Filling the gap between discussions on science and scientists' everyday activities: applying the autopoiesis system theory to scientific knowledge

Abstract

This study examines how the micro-conditions of scientists in the accretion of their daily activities - publishing - create a macro-essence that philosophers and scientific historians call “the essence of science”. By applying the autopoiesis system theory to the aggregation of publications in scientific journals - the process by which the continuation of micro-activity (a system's operation) creates a macro-construction (the system's structure) - we are able to bridge the gap between discussions about science and scientists' actual activities. This point of view gave us new insight into and an empirical perspective on how the difference between the two cultures (as popularized by C.P. Snow) or the cultural difference between disciplines can be described by the system's operation, and also on how the system's two boundaries (i.e. the boundary between science and non-science and the boundary between science and society) can be constructed in consideration of the validation boundary in the journal system and in society.

Keywords

Autopoiesis Communication Journal system Publication Science and society Validation boundary

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Böhme, G. , van den Deale, W. and Krohn, W. (1974) Die Finalisierung der Wissenschaft in Theorien der Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Frankfurt a.M: Suhrkamp.

Bourdieu, P. (1975) “The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason”, Social Science Information 14 (6): 19-47.

Chalmers, A.F. (1982) What Is This Thing Called Science? Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Fujigaki, Y. (1996) “Theoretical Analysis on Interdisciplinary Collaboration as a Base of UnIG Collaboration”, in Knowledge Based Analysis, Proceedings of the International Conference on Technology Management, pp. 206-211. Istanbul: Bogaziçi University.

Gibbons, M. , Limoges, C. , Nowotny, H. , Schwartzman, S. , Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.

Haynes, R.B. (1990) “Loose Connection Between Peer-Reviewed Clinical Journals and Clinical Practice”, Annals of Internal Medicine 113 (9): 724-728.

Kawamoto, H. (1994) The Counterpart to the Truth (in Japanese). Tokyo: Fuji-syoten.

Krohn, W. and Küppers, G. (1990) “Science as a Self-Organizing System: Outline of a Theoretical Model”, in W. Krohn et al. (eds) Selforganization, pp. 208-222. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979) Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. London: Sage.

10.

Leydesdorff, L. (1995) The Challenge of Scientometrics. Leiden: DSWO Press.

11.

Leydesdorff, L. , Cozzens, S. and Van der Besselaar, P. (1994) “Tracking Areas of Strategic Importance Using Scientometric Journal Mappings”, Research Policy 23: 217-229.

12.

Luhmann, N. (1990) Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.

13.

Maturana, H.R. and Varela, F.J. (1980) Autopoiesis and Cognition. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

14.

Nowotny, H. (1990) “Actor-Networks vs. Science as a Self-Organizing System: A Comparative View of Two Constructivist Approaches”, in W. Krohn et al. (eds) Selforganization, pp. 223-239. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

15.

Shirabe, M. and Fujigaki, Y. (forthcoming) “Introduction of Economic Methods to Scientometrics: Centering Around the Citing-Cited Table and the Autopoietic System of Citations”.

16.

Stichweh, R. (1990) “Self-organization and Autopoiesis in the Development of Modern Science” in W. Krohn et al. (eds) Selforganization, pp. 195-207. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.