Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Tracing an Outline of Legal Complexity.Thomas E. Webb - 2014 - Ratio Juris 27 (4):477-495.
    Autopoiesis and systems theory are terms often treated as synonymous by lawyers. This sleight‐of‐phrase elides the space between autopoiesis and systems theory, removing its content. Within this eliminated space there exist numerous understandings of systems approaches in law; one such understanding is complexity theory. Complexity theory entails a very different systems view of law to that of autopoiesis. In this paper I explore the concepts of complexity and their relevance to law. In tracing an outline of complexity, a number of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • ‘Knowledge Must Be Contextual’: Some possible implications of complexity and dynamic systems theories for educational research.Tamsin Haggis - 2008 - Educational Philosophy and Theory 40 (1):158–176.
    It is now widely accepted that qualitative and quantitative research traditions, rather than being seen as opposed to or in competition with each other should be used, where appropriate, in some kind of combination. How this combining is to be understood ontologically, and therefore epistemologically, however, is not always clear. Rather than endlessly discussing the relationship between different approaches, this paper explores some of the assumptions of the ontologies that underpin such apparent differences, arguing that approaches which declare themselves to (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • ‘Knowledge Must Be Contextual’: Some possible implications of complexity and dynamic systems theories for educational research.Tamsin Haggis - 2008 - Educational Philosophy and Theory 40 (1):158-176.
    It is now widely accepted that qualitative and quantitative research traditions, rather than being seen as opposed to or in competition with each other ( ; ) should be used, where appropriate, in some kind of combination (; ). How this combining is to be understood ontologically, and therefore epistemologically, however, is not always clear. Rather than endlessly discussing the relationship between different approaches, this paper explores some of the assumptions of the ontologies that underpin such apparent differences, arguing that (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations