What if everything is already unruly complexity?
1st Answer (after defining and illustrating the concept): There’s a qualitative difference in analysis of causes & implications
This leads to Question 2: … implications for whom?
Answer to Q2: Researcher in dialogue between models & phenomena
but this is embedded in dialogue with diverse social agents to establish significant knowledge & subject to ongoing restructuring.
This leads to Question 3: What is the role of the researcher in this dual dialogue?
(Notice that, as in the two islands scenario, we have a sequence of 1. simple well-bounded system (researchers in dialogue [using evidence & models] with real world); 2. simple themes, opening things up (researchers are also social beings, so there must be a dialogue with funders, audience, technicians, etc.—indeed, researchers must always already be aware of this); 3. differentiated, locally particular accounts (how the dual dialogue plays out in particular instances—and how researchers could more self-consciously address the dual dialogues).
What if everything is already unruly complexity? Putting together the ideas above and in the previous post implies that anyone thinking that faces
of using their knowledge, themes, and other awareness of
complex situations and situatedness
to contribute to a culture of participatory restructuring
of the distributed conditions of knowledge-making and social change.”[*]
That challenge cannot be addressed alone, nor primarily through our accounts of the world.
* Page 203 in Taylor, P.J. (2005) Unruly Complexity: Ecology, Interpretation, Engagement (U. Chicago Press). The book as a whole elaborates the sequence of thinking in these two posts.