Re: information ecologies and semiosphere

Bruce Robinson (bruce.rob who-is-at btinternet.com)
Sat, 6 Feb 1999 00:28:09 -0000

Luis wrote:
> 1) "Information Ecology"
> In my work, I do not use the term "information ecology". As Matvey
>and Phil commented, the term _information_ can be confusing, and I do
>not particularly like its possible connotations with "information
>processing". At the same time it is important to consider the cultural
>and historical roles that such a cognitive model have played in the
>involved community. Part of the interdisciplinary barriers and bridges
>are densely embedded with such a form of thinking and a conceptual
>reorganization of the field depends on how much resilience the
>associated praxes can support without either collapsing or being
>reinforced.

Aren't they already collapsing of their own accord, by virtue of the fact
that they are inadequate to produce systems that work in their social
environment? The question - at least for the more alert academic, if not for
the practitioners who have to carry out their bosses' orders to produce the
perfect system by yesterday because the firm depends on it - is _how_ should
the social be embodied in the practice of technological development. This is
ultimately a political question - cooption, consensus or class conflict,
which should drive the process of technology development? These threads can
be seen in the development of different systems development methodologies
over the last 10-15 years.

On the term information, a lot of assumptions in information systems -
particularly around the functions of particular types of software - are
built around the distinctions between data (no context), information
(context) and knowledge (incorporated into a structure that makes it
applicable). I have never found these distinctions very useful.

Bruce Robinson