علم پیچیدگی و مدیریت دولتی: مطالعه از حوزه‌ای دانشی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناسی ارشد مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران

2 استاد دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران

چکیده

 در دو دهه گذشته، توجه به مفهوم علم پیچیدگی و پژوهش­های آن در مدیریت دولتی افزایش یافته است. علم پیچیدگی، به بررسی میان­رشته­ای سیستم­های پیچیده  می­پردازد و در پی فهم و تبیین این سیستم­ها است. بر این اساس، مدیریت دولتی به عنوان اداره­ی سیستم­های پیچیده در بخش دولتی به واکاوی بسیاری از مطالعات علم پیچیدگی پرداخته است. با این حال، بررسی حوزه­ای از پژوهش­های علم پیچیدگی در مدیریت دولتی، برای هدایت پژوهش­های بیشتر در این زمینه انجام نشده است. هدف از این مرور حوزه­ای توصیف و تحلیل مطالعات متمرکز بر علم پیچیدگی در مدیریت دولتی، جهت استخراج تصویری کلی از دامنه، عمق و وسعت پژوهش­ها در این زمینه است. از منظر روش­شناختی، از روش مرور حوزه­ای توسعه داده شده توسط آرکسی، اُمَلی و لواک استفاده شده است. مطالعات مرتبط، با انجام جستجوی الکترونیکی در 5 پایگاه داده پژوهشی شناسایی شدند، که 32 مقاله با معیارهای ورودی مرور­حوزه­ای مطابقت داشتند. کانون اصلی پژوهش­های بررسی­شده شامل: استفاده از نظریه پیچیدگی به عنوان ابزاری مفهومی و کاربردی برای مدل­سازی مسائل مدیریت دولتی، رفتار عوامل، تصمیم­گیری عمومی، حکمرانی شبکه­ای، کاربرد نظریه پیچیدگی به عنوان چارچوبی تحلیلی برای بررسی پیامدهای بخش دولتی می­شوند. دیدگاه­های بدیع و رویکردهای روش­شناختی متنوع­تر، که بر موضوعات موثر تعمیم­پذیری یافته­ها توجه می­کنند، می­توانند دانش ما در این زمینه را گسترش دهند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Complexity Science and Public Administration: A Scoping Review

نویسندگان [English]

  • Morteza Mehryar Chosari 1
  • Hassan Danaeefard 2
1 Msc. Public Administration. Faculty of Economic & Management, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2 2. Professor. Faculty of Economic & Management, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Abstract
In the past two decades, interest in the concept of complexity science and its research has increased in public administration. Complexity science (CS) is the interdisciplinary investigation of, and attempt to explain and understand, complex systems. Public Administration (PA) as administrating complex systems in the public sector has been the focus of several studies. However, scoping reviews of CS research in PA have not been conducted to guide further research in this area. The purpose of this scoping review is to describe and analyze studies focusing on CS in PA to elicit an overall picture of the research in this field. A scoping review methodology guided by Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al. was used. Studies were identified by conducting electronic searches on 5 Research Databases. Of 32 articles matched the inclusion criteria. CS is a topical research area that has been explored with different methods and outcomes, in different environments, and has mainly been perceived positively. Novel perspectives and more diverse methodological approaches paying attention to issues affecting the generalizability of the findings could expand our knowledge in this area.
Introduction
In the last two decades, complexity theory has become more of a theory-in-use in PA although it remains some way from the mainstream or fully accepted. Despite, there is neither a comprehensive image of the functionality of CS nor its application in PA. However, there were some efforts to show the contribution of CS in PA and to enumerate useful key concepts of it in public management.
This study aims to describe and analyze studies focusing on CS in PA to elicit an overall picture of the research in this field. There is no review study in this scope of PA to conduct scholars in their way of researches.
Case study
The statistical population of the study is all articles were published in 6 scientific databases between 1999 and 2019.
Theoretical framework
Since past decades progress has been made by adopting useful complexity concepts not previously used or well understood in PA such as adaptation, self-organization, coevolution, emergence. Other scholars have pursued a path of comparing extant theories with complexity theory, for example, network governance and institutions, to show how complexity theory might work in concert with the better-established theory. A third path also appears to have merit and could work alongside both the former. It aims to identify implicit or explicit use of complexity concepts in extant theories and show how complexity theory concepts can provide some coherence across these theories at a metalevel. In this vein, complexity theory offers new insights into areas commonly focused on by PA scholars: the roles of actors, policy processes, and decisions. In addition to theoretical usage of CS studies, there are various efforts to provide some practical tools for extending the domain of CS scope in PA.
This scoping review was conducted to provide an estimation of the breadth and scope of available research literature and to gain main findings and foci of done studies to guide further researches in the scope of CS and PA and to increase our knowledge in this area.
Methodology
A scoping review methodology guided by Arksey and O’Malley and Levac et al. was used. Scoping reviews can be undertaken to examine the extent, range, and nature of research activity by mapping all relevant research literature. Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework outlines a five-stage approach for conducting scoping reviews as 1. identifying the research question, 2. identifying relevant studies, 3. Study selection, 4. charting the data, and 5. collating, summarizing, and reporting the results.
Discussion and Results
In the range of 20 years of study selection, there are 32 articles with 5566 citations that matched with research criteria. Britain and the U.S have the main contribution in article publication by publishing 30 articles. Public Management Review is the main journal by publishing 9 articles. Most of the studies are conducting by a qualitative research design.
Mainstreams of studies’ foci are the proximity of methodology of studying PA and complexity’s phenomena, application of complexity theory in terms of a practical and theoretical tool for modeling PA issues, studying nature and reasons of complexity in the process of decision making, codification, execution, and assessment of policymaking in PA.
Conclusion
CS has been explored in different environments with different methods and outcomes, but it has been perceived mainly positively. Mainly the focus of the studies was on finding associations between CS and PA in a practical and theoretical term. The strongest empirical evidence was in linking the CS with network governance, self-organizing in the public sector, coevoluting between social complex systems and external actors, and adapting in different layers on governance system.
Methodologically, more attention should be paid to issues that strongly affect the generalizability of the findings. In this respect, also the systematic use of power analysis in estimating required sample sizes is justified depending on the sampling method. Moving forward to more sophisticated research designs such as to cause–effect estimation would provide knowledge for targeted development projects in areas that need improvement. Simultaneous use of different instruments would provide a deeper understanding of concepts in CS and how these concepts relate to each other. Different qualitative approaches, such as ethnography, critical theory, case studies, or authors network analysis would provide new, deeper knowledge of experiences related to CS and PA which could contribute to the development of new instruments to measure CS in PA.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • scoping review
  • public administration
  • complexity science
  • policy making
منابع فارسی
دانایی‌فرد، حسن. (1392). علم پیچیدگی و خط­مشی­گذاری عمومی: آیا رهنمودهایی برای اندیشمندان و اندیشه وران خط­مشی عمومی دارد؟. روش شناسی علوم انسانی, 76(19), 7-40.‎
 
References
Anderson, P. (1999). Perspective: Complexity theory and organization science. Organization science, 10(3), 216-232.
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32.
Brunswicker, S., Priego, L. P., & Almirall, E. (2019). Transparency in policy making: A complexity view. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 571-591.
Butler, M. J. R., & Allen, P. M. (2008). Understanding Policy implementation processes as self-organizing systems. Public Management Review, 10(3), 421–440.
Cairney, P. (2012). Complexity theory in political science and public policy. Political Studies Review, 10(3), 346-358.
Castelnovo, W., & Sorrentino, M. (2018). Engaging with complexity in a public programme implementation. Public Management Review, 20(7), 1013-1031.
Danaeefard, H. (2013). Complexity science and Public policy: Are there any guidelines for public policy philosophers and thinkers?. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities Journal, 76(19), 7-39. (In Persian).
Dennard, L., Richardson, K. A., & Morçöl, G. (2005). Complexity and Policy Analysis, 7(1), 1-18.
Eppel, E. (2012). What does it take to make surprises less surprising? The contribution of complexity theory to anticipation in public management. Public Management Review, 14(7), 881-902.
Eppel, E. (2017). Complexity thinking in public administration’s theories-in-use. Public Management Review, 19(6), 845-861.
Frederickson, H. G. (2005). Whatever happened to public administration? Governance, governance everywhere. London: The Oxford Handbook of Public Management.
Gerrits, L. (2010). Public decision-making as coevolution. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 12(1), 19-28.
Gerritts, L. (2011). A coevolutionary revision of decision making processes: An analysis of port extensions in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. Public Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 309-341.
Geyer, R. (2003). Beyond the third way: The science of complexity and the politics of choice. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 5(2), 237–257.
Haynes, P. (2008). Complexity theory and evaluation in public management: A qualitative systems approach. Public Management Review, 10(3), 401-419.
Haynes, P. (2018). Understanding the influence of values in complex systems-based approaches to public policy and management. Public Management Review, 20(7), 980-996.
Holland, J. H. (1992). Complex adaptive systems. Daedalus, 121(1), 17-30.
Kapucu, N. (2014). Complexity, governance and networks: Perspectives from Public Administration. Complexity, Governance & Networks, 1(1), 29-38.
Kiel, L. D. (2014). Complexity theory and its evolution in public administration and policy studies. Complexity, Governance & Networks, 1(1), 71-78.
Klijn, E. H. (2007). Managing complexity: achieving the impossible? Management between complexity and stability: a network perspective. Critical Policy Analysis, 1(3), 252-277.
Klijn, E.-H. (2008). Complexity theory and public administration: what’s new? Public Management Review, 10(3), 299-317.
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(1), 69-80.
Lin, J. S., & Lee, P. Y. (2011). Performance management in public organizations: A complexity perspective. International Public Management Review, 12(2), 81-96.
Maguire, S., & McKelvey, B. (1999) Complexity and management: moving from fad to firm foundations, Emergence. 1(2), 19–61.
Marin, B., & Mayntz, R. (1991) Policy networks: Empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, Colorado: Westview Press.
McGee, Z. A., & Jones, B. D. (2019). Reconceptualizing the policy subsystem: integration with complexity theory and social network analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 47(1), 138-158.
McKelvey, B. (1999). Avoiding complexity catastrophe in coevolutionary pockets: Strategies for rugged landscapes. Organization Science, 10(3), 294-321.
Meek, J. W., & Newell, W. H. (2005). Complexity, interdisciplinarity and public administration: Implications for integrating communities. Public Administration Quarterly, 29(3), 321-349.
Morçöl, G. (2005). Phenomenology of Complexity Theory and Cognitive Science: Implications for Developing an Embodied Knowledge of Public Administration and Policy. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 27(1), 1–23.
Morçöl, G. (2006). A new systems thinking: implications of the sciences of complexity for public policy and administration. Public Administration Quarterly, 13(2), 297-320.
Morçöl, G. (2013). A complexity theory for public policy. Routledge.
Morçöl, G. (2014). Complex governance networks: An assessment of the advances and prospects. Complexity, Governance & Networks, 1(1), 5-16.
Morel, B., & Ramanujam, R. (1999). Through the looking glass of complexity: The dynamics of organizations as adaptive and evolving systems. Organization Science, 10(3), 278-293.
Özer, B., & Şeker, G. (2013). Complexity Theory and Public Policy: A New Way to Put New Public Management and Governance in Perspective. Suleyman Demirel University Journal of Faculty of Economics & Administrative Sciences, 18(1), 89-102.
Paarlberg, L. E., & Bielefeld, W. (2009). Complexity Science— An Alternative Framework for Understanding Strategic Management in Public Serving Organizations. International Public Management Journal, 12(2), 236–260.
Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2000). Governance, politics and the state. New York: St. Martin’s.
Rhodes, M. L. (2008). Complexity and emergence in public management: The case of urban regeneration in Ireland. Public Management Review10(3), 361-379.
Richardson, K. A. (2008). Managing complex organizations: Complexity thinking and the science and art of management. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 10(2), 13-26.
Stacey, R. D. (1995). The science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change processes. Strategic management journal, 16(6), 477-495.
Styhre, A. (2002). Non‐linear change in organizations: organization change management informed by complexity theory. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(6), 343-351.
Teisman, G. R., & Klijn, E. H. (2008). Complexity theory and public management: An introduction. Public management review, 10(3), 287-297.
Van Buuren, A., & Gerrits, L. (2008). Decisions as dynamic equilibriums in erratic policy processes: Positive and negative feedback as drivers of non-linear policy dynamics. Public Management Review, 10(3), 381-399.
Wagenaar, H. (2007). Governance, Complexity, and Democratic Participation. The American Review of Public Administration, 37(1), 17–50.
Walton, M. (2016). Setting the context for using complexity theory in evaluation: boundaries, governance and utilisation. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 12(1), 73-89.