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

Sat Jun 28 12:55:52 EDT 2008

Dear Loet, my point is that most of the knowledge in the knowledge 
based economy is not scientific knowledge. I take you to be arguing 
that science is becoming, or has become, the third coordinating 
mechanism in society, to rival economic activity and government 
control. If that is indeed your claim then I disagree. If you are 
merely saying that there are cases where science is important then we 
agree completely.

I would say that the role of science in the knowledge revolution is 
like its role in the industrial revolution, important but by no means 
the driving force. Moreover, the impact of science is not by means of 
the flow of scientific knowledge (or code of communication). 
Scientific knowledge is used to produce technology and it is the 
diffusion of this technology whereby the impact of science occurs. 
This is why the impact is so hard to trace and measure, the science 
does not flow with the technology.

It is my understanding that this group is mostly interested in the 
impact of science on science, but the impact of science on the 
knowlede economy seems like a closely related topic. However, for the 
reasons described above it probably requires different mehods of 
analysis. Products do not carry citations, would that they did. In 
some cases patents provide the middle ground and we are trying to 
link patents back to basic research so as to tie the science to the 
technology. Progress is slow.

Best regards,
David

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

With best wishes,
Loet

With best regards,

David Wojick

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

<http://www.leydesdorff.net/codification/index.htm>The  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.

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

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

Visiting Professor 2007-2010, 
<http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>ISTIC, Beijing; Honorary 
 Fellow 2007-2010, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>SPRU, University 
 of Sussex
Now available: 
<http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378>The 
 Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated, 385 pp.; US$ 
 18.95;
<http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956>The 
 Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society ; 
<http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816>The 
 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/c348c775/attachment.html>