Quality is a complex problem

Quality is linked to policy-making and funding at macro and micro levels in higher education and yet is largely under theorised (Krause, 2012). Quality in education is also perceived as a ‘wicked’ problem: problems which are ill-defined, have stakeholder- dependent views, multiple interdependencies and causalities, change with time and context, and for which a solution may work one day but not the next (Krause, 2012). Wicked problems are not usually amenable to the linear problem-solving solutions applicable to ‘tame’ problems (Crowley & Head, 2017). Some examples of wicked problems include health promotion in New Zealand (Signal et al., 2013), land use systems in Scotland (Duckett, Feliciano, Martin-Ortega, & Munoz-Rojas, 2016), managing biological invasions (Woodford et al., 2016), managing ecosystems (Defries & Nagendra, 2017) and medical education (Varpio, Aschenbrener, & Bates, 2017). Krause suggests the ‘complexity’ of quality may not be amenable to a single theory and that ‘there is scope for ambiguity and multiple theoretical perspectives in relation to quality’ (Krause, 2012, p. 289).

Complexity thinking also helps to understand the complexity of quality. This considers whole systems and conditions that promote change, involve multiple interacting components with ill-defined boundaries in an open dynamic system, and may be applicable to quality (Davis, 2008; Davis & Sumara, 2010). A complex system is

of interactivity. The nature of this interactivity is mostly non-linear, containing

manifest feedback loops’ (Richardson, Cilliers, & Lissack, 2001, p. 7). A complex system is also open to interactions beyond itself and adaptive as the agents respond to

conditions depending on previous experiences, contributing to nonlinearity. Agents are part of feedback and feedforward loops giving the system iterative behaviour.

Complexity thinking is advocated as a new science of qualities to complement the science of quantities applicable to social phenomena characterised by change and transformation (Horn, 2008). The key drivers for change in these complex systems are information flow, connectivity between agents and the diversity within and between agents (Horn, 2008). Indeed, complexity theory is advocated as a theory of change, able to investigate the social world holistically to help understand and research ‘causation’ in social research (Morrison, 2012). Complexity thinking involves

investigating systems as a whole and as nested within each other to understand their interactions. In response to a given set of interactions and timeframe, a new form of organisation may emerge that is qualitatively different from the preceding system— this is the principle of emergence. A holistic view of the conditions in a given system is needed to help understand emergence as interactions between elements cause non- linear and unpredictable changes. Hence, complexity thinking helps suggest actions that promote conditions for emergence in a given context.

The important features of complex systems include system history, a diversity of behaviours, chaos and self-organisation. Importantly, they are incompressible and cannot be reduced or bounded without losing behaviours of possible importance; they are open systems where the interactions and relationships of the parts determine the characteristics of the whole (Richardson et al., 2001). Complexity thinking provides a way of thinking, based on complex systems, that focuses on the limits of knowledge and the provisional nature of understanding (Richardson & Cilliers, 2001).

Complexity thinking has been applied to several situations in the education sector, for example, in school leadership (Morrison, 2010). Morrison (2010) also highlights that complexity thinking is pragmatic, relates to a particular time and place and provides possibilities for the future rather than predictions. Lemke and Sabelli (2008) describe the development of a conceptual framework for analysing systemic change and

applied this to a state school system. Although these authors are interested in system modelling, they identify some key concepts for defining a system, structural analysis (for example, levels or social groups in the system), relationships among the

subsystems and levels, and the drivers for change. In describing complexity thinking as a theory of change that focuses on people’s connections with others, Morrison (2008) suggests school leaders and managers promote conditions for emergence including openness, trust and dialogue. Other conditions for promoting emergence (self- organisation) suggested for curriculum and learning in medical education include openness, interacting elements and non-linear local interactions (Mennin, 2010). Examples of these are students encountering new information and experiences daily showing the system is open to the outside, students and teachers continuously exchanging information providing interaction, and peer feedback producing change (Mennin, 2010). Complexity thinking is suggested as an alternative and inclusive way of thinking about educational research to qualitative and quantitative traditions that view a system in terms of interactions, process and effects, with a specific focus on context and differences (Figure 2) (Haggis, 2008). Building on wickedity and complexity

thinking, Jordens and Zepke (2014) proposed conditions for researching undergraduate science education with the possibility of emergent transformational change.

Figure 2. Comparison of conventional thematic-based analyses (A) and complexity- based analyses (B). Reprinted from ‘Knowledge Must be Contextual: Some Possible Implications of Complexity and Dynamic Systems Theories for Educational Research’, by T. Haggis, 2008, Educational Philosophy and Theory, Volume 40(1), p. 170.

Copyright 2008 by Taylor & Francis. Reprinted with permission.

Kleiman (2011) suggests that by accepting we are working in a complex adaptive system in higher education opens up possibilities for learning creatively at the edge of chaos (Figure 3). Similarly, Cavanagh (2012) proposed this zone of innovation and creativity as the emergent space for post professional development in coaching psychology.

Figure 3. The complexity continuum showing complex systems near the edge of chaos. Uncertainty and creativity are high here and emergence a possibility if the right set of conditions are promoted. Reprinted from ‘Learning At The Edge Of Chaos’, P. Kleiman, 2011, All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (AISHE-J), 3(2), p. 62.6. CC BY-NC-SA 3.0.

Wicked and complex problems are both non-linear and share other properties including interaction with largely distributed (rather than hierarchical) feedback. The key property of complexity-based systems that distinguishes them—and potentially makes them highly desirable (or undesirable)—is ‘self-organisation’, the emergence of novel and unpredicted characteristics. A key condition for emergence is a lack of equilibrium (or lack of certainty, see Figure 3) and complex systems need to be creative and adaptable in response to change; operating at the edge of chaos led to transformation of practice when applied to science teacher education (Laroche, Nicol, & Mayer-Smith, 2007).

Quality in education is described as a wicked and as a complex problem (Krause, 2012). Complex systems are open to external influences and have a large number of

components that interact with each other through non-linear feedback (Haggis, 2008; Richardson et al., 2001). Complexity thinking considers systems as a whole and focuses on conditions that promote emergence (self-organisation) (Mennin, 2010; Morrison, 2010). I propose that quality is an emergent property in a specific higher education context, for example, undergraduate science education (Jordens & Zepke, 2014).

2.3

Quality teaching and learning