The study of complex systems has led to deep transformations in our modes of thinking, challenging our conceptions of reality and, with them, our roles and possibilities for action as agents in a complex world (Morin, 2005; Heylighen, Cillier & Gershenson, 2006). A variety of modes of thinking co-exists within the fuzzy boundaries of the domain of Complexity Studies. Different modes of thinking complexity and of thinking ‘in’ complexity (enacting its principles) can be identified in the literature, albeit not always explicitly recognised (Melo et al. 2019). These modes of thinking somehow simultaneously express and are expressed in, shape and are shaped, constitute and are constituted, transform and are transformed by different worldviews (which encompass ontologies, epistemologies, prediction frames, axiologies, praxeologies; Vidal, 2008). Worldviews and modes of thinking are intrinsically related, albeit neither directly mapped nor reduced to each other. Different modes of thinking will present different potentialities and limitations in relation to how these worldviews are constructed, enacted, operationalised and transformed in the process of developing theory, research and practice. Different modes of thinking will build different types and levels of capacity to understand as well as to affect and manage change in the ‘real-world’ and even to lead to a transformation of our worldviews. 

Different modes of thinking will differ in a number of dimensions, for instance, in relation to: 

• the way key theoretical questions are defined and translated into research problems; 

• the way they inform choices regarding the construction, selection and adaptation of methodologies and methods, impacting on the way data are interpreted; 

• the extent to which they are embedded in ‘real-world’ practices  (e.g. interventions for the management of change in complex systems; formal and informal education in ‘Complexity’  themes);

•  the effects of the choices they inform on the target systems; 

• the extent to which they inform the development of strategies and tools for their own development and management;  

• their congruence with particular worldviews and their underlying assumptions; 

• the concepts and processes used to assemble worldviews and to investigate their empirical foundation.

This workshop is grounded in the idea that Science should nurture a second-order, self-critical and reflexive stance (Müller, 2016; Morin, 2005)  and that Complexity Science(s) should be embedded in the organising principles similar to the systems it studies and aims to affect (Melo, 2020). Nevertheless, it recognises that even this ambition is grounded in particular worldviews and modes of thinking that are not necessarily shared by all. Hence, it affirms the need to explore the relations between different modes of thinking and corresponding worldviews and their implications. It works from the assumption that the Philosophy of Science and the Philosophy of Complexity are critical partners to Science and that the practice of Science should be accompanied by philosophical investigations and by deep Inter- and Transdisciplinary dialogues in order to construct the requisite variety of perspectives and modes of thinking for truly embracing Complexity (Morin, 2005).

The overall guiding questions for debate include (but are not limited to): 

(i) What modes of thinking (in) complexity have been proposed and practised and how do they relate to each other? How does their relation support the development of Complexity Studies? How are they (and their relations) seen in theory, research and practice and what may be their advantages and disadvantages, limits and potentialities and in what contexts?

(ii) How can a perspective on worldviews and modes of thinking impact Complexity Studies, across domains, and what are the key theoretical, methodological and practical/pragmatic questions and challenges that need to be addressed in relation to the modes of thinking (in) complexity?

(iii) How can our modes of thinking (in) complexity be organised and what does this afford in terms of possibilities for thinking and action? How can they be explored, developed, practised or applied and what are the core challenges to be addressed in this regard?

(iv) How can we think about and change our modes of thinking (in) complexity in theory, research and practice? What implications for applied or real/-world interventions and for education?

This workshop calls for wide participation of academics and researchers from a variety of domains with an interest in Complexity Studies, as well as practitioners, educators, policy-makers, community leaders, artists and other individuals with an interest in Complexity. 

[Note: This Schedule is GMT+2/CET. Please find below links to schedules for other time zones]

WELCOMING

11:30 Room opening and check-in

11:45. Welcoming, Contextualisation and Methodology for the Meeting

PARTE I

12:00-12:20  Stimulus Presentation 1 - Rika Preiser

12:20-12:40  Stimulus Presentation 2- From thinking complexity to thinking in complexity- Ana Teixeira de Melo

5 MINUTES BREAK 

12:45-13:45  ‘Reflecting team’ intervention with Keynote commentators:Bruce Edmonds; Hiroki Sayama; Maël Montevil; Tina Röck; Alex Penn

13:45-14:05 Interventions from participants: Questions and Comments

14:05-14:15 Reflexive Comments from Speakers

14:15-14:30 Observing/Reporting: Highlight of Contents ~Processes and Summary Identification of key Questions/Challenges - Leo Caves, Carlos Gershenson, Charbel El-Hani

14:30- 15:30 1 HOUR  BREAK

PART II

15:30-16:30. Stimulus Contributed talks (10 min+ 5 min Q&A)

• Tina Röck," I am because we are – A complex look at human existence"

• Alexandra Penn & Nigel Gilbert, "Enabling Complex Thinking in Government: an Actionable Complexity approach"

• Abhishek Nair: "Knowledge capture, representation and simulation: From subjective realities to complex systems analysis"

• Angel Ortega Lira: "Complexity and Philosophy"

 16:30-16:35 5 MINUTES BREAK 

PART III

16:35-18:30  Reflecting café (Adapted world café inspired dialogue session with all participants  (Using Miro platform along with Zoom for video ).

Table hosts:  Leo Caves; Carlos Gershenson, Alexandra Penn, Bruce Edmonds; Charbel El-Hani, Maël Montevil

• Round 1: 5 min (table distribution) + 30 min debate (5 min individual + 15 min group + 15 min integration)

• Round 2: 5 min (table distribution) + 30 min debate (5 min individual + 15 min group + 15 min integration)

• Break: 10 min

• Reporting by group (table-hosts): 15 min

• Large group discussion (finding categories and meta-patterns): 20 min

18:30:-18:45  15 MINUTES BREAK

18:45- 20:00 Facilitation of Relational Dialogues and Final Integration

20:00-20:15 Concluding remarks

_____________________

Schedule in GMT -3  (e.g. Salvador da Baía, Brasília, Chile)

Schedule in  GMT-5 (e.g. México)

Schedule in GMT -7 (e.g. Vancouver, California)

Schedule in GMT+1 (e.g. London, Lisbon)

Schedule in GMT+2 / CEST (e.g. Paris)

Schedule in GMT+3 (e.g. Israel)