Reward or persuasion? The battle to define the meaning of a citation

[Loet Leydesdorff]

I would also stress that this is no mere semantic quibble. Reward and
persuasion are theory-laden terms and the theories they imply tend to
trivialize the fundamental role of scientific communication in science. 
 
I agree that this is not a semantic quibble. Some sociologist of science
reduce science to a belief system. This is sometimes called the
neo-Durkheimian paradigm: paradigms can be studied as churches and
specialties as denominations. This reduction is as one-sided as the
reduction by philosophers of science to a system of rationalized
expectations. Both reductions loose the perspective on the complex dynamics
between rationalized expectations and belief systems.
 
The belief systems can be attributed to agents and organization and thus one
obtains a perspective on "following the actors" (Latour). Expectations can
be rationalized only in communication. The code of communication thus is an
attribute of communication. The networks of agents span a social network,
the network of communications (including citations as links among
communications) spans a network on top of the social network. Both networks
can have a different dynamics. Networks of communications for example leave
traces in archives and libraries, while social networks, for example, can
show generational cycles.
 
In summary, the two reduction may serve the analytical perspectives in the
respective disciplines because they make it possible to communicate with
social constructivists and philosophers of science, respectively. The
interdisciplinary approach focuses on the dynamics between these two
networks. Both networks can be expected to develop a structure and a
different dynamics. 
 
Best wishes, 
 
 
Loet
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20090212/db9d2018/attachment.html>