Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012201506 = product of:
  0.024403011 = sum of:
    0.024403011 = product of:
      0.048806023 = sum of:
        0.048806023 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048806023 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18020853 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05146125 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

21. 7.2006 14:11:22

0.011276226 = product of:
  0.022552451 = sum of:
    0.022552451 = product of:
      0.045104902 = sum of:
        0.045104902 = weight(_text_:network in 101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045104902 = score(doc=101,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22917621 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05146125 = queryNorm
            0.1968132 = fieldWeight in 101, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=101)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In order to organise and represent knowledge properly we must know how it is produced. Based on the actor-network theory of Bruno Latour, this paper analyses power structures and processes involved in the production of knowledge in the sciences. The consequences of these structures on the organisation of knowledge is shown. For any unexplained phenomenon there will be several conflicting theories. Which of these that will eventually be accepted by the greater scientific community, thus gaining the status of knowledge, is decided in scientific discourse. The author claims that gaining acceptance of a theory is not a question of being right, but of being powerful. The scientist must summon sufficient resources with which to overwhelm other theories and force them to leave the field of the domain. These resources may be material (position, economy, etc.), but it is those occurring in scientific discourse, the documents, which are of interest to information science. The paper likens the discourse to a conversation in which the documents act as statements and arguments, and as such form a language. The language philosophy of the later Wittgenstein is used to explain the principles and dynamics of scientific discourse. The paper shows that the interpretation of a document, the determination of its subject, is made by the sum of actors in the discourse. The subject of a document cannot be established by analysing it without regard to its context. Rather the subject must be deduced by looking at what other statements (documents) it uses and by how it positions itself and is positioned though use in the discourse of the discipline. In order to establish this position, a thorough understanding of the current state of the discourse and its socio-political and theoretical history is necessary. If we are to represent documents properly, we must study the disciplines and their discourse