Chris Goldspink

Bridging the Micro–Macro Divide: A New Basis for Social Science

A ‘pervasive’ problem in the social sciences, referred to as the ‘micro to macro problem’ concerns our capacity to explain the relationship between the constitutive elements of social systems (people) and emergent phenomena resulting from their interaction (i.e. organizations, societies, economies). Without a capacity to explain this relationship there is, in effect, no substantive theory of sociality. In this article, we explore the potential of a synthesis between autopoietic and complexity theory for understanding social systems in a way that addresses this issue. It is argued that autopoietic theory provides a basis for understanding the characteristics of the microlevel agents that make up social systems – human individuals, whereas complexity theory provides a basis for understanding how these characteristics influence the range and type of macro-level phenomena that arise from their interaction. The synthesis proposed here provides the basis for a theory of sociality that deals consistently with the relationship between the micro and macro-levels of social phenomena and their ontological status. This approach has the potential to re-unite current scientific oppositions and avoid unnecessary pluralism within social science.

Organizations as self-organizing and sustaining systems: a complex and autopoietic systems perspective

Many alternative theories about organization exist. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, adequate explanation of the relationship between macro and micro processes of organization, and organizational dynamics remains elusive. In the recent past there has been growing interest in two areas of systems science that offer a different basis for understanding the generative and dynamic qualities of organizations. These are autopoietic theory and complex adaptive systems theory. In this paper, we outline a theory of organization built on a synthesis of these two theoretical strands. It is argued that the approach provides an improved framework for understanding the nature and dynamics of organizational phenomena, and as such a more rigorous basis upon which to base future organizational research.

Chapter 5 Autopoiesis and Organizations: A Biological View of Social System Change and Methods for Their Study

For many years we have been concerned with the role that autopoietic theory can play in resolving what is often termed the micro-macro problem in social science. The ‗micro-to-macro problem‘ concerns our capacity to explain the relationship between the constitutive elements of social systems (people) and emergent phenomena resulting from their interaction (i.e. organizations, societies, economies). To this end we have argued (Goldspink and Kay 2003, 2004), for a synthesis of autopoietic and complexity theory, where autopoietic theory provides a basis for understanding the characteristics of the micro-level agents that make up social systems (human individuals), whilst complexity theory provides a basis for understanding how these characteristics influence the range and type of macro-level behaviours that arise from their interaction. Implicit to this view is the assumption that it is biology which specifies the characteristics and qualities of human agents. Therefore it is also biology which constrains the range and type of interactions these agents can generate, and hence the form of structure which emerges from that interaction. This approach differs considerably from the disembodied sociological path taken in Luhmann‘s (1990) application of autopoietic systems. The main contribution of Maturana and Varela‘s (1980) autopoietic theory has been to provide a concise specification of the defining characteristics of biological agents including humans. It serves therefore to advance our understanding of the micro facet of the micro-macro problem. Before his death, Varela began to explore further the implications of autopoiesis for understanding social macro phenomena drawing increasingly on a complex systems view (Thompson and Varela 2001; Rudrauf et al. 2003). We seek to extend this offshoot of the original contribution. In this chapter we attend in particular, to some of the practical implications that result from a social extension of autopoiesis. Principle amongst these is our understanding of the basis for and nature of organizational change. We begin by giving a brief overview of the micro-macro problem and an outline of our approach to its resolution. We then draw on this approach to develop a perspective on stability and change in organizations. We illustrate this using two cases and in so doing also provide examples of methods which can be used to map the interplay of micro and macro behaviour in particular organizational contexts.

Chapter 13 Autopoiesis: Building a Bridge between Knowledge Management and Complexity

In this chapter we argue that a theoretical position derived from a combination of autopoietic theory and complexity theory provides a means for addressing two fundamental problems with the knowledge management (KM) concept. These problems are a lack of consistent epistemology — inadequate theorization about the nature of knowledge and a tendency to identify knowledge as residing primarily at the level of individuals. It represents an opportunity to move away from the reified view of knowledge that dominates most discussions of KM to one of knowledge which is deeply situated and contextualized. We argue that organizations are complex systems of a particular class; they comprise human (biological, reflexive) agents. This has important implications for the range and type of behaviors we can expect from organizations, but it also has implications for how we theorize about them.