Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
Shannon, C.E., & Weaver, W. (1963/1949). The mathematical theory of
communication (p. 31-35). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Introduces the basis for information theory wherein a communication
system consists of five parts which work together to deliver a
message: an information source, a transmitter, a channel, a receiver
and a destination. Each of these parts can be represented as
mathematical entities and thus empirical studies can be made of the
transfer of information through the system.
-=-=-
There's no doubt that Shannon's work has had massive impact, good and
bad, on both the practical/technological and theoretical sides of
information science. Information transmittal, between electronic
systems and between human brains, can be modeled with the five parts
of Shannon's system. That modeling can help break down a problem into
solvable pieces, improving information uptake.
There is, however, an unfortunate side effect to the model: any system
which is predicated on the presence of a single piece which transmits
to a single piece which receives implies that at any given moment in
time a message goes in one direction. While this may be true in
electronic circuitry[1] it does not appear to be the case in the
exchange of ideas. When a human reaches out to a source of information
to learn, that reaching is accompanied by a wealth of preconceptions
that color the transmittal of information from the source.
Presumably an adherent to Shannon's theory would suggest that the
preconceptions are in fact feedback noise fed into the channel from
the receiver. Again, electronically this has appeal, but from other
angles the simple act of calling the preconceptions noise degrades
their value and the importance of the experiences of the information
seeker.
So, like so many of these theories, it is instructive and helpful, a
good one for the toolbox, but incomplete without the salt shaker.
[1] Full duplex traffic is of course possible in some network
topographies, but there the bi-directional traffic is of two
different messages, passing like ships.
Back to the Index
Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
Wheatley, M. J. (1999). Chapter 6: The creative energy of the
universe--information. In _Leadership and the new science:
Discovering order in a chaotic world_, 2nd ed. (p. 93-112).
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
A persuasive argument of the need for freely constructing and
reconstructing architectures of information management within
organizations such that information can be allowed to do what it has
always done: create order from chaos. Traditional views of information
management within corporations insisted that information must be
controlled so that chaos does not ensue. Developments in twentieth
century science show that instead of structure creating information,
information self-organizes to create structure. Information is the
motivating force of change and improvement.
-=-=-
Wheatley's work is compelling despite its evangelical tone. Hidden
within the searchings for meaning that wobble somewhere between
spiritual yearnings and something out of the X-Files
In a constantly evolving, dynamic universe, information is a
fundamental yet invisible player, one we can't see until it takes
physical form. Something we cannot see, touch, or get our hands on
is out there, influencing life. Information seems to be managing us.
is a compelling argument that encourages a greater openness between
people and organizations.
If more information is passed, more information can be created. The
output of that creation is innovation and change.
It's no wonder that management consultants are often criticized as new
age fuddy duddies by old school corporate heroes. The new guard wants
things to change. They want to wrest control from the few and
distribute it widely into the organization so that the organization as
a whole can reach whatever goals the organization, as a whole, has
established and published for itself.
This is a _highly_ political stance.
Back to the Index
Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
Reddy, M.J. (1979). The conduit metaphor -- a case of frame conflict
in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), _Metaphor and
thought_ (p. 284-297 only). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Describes a metaphor for considering English language communication
that may help to understand why frame conflicts are "immune to
resolution by appeal to facts" and how the English language itself
makes it very difficult to talk about itself because of a built in
frame conflict. This metaphor is the conduit metaphor in which it is
imagined that words are containers for ideas that are taking from the
brain, put in the words and then out into the world to be retrieved,
or unpacked, by some other person. Contrasting this metaphor with
another, the toolmakers paradigm, demonstrates how the metaphors
predispose people to different attitudes to communication.
-=-=-
Supposing that Reddy's writing is within the context of the conduit
metaphor and his words have ideas inserted within, I am an inadequate
receiver. I don't feel I have the context to adequately unpack the
ideas from the words. What we have here is a failure to communicate.
In that context I feel I must go learn some things and then come back
to this piece. Or perhaps read the rest of the chapter.
Viewing from the toolmakers paradigm I feel a need to talk with Reddy
some more. Engage him for some supplementary chat to fill in the
blanks. Write to him and say, "this is what I got so far, but I'm
pretty sure I'm off, can you fill me in?"
That's a friendly picture isn't it? Much more friendly than the
conduit metaphor. I find this interesting because my interpretation of
Reddy insists that he views the conduit metaphor as a more human
approach to communication, separated from mechanistic models of
information versus entropy.
As is frequently the case, both models have value: they provide a
perspective on the same process allowing the learning to change views,
turns things in a different direction, shedding light into the
shadows. The conduit metaphor, for instance, maps nicely to a
discussion of literary interpretation: the author of a text puts
something into word containers and releases them into the world. When
a reader retrieves the text the words are unpacked for meaning. That
unpacking is a process influenced by many variables both internal and
external to the words.
So while we may never come to agreement about the nature of
communication, what metaphor best describes it, or how the English
language can best be manipulated to discuss itself any discussion
about such things will lead to more information and more discovery.
Back to the Index
Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
Buckland, M. (1991). Information as thing. _Journal of hte American
Society of Information Science, 42_, 351-360. Available at
http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~buckland/thing.html.
Compares and contrasts numerous definitions of information to attempt
provide a point of stability to a term of obvious importance, but
unobvious meaning, to information scientists. Compares
information-as-thing, information-as-process and
information-as-knowledge.
-=-=-
See the following URL for some discussion of this Buckland paper as a
launching point for a theory of information exchange modeled on quantum
mechanics.
http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/slis/l505/papers/slisessay3.htm
Buckland is a current hero for me in info science. It isn't that he
says anything particularly exciting, but he gathers his information
well and appreciates the importance of context. He has used his
training (the training he has received) to make his training (the
training he is giving) better.
Back to the Index
Contact:cdent@burningchrome.com
Brown, J.S., & Duguid,P. (2000). Chapter 7: Reading the background. In
_The social life of information_ (p. 173-205). Boston: Harvard
University Press.
Paper has had remarkable staying power. Those that want to get rid of
paper deny the contextual power that paper provides. It is not just
the information that the paper contains but how the paper contains
that is of value.
The same can be said for other traditional households of information,
such as the library.
These media give shape and authority to information.
Brown and Duguid describe the document as a motivating force for
communities of practice that may be invisible, even to the members.
Some documents have the power to gather entires countries around them.
The U.S. Constitution for example.
Modern technologies such as the web have made the web more acccessible
because they bit the concrete inforomation representation of the page
over the more abstract notion of the Internet.
But there is a danger with these new technologies: they are fluid and
our common methods for keeping track of things on paper won't work as
well with fluid documents that don't stay in the same place and have
content that changes.
One of the problems with the current WWW is that the representation of
the linking structure and the representation of the content of the
documents are in the same container. The makes keeping track and
maintaining things much more difficult. Both the Xanadu system of
Nelson and the Augment system of Engelbart work to keep the
interconnections between things as a separate notion. Bush's Memex and
its trails had a similar notion
It's unfortunate that the w3c is moving forward with their plans for
the Semantic web without first addressing this issue. They've got a
hard road to hoe.
Back to the Index