scholarly journals Del conocimiento individual al colectivo: interacción, interpretación e integración / Individual to Collective Knowledge: Interaction, Interpretation and Integration

Author(s):  
Gloria Inés Figueroa Correa

ABSTRACTThis article is based on the hypothesis that the transformation of knowledge, both individually and collectively, can be achieved through interaction and is supported by processes of interpretation and integration. In this sense, the contribution of this article is materialized in: 1) a proposal for the application of mechanisms that facilitate the interaction, interpretation and integration of knowledge. 2) It extracts elements from the analysis of a method that facilitates the understanding of the flow of knowledge. 3) It proposes six control points oriented to the measurement of the change of state.RESUMENEste artículo parte de la hipótesis que la transformación del conocimiento, tanto a nivel individual como en el plano colectivo, se puede lograr a partir de la interacción y está soportado en procesos de interpretación e integración. En este sentido, el aporte de este artículo se materializa en: 1) una propuesta de aplicación de mecanismos que facilitan la interacción, la interpretación e integración del conocimiento. 2) Extrae elementos del análisis de un método que facilita el entendimiento del flujo del conocimiento. 3) Propone seis puntos de control orientados a la medición del cambio de estado.

1975 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 341-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. J. Anderle ◽  
M. C. Tanenbaum

AbstractObservations of artificial earth satellites provide a means of establishing an.origin, orientation, scale and control points for a coordinate system. Neither existing data nor future data are likely to provide significant information on the .001 angle between the axis of angular momentum and axis of rotation. Existing data have provided data to about .01 accuracy on the pole position and to possibly a meter on the origin of the system and for control points. The longitude origin is essentially arbitrary. While these accuracies permit acquisition of useful data on tides and polar motion through dynamio analyses, they are inadequate for determination of crustal motion or significant improvement in polar motion. The limitations arise from gravity, drag and radiation forces on the satellites as well as from instrument errors. Improvements in laser equipment and the launch of the dense LAGEOS satellite in an orbit high enough to suppress significant gravity and drag errors will permit determination of crustal motion and more accurate, higher frequency, polar motion. However, the reference frame for the results is likely to be an average reference frame defined by the observing stations, resulting in significant corrections to be determined for effects of changes in station configuration and data losses.


2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (02) ◽  
pp. 95-100
Author(s):  
J. C. van Veersen ◽  
O. Sampimon ◽  
R. G. Olde Riekerink ◽  
T. J. G. Lam

SummaryIn this article an on-farm monitoring approach on udder health is presented. Monitoring of udder health consists of regular collection and analysis of data and of the regular evaluation of management practices. The ultimate goal is to manage critical control points in udder health management, such as hygiene, body condition, teat ends and treatments, in such a way that results (udder health parameters) are always optimal. Mastitis, however, is a multifactorial disease, and in real life it is not possible to fully prevent all mastitis problems. Therefore udder health data are also monitored with the goal to pick up deviations before they lead to (clinical) problems. By quantifying udder health data and management, a farm is approached as a business, with much attention for efficiency, thought over processes, clear agreements and goals, and including evaluation of processes and results. The whole approach starts with setting SMART (Specific, Measurable, Acceptable, Realistic, Time-bound) goals, followed by an action plan to realize these goals.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-128
Author(s):  
Claudio Scarvaglieri

Based on a corpus of 70 tape-recorded therapy sessions (client-centered therapy, psychodynamic therapy), this paper presents analyses of therapists’ interventions that have the potential to trigger change processes. Using a conversation analytic approach, we identify utterances that re-formulate the patient’s experience from a different perspective. In a second step, we draw on concepts from cognitive and pragmatic linguistics, mainly “frame” and “category”, to analyze the conceptual side of these rewordings. We show that, besides processes of general abstraction, the conceptualization of the patient’s experience from a societal perspective is a crucial part of the rewordings. The verbal re-framing creates a potential for accessing stocks of societal knowledge that would not have been accessible based on the patient’s initial, individualistic and often erratic presentation of events. By changing the wording an experience is referred to, the therapist thus creates links to established collective knowledge about experiences of this category. Once such links to collective knowledge have been created, it then becomes possible to understand differently how the experience in question came to pass, which features it is characterized by and how it can be dealt with in a way that is collectively known to be helpful.


2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 (14) ◽  
pp. 5477-5488
Author(s):  
Ben Stanford ◽  
Troy Walker ◽  
Stuart Khan ◽  
Shane Snyder ◽  
Cedric Robillot

Descartes once argued that, with sufficient effort and skill, a single scientist could uncover fundamental truths about our world. Contemporary science proves the limits of this claim. From synthesizing the human genome to predicting the effects of climate change, some current scientific research requires the collaboration of hundreds (if not thousands) of scientists with various specializations. Additionally, the majority of published scientific research is now coauthored, including more than 80% of articles in the natural sciences. Small collaborative teams have become the norm in science. This is the first volume to address critical philosophical questions about how collective scientific research could be organized differently and how it should be organized. For example, should scientists be required to share knowledge with competing research teams? How can universities and grant-giving institutions promote successful collaborations? When hundreds of researchers contribute to a discovery, how should credit be assigned—and can minorities expect a fair share? When collaborative work contains significant errors or fraudulent data, who deserves blame? In this collection of essays, leading philosophers of science address these critical questions, among others. Their work extends current philosophical research on the social structure of science and contributes to the growing, interdisciplinary field of social epistemology. The volume’s strength lies in the diversity of its authors’ methodologies. Employing detailed case studies of scientific practice, mathematical models of scientific communities, and rigorous conceptual analysis, contributors to this volume study scientific groups of all kinds, including small labs, peer-review boards, and large international collaborations like those in climate science and particle physics.


Author(s):  
Richard Foley

This book, based on a philosopher’s experiences as dean over almost two decades, argues it is appropriate for the sciences and humanities to have different aims and for the values informing their inquiries also to be different. It maintains there are four core differences: (1) it is proper for the sciences but not the humanities to seek insights not limited to particular locations, times, or things; (2) the sciences but not the humanities value findings as independent as possible of the perspectives of the inquirers; (3) the sciences should be wholly descriptive while the humanities can also be concerned with prescriptive claims, which give expression to values; and (4) the sciences are organized to increase collective knowledge, whereas in the humanities individual insight is highly valued independently of its ability to generate consensus. Associated with these differences are secondary distinctions: different attitudes about an endpoint of inquiry; different notions of intellectual progress; different roles for expertise; different assumptions about simplicity and complexity; and different approaches to issues associated with consciousness. Taken together these distinctions constitute an intellectual geography of the humanities and sciences: a mapping of key features of their epistemology. In addition, the book discusses the role of universities in an era attached to sound bites and immediately useful results, and the importance of there being a healthy culture of research for both the sciences and humanities, one that treasures long-term intellectual achievements and whose presiding value is that with respect to many issues it ought not to be easy to have opinions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document