Reglas básicas para la transformación del modelo E/R al modelo relacional.

Discourses are a social practice. There is a dialectical relationship between a ‘discursive event’ and what comprises it (Wodak, 1996, p. 15). Lektorsky (1980, p. 127) states that knowledge is not static or necessarily certain, but has referential meanings and norms which are constantly evolving.

Referential meanings and norms are influenced by context, particularly by hegemonic discourses but are contextualised within different settings. As explained in Chapter Three, analysing documents and interview data for assumptions and norms operating in each institution and across institutions formed part of the data analysis process. These findings are analysed in the following chapters.

Assumptions and norms evident in policy documents (e.g. Framework for the Future, 2003a; NOIE, 2003: Department of Economic Development) and in dialogue with respondents include:

• Commercialisation of intellectual property – whether it is produced in the public or private domain

• Innovation equals science and technology (not education, health and community services for example)

• Information economies require access to Intellectual Property and access to global markets. This assumes knowledge as a commodity

133

These assumptions were shared by all institutional subjects in the Cluster Group, although some subjects placed greater emphasis on, for example, clusters equalling economic growth, jobs and access to global markets, than others. These assumptions, held in common, influenced what subjects initially took part in the developing Marine ICT Cluster. Subjects viewed the idea of a cluster as an opportunity to use information technology intellectual property to grow their firm, or commercialise intellectual property or assist in the development and application of the ideas inherent in these assumptions. The ways in which these assumptions were held by all those subjects taking part in the evolving Marine ICT Cluster are discussed here. In Chapter Seven other assumptions are discussed that focus on differences rather than what was held in common.

Commercialisation of intellectual property is an assumption held in common by all institutional subjects. For example, one respondent spoke passionately about the intellectual property locked up in his institution. He argued that the institutional bureaucracy ‘is there to protect and manage it, to ensure the intellectual property is there for today’s generation and future generations’ and can the caretakers of this intellectual property release it for gain into the community?’ This respondent argued that such intellectual property should be commercialised and profits returned to the institution. Participants who were approached and responded positively to being part of the Cluster held the belief that intellectual property is that which can or should be

commercialised.

Further, commercialising intellectual property was perceived as fundamental to participating in the information economy and was linked to the need to access global markets. For example, several respondents identified a particular enterprise as successful because the enterprise had exported its software products to institutions around the world including the USA, Japan, the UK and Europe (http://www.sonardata.com). This construction of success was to become an important aspect of how institutions such as the

134

Department of State Development and Intelligent Island assessed the potential success of the emerging Marine ICT Cluster and is discussed in more detail in Chapter Seven.

In addition, the commercialisation of intellectual property is a requirement of Commonwealth policy funding arrangements for research institutions and therefore, commercialisation of intellectual property is part of the motive or object of activity of these institutions. One respondent from a firm identifies the opportunities afforded by the intellectual property of the research

institutions:

Much intellectual property has no commercial value and therefore it has zero value and of course it’s completely useless until you commercialise it. So we should be getting notoriety as much as we can because the way the research funds have come from the [name of institution] is related to our successes so our success can sell for one dollar but they make a few million dollar organisation or a $10 million organisation then we’ll get more money, because they’ll understand that we’re doing something (2004 interview).

That what is produced in the public domain by public monies can be put on the market for private or public profit and that innovation equals science and technology were ideas and beliefs deeply embedded in the language of respondents. All spoke of the need for the commercialisation of intellectual property and of the need for access to markets albeit with different emphasis. These hegemonic discourses are reflected in both national and state policies. Like information, communication and technology policy in many OECD countries Australian information, communication and technology policy works with the assumption that the market is the organising factor. The link between information technology, the information economy, innovation, competition and global markets is deeply embedded in policy directions and is an assumption that policy makers work with.

Hegemonic discourses are informed by the mode of production and history. The discourses discussed above are typical discourses of capitalism and inform government policy. Policy and the hegemonic discourses shape possibilities for industry development and institutional arrangements, as well

135

as the development of infrastructure and resources and the ways in which they are used.

But what of these contextual conditions? The above section has explicated, in general terms, how contextual conditions are not only integral to the

collaborative activity of the evolving Marine ICT Cluster, but also indicated ways in which these contextual conditions mediate that activity.

As the concept of mediation is an important one to the conceptualisation of collaborative activity in this thesis, it is examined here. Historically the concept of mediation, as used in this thesis, comes from the work of Vygotsky in the 1920s, who argued that human action is mediated by

culturally meaningful tools and signs. Vygotsky argues that the mediation of human action through signs and tools enable the human being to control him - or herself from the outside, to regulate our interactions with the world

(Vygotsky in Engeström, 1999, p.29). A recent activity theoretical scholar, Lekortsky (1999, p.66) explains Vygotsky’s concept of mediation as ‘human beings create stimuli that determine their own reactions and are used as means for mastering their own behaviour.’ Wertsch (1995) takes this concept and further develops it, providing ten claims about mediated action. Table 6.1 lists these claims and provides an explanation of how each claim contributes to an understanding of mediation.

Although Wertsch’s 10 claims are claims in relation to mediated action, that is, action of the subject as they use tools to achieve multiple goals, the following ideas are key to an understanding of mediation as used in this thesis:

• Just as tools provide affordances and constraints, so do contextual conditions provide affordances and constraints

• Just as subjects appropriate and master the cultural, historical and

institutional patterns of tools, so do they appropriate and master the cultural historical and institutional patterns of contextual conditions

136

• Contextual conditions provide affordances and constraints for access to tools and the consumption of tools

• Contextual conditions are dynamic, have within them their negation, that is, there are dialectical tensions within contextual conditions

Table 6.1: Ways in which Wertsch’s 10 claims add to an understanding of mediation

Claim Contribution to what is meant by _{mediation for this thesis}

1. 1There is irreducible tension between the agent and the mediational means (tools)

Relations between the agent or subject and the tools they use is dynamic, there is a dialectical tension between these elements 2. The materiality of

mediational means Cultural tools exist across time and space

3. Action has multiple, often conflicting goals

Action through mediational means has multiple goals. Because relations between the subject and the tools they use is dynamic and there is dialectical tension, there is often conflict between the multiple goals the action is intended to achieve

4. Mediated action is historically situated

Historical precedent is embedded within the tools we use, and these mediate our

conceptualisation of skills and intelligence 5. Mediated action provides

both affordances and constraints on action

The tools used and the relationship between the tool(s) and the subject influence not only what the subject perceives as possible and not possible, but, because the tool(s) are

historically situated, what the situated context allows.

6. New tools transform action because they determine the structure and flow of action

New tools inform, influence and shape the organisation of labour, that is, access to tools, the distribution of tasks, the consumption of tools, including skills and knowledge 7. Mastery of tools involves

following the patterns, the cultural, historical and institutional requirements of a tool

Embedded within tools are their historical, cultural and institutional patterns. When subjects master tools these patterns are learnt, but not necessarily valued or internalised. 8. Appropriation of tools

refers to making one’s own the affordances and

constraints inherent in the tool

In mastery of tools, subjects ‘learn’ the historical, cultural and institutional patterns without internalising them. Whereas when subjects appropriate tools they internalise the historical, cultural and institutional patterns. That is, subjects value and believe in the patterns, consciously or unconsciously. 9. Consumption of tools in

ways that are no longer applicable in a given situation and time can

When tools are used and appropriated without conscious thought, there is no awareness of the ways in which they inform and influence the perception of possibilities and constraints

137

impede performance 10. Power and authority are to

varying degrees inherent in tools.

Not everyone has equal access to each tool, or equal ability to use or consume the tool(s)

Mediation is a complex process with multiple dimensions. In this thesis it is acknowledged that mediation is inherent in the social relations of production, as discussed in Chapter two. It is necessary to appreciate that mediation is integral to social relations of production. For example, exchange is mediated by the culture and structure of the community, by the skill sets within the community. Distribution of rules and power and division of tasks mediate access to tools and who consumes them and how they are consumed and for what purposes.

Thus contextual conditions mediate collaborative activity in ways discussed in this Chapter and developed further in the following Chapters.