Complexity and action research: Exploring the theoretical and methodological connections

Educational Action Research

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 507-524

  Phelps, Renata ^a   Hase, Stewart ^a  

^a SOUTHERN CROSS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 27644513912     PISSN: 09650792     EISSN: 17475074     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09650790200200198     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Altrichter, H., 1991. “ Do We Need an Alternative Methodology for Doing Alternative Research? ”. In Action Research for Change and Development, Edited by: Zuber-Skerritt, O., Aldershot: Gower.
2. Bloom, J. W., Patterns that Connect: rethinking our approach to learning and teaching. New Orleans. paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
3. Bloom, J. W., Chaotic and Complex Systems in Children's Thinking and Learning. Seattle, Washington. paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Available at: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/˜jwb2/research/Complexity/chaosinthinkingpaper.html
4. Bloom, J. W., 2001b. Discourse, Cognition and Chaotic Systems: an examination of students' argument about density. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10: 447–492.
5. Bossomaier, T., and Green, D., 1998. Patterns in the Sand: computers, complexity and life, St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.
6. Brewer, J., and Hunter, A., 1989. Multi-method Research: a synthesis of styles, Newbury Park: Sage.
7. Brodnick, R. J., and Krafft, L. J., Chaos and Complexity Theory: implications for research and planning in higher education. Orlando. paper presented at the Association for Institutional Research thirty-Seventh Annual Forum, Available at: http://basie.irp.udel.edu/air/airforum.97/TRACK5/37-518/BRODNICK.RTF
8. Brooks, A., and Watkins, K. E., 1994. “ A New Era for Action Technologies: a look at the issues ”. In The Emerging Power of Action Inquiry Technologies, Edited by: Brooks, A., and Watkins, K. E., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9. Carr, W., and Kemmis, S., 1990. Becoming Critical: education, knowledge and action research, Geelong: Deakin University.
10. Cook, T., 1998. The Importance of Mess in Action Research. Educational Action Researcher, 6: 93–109.
11. Datta, L., 1994. “ Paradigm Wars: a basis for peaceful coexistence and beyond ”. In The Qualitative-quantitative Debate: new perspectives, Edited by: Reichardt, C. S., and Rallis, S., San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
12. Davies, A., 2001. “ Action Research and Systems Thinking ”. In Effective Change Management Using Action Learning and Action Research: concepts, frameworks, processes, applications, Edited by: Sankaran, S., Dick, B., Passfield, R., and Swepson, P., Lismore: Southern Cross University.
13. Davies, P., and Gribbin, J., 1991. The Matter Myth: beyond chaos and complexity, London: Penguin.
14. Davis, B., and Sumara, D., 1997. Cognition, Complexity and Teacher Education. Harvard Educational Review, 67: 105–125.
15. Dick, B., 2000. Approaching an Action Research Thesis: an overview Available at: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gem/ar/arp/phd.html
16. Dick, B., and Swepson, P., 1994. Appropriate Validity and Its Attainment within Action Research Available at: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/sawd/arr/sofsys2.html
17. Dillon, M., From Strategy to Poetics: poststructuralism versus complexity science. Orlando. paper presented at the CSTT/ESRC ‘The Language of Complexity’ Workshop, Keele University. Available at: http://www.keele.ac.uk/dept/stt/cstt2/comp/dillon.htm
18. Doll, B., 1997-8. “ A Question of Which Metanarrative ”. In Chaos and Complexity Theory Special Interest Group Newsletter, Winter-Spring 2Available at: http://www.udel.edu/aeracc/news.html
19. Doll, W., 1986. Prigogine: A new sense of order, a new curriculum. Theory into Practice, 25: 10–16.
20. Doll, W. E., 1989a. Foundations for a Post-modern Curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21: 243–253.
21. Doll, W. E., 1989b. A Post-modern Perspective on Curriculum, New York: Teachers College.
22. Doll, W. E., 2002. Critical Emergence and Plaget: a reinterpretation assimilation and accommodation Unpublished paper
23. Doll, W. E., and Alcazar, A., 1998. “ Curriculum and Concepts of Control ”. In Curriculum: toward new identities, Edited by: Pinar, W. F., New York: Garland.
24. Doolittle, P. E., 2000. Complex Constructivism: a theoretical model of complexity and cognition: draft Available at: http//www.tandl.vt.edu/doolittle/research/complex1.html
25. Eve, R. A., Horsfall, S., and Lee, M. F., 1997a. Chaos, Complexity and Sociology: myths, models and theories, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
26. Eve, R. A., Horsfall, S., and Lee, M. F., 1997b. “ Preface ”. In Chaos, Complexity and Sociology: myths, models and theories, Edited by: Eve, R. A., Horsfall, S., and Lee, M. F., Thousand Oaks: Sage.
27. Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: strategies for qualitative research, New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
28. Gold, C., 2000. Overview of Current Research into Complex Systems Available at: http://www.ozemail.com.au/˜cgold/research.htm
29. Gough, N., 1999. “ Understanding Curriculum Systems ”. In Understanding Democratic Curriculum Leadership, Edited by: Henderson, J. G., and Kesson, K. R., New York: Teachers College Press.
30. Green, K., 1999. Defining the Field of Literature in Action Research: a personal approach. Educational Action Researcher, 7: 105–124.
31. Greene, J. C., 1994. “ Qualitative Program Evaluation: practice and promise ”. In The Handbook of Qualitative Research, Edited by: Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S., Thousand Oaks: Sage.
32. Greenwood, D. J., and Levin, M., 2000. “ Reconstructing the Relationships Between Universities and Society through Action Research ”. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, Edited by: Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S., Thousand Oaks: Sage.
33. Grundy, S., 1995. Action Research as Professional Development, Murdoch: Innovative Links Project.
34. Hammersley, M., 1996. “ The Relationship Between Qualitative and Quantitative Research: paradigm loyalty versus methodological eclecticism ”. In Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for Psychology and the Social Sciences, Edited by: Richardson, J. T. E., Leicester: British Psychological Society.
35. Hase, S., Mixing Methodologies in Research. Coffs Harbour. paper presented at the 9th VET Research Conference/Workshop, Available at: http://www.ncver.edu.au/research/papers/trconof9.htm
36. Hoshmand, L. T., and Martin, J., 1995. “ Method Choice ”. In Research as Praxis, Edited by: Hoshmand, L. T., and Martin, J., New York: Teachers College.
37. House, E. R., 1994. “ Integrating the Quantitative and Qualitative ”. In The Qualitative-quantitative Debate: new perspectives, Edited by: Reichardt, C. S., and Rallis, S., San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
38. Howe, K. R., 1988. Against the Qualitative-quantitative Incompatability Thesis or Dogmas Die Hard. Educational Researcher, 17: 10–16.
39. Hunter, W. J., and Benson, G. D., 1997. Arrows in Time: the misapplication of chaos theory to education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29: 87–100.
40. Iannone, R., 1995. Chaos Theory and Its Implications for Curriculum and Teaching. Education, 115 (4): 541–546.
41. Jorg, T., 2000. About the Unexpected: complexity of learning based on reciprocity and human agency, Chaos and Complexity Theory Special Interest Group Newsletter Available at: http://www.udel.edu/aeracc/library/Fall00.htm
42. Kauffman, S., 1995. At Home in the Universe: the search for laws of complexity, London: Penguin.
43. Kemmis, S., and McTaggart, R., 1988. The Action Research Planner, Geelong: Deakin University Press.
44. Kemmis, S., and McTaggart, R., 2000. “ Participatory Action Research ”. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, Edited by: Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S., Thousand Oaks: Sage.
45. Lee, M. E., 1997. “ From Enlightenment to Chaos: toward nonmodern social theory ”. In Chaos, Complexity and Sociology: myths, models and theories, Edited by: Eve, R. A., Horsfall, S., and Lee, M. F., 15–29. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
46. Lissack, M., 1999. Complexity: The Science, its Vocabulary and its Relation to Organizations Available: http://emergence.org/Complexity1.htm
47. Mainzer, K., 1997. Thinking in Complexity: the complex dynamics of matter, mind and mankind, Berlin: Springer. 3rd edn
48. McAndrew, D. A., 1997. Chaos, Complexity, and Fuzziness: science looks at teaching English. English Journal, 86: 37–43.
49. Medd, W., and Haynes, P., Complexity and the Social. paper presented at the CSTT/ESRC ‘The Language of Complexity’ Workshop, Keele University. Available at: http://www.keele.ac.uk/dept/stt/cstt2/comp/medd.htm
50. Mihata, K., 1997. “ The Persistence of ‘Emergence’ ”. In Chaos, Complexity and Sociology: myths, models and theories, Edited by: Eve, R. A., Horsfall, S., and Lee, M. F., Thousand Oaks: Sage.
51. Mintz, E., and Yun, J. T., eds. 1999. The Complex World of Teaching: perspectives from theory and practice, Cambridge MA: Harvard Education.
52. Onn, K. W., 1998. An Action Research Study on Project Management in an Engineering Organisation in Singapore, University of South Australia. Unpublished PhD
53. Pigliucci, M., 2000. Chaos and Complexity. Skeptic, 8 (3): 62–70.
54. Price, B., 1997. “ The Myth of Postmodern Science ”. In Chaos, Complexity and Sociology: myths, models and theories, Edited by: Eve, R. A., Horsfall, S., and Lee, M. F., Thousand Oaks: Sage.
55. Reichardt, C. S., and Rallis, S., eds. 1994. The Qualitative-quantitative Debate: new perspectives, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
56. Rosenhead, J., 1998. Complexity Theory and Management Practice Available at: http://www.human-nature.com/science-as-culture/rosenhead.html
57. Sawada, D., and Caley, M. T., 1985. Dissipative Structures: new metaphors for becoming in education. Educational Researcher, 14 (3): 13–19.
58. Shacklock, G., and Smyth, J., 1998. Being Reflexive in Critical Educational and Social Research, London: Falmer Press.
59. Stacey, R. D., 2001. Complex Responsive Processes in Organisations: learning and knowledge creation, London: Routledge.
60. Stacey, R. D., Griffin, D., and Shaw, P., 2000. Complexity and Management: fad or radical challenge to systems thinking?, London: Routledge.
61. Sumara, D. J., and Davis, B., 1997. “ Enlarging the Space of the Possible: complexity, complicity and action-research practices ”. In Action Research as Living Practice, Edited by: Carso, T., and Sumara, D., New York: Peter Lang.
62. Tashakkori, A., and Teddlie, C., 1998. Mixed Methodology: combining qualitative and quantitative approaches, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
63. Tripp, D., 1998. “ Critical Incidents in Action Inquiry ”. In Being Reflective in Critical Educational and Social Research, Edited by: Shacklock, G., and Smyth, J., London: Falmer Press.
64. Turner, F., 1997. “ Forward ”. In Chaos, Complexity and Sociology: myths, models and theories, Edited by: Eve, R. A., Horsfall, S., and Lee, M. F., Thousand Oaks: Sage.
65. Underwood, M., 2000. Complexity Available at: http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/index.html
66. Wadsworth, Y., 1998. What is Participatory Action Research? Action Research International Available at: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/ari/p-ywadsworth98.html
67. Waldrop, M., 1992. Complexity: the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos, London: Penguin.
68. Watkins, K. E., and Brooks, A., 1994. “ A Framework for Using Action Technologies ”. In The Emerging Power of Action Inquiry Technologies, Edited by: Brooks, A., and Watkins, K. E., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
69. Zhang, Y., and Fowler, D., 1996. Complexity Theory and Preservice Teacher Preparation (accessed 2 December, 2000)Available at: http://www.coe.uh.edu/insite/elec_pub/html1996/18theory.htm#zhang
70. Zuber-Skerritt, O., 2001. “ Action Learning and Action Research: paradigm, praxis and programs ”. In Effective Change Management Using Action Learning and Action Research: concepts, frameworks, processes, applications, Edited by: Sankaran, S., Dick, B., Passfield, R., and Swepson, P., Lismore: Southern Cross University.