Interdisciplinary Centre for Narrative Studies
Report on Narrative and Complex Systems Workshop, York 11th - 12th July 2012
Participants:
Richard Walsh (York)
Susan Stepney (York)
Maria Poulaki (Amsterdam)
Jim Bown (Abertay)
Lynn Parker (Abertay)
Stine Grumsen (Aarhus)
Alan Winfield (UWE)
Marina Grishakova (Tartu)
Emma Uprichard (Goldsmiths) -12th only
James Dyke (Southampton) – 12th only, via Skype
Outline of Programme:
11th: Presentations from each participant (see attachments)
Discussion of issues and opportunities arising
Mapping of new possibilities for the project
12th: Presentations from new arrivals (see attachments)
Review of funding possibilities; outline of AHRC bid
Workshopping the structure, focus and components of the new bid(s)
Summary
Day one:
A substantial proportion of the day was taken up with presentations from the participants, each offering their own individual and disciplinary perspectives upon the relation between narrative and complex systems (Presentation slides and/or documents are included as attachments). The dialogue after each presentation proved especially stimulating, and progressively opening up the multiple possibilities of the topic.
This range of interests was carried forward and further extended in the open discussion that followed, in which we began the process of conceptualizing the scope, orientation and focus of a project linking narrative and complex systems. We adopted the working assumptions that the project should aim to use narrative theory and complexity theory reciprocally, each as a way of thinking about the other, and that this strategy should generate separate publications oriented towards complex systems research and towards narrative research, but also (in the form of edited collections or conference proceedings) publications bringing both orientations together. Narrative theory has the potential to inform thinking about how complex systems are described, modelled and engineered across a range of specialisms including cell science, robotics and engineering emergence. Complexity theory can aid research into forms of complexity in filmic and literary narratives, in interactive and emergent forms of narrative in new media, and in the nature of narrative sense-making (and narrative interpretation) as such.
We also identified as a global issue the problems of communication that arise when the privileged (narrative) mode of explanation fails to capture the main feature of the object (system, process) being explained – that is, its complexity. This is an issue in science communication (e.g. in relation to evolution studies), but also in the general practice of process explanation, even among complexity scientists. It calls for critique of unreflective reliance upon narrative conventions and simple narratives, but it also requires positive modes of intervention (critique exposes problems, but funding bodies are concerned to fund solutions). We agreed that we could partly address this communicative imperative, and ensure the project’s own reflective practice, by adopting an “open science” methodology. In the spirit of such a methodology, the trajectory of the day’s discussion itself can be traced from the multiple inputs of the presentations and the legacy documents from our previous, unsuccessful AHRC Exploratory Award bid (attached), through to the final image of the workshop whiteboard at the end of day one (attached).
We also agreed that the project, given its huge scope and range of implications, exceeded the bounds of any one funding application and needed to establish its overarching identity and coherence of purpose by drawing up a manifesto or mission statement and establishing a web site for the project as a resource to which specific grant applications could refer.
Day two:
We restarted the discussion with a further presentation from new arrival Emma Uprichard, as well as a Skype dialogue with James Dyke in Southampton. These considerably enriched the scope and parameters of the previous day’s explorations, introducing (respectively) a crucially mediating sociological dimension, and the practical and political urgencies of a geophysiological perspective (documents attached).
The declared aim of day two was to attempt to channel the proliferating possibilities from day one into the form of specific, achievable research goals conceived within the pragmatic context of available funding opportunities. The most immediate target in this respect is an AHRC research grant, and my own preliminary thoughts towards defining such a bid were circulated (and are attached). The discussion began on the problem of representations and metaphors in relation to complex systems (complex system gardening v. Newtonian clockwork; “nudge” economics; the narrative of a system as a journey through a space), and moved on to the associated problems of communication. We discussed the extent to which the project should focus upon scrutinizing actual narratives of complexity, and representations of complexity that are unaware of their complicity with narrative thinking; and the extent to which we should be seeking, and evaluating, better narratives.
We considered the rationale for the interdisciplinary scope of the project, in terms of the relation between our several domains of area expertise and narrative communication, and in terms of multiple and/or counterfactual narrative projections and retrospections of complex systems. We considered what we wanted funding for, which led on to a discussion of research assistants. We identified three possible RA roles: one on the complex systems side looking towards narrative, one doing the reverse, and one focussed upon the communicative dimension of the problem, perhaps from the perspective of a visual communicator (exploring visual means of mediating between narrative and complex systems). This third role would be staged to run a year later than the other two.
The afternoon session began on the topic of suitable research issues and questions. The project appears to present a challenge to communication and a challenge to understanding (Stine offered the possible title, “Challenging Narratives of Complex Systems,” with its useful double meaning). What is to be the specific focus of inquiry, in the case of the AHRC bid? The arts and humanities emphasis argues for case studies oriented in that direction, concerned with form and medium of narratives, or attentive to larger concerns (philosophical, ethical, ideological) within the AHRC remit.
We explored a possible model for three case studies: one cultural (possibly on fictionality, narrative imagination, or interactive narratives); one sociological (on urban modelling, or data narratives and data informatics), one from the engineered sciences (on robot narrative, robo-semiotics). We identified four levels at which narrative might be considered: narrative as a complex system; narrative of the communication of complex systems; the model as narrative; narrative of the modelling of complex systems. In the context of the communication and public engagement theme, we also identified some specific possibilities for art/museum exhibition (and “impact”), including the art gallery associated with Abertay.
In the course of the discussion ideas arose for several other possible types of bid, including one on narrative engagement with complexity in cities, cells, etc.; and one pursuing the narrative and complexity question in the same way on several scales, e.g. geophysiology, cities and robots. We also spent some time considering other prospects for funding, including European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) EU interdisciplinary funding; the "Ingenious Awards" (Royal Academy of Engineering) - about science communication; "coordination support actions" in the EU framework, as well as the “Science in Society” theme; and most immediately, the internal York research priming fund.
Action Points
- Submit a bid to the York Research Priming Fund for further workshop events in order to develop specific bids in detail, and for assistance in setting up a project website as a resource for external funding bids. [RW]
- Develop project website, including manifesto/mission statement, text mining and visual communication of keywords (e.g. complexity, narrative) in journals over time, links to related research of participants. [RW, SS]
- Development of AHRC bid, in consultation with workshop participants and other interested parties. [RW]
- Identification and pursuit of best funding prospects of other kinds, including for sciences-oriented bids and network funding. [RW, SS, other project members, York Research Support Officer(s)]
Richard Walsh 17/07/2012