Humanity’s pressing challenges call for urgent positive changes at different levels of organisation: from individuals, families and organisations, to small and large communities. The relations within and between these levels and their coupling to other natural, economic, social as well as physical and technological systems, sustain humanity [1]. A positive future is dependent on our capacity to embrace this complexity. Following Ashby’s law of requisite variety [2], we state that the potential of interventions in complex systems is dependent on the complexity of the intervenors. This complexity must be grounded in our modes of thinking [3,8,13] that, constrained by (and constraining) our explanatory approaches and theoretical models, guide our actions: our modes of thinking need to be congruent and commensurate with the nature and complexity of the systems we seek to address. Mismatches may lead to unexpected, unintended and, oftentimes, negative effects.

Systems thinking introduced a hallmark in the history of science and human thinking, embracing the interconnectedness of the physical, biological and social world [13, 14]. The ‘complexity turn’ [15] has continued this revolution, stretching the boundaries, models and methods of science to acknowledge the complex properties of the ‘real’ world. Despite the development of a ‘complexity science’, the dominant modes of thinking, are often, not, in themselves, complex: to a large extent, they have remained “restricted” [15], trapped in the habits and structures of a ‘normal’ reductionist and linear science, constrained in its own reduced  reflexivity and capacity for change [16]. Science needs to be able to rethink itself by inspecting its modes of thinking [16]. By building tools for complex thinking it will be in a better position to meet its own internal challenges while guiding societal change. The literature of complex thinking is still scarce, scattered and limited by the constraints of disciplinary boundaries. The multiple uses of the notion of complex thinking, without a clear definition, generate confusion and prevent the advance of practice. 

There is a need to distinguish and integrate notions of complex thinking with those of complexity itself or complex systems: albeit related they are different. Additionally, patterns of thinking cannot simply be taught or transmitted: they are a practice. Hence, the need for (i) building an integrative theoretical framework and (ii) strategies and tools to promote the practice of complex thinking. 

This project aims to address such needs. For that it will build on the literature of complexity theory and complex systems research [3, 4, 5, 6, 7] and  draw on a tradition of thinkers inspired by biological complexity and adopt a relational, process-based, and dialogical perspective [3, 8, 9, 10,11, 12, 13] to develop and evaluate a framework that aims to be theoretically sound and pragmatically relevant for practice.

This project will provide interventions aimed at promoting complex thinking in both scientific and practice contexts, built from an integrative theoretical framework for complex thinking that will provide the foundations for future research. The novelty of the theory lies, to a great extent, in its integrative and transdisciplinary character, in the added understanding and in the possibilities for action that derive from its applications. It will draw from contributions in a variety of disciplines and have applications in a variety of domains. Additionally, the framework will provide clear indicators of dimensions and processes involved in complex thinking  so they can be intentionally targeted and evaluated through a variety of strategies. By engaging with experts in different domains, and relating to contexts of practice, the project will develop tools and strategies for support applied complex thinking in basic and applied research. The project aims at developing pragmatically relevant theory with a clear focus on practice i.e. interventions aiming at positive change in complex systems. To achieve this, it will adopt an co-evolutionary approach, where theory and tool developments will recursively feedback on each other to promote fitness.