Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.050051577 = product of:
  0.16683859 = sum of:
    0.026519936 = weight(_text_:und in 6660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026519936 = score(doc=6660,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06381599 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.41556883 = fieldWeight in 6660, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6660)
    0.03011756 = weight(_text_:der in 6660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03011756 = score(doc=6660,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06431698 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.46826762 = fieldWeight in 6660, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6660)
    0.050429977 = weight(_text_:kommunikation in 6660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050429977 = score(doc=6660,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14799947 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.140109 = idf(docFreq=703, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.34074432 = fieldWeight in 6660, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.140109 = idf(docFreq=703, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6660)
    0.026519936 = weight(_text_:und in 6660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026519936 = score(doc=6660,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06381599 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.41556883 = fieldWeight in 6660, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6660)
    0.025354039 = weight(_text_:des in 6660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025354039 = score(doc=6660,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.079736836 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.31797147 = fieldWeight in 6660, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6660)
    0.007897133 = weight(_text_:in in 6660) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007897133 = score(doc=6660,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 6660, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6660)
  0.3 = coord(6/20)

Abstract

Dieser Beitrag legt einen Ansatz zur Integration von Wissenssystemen vor, mit dem konzeptuelle Netzwerke mit Hilfe zweier Mechanismen generiert werden: Der Mechanismus der starken Integration erzeugt ein selbstorganisierendes Netzwerk, in dem Wissenssysteme, die sich in Ergänzungs- oder Differenzierungsverhältnissen zueinander befinden, als autonome Einheiten auf ihre aktuelle Umwelt - bestehend aus einem selbstkonstituierten Gegenstandsbereich und der Gesamtmenge aller beteiligten Wissenssysteme - reagieren. Sind zwei Wissenssysteme inkompatibel, werden durch den Mechanismus der schwachen Integration Netzwerke loser Kopplung gebildet, welche ein Switchen des Beobachters zwischen den verschiedenen Interpretationsangeboten der inkompatiblen Wissenssysteme über Boundary-Elemente und deren jeweils systemspezifische Verweisungsstrukturen ermöglichen. Das SiSiFOS-Programm, das auf dem Computer diese beiden Prozesse der Netzwerkformation simuliert, testet Chancen und Grenzen konzeptueller Kooperationsmöglichkeiten zwischen Wissenssystemen. Die Anwendung des Verfahrens auf die Modellierung anschlußproblematischer Kommunikation in sozialen (Innovations-)Netzwerken moderner Wissens- und Technologieproduktion zeigt, daß die Prozesse, in denen "Konzeptgeber' Ziele und Inhalte von Forschung diskursiv aushandeln, als Abstimmungsprobleme zwischen Wissenssystemen verstanden, im Rahmen des Integrationsansatzes beschrieben und technisch simuliert werden können

Series

Fortschritte in der Wissensorganisation; Bd.6

Source

Globalisierung und Wissensorganisation: Neue Aspekte für Wissen, Wissenschaft und Informationssysteme: Proceedings der 6. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Hamburg, 23.-25.9.1999. Hrsg.: H.P. Ohly, G. Rahmstorf u. A. Sigel

4.1621542E-4 = product of:
  0.008324308 = sum of:
    0.008324308 = weight(_text_:in in 1531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008324308 = score(doc=1531,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 1531, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1531)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Abstract

As a complement to Nelson and Winter's (1977) article titled "In Search of a Useful Theory of Innovation," a sociological perspective on innovation networks can be elaborated using Luhmann's social systems theory, on the one hand, and Latour's "sociology of translations," on the other. Because of a common focus on communication, these perspectives can be combined as a set of methodologies. Latour's sociology of translations specifies a mechanism for generating variation in relations ("associations"), whereas Luhmann's systems perspective enables the specification of (functionally different) selection environments such as markets, professional organizations, and political control. Selection environments can be considered as mechanisms of social coordination that can self-organize-beyond the control of human agency-into regimes in terms of interacting codes of communication. Unlike relatively globalized regimes, technological trajectories are organized locally in "landscapes." A resulting "duality of structure" (Giddens, 1979) between the historical organization of trajectories and evolutionary self-organization at the regime level can be expected to drive innovation cycles. Reflexive translations add a third layer of perspectives to (a) the relational analysis of observable links that shape trajectories and (b) the positional analysis of networks in terms of latent dimensions. These three operations can be studied in a single framework, but using different methodologies. Latour's first-order associations can then be analytically distinguished from second-order translations in terms of requiring other communicative competencies. The resulting operations remain infrareflexively nested, and can therefore be used for innovative reconstructions of previously constructed boundaries.