IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/srbeha/v37y2020i1p154-169.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Thinking (in) complexity: (In) definitions and (mis)conceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Ana Teixeira de Melo
  • Leo Simon Dominic Caves
  • Anna Dewitt
  • Evie Clutton
  • Rory Macpherson
  • Philip Garnett

Abstract

The rise of complexity sciences has led to the development of new language about systems. Concepts such as ‘complex systems thinking'; or ‘complexity thinking'; have appeared in the literature, appealing to ways of thinking (in) complexity. The notion of ‘complex thinking,'; may be considered as referring to a mode of thinking more congruent with the complexity of the world. The widespread and sometimes undifferentiated usage of these concepts results in a lack of clarity and terminological confusion, which jeopardizes their heuristic and pragmatic value. We identify literature using terms related to thinking (in) complexity and use a combination of computational and qualitative methods to extract definitions and analyse their usage. We map the relationships of the concepts and their usage across different intellectual communities. Our goal is to clarify these concepts and to strengthen their pragmatic value for the promotion and management of positive changes in complex systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Ana Teixeira de Melo & Leo Simon Dominic Caves & Anna Dewitt & Evie Clutton & Rory Macpherson & Philip Garnett, 2020. "Thinking (in) complexity: (In) definitions and (mis)conceptions," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 154-169, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:37:y:2020:i:1:p:154-169
    DOI: 10.1002/sres.2612
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2612
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sres.2612?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kevin W. Boyack & Richard Klavans, 2010. "Co‐citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(12), pages 2389-2404, December.
    2. Marlies Olensky & Marion Schmidt & Nees Jan Eck, 2016. "Evaluation of the citation matching algorithms of CWTS and iFQ in comparison to the Web of science," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(10), pages 2550-2564, October.
    3. Kevin W. Boyack & Richard Klavans, 2010. "Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(12), pages 2389-2404, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peter Viebahn & Emile J. L. Chappin, 2018. "Scrutinising the Gap between the Expected and Actual Deployment of Carbon Capture and Storage—A Bibliometric Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-45, September.
    2. Piñeiro-Chousa, Juan & López-Cabarcos, M. Ángeles & Romero-Castro, Noelia María & Pérez-Pico, Ada María, 2020. "Innovation, entrepreneurship and knowledge in the business scientific field: Mapping the research front," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 475-485.
    3. Guan-Can Yang & Gang Li & Chun-Ya Li & Yun-Hua Zhao & Jing Zhang & Tong Liu & Dar-Zen Chen & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2015. "Using the comprehensive patent citation network (CPC) to evaluate patent value," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1319-1346, December.
    4. Caloffi, Annalisa & Colovic, Ana & Rizzoli, Valentina & Rossi, Federica, 2023. "Innovation intermediaries' types and functions: A computational analysis of the literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    5. Yucheng Zhang & Zhiling Wang & Lin Xiao & Lijun Wang & Pei Huang, 2023. "Discovering the evolution of online reviews: A bibliometric review," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-22, December.
    6. Tuba Bircan & Almila Alkim Akdag Salah, 2022. "A Bibliometric Analysis of the Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies for Social Sciences," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(23), pages 1-17, November.
    7. Nina Sakinah Ahmad Rofaie & Seuk Wai Phoong & Muzalwana Abdul Talib & Ainin Sulaiman, 2023. "Light-emitting diode (LED) research: A bibliometric analysis during 2003–2018," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 173-191, February.
    8. Serhat Burmaoglu & Ozcan Saritas, 2019. "An evolutionary analysis of the innovation policy domain: Is there a paradigm shift?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 823-847, March.
    9. Di Letizia, Gerardo & De Lucia, Caterina & Pazienza, Pasquale & Cappelletti, Giulio Mario, 2023. "Forest bioeconomy at regional scale: A systematic literature review and future policy perspectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    10. Rey-Long Liu, 2017. "A new bibliographic coupling measure with descriptive capability," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 915-935, February.
    11. Yi-Ming Wei & Jin-Wei Wang & Tianqi Chen & Bi-Ying Yu & Hua Liao, 2018. "Frontiers of Low-Carbon Technologies: Results from Bibliographic Coupling with Sliding Window," CEEP-BIT Working Papers 116, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (CEEP), Beijing Institute of Technology.
    12. Yadong Wang & Khaldoon Albitar & Imad Chbib, 2024. "Connecting the dots: A systematic review of corporate social responsibility, information asymmetry, and economic implications," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 5012-5031, September.
    13. Yun, Jinhyuk, 2022. "Generalization of bibliographic coupling and co-citation using the node split network," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    14. Ahmed Nazzal & Angels Monserrat Niñerola & Maria-Victoria Sánchez-Rebull & Maria Glòria Barberà-Mariné, 2025. "A systematic mapping review of foreign direct investment by multinational corporations in emerging economies," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, December.
    15. Yulei Xie & Ling Ji & Beibei Zhang & Gordon Huang, 2018. "Evolution of the Scientific Literature on Input–Output Analysis: A Bibliometric Analysis of 1990–2017," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-17, September.
    16. Matheus Pereira Libório & Oseias da Silva Martinuci & Sandro Laudares & Renata de Mello Lyrio & Alexei Manso Correa Machado & Patrícia Bernardes & Petr Ekel, 2020. "Measuring Intra-Urban Inequality with Structural Equation Modeling: A Theory-Grounded Indicator," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-18, October.
    17. Rey-Long Liu, 2015. "Passage-Based Bibliographic Coupling: An Inter-Article Similarity Measure for Biomedical Articles," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-22, October.
    18. Perez-Vega, Rodrigo & Hopkinson, Paul & Singhal, Aishwarya & Mariani, Marcello M., 2022. "From CRM to social CRM: A bibliometric review and research agenda for consumer research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 1-16.
    19. Sara Sassetti & Giacomo Marzi & Vincenzo Cavaliere & Cristiano Ciappei, 2018. "Entrepreneurial cognition and socially situated approach: a systematic and bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1675-1718, September.
    20. Chris W. Belter, 2013. "A bibliometric analysis of NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration and Research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 629-644, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:37:y:2020:i:1:p:154-169. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/1092-7026 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.