|
Original Statement of Importance (Return to List) |
||
|
SID |
Owner |
Statement |
| 2 | Allenna Leonard | We need ways of talking about different kinds of networks to account for the variety in their forms, the numbers of people involved, and the intensity and longevity of their committment. |
| Comments on above Statement | ||
|
CID |
Owner |
Comment |
| 14 | Loet Leydesdorff | Dear Allenna, It seems to me that one can specify the differences among networks only in terms of their (presumed) operation. What does a network do when it networks? Is one able to specify a hypothesis with reference to its operation? What is expected to be communicated? A heuristics to this specification can be found in the specification of the expected information content of the distribution? What is distributed and can therefore be communicated? With kind regards, Loet |
| 34 | Raul Espejo | How do we develop observational capacity to distinguish between different kinds of networks? Do we need some sort of theory first? What kind of network is our own network? |
| 58 | Chris Atkinson | In reaction to Raul's comments and Allenna's origional SI, here is my description of our network using an 'expressive' root definition from the SISTeM approach (of course on relection and learning from undertaking the project this might change dramatically): 'Root Definition: 'A human/machine actor-network inquiring system responsible to its funding body, supported by the UL&H team that, through the enactment by its members of the ICT application supported ‘Team Syntegrity’ approach , undertakes a non-hierarchical process of semi-structured discourse, debate and voting, both at a distance and face-to-face in order to explore, learn and debate about the systems tools, methods, methodologies and philosophies relevant to the understanding of communication and information processes in society and organisations (including this one)and subsequently report to the funding body and wider audiences on its deliberations and findings.' |
| 59 | Chris Atkinson | In reaction to Raul's comments and Allenna's origional SI, here is my description of our network using an 'expressive' root definition from the SISTeM approach (of course on relection and learning from undertaking the project this might change dramatically): 'Root Definition: 'A human/machine actor-network inquiring system responsible to its funding body, supported by the UL&H team that, through the enactment by its members of the ICT application supported ‘Team Syntegrity’ approach , undertakes a non-hierarchical process of semi-structured discourse, debate and voting, both at a distance and face-to-face in order to explore, learn and debate about the systems tools, methods, methodologies and philosophies relevant to the understanding of communication and information processes in society and organisations (including this one)and subsequently report to the funding body and wider audiences on its deliberations and findings.' |
| 61 | Pete Barnsley | I am fascinated by the concept of characterising networks. I was wonderign what other characteristics may be appropriate. Would diversity of cultural bias and scaling in time and geography be candidates? |