Editorial On the future of complex problem solving: Seven questions, many answers? Wolfgang Schoppek1, Andreas Fischer2, Daniel Holt3 and Joachim Funke3 1University of Bayreuth, Germany. 2Research Institute for Vocational Education and Training (f-bb), Nuremberg, Germany. 3Heidelberg University, Germany. While research on complex problem solving (CPS) has reached a stage where certain standards have been achieved, the future development is quite ambiguous. Therefore, we were interested in the views of represen- tative authors about the attainments and the future de- velopment of that field. We asked the authors to share their point of view with respect to seven questions about the relevance of (complex) problem solving as a research area, about the contribution of laboratory-based CPS re- search to solving real life problems, about the roles of knowledge, strategies, and intuition in CPS, and about the existence of expertise in CPS. complex problem solving, dynamic decision making, research strat- egy, knowledge acquisition, experts Research on complex problem solving (CPS) has reacheda stage where certain standards have been achieved, whereas the future development is quite ambiguous. In this situation, we were interested in the views of repre- sentative authors about the attainments. Do we agree on the roles of knowledge and strategies that are important for CPS? Even more, we were interested in collecting ideas about the future development of our field. To stake off a conceptual framework, we introduce current definitions of the central concepts: “Complex problem solving is a collec- tion of self-regulated psychological processes and activities necessary in dynamic environments to achieve ill-defined goals that cannot be reached by routine actions” (Dörner & Funke, 2017, p.6). This definition clearly goes beyond the conception of CPS as a narrowly defined competency. For defining knowledge, we refer to the preliminary process model by Schoppek & Fischer (2017): “Structural knowl- edge is knowledge about the causal relations among the variables that constitute a dynamic system. I-O knowl- edge (shorthand for ‘input-output knowledge’) represents instances of interventions together with the system’s re- sponses. Strategy knowledge represents abstract plans of how to cope with the . . . problem” (p.2). The strategy notion may include quite specific approaches that might better be characterized as tactics. However, we discour- age the use of the term ‘strategy’ for a mere description of a participant’s course of action. We asked the authors to share their point of view with respect to the seven questions listed below. As we were interested in unfiltered opinions, we did not subject the contributions to peer review, but to an editorial review. Authors were free to select only five or six of the seven questions and add one or two of their own questions related to CPS. The Questions 1. Why should there continue to be problem solving re- search (in addition to research on memory, decision- making, motivation etc.)? 2. What are the connections between current CPS re- search practice and real problems? Where do you see potential for development towards stronger relations? 3. Given the artificiality of the laboratory situation, do participants really adopt the presented problems? What insights can be gained despite this artificiality and which cannot? 4. What evidence exists for the influence of other kinds of knowledge besides structural knowledge on the re- sults of CPS? Which of these kinds of knowledge should be examined in future research? 5. What evidence is available for the impact of strategies (except VOTAT) on the results of CPS? Which of these strategies should be examined more closely? 6. Is there intuitive CPS? 7. What distinguishes experts in CPS from laypersons? Declaration of conflicting interests: The authors de- clare they have no conflict of interests. Author contributions: The first author wrote most parts of the manuscript. Handling editor: Andreas Fischer Copyright: This work is licensed under a Creative Com- mons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 In- ternational License. Citation: Schoppek, W., Fischer, A., Holt, D. V., & Funke, J. (2019). On the future of complex problem solving: Seven questions, many answers?. Journal of Dynamic Decision Making, 5, 5. doi: 10.11588/jddm.2019.1.69294 Published: 31 Dec 2019 Corresponding author: Wolfgang Schoppek, University of Bayreuth, 95440 Bayreuth, Germany. E-mail: wolfgang.schoppek@uni-bayreuth.de 10.11588/jddm.2019.1.69294 JDDM | 2019 | Volume 5 | Article 5 | 1 mailto: https://doi.org/10.11588/jddm.2019.1.69294 Schoppek et al.: Seven Questions References Dörner, D., & Funke, J. (2017). Complex problem solving: what it is and what it is not. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1153. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01153 Schoppek, W., & Fischer, A. (2017). Common process demands of two complex dynamic control tasks: transfer is mediated by comprehensive strategies. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 2145. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02145 10.11588/jddm.2019.1.69294 JDDM | 2019 | Volume 5 | Article 5 | 2 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01153 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02145 https://doi.org/10.11588/jddm.2019.1.69294