1 Classical Science vs. Relational Science — Paradigms in Contrast
Science as we know it today is rooted in a tradition that dates back centuries — a tradition grounded in classical assumptions about the nature of reality, observation, and causality. This classical scientific paradigm is characterised by several core ideas: that reality exists independently of observation; that phenomena can be isolated and studied as discrete entities; and that knowledge is built through objective measurement and reproducible experiments.
These assumptions have yielded tremendous insights and technologies. Yet, as we push the boundaries of knowledge—into the quantum realm, complex ecosystems, and social systems—it becomes increasingly clear that the classical model is insufficient to capture the full texture of reality. This insufficiency has prompted calls for a new way of thinking: a relational scientific paradigm.
What is Relational Science?
At its heart, relational science acknowledges that reality is not composed of isolated, self-contained things but of dynamic relations and interactions. Objects and subjects co-constitute each other; the observer participates in shaping what is observed; and processes unfold through networks of interdependence. This relational ontology reframes what counts as an explanation: from linear cause-effect chains between discrete entities to webs of mutual influence, emergence, and co-becoming.
Key Contrasts:
| Classical Science | Relational Science |
|---|---|
| Reality is independent, observer is separate | Reality is co-constructed with the observer |
| Entities have fixed, intrinsic properties | Properties emerge through relations |
| Causality is linear and local | Causality is distributed, context-dependent |
| Knowledge is objective and context-free | Knowledge is participatory and situated |
| Reductionism: isolate parts to understand whole | Holism: understand wholes through relations |
Implications for Scientific Methodology
The shift toward relational science challenges the classical ideal of detached measurement. It requires us to reconsider experimental design, data interpretation, and even what counts as evidence. Relational methods emphasise contextualisation, reflexivity, and multi-modal approaches — combining quantitative data with qualitative insights, and integrating perspectives across disciplines.
Why Does It Matter?
Embracing a relational paradigm is not merely an abstract philosophical move. It has practical consequences for how we approach pressing global challenges — from climate change and biodiversity loss to social justice and public health. These complex problems involve entangled systems where linear, reductionist approaches fall short. Relational science offers tools better suited to capturing complexity, fostering cooperation, and co-creating sustainable futures.
In the next post, we will delve deeper into Observer Participation — exploring how measurement, reality, and co-creation intertwine in relational inquiry.
2 Observer Participation — Measurement, Reality, and Co-Creation
A defining feature of relational science is the recognition that the observer is not a passive spectator but an active participant in the phenomena being studied. This insight disrupts the classical scientific ideal of objective, detached observation and invites a deeper inquiry into the entanglement between measurement, reality, and knowledge.
Observer and Reality: A Mutual Constitution
In classical science, measurement is often assumed to reveal pre-existing properties of independently existing entities. Yet, advances in quantum physics and systems theory challenge this notion. The act of observation itself influences what is observed, collapsing potentials into specific outcomes, and in doing so, co-creating reality with the measured system.
This does not imply that reality is purely subjective or constructed arbitrarily. Rather, it means that reality emerges through ongoing relations between observer and observed, context and system, measurement and meaning.
The Measurement Problem and Its Lessons
Quantum mechanics famously exposes the limits of classical observation. Phenomena such as wavefunction collapse and entanglement highlight that the observer’s choice of measurement affects the behaviour of quantum systems in fundamental ways.
Beyond physics, similar patterns arise in ecology, social sciences, and cultural studies: observations shape and reshape the systems under study, whether through researcher influence, participatory methods, or the feedback loops intrinsic to living systems.
Co-Creation in Scientific Practice
Relational science advocates methodologies that embrace observer participation. Reflexivity — where researchers critically reflect on their own role and influence — becomes essential. Collaborative inquiry, where stakeholders co-design studies and interpret findings together, exemplifies this participatory approach.
Such methods do not undermine scientific rigour; instead, they enrich understanding by making explicit the relational dynamics at play and acknowledging the limits of detached objectivity.
Implications for Knowledge and Inquiry
Observer participation implies that knowledge is situated and provisional. Scientific claims are understood as negotiated, contextual, and contingent — rather than final or universally fixed truths. This relational stance opens space for plural perspectives, interdisciplinarity, and adaptive inquiry responsive to changing conditions.
In our next post, we will explore Methodologies for Relational Inquiry — examining how scientific practices evolve to embody this participatory, situated approach.
3 Methodologies for Relational Inquiry — From Experiment to Ethnography
If relational science redefines the observer as a participant in the unfolding of phenomena, then the methods of inquiry themselves must also transform. Traditional scientific methodologies—designed for separation and objectivity—must give way or adapt to approaches that acknowledge and incorporate relational dynamics.
Beyond the Detached Experiment
Classical experimental designs aim to isolate variables, control contexts, and produce replicable, universal findings. While this has driven profound advances, it often abstracts phenomena from their contexts and downplays the mutual shaping of observer and system.
Relational inquiry challenges this by emphasising the situatedness of all observations. Experiments are no longer mere snapshots of independent reality but interventions within dynamic systems. This requires flexible designs that account for feedback, context, and the evolving nature of the phenomena.
Ethnography and Participatory Methods
Ethnographic approaches — long established in anthropology and sociology — offer valuable models for relational inquiry. By immersing themselves in contexts, researchers attend to the interplay of actors, environments, meanings, and practices over time.
Participatory action research and community-based studies extend this by involving those studied as co-researchers, valuing local knowledge and fostering collaborative meaning-making. These methods reveal the entangled nature of knowledge production and highlight the ethical responsibility of inquiry.
Systems Thinking and Network Analysis
Relational methodologies often employ systems thinking, which conceptualises phenomena as networks of interdependent components. Network analysis, complexity science, and modelling techniques allow researchers to map, simulate, and interpret interactions that transcend linear causality.
These tools are particularly potent in ecological, biological, social, and technological domains where relationships themselves carry causal force.
Towards Methodological Pluralism
A relational science does not prescribe a single methodology but encourages pluralism—a toolkit adaptable to the question, context, and participants. Mixed methods approaches, iterative cycles of inquiry, and openness to emergent insights characterise this ethos.
Importantly, relational inquiry foregrounds reflexivity: continual examination of how the researcher’s presence, assumptions, and actions shape the process and outcomes.
In our next post, we will delve into Relational Thinking in Physics, exploring how quantum entanglement and related phenomena exemplify and inspire relational approaches in science.
4 Relational Thinking in Physics — Quantum Entanglement and Beyond
Physics has long been the poster child of classical science’s quest for objective, universal laws. Yet, the advent of quantum mechanics has profoundly challenged this classical picture, revealing a world that resists simple, detached description and invites relational thinking.
Quantum Entanglement: A Paradigm Shift
At the heart of this challenge lies quantum entanglement—a phenomenon where particles become inseparably linked, such that the state of one instantly correlates with the state of another, regardless of distance. This phenomenon defies classical assumptions of independent, local entities and suggests that relations themselves are fundamental.
Entanglement implies that what exists “out there” is not a collection of isolated objects, but a network of interdependencies, where measurement and observation participate actively in defining reality. In other words, the observer and the observed are entwined.
Relational Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
Relational interpretations, such as Carlo Rovelli’s Relational Quantum Mechanics, propose that the properties of quantum systems exist only relative to other systems — no absolute, observer-independent state exists. This reframes reality as a web of interactions, where knowledge and existence are co-constructed.
Similarly, interpretations like Quantum Bayesianism (QBism) view the wavefunction as a tool for an agent’s expectations, not an objective property. This underscores the participatory nature of scientific inquiry.
Beyond Quantum Physics
Relational thinking extends beyond quantum physics into the realms of spacetime, information theory, and cosmology. Some approaches suggest that spacetime itself emerges from entanglement patterns, positioning relations as ontologically primary rather than derived.
Implications for Science and Philosophy
These insights challenge entrenched dichotomies — subject/object, observer/observed, and independent/dependent — prompting a reconsideration of what science aims to describe. They invite a shift toward a science that is less about uncovering fixed entities and more about understanding networks of relations and processes.
In the next post, we will explore how relational perspectives illuminate biological and ecological systems, highlighting co-evolution and complex networks.
5 Relational Biology and Ecology — Systems, Networks, and Co-Evolution
While physics has prompted us to rethink the foundational nature of reality, biology and ecology offer equally profound insights into relationality—revealing life itself as a dynamic network of interactions that shape and are shaped by their contexts.
From Organisms to Systems
Traditional biology often treated organisms as discrete units, bounded entities that evolve through gene-centred processes. Yet, relational biology invites us to view organisms as systems—complex, open, and interdependent networks of cells, genes, and environmental interactions.
This systems perspective acknowledges that the boundaries of organisms are porous and that life unfolds in continuous relation with its surroundings.
Networks and Interactions
Ecology extends this perspective further, focusing on the webs of interaction between organisms and their environments. Food webs, mutualistic relationships, and ecosystem dynamics exemplify how no species or individual evolves in isolation.
The concept of co-evolution captures this beautifully: species adapt not simply to static environments but to other evolving organisms, producing reciprocal influences over time.
Niche Construction and Ecological Inheritance
We have explored how organisms modify their environments and pass these changes to subsequent generations, a process known as niche construction. This challenges gene-centric views by positioning environment modification as a form of inheritance and evolutionary influence.
Relational Development and Phenotypic Plasticity
Developmental biology contributes another layer: phenotypic plasticity—organisms’ capacity to develop different traits in response to environmental cues—highlights how relational interactions during development shape evolutionary outcomes.
This underscores the fluidity and contextuality of life, where genotype, environment, and history are intertwined.
Towards a Relational Biology
Embracing relationality shifts biology from a focus on static ‘things’ to a science of processes and relations. It highlights networks, feedback loops, and histories as foundational to understanding life’s diversity and adaptability.
In the next post, we will examine how the social sciences and humanities are embracing relational approaches, transforming our understanding of culture, meaning, and society.
6 Social Sciences and Humanities — The Relational Turn in Culture and Meaning
The social sciences and humanities have long grappled with the complexity of human experience, culture, and meaning. Recently, a relational turn has reshaped these fields, offering fresh perspectives that resonate with relational ontologies in science.
From Individuals to Networks of Relations
Where classical approaches often centred on individuals as isolated agents or fixed social structures, relational thinking foregrounds the networks, interactions, and processes that constitute social life.
Human identity, culture, and knowledge are understood not as static possessions but as emergent from ongoing interactions—between people, their histories, institutions, and environments.
Language, Meaning, and Semiotics
Relational approaches emphasise language and semiotics as dynamic systems of meaning-making. Meaning is not inherent in isolated words or symbols but arises in relations—between speakers and listeners, texts and contexts, and cultural traditions and innovations.
This dynamic challenges essentialist notions of identity or culture, highlighting hybridity, fluidity, and co-construction.
Power, Agency, and Ethics
A relational lens also reshapes understandings of power and agency. Power is seen not merely as possession but as distributed across networks, enacted in relations.
Agency emerges relationally—through participation, negotiation, and contestation within social fields—inviting ethical reflections on responsibility, participation, and co-creation.
Transdisciplinarity and Methodological Innovation
Social sciences and humanities increasingly adopt transdisciplinary and participatory methods, such as ethnography, dialogic inquiry, and collaborative research.
These methodologies align with relational epistemologies by valuing situated knowledge, multiple perspectives, and the co-production of meaning.
Implications for Culture and Society
Understanding culture and society relationally encourages us to see social change as emergent from complex interactions rather than solely from top-down structures or individual choices.
It opens pathways for more inclusive, responsive, and adaptive approaches to addressing contemporary social challenges.
7 The Future of Science — Toward Integrative, Participatory Inquiry
As we conclude this series, it is clear that adopting a relational ontology invites us to rethink not only what science studies, but how science is done. The future of inquiry points toward more integrative, participatory, and co-creative approaches that transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries.
Beyond Reductionism and Fragmentation
Classical science often seeks to break complex phenomena into isolated parts, aiming for precision through reduction. Relational science, by contrast, embraces complexity as fundamental, focusing on patterns of interaction and emergence.
This shift challenges the fragmentation of knowledge and calls for holistic frameworks that honour interconnectedness.
Participatory Epistemologies
Relational inquiry recognises the active participation of observers and practitioners in the production of knowledge. Measurement, observation, and interpretation are not passive acts but co-creative processes that shape what is known.
This participatory stance fosters reflexivity—awareness of how methods, perspectives, and values influence scientific outcomes.
Transdisciplinary Collaboration
Future science increasingly requires collaboration across disciplines, cultures, and sectors. Complex global challenges—such as climate change, health crises, and social inequality—demand integrative approaches that combine insights from physics, biology, social sciences, humanities, and indigenous knowledge.
Relational science provides a conceptual and ethical foundation for such transdisciplinary engagement.
Methodological Innovation
Embracing relationality encourages innovation in methods—blending quantitative and qualitative tools, integrating systems thinking, network analysis, ethnography, and participatory action research.
This methodological pluralism respects multiple ways of knowing and invites diverse stakeholders into inquiry.
Ethics of Inquiry and Co-Creation
A relational future science is deeply ethical. It recognises that scientific knowledge co-produces realities and affects communities and environments. This awareness compels scientists to engage responsibly and collaboratively, fostering science as a shared, dynamic practice embedded in social and ecological contexts.
A Vision for Tomorrow
Ultimately, relational science envisions inquiry as a participatory journey rather than a quest for fixed truths. It calls on us to become co-creators in an ongoing dance with the living world—cultivating curiosity, humility, and openness.
This future is not distant. It is already emerging in pockets of innovation, dialogue, and mutual learning worldwide. The question is: how will we nurture and expand it?