At its core, developmental science aims to explore bi-directional relationships, interactions across contexts, and change over time. Despite major statistical and methodological advances, the field is in need of new methodological tools that integrate existing and new research, at different levels of analysis, account for bi-directional feedback processes and address the complexity inherent in change that occurs throughout the lifespan. Systems science methodologies (including system dynamics, agent based modeling, network analysis, etc.) are well suited to such endeavors, but have yet to be harnessed to their full potential by developmental scientists.
The notion of a systems approach to development is far from novel as is evidenced by theoretical work in areas such as bioecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), developmental contextualism (Lerner, 2002), dynamic systems theory (Thelen & Smith, 1998), and holistic person-context interaction theory (Magnusson, 1995). Both systems methodologies and developmental systems theories draw from a common literature in fields such as physics and engineering1. While developmental science has adopted the concepts proposed by systems science, the full range of methods has not yet been adequately explored.
The application of systems science methods to developmental science questions holds tremendous promise. Systems science approaches integrate multiple levels of analysis – from cells to behavior to society – to understand the ways in which individual, contextual, and organizational factors interact over time. One of the primary advantages of utilizing systems science methods as a complementary method is that nonlinear relationships, the unintended effects of intervening in the system, and time-delayed effects are often missed with traditional reductionist approaches, whereas systems methods excel at detecting these. Because of its unique ability to consider simultaneously both the whole system and its individual parts, the application of systems science methodologies in developmental science shows promise for unlocking the secrets of complex, multidimensional issues and for transforming this knowledge into effective interventions that can fundamentally change developmental outcomes.
References
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development.
Lerner, R. M. (2002). Concepts and theories of human development (3rd ed.).
Magnusson, D. (1995). Individual development: A holistic, integrated model. In P. Moen, G.H. Elder, & K. Luscher (Eds.). Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development.
Thelen, E. & Smith, L.B. (1998). Dynamic systems theories. In R.M. Lerner (Ed.). Theoretical models of human development. Volume 1 of Handbook of Child Psychology (5th ed.) Editors-in-Chief: W. Damon & R.M. Lerner.
1 Examples include works by Fritjof Capra (for more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritjof_Capra), Ludwig von Bertalanffy (for more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Bertalanffy), and Humberto Maturana (for more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humberto_Maturana).
In honor of Esther Thelen and Liz Bates, John Spencer organized a workshop in 2005 on connectionism and dynamic systems theory. The meeting was very informative, but more importantly, it also produced a new book that complements many of the issues you raise:
ReplyDeleteSpencer, J.P., Thomas, M.S.C, & McClelland, J.L. (2009). Toward a unified theory of development: Connectionism and dynamic systems theory re-considered. New York: Oxford University Press.