{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020958083832335328, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.555555555555555, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Embracing complexity theory can clarify best practice frameworks for simulation education

In this issue, Cross-cutting Edge authors Fenwick and Abrandt Dahlgren assert that simulationbased education (SBE) contains inherent socio-material contradictions. For educators and practitioners making use of SBE, this may initially make for uncomfortable reading. The raison d’être of SBE is to provide learners with opportunities to develop knowledge, skills and behaviours that transfer into ‘real-world’ clinical practices. Contradictions, with implied gaps within and between simulation scenarios, may be considered very unwelcome. However, we encourage readers to refrain from falling into defensive mode and instead to read the article by Fenwick and Abrandt Dahlgren in full in order to gain understanding of how the use of complexity theory provides a good example of the possibilities that can be opened up by using socio-material approaches to improve design, delivery and potential outcomes in SBE.