38
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Mutual Authority Delegation (Overgaard-Loiselle-2016) (view source)
Revision as of 08:48, 3 March 2017
, 08:48, 3 March 2017no edit summary
|Authors List=Nicholas Overgaard, Mirka Loiselle,
|Formulated Year=2016
|Description=This definition term arose to describe the mutualistic relationship that exists between two communities, usually under an overarching community. It was first inspired as a one-way interaction by observing the interaction between the art market and the art expert communities; how the former relies on the latter to define their mosaic. A brief explanation of this example is as follows: when the art market community has to decide whether a piece of art is authentic, they turn towards the art experts for their evaluation. Based on the authentication method of the art experts, the art market and subsequently changes their beliefs on the piece of art accordingly. In this example, the art market’s method of authentication is directly dependent, or delegated to, the art experts. Although they may share different interests and intents, the art market community acknowledges that the art experts possess the most knowledge and skills pertaining to this domain, thus initiating in a relationship of authority delegation.
Mutual authority delegation is essentially the same relationship but bidirectional. Overgaard and Loiselle illustrates the mutualistic relationship that compatible scientific disciplines share as sub-communities. For example, physicists acknowledge that biologists are the experts of life sciences, and likewise biologists acknowledge that physicists are the experts of physical sciences. Consequently, they will accept the theories in each other’s domains into their own mosaics insofar as they were evaluated and accepted by the respective experts. This relationship is also present within a scientific discipline. Looking at the relationship between theoretical and applied physicists, we know that despite the differences in their methods and overall objectives, they don’t discredit the works and findings of one and other, but work inter-dependently as sub-communities of the physics community.
This relationship between two communities can allow elucidation of a larger over-arching community, and the elements of this community’s mosaic. Furthermore, understanding this relationship allows us to examine the exchange of mosaic elements between two communities through a new lens, benefitting both observational and theoretical scientonomists in reconstructing mosaics and describing scientific change.
