Deconstructing nursing's paradoxical relationship with the concept of complexity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although nursing seems to understand itself and its practice as complex, the literature is less clear about what this actually means. While complexity is discussed as an attribute of nursing, it is also suggested that complexity in nursing remains misunderstood and poorly articulated, is devalued, is not considered as a measure of health outcomes and remains invisible. Despite the overarching lack of a definition, some nurse scholars have conceptualized complexity as a complex intervention. For these authors, complexity becomes a complex intervention defined as that which is composed of component parts interacting in a variety of ways that influence the delivery of and outcomes of health-related interventions for populations. Conceptualizing complexity as a complex intervention forces nursing to embrace and adopt a received interpretation of complexity as expressed through complexity theory and complexity science. While complexity theory may afford us some tools for thinking about complexity, when we deconstruct nursing complexity to explicitly determinate and quantifiable tasks, this artificially narrowed orientation to complexity reveals an oversimplified explanation of the complexities associated with nursing and serves to blind us to its real qualities. Through a consideration of complexity from a Western philosophical tradition, I demonstrate that when nursing adopts the received interpretation of complexity as a complex intervention, this perspective on complexity contains nursing epistemologically and ontologically. I offer an extended conceptualization of complexity framed upon the consideration that nurses assume complexity and do not reduce it; that nurses have the capacity to not be paralysed by complexity and have developed logics to mobilize it in productive ways. Mobilizing complexity through navigating paradox and contradiction shapes an orientation to complexity that embraces an extended epistemology. This extended epistemology is characterized by a 'yes/and' mindset that expresses the dynamic and generative relationship between forms of knowledge which reflects complexity that characterizes nursing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.103 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".