Scientific Communication and Cognitive Codification: Social Systems Theory and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge

Leydesdorff, Loet (2006) Scientific Communication and Cognitive Codification: Social Systems Theory and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge .

Full text available as:
HTM
PDF - Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader or other PDF viewer.

Abstract

Forthcoming in 2007 in the European Journal of Social Theory 10 (3). The intellectual organization of the sciences cannot be appreciated sufficiently unless the cognitive dimension is considered as an independent source of variance. Cognitive structures interact and co-construct the organization of scholars and discourses into research programs, specialties, and disciplines. In the sociology of scientific knowledge and the sociology of translation, these heterogeneous sources of variance have been homogenized a priori in the concepts of practices and actor-networks. Practices and actor-networks, however, can be explained in terms of the self-organization of the cognitive code in scientific communication. The code selects knowledge claims by organizing them operationally in the various discourses; the claims can thus be stabilized and potentially globalized. Both the selecting codes and the variation in the knowledge claims remain constructed, but the different sub-dynamics can be expected to operate asymmetrically and to update with other frequencies.

EPrint Type:	Preprint
Keywords:	autopoiesis, codification, communication, scientific knowledge, actor-network
Subjects:	Sociology Social Epistemology Science Technology Studies
ID Code:	1253
Deposited On:	20 July 2006
Alternative Locations:	http://www.leydesdorff.net/ejst06/index.htm
Eprint Statistics:	View statistics for this eprint
Tell A Colleague:	Tell a colleague about it.

Barnes, B. (1969). ‘Paradigms—Scientific and Social,’ Man, 4: 94-102.

Barnes, B. (1974). Scientific Knowledge and Sociologic Theory. London/Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and Social Imagery London, etc.: Routledge & Kegan Paul).

Bloor, D. (1982). ‘Polyhedra and the Abominations of Leviticus: Cognitive Styles in Mathematics.’ In M. Douglas (Ed.), , Essays in the Sociology of Perception. London/Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 191-218.

Callon, M. (1985). ‘Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen St. Brieuc Bay.’ In J. Law (Ed.) Power, Action and Belief. A New Sociology of Knowledge London, etc.: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 196-233.

Callon, M. (1998). The Laws of the Market. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Callon, M., J.-P. Courtial, W. A. Turner, & S. Bauin. (1983). ‘From Translations to Problematic Networks: An Introduction to Co-Word Analysis,’ Social Science Information, 22: 191-235.

Callon, M., & B. Latour. (1981). ‘Unscrewing the Big Leviathan: How Actors Macro-Structure Reality and How Sociologists Help Them to Do So.’ In K. D. Knorr-Cetina & A. V. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in Social Theory and Methodology.Toward an Integration of Micro- and Macro-Sociologies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 277-303.

Callon, M., J. Law, & A. Rip (Eds.). (1986). Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. London: Macmillan.

Casti, J. (1989). Alternate Realities. New York, etc.: Wiley.

Collins, H. M. (1983). ‘The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: Studies of Contemporary Science, Annual Review of Sociology,’ 9: 265-285.

Collins, H. M., & S. Yearley. (1992). ‘Epistemological Chicken.’ In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 302-326.

Crane, D. (1969). ‘Social Structure in a Group of Scientists.’ American Sociological Review, 36: 335-352.

Crane, D. (1972). Invisible Colleges. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dorling, J. (1979). ‘Bayesian Personalism, the Methodology of Research Programmes, and Duhem.’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 10: 177-187.

Durkheim, E. (1912). Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse. Paris: F. Alcan.

Fujigaki, Y. (1998). ‘Filling the Gap between Discussions on Science and Scientists’ Everyday Activities: Applying the Autopoiesis System Theory to Scientific Knowledge.’ Social Science Information, 37(1): 5-22.

Hesse, M. (1980). Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science. London: Harvester Press.

Husserl, E. (1929). Cartesianische Meditationen und Pariser Vorträge. [Cartesian Meditations and the Paris Lectures.]. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973.

Huygens, C. (1888-1950). Oeuvres complètes. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Künzler, J. (1987). ‘Grundlagenprobleme der Theorie symbolisch generalisierter Kommunikationsmedien bei Niklas Luhmann.’ Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 16(5): 317-333.

Langley, P., H. A. Simon, G. L. Bradshaw, & J. M. Zytkow. (1987). Scientific Discovery. Computational Explorations of the Creative Processes. Cambridge, Mass./ London: MIT.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Lazarsfeld, P. F., & N. W. Henry. (1968). Latent Structure Analysis. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Leydesdorff, L. (1994). ‘Uncertainty and the Communication of Time.’ Systems Research, 11(4): 31-51.

Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Challenge of Scientometrics: The Development, Measurement, and Self-Organization of Scientific Communications. Leiden: DSWO Press, Leiden University; at http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816.

Leydesdorff, L. (1997). The Non-Linear Dynamics of Sociological Reflections. International Sociology, 12(1), 25-45.

Leydesdorff, L. (2000). ‘Luhmann, Habermas, and the Theory of Communication.’ Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17: 273-288.

Leydesdorff, L. (2001). A Sociological Theory of Communication: The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society. Parkland, FL: Universal Publishers; at <http://www.upublish.com/books/leydesdorff.htm >.

Leydesdorff, L. (2006). ‘The Biological Metaphor of a (Second-Order) Observer and the Sociological Discourse.’ Kybernetes, 35(3/4), forthcoming.

Leydesdorff, L., W. Dolfsma, & G. v. d. Panne. (2006). ‘Measuring the Knowledge Base of an Economy in Terms of Triple-Helix Relations among 'Technology, Organization, and Territory'.’ Research Policy, 35, forthcoming.

Leydesdorff, L., & P. Wouters. (1999). ‘Between Texts and Contexts: Advances in Theories of Citation?’ Scientometrics, 44(2): 169-182.

Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Luhmann, N. (1986). ‘The Autopoiesis of Social Systems.’ In F. Geyer & J. van der Zouwen (Eds.), Sociocybernetic Paradoxes. London: Sage, pp. 172-192.

Luhmann, N. (1990a). ‘The Cognitive Program of Constructivism and a Reality that Remains Unknown.’ In W. Krohn, G. Küppers & H. Nowotny (Eds.), Selforganization. Portrait of a Scientific Revolution. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 64-85.

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

Maturana, H. R. (1978). ‘Biology of Language: The Epistemology of Reality.’ In G. A. Miller & E. Lenneberg (Eds.), Psychology and Biology of Language and Thought. Essays in Honor of Eric Lenneberg. New York: Academic Press, pp. 27-63.

Maturana, H. R., & F. Varela. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Boston: Reidel.

Merton, R. K. (1942). ‘Science and Technology in a Democratic Order.’ Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1: 115-126.

Merton, R. K. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

Mulkay, M., J. Potter, & S. Yearley. (1983). ‘Why an Analysis of Scientific Discourse Is Needed.’ In K. D. Knorr & M. J. Mulkay (Eds.), Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. London: Sage, pp. 171-204.

Myers, G. (1985). Texts as Knowledge Claims: The Social Construction of Two Biology Articles. Social Studies of Science, 15, 593-630.

Nelson, R. R., & S. G. Winter. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Parsons, T. (1963a). ‘On the Concept of Political Power.’ Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 107(3): 232-262.

Parsons, T. (1963b). ‘On the Concept of Influence.’ Public Opinion Quarterly, 27 (Spring): 37-62.

Pickering, A. (1995). The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pinch, T. J. (1985). ‘Towards an Analysis of Scientific Observation: The Externality and Evidential Significance of Observational Reports in Physics.’ Social Studies of Science, 15: 3-36.

Price, D. de Solla (1961). Science since Babylon. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Schmaus, W., U. Segerstrale, & D. Jesseph. (1992). ‘The Hard Program in the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge,’ Social Epistemology, 6: 243-265.

Schumpeter, J. ([1939], 1964). Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of Capitalist Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Shapin, S., & S. Shaffer. (1985). Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Simon, H. A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.

Slezak, P. (1989). ‘Computer Discovery and the Strong Programme,’ Social Studies of Science, 19: 562-600.

Von Foerster, H. (1979). ‘Cybernetics of Cybernetics.’ In K. Krippendorff (Ed.), Communication and Control in Society. New York: Gordon and Breach, pp. 5-8.

Von Foerster, H. (1982). Observing Systems. Seaside, CA: Intersystems Publications.

Whitley, R. D. (1984). The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Winch, P. (1958). The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Woolgar, S. (1988). Science: The Very Idea. Beverly Hills/London, etc.: Sage.