The Complex Systems of Practice

  • Jeanette LancasterEmail author
Part of the Professional and Practice-based Learning book series (PPBL, volume 8)


Complexity, as it is usually understood, is based on non-linear but reductive Newtonian relations. This formulation of complexity limits its value to social theorising, including the theorising of human practices. However, if complexity is understood to be based on non-linear but complex relations, for which Deweyan trans-actions can stand as an exemplar, it can provide an onto-epistemological framework for the consideration of living systems, including those of practice. This framework allows for a non-reductive conceptualisation of practice that encompasses both individual and social aspects of human functioning. In this chapter, it is used to focus on the workings of the co-present group, that nexus of complex relations where meaning is produced from affective processing and where the social, including practice, is created and individuals learn.


Complex Relation Affective Processing Human Practice Affective Functioning Practical Understanding 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Cilliers, P. (2002). Why we cannot know complex things completely. Emergence, 4(1/2), 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cilliers, P. (2005). Knowledge, limits and boundaries. Futures, 37, 605–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cilliers, P. (2006). On the importance of a certain slowness. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 8(3), 105–112.Google Scholar
  4. Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. (1989). Knowing and the known. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works 1949–1952 (Vol. 16, pp. 2–294). Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  5. Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. The American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Garrison, J. (2001). An introduction to Dewey’s theory of functional ‘trans-action’: An alternative paradigm for activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8(4), 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: History and issues. Emergence, 1(1), 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hager, P. (1996). Relational realism and professional performance. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 28(1), 98–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heylighen, F., Cilliers, P., & Gershenson, C. (2005). Complexity and philosophy. Paper presented at the Complexity, Science and Society Conference, Liverpool, UK. Citation: Accessed Aug 2010.
  10. Lancaster, J. (2011). The complexity of learning: relations all the way down. Ph.D. thesis, University of Technology, Sydney.Google Scholar
  11. Lewis, M. (2000). The promise of dynamic systems approaches for an integrated account of human development. Child Development, 71(1), 36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Manson, S. (2001). Simplifying complexity: A review of complexity theory. Geoforum, 32, 405–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mikulecky, D. (2001). The emergence of complexity: Science coming of age or science growing old? Computers and Chemistry, 25, 341–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Porter, T. (2003). Measurement, objectivity, and trust. Measurement, 1(4), 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schatzki, T. (2001a). Introduction: Practice theory. In T. R. Shatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina, & E. Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 10–23). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Schatzki, T. (2001b). Practice mind-ed orders. In T. R. Shatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina, & E. Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 42–55). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Schore, A. (2001). Effects of a secure attachment relationship on right brain development, affect regulation, and infant mental health. Infant Mental Health Journal, 22(1–2), 7–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Seidl, D. (2007). The dark side of knowledge. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 9(3), 16–29.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Arts & Social SciencesUniversity of Technology, SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations