Picture of smart phone in human hand

World leading smartphone and mobile technology research at Strathclyde...

The Strathprints institutional repository is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde's Open Access research outputs. Strathprints provides access to thousands of Open Access research papers by University of Strathclyde researchers, including by Strathclyde researchers from the Department of Computer & Information Sciences involved in researching exciting new applications for mobile and smartphone technology. But the transformative application of mobile technologies is also the focus of research within disciplines as diverse as Electronic & Electrical Engineering, Marketing, Human Resource Management and Biomedical Enginering, among others.

Explore Strathclyde's Open Access research on smartphone technology now...

Identifying institutional vulnerability : the importance of language, and system boundaries

Dolfsma, W. and Finch, J. and McMaster, R. (2011) Identifying institutional vulnerability : the importance of language, and system boundaries. Journal of Economic Issues, 45 (4). pp. 805-818. ISSN 0021-3624

Full text not available in this repository. (Request a copy from the Strathclyde author)

Abstract

Taking the idea that institutional reproduction is not obvious and that institutions are vulnerable has significant conceptual implications. Institutional vulnerability can arise through communication between actors in a common language. To apprehend this requires an elaboration of John Searle's (1995, 2005) argument that language is the fundamental institution. Ontologically, language delineates and circumscribes a community. A community cannot function without a common language, and language at the same time constitutes a community's boundaries, allowing for focused and effective communication within a community. Communication through language introduces ambiguity as well, however, and so institutional reproduction, mediated by language, is a deeply contentious process. Communication across boundaries may particularly "irritate" a system, as Niklas Luhmann has argued. How can institutions then be re-identified through change? Searle's general form for institutions is in need of elaboration. We develop arguments by drawing upon Luhmann's (1995) systems analysis and notion of communication.