Abstract

This paper considers the impact of complexity theory on the way in which we see propositions corresponding to the reality that they describe, and our concept of truth in that context. A contingently associated idea is the atomistic expectation that we can reduce language to primitive units of meaning, and tie those in with agreed units of experience. If we see both language and the reality that it describes and explains as complex, this position becomes difficult to maintain. Complexity theory, with its emphasis on non‐linear and dynamic interactions between multiple variables, within indeterminate and transient systems, supports the case for a connectionist and holistic analysis. Theories are more likely to be under‐determined by evidence and open to interpretation, with the potential for ‘certainties’ weakened. If educational situations are complex, then the drive towards specific and focused research findings that will support policy and practice, and the associated notion of control, is illusory. Rather than providing evidence for prescription, research is thus understood as descriptive and explanatory, within a range of interpretative possibilities. Action takes place within a necessarily incomplete and constantly changing situation, more appropriately understood in terms of survival than control