Why research needs complexity entrepreneurs

By Gabriele Bammer and Jean Boulton.

What is required to improve the understanding of research teams about the complexity encountered when investigating real life situations? How can they effectively embrace the paradoxical, elusive dance―the irreconcilable, intrinsic tension―between order and disorder, form and formlessness, and certainty and uncertainty? What is involved in research better supporting those intent on, or tasked with, acting skilfully in this complex world? Would a new research role―that of complexity entrepreneur―help?

We have coined the term “complexity entrepreneur” as a shorthand way to describe the attributes required to respond effectively in a world that is complex: ie., systemic, patterned and particular to context, and where newness often emerges in ways that cannot be predicted.

In this i2Insights contribution, we outline the key attributes of a complexity entrepreneur, based on Jean’s work. We then briefly describe the contributions of complexity entrepreneurs to research teams tackling complex problems, combining Gabriele’s and Jean’s work. Our aim is to test the water to see if others would also find benefit in distinguishing this newly-coined role of complexity entrepreneur.

Derivation of the term “complexity entrepreneur” For Gabriele, “complexity entrepreneurs” can be likened to “policy entrepreneurs” who foster innovative policy change by scanning―and bring into alignment―perceptions of problems, political circumstances, and ideas for possible solutions (Kingdon, 2011 and the i2Insights contribution A primer on policy entrepreneurs by Jo Luetjens). Jean equates these skills with those required of social and business entrepreneurs navigating complex and emerging contexts, spotting opportunities and engaging adaptively and yet with conviction.

Complexity entrepreneurs: Acting skilfully in a complex world

To act skilfully in this complex world requires both an ability to tune into the dynamically-sustained resilient features of the socio-ecological landscape, at the same time as noticing signs of instability and spotting newly-emerging ‘beginnings’; then having the flair and instinct to judge where there are opportunities which match the available capabilities and purposes; and finally being able to find the conviction to take action.

To approach problems in this way requires an ability to embrace the qualitative, subjective and ambiguous; to use judgement and intuition; and to work with multiple perspectives. This is not to suggest that the complex, ever-changing world is random or entirely unknowable―but there is recognition that discerning what is there and how to proceed goes ‘beyond reason’, beyond the tools of objective measurement, modelling and planning.

This style of operating in a complex world requires engendering a milieu in which people regain confidence in working with intuition, making sense of subjective and evolving information, and are able to hone the skills of judgement. Traditional methods of mapping and modelling have their place in surfacing less visible systemic patterns in relatively stable situations, but such methods can also mask the qualitative, contextual and emerging aspects central to facilitating a deeper understanding of the dynamics of change, stuckness and opportunity. Complexity entrepreneurs need to go beyond the analytical and gain experience in handling the ambiguous, the paradoxical and the co-evolving nature of context and action.

To brand these skills as entrepreneurial puts them in a positive light. It is hard not to feel at odds in a world seeking predominantly hard evidence and clear evaluation of alternatives to support conclusions and action strategies. And even with those intent on ‘embracing complexity’ there often lurks the hope that methods can be identified that will reduce that complexity sufficiently so that objective clarity is found. This can lead to a search for methods at the expense of enhancing and valuing the cognitive and emotional qualities needed to apprehend the terrain, judge what can be done and take action.

Furthermore, in a co-evolving world that is always becoming, in which unpredictable new features can emerge, an entrepreneurial approach gives salience to attuning to qualitative signs of what is just beginning to show itself, and adapting accordingly.

Complexity entrepreneurs in teams tackling complex problems

Teams investigating complex societal and environmental situations are predominantly drawn to the search for objective clarity (for example through mapping and modelling), because such research is relatively straightforward not only to undertake, but also to obtain funding for. While this can help make sense of some aspects of complex problems, it generally puts aside the messy processes that are intrinsic.

Four important tasks for complexity entrepreneurs in such teams are, therefore, to:

• highlight that setting aside the inevitable messiness and variation of the real world is likely to miss the complex reflexive mechanisms that are salient in both creating resilience and change
• sharpen the focus on identifying processes and resulting patterns, which can require working with intuition, making sense of subjective and evolving information, and honing the skills of judgement
• give value to, and look for, the qualitative and subjective signs of ‘new shoots’ or fractures that signify irreversible shifts into unknowable futures
• remind teams that their research will always be imperfect and that ideal, problem-free solutions cannot be attained, expanding attention to “best-possible” ways forward.

Making space for complexity entrepreneurs in teams to help improve “best-possible” ways forward can be challenging, however, as it is easier to focus resources on well-established methods than to support approaches that are intuitive and subjective, and that require judgment.

Integration and Implementation Sciences (i2S) may provide some ways forward, because it draws together insights from a range of approaches that deal with complex problems, including inter- and transdisciplinarity, systems thinking, action research, post-normal science, complexity science, implementation science, the science of team science, decision sciences, policy science and growing work on unknowns. In doing so, i2S not only provides access to a broad range of analytical tools that are increasingly being used in research on complex problems, but also starts to open up appreciation of their dynamic nature including:

• being systemic and recognising relationships and interdependencies, emergence and the artificial nature of boundaries
• harnessing and managing diversity, including in mental models and world views, values, interests, power, and culture
• recognising the multiple dimensions of change, building on understanding of the constancy of change and resistances to it, path-dependence, the key roles played by power, and that any attempt to influence change is likely to have unpredictable outcomes.

Complexity entrepreneurs can build on these openings to call attention even more pointedly to the interwoven nature of the various aspects of the complex world and their dynamic interplay, which not only contribute to constant change shaped by history and other aspects of context, but also the potential for emergence of unexpected and novel patterns and processes. In this way they can help guide research teams to more effectively address complexity, especially recognising and aligning patterns and opportunities for intervention.

Conclusion

Considering the work of complexity entrepreneurs and their potential roles in research teams tackling complex societal and environmental problems provides fertile areas for further investigation, including:

• gathering and analysing case studies that illustrate the work of complexity entrepreneurs
• reviewing how teams currently use processual approaches to complexity, reviewing the use of intuition, the ability to make sense of subjective and evolving information, and applying expanded skills of judgement
• documenting “tools,” such as frames of questions or principles, and suggested points of focus to aid the work of complexity entrepreneurs
• finding ways to work critically with multiple perspectives both to surface that which is dynamically stable and early signs of what is starting to emerge.

What do you think? Is this a term and role that you would find useful in your work? Are there other attributes that you find important? Do you have other suggestions for encompassing complexity entrepreneurs in research teams addressing critical societal and environmental problems?

To find out more:

Jean’s work on complexity:

• Boulton, J. (2024). The dao of complexity: Making sense and making waves in turbulent times. De Gruyter: Berlin, Germany.
• Boulton, J., Allen, P. and Bowman, C. (2015). Embracing Complexity. Oxford University Press: Oxford, United Kingdom.
• Jean Boulton’s website: https://www.embracingcomplexity.com
• “Insights into the science of complexity” by Jean Boulton: https://i2insights.org/2024/10/29/science-of-complexity/
• “The essential conditions for, and characteristics of, complexity” by Jean Boulton: https://i2insights.org/2026/05/05/conditions-and-characteristics-of-complexity/
• “The ontologies of restricted and general complexity” by Jean Boulton: https://i2insights.org/2026/07/07/restricted-and-general-complexity/

Gabriele’s work on Integration and Implementation Sciences (i2S):

• Integration and Implementation Sciences (i2S) website: https://i2insights.org/i2s/
• “Integration and Implementation Sciences (i2S) 3.0: An updated framework to foster expertise for tackling complex problems” by Gabriele Bammer: https://i2insights.org/2024/04/16/i2s-updated-framework/
• “Dealing with imperfection in tackling complex problems” by Gabriele Bammer: https://i2insights.org/2025/02/25/dealing-with-imperfection/
• Bammer, G. (ed.). (2015). Change! Combining analytic approaches with street wisdom. ANU Press: Canberra, Australia. Open access: http://doi.org/10.22459/CCAASW.07.2015. See especially pp: 289- 323.
• Bammer, G. and Smithson, M. (eds.). (2008). Uncertainty and Risk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Earthscan: London, United Kingdom.

Reference:

Kingdon, J. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. (2^nd ed.). Longman: Boston, United States of America.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Artificial intelligence was not used in the development of this i2Insights contribution or the work on which the contribution is based. (For i2Insights policy on artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)

Biography: Gabriele Bammer PhD is Professor of Integration and Implementation Sciences (i2S) at the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at The Australian National University in Canberra. i2S provides theory and methods for tackling complex societal and environmental problems, especially for developing a more comprehensive understanding in order to generate fresh insights and ideas for action, supporting improved policy and practice responses by government, business and civil society, and effective interactions between disciplinary and stakeholder experts.

Biography: Jean Boulton PhD is a Fellow of the Institute of Physics and a visiting academic with the Universities of Cranfield and Bath, in the United Kingdom. She has been deeply involved in the science and philosophy of complexity since the mid-1990s and the honing of these ideas continues to inform her research, consultancy work and personal practice.