Abstract
Informed by a critical realist position, the method of Qualitative Comparative Analysis could be enriched when focusing on differences amongst complex systems as source of causality, instead of focusing on objects that seem to have similar properties. When the seemingly similar objects are looked at from a participatory position (e.g. action research), one learns that objects that seem similar from an objective point of view, are actually rather different when viewed from a subjective (or objective-subjective) point of view. When this is acknowledged, one can no longer speak of an object's (or community’s/society’s) properties. Based on the view from complexity, such complex objects/communities should be categorised according to their shared combination of characteristics rather than by any single characteristic and entities become "traces of systems" interacting with one another in non-linear ways. When observed in such a way the control parameters (or model by which the community is measured) become the generators of difference. These differences in turn become the source of causality. Engaging with action research enables one to become aware of the internal parameters (parameters established from inside the system or the emic description, apposed to parameters foced upon the system from outside the system/etic description) that generate difference. Comparing complex systems with one another from a position within the various systems thus become the best practice in terms of social research methodology. Such results might have information that could lead to actual social change and suggests a more ethical way of doing research. The argument is illuminated by an actual case study done on schools in North England and their success levels for pupils in public examinations and extended by a discussion of how we might think about comparison and causality in relation to old and now post-industrial city regions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Clearly where the line is drawn has considerable implications for the data pattern generated.
- 2.
We certainly have a notion that the attributes of the individuals affect the system within which they are situated although probably this operates in a non-linear fashion through a threshold effect. A few pupils with special needs normally (there are exceptions particularly at the level of the class) makes no difference but a lot of such pupils does. Thresholds are not sharp but they are nonetheless real.
- 3.
Actually we have to ask if the distinction between generative mechanism and context holds up. It can be convenient to think in that term when we have a useful notion of boundary but that is not always the case.
- 4.
The reference to Weaver is obvious and explicit in the original text.
- 5.
This would be more useful if it had some direction attached which here would mean that we would want to know not only the distance of the case from the centre of its own cluster but also its distance from the centres of all other clusters.
- 6.
This set would include Australasia, Japan and South Korea.
- 7.
The congruence of name is a coincidence but the places are very alike in most respects with one great difference relating to ethnicity.
- 8.
Interestingly I can’t identify any examples of this style. There is something about complexity which forces its practitioners towards genuine participation.
- 9.
However, even in those places – for example Tyneside – there is global immigration in the form of asylum seekers.
References
Becker, H. and Ragin, C. 1992. What is a case? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blowers, A. 1993. Planning for a sustainable environment. London: Earthscan.
Byrne, D. 2005. Complexity, configuration and cases. Theory, Culture and Society. 22 (5): 95–111.
Byrne, D. 2002. Interpreting quantitative data. London: Sage.
Byrne, D. 1998. Complexity theory and the social sciences: An introduction. London: Routledge.
Byrne, D. and Uprichard, E. 2007. Crossing levels: The potential for numerical taxonomy and fuzzy set approaches to study multi-level longitudinal change. Methodological Innovations Online, 2 (1). Available: http://erdt.plymouth.ac.uk/mionline/public_html/viewarticle.php?id=42
Cilliers, P. 2005. Knowing complex systems. In K.A. Richardson (ed.), Managing organizational complexity: Philosophy, theory and application. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing Inc, pp. 7–19.
Crouch, C. 2000. Coping with post-democracy. London: Fabian Society.
Dilthey, W. 1996. “Selected works”. In R.A. Makkreel and F. Rodi (eds.). Hermeneutics and the study of history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Emirbayer, M. 1997. Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103 (2): 281–317.
Eve, R.A., Horsfall, S., and Lee, M.E. 1997. Chaos, complexity and sociology. London: Sage.
Freire, P. 1996. Letters to cristina : Reflections on my life and work/tr. from portuguese by D. Macedo. New York: Routledge.
Gulbenkian Commission 1996. Open the social sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Jacobs, J. 1961. The death and life of great American cities. London: Jonathan Cape.
Lemon, M. (ed.). 1999. Exploring environmental change using an integrative method. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach.
Morin, E. 2007. Restricted complexity, general complexity. In C. Gershenson, D. Aerts, B. Edmonds (eds.), Worldviews, science and us: Philosophy and complexity. Singapore: World Scientific.
Nelson, J.I. 1995. Post-industrial capitalism: Exploring economic inequality in America. London: Sage Publications.
Newman, D.V. 1996. Emergence and strange attractors. Philosophy of Science, 63: 245–261.
Ragin, C. 2004. Turning the tables: How case-oriented research challenges variable-oriented research. In H.E. Brady and D. Collier (eds.), Rethinking social inquiry. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Ragin, C. 1987. The comparative method. Berkley: University of California Press.
Ravetz, J. 2000. City-region 2020. London: Earthscan.
Richardson, K. and Cilliers, P. (eds.) 2007. Explorations in complexity thinking: pre-proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on complexity and philosophy. Mansfield, MA: ISCE Publishing.
Sayer, A. 2000. Realism and social science. London: Sage.
Sohng, S. L. 1995. Participatory research and community organizing. Working paper presented at the new social movement and community organizing conference. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. November 1–3.
Uprichard, E. and Byrne, D. 2006. Representing complex places: A narrative approach. Environment and Planning A, 38 (4): 665–676.
Unger, R.M. 1998. Democracy realized. London: Verso.
Weaver, W. 1948. Science and complexity. American Scientist, 36: 536. Online: http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/genre/weaver/weaver-1947b.htm
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Byrne, D. (2010). Comparison, Diversity and Complexity. In: Cilliers, P., Preiser, R. (eds) Complexity, Difference and Identity. Issues in Business Ethics, vol 26. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9187-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9187-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9186-4
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9187-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)