Case | Background | Mindset beliefs | Challenges | Behaviors |
---|---|---|---|---|
Yosef | • Biochemistry major | • Interest is a driving force for change. | • Creativity is an ability in chemistry that Yosef feels he lacks naturally and must develop. | • Learns from mistakes rather than avoiding them. |
• Lifelong interest in science | • Interest and talent can be natural or developed. | • Earned a low grade on an exam in organic chemistry and used the experience to change habits. | • Desires improvement and welcomes feedback. | |
• Family support for education and high grades | • External influences can spark interest. | • Focuses on small intrinsic rewards and avoids comparison with others. | ||
• Anything lacking naturally can be developed. | • Seeks help from the instructor. | |||
• Failure experiences drive improvement. | ||||
Natalie | • Post-baccalaureate | • Shifted beliefs about improvability of chemistry-specific abilities to include all aspects after seeing significant self-improvement in weak areas. | • Challenges managing time with external pressures. | • Grades have come to signify alignment of understanding with expectations rather than a measure of ability and are used for self-evaluation. |
• Threatening academic environment discouraged medical pursuit | • Defines intelligence as a willingness to learn from mistakes. | • Remote learning presented challenges during complex theoretical content segments. | • Often seeks help. | |
• Wrestled with imposter syndrome | • Intelligence develops over time and can be improved by anyone in any area. | • Feelings of challenge are a good indicator that ability needs to improve in an area. | • Mistakes are valuable if they are overcome and produce change. | |
• Renewed intention to pursue medicine | ||||
• Fear of chemistry has turned to enjoyment | ||||
Teresa | • Premedical | • Anything can be improved with effort. | • Perception of challenges has shifted with confidence levels and now leads to increased effort and help seeking. | • Changes to her confidence in chemistry dramatically affected behaviors. |
• First-STEM major in family | • Chemistry intelligence develops with experience. | • Previously, challenges confirmed beliefs that chemistry intelligence was not natural for her. | • Low grades used to imply low ability, but now motivate effort. | |
• Initially intimidated by reputation of organic chemistry | • Natural abilities are not genetic but developed early on. | • Previously allowed negative self-perceptions based on comparisons. | ||
• Grown to enjoy chemistry | • Now regularly seeks help. | |||
Johnny | • Premedical non-traditional student | • Willingness to put forth effort is key to improving chemistry intelligence. | • It is challenging to read chemistry problems and not know how to begin solving them. | • Understanding is more important than the grade, but the grade measures understanding. |
• Family history in science and medicine | • Any aspect of chemistry intelligence can be improved. | • Another challenge is not knowing how to check the work done to solve a problem. | • He boosts his confidence in chemistry by developing creative explanations and helping others. | |
• Always learned quickly | • Accumulation and application of knowledge are the definitions of intelligence he used to explain his own improvement in chemistry. | • New content can be overwhelming, but repeated practice can help problems feel more natural. | • Comparison with others isn’t helpful and mistakes are useful for learning. | |
• Doesn’t view math and science as his natural abilities | • Has improved his mathematical thinking in chemistry over time. | |||
• Negative feelings toward chemistry in high school that have become positive in college | ||||
Kevin | • Neuroscience major | • Different aspects of chemistry intelligence are more (or less) easily changed, but no ability is static. | • Does not experience challenges with grades in chemistry. | • Holds self to high standards and uses grades as a measure of understanding. |
• Lifelong passion for science | • Individuals begin with various ability levels as a “baseline” but can improve to any level desired with effort. | • Described challenges with distinctions in complex applications of chiral synthesis. | • Would ask for help if challenged, but more often helps others. | |
• Experiences of success in school from childhood | • The rate of change can vary drastically between people. | • The stress of feeling lost with the content was something he used to motivate seeking understanding. | • Views learning chemistry as a collaborative activity. | |
• Self-perception as smart | ||||
• Failure experiences applying to college | ||||
• Re-evaluated beliefs about the necessity of effort | ||||
Camille | • Pursuing a career in neurosurgery | • Some abilities in chemistry can be changed more easily than others. | • Has challenges with the language aspect of chemistry (applying correct terminology). | • Grades are important for the evaluation of your abilities by others. |
• Interest in medicine since childhood | • “Mindset” affects a person's ability to succeed in chemistry, but also the natural abilities that person has. | • Describes having challenges with believing she can improve in certain areas and it fluctuates on different days. | • Tends to procrastinate when her grades are high. | |
• Gifted education | • If some abilities are naturally weak, they are stable. | • Mistakes allow her to see that she is improving and can be motivating to try harder. | ||
• Family emphasis on grades | • Some abilities can only be developed. | • Willing to ask for help and enjoys helping others. | ||
• Previously disliked chemistry | ||||
• Now enjoys explaining chemistry to others | ||||
Raquel | • Medical career aspirations | • Makes a distinction between chemistry ability and chemistry intelligence and believes that chemistry ability is more changeable through effort. | • Faced visualization challenges when learning about crystal structures. | • Doesn’t avoid challenging problems and uses them to learn and improve. |
• Values chemistry and finds it interesting | • Natural abilities can improve if a person has them. | • Overcame this challenge by examining various representations until she was able to visualize better. | • Compares her grades with others to feel better about her own grades. | |
• Family is supportive of education | • Someone who doesn’t have a natural ability can’t do much to improve it. | • Describes competing with herself in performance expectations. | ||
• Self-perception as smart | • Values effort over “direct intelligence.” | • Will listen to constructive feedback but tends to avoid negative feedback and mistakes. | ||
• Tends to earn A grades in chemistry | ||||
Elle | • Nutrition science major | • Makes a distinction between chemistry ability and chemistry intelligence and believes that chemistry ability is more changeable through effort and memorization. | • Study and learning strategies to be successful in chemistry have been the greatest challenge. | • Uses grades as a primary gauge of success. |
• Pursuing a career in endocrinology | • Natural abilities are the key determinant in whether someone will be good at chemistry. | • Motivation is also a major challenge. | • Believes she should learn from mistakes and shouldn’t avoid paying attention to feedback. | |
• Experience with a diabetic parent | • Doesn’t make distinctions between overall chemistry intelligence and aspects of it that could come naturally to different people. | • Describes only doing enough to get by in chemistry, which is not something she does in other classes. | • Has worked with a tutor to improve in chemistry. | |
• Parents work in and value education | • The tutor and changes to study strategies have helped to overcome some of these challenges. | • Tends to skip challenging problems and doesn’t feel like trying when she can’t solve a problem. | ||
• Naturally good at math and science (not chemistry) | • Competes with others in her mind, but often this makes her feel inadequate. | |||
• Does not like chemistry |
Elle and Yosef expressed views that represent the far ends of the mindset spectrum from one another, Elle being the most fixed in mindset and Yosef holding the strongest growth beliefs. A possible explanation for the strength of Yosef's growth convictions is his high ability in chemistry, which he doesn’t attribute to natural ability, but rather effort and interest. He believes he developed chemistry intelligence through combined effort and interest, so he must think that to be true for anyone. Yosef shares his beliefs about people's ability to improve with the following statement, “I know for a fact, based off of experience that if you put in effort for any small thing – if you really want to put in effort, you can definitely change that. There's like nothing that's impossible to change – unless you're like, not biologically capable of doing it, I think an average person has the ability to change no matter what it is.”
Elle has had the opposite experience of Yosef's. She has low interest and low perceived ability. She thinks the ability portion is natural and thus does not have an interest in chemistry because it's not easy or relatable. She does believe effort makes a difference in her performance, but not as much in her chemistry intelligence, which she doesn’t care as much about regardless. Elle expresses her frustration with learning chemistry in the following:
“Sometimes chemistry will just push me to a point where I just do not want to even try because it just tests me so much and I just don't know what else to do. And challenging problems are…I'm not saying I don't do them at all, but I definitely don't do as many as I should – because I think if I did, I would really be trying to, like, get A's on tests and I really don't do that. I really just try to get a B. And that's just so weird to even say, ‘cause that is really not who I am, to try to get a B, but that's who I am in chemistry…I don't want to be burned when I don't get an A. Because I don't expect it because I know I'm not putting in the effort that is required of an A in chemistry. And just all the different factors – Not naturally being good at it, not really wanting to work at it, wanting to do the bare minimum just to try to get good enough. – It's like an internal issue.”
None of the students’ perspectives completely overlapped, but a few students had sufficient similarities in their views to be categorized within the same mindset theme. First, both Kevin and Johnny seemed convinced that natural abilities are important to how easily you can understand chemistry, but both also expressed that any ability can be developed and equated that to increasing chemistry intelligence. For example, Johnny says,
“I would contrast it as, the natural ability would be like the clay and developed with effort is when you take that clay and mold it into something with edges and, like, corners and, you know, so it becomes something more defined, as opposed to just this big blob of material or matter…I feel like you can have these natural abilities but you still need to do something to shape them and hone them…if you don't, then you could have all the natural ability in the world – It's almost like raw potential. Somebody could have potential, but never meet that potential or meet that promise.”
Second, both Teresa and Natalie expressed confidence that chemistry intelligence is improvable through effort but required performance feedback to create a sense of confidence that growth is possible for themselves as well. To provide evidence for this belief, Natalie shared her experience with improving in visualization skills in organic chemistry: “The ability to rotate models in my head, I've gotten a lot better at that…It feels like a silly small thing, but it's been really rewarding…I used to not be able to do this at all or understand what it is. And now I feel like I kind of know what's happening.”
Another similarity was the strength of emphasis placed on natural abilities by both Camille and Raquel. Nevertheless, they were able to believe themselves capable of growth in chemistry due to their own natural abilities for STEM subjects. Despite this similarity, Camille expressed that increasing chemistry intelligence is possible through effort focused on developing relevant abilities, though she felt that not all abilities were changeable. Her belief about stable abilities is apparent in the following quote: “I think it's just differences that we all have as humans. There are people that are always going to be able to have a better memory than most. Like, I have a terrible memory.
No matter what I do I can't necessarily change it. The only thing I can do is improve on how I try to relate the information that I'm trying to remember to things that I've – Things that I know, things that just come naturally to me.” Raquel expressed a higher number of abilities as difficult to change, showing a belief that natural abilities are mostly stable.
Based on the similarities and differences discussed above, different categories of mindset perspectives can be defined. These mindset perspectives are presented in Fig. 3 along a hypothetical continuum. Elle carries the traditional implications of fixed beliefs, in that, if a person doesn’t have natural ability for chemistry, then there is not much that can be done other than to protect one's ego through avoidant behaviors. Raquel is a bit more open to the idea of improving chemistry intelligence but much more for those who have the natural ability to begin with. Camille has a slightly more flexible view on overall chemistry intelligence but emphasized specific abilities as unchangeable and the need to leverage the natural abilities you do have to improve. Kevin and Johnny both believe that development of any ability is possible, yet state that natural ability plays a role in how easily one can learn. They were placed at the same point on the continuum in Fig. 3 because their views are similar, yet Kevin has more confidence because he views himself as having natural ability for chemistry and Johnny does not. Johnny instead has a natural interest (or curiosity) and thus is willing to develop his weak areas. Teresa and Natalie both believe that anything can be developed yet were hesitant to believe this about their own chemistry intelligence without evidence supporting that they could improve. Teresa's shift from lack of confidence in general chemistry to complete enjoyment of the success she found in organic chemistry is more substantial than the changes Natalie experienced. This could suggest that Natalie's mindset beliefs are more deeply ingrained and drive her effort to improve, while Teresa has exerted effort out of a desire to succeed and her mindset beliefs followed her improvement. Finally, Yosef expressed very optimistic views regarding anyone developing abilities if they have interest in that domain. He did acknowledge that some people have a “God-given talent” for certain subjects, but also said that everyone must work hard to be good at chemistry. His main comparison between students who do well in chemistry and those who do not was based on the amount of effort they apply as driven by their personal interests. He also stated that educators play a significant role in how personally interesting a course is through their own enthusiasm for the content.
Case participants’ mindset perspectives organized along a continuum from most fixed to most growth mindset. The colors along the continuum represent the degree of growth or fixedness of a given mindset perspective theme. |
Qualitative placement of each case along two dimensions of mindset: myself and others. The same colors for each case are used from to indicate the degree of growth or fixedness of each mindset perspective uncovered when considering a single mindset dimension. |
Results from the survey measures indicate that the case study participants tended to have more fixed mindsets about others’ chemistry intelligence compared to their own. Aligning with the interview findings, Yosef was shown to have the highest growth mindset about his own chemistry intelligence as well as that of other students. Raquel and Elle both scored the lowest on their chemistry mindset beliefs as well as their beliefs about others, with Raquel reporting the most fixed chemistry mindset about others. Johnny and Teresa both reported a more growth mindset about others compared to themselves, aligning with the expressions of self-doubt and lack of natural ability in the area of chemistry described in their interviews. All participants reported a chemistry mindset on the growth end of the scale, but the degree of growth chemistry mindset about self and others aligned well with the interview findings.
The other important result from the survey measures included in the case study was the relationship between chemistry mindset about self and the participants’ self-report of mindset-related behaviors. Behaviors were consistently slightly less growth mindset compared to the measured chemistry mindset belief. This meant that the students with the highest reported mindset-related behaviors were those who also held the most growth beliefs about their own chemistry intelligence. Combined with the observation that mindset beliefs about self and others do not always align, this finding suggests that chemistry mindset beliefs about the self most strongly predict a student's mindset-related behaviors ( i.e. avoidance, persistence, reception of critique, etc. ). It should be noted that only qualitative observations can be made about these survey results with a sample size of 8 participants and generalizations cannot be made based on this evidence alone.
To address the second research question, rather than considering three categories of mindset (growth, middle, and fixed) as the traditional mindset literature suggests ( Dweck et al. , 1995a ; Hong et al. , 1999 ), we can consider the four quadrants of the two-dimensional conception of mindset ( Kalender et al. , 2022 ; Malespina et al. , 2022 ). The upper right and bottom left quadrant represent the growth and fixed labels as previously defined; however, with a richer measurement distinction as a combination of two dimensions. In contrast, the bottom right and upper left quadrants may shed additional light on the messy middle described in the mindset literature ( Hong et al. , 1999 ).
It must be acknowledged that the academic environment in which all students in this study were enrolled places a general emphasis on performance above mastery and the primary tool provided for diagnosing one's mastery is performance scores. If academic environments aim to promote mastery and growth beliefs, the performance focus may need to be reconsidered due to its impact on students’ interpretations of their own success.
Based on the criteria described for a growth mindset, Yosef, Kevin, Johnny, and Natalie would all be considered to have a growth mindset. In the case analyses described here, Yosef, Teresa, and Natalie were all considered to have chemistry mindsets aligning with growth beliefs and Johnny and Kevin were considered to lie on the growth end of the spectrum. Some caveats to this classification process were misalignment of beliefs about oneself relative to others and some emphasis on natural abilities or an innate interest in chemistry. Thus, a growth chemistry mindset appears to be more complex in nature than a theoretical general growth mindset.
Raquel meets two of these fixed mindset criteria. She explains the differences between people's achievement in chemistry by way of their natural abilities. She also admits to using some degree of competitive behavior in comparing her grades to others to boost her self-esteem. However, she does not give up in the face of challenges and rather becomes more motivated when challenges arise because she believes herself capable of overcoming them due to her high natural ability. Camille meets the first criterion (natural abilities) to some degree, but is a bit more flexible in that view, and does not meet any of the others. Teresa met the third criterion to some degree in her first interview (performance and competition) but attempts to minimize these comparisons to maintain her confidence and does not meet the others. Classifying a chemistry fixed mindset, as indicated by these cases, is complex. Some of the criteria from a theoretical fixed general mindset aligned with students whose views approached a growth chemistry mindset. This is due to misalignment of beliefs about the self and others in chemistry because of perceived self-competence.
Furthermore, evidence for multiple dimensions of chemistry mindset beliefs was uncovered in this case study as a function of who is being considered (self versus others). Similar dimensions have been uncovered for undergraduate students’ physics mindset beliefs ( Kalender et al. , 2022 ; Malespina et al. , 2022 ). Moreover, the degree of ingrained beliefs about oneself was found to correspond to interpretations of challenge and behavioral responses to challenge. This suggests that although there is substantial alignment of chemistry mindset, behaviors, and challenges observed in these case participants with extant literature findings, the object of mindset items (me or someone else) are critical to predictive measures of an individual's behaviors (RQ2).
The multiple aspects involved in a rich description of a students’ chemistry mindset could be considered for better triangulation of their true beliefs and the depth to which they hold such beliefs. The more accurate our description of a student's mindset, the more appropriate predictions could be made regarding their success in chemistry courses. One method to resolve this concern for large-scale mindset classification would be to create a multidimensional mindset instrument, specific to chemistry, that addresses each construct as a subfactor: (1) chemistry mindset about self, (2) chemistry mindset about everyone, (3) interpretation of challenge in chemistry, and (4) behavioral response to challenge in chemistry. These additional factors can allow for the creation of many mindset categories that could each be evaluated for their relative contribution to the predictive relationship of mindset with student success outcomes.
In chemistry classrooms, a variety of student affective profiles are present. Feedback carries different meaning to each student as a function of their mindset beliefs and self-perceptions of chemistry ability. Chemistry instructors should be aware of this when providing feedback to students and emphasize the ways in which it is beneficial to their improvement rather than evaluative of their ability. Also, students may place different degrees of emphasis on the effects of effort toward impacting their intelligence or just their “ability.” Noticeable improvements in mastery or skills can be emphasized by instructors over simple grade improvements or “native abilities.” Because students were more likely to exhibit mastery behaviors when they had high ability self-perceptions, instructors can impact students’ mindset beliefs about the self by placing emphasis on improvements over the scores themselves, which is likely to increase ability perceptions and thus foster growth beliefs about the self.
Another avenue for impacting students was suggested by one of the case participants, Yosef. He perceived his instructors as impacting his interest through their enthusiasm and passion for the subject of chemistry. It is important for instructors to remember that they serve as role models for students. Instructors can share how they improved their own intelligence in chemistry through effort and that they believe this to be possible for any student who is willing to engage in it. This can be specifically targeted as individual skills, such as visualization, mathematical thinking, and disciplinary language usage. Instructors can also share topics of personal interest related to course content and provide opportunities for students to see how the concepts being covered are relevant to them.
Conflicts of interest, appendix a. initial in-depth semi-structured interview protocol with tasks developed based on general mindset literature.
Description of phases and questions students will be asked to respond to using think aloud:
Phase 1: Beginning questions to practice talking:
• How is the current semester of chemistry going?
• What course are you in, how are your grades, do you feel challenged currently in chemistry?
• What do you notice about someone in chemistry class that makes you think they are smart/intelligent?
• Do you recall family members praising you more for your ability or for your effort in school?
• Do you think your chemistry intelligence is the main factor determining your chemistry performance?
• Why or why not? (How would you define it?)
• Can you tell me about a time when you faced a challenge in chemistry? What happened, how did you respond, and what was the end result?
Phase 2: Behaviors in challenging chemistry scenarios selection activity (Appendix A Fig. 5 and 6 )
Entity behavior item task. |
Incremental behavior item task. |
• Which of these items can you see yourself doing this semester when you experience challenges in chemistry? Circle the ones you think are relevant to you and cross out those that you don’t think you would do.
• For some of the circled responses: Can you give an example of a time you did that in a class?
• For some of the crossed out responses: Why did you cross that out (social desirability?)? Why don’t you think you would do that?
Phase 3a: Beliefs about cognitive abilities important to chemistry intelligence selection activity (Appendix A Fig. 7 )
Chemistry intelligence aspects task. |
• Which of these items are the most important aspects of chemistry intelligence? Circle the ones you agree with and cross out those you don’t agree with.
• Are there any other aspects you would like to add to this list?
• Which of these are aspects you feel like you are good at vs not good at? Why?
Phase 3b: Beliefs about chemistry intelligence cognitive abilities origins sorting activity (Appendix A Fig. 8 )
Natural and developed chemistry intelligence aspects sorting task. |
• Out of the items you circled, how do you think you get those abilities? Are they developed or natural abilities?
• What do you think “natural ability” means?
• Why do you think these are developed? Can you give an example?
• Why do you think these are natural abilities? Can you give an example?
Phase 3c: Beliefs about chemistry intelligence cognitive abilities malleability within origin sorting activity (Appendix A Fig. 9 )
Malleability of chemistry intelligence aspects sorting task. |
• Can you sort each of these into those that you can change versus those that you cannot change?
• How would you define “change” in this case?
• What evidence of change would you look at to verify that it had happened?
• Why do you think these can change?
• Why do you think these cannot change?
Phase 4: Discussion of survey response reasons and discrepancies with currently stated beliefs
• Here are the responses you selected from the survey earlier this semester.
• Why did you choose this answer before? What were you thinking when you read the question? (social desirability?)
• Today, you said this behavior/answer, but/and on the survey you said this. Why do you think they were different/the same?
Phase 5: Graphing of intelligence over lifetime activity (Appendix A Fig. 10 )
Intelligence level over lifetime graphing task. |
• How do you define intelligence as a whole?
• What do you think a graph of intelligence vs. time looks from birth, through childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and elderly stages until death for the average person?
• How should the graph look for the average chemist?
• Can you explain why you drew each graph the way you did?
• Why is the graph for the average person the same/different from the average chemist?
• Can you compare the max intelligence you drew and the shape of each graph?
Phase 6: Final questions
• Do you think that people can change their intelligence in chemistry? How did you come to believe this?
• Throughout your chemistry courses, has your confidence in your chemistry ability changed? How and why?
• Have you ever dropped, withdrawn, or failed a chemistry course? If so, what factors influenced that decision/event?
• Do you often doubt your ability to succeed in chemistry? If so, what causes you to think that way?
• Have you ever said (or believed) that you aren’t good at chemistry? Why?
Phase 1: Beginning questions to practice talking and reflecting on past experiences and what brought them to this point.
• What class are you currently in and what is your major/reason for taking chemistry?
• What led you to select your major? What are your career goals?
• Can you tell me a bit about your background? What were some influences on your academic/career goals?
• What were some influences on what you value as demonstrating intelligence?
• Can you discuss your experiences with chemistry before college? What is your history with chemistry?
Phase 2: How does the student view their identity with regards to science and/or chemistry?
• How well do you feel that you fit in as a science major? What about in a chemistry class? Why do you see yourself that way?
• What kind of person do you think becomes a chemist?
Phase 3: What are external factors affecting the student's beliefs about chemistry?
• How do your family and friends talk about chemistry and/or your major? Do they seem to think it requires natural ability or very smart people?
• How do you think your chemistry instructors view your intelligence in chemistry? Do they seem to think it can change?
• How does society/our culture/everyday person view chemistry in terms of difficulty/ability?
• Do you agree with these different perspectives about chemistry? Why or why not?
Phase 4: What are the student's internal beliefs about chemistry and challenge experiences?
• How challenging do you believe chemistry is? Is it more or less challenging to you compared to your peers? Why do you think this is? Were there differences between organic and general chemistry in terms of difficulty?
• What is the most challenging aspect of chemistry to you?
• What are some specific challenges you have faced in chemistry classes? How big of a challenge was it? When did it happen and how did you feel? What did you do?
• What does encountering a challenge in chemistry mean to you (low ability or more effort)? How does that make you feel? What do you do when there's a challenge?
Phase 5: What are some behaviors the student acknowledges being important to their success?
• What is something you achieved in chemistry that you are very proud of?
• What is something you did in chemistry that you are not so proud of?
Phase 6: Previous interview activity results
• Show either the categorization of chemistry abilities, the natural ability vs developed abilities, or the plot for intelligence and ask further questions to clarify perspective and gauge changes in beliefs.
Phase 7: Final questions (What is the student's mindset toward chemistry and has it changed?)
• Is your ability to do chemistry something that you could improve in? How would that happen? What are some aspects that could be improved?
• Has the way you feel about your ability to do chemistry changed over time? How and why?
• Do your feelings about your ability to do chemistry change in certain scenarios? Can you give examples?
• Is chemistry something that you could see a career in? Why or why not?
† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: |
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
EXTENDING CASE STUDY DESIGNS USING A COMPLEXITY SCIENCE BLUEPRINT. We can extend traditional ideas about the execution of case studies ( Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994) by applying the blueprint of complexity science. This will lead to new research strategies for fruitfully using case studies in health care settings.
The case study provides a method for studying systems. Complexity theory suggests that keys to understanding the system are contained in patterns of relationships and interactions among the system's agents. They propose some of the "objects" of study that are implicated by complexity theory and discuss how studying these using case ...
The authors bring together the case study method and complexity science to suggest new ways to study health care organizations. The case study provides a method for studying systems. Complexity theory suggests that keys to understanding the system are contained in patterns of relationships and interactions among the system's agents.
A case study as a mainstream research method that solves complex problems in design science is one of the best ways to analyze the problem mechanism and promote deduction and induction [74, 75 ...
They propose that complexity theory, which looks at relationship patterns within a complex adaptive system, is better suited for studying and understanding health care systems than traditional theoretical models. Anderson RA, Crabtree B, Steele DJ, et al. Case study research: the view from complexity science. Qual Health Res. 2005;15 (5):669-85.
The authors bring together the case study method and complexity science to suggest new ways to study health care organizations, and offer complexity theory, partnered with casestudy method, as a place to begin the daunting task of studying a system as an integrated whole. Many wonder why there has been so little change in care quality despite substantial quality improvement efforts.
Academia.edu is a platform for academics to share research papers. Case Study Research: The View From Complexity Science (PDF) Case Study Research: The View From Complexity Science | Reuben McDaniel - Academia.edu
The authors bring together the case study method and complexity science to suggest new ways to study health care organizations. The case study provides a method for studying systems. Complexity theory suggests that keys to understanding the system are contained in patterns of relationships and interactions among the system's agents.
which they focus on 'reductionist complexity science', 'soft complexity', and 'complexity thinking'. This work is from the perspective of the latter, which these authors view as something in between the hard and soft approaches (Richardson & Cilliers, 2001, p. 5), ... example of case study research used in this paper, I chose to ...
omplexity science studies systems where large numbers of components or subsystems, at times of a different Cnature, combine to produce surpris-ing emergent phenomena apparent at multiple scales ...
The advantages of a case study design are identified as the ability to develop a detailed understanding of a system (or limited number of systems), in line with complexity theory concepts. ... Case study research: The view from complexity science. Qualitative Health Research, 15 (5) (2005), pp. 669-685, 10.1177/1049732305275208. View in Scopus ...
The most common method for studying complexity has been case studies (Thompson et al., 2016). Box 1 shows how scholars have utilized complexity theory alongside case study methodology. The examples also demonstrate the transdisciplinary potential of complexity theory.
Background Implementation science has a core aim - to get evidence into practice. Early in the evidence-based medicine movement, this task was construed in linear terms, wherein the knowledge pipeline moved from evidence created in the laboratory through to clinical trials and, finally, via new tests, drugs, equipment, or procedures, into clinical practice. We now know that this straight ...
Complexity science is also highly applicable and relevant to clinical nursing practice and nursing management from an organizational perspective. The application of complexity science as a tool in the analysis of complex nursing systems could improve our understanding of effective interactions among patients, families, physicians and hospital ...
This work, through the use of a case study shows that complexity science can provide an alternative more informed view of a "crisis" environment. Blecker and Abdelkafi use Suh's complexity theory to address a problem experienced by many organisations, the management of complexity and variety within a business.
These case studies show that successful systems change can take varied forms and that the implementation sequence can differ depending on circumstance and needs. Thus, a hybrid of factors drawn from implementation science and complexity science help explain how systems change occurred in these two case exemplars.
A case study is one of the most commonly used methodologies of social research. This article attempts to look into the various dimensions of a case study research strategy, the different epistemological strands which determine the particular case study type and approach adopted in the field, discusses the factors which can enhance the effectiveness of a case study research, and the debate ...
Summary points. The science of complex adaptive systems provides important concepts and tools for responding to the challenges of health care in the 21st century. Clinical practice, organisation, information management, research, education, and professional development are interdependent and built around multiple self adjusting and interacting ...
Case study research, as an overall approach, is based on in-depth explorations of complex phenomena in their natural, or real-life, settings. ... Using qualitative comparative analysis to study causal complexity. Health Serv Res. 1999;34(5 Pt 2):1225. ... Thomas G. A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition ...
Observation of the method of improvement and change process applied by the implementation team was a key aspect of our research. The Case study methods involved a structured approach containing key activities included planning, execution and evaluation, are outlined as "Process" in Additional file 2, Fig. Fig.1 1 illustrates the these process.
An example of this point of view is given by work on complexity "phase transitions" and accompanying speculations that various aspects of biological systems sit on a critical point between order and complexity . The next few years are likely to lead to an increasing study of complexity in the context of statistical dynamics, with a view to ...
CASE STUDY RESEARCH: THE VIEW FROM COMPLEXITY SCIENCE Ruth Anderson, RN, PhD, FAAN, DUMC 3322, Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, NC 27710, ruth.anderson@duke ...
To conclude, we offer conceptual and methodological implications for using complexity theory for mixed methods research. We view the clarification provided an important contribution to the field of mixed methods as it assists researchers in studying complex systems, theorizing complex phenomena, and using complex methods.
A few studies in physics education research have revealed domain-specific complexities applying to the mindset construct that suggest a need to explore undergraduate perspectives on mindset within each science domain. Here we present a multiple case study examining chemistry-specific mindset beliefs of students enrolled in general and organic ...