External stakeholders and health promoting schools: complexity and practice in South Africa

Purpose: This paper examines the role of two higher education institutions in the Western Cape, South Africa, and how their initiatives and collaboration brought about a particular Health Promoting Schools (HPS) program in a resource poor setting. The aim of this paper is to reflect on the importance of the role that external systemic actors and stakeholders can play in the process of designing and implementing HPS programs in resource poor settings. Design/methodology/approach: In this paper a complex systems approach is employed to describe two different participatory methods of engagement with HPS by higher education institutions. On the one hand, engagement took place in terms of a formal and funded project, directed at the organizational level of the school, with capacity building as its aim. On the other hand, engagement was initiated informally (as part of a service learning project) via collaboration with the formal project, directed at the individual level of learners in the school. Findings: In recognizing the complex nature of planning and implementing HPS programs, the paper demonstrates that HPS approaches could benefit from engaging with resources outside the ambit of institutional health and educational policies and structures. Originality/value: By acknowledging the systemic nature of implementing HPS strategies, novel collaborations emerge as a result. The paper highlights the important role that external stakeholders such as higher education institutions play in creating and sustaining tailor-made HPS programs for schools based in resource poor settings

Academic publishing in pandemic times

CITATION: Preiser, W. & Preiser, R. 2020. Academic publishing in pandemic times. South African Journal of Science, 116(9/10):8803, doi:10.17159/sajs.2020/8803.The original publication is available at https://sajs.co.zaENGLISH ABSTRACT: Even though it tends to feel like ages, it has not been that long since the final days of 2019, when cases of severe respiratory illness (now known as COVID-19), caused by a previously unknown coronavirus (since named SARSCoV- 2), were reported from China. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented disruption to almost every area of our daily and professional lives. Science has not been spared, nor has scientific publishing. Most researchers have been unable to continue with their work, and many had to all but re-invent their teaching. Quite a few have re-invented themselves as coronavirus researchers.1 As biomedical researchers, we are astonished to see how much interest the public is taking in our findings. For no other disease do members of the public so fervently seek out reports in traditional and social media about the latest research findings. These reports often trigger controversial discussions, mostly on social media platforms, about rather complicated aspects of epidemiology, diagnostics, pathogenesis or therapy. Many of these issues are matters outside the realm of everyday life and normally left to experts to assess the evidence and translate it into practice.https://sajs.co.za/article/view/8803Publisher's versio

Academic publishing in pandemic times

CITATION: Preiser, W. & Preiser, R. 2020. Academic publishing in pandemic times. South African Journal of Science, 116(9/10):8803, doi:10.17159/sajs.2020/8803.The original publication is available at https://sajs.co.zaENGLISH ABSTRACT: Even though it tends to feel like ages, it has not been that long since the final days of 2019, when cases of severe respiratory illness (now known as COVID-19), caused by a previously unknown coronavirus (since named SARSCoV- 2), were reported from China. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented disruption to almost every area of our daily and professional lives. Science has not been spared, nor has scientific publishing. Most researchers have been unable to continue with their work, and many had to all but re-invent their teaching. Quite a few have re-invented themselves as coronavirus researchers.1 As biomedical researchers, we are astonished to see how much interest the public is taking in our findings. For no other disease do members of the public so fervently seek out reports in traditional and social media about the latest research findings. These reports often trigger controversial discussions, mostly on social media platforms, about rather complicated aspects of epidemiology, diagnostics, pathogenesis or therapy. Many of these issues are matters outside the realm of everyday life and normally left to experts to assess the evidence and translate it into practice.https://sajs.co.za/article/view/8803Publisher's versio

The problem of complexity : re-thinking the role of critique

Thesis (PhD)--Stellenbosch University, 2012.Prof. F P Cilliers acted, until his death on 31 July 2011, as the original promotor of this dissertationENGLISH ABSTRACT: This dissertation departs from the argument that an encounter with complexity exposes the breakdown of traditional doctrines that have been taken for granted for too long (markedly modernist reductionism). Contrary to reductionist strategies that rely on the methods of analysis and isolation, the study of complex phenomena focuses on the dynamic relations and organisation of systems and their environments. Although the proliferation of ideas concerning the notion of complexity is abundant, there is no agreed upon definition that informs an overarching ‘Theory of Complexity.’ This problem is addressed by following the historical development in the field of systyms thinking. A distinction is made between ‘restricted’ and ‘general’ theories of complexity. The study problematises the conceptual and empirical difficulties of studying complex phenomena. The impossibility of being able to have complete knowledge of complex systems is discussed in detail. It is argued that although the study of complexity serves as an alternative approach to reductionist approaches, our knowledge of complexity in principle remains a reduction thereof. This insight leads to the claim that the study of complex phenomena is at best a post-reductionist effort, which is necessarily a critical position. It is argued that the ‘complexity approach’ coincides with other poststructural approaches in the field of philosophy in general and with deconstruction in particular. However, situating the complexity approach within poststructuralism is not unproblematic, seeing that poststructural forms of critique are marred by problems of legitimation. Allegiance to postmetaphysical ideals implies that objective grounds for justifying or warranting the choice of norms from where to launch critical inquiry are sacrificed. A deconstructive reading of the Kantian concept of ‘critique’ reveals a double movement that is at work in the concept. This double bind displaces the definition of critique to change to mean ‘critique as stricture.’ From this perspective the logic of différance is at work in critical analysis and the limitations of our meaning making strategies are exposed. It is suggested that ‘critique as stricture’ is a poststructural form of critical inquiry that regains legitimacy by operating in the tension of the force field created by antagonistic positions. A provisional grounding in the name of the limit emerges. The kind of thinking that can be cognisant of this general movement of ‘critique as stricture’ is found in the notion of ‘complex thinking.’ By drawing on Derrida’ and Morin’s reappropriation of Bataille’s distinction between the restricted and general economy, it is demonstrated how complex thinking is operating within the movement of the general economy. The study concludes with the argument that informed by ‘critique as stricture,’ the complexity approach progresses to what Cilliers calls ‘critical complexity.’ This brand of complexity distinguishes itself by a normative turn, which is distinguished by three imperatives: 1) the Provisional Imperative, 2) the Critical Reflexive Imperative and 3) the World-disclosing Imperative. All of these operate under the influence of the general economy, which allows critical inquiry to be grounded and legitimised in the tension of thinking antagonistic positions together without reducing them to one another.AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: In hierdie proefskrif word aangevoer dat die verskynsel van kompleksiteit die disintegrasie van tradisionele leerstellings se aansprake, wat te lank as vanselfsprekend aanvaar was, ontbloot (merkbaar reduksionistiese modernisme). In teenstelling met reduksionistiese strategieë wat staat maak op metodes van analise en isolasie, fokus die studie van komplekse verskynsels op die dinamiese verhoudings en organisasie van sisteme en hul omgewings. Alhoewel die studie van kompleksiteit ’n byna alledaagse verskynsel geword het, bestaan daar geen bindende definisie wat ’n enkele ‘Teorie van Kompleksiteit’ daarstel nie. Daar word spesifiek op hierdie probleem gefokus in terme van hoe die wetenskaplike studie van kompleksiteit histories ontwikkel het. Dit word aangevoer dat dit sinvoller is om eerder tussen ‘beperkte’ en ‘algemene’ teorieë van kompleksiteit te onderskei as om ’n oorkoepelende teorie te ontwikkel. Heelwat probleme duik op in die poging om komplekse verskynsels konseptueel en empiries te bestudeer. Alhoewel die studie van komplekse verskynsels ’n alternatiewe posisie tot reduksionistiese benaderings daarstel, kan kennis van kompleksiteit in beginsel slegs ’n reduksie daarvan wees. As gevolg hiervan word die studie van komplekse verskynsels ten beste as ’n post-reduksionistiese poging beskryf wat noodwendig ’n kritiese posisie impliseer. Die kompleksiteitsbenadering stem in die algemeen met post-strukturele filosofiese benaderings, en spesifiek met dekonstruksie ooreen. Hierdie ooreenstemming is egter nie onproblematies nie, aangesien post-strukutrele kritiese posisies deur probleme van legitimasie gekenmerk word. Lojaliteit aan post-metafisiese ideale het tot gevolg dat daar geen objektiewe, grondige vertrekpunt bestaan vanwaar normatiewe begrondings geregverdig kan word nie. ’n Dekonstruktiewe lees van Kant se idee van die begrip ‘kritiek’ openbaar dat daar ’n ‘double movement’ aan die werk is wat die konsep ‘kritiek’ kan verruim ten einde dit te verander om ‘critique as stricture’ te beteken. Die werking van différance is altyd betrokke tydens kritiese analise waardeur die beperkinge van ons singewende strategieë blootgestel word. Hierdie her-definiëring van kritiek as ‘critique as stricture’ stel ons in staat om nuwe lewe in die kritiese projek te blaas deurdat legitimiteit gevind word in die spanning van die kragveld wat geskep word tussen antagonistiese posisies. ’n Voorlopige grondslag word in die naam van die beperkings van ons denkstrategië gevestig. ‘Kompleksiteitsdenke’ (‘complex thinking’) stel ’n denkstrategie daar wat tred hou met die dinamiese beweging wat in ‘critique as stricture’ teenwoordig is. ‘Kompleksiteitsdenke’ word aan die hand van Derrida en Morin se interpretasie van Bataille se onderskeid tussen die beperkte en algemene ekonomie gedoen ten einde te demonstreer dat ‘kompleksiteitsdenke’ binne die beweging van die algemene ekonomie val. Die studie word afgesluit met die argument dat, ingelig deur ‘critique as stricture’, die kompleksiteitsbenadering tot die begrip ‘kritiese kompleksiteit’ ontwikkel soos voorgestel deur Cilliers. Kritiese kompleksiteit word deur ’n normatiewe impuls gekenmerk wat in sigself weer deur drie noodsaaklike eienskappe uitgeken kan word: 1) die Voorlopige Imperatief, 2) die Kritiese Refleksiewe Imperatief en 3) die Wêreld-ontsluitende Imperatief. Al drie hierdie imperatiewe staan onder die invloed van die algemene ekonomie wat ons toelaat om kritiese analise te begrond in die spanning wat onstaan wanneer antagonistiese konsepte saam gedink word sonder dat hulle tot mekaar gereduseer word

Exploring relationality in African knowledge systems as a contribution to decoloniality in sustainability science

ABSTRACTThe current solutions offered by Western sustainability science to address prevailing global environmental destruction and social injustice are still largely embedded in the Western knowledge system established by colonisation, limiting the efficacy of these solutions for a large part of the planet. Conversely, it may be reasonable to imagine that the concept of relationality is beneficial in all cultures and knowledge systems. Relationality, elementally referring to a web of relationships, as considered from an African Indigenous and local knowledge perspective, could play an important role in decolonising Western sustainability science. Two valuable approaches, namely ubuntu (humanness) and ukama (relatedness), as predominantly observed in southern Africa, are essentially immersed in human-nature relationality. This type of relationality considers everything as interconnected, and therefore that nothing happens in isolation, and that the well-being of humans is inextricable from the well-being of nature. The way relationality is approached in African Indigenous knowledge systems is inclusive, holistic and perpetual, broadening its usefulness to a large audience, making it a sensible contributor to decoloniality in sustainability science. A collective knowledge could emerge, including cooperative, multidirectional interactions with different types of information from diverse human and non-human sources, increasingly eradicating the relational divide among knowledge systems caused by persistent colonial discourse and attitudes

Deconstruction and complexity: a critical economy

In this paper we argue for the contribution that deconstruction can make towards an understanding of complex systems. We begin with a description of what we mean by complexity and how Derrida’s thought illustrates a sensitivity towards the problems we face when dealing with complex systems. This is especially clear in Derrida’s deconstruction of the structuralist linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure. We compare this critique with the work of Edgar Morin, one of the foremost thinkers of contemporary complexity and argue for the possible contributions that both thinkers provide towards an understanding of complex phenomena in the world. We then move on to illustrate the particular economy of thinking we are forced to engage with when dealing with complex systems. This economy is inspired by Derrida’s deconstruction of Bataille’s general economy. This economy illustrates the fundamental nature of critique in the process of dealing with complex systems, the third concept we explore in this paper. The process of critique illustrates the necessity for both cutting apart and weaving together of economies in order to maintain the possibility for divergent ways of being in the world. We conclude with the ethical implications of dealing with complex systems and some first steps towards an ‘ethics of complexity’.South African Journal of Philosophy 2013, 32(3): 261–27

Methods for understanding social-ecological systems: a review of place-based studies

In recent years, social-ecological systems (SES) have emerged as a prominent analytical framing with which to investigate pressing sustainability issues associated with the Anthropocene era. Despite the growth of SES research, the lack of a delineated set of methods commonly contributes to disorientation for those entering into a field where methodological pluralism is the norm. We conduct a review of SES research, focusing particularly on methods used in this field. Our results reflect the rapid growth in SES research relative to other publications in relevant subject areas, and suggest a maturation of the field. Whilst institutions investigating SES have been mostly based in the global north, focal SES has been more globally distributed, although key regions, especially island regions, remain poorly studied. Key problems addressed in the studies related to policy, trade, conservation, adaptation, land use change, water, forests, sustainability, urban problems, and governance and institutions. We identified 311 methods, which we grouped into 27 method categories that can serve as a guide to SES research methods for newcomers to the field. We also performed an exploratory assessment of the ability of these methods to account for key features of SES as complex adaptive systems. We found that methods do better at accounting for the relational and context-dependent nature of SES, and least well with complex causality. Our study highlights the plurality of methods used in SES research, and helps highlight key areas in need of further methodological development

A framework for conceptualizing and assessing the resilience of essential services produced by socio-technical systems

Essential services such as electricity are critical to human well-being and the functioning of modern society. These services are produced by complex adaptive socio-technical systems and emerge from the interplay of technical infrastructure with people and governing institutions. Ongoing global changes such as urbanization and increasing prevalence of extreme weather events are generating much interest in strategies for building the resilience of essential services. However, much of the emphasis has been on reliable and resilient technical infrastructure. This focus is insufficient; resilience also needs to be built into the human and institutional processes within which these technical systems are embedded. Here, we propose a conceptual framework, based on a complex adaptive systems perspective, that identifies four key domains that require investment to build the resilience of essential services. This framework addresses both the technical and social components of the socio-technical systems that underlie essential services and incorporates specified and general resilience considerations. The framework can be used to guide resilience assessments and to identify strategies for building resilience across different organizational levels

Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems : organizing principles for advancing research methods and approaches

CITATION: Preise, R., et al. 2018. Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems : organizing principles for advancing research methods and approaches. Ecology and Society, 23(4):46, doi:10.5751/ES-10558-230446.The original publication is available at https://www.ecologyandsociety.orgThe study of social-ecological systems (SES) has been significantly shaped by insights from research on complex adaptive systems (CAS). We offer a brief overview of the conceptual integration of CAS research and its implications for the advancement of SES studies and methods. We propose a conceptual typology of six organizing principles of CAS based on a comparison of leading scholars’ classifications of CAS features and properties. This typology clusters together similar underlying organizing principles of the features and attributes of CAS, and serves as a heuristic framework for identifying methods and approaches that account for the key features of SES. These principles can help identify appropriate methods and approaches for studying SES. We discuss three main implications of studying and engaging with SES as CAS. First, there needs to be a shift in focus when studying the dynamics and interactions in SES, to better capture the nature of the organizing principles that characterize SES behavior. Second, realizing that the nature of the intertwined social-ecological relations is complex has real consequences for how we choose methods and practical approaches for observing and studying SES interactions. Third, engagement with SES as CAS poses normative challenges for problem-oriented researchers and practitioners taking on real-world challenges.https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/article.php/10558Publisher's versio