29 views

Skip to first unread message

May 20, 2020, 11:05:53 AM5/20/20

to Cybernetic Communications, Ontolog Forum, Peirce List, Structural Modeling, SysSciWG

Cf: Triadic Relations • Preamble

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/20/triadic-relations-%e2%80%a2-preamble/

<QUOTE>

Of triadic Being the multitude of forms is so terrific that I have usually shrunk from the task of enumerating them;

and for the present purpose such an enumeration would be worse than superfluous: it would be a great inconvenience.

— C.S. Peirce, Collected Papers, CP 6.347

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/06/14/c-s-peirce-%e2%80%a2-of-triadic-being/

</QUOTE>

A triadic relation (or ternary relation) is a special case of a polyadic or finitary relation, one in which the number

of places in the relation is three. One may also see the adjectives 3-adic, 3-ary, 3-dimensional, or 3-place being used

to describe these relations.

Mathematics is positively rife with examples of triadic relations and the field of semiotics is rich in its harvest of

sign relations, which are special cases of triadic relations. In either subject, as Peirce observes, the multitude of

forms truly terrific, so it's best to begin with concrete examples of their vast array. The discussion to follow takes

up a pair of simple, just barely non-trivial, but instructive examples from each of the realms of mathematics and semiotics.

Resources

=========

• Logic Syllabus ( https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/logic-syllabus/ )

• Sign Relations ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Sign_relation )

• Triadic Relations ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Triadic_relation )

• Relation Theory ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Relation_theory )

Regards,

Jon

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/20/triadic-relations-%e2%80%a2-preamble/

<QUOTE>

Of triadic Being the multitude of forms is so terrific that I have usually shrunk from the task of enumerating them;

and for the present purpose such an enumeration would be worse than superfluous: it would be a great inconvenience.

— C.S. Peirce, Collected Papers, CP 6.347

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/06/14/c-s-peirce-%e2%80%a2-of-triadic-being/

</QUOTE>

A triadic relation (or ternary relation) is a special case of a polyadic or finitary relation, one in which the number

of places in the relation is three. One may also see the adjectives 3-adic, 3-ary, 3-dimensional, or 3-place being used

to describe these relations.

Mathematics is positively rife with examples of triadic relations and the field of semiotics is rich in its harvest of

sign relations, which are special cases of triadic relations. In either subject, as Peirce observes, the multitude of

forms truly terrific, so it's best to begin with concrete examples of their vast array. The discussion to follow takes

up a pair of simple, just barely non-trivial, but instructive examples from each of the realms of mathematics and semiotics.

Resources

=========

• Logic Syllabus ( https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/logic-syllabus/ )

• Sign Relations ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Sign_relation )

• Triadic Relations ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Triadic_relation )

• Relation Theory ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Relation_theory )

Regards,

Jon

May 22, 2020, 9:45:13 AM5/22/20

to Cybernetic Communications, Ontolog Forum, Peirce List, Structural Modeling, SysSciWG

Cf: Triadic Relations • 1

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/21/triadic-relations-%e2%80%a2-1/

Examples from Mathematics

=========================

For the sake of topics to be taken up later, it is useful to examine

a pair of triadic relations in tandem. We will construct two triadic

relations, L₀ and L₁, each of which is a subset of the same cartesian

product X × Y × Z. The structures of L₀ and L₁ can be described in

the following way.

Each space X, Y, Z is isomorphic to the boolean domain B = {0, 1}

so L₀ and L₁ are subsets of the cartesian power B × B × B or the

boolean cube B³.

The operation of boolean addition, + : B × B → B, is equivalent to

addition modulo 2, where 0 acts in the usual manner but 1 + 1 = 0.

In its logical interpretation, the plus sign can be used to indicate

either the boolean operation of exclusive disjunction or the boolean

relation of logical inequality.

The relation L₀ is defined by the following formula.

L₀ = { (x, y, z) ∈ B³ : x + y + z = 0 }.

The relation L₀ is the following set of four triples in B³.

L₀ = { (0, 0, 0), (0, 1, 1), (1, 0, 1), (1, 1, 0) }.

The relation L₁ is defined by the following formula.

L₁ = { (x, y, z) ∈ B³ : x + y + z = 1 }.

The relation L₁ is the following set of four triples in B³.

L₁ = { (0, 0, 1), (0, 1, 0), (1, 0, 0), (1, 1, 1) }.

The triples in the relations L₀ and L₁ are conveniently arranged

in the form of relational data tables, as shown below.

Triadic Relation L₀

https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/triadic-relation-l0-bit-sum-0.png

Triadic Relation L₁

https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/triadic-relation-l1-bit-sum-1.png

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/21/triadic-relations-%e2%80%a2-1/

Examples from Mathematics

=========================

For the sake of topics to be taken up later, it is useful to examine

a pair of triadic relations in tandem. We will construct two triadic

relations, L₀ and L₁, each of which is a subset of the same cartesian

product X × Y × Z. The structures of L₀ and L₁ can be described in

the following way.

Each space X, Y, Z is isomorphic to the boolean domain B = {0, 1}

so L₀ and L₁ are subsets of the cartesian power B × B × B or the

boolean cube B³.

The operation of boolean addition, + : B × B → B, is equivalent to

addition modulo 2, where 0 acts in the usual manner but 1 + 1 = 0.

In its logical interpretation, the plus sign can be used to indicate

either the boolean operation of exclusive disjunction or the boolean

relation of logical inequality.

The relation L₀ is defined by the following formula.

L₀ = { (x, y, z) ∈ B³ : x + y + z = 0 }.

The relation L₀ is the following set of four triples in B³.

L₀ = { (0, 0, 0), (0, 1, 1), (1, 0, 1), (1, 1, 0) }.

The relation L₁ is defined by the following formula.

L₁ = { (x, y, z) ∈ B³ : x + y + z = 1 }.

The relation L₁ is the following set of four triples in B³.

L₁ = { (0, 0, 1), (0, 1, 0), (1, 0, 0), (1, 1, 1) }.

The triples in the relations L₀ and L₁ are conveniently arranged

in the form of relational data tables, as shown below.

Triadic Relation L₀

https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/triadic-relation-l0-bit-sum-0.png

Triadic Relation L₁

https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/triadic-relation-l1-bit-sum-1.png

May 23, 2020, 4:06:24 PM5/23/20

to Cybernetic Communications, Loet Leydesdorff, Ontolog Forum, Peirce List, Structural Modeling, SysSciWG

Loet, All ...

Many thanks for the link to your paper! Just off-hand this looks like

the right ballpark for my long run interests but it will take me a few

more posts just dusting off home plate and chalking in some base lines.

Here's a paper Susan Awbrey and I wrote a while back giving some hint

of the Big Game in play here, the “scholarship of integration” needed

to bring the harvests of information locked away in so many isolated

silos to bear on our world of common problems.

https://www.academia.edu/1266492/Conceptual_Barriers_to_Creating_Integrative_Universities

Regards,

Jon

On 5/23/2020 9:18 AM, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:

> Dear Jon,

>

> I extensively use triads in a new paper:

>

> Leydesdorff, Loet and Ivanova, Inga, The Measurement of 'Interdisciplinarity' and 'Synergy' in Scientific and

> Extra-Scientific Collaborations (May 17, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3560339 or

> http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3560339 <https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3560339>

>

> You may find it interesting.

>

> Best,

> Loet

>

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Loet Leydesdorff

>

> Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam

> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

>

> lo...@leydesdorff.net <mailto:lo...@leydesdorff.net>; http://www.leydesdorff.net/

> Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of Sussex;

>

> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,

> <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;

>

> Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London;

>

> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en

> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7835-3098;

Many thanks for the link to your paper! Just off-hand this looks like

the right ballpark for my long run interests but it will take me a few

more posts just dusting off home plate and chalking in some base lines.

Here's a paper Susan Awbrey and I wrote a while back giving some hint

of the Big Game in play here, the “scholarship of integration” needed

to bring the harvests of information locked away in so many isolated

silos to bear on our world of common problems.

https://www.academia.edu/1266492/Conceptual_Barriers_to_Creating_Integrative_Universities

Regards,

Jon

On 5/23/2020 9:18 AM, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:

> Dear Jon,

>

> I extensively use triads in a new paper:

>

> Leydesdorff, Loet and Ivanova, Inga, The Measurement of 'Interdisciplinarity' and 'Synergy' in Scientific and

> Extra-Scientific Collaborations (May 17, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3560339 or

> http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3560339 <https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3560339>

>

> You may find it interesting.

>

> Best,

> Loet

>

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Loet Leydesdorff

>

> Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam

> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

>

> lo...@leydesdorff.net <mailto:lo...@leydesdorff.net>; http://www.leydesdorff.net/

> Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of Sussex;

>

> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,

> <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;

>

> Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London;

>

> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en

> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7835-3098;

May 24, 2020, 5:53:36 AM5/24/20

to Systems Science Working Group Discussion List

Dear Jon,

__ __

Just wanted to say that I enjoyed your 'Conceptual
Barriers to Creating Integrative Universities' paper. Thank you, to all the authors.

The aspiration to a form of knowledge 'wisdom' resonated
with me, and, not withstanding the 'university' context (connotative?) the article
was couched in, every time I read the word 'university', I mentally substituted
it with 'systems movement' and the resonance was there.

I was curious, on how the article had stood the test of
time, over the last 19 years, but since you referenced it in your current posting,
I presume it holds up well!

__ __

I particularly liked the "Figure 3. Aspects of a
Sign Relation", as it speaks to something else I am working on.

Have you got a reference for Figure 3 that I can look at
further, and possibly reference?

(don't know much about triadic relations etc, and the
maths is over my head, but your section in the paper on 'The Pragmatic
Framework' certainly upped my interest in the field that it is a part of -
whatever that is!)

__ __

Many thanks,

Rob

May 25, 2020, 9:30:08 AM5/25/20

to Cybernetic Communications, Ontolog Forum, Peirce List, Structural Modeling, SysSciWG

Cf: Triadic Relations • 2

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/24/triadic-relations-%e2%80%a2-2/

Examples from Semiotics

=======================

The study of signs — the full variety of significant forms of expression — in relation to all the affairs signs are

significant of, and in relation to all the beings signs are significant to, is known as “semiotics” or the theory of

signs. As described, semiotics treats of a 3-place relation among signs, their objects, and their interpreters.

The term “semiosis” refers to any activity or process involving signs. Studies of semiosis focusing on its abstract

form are not concerned with every concrete detail of the entities acting as signs, as objects, or as agents of semiosis,

but only with the most salient patterns of relationship among those three roles. In particular, the formal theory of

signs does not consider all the properties of the interpretive agent but only the more striking features of the

impressions signs make on a representative interpreter. From a formal point of view this impact or influence may be

treated as just another sign, called the “interpretant sign”, or the “interpretant” for short. A triadic relation of

this type, among objects, signs, and interpretants, is called a “sign relation”.

For example, consider the aspects of sign use involved when two people, say Ann and Bob, use their own proper names,

“Ann” and “Bob”, along with the pronouns, “I” and “you”, to refer to themselves and each other. For brevity, these four

signs may be abbreviated to the set {“A”, “B”, “i”, “u”}. The abstract consideration of how A and B use this set of

signs leads to the contemplation of a pair of triadic relations, the sign relations L_A and L_B, reflecting the

differential use of these signs by A and B, respectively.

Each of the sign relations L_A and L_B consists of eight triples of the form (x, y, z), where the “object” x belongs to

the “object domain” O = {A, B}, the “sign” y belongs to the “sign domain” S, the “interpretant sign” z belongs to the

“interpretant domain” I, and where it happens in this case that S = I = {“A”, “B”, “i”, “u”}. The union S ∪ I is often

referred to as the “syntactic domain”, but in this case S = I = S ∪ I.

The set-up so far is summarized as follows:

• L_A, L_B ⊆ O × S × I

• O = {A, B}

• S = {“A”, “B”, “i”, “u”}

• I = {“A”, “B”, “i”, “u”}

The relation L_A is the following set of eight triples in O × S × I.

{ (A, “A”, “A”), (A, “A”, “i”), (A, “i”, “A”), (A, “i”, “i”),

(B, “B”, “B”), (B, “B”, “u”), (B, “u”, “B”), (B, “u”, “u”) }

The triples in L_A represent the way interpreter A uses signs. For example, the presence of (B, “u”, “B”) in L_A says A

uses “B” to mean the same thing A uses “u” to mean, namely, B.

The relation L_B is the following set of eight triples in O × S × I.

{ (A, “A”, “A”), (A, “A”, “u”), (A, “u”, “A”), (A, “u”, “u”),

(B, “B”, “B”), (B, “B”, “i”), (B, “i”, “B”), (B, “i”, “i”) }

The triples in L_B represent the way interpreter B uses signs. For example, the presence of (B, “i”, “B”) in L_B says B

uses “B” to mean the same thing B uses “i” to mean, namely, B.

The triples in the relations L_A and L_B are conveniently arranged in the form of relational data tables, as shown below.

L_A = Sign Relation of Interpreter A

https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/sign-relation-la-interpreter-a.png

L_B = Sign Relation of Interpreter B

https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/sign-relation-lb-interpreter-b.png

Resources

=========

• Semiotics ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Semeiotic )

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/24/triadic-relations-%e2%80%a2-2/

Examples from Semiotics

=======================

The study of signs — the full variety of significant forms of expression — in relation to all the affairs signs are

significant of, and in relation to all the beings signs are significant to, is known as “semiotics” or the theory of

signs. As described, semiotics treats of a 3-place relation among signs, their objects, and their interpreters.

The term “semiosis” refers to any activity or process involving signs. Studies of semiosis focusing on its abstract

form are not concerned with every concrete detail of the entities acting as signs, as objects, or as agents of semiosis,

but only with the most salient patterns of relationship among those three roles. In particular, the formal theory of

signs does not consider all the properties of the interpretive agent but only the more striking features of the

impressions signs make on a representative interpreter. From a formal point of view this impact or influence may be

treated as just another sign, called the “interpretant sign”, or the “interpretant” for short. A triadic relation of

this type, among objects, signs, and interpretants, is called a “sign relation”.

For example, consider the aspects of sign use involved when two people, say Ann and Bob, use their own proper names,

“Ann” and “Bob”, along with the pronouns, “I” and “you”, to refer to themselves and each other. For brevity, these four

signs may be abbreviated to the set {“A”, “B”, “i”, “u”}. The abstract consideration of how A and B use this set of

signs leads to the contemplation of a pair of triadic relations, the sign relations L_A and L_B, reflecting the

differential use of these signs by A and B, respectively.

Each of the sign relations L_A and L_B consists of eight triples of the form (x, y, z), where the “object” x belongs to

the “object domain” O = {A, B}, the “sign” y belongs to the “sign domain” S, the “interpretant sign” z belongs to the

“interpretant domain” I, and where it happens in this case that S = I = {“A”, “B”, “i”, “u”}. The union S ∪ I is often

referred to as the “syntactic domain”, but in this case S = I = S ∪ I.

The set-up so far is summarized as follows:

• L_A, L_B ⊆ O × S × I

• O = {A, B}

• S = {“A”, “B”, “i”, “u”}

• I = {“A”, “B”, “i”, “u”}

The relation L_A is the following set of eight triples in O × S × I.

{ (A, “A”, “A”), (A, “A”, “i”), (A, “i”, “A”), (A, “i”, “i”),

(B, “B”, “B”), (B, “B”, “u”), (B, “u”, “B”), (B, “u”, “u”) }

The triples in L_A represent the way interpreter A uses signs. For example, the presence of (B, “u”, “B”) in L_A says A

uses “B” to mean the same thing A uses “u” to mean, namely, B.

The relation L_B is the following set of eight triples in O × S × I.

{ (A, “A”, “A”), (A, “A”, “u”), (A, “u”, “A”), (A, “u”, “u”),

(B, “B”, “B”), (B, “B”, “i”), (B, “i”, “B”), (B, “i”, “i”) }

The triples in L_B represent the way interpreter B uses signs. For example, the presence of (B, “i”, “B”) in L_B says B

uses “B” to mean the same thing B uses “i” to mean, namely, B.

The triples in the relations L_A and L_B are conveniently arranged in the form of relational data tables, as shown below.

L_A = Sign Relation of Interpreter A

https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/sign-relation-la-interpreter-a.png

L_B = Sign Relation of Interpreter B

https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/sign-relation-lb-interpreter-b.png

Resources

=========

• Semiotics ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Semeiotic )

May 30, 2020, 9:54:57 AM5/30/20

to Cybernetic Communications, Ontolog Forum, Peirce List, Structural Modeling, SysSciWG

Cf: Triadic Relations • Discussion 2

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/30/triadic-relations-%e2%80%a2-discussion-2/

To everything there is a season,

A time for every purpose under heaven:

A time for building castles in the stratosphere,

A time to mind the anti-gravs that keep us here.

Re: Systems Science ( https://groups.google.com/d/topic/syssciwg/e5DZcywfyow/overview )

::: Rob Young ( https://groups.google.com/d/msg/syssciwg/e5DZcywfyow/4LGZXgMeAwAJ )

Cf: Conceptual Barriers to Creating Integrative Universities

At: https://www.academia.edu/1266492/Conceptual_Barriers_to_Creating_Integrative_Universities

<QUOTE> RY:

The aspiration to a form of knowledge ‘wisdom’ resonated with me, and, not withstanding the ‘university’ context

(connotative?) the article was couched in, every time I read the word ‘university’, I mentally substituted it with

‘systems movement’ and the resonance was there.

</QUOTE>

Dear Rob,

Thanks for your comments and questions. They took me back to the decade before the turn of the millennium when there

was a general trend of thought to embrace chaos and complexity, seeking the order and simplicity on the other side.

(Oliver Wendell Holmes, but it appears in doubt whether Sr. or Jr.)

One thing I've learned in the mean time is just how poorly grounded and maintained are many of the abstract concepts and

theories we need for grappling with the complexities of communication, computation, experimental information, and

scientific inquiry. So I've been doing what I can to reinforce the concrete bases and stabilize the working platforms

of what otherwise tend to become empty à priori haunts.

I'll have to be getting back to that. For now I'll just link to a few readings your remarks brought to mind. The

“Conceptual Barriers” paper from 2001 is the journal upgrade of a conference presentation from 1999, “Organizations of

Learning or Learning Organizations : The Challenge of Creating Integrative Universities for the Next Century (

https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu//menu/library/aboutcsp/awbrey/integrat.htm )”.

Your reflex of jumping from universities to systems in general is very much on the mark. Our work was motivated in

large part by the movement toward Learning Organizations, that is, organizations able to apply organizational research

to their own organizational development. To put a fine point on it, all we were saying was, “Shouldn't a University as

an Organization of Learning also be a Learning Organization?”

Well, I had a lot more to relate at this point, but our dishwasher just went on the fritz, so I'll leave it for now with

a few links to Susan's earlier work along these lines and try to get back to it later …

• Scott, David K., and Awbrey, Susan M. (1993),

“Transforming Scholarship”, Change : The Magazine of Higher Learning, 25(4), 38–43.

Online (1) ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254338300_Transforming_Scholarship )

(2) ( http://www.jstor.org/stable/40165071 ) .

• Papers by Susan Awbrey and David Scott • University of Massachusetts, Amherst

( http://www.umass.edu/pastchancellors/scott/papers/papers.html ) .

Reference

=========

• Awbrey, S.M., and Awbrey, J.L. (2001), “Conceptual Barriers to Creating Integrative Universities”, Organization : The

Interdisciplinary Journal of Organization, Theory, and Society 8(2), Sage Publications, London, UK, pp. 269–284.

Abstract ( http://org.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/2/269 ). Online (

https://www.academia.edu/1266492/Conceptual_Barriers_to_Creating_Integrative_Universities ).

At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/30/triadic-relations-%e2%80%a2-discussion-2/

To everything there is a season,

A time for every purpose under heaven:

A time for building castles in the stratosphere,

A time to mind the anti-gravs that keep us here.

Re: Systems Science ( https://groups.google.com/d/topic/syssciwg/e5DZcywfyow/overview )

::: Rob Young ( https://groups.google.com/d/msg/syssciwg/e5DZcywfyow/4LGZXgMeAwAJ )

Cf: Conceptual Barriers to Creating Integrative Universities

At: https://www.academia.edu/1266492/Conceptual_Barriers_to_Creating_Integrative_Universities

<QUOTE> RY:

The aspiration to a form of knowledge ‘wisdom’ resonated with me, and, not withstanding the ‘university’ context

(connotative?) the article was couched in, every time I read the word ‘university’, I mentally substituted it with

‘systems movement’ and the resonance was there.

Dear Rob,

Thanks for your comments and questions. They took me back to the decade before the turn of the millennium when there

was a general trend of thought to embrace chaos and complexity, seeking the order and simplicity on the other side.

(Oliver Wendell Holmes, but it appears in doubt whether Sr. or Jr.)

One thing I've learned in the mean time is just how poorly grounded and maintained are many of the abstract concepts and

theories we need for grappling with the complexities of communication, computation, experimental information, and

scientific inquiry. So I've been doing what I can to reinforce the concrete bases and stabilize the working platforms

of what otherwise tend to become empty à priori haunts.

I'll have to be getting back to that. For now I'll just link to a few readings your remarks brought to mind. The

“Conceptual Barriers” paper from 2001 is the journal upgrade of a conference presentation from 1999, “Organizations of

Learning or Learning Organizations : The Challenge of Creating Integrative Universities for the Next Century (

https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu//menu/library/aboutcsp/awbrey/integrat.htm )”.

Your reflex of jumping from universities to systems in general is very much on the mark. Our work was motivated in

large part by the movement toward Learning Organizations, that is, organizations able to apply organizational research

to their own organizational development. To put a fine point on it, all we were saying was, “Shouldn't a University as

an Organization of Learning also be a Learning Organization?”

Well, I had a lot more to relate at this point, but our dishwasher just went on the fritz, so I'll leave it for now with

a few links to Susan's earlier work along these lines and try to get back to it later …

• Scott, David K., and Awbrey, Susan M. (1993),

“Transforming Scholarship”, Change : The Magazine of Higher Learning, 25(4), 38–43.

Online (1) ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254338300_Transforming_Scholarship )

(2) ( http://www.jstor.org/stable/40165071 ) .

• Papers by Susan Awbrey and David Scott • University of Massachusetts, Amherst

( http://www.umass.edu/pastchancellors/scott/papers/papers.html ) .

Reference

=========

• Awbrey, S.M., and Awbrey, J.L. (2001), “Conceptual Barriers to Creating Integrative Universities”, Organization : The

Interdisciplinary Journal of Organization, Theory, and Society 8(2), Sage Publications, London, UK, pp. 269–284.

Abstract ( http://org.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/2/269 ). Online (

https://www.academia.edu/1266492/Conceptual_Barriers_to_Creating_Integrative_Universities ).

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu