In the last decades, interest in complexity has grown fast in organisational sciences
(Axelrod & Cohen, 2000) and health policies (Braithwaite et al., 2017; Greenhalgh &
Papoutsi, 2018). Its development in adult education research is slower and marginal
(Alhadeff-Jones, 2009, Fenwick, 2003, 2016; Formenti, 2018), so we hope to fuel it by
using the lens of complex systems theory (von Foerster, 1973/1984, 1982; Morin, 2008)
to focus on learning, that is adaptation, interdependence, self-organization, and co-
evolution, as cross-cutting features of individual lives, as well as relationships, groups,
organisations, and networks. All systems, at all levels, ‘learn’ by interacting with a
transforming social and material environment. This interaction is circular and produces
unpredictability. The traditional approaches to ageing, however, seek predictability and
enforce top-down strategies on individuals, groups, and communities to keep the situation
under control and to solve emerging problems by linear answers. Research on policies
has shown that the enforcement of increased regulations, guidelines, standard procedures,
performance indicators in the healthcare system fails in guaranteeing to citizens quality
of living, social justice, and even the consistent adoption of the prescribed behaviours
(Braithwaite et al., 2017). Micro transitions and adaptations that work locally happen
notwithstanding or beyond the given rules. Control fails.
Complex systems, in fact, are self-organised, layered, and entangled (Nowak &
Hubbard, 2009). At the microlevel, individual identity evolves and (new) meaning is built
whenever it is necessary to adapt and calibrate individual action to (new) emerging
conditions. Brackets are here used to stress that learning is not always about the new:
learning also is keeping a form, a habit, one’s previous identity/ies, and this is especially
important in later life. In complex systems theory, learning and living are different names
for the same ongoing process. Hence, learning is biographically rooted: memories of the
past combine with present interactions and the imagination of the future, to make and
remake the individual (Formenti & West, 2018). Learners, at all ages, interpret events and
information, interact with oneself, the others, and the environment (objects, spaces,
procedures), coherently with their previous life and structure, constructing meaning and
identity (Fenwick, 2003; Formenti, 2018).
At the meso-level, however, individuals are interdependent, especially within their
proximal systems of relationships: family, workplace, friends, community/ies.
Connectedness, circularity, repetition, and a constant flux of information are the main
features of meso-systems, where every action is embedded in circuits of inter-actions.
The meso-system enforces and reinforces expected behaviours, identities, and meanings
through shared scripts, rituals, and narratives, objects and spaces, shaping lives and
identities within organised activities (regularities, rules) and normative expectations.
Complex organisations are dynamic and transform in relation to a changing environment.
Structures and patterns emerge (Braithwaite et al., 2017) from a process of self-
organisation where every part acts on the basis of tacit rules established in time by co-
existence.
Complexity, then, brings our attention beyond individual paths, to comprise the
context, which is not simply a backdrop or inactive container for human behaviour
(Formenti, 2019), but the composition of ‘many “moving parts” in complex interventions’
(May et al., 2016, p. 3). When we look at education and learning, any action is connected
to a context sustaining, reinforcing, or hindering it: their entanglement is another feature
of complex systems (Hynes et al., 2020). ‘Contexts are dynamic: contextual factors that
might constitute barriers to implementation in one place may facilitate it in others’ (May
et al., 2016, p. 2).