فصلنامه روش شناسی علوم انسانی
پیاپی 76 (پاییز 1392)

Complexity theory refers to study of adaptive complex systems. We cannot explain and understanding of theses system by contemporary paradigms that based on linear equations. The current methods in social science have not power of researching any kind of these systems. We can study public policy as a complexes system for complexity science. in this paper, we exploring adaptive complex systems, their characteristics and justify implications of these systems for public policy making.

The new science ofcomplexity has emerged as a intellectual movement in 1970sth.the aim of that was changing the basis of scientific thought and going beyond the reductionist and linear thought.complexity approach seek to explain the any kind of systems. Bertalanffy was on of the prominent figures of complex systems. He changed the way of formulation of systems theory. He believes that living systems in contrast to mechanical systems are open systems.Bertalanffy named his epistemological viewpoints as perspectivism. Because he believed that no any kind of knowledge can comprehend the the whole of reality.but it can only represent a part of reality in the wake of framework of relatively proper models. Bertalanffy's view in a part is a anti- reductionist that it included mechanistic and vital reductionism.

Complexity paradigm is viewed as public pattern of science in modern times which against mechanical or Newtonian paradigm, in less than four decades, has stepped into the realm of human knowledge and has affected different areas including the humanities. The main objective of this study was to introduce and explain the components of the paradigm of complexity in its three-fold basis (ontology, epistemology, methodology). In this study, with a view to the ideas of leading scholars of this paradigm, it has been attempted to study the theoretical foundations of this paradigm. Finally, the components of this paradigm are concluded in its three-fold basis: Ontology (complex critical realism, complex causation, structural determinism); Epistemology (uncertainty, distributed representation, theory of fuzzy truth); Methodology (holism, interobjectivity, strategy).

Knowing the essence of complex affairs is the first step toward construction and study of complex sciences. For introducing complex affairs, in both natural and social sciences, generally, count various elements. According to one of the current theories, emergent, holism and evolutionary are three elements that count as ontological elements of complex systems. While by philosophical elaboration and analyzing, holism and evolutionary can be substitute under the element of emergent. This process in the one hand is attainable by explanation and disjunction of emergent properties and in the other hand by elaborating holism and evolutionary as the theories which arise from philosophical foundation of emergentism. Consequently holism and evolutionary are not ontological elements but they are theories that can be lay out by emergentism.

Advancing concepts such as emergence, edge of chaos and adaptation, Complexity science provide new perspective on human and social phenomena and put forward novel accounts. Describing and justifying behaviors of many socio- technical systems are somehow impossible without applying complexity insights.The main focus of the paper is differences between system thinking and complexity science. A critical- Comparative approach would be adopted. Following the approach, some relevant theoretical texts on system thinking and complexity are critically examined particularly from teleological point of view.It is maintained that fundamental aspects of difference come down to eight dimensions. These areas could show potentials and limitations of two approaches and provide big pictures of both.

This article refers to the origin of complexity theory and also its impact on the management of educational organizations, by using the analytical method. The thinkers of complexity theory believe that educational organizations are self-organization, complex and nonlinear systems, so their changes could not be justified by traditional management principles and their management must be creative, flexible to change, inconstancy and diversity, preventing the concentration of power and hierarchy, based on mutual trust and respect, in the form of a sharing team. This article admits the valuable implications of this theory, but due to relative nature oriented in complexity management or the way they adjust their systems organization to practical grouping management, should be cautious in practicing this theory. Finally, it can be concluded that if complexity management is based on relation of complementary concepts including order/disorder, it can be a proper basis for management of educational organizations.

Nowadays, along with the complicating organizations and emergence of uncertainty in decisions, organizations have been more than ever related to each other and therefore, inter-organizational networks have been adapted to support organizations to achieve their goals. Concepts such as individual learning, group learning, and organizational learning have long been created. In this paper, we will first cope with chaos theory and complexity. Then we will take a look at the new thinking and the way it affects organization. We will also propose learning as the way out from the challenge of complexity. Finally, network learning will be proposed as a response to the turbulence of the environment

The paradigm of complexity shows the conceptual framework with respect to the performance worth the long-term and short-term with the primary relationships. This paradigm formed seeks chaos theory and complex behavior explain in all systems will be considered. This article describes the implications of complexity theory in knowledge of management skills. For this purpose, studies of the theoretical foundations, concepts, principles and rules for the identification and interpretation of complexity theory in management principles. The research methodology of the study is descriptive in terms of purpose, theoretical perspectives and paradigms underlying qualitative type. The study results showed the complexity paradigm is capabilities analytical and management skills such as planning, organizing, controlling and monitoring, guidance and leadership, and decision making are. Value paradigm of complexity, defining a new vision in the organizational life that uncertainty, embracing change and adaptive self – organization, main features of the landscape.