Schools as social complex adaptive systems: A new way to understand the challenges of introducing the health promoting schools concept
Introduction
School heath programs over the last four decades have achieved some well documented successes in improving knowledge and health related skills, and in changing health behaviours such as smoking, food choices and physical activity (Lister-Sharp, Chapman, Stewart-Brown, & Sowden, 1999; Stewart-Brown, 2006, WHO, 1996). These successes have involved the development of sophisticated health education curricula and support materials, and recognition of the important influence of the wider school environment on health and health behaviour. In response to this improved understanding of successful interventions a more holistic approach to school health programs has evolved in the form of the health promoting schools concept (Nutbeam, 1992, WHO, 1996). This methodology draws upon the theoretical underpinnings and practical experience of what WHO has referred to as a “settings” approach to health promotion. In the case of schools, this involves combining traditional classroom education with actions to improve the physical and social environment, school policies, and the relationship between school, home and local community in ways that promote health. As a consequence of WHO endorsement and advocacy this comprehensive, holistic approach to school health promotion has been adopted with enthusiasm around the world. Disappointingly, as with previous school health programs, achieving successful implementation and sustaining the positive benefits has proven to be challenging in evolving, complex school systems. After more than a decade, the implementation of health promoting schools concept still lags far behind the vision (Lister-Sharp et al., 1999, Rowling and Jeffreys, 2006, St Leger and Nutbeam, 2000, Stewart-Brown, 2006).
Progressively, those involved in public health intervention research have acknowledged and explored the complexity of interventions that are designed to produce change at multiple levels (Resnicow and Page, 2008, Shiell et al., 2008). Better understanding schools as “systems”, and better understanding of the operation of that system offers scope for improvement in the introduction and management of multi-level interventions in schools (Bond, Glover, Godfery, Bulter, & Patton, 2001).
Building upon the historical shifts in school health practice and emerging understanding of a “systems” approach to health interventions, this paper reports on an examination of schools as complex systems. Specifically, the study has attempted to draw upon insights from systems science by examining the relevance and usefulness of the concept of “complex adaptive systems” as an approach to better understanding ways in which health promoting school interventions could be introduced and sustained. The emerging field of “complexity science” offers an approach to examining change in complex systems.
Section snippets
Complex systems and complex adaptive systems
There are different categories for systems based on the degree of their complexity. Kurtz and Snowden (2003) divide systems into four groups of simple, complicated, complex and chaos systems depending on the degree to which cause-effect relationships can be predicted. Complex and simple systems do have similarities in that both are systems formed by a set of connected components and a set of rules. Axelrod and Cohen (2000) divide complex systems into two categories – adaptive and non adaptive,
Key characteristics of complex adaptive systems
Complex adaptive systems are nested systems made up of diverse agents that can often also be considered as systems in their own right (Axelrod & Cohen, 2000). Each system is a part of something bigger, (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1994, Holland, 1998). Thus, depending on the starting point, each system can be a sub-system for a bigger system, and a supra system for a smaller system. These sub-systems and supra systems can be complex and adaptive themselves. For example, a hospital can be viewed as a
Methods
Babbie (2006) has advocated for the use of social research methods which help our understanding of human behavior by uncovering the rules governing human and organisational behaviour. This study has been positioned to examine the acts of key agents in schools (teachers and school principals) as a method of examining whether schools exhibit characteristics of complex adaptive systems.
In general quantitative methods are more compatible with studying simple systems and relationships between
Schools' components and structure
Information available from school management plans and annual reports indicate that schools exhibit the type of nested structure that characterises a complex adaptive system. Schools are systems shaped from numerous and heterogeneous components often categorized in groups – sub-systems of different agents as diverse as principal and management staff, teaching staff administrative and support staff, students and their parents. There are also formally structured components such as school
Discussion
Utilising complex adaptive theory to guide enquiry into a discrete phenomenon (such as a health promoting school) is a challenging task, in part due to the complexity of the theory itself, and in part because of the continuing uncertainty on a clear definition of complex adaptive systems (Rickles et al., 2007, Wallis, 2008). While there has been a recognition of complexity, and steady increase in the use of complexity theory in the study of health care and public health interventions (Keshavarz
Conclusion
The findings of this study needs to be further tested but do have the potential to lead us to new directions in practice by suggesting strategies which are compatible with the complex and adaptive nature of schools. The findings suggest that social complex adaptive systems are distinctly different from other (natural and artificial) systems, and that these differences matter as they are highly relevant to managing change in systems. While it appears that it is the time for an important paradigm
References (32)
- et al.
Emergent complex systems
Futures
(1994) Complexity and organisation science
Organization Science
(1999)- et al.
Harnessing complexity: Organisational implications of a scientific frontier
(2000) Qualitative data analysis with Nvivo
(2007)- et al.
Building capacity for system-level changes in schools: lessons from the gatehouse project
Health Education and Behavior
(2001) Would-be worlds: How simulation is changing the frontiers of science
(1997)- et al.
Theories of complexity
Complexity
(2003) - et al.
Using “complexity” for improving educational research in health care
Social Science & Medicine
(2008) A complex adaptive system model of organisation change
Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Science
(1997)
Public health asks of systems science: to advance our evidence-based practice, can you help us get more practice-based evidence?
American Journal of Public Health
Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: An introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence
Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity
Emergence: From chaos to order
Complexity science: new emerging approach for health professionals
Iranian Journal of Public Health
The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making in a complex-complicated world
IBM System Journal
Cited by (207)
Exploring settings as social complex adaptive systems in setting-based health research: a scoping review
2024, Health Promotion InternationalThe emergence of autonomy in intertwingled learning environments: a model of teaching and learning
2024, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher EducationInvestigating the effects of Psycho-Behavioral interventions on healthy adolescents’ subjective well-being: a three-level meta-analysis
2024, Journal of Positive Psychology