Revista de Ciencias Sociales (RCS)
Vol. XXIX, No. Especial 8, julio-diciembre
2023. pp. 54-62
FCES - LUZ ● ISSN: 1315-9518 ● ISSN-E:
2477-9431
Como citar: Barbera, N., Chirinos, Y. D.
V., Godinez, R., y
Perez,
C. M. (2023). Research management in times of increasing complexity: Towards
the construction of new cartographies. Revista De Ciencias Sociales, XXIX(Número Especial 8), 54-62.
Research
management in times of increasing complexity: Towards the construction of new
cartographies
Barbera Alvarado, Nataliya*
Chirinos Arque, Yamarú del Valle**
Godinez, Roberto***
Perez
Peralta, Claudia Milena****
Abstract
Aware that reality is
characterized by being multiform and with arbitrary variables, this article
aims to reflect on the epistemic foundations required in the management of
research in times of increasing complexity as mechanisms for the construction
of new cartographies. It was addressed under the documentary research method,
using the content analysis and summary sheet as recording techniques of the
information extracted from the bibliographic sources consulted. The results
indicate that the classical vision of science has imposed a rationality based
on empiricism and mathematical rationalism, conducting the investigative work
through fixed territories, approaching reality with a single method. However,
currently rigorous scientific practice is not limited to standards or a priori
models. An ontological understanding is required to locate and select the
appropriate method that provides a relevant solution to the research problem.
Finally, it is concluded that it is time to dethrone the traditional authority
to think and act from the complementary articulation of scientific logics
and/or rationalities, which lead to an epistemological turn that invites to
combine pure reason with social knowledge, monological with multi-methods,
analytical thinking with polyvocal thinking.
Keywords: Research management;
method; complementarity; cartographies; empiricisms.
Gestión de la investigación en
tiempos de complejidad creciente: Hacia la construcción de nuevas cartografías
Resumen
Consciente de que la
realidad se caracteriza por ser multiforme y de variables arbitraria, este
artículo plantea como objetivo reflexionar sobre los fundamentos epistémicos
requeridos en la gestión de la investigación en tiempos de complejidad
creciente como mecanismos de construcción de nuevas cartografías. Se abordó
bajo el método de investigación documental, empleando el análisis de contenido
y ficha resumen como técnicas de registro de la información extraída de las
fuentes bibliográficas consultadas. Los resultados indican que, la visión
clásica de la ciencia ha impuesto una racionalidad basada en el empirismo y
racionalismos matemático conduciendo el quehacer investigativo por territorios
fijos, abordando la realidad con un solo método. No obstante, actualmente la
práctica científica y rigurosa no se limita a estándares ni a modelos a priori,
se requiere de una comprensión ontológica para ubicar y seleccionar el método
adecuado que brinde solución pertinente al problema de investigación.
Finalmente, se concluye que es momento de destronar la autoridad tradicional
para pensar y actuar desde la articulación complementaria de las lógicas y/o
racionalidades científicas, que conducen a un giro epistemológico que invita a
conjugar la razón pura con conocimiento social, la monológica
con multimétodos, el pensamiento analítico con el
pensamiento polivocal.
Palabras clave: Gestión de
la investigación; método; complementariedad; cartografías; empirismos.
Introduction
The
dynamics of the contemporary world requires the scientific community to rethink
the role of science in the crucial moments that humanity is going through. In
these times it is pertinent to reflect on the chaos, the growing complexity and
the events that show the social, political, economic, cultural and
environmental tragedy that is being experienced. Today it is also necessary to
study the epistemic foundations of research, this has led to revealing that
qualitative research is not only to explore, the task is also to provide
arguments that weaken the myth about the non-scientificity
of this qualitative rationality.
Many
attempts have been made to correctly point out some academic-investigative
solutions in the face of the uncertain, changing, unstable and even unexpected
reality that science has had to face, from a hologrammatic vision of man-world
interaction that goes beyond the traditional currents of thought that govern
scientific work and that have led to negative results translated, as Vallejo
& Gómez (2011) point out “in terms of anti-globalization, unsustainability
and global energy crisis” (p.9).
This
rethinking of investigative practice is not a new proposal, since in 1967 the
discoverer of the quantum mechanics equation who laid the foundations of modern
physics, the great physicist Schrödinger considered that current science had
led to a dead end, therefore, the scientific attitude should be reconstructed,
it is time to remake science. This reflection indicates that it is not possible
to remain anchored to steady territories, it is time to explore new
cartographies (Najmanovich, 2008) that lead to this
scientific reconstruction or redo through investigative management processes
with opening thoughts towards the complementarity of rationalities.
The
need arises to enrich the epistemological bases of scientific work, through
philosophical and theoretical contributions that brings to the management and
construction of new methodological routes based on the understanding of the
processes required by the new science. In this sense, research implies managing
processes and procedures, therefore, the researcher must review and analyze its
paradigmatic position as a support for the ground on which it stands; as well
as, examine the strength and direction of the currents of the waters in which
it moves; Interpreting Martínez (2003), this
translates into “the strength of the assumptions it accepts and the level of
credibility of its postulates and basic axioms” (p.2).
In
this order of ideas, Kuhn (2004) shows a range of concepts about paradigm, used
as a synonym for a model or pattern associated with the ideal or correct, that
is, the way of seeing and thinking of the researcher; but at the same time, the
author maintains that a paradigm is related to beliefs/creations, a notion that
is located in the real plane, in the empirical world whose perceptions outline
the existence of facts, events and/or processes.
Also,
it is pertinent to consider that every paradigm contains rules and regulations
that establish and define borders, indicate how to behave within those borders;
therefore, it leads to manage science from the dialectic between what is
correct and what is real, understanding that intersubjectivity is generated in
the real plane, where the interaction, intercommunication and language constitute the basis
of the epistemic presuppositions that govern scientific inquiry and lead to the
creation of new cartographies to generate valid knowledge.
This
new way of managing research implies a task that consists of assuming the
paradigm based on qualitative and/or quantitative rationality as a coherent
structure, constituted by a network of intertwined concepts, theoretical and
methodological beliefs that allow the selection, evaluation and reflection on
the subject, problems and methods by the scientific community.
In
this regard, Martínez (1997) indicates that the
paradigm is “a synthesis of concepts, beliefs, community commitments, ways of
seeing, etc. shared by a scientific community…, [for this, one must be aware
that] science is not a treasure of truths accumulated over time” (p.34); it is
a process of substitution of truths, not dogmatic, whose practice cannot be
governed by a rigid, immutable system and of absolute principles as Feyerabend
(1975) proposes. In short, it is necessary to achieve a status that allows
scientific progress by ordering and systematizing knowledge.
Given
the above, science can currently be characterized as a process of exploration
that leads to disclosures, discoveries and rediscoveries of real phenomena,
therefore, research management implies the discussion of new ways of looking,
interpreting, arguing, writing, but mainly it must recognize that there isn’t
any method that can capture all the subtle variations of human experience (Denzin
& Lincoln, 2012).
In
this sense, currently the management and practice of research provides for the
complementarity of rationalities in which it is possible to assume the
qualitative logic aware that its ontology corresponds to a relative,
interpretive and emergent realism, whose epistemological status makes the
generation of knowledge possible through critical, reflective, dialogic,
dialectical discussions, that is, through intersubjective relationships where
the understanding of the lived experience is privileged.
At the
same time, assuming an investigative management based on quantitative
rationality requires being aware that the practice is based on currents of
thought that favor the objectivity, mathematical analysis, and deduction of
knowledge. Hence, various studies value the complementarity of qualitative and
quantitative rationalities in order to promote the reflective and critical
nature of research, a complementarity that provides intellectual elements of nexum and action favorable to the scientific work of the
various disciplines (Becerra, 2020; Nizama & Nizama, 2020).
From
this perspective, research management starts from the ontological reality of
the phenomenon that is studied to decide the route or mapping to trace. On the
one hand, if it assumes a qualitative rationality, management is based on the
notion of an alternative paradigm (Kuhn, 2004) characterized by being
naturalistic, phenomenological, humanistic, oriented towards the discovery and
interconnection of the phenomena it studies through multi-methods and
multi-techniques that aim to discover the meaning of human actions and social
practice; This means that qualitative research aims to discover and reveal the
composition of phenomena in natural conditions (Heidegger, 2009).
On the
other hand, managing based on quantitative rationality implies assuming a
paradigm based on what is correct and governed by a model or pattern. This is
how, investigative management in these times of crisis and uncertainty requires
open thinking from the researcher, in order to achieve clarity and
epistemological and methodological understanding that allows the researcher to
integrate and/or complement logics in correspondence with the nature of the
phenomenon under study. For Granados (2016), achieving comprehensive knowledge
of the phenomenon is possible through epistemological multi-method positions
that involve qualitative-quantitative procedures.
This
complementarity of rationalities in investigative management is due to the fact
that reality is changing and shows a complex behavior of the physical, social,
environmental, and political phenomena that comprise the current universe,
therefore, it is difficult to talk about objective knowledge, probabilities,
and certainties; It is time to open a dialogue of science considering not only
Cartesian logic, but also thinking about the implications of the quantum
physics of Schrodinger, Heisemberg, Prigogine, Capra,
Morin, among other authors who show significant contributions with scientific
discoveries of the last decades. These theoretical and philosophical
orientations involve the human being in the evolutionary dynamics of the
universe, its subjective instance is recognized; This is the subjective self
who shares objective and universal aspects through its relational dynamics with
other beings.
Establishing
the meeting point of these two epistemic - scientific horizons leads to
assuming a hologrammatic vision of the universe that allows the understanding
and distinction of reality by combining the binomial of action reason -
intuition; that is to say, objectivity – subjectivity, giving way to the
consolidation of new paradigms or rationalities according to the growing
complexity of the current universe. A meeting point between both poles that
leads to a kind of metamorphosis of science and epistemology that are
appropriate to understand the challenges that society faces in this hectic and
heterogeneous era.
In
this regard, Najmanovich (2008) raises the need to
fully enter the new territories of thought, “presenting new cartographies of
the world of contemporary knowledge and emphasizing the importance and
exploring the implications of the new ways of mapping” (p.11). Hence, in this
article, to propose a management of research in times of increasing complexity
as the current world is characterized, which allows to trace new routes or
maps. It is an invitation to rethink science and the way of doing science,
considering the different methods of production and validation of knowledge; as
well as its relationship with the collective world that generates and inhabits
it.
Based
on the aforementioned, in this article positions have not only been exposed in
relation to the spell of the method in scientific research as an inherited
conscience that limits the construction of new cartographies, but rather the
objective is to reflect on the epistemic and theoretical foundations that lay
the foundations of the rationalities required to manage research with new methods
of cartographies adjusted to the created reality. The study is approached from
the documentary review (Reyes-Ruiz & Carmona, 2020). of significant
theories that mark the advance towards the consideration of aerial views on new
epistemes that are currently under debate and that lead to the production and
validation of scientific knowledge from other ways of mapping adjusted to the
growing complexity and challenges facing the heterogeneous society of this
contemporary age.
1. Methodology
The
research is carried out through the exhaustive and in-depth review of texts,
articles, book chapters, thesis, as sources of bibliographic information
related to the visions that epistemically and methodologically guide scientific
work. Therefore, it is part of documentary research studies using content analysis
and summary sheet as collection techniques, guaranteeing the logical order of
the information extracted from the sources consulted. Its central purpose is to
conduct the bibliographic review, relating the data that comes from the
different sources, in order to provide a panoramic and systematic vision on the
topic that is developed (Barraza, 2018).
In
terms of authors like Martínez (2004); and Teppa (2012), documentary or bibliographic research
consists of a systematic, in-depth, and exhaustive review of the most important
literature on the event being studied based on established criteria and with
clear purposes that outline the path of this research. For the purposes of this
article, the defined criteria are adjusted to the procedure used to develop the
research, beginning by defining its scope or purpose by reflecting on the
epistemic foundations that lead the research along paths of increasing
complexity; continuing with the registration of the consulted sources that
allow fixing the interpretations that the authors make to consolidate and build
the manuscript.
2. Results and discussion
The
trend in the management of research in the social and human sciences currently
leads to building knowledge from the meanings generated during the daily life
of the subjects, it is the product of thinking and acting marked by lived
experience; this indicates that knowledge is produced by the apprehension of
the thrown meaning, (Brito, 2019; Álvarez, 2020;
Sandoval, 2022).
However,
the inheritance obtained from modernity is associated with the conception of “knowledge
as the internal reflection in the subject of the external world, which was
supposed to be objective and independent” (Najmanovich,
2008, p.15); inheritance that is based on methodical dualism through the
subject-object relationship as a way of approaching reality, leading to
polarization and exclusion when thinking of two poles absolutely independent of
the other. From this point of view, the author refers, it is impossible to
think about the links, the mutual affectation, the exchanges that take place
during the man-world relationship; an obvious dynamic that classical,
traditional science has long made invisible.
The
world is facing an inheritance between two types of knowledge and action, one
symbolic/mythological, the other empirical/technical/rational that has become a
relationship problem, without taking into account that the two types coexist
(Granados, 2016), which by being in constant interaction create a kind of
interdependence with each other and what is most important “any relinquishment
of empirical/technical/rational knowledge would lead humans to death, any relinquishment
of their own fundamental beliefs would disintegrate their society” (Morin, 2006,
p.168).
Interdependence
of knowledge that is created when the mythological is conceived not as from the
outside that becomes only a poetic expression, superstition, but as a truth
lived from the interior of the being; thus, it is not a matter of assuming the
relationship between myth and logos as antagonism because its notion becomes
obscure; it is a matter of seeing their complementarities and interferences as
ways of thinking of man and acting in the world.
It is
in modernity where the ability to observe the world objectively comes to life,
that is, regardless of the look of the subject itself, it was dedicated to
total knowledge, an absolute truth, privileging a universe independent of the
thought that is thinking about it (Hernández y Coello,
2020). It is about a representationalism that only admits isolated worlds,
leaving reflection aside, whose existence has been disturbing and at the same
time unacceptable, leading to a kind of blindness of knowledge (Morin, 2006);
therefore, a reflective thought is necessary that provides the opportunity to
question to make visible the territory of thought and the dimensions on which
knowledge is built, expanded, reformed or reconfigured.
It
should be noted that science, in its eagerness to predict and control obvious
events and processes with indomitable variables, assuming that with the
progress towards the construction of knowledge and temporal evolution it will
manage to control and predict its behavior at some point. However, Bateson
(2006) emphasizes that the divergent sequences of the universe are unpredictable,
therefore, “the explanation must always be born from the description, but the
description from which it is born will always, necessarily, contain arbitrary
characteristics” (p.51).
This
controllable and predictable character, according to the referred author, is
possible only when the components are to each other like the member to the
class, like the thing named to the name, that is, are predictable when the
sequences of phenomena are convergent because the descriptions of their events
refer to the behavior of huge multitudes or classes of individuals.
In
this sense, thinking about science from the perspective of complexity is
thinking about linking dynamics, interactions, entanglements, uncertainties,
non-linear behaviors, bifurcations; but at the same time, in new ways of doing
science, mapping. It is time for researchers to choose to work from a complex
approach, facing the challenge of “generating a conception of knowledge in
which theory is not divorced from praxis, the affects
of thoughts, or the subject of the ecosystem” (Najmanovich,
2008, p.21). In this way, it is possible to give meaning to the management of
research with ways of knowing, legitimizing and sharing knowledge to enrich the
territories of creative and productive thought that allow us to experience the
world, co-construct it in interactions through conceptual instruments and new
tools.
Consequently,
complexity from the sciences is a form of questioning and interaction with the
world, it provides a style of inquiry or dialogue with nature (Prigogine & Stengers, 2004) and a rigorous practice that is not limited
to standards or a priori models; This is how, the parceling, limits and fences,
captures reality and frame it in a model are not characteristic features of
this approach. This new look implies a change in the global treatment of
knowledge that requires giving up the conception of the external world
independent of the subject, since knowledge is configured in the world by those
who inhabit it and dynamize it.
It is
an awakening of the methodical spell to map new flights and create scientific
itineraries from multidimensional, multi-method and multi-technique approaches
that allow the construction of a style of inquiry characterized by exploration,
by the creation of a conceptual landscape to reconfigure the cognitive
landscape. This means a change in the notion of the world, of that world
conceived in its origins almost complete, static, whose details did not change
the global aesthetics of the universe, and recognizing the linking, enveloping,
uncertain and unthinkable dynamics of reality that has allowed develop theories
such as relativity, quantum, non-equilibrium thermodynamics or irreversible
processes and chaos theories to shatter this spell.
In the
face of the metamorphosis of science Prigogine & Stengers
(2004), new ways of mapping are sought through a management that makes it
possible not only to describe convergent and divergent phenomena or behaviors,
but also to find their meaning, purpose, coherence and its relationship with
human knowledge. It is not about scientific univocity, which “occurs at the
level of definition or description (the equation), and also at the operational
level, but not at the level of meaning” (Viguri.
2019, p.96); since the meaning is associated with the interpretation that,
moreover, is discursive, philosophical and includes a critical and reflective
component that begins by visualizing, imagining or devising in some way what a
mathematical formula, an algorithm or the empirical reality being addressed in
order to, finally, perform intellectual operations of a qualitative nature that
include sorting, categorizing and classifying.
In
this order of ideas, research management is built by identifying a problem to
give it a methodological treatment, a problem that is visualized by observing,
recognizing and understanding that there is a divergent behavior with the theoretical
framework or worldview, “only when we have detected a problem, we proceed to
look for methods to solve it” (Viguri, 2019, p.98).
But, according to the author, it is pertinent to point out that there is no
formula to select the methods applicable to any problem and, what is most
interesting, “if there were, we could ask: and according to what method was the
general method of method construction?” (p.98).
This
question invites us to reflect on the demystification of a unique method as an
inheritance that has prevailed in the debate of the scientific community and
that currently comes to life in the face of the uncertain, unstable, and
complex reality of the man-world relationship. Today it is proposed that
selecting the practical method for solving a problem is mainly an ontological
matter, it is necessary to have a theoretical pre-understanding of the problem
and of the discourse on its dimensions; Therefore, “there is no a priori method
to identify the truly relevant aspects of a given problem” (Viguri,
2019, p.99). Hence, the problem's ontology or worldview is key to understanding
the problem and seeking the appropriate method for reality, which is why it
precedes the method.
Given
the above, it can be stated that the divergent realities are not framed in an
investigative management focused on a single method, its dynamic, multiform and
indomitable character leads to think not in probabilities but in possibilities
of occurrence, so, aerial views should be considered and draw up new
cartographies that allow conducting realities or phenomena with complex,
non-linear, irreversible behaviors and with constant bifurcations along paths
or routes of complementary articulation of qualitative and quantitative methods
appropriate to contexts of interpretation through systematic forms, that is,
methodical. It is time to wake up from the spell of the method, to believe that
the path that leads to knowledge has no obstacles with errors, that there are
no moments of confusion, to navigate through the mists of meaninglessness,
discarding the untamed and unthinkable dynamics of the universe.
Conclusions
Modern
science was born from the hybridization of empiricism and mathematizing
rationalism, surrounding the reality studied in a kind of laboratory. The idea
of the a priori method prevailed, without considering the ontology of the
phenomenon studied and building a neutral and impersonal discourse based on
dualism to justify the objective nature of science. This perspective creates a
methodical illusion that denies reality itself, by using linear, straight
flight itineraries that lead to dead-end roads before paths that fork, which
has led, sharing the phrase of Najmonovich, (2008),
to “combing a disheveled story” (p.80).
It is
these reflections where the divergent is recognized, the complexity of the
man-universe relationship is accepted, which allow us to rethink walking and
recognize that uncertainty, instability, indomitable variables, and tangles are
not negative aspects, since the understanding of this ontology or worldview
comes to mean the starting point for the management of scientific work to look
at the range of methods and select the one that is most appropriate in order to
provide a solution to the problem being studied. It is time to leave fixed
territories, dethrone traditional authority and navigate multiform, changing
and unexpected seas and move towards knowledge construction processes with an
open mind that recognizes simplicity, but also diversity; that is, the
complexity.
In
this way, it is possible to think and act from the complementary articulation
of scientific logics and/or rationalities, which lead to an epistemological
turn that invites to combine pure reason with social knowledge, monology with
multi-methods, analytical thought with polyvocal thought. It is from this point
of view that progress will be made in the construction of meaningful knowledge
located in contexts characterized by non-linear and emergent dynamics; it is to
assume the epistemological transformation and a paradigmatic change to wake up
from the methodical spell; Only in this way is it possible to manage research
in these times of increasing complexity with new forms, processes and
procedures that allow the world to be experienced.
Bibliographic references
Álvarez, A. (2020). Clasificación de las investigaciones [Investigación de pregrado, Universidad
de Lima]. https://repositorio.ulima.edu.pe/handle/20.500.12724/10818
Barraza, C. (2018). Manual para la presentación de
referencias bibliográficas de documentos impresos y electrónicos. Universidad Tecnológica Metropolitana.
Bateson, G. (2006). Espíritu
y naturaleza. Amorrortu Editores.
Becerra, K. (2020). Investigación cualitativa crítica y derecho: análisis de su
rol en la academia chilena y un estudio de caso. Revista Pedagogía
Universitaria y Didáctica del Derecho, 7(1), 149-176. https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-5885.2020.55375
Brito, J. (2019). Fenomenología y cotidianidad [Artículo de divulgación, Universidad Santo Domingo de Guzmán].
http://repositorio.usdg.edu.pe/handle/USDG/223
Denzin,
N., & Lincoln, Y. (2012). Manual de
Investigación Cualitativa. Vol I: El campo de la
Investigación Cualitativa. Editorial Gedisa
Feyerabend, P. K. (1975). Popper's objective
knowledge. In P. K. Feyerabend (Ed.), Problems
of empiricism: Philosophical papers (Vol. 2, pp. 168-201). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171588
Granados, O. (2016). O enfoque qualitativo.
Um complemento da racionalidade
ou uma variante do enfoque multi-método em investigação científica? SAPIENTIAE: Revista de Ciencias Sociais,
Humanas e Engenharias, 1(2), 185-205. https://publicacoes.uor.ed.ao/index.php/sapientiae/article/view/14
Heidegger, M. (2009). El ser y el tiempo. Fondo de Cultura Económica
Hernández, R. A., &
Coello, S. (2020). El
paradigma cuantitativo de la investigación científica.
Editorial Universitaria (Cuba).
Kuhn, T.
(2004). La estructura de las revoluciones científicas. Fondo de
Cultura Económica.
Martínez, M. (1997). El paradigma emergente: Hacia una nueva teoría de la racionalidad
científica. Editorial Trillas.
Martínez, M. (2003). Sobre
el estatuto epistemológico de la psicología. Polis. Revista Latinoamericana, 4, 1-10. https://journals.openedition.org/polis/7188
Martínez, M. (2004). Ciencia y arte en la metodología
cualitativa. Editorial Trillas.
Morin, E. (2006). El
método 3. El conocimiento del conocimiento.
Ediciones Cátedra.
Najmanovich, D. (2008). Mirar con
nuevos ojos: Nuevos paradigmas en la ciencia y pensamiento complejo. Editorial Biblos Publisher.
Nizama, M., & Nizama, L. M.
(2020). El enfoque cualitativo en la investigación
jurídica, proyecto de investigación cualitativa y seminario de tesis. Vox Juris, 38(2),
69-90. https://doi.org/10.24265/voxjuris.2020.v38n2.05
Prigogin, I., & Stengers, I.
(2004). La nueva
alianza. Metamorfosis de la ciencia.
Alianza Editorial.
Reyes-Ruiz, L., &
Carmona, F. (2020). La
investigación documental para la comprensión ontológica del objeto de estudio [Investigación doctoral, Universidad Simón Bolívar]. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12442/6630
Sandoval, R. (2022). Una
epistemología para investigar desde la creación de la cotidianidad. Reseña
Bibliográfica: Valiente, Silvia (2020). Habitar las fronteras del pensar desde
la cotidianeidad y la memoria. San Fernando del Valle de Catamarca, Argentina:
Editorial Científica Universitaria. Secretaría de Investigación y Posgrado.
Universidad Nacional de Catamarca. 227 páginas. ISBN: 978-987-661-363-7. Revista Latinoamericana de Metodología de
las Ciencias Sociales, 12(1), e112. http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/147449
Teppa. S. (2012). Análisis de la información cualitativa y construcción de
teorías. Ediciones GEMA.
Vallejo, A. C., & Gómez, J. A. (2011). Pensar y sentir desde
la unidad, la diversidad y el movimiento. Interconexiones
mente-cerebro-universo: ¿Un diálogo posible entre Occidente y Oriente?
Universidad Santo Tomás.
Viguri, M. R. (2019). Ciencias
de la complejidad vs. pensamiento complejo. Claves para una lectura crítica del
concepto de cientificidad en Carlos Reynoso. Pensamiento. Revista de
Investigación e Información Filosófica, 75(283), 87-106. https://doi.org/10.14422/pen.v75.i283.y2019.004
* PhD. in
Regional Development, Planning and Management. Research Professor at the
University of Sinú - Elías Bechara Zainum, Monteria,
Colombia. Senior Researcher categorized by Colciencias.
E-mail: nataliaberbera@unisinu.edu.co ORCID:
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4566-5052
** PhD. in Innovation Management. Research Professor of the group: GORAS
and ECOSOL Luis Amigó Catholic University, Medellin, Colombia.
Senior Researcher categorized by Colciencias. E-mail:
yama-ru.chirinosar@amigo.edu.co;
urumay78@gmail.com ORCID:
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0471-9859
*** PhD. in
Administration. Research Professor at the University of Guanajuato, Guanajuato,
Mexico. E-mail: roberto.godinez@gmail.com
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2612-8996
**** Master in
Economics. Master in International Business and Integration. Professor at the
Faculty of Economic, Legal and Administrative Sciences at the University of
Córdoba, Monteria, Colombia. E-mail: claudiamilenaperezperalta@gmail.com
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3799-9642
Recibido: 2023-04-03 · Aceptado:
2023-06-28