Advertisement

Locating Our Enquiry

  • Paul HagerEmail author
  • David Beckett
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives on Rethinking and Reforming Education book series (PRRE)

Abstract

In contrast to the current popular concerns about automation and robotics stripping away humans’ skills, expertise and sense of achievements through daily work and life, this book identifies ubiquitous and yet newly complex group-based activities that have always been present in human life. Indeed, we claim that these very activities are overlooked because of their ubiquity. We will bring them to new prominence through the conceptual lens of complexity theorising. So, we claim that skills, competence, expertise, practices and even agency and learning themselves—all fundamental group-based human experiences—will be distinctively and thoroughly recast in the chapters that follow. This chapter introduces four examples of groups which are very familiar and may not, at first glance, seem to have much in common: the jury, the staff of part of a school, the mother–baby dyad and the string quartet. However, as this book will demonstrate, these groups exemplify the Yin-and-Yang of less reductive complexity by showing how groups’ agency plays out in central desirable aspects of skills, competence, expertise, practices and learning, from which all humans expect to benefit. Our ontological claim throughout this book is that the emergence of relationality is the main contribution of complexity theory to the social sciences. We maintain that the world is primarily constituted in and through relations, from which groups, entities and individuality emerge.

References

  1. Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2016). The race between machine and man: Implications of technology for growth, factor shares and employment (NBER Working Paper No. 22252). Cambridge, MA, USA: National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w22252. Accessed September 25, 2017.
  2. Autor, D. (2014). Polanyi’s paradox and the shape of employment growth (NBER Working Paper No. 20485). Cambridge, MA, USA: National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w20485. Accessed September 25, 2017.
  3. Bradley, B. (2005). Psychology and experience. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cilliers, P. (2000). Rules and complex systems. Emergence, 2(3), 40–50.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327000em0203_04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching and research. Marwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Mason, M. (Ed.). (2008). Complexity theory and the philosophy of education. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  9. Ravilious, K. (2017, July 1). Find the flow: What are the rules that govern how living things flow? New Scientist, 33–35.Google Scholar
  10. Thagard, P. (2019). Mind-society: From brains to social sciences and professions. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Zollman, K. (2017) Learning to collaborate. In T. Boyer Wilson, C. Mayo-Wilson, M. Weisberg (Eds.), Scientific collaboration and collective knowledge: New essays. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Arts and Social SciencesUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Melbourne Graduate School of EducationThe University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations