Home > Social Science > Vol 1 No 1 June 2013 Abstract 1
Applying Complexity to Qualitative Policy Research: An Exploratory Case Study
Liz Johnson
Journal of Social Science for Policy Implications, 1(1), pp. 01-13.

Abstract
The purpose of this research is to explore a complexity science paradigm shift, as it relates tothe role, relationship, and methodological implications of complexity in qualitative policy research. The study investigated whether and how each of the major qualitative methods encompasses complexity. To better understand the role of complexity science in policy research, this exploratory case study investigated the differences, similarities, and synergies between qualitative paradigms and a complexity paradigm, by means of a tabular side-by-side comparison. The study found a majority of the qualitative inquiry strategies used for interpretation and analysis in policy research matched the elemental structures and functions of complexity. Yet the qualitative methods did not account fully for complexity. This investigation found a complexity paradigm can augment, supplement, subsume, and improve research in policy, if effectively applied. Additionally, complexity can be triangulated into qualitative inquiry as theory, data, and methodology. Finally, complexity provides a unique context in which to think about policy problems, interpret results, and answer research questions in new ways. This research puts forth foundational arguments that, a complexity science paradigm provides valuable theory and systematic methods for policy research, when conducting qualitative inquiry. This allows for capturing more complexity than with solely traditional research tools. A researcher’s goal may not be to capture more complexity. Yet further research is warranted to define and develop the appropriate role of complexity science in qualitative inquiry research in policy.

Full Text: PDF

Johnson, Liz. (2013). Applying Complexity to Qualitative Policy Research: An Exploratory Case Study. Journal of Social Science for Policy Implications, 1(1), pp. 01-13.

Ambert, A. M. (1994). A qualitative study of peer abuse and its effects: Theoretical and empirical implications. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 19-130.

Ambert, A. M., Adler, P. A., Adler, P., & Detzner, D. F. (1995). Understanding and evaluting qualitative research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(4), 879-892.

Christians, C. G. (2011). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 61-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). The basics of qualitative research (Third ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research designs: Choosing among five designs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design choosing among five approaches (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dennard, K., Richardson, K., & Morcol, G. (2008). Complexity and policy analysis: Tools and methods for designing robust policies in a complex world. Goodyear, AZ: ISCE Publishing.

Denzin, N. K. (1978). Sociological methods: A source book (Second ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005)

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000).Handbook of qualitative research (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The dicipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (4 ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Dye, T. R. (1998). Understanding public policy. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Fine, M., Weis, L., Wessen, S., & Wong, L. (2000). FOR WHOM? Qualitative research, representations, and social responsibilites. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 107-132). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Education research: An introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Givel, M., & Johnson, L. (2013). Scientific paradigms in the United States: Are we ready for complexity science?” In P. Youngman & M. Hadzikadic (Eds.), Complexity and the Human Experience: Modeling Complexity in the Humanities and Social Sciences. New York, NY: Pan Standard Publishing.

Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Writing your story: What your data say. Becoming a Qualitative Researcher (Second ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Hammersley, M. (2008). Capturing complexity? Examining a commonly used rationale for qualitative research.Questioning Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hunter, W., & Benson, G. D. (1997). Arrows in time: The misapplication of chaos theory to education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(1), 87-100.

Johnson, L. (2009). Agent-based model overview: A guide for public policy practitioners. Charlotte, NC: Complex Systems Institute. Johnson, L. (2012). Mini project #2 interview: Complexity in qualitative research. George Washington University, Washington, DC.

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The Structure of scientifics\ revolutions (Third ed.). Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.

Lemke, J. L., & Sabelli, N. H. (2008). Complex systems and educational change: Towards a new research agenda. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 118-129.

Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (Vol. 4, pp. 97-128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Maines, D. (1977). Social organization and social structure in symbolic interactionist thought. Annual Review of Sociology, 3, 75-95.

Maines, D. (1983). In search of the mesostructure: Studies in the negotiated order. Urban Life, 11, 267-279.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research: An interactive aproach (Vol. 42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Maxwell, J. A. (2009). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), The Sage handbook of applied social research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McCaughan, N., & Palmer, B. (1994). Systems thinking for harassed managers (systemic thinking and practice. London, England: Karnac Books.

Medd, W., & Hayes, P. (1988). Complexity and the social. Paper presented at the CSTT/ESRC The Language of Complexity Workshop, Keele University. http:http://www.keele.ac.uk/dept/sst/cstt2/comp/medd.htm

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research a guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook qualitative data analysis (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, J. H., & Page, S. E. (2007). Complex adaptive systems an introduction to computational models of social life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Mitchell, M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of chaos. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Page, S. E. (2009). Understanding complexity. Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company. Pagels, H. R. (1988). The dreams of reason. NY, NY: Simon and Shuster.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (Second ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Phelps, R., & Hase, S. (2002). Complexity and action research: Exploring the theoretical and methodological connection. Education Action Research, 10(3), 507-524. Retrieved April 12, 2012, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650790200200198

Pigliucci, M. (2000). Chaos and complexity. Skeptic, 8(3), 62-70.

Popper, K. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Routledge Classics.

Qualitative Inquiry. (2012). Retrieved April 4, 2012, from http://www.personal.psu.edu/wxh139/Quality.htm

Rescher, N. (1998). Complexity a philosophical overview. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Rossman, R. B., & Rallis, S. F. (1998). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A. (1993). Continual permutations of action. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight "big tent" criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837- 851.

Whitehead, T. L. (2004). What is ethnography? Methodological, ontological, and epistemological attributes CEHC Cultural Ecology of Health and Change. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.

Wolf-Branigin, M. (2013). Using complexity theory for research and program evaluation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Liz Johnson
Complex Systems Institute
The George Washington University
8813 Covey Rise Court.
USA