The Knowledge-Based Economy: Globalization and Self-Organization in the Dynamics of Communication

Sat Jun 28 07:28:05 EDT 2008

  _____  

From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics
[mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 12:55 PM
To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The Knowledge-Based Economy: Globalization and
Self-Organization in the Dynamics of Communication

Dear Loet,

The difficulty is not abstraction (my field is applied philosophy and
logic), it is specialized language. Key technical concepts like "code of
communication" and "coordination mechanism" are not explained. Plus you seem
to be using "knowledge" (your central concept) in a special way. In
analytical philosophy knowledge is generally defined as something like true
belief. You seem to be refering to codified scientific knowledge, but you do
not say that. Do patents represent knowledge, as you are using that term, or
just practice? 

It seems to me that I focus on codified scientific knowledge and say that
repeatingly throughout the paper. Indeed, there is a difference between
considering knowledge as "true belief" of individuals versus considering
scientific knowledge as a system of rationalized expectations.

But you seem to have missed my main point. I work at the intersection of
government control, industry and science. I do not see science as becoming a
third coordination mechanism (with the exception of climate science), which
I take to be your central thesis. (Correct me if I am wrong.).  

I agree that climate change would be a beautiful case, but I gave the
example of the stem-cell debate as another one where scientific arguments,
political discourse, and economic considerations interact and make the
issues structurally complex.

 But this is an empirical question about which we have almost no knowledge,
and desperately need some. So I am wondering why you think science is
becoming the third coordination mechanism? 

My research question was to explain the "knowledge-based economy". How can
an economy be based on knowledge instead of agriculture, industries, and
services? My suggestion is that the functional differentiation of the codes
of communication which is historically to be placed in the time of the
reformation and the Scientific Revolution, has led to complex interactions
among social coordination mechanism which first generated political
economies in the period 1780-1870, and that these political economies then
began to compete in another dimension of the system for systematic
innovations. This is extensively explained in the paper.  

Thus, I use a functionalist-structuralist model for the explanation, but
this is also explained in the paper. I am sorry if it does not communicate.
(Perhaps, we should take this discussion therefore off-line.)

Best wishes, Loet

My greatest regards,

David

Jun 28, 2008 04:24:37 AM, SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU wrote:

Dear David, 

This abstract and the paper are written in a technical language (or code?)
that I barely understand, so I may be off the mark. (A nontechnical version
would be most useful). But I have two related observations. 

Indeed, this text is difficult to read because of the level of abstraction.
(It was not meant to be empirical.)

1. Technological innovation and science are two different domains and  only
loosely coupled. Most innovation is part of economic activity, not  science.
I therefore question whether scientific discourse has in fact become  a
coordination mechanism at the social system level. But scientific knowledge
diffusion beyond science is largely invisible, precisely because it is
diffuse, so I may be wrong. 

 There is a lot of innovation going on in the economy which is not
knowledge-based, but practice-based.

2. Conversely, there is an historic activity in progress whereby  scientific
discourse and political control are in direct communication. This  is the
climate change debate. I have been studying this debate for many years  and
it is unprecedented. The latest scientific findings are circulated and
debated in real time in the US Congress and in the national press. The
Internet is playing a leading role. The economic implications and proposals
are staggering. This might be an exemplar of your coordination mechanism
model, but it is not about economic or technological innovation, it is about
science and public policy. 

 I did not work on this, but on the issue of "stem-cell research". You may
find the methodology useful:

Loet Leydesdorff & Iina Hellsten, Metaphors and Diaphors in Science
Communication: Mapping the  <http://www.leydesdorff.net/stemcell> Case of
'Stem-Cell Research', Science Communication 27(1), 2005, 64-99. <pdf-version
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/stemcells.pdf> >

With best wishes, 

Loet

With best regards,

David Wojick

The  <http://www.leydesdorff.net/codification/index.htm>  Knowledge-Based
Economy:

The  <http://www.leydesdorff.net/codification/index.htm>  Potentially
Globalizing and Self-Organizing Dynamics of Interactions among  Differently
Codified Systems of Communication

Alongside economic exchange relations and political control, the
organization of codified knowledge in scientific discourses has become
increasingly a third coordination mechanism at the level of the social
system.  When three coordination mechanisms interact, one can expect the
resulting  dynamics to be complex and self-organizing. Each coordination
mechanism is  specific in terms of its code of communication. For example,
"energy" has a  meaning in physics very different from its meaning in the
economy or for  policy-makers. In addition to providing the communications
with functionally  different meanings, the codes can be symbolically
generalized, and then  meaning can be globalized. Symbolically generalized
codes of communication can  be expected to span competing horizons of
meaning that 'self-organize' given  historical conditions. From this
perspective, the historical organization of  meaning-for example, in
discourses-can be considered as instantiations or  retention mechanisms. In
other words, meaning can further be codified in  communication flows.
Knowledge, for example, can be considered as a meaning  which makes a
difference. In the case of discursive knowledge, this difference  is defined
with reference to a code in the communication. When discursive  knowledge is
socially organized (e.g., as R&D) its dynamics can  increasingly compete
with other social coordination mechanisms in the  construction and
reproduction of a knowledge-based order. 

<pdf-version <http://www.leydesdorff.net/codification/codification.pdf> >

  _____  

Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research  (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/

Visiting Professor 2007-2010, ISTIC,
<http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>  Beijing; Honorary  Fellow
2007-2010, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>  University  of Sussex
Now available: The
<http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378>
Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, 385 pp.; US$  18.95;
The
<http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956>
Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society ; The
<http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816>
Challenge of Scientometrics

-- 

"David E. Wojick, PhD" <WojickD at osti.gov>
Senior  Consultant for Innovation
Office of Scientific and Technical  Information
US Department of  Energy
http://www.osti.gov/innovation/
391 Flickertail Lane, Star  Tannery, VA 22654  USA
540-858-3136

http://www.bydesign.com/powervision/resume.html  provides my bio and past
client list.  
http://www.bydesign.com/powervision/Mathematics_Philosophy_Science/
presents some of my own research on information structure and dynamics. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20080628/25f24f9f/attachment.html>