The Dynamics of Exchanges and References among Scientific Texts, and the Autopoiesis of Discursive Knowledge; preprint version

Mon Feb 23 09:25:43 EST 2009

Dear David, 

Apologies for misunderstanding your metaphor of swarming. It seems to me
that you got the gist of the message that different selection mechanisms are
operating. We try to specify this using models of self-organization which
are more common in systems theory and general sociology than in science
studies (hitherto :-) ).

Best wishes,

Loet

  _____  

Loet Leydesdorff 
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), 
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. 
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 
 <mailto:loet at leydesdorff.net> loet at leydesdorff.net ;
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 

  _____  

From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics
[mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 1:04 PM
To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The Dynamics of Exchanges and References among
Scientific Texts, and the Autopoiesis of Discursive Knowledge; preprint
version

Dear Loet,

By selection mechanisms and validation do you mean (1) selection of papers
for publication and/or citation or (2) that the knowledge claim is selected,
accepted and used by others as a basis for further research? (The latter is
what I mean by swarming.) I do not think that publication in a specific
journal or citation play a major role in the dynamics of science. The
network structures we map using journals and citations are merely vague
indications of scientific activity. They do not determine the dynamics. But
again perhaps I have misunderstood. Your language is quite different from
that of the US science of science community that I am in.

My best regards,

David

Feb 22, 2009 02:44:29 PM, loet at leydesdorff.net wrote:

Dear David, 

The natural world enter the system in terms of knowledge claims in new
manuscripts, i.e., as variation. The submissions can contain observational
statements. At this end, the system can be swarming, indeed. The dynamics,
however, are determined by the selection mechanisms and not by the
variation. Upon validation, the variation is incorporated in the structure
at a next moment in time.

Best wishes, 

Loet

  _____  

Loet Leydesdorff 
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), 
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. 
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 
 <mailto:loet at leydesdorff.net> loet at leydesdorff.net ;
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 

  _____  

 From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on  Metrics
[mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of David E.  Wojick
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 7:18 PM
To:  SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] The Dynamics  of Exchanges and References among
Scientific Texts, and the Autopoiesis of  Discursive Knowledge; preprint
version

Dear Loet,

Where does the natural world that science studies fit  into this system? New
specialties develop because of the way the world is, not  because science
wants them. That is, new discoveries lead to new lines of  inquiry that
attract new communities. Where these discoveries occur and what  the new
trajectories are is not up to the scientists, rather it is in a sense  up to
nature. This is why the dynamics are unpredictable; we really do not  know
where we are going. Reality is thus the control mechanism, the ultimate
feedback loop.

This suggests that the best model for scientific  dynamics might be swarming
(in pursuit of understanding), not self  organization. But I freely admit I
am not familiar with the community of  thought you are drawing upon in this
essay, except for a few of your prior  writings. So I may simply have
misunderstood.

My best regards,

David Wojick

The Dynamics  <http://www.leydesdorff.net/autopoiesis/index.htm>  of
Exchanges and References among Scientific Texts,

and the  <http://www.leydesdorff.net/autopoiesis/index.htm>  Autopoiesis of
Discursive Knowledge

 <http://www.leydesdorff.net/autopoiesis/autopoiesis.pdf> <click here  for
pdf>

Abstract

Discursive knowledge emerges as codification in flows of communication.  The
flows of communication are constrained and enabled by networks of
communications as their historical manifestations at each moment of time.
New  publications modify the existing networks by changing the distributions
of  attributes and relations in document sets, while the networks are
self-referentially updated along trajectories. Codification operates
reflexively: the network structures are reconstructed from the perspective
of  hindsight. Codification along different axes differentiates discursive
knowledge into specialties. These intellectual control structures are
constructed bottom-up, but feed top-down back upon the production of new
knowledge. However, the forward dynamics of diffusion in the development of
the communication networks along trajectories differs from the feedback
mechanisms of control. Analysis of the development of scientific
communication  in terms of evolving scientific literatures provides us with
a model which  makes these evolutionary processes amenable to measurement.

Diana Lucio Arias & Loet Leydesdorff

Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal  48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands

** apologies for cross-postings

-- 

"David E. Wojick, Ph.D., PE"  <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

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/20090223/00801862/attachment.html>