The complexity of learning : relations all the way down
- Publication Type:
- Thesis
- Issue Date:
- 2010
Open Access
Copyright Clearance Process
- Recently Added
- In Progress
- Open Access
This item is open access.
This is a conceptual thesis about how both learning in relation to professional practice,
particularly learning from practice, and the production and use of professional
knowledge, can be understood. The work of the thesis is an attempt to address the issue
of how to conceptualise an onto-epistemological framework for inquiry in the field of
social sciences that consists of learning, practice, learning from practice and producing
and using knowledge; a framework that fits more productively with practitioners’
experience in these areas than the one we currently use.
The traditional ontological perspective, that frames the way in which concepts such as
practice and learning are conceptualised, imposes significant limitations on their
understanding and use. This traditional framework is substantialist in form. That is, it
reflects a model of the world in which substances or entities have prime ontological
significance. Because of this, the relations between entities are commonly either treated
themselves reductively as additional entities, or are ignored. I argue that it is this
relational reductionism of the traditional substantialist ontology that is problematic
when considering human processes such as practice and learning.
The thesis has its experiential origins in the lack of fit between espoused theories of
learning and theories-in-use as related to professional practice. To illustrate this I use
the claims of Evidence-based Medicine to function as a theory of medical practice and
as a medical epistemology. I argue that its limitations in both areas follow from its
development within the traditional substantialist, or entity-based, framework which
shapes these claims. The limitations of Evidence-based Medicine serve as an example
of the way in which applying relationally reductive manoeuvres to the complex relations
of lived experience, while to some degree a necessary aspect of all human social
functioning, is problematic if not done in a critical or reflective manner.
The body of constructs and theories known as ‘complexity’ offers a more encompassing
onto-epistemological framework for considering human processes. It does so because it
is relation-based. In such a framework, systems and processes are conceptualised as
being constituted by their relations, rather than built up of their composite entities. In
this thesis I draw on several already current theories and bodies of concepts which are
consistent with a complexity perspective, to support the use of complexity as a
framework in re-formulating learning and its relation to practice.
The first of these is the pragmatist philosopher John Dewey’s formulation of living
functionality which has ‘trans-actional’ relations as a central feature. I argue that if these
relations are understood as an exemplar of complex living relations, then complexity
has a capacity to account for the generativity (the emergence of the radically new) and
the indeterminacy (the unknown unknowns) of human functioning, neither of which can
be done within the traditional substantialist framework.
The second is a body of concepts derived from psychoanalytic thinking and other
theories of psycho-biological functioning which relate to human affective functioning.
Human affective needs act as a driver of social processes and activities and human
experience that is affectively shared between individuals and socially processed.
produces meaning. What these concepts have in common is an understanding of human
psycho-social function as having a relational basis at multiple levels, for which transactional
relating can function as a model. These psycho-biological concepts, with
sociologist Niklas Luhmann’s theories of social functioning as emerging from interpersonal
communication, allow for distinctions to be made between aspects of human
functioning at biological, psychological and social ‘levels’, levels that are both
differentiated and mutually dependent, allowing a re-formulation of learning, its relation
to practice and the production of knowledge.
With these theories in mind, I take the ‘co-present group’ as central to an exploration of
how practice and learning might look from a complexity perspective. The human copresent
group is a group, such as a work group, where individuals are each known to the
others as specific individuals. It functions as a complex system (the group) of complex
systems (the participating individuals). I argue that the co-present group functions as the
site of both human learning and of the origin, development and modification of all
social and cultural phenomena, both of which depend on the group processing of human
affective states.
Because humans have the capacity to ‘share’ the processing of affective states with
other specific individuals, this processing function is not co-terminous with the
biological human individual but can be considered as an aspect of co-present group’s
functionality. Learning, for the individual, emerges from co-present group processes
through the bio-psychological individual. In contrast, and following the work of
sociologist Niklas Luhmann, ‘communications’ emerge from complexity-reducing
interactions between individuals, thus having a social origin, and are available for
elaboration into social and cultural phenomena through repeated use and re-use in
multiple contexts.
I draw conclusions to this thesis in two areas. The first is that if complexity is
understood broadly as being based on complex living relations as exemplified by John
Dewey’s trans-actions, it can function as an onto-epistemological framework for inquiry
into living human processes. The second area, which follows as a consequence of using
such a framework, is that human processes are re-conceptualised in functional terms and
can be seen as being based in, and emergent from, co-present group function. This, in
turn, has consequences for how we understand learning, its relation to practice and the
production and use of knowledge.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: