science for Policy Development 1(1); July 2013 pp. 01-20 Liz Johnsonforward/backward, zoom in, zoomout, and rhetorical structuresflexible and evolving as process(Creswell, 2007; Denzin &Lincoln, 2011; Merriam, 2009;).

Qualitative inquiry elementsthat match complexity paradigm’sstructures and functionsinclude: description in largecontext for larger meaning ofstory - macro analysis incomplexity; patterns of meaning- pattern discernment incomplexity; chronologicallinking - interconnectedness incomplexity;progressive/regressive,forward/backward, zoom in, zoomout-scalability in complexity;and rhetorical structuresflexible and evolving as process- evolving process is basic ofcomplex system (Johnson, 2009;Lemke & Sabelli, 2008; WolfBranigin, 2013).

Given the metaphysics, researchquestions, and traditionalinterpretation and analysisstrategies in narrative,complexity is not fullyaccounted for in this researchmethod. Phenomenology research

questions ask what is theexperience of the individual orgroup? These questions can be used forresearching complex phenomena.Traditional interpretation andanalysis strategies inphenomenology include identifysignificant statements, createmeaning units, cluster themes,develop essence, texturaldescriptions of what happened,structural descriptions of howphenomena experienced, andexhaustive composite description(Creswell, 2007; Denzin &Lincoln, 2011; Merriam, 2009).Qualitative inquiry elementsthat match complexity paradigm’sstructures and functionsinclude: create meaning units -diverse perspectives incomplexity; cluster themes -self-similarity in complexity;textural descriptions of whathappened - iterative processesin complexity; and structuraldescriptions of how phenomenaexperienced - feedback incomplexity (Johnson, 2009; Lemke& Sabelli, 2008; Wolf Branigin,2013). Given the metaphysics,research questions, andtraditional interpretation andanalysis strategies inphenomenology, complexity is notfully accounted for in this



Journal of Social Science for Policy Development 1(1); July 2013 pp. 01-20 Liz Johnsonresearch method.

Finally, there is no specifiedcontext for inclusion of policysystems nested in a mega orglobal system in the qualitativemethods. All systems are nestedin global social, economic, andenvironmental systems (Johnson,2009). No complex system in

policy operates in isolation.Also, there is no specifiedcontext of determinates ofdynamical possibilities andconstraints, in policy systemsin current qualitative researchpractices. These constraints inthe current form qualitativeparadigms do not enable a fullaccount of complexity.

Table 1.1 Qualitative Inquiry Paradigm Comparisons to Complexity (CX) Paradigm(structures & functions)Metaphysics:InterpretivismCriticalTheoryPost ModernConstructivismPositivism

Research Questions

Can questionsaccount forcomplexity ofphenomena inresearch?

Traditional Interpretation &Analysis Strategies

*Elements that match complexityparadigm’s structures &functions.

Given themetaphysics,researchquestions,traditionalinterpretation &analysisstrategies, dotraditionalparadigms fullyaccount forcomplexity inresearch?

Case Study Who, what, where,how, and whypropositionswithin boundedcase.

Yes, can be usedfor researchingcomplexphenomena.

*Pattern matching-patterndiscernment in CX*Synthesis-Micro/meso/macroanalysis in CX*Categorical aggregations-convergence in CX

Statistically

No. Needattention to:1.Context ofresearch systemnested in megaor globalsystem.2. Determinatesof dynamicalpossibilities &constraints insystems of




study.

Ethnography 1. Scientifically,objectively what isculture-what isgoing on?2.Impressionistically, what is culture-what is going on?Yes, can be usedfor research ofcomplexphenomena.

*Analysis cultural themes-diverseperspectives in CX*ID patterned regularities-pattern discernment in CX*Contextualize info into broaderframework-meso/macro system analysis in CX

Thick description of culture

No. “

GroundedTheory

Broad & can changeduring datacollection/analysis

Yes, can be usedfor research ofcomplexphenomena.

*Linking categories-interconnectedness in CX*Variations, consequences forrelationship of categories-emergence in CX

Theoretical schemeRelationship of theory toknowledge

No. “

Narrative What areinteractionalmoments &experience thatmark a life?What is thechronology ofunfolding events?


*Description in large context forlarger meaning of story-macroanalysis in CX*Patterns of meaning-patterndiscernment in CX*Chronological linking-interconnectedness in CX*Progressive-regressive-forwardbackward, zoom in, zoom out-scalability in CX*Rhetorical structures flexible &evolving as process-evolvingprocess is basic of complexsystem

No. “

Phenomenology

What is theexperience of theindividual orgroup?


ID significant statements*Create meaning units-diverseperspectives in CX*Cluster themes-self similarityin CXDevelop essence*Textural descriptions of whathappened-iterative processes inCX*Structural descriptions of how

No. “




phenomena experienced-feedback inCX

Exhaustive composite description

(Sources: Denzin & Lincoln, 2011, Johnson, 2009; Lemke & Sabelli,2008; Wolf-Branigin, 2013)

Discussion

There is no perfect accountingfor complexity in policyresearch or in life. As Pagels(1988) asserts, “Life can be sononlinear” (p. 71). It isdifficult for the human mind tofully grasp what is going onwith complexity, unlike simplesystems based on Newtonian,linear physics. Withcomplexity, deep logicalstructures that would otherwisebe hidden finally render theworld comprehensible, accordingto Pagels (Pagels, 1988).Deepening our grasp on existingpolicy problems is what awaitsus in the new scientificterritory of a complexityparadigm (Pagels, 1988).

Furthermore, the benefit of acomplexity paradigm is it canaugment, supplement, subsume,and improve policy research ifapplied effectively. There isno accepted standardization ofeffective complexity

application, as of yet. Thisresearch is step in thatdirection. While studying thequalitative research featuresclose up, it is “easy to losesight of the overall ecosystemthey form” (Miles & Huberman,1994, p. 307).Additionally,considering what qualitativepolicy inquiry misses without acomplexity context is importantto address in future research.

Triangulation, as a process toguard against single methodologyor investigators bias, is themeans to integrate complexity ina variety of ways in policyresearch. The function oftriangulation is to locate anduncover understanding ofresearch phenomena from variousaspects of empiricalreality(Denzin, 1978). Denzin’striangulation typologies ofdata, theory, and methodologycan also benefit fromcomplexity, as an additional



Journal of Social Science for Policy Development 1(1); July 2013 pp. 01-20 Liz Johnsonmeans to triangulate. Also,using complexity methodologies(ex. agent-based modelingsimulation, network analysis,data mining, scenario modeling,and sensitivity analysis) inaddition to traditionalqualitative methodologies, canpotentially verify,substantiate, or validatefindings. Triangulation with complexitywarrants further exploration andresearch. Current qualitativeresearch methods and policytheories give a nod tocomplexity but rarely apply itsystematically in the fullcontext of complexity science.Yet another benefit iscomplexity can provide the meansto think about policy systems,interpret results, and answerquestions in novel ways. Also,the methodological sections ofmost qualitative research are“thin” (Miles & Huberman, 1994,p. 309).

Incorporating complexity can addto methodological sections, andthickness in analysis. Acomplexity context can betteraddress how patterns arise inpolicy systems and how thespecified pattern was selected(Pagels, 1988).

“There are many ways of gettinganalyses right, according toMiles and Huberman (Miles &Huberman, 1994, p. 309). Theysuggest the “mechanics ofanalysis are formidable or evenelusive” preventing fullexplicitness (p. 309).Conducting qualitative analysismeans living with not onlyambiguity but also complexity(Miles & Huberman, 1994).Complexity and ambiguity go handin hand since there is no way tocontrol systems (Page, 2009).“Coming to terms withcomplexity” by integrating itpartially or fully into theresearch process, can provide a“form that clarifies and deepensunderstanding” (Miles &Huberman, 1994, p. 309). Maxwell(2009) states, “Choosing aparadigm or tradition primarilyinvolves assessing whichparadigms best fit with your ownassumptions or methodologicalpreferences” (p. 224). Yet fewpolicy researchers holdassumptions about complexityscience or prefer complexitymethodologies. Whether due tothe newness of complexityscience or lack of foundationaltexts on the integration ofcomplexity into qualitativeinquiry, researchers still need



Journal of Social Science for Policy Development 1(1); July 2013 pp. 01-20 Liz Johnsonto come to terms withcomplexity.

Simply, can qualitative inquiryin its current form and practiceaccount for Wolf-Branigin’scomplex system components andconcepts? Simply, canqualitative inquiry in itscurrent form and practiceaccount for Lemke and Sabelli’s(2008) relationships amongsubsystems and levels. Ifresearch in policy cannotaccount for components,dynamics, and relationshipsamong subsystems and levels incomplex systems, there isopportunity. Simply, if aresearch phenomenon like policyis complex, then a paradigmshould be able to systematicallyaddress its complexity. Currentqualitative paradigms bythemselves are not adequate tosystematically and fully addresscomplexity. Consequently, acomplexity paradigm should beincluded in policy research. Theinclusion of complexitycompletely, or to a limiteddegree, is an issue for futureexploration. There is a role forcomplexity in qualitative policyresearch. Conclusions

What could the relationshipbetween complexity science andqualitative policy research be?

This research provides initialarguments for combiningquantitative inquiry paradigmsand a complexity paradigm.Certainly more exploration andresearch is needed. Forexample, applying complexity toa policy case study andcomparing results to traditionalapproaches is needed andplanned, in order to furtherthis research. There ispotential to unify qualitativeinquiry under a singlecomplexity paradigm and allowfor a more complete andconnected research process.Though not all researchersaspire to a more complete orconnected research process.Additionally to consider forfuture research, complexity canprovide the means for a morecomplete and connected contextfor qualitative methodology.

Furthermore, complexity guidingthe research process of allqualitative methodology, for asingle policy issue, has thepotential for more completenessin representation. Also,complexity guiding the research



Journal of Social Science for Policy Development 1(1); July 2013 pp. 01-20 Liz Johnsonprocess and methodologies canpotentially offer a more

complete representation ofreality. (See Diagram 2 below).

Diagram 2

So now, how do we proceed andmake our connections tocomplexity, in order to makegood science and better informthe practice of policymaking?Hammersley (2008) offers sageadvice, “the pursuit of newparadigms that will make socialscience a transformativeenterprise in personal andsocial terms, discourages anddetracts from the careful,painstaking thought andinvestigation required,including the methodologicalreflection that is necessary, if

progress that can be made is tobe achieved” (p. 181). Thisresearch supports progress.Methodological reflection is keyas are the interconnections withcomplexity as a potentiallytransforming paradigm.

Certainly complexity is not aperfect paradigm, nor thepanacea to all our researchchallenges. Yet, whetherpositivism, constructionism,interpretivism, criticalinquiry, or postmodernism,complexity provides a strategy



Journal of Social Science for Policy Development 1(1); July 2013 pp. 01-20 Liz Johnsonand context to “look at theresearch task with greaterclarity and a better sense ofdirection that we wouldotherwise have done” (Crotty,1998, p. 216). Some like Pagelssay the future of the world lieswith people that master the new

paradigm of complexity (Pagels,1988). I say the future lies ininvestigating even deeper, therelatively unexplored frontierof qualitative policy inquiryand complexity paradigmintegration.

References

Ambert, A. M. (1994). A qualitative study of peer abuse and its effects:Theoretical and empirical implications. Journal of Marriage and the Family,56, 19-130.

Ambert, A. M., Adler, P. A., Adler, P., & Detzner, D. F. (1995).Understanding and evaluting qualitative research. Journal of Marriageand the Family, 57(4), 879-892.

Christians, C. G. (2011). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. InN. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of QualitativeResearch (pp. 61-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). The basics of qualitative research (Third ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research designs: Choosing among fivedesigns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design choosing among fiveapproaches (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in theresearch process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dennard, K., Richardson, K., & Morcol, G. (2008). Complexity and policy analysis:Tools and methods for designing robust policies in a complex world. Goodyear, AZ:ISCE Publishing.

Denzin, N. K. (1978). Sociological methods: A source book (Second ed.). New York,NY: McGraw-Hill.



Journal of Social Science for Policy Development 1(1); July 2013 pp. 01-20 Liz JohnsonDenzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field

of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005)Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000).Handbook of qualitative research (Second

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The dicipline and practice of

qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), TheSage Handbook of Qualitative Research (4 ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Dye, T. R. (1998). Understanding public policy. Englewood Cliff, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Fine, M., Weis, L., Wessen, S., & Wong, L. (2000). FOR WHOM? Qualitativeresearch, representations, and social responsibilites. In N. Denzin& Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 107-132).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Education research: Anintroduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Givel, M., & Johnson, L. (2013). Scientific paradigms in the UnitedStates: Are we ready for complexity science?” In P. Youngman & M.Hadzikadic (Eds.), Complexity and the Human Experience: Modeling Complexity inthe Humanities and Social Sciences. New York, NY: Pan StandardPublishing.

Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Writing your story: What your data say.Becoming a Qualitative Researcher (Second ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Hammersley, M. (2008). Capturing complexity? Examining a commonly usedrationale for qualitative research.Questioning Qualitative Inquiry.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hunter, W., & Benson, G. D. (1997). Arrows in time: The misapplication ofchaos theory to education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(1), 87-100.

Johnson, L. (2009). Agent-based model overview: A guide for public policy practitioners.Charlotte, NC: Complex Systems Institute.

Johnson, L. (2012). Mini project #2 interview: Complexity in qualitative research. GeorgeWashington University, Washington, DC.

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The Structure of scientifics\ revolutions (Third ed.). Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lemke, J. L., & Sabelli, N. H. (2008). Complex systems and educational




change: Towards a new research agenda. Educational Philosophy and Theory,40(1), 118-129.

Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmaticcontroversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited.In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of QualitativeResearch (Vol. 4, pp. 97-128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Maines, D. (1977). Social organization and social structure in symbolicinteractionist thought. Annual Review of Sociology, 3, 75-95.

Maines, D. (1983). In search of the mesostructure: Studies in thenegotiated order. Urban Life, 11, 267-279.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research: An interactive aproach (Vol. 42).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Maxwell, J. A. (2009). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman & D.J. Rog (Eds.), The Sage handbook of applied social research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McCaughan, N., & Palmer, B. (1994). Systems thinking for harassed managers(systemic thinking and practice. London, England: Karnac Books.

Medd, W., & Hayes, P. (1988). Complexity and the social. Paper presented at theCSTT/ESRC The Language of Complexity Workshop, Keele University.http:http://www.keele.ac.uk/dept/sst/cstt2/comp/medd.htm

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research a guide to design and implementation. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook qualitative dataanalysis (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, J. H., & Page, S. E. (2007). Complex adaptive systems an introduction tocomputational models of social life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.

Mitchell, M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of chaos. New York,NY: Simon and Schuster.

Page, S. E. (2009). Understanding complexity. Chantilly, VA: The TeachingCompany.

Pagels, H. R. (1988). The dreams of reason. NY, NY: Simon and Shuster.Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (Second ed.).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.


http://www.keele.ac.uk/dept/sst/cstt2/comp/medd.htm


Journal of Social Science for Policy Development 1(1); July 2013 pp. 01-20 Liz JohnsonPhelps, R., & Hase, S. (2002). Complexity and action research: Exploring

the theoretical and methodological connection. Education Action Research,10(3), 507-524. Retrieved April 12, 2012, fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650790200200198

Pigliucci, M. (2000). Chaos and complexity. Skeptic, 8(3), 62-70. Popper, K. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Routledge

Classics.Qualitative Inquiry. (2012). Retrieved April 4, 2012, from

http://www.personal.psu.edu/wxh139/Quality.htmRescher, N. (1998). Complexity a philosophical overview. New Brunswick, NJ:

Transaction Publishers.Rossman, R. B., & Rallis, S. F. (1998). Learning in the field: An introduction to

qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Strauss, A. (1993). Continual permutations of action. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de

Gruyter.Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight "big tent" criteria for

excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851.Whitehead, T. L. (2004). What is ethnography? Methodological,


http://www.personal.psu.edu/wxh139/Quality.htm

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650790200200198



ontological, and epistemological attributes CEHC Cultural Ecology of Healthand Change. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.

Wolf-Branigin, M. (2013). Using complexity theory for research and program evaluation.New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research design and methods (4th ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Notes



iA full assessment if we are in a paradigm shift is beyond the scope of thisresearch.

Applying Complexity to Qualitative Policy Research: An Exploratory Case Study

Documents

Transcript of Applying Complexity to Qualitative Policy Research: An Exploratory Case Study