Loading...
 

Keyword - Sympoiesis

Return to glossary
handshake.png
Collaboration logo from Wikinews

What's Wrong With The Term "Co-Authorship"?

  • Paradigm change is impossible without concomitant changes in the prevailing ‘realities’ and discourses upon which the paradigm depends.
  • Moreover, this must include a self-reflexive component (i.e. sympoiesis) in which the stakeholders co-create a new self-identity, which becomes entangled with their reframed purposes and orders of familiar meanings, institutions and assumptions.
  • But 'co-authorship' often refers to an impersonal/hierarchical process of editing.
  • Sympoiesis (see also structural coupling) refers to the sharing of the process of autopoiesis (lit. 'self-creation').
  • We found that it encourages the re-languaging process.
  • It also encourages co-authors to revise their understanding in partnership.
  • Sympoiesis in co-authorship depends on the willingness of collaborators to change.
  • It can be applied in developing teams or networks.

Co-authorship is Sympoietic under the following conditions:

  • 1. It is synergistic - i.e. when writing transcends what each co-author previously achieved
  • 2. It is novel - i.e. when the outcome surprises and pleases each co-author
  • 3. It is interoperable - i.e. when the outcome is re-workable by each co-author
  • 4. It enhances bonding - i.e. when the co-authorship process also reciprocally sustains the relationship between the authors'.

(download full paper)

Beyond Sympoiesis

It is useful to regard sympoiesis as a type of symbiosis (see, for example, Margulis, 1998) as both are special forms of synergy pertaining to living organisms. Scientists usually categorise the 'cost-benefits' using only five categories:

1.MutualRelationship of different organisms or species, in which each individual benefits
2.Commensal square-50cm-spacer.jpg Relationship of organisms or species in which one benefits without affecting the other
3.ExploitativeRelationship in which the fitness of one organism is lowered by the presence of another
4.AmensalRelationship in which the product of one organism or species has a negative effect on another
5.NeutralRelationship in which the organisms or species interact but do not affect each other

These make for a rather imprecise and misleading mapping of how organisms interact because they reflect a concern that is more biological, than ecological. For example, the term 'exploitative' (3) would include both 'parasitic coupling' and 'predator-prey coupling within the same category. While the table (below) uses the 5 categories it also acknowledges benefits or disadvantages to the (ecological) neighbourhood that is affected by these couplings.

ecoP1P2CouplingDescription
grey-spacer.png +++ grey-spacer.png MutualEcosystem benefits / beneficial to both partners
grey-spacer.png ++0CommensalEcosystem benefits / one partner benefits / no harm to the other.
grey-spacer.png ++ExploitativeEcosystem benefits / one partner benefits at expense of other.
grey-spacer.png +0AmensalEcosystem benefits / negative effect on one of the partners
grey-spacer.png +CompetitiveEcosystem benefits / both partners suffer
grey-spacer.png 0++ grey-spacer.png MutualNeutral to ecosystem / beneficial to both partners
grey-spacer.png 0+0CommensalNeutral to ecosystem / one partner benefits / no harm to the other.
grey-spacer.png 0+ExploitativeNeutral to ecosystem / one partner benefits at expense of other.
grey-spacer.png 00AmensalNeutral to ecosystem / negative effects on one of the partners
grey-spacer.png 0Competitive grey-spacer.png Neutral to ecosystem / both partners suffer
grey-spacer.png 000NeutralNeutral to ecosystem / no benefits or difficulties for either partner.
grey-spacer.png ++ grey-spacer.png MutualDamage to ecosystem / beneficial to both partners
grey-spacer.png +0CommensalDamage to ecosystem / one partner benefits / no harm to the other.
grey-spacer.png +ExploitativeDamage to ecosystem / one partner benefits at expense of other.
grey-spacer.png 0AmensalDamage to ecosystem / negative effects on one of the partners
grey-spacer.png CompetitiveDamage to ecosystem / both partners suffer

Table 2: Relative benefit/loss chart for different types of coupling

Return to glossary
Return to home

Share