Search results

1 – 10 of over 3000
To view the access options for this content please click here
Article

Tho Thanh Quan, Xuan H. Luong , Thanh C. Nguyen and Hui Siu Cheung

Most digital libraries (DL) are now available online. They also provide the Z39.50 standard protocol which allows computer-based systems to effectively retrieve…

Abstract

Purpose

Most digital libraries (DL) are now available online. They also provide the Z39.50 standard protocol which allows computer-based systems to effectively retrieve information stored in the DLs. The major difficulty lies in inconsistency between database schemas of multiple DLs. The purpose of this paper is to present a system known as Argumentation-based Digital Library Search (ADLSearch), which facilitates information retrieval across multiple DLs.

Design/methodology/approach

The proposed approach is based on argumentation theory for schema matching reconciliation from multiple schema matching algorithms. In addition, a distributed architecture is proposed for the ADLSearch system for information retrieval from multiple DLs.

Findings

Initial performance results are promising. First, schema matching can improve the retrieval performance on DLs, as compared to the baseline technique. Subsequently, argumentation-based retrieval can yield better matching accuracy and retrieval efficiency than individual schema matching algorithms.

Research limitations/implications

The work discussed in this paper has been implemented as a prototype supporting scholarly retrieval from about 800 DLs over the world. However, due to complexity of argumentation algorithm, the process of adding new DLs to the system cannot be performed in a real-time manner.

Originality/value

In this paper, an argumentation-based approach is proposed for reconciling the conflicts from multiple schema matching algorithms in the context of information retrieval from multiple DL. Moreover, the proposed approach can also be applied for similar applications which require automatic mapping from multiple database schemas.

Details

Online Information Review, vol. 39 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1468-4527

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article

Hervé Corvellec

The purpose of this paper is to examine the way organizational actors argue to obtain a license to operate for new ventures.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to examine the way organizational actors argue to obtain a license to operate for new ventures.

Design/methodology/approach

The design, which addresses the issue at the industry level, consists of a case study of the ways in which power developers argue for the development of wind energy in Sweden.

Findings

The study shows that wind power developers proffer a necessity‐ability‐acceptability line of argument that relies not only on the convincing character of claims grounded in premises, but also on the persuasive character of values, knowledge and opinion likely to win the adherence of the audience.

Research limitations/implications

From a theoretical perspective, this is an illustration of the relevance of bridging the divide between argumentation theories in tune with formal or informal logic and those oriented toward rhetoric and the social practice of communication.

Practical implications

More practically, the paper suggests that in order to obtain a license to operate, managers need to combine and balance in their practice of argumentation a logical approach to factual knowledge with a situational sense for the rhetoric favored by the audience.

Originality/value

This study emphasizes the key role played by argumentation in corporate communication.

Details

Corporate Communications: An International Journal, vol. 12 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1356-3289

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article

Naoki Kamimaeda, Noriaki Izumi and Kôiti Hasida

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate participants' contributions to the development of discussion and knowledge creation as organizational knowledge management, and…

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate participants' contributions to the development of discussion and knowledge creation as organizational knowledge management, and thereby help them better develop the discussion.

Design/methodology/approach

To evaluate participants' contributions more accurately, a method which analyzes discussion structures by Discourse Semantic Authoring was employed, which represents discussion structures explicitly in terms of discourse and dialogue relations.

Findings

The method successfully evaluates participants based on the content of their comments rather than their number. More fine‐grain semantic structure should be considered in order to improve the accuracy of this evaluation.

Originality/value

This paper presents a first attempt to analyze discussion structures to evaluate participants' contributions.

Details

The Learning Organization, vol. 14 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0969-6474

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article

Mathias Riechert, Sophie Biesenbender, Werner Dees and Daniel Sirtes

The purpose of this paper is to focus on the development of definitional standards for research information as a wicked problem. A central solution strategy for such…

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to focus on the development of definitional standards for research information as a wicked problem. A central solution strategy for such problems, increasing transparency by argumentation visualisation, is being evaluated.

Design/methodology/approach

Qualitative formal content analysis is used in order to examine whether the process of definition standardisation in the project can be characterised as a wicked problem. Action Research is used to assess the effect of argumentation visualisation in the project.

Findings

The results of the content analysis confirm the interpretation of the standardisation process as a wicked problem. The implementation of argumentation visualisation shows to increase the meetings’ focus and effectiveness.

Research limitations/implications

The relationship between information exchange, transparency and acceptance of the development result should be addressed in future empirical analyses. Visualisation solutions require further development in order to accommodate needs of the stakeholders.

Practical implications

Argumentation visualisation is of high value for finding a consensus for definitional standards and should be considered for managing and exchanging information.

Originality/value

Applying solution strategies from design research on wicked problems to large-scale standardisation efforts opens up new possibilities for not only handling such projects but also providing new avenues of research for both the design and research information communities.

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article

Hervé Corvellec

Braiding organization theory and argumentation theory, the paper seeks to unfold how organizations act as social loci for the production, diffusion and development of arguments.

Abstract

Purpose

Braiding organization theory and argumentation theory, the paper seeks to unfold how organizations act as social loci for the production, diffusion and development of arguments.

Design/methodology/approach

A Swedish association dedicated to the defense and promotion of nuclear power, Miljövänner För Kärnkraft (approximately Environmentalists for Nuclear Power) serves as a case study, describing the association's argumentative activity with a particular focus on its argument that “nuclear power is environment friendly as it produces no greenhouse gas emissions”.

Findings

The manner in which the association contextualizes this key argument illustrates the inter‐relationships that exist between organizing and arguing.

Originality/value

Organizing and arguing belong to each other's conditions of possibility, and it is therefore argued that an understanding of the organized character of argumentation is symmetrical to the argumentative character of organizing.

Details

Society and Business Review, vol. 1 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1746-5680

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article

Ayşe Öcal, Lu Xiao and Jaihyun Park

Complex social interactions such as argumentation and persuasion are increasingly common in online communications. To better understand these interactions and their…

Abstract

Purpose

Complex social interactions such as argumentation and persuasion are increasingly common in online communications. To better understand these interactions and their impacts on people and on the society, it is important for the authors to understand how people reason online such as when they need to justify themselves or convince others with their perspectives. Reasoning in online discussions is expectedly to be different from doing so offline, as one often communicates with others anonymously and asynchronously in such contexts (e.g. Reddit discussions). The purpose of this paper is to investigate people's reasoning behavior in online environments focusing on how they justify their perspectives.

Design/methodology/approach

In this study, the authors examined how a subreddit Change My View (CMV) users offer their opinions and justify them through the lens of argumentation and reasoning. The authors annotated, 330 Reddit discussion original posts (OPs) to identify claims, rationales and supports for reasoning, i.e. personal experiences, definitions, domain expertise and external sources. The authors investigated the correlations among the occurrences of these supporting statements and whether they are related to the topics of the posts.

Findings

The findings suggest that if people mention their domain expertise, they tend to provide related personal experiences as well. Additionally, if the participants talk about the topic of domestic politics, they tend to utilize their personal experiences.

Research limitations/implications

Further research may be conducted to help system designers. System designers (e.g. online debate systems, collective decision-making systems, etc.) may benefit from the findings to design systems by considering commonly used supporting statements, which may enhance people's reasoning and argumentation processes. The sample size is a small sample. The authors acknowledge that the small sample size of the study may limit the generalizability of the findings; however, it is still acceptable compared to the existing literature. One future study could be annotating a larger dataset to further probe the use of supporting statements in online reasoning.

Practical implications

The authors' findings might be useful to understand how Reddit users are justifying their opinions as the reflection of their reasoning processes. In order to contribute further research in argumentation and reasoning in online platforms, the authors make the annotated dataset publicly available.

Originality/value

To best of the authors' knowledge, this study was one of a few studies whose purpose is to understand Reddit CMV users' reasoning processes. To understand how online users offer their reasons while providing their ideas is important to have effective communication processes and to improve online discussion experiences which are very common in today's digital era.

Peer review

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-08-2020-0330

Details

Online Information Review, vol. ahead-of-print no. ahead-of-print
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1468-4527

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article

Andrej Skerlep

The paper criticises the dominant paradigm of public relations theory for lack of interest in discursive and rhetorical dimensions of public relations. An alternative…

Abstract

The paper criticises the dominant paradigm of public relations theory for lack of interest in discursive and rhetorical dimensions of public relations. An alternative theoretical approach to public relations is identified that does treat discursive and rhetorical dimensions of public relations, but it is indicated that at present it has not been sufficiently integrated into dominant public relations theory. The paper explores the points of convergence between rhetoric and public relations. The narrow and broad conceptions of rhetoric are presented, the first characterising rhetoric with persuasive and argumentative discourse, the second with different types of discourse. It is suggested that elements of the broad conception of rhetoric could provide heuristics for analysing public relations techniques as “genre repertoire” of public relations discourse. In the second part, an enquiry into the narrow conception of rhetoric as persuasive and argumentative discourse is made. Positivistic understanding of “truth” and “objectivity” as normative criteria of public relations discourse is criticised on the basis of the so‐called “rhetoric as epistemic” view. It is argued that in corporate discourse, especially in situations of confrontation with active publics, key managerial decisions have to be justified in argumentation. In the last part of the paper, Toulmin’s model of argumentation is suggested as especially suitable for analysis of the argumentative nature of corporate discourse.

Details

Journal of Communication Management, vol. 6 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1363-254X

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article

J.A.A. SILLINCE

Current indexing methods used in automated bibliographic and full text information retrieval assume that knowledge can be adequately represented as a semantic network…

Abstract

Current indexing methods used in automated bibliographic and full text information retrieval assume that knowledge can be adequately represented as a semantic network which is manipulable by means of Boolean operators. However, this semantic approach requires the user to state formally what it is that he wants to find. This paper presents an alternative argumentation‐based method. It involves representing a learned article by means of rhetorical structure rather than by a semantic representation of content.

Details

Journal of Documentation, vol. 48 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0022-0418

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article

Eystein Gullbekk and Katriina Byström

The purpose of this paper is to analyse scholarly subjectivity in the context of citation practices in interdisciplinary PhD research.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to analyse scholarly subjectivity in the context of citation practices in interdisciplinary PhD research.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper provides an analysis of longitudinal series of qualitative interviews with PhD students who write scholarly articles as dissertation components. Conceptualizations of subjectivity within practice theories form the basis for the analysis.

Findings

Scholarly argumentation entails a rhetorical paradox of “bringing something new” to the communication while at the same time “establishing a common ground” with an audience. By enacting this paradox through citing in an emerging interdisciplinary setting, the informants negotiate subject positions in different modes of identification across the involved disciplines. In an emerging interdisciplinary field, the articulation of scholarly subjectivity is a joint open-ended achievement demanding knowledgeability in multiple disciplinary understandings and conducts. However, identifications that are expressible within the informants’ local site, i.e. interactions with supervisors, other seniors and peers, are not always expressible when negotiating subject positions with journals.

Originality/value

This paper contributes to research on citation practices in emerging interdisciplinary fields. By linking the enactment of citing in scholarly writing to the negotiation of subject positions, the paper provides new insights about the complexities involved in becoming a scholar.

Details

Journal of Documentation, vol. 75 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0022-0418

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article

Nikos Karacapilidis, Euripides Loukis and Stavros Dimopoulos

This paper investigates whether and how G2G collaboration for policy and decision‐making can be effectively supported by an appropriately developed information system.

Abstract

Purpose

This paper investigates whether and how G2G collaboration for policy and decision‐making can be effectively supported by an appropriately developed information system.

Design/methodology/approach

The research method adopted in this paper follows the “Design Science Paradigm”, which has been extensively used in information systems research.

Findings

As resulted from the case study described in this paper, the proposed system has significant potential for supporting G2G collaboration for policy and decision‐making. It can support the collaborative understanding of social problems and needs, and the development of alternative actions or solutions for them. In addition, it can support the collaborative development of detailed action plans for the selected alternative(s). During the implementation of these actions, the system can be used for the collaborative monitoring of them, the identification of implementation problems and issues, and the development of alternatives for managing them. Finally, it can be also used for the collaborative evaluation of these actions by the involved public organizations, as well as the citizens and groups who are their recipients.

Practical implications

Enhanced public policy and decision‐making through the use of the proposed web‐based system.

Originality/value

The main contribution of this paper lies in the development of a web‐based system for supporting the G2G collaboration required for public policy and decision‐making in the public administration, as well as the creation, leveraging and utilization of the relevant knowledge. The proposed system allows for distributed, synchronous or asynchronous, G2G collaboration and aims at aiding the involved public organizations by providing them a series of argumentation, decision‐making and knowledge management features.

Details

Journal of Enterprise Information Management, vol. 18 no. 5
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1741-0398

Keywords

1 – 10 of over 3000