Search results

By establishing a conceptual path through the field of artificial intelligence for objectivistic knowledge artifacts (KAs), the purpose of this paper is to propose an extension to their design principles. The author uses these principles to deploy KAs for knowledge acquired in scientific processes, to determine whether these principles steer the design of KAs that are amenable for both human and computational manipulation.

Adopting the design principles mentioned above, the author describes the deployment of KAs in collaboration with a group of scientists to represent knowledge gained in scientific processes. The author then analyzes the resulting usage data.

Usage data reveal that human scientists could enter scientific KAs within the proposed structure. The scientists were able to create associations among them, search and retrieve KAs, and reuse them in drafts of reports to funding agencies. These results were observed when scientists were motivated by imminent incentives.

Previous work has shown that objectivistic KAs are suitable for representing knowledge in computational processes. The data analyzed in this work show that they are suitable for representing knowledge in processes conducted by humans. The need for imminent incentives to motivate humans to contribute KAs suggests a limitation, which may be attributed to the exclusively objectivistic perspective in their design. The author hence discusses the adoption of situativity principles for a more beneficial implementation of KAs.

The suitability for interaction with both human and computational processes makes objectivistic KAs candidates for use as metadata to intersect humans and computers, particularly for scientific processes. The author found no previous work implementing objectivistic KAs for scientific knowledge.

The purpose of this paper is to overcome the confusion generated by a loose definition of the term knowledge artifact (KA) and its impacts on the design of technologies supporting their use.

The paper looks at the conceptual foundations underpinning the concept of KA that are related to the way in which knowledge is conceived, and revisits the outcomes of empirical investigations to shed light on different aspects of the use of KA in various settings.

The paper identifies a class of KAs and its role in relation to other classes of KAs, as it emerges from the empirical investigations.

The focus is on documental artifacts that are, however, widely used in different domains and organizations. New empirical work is needed to consider other kinds of artifacts and their role in knowledge-intense activities.

The paper aims to drive the attention of the designer on phenomena that hinder the acceptance, appropriation and effectiveness of the technologies they design to support a crucial aspect of collaboration.

The paper is original in the following ways: first, documenting the interplay between a kind of KA that is poorly considered in the literature with other classes of KAs; second, highlighting a set of principles that should guide the construction of computational KAs of a different nature.

The purpose of this paper is the conceptual expansion of the science-theoretical foundations of information science, i.e. to develop new thought schemes for information science.

The design of the paper is as follows: first, the paper will discuss the foundation of the systemic paradigm (SP). Then the authors will consider the history of information science related to the philosophy of science. In the remaining part of the paper, the authors will investigate information science and its relation to the philosophy of science, focusing on SP.

In conclusion, the authors will summarise the seven criteria for the application of SP in information science.

Paradigms in information science have rarely reflected upon the use of a SP in information science.

The practical use of the seven criteria in information science Criterion 1: make your premises, suppositions, prerequisites and motives explicit. Criterion 2: make your moral/ethical results and consequences explicit. Criterion 3: research should be evaluated in relation to the transcendence of knowledge. Criterion 4: emphasise methodical pluralism, i.e. empirical generalisations and conceptual generalisations. Criterion 5: emphasise proximity and in-depth studies. Criterion 6: look for patterns and patterns which combine. Criterion 7: look for the power behind the patterns.

The opinion is that scientists to a great extent should seek knowledge on the basis of a belief, a specific way of thinking, and by means of specific methods. To make the authors belief explicit makes the way of thinking visible. What the authors achieve, and possibly the only thing the authors can achieve, is to reaffirm the conscious belief. This does not make reality more real, but it could put the authors in a better position to see through the authors way of thinking when faced with scientific problems. This indicates that a scientific study should emphasise all three entities: “The Context of Discovery”, “The Context of Justification” and “The Context of Solution”. These three entities, according to SP, make up the unity of the scientific process.

The seven criteria entail that Kuhn’s argumentative chain (where he tries to find out why theory A is preferred to theory B on a rational pretext) does not concur with SP. This indicates that a scientific study should emphasise all three entities: “The Context of Discovery”, “The Context of Justification” and “The Context of Solution”. These three entities, according to SP, make up the unity of the scientific process.

Knowledge is supposedly a good ally of the future. Postproject reviews aim to create knowledge and improvements based on the past, but what happens when those observations are ambiguous? Based on intriguing observations on developing structured postproject reviews, implications of the ambiguities of the past are analyzed and discussed.

The present research departed from an interactive clinical action research approach (Schein, 1987), employing several rounds of interaction over 11 months. The studied company had a clear objective to improve its project evaluations and learn from three past projects to improve future ones by developing a framework to facilitate project evaluation.

Despite top management support and a benevolent organizational climate, the development process encountered problems. The list of issues to consider grew ever more extensive, and the expected data refinement and accompanying insights did not happen. Participants debated what to observe, and there was uncertainty about how to link the elements and confusion and disagreement about what was learned.

Learning from past projects was more problematic and difficult than predicted based on the postproject review literature. The past did purvey multiple interpretations.

Learning from the past is not effective if the goal is generating causal knowledge, scoring forms and checklists for future use. Postproject reviews provide an opportunity to decide what the past should be about rather than identifying what it was about.

The past might appear stable, but, when examined, ambiguity emerges. Research on knowledge generation from postproject reviews assumes that a project’s past is more or less stable and agreed upon. However, this study addresses the critical role of ambiguity about the past and the challenges when organizations try to learn from history through project reviews and evaluation processes.

The purpose of this paper is to explore and discuss some of the possibilities and risks that one can encounter in the process of doing ethnographic organization research with an at-home approach.

The paper draws on self-reflexive analyses of a four-year research process, where the author – a rock musician – investigated how rock bands within the author’s social networks organize their activities. The materials used for analysis were notes and diaries, as well as reflections on memories.

The findings illustrate aspects of the researcher’s “breaking out” process, which involved the researcher’s initial impulse to leave his practitioner-self, a subsequent lack of interest and eventually a return to what felt genuinely intriguing for him to study. The paper argues that one important aspect of the at-home researcher’s breaking out process may involve an active recognition of his/her practitioner-self as a resource – not least to avoid losing interest or getting lost in abstractions.

This paper conceptualizes and builds further upon previous discussions on at-home research, adding insights into the “breaking out” process and the curious paradox of the proposed necessity for the researcher to leave and utilize his/her at-home experience and familiarity.

Although questions about nonhuman animal mind and selfhood have been a long-standing interest of philosophers, psychologists, biologists, and cognitive ethologists, sociologists have been reluctant to acknowledge the importance of such questions. This is due, in part, to George Herbert Mead’s denial of consciousness, especially self-consciousness, in animals. Indeed, the exclusion of nonhuman consciousness was a fundamental axiom of Mead’s very conceptions of mind and self. However, recently a growing number symbolic interactionists have begun to build a body of research that demands a reconsideration of Mead’s anthropocentric and phonocentric definitions of mind, self, and the nonhuman participants who cohabit the everyday world of social life. Here we provide a brief account of their work and present evidence from evolutionary biology, cognitive ethology, and neuroscience that strongly validates their contention that the processes of consciousness and self, which constitute the cornerstone of meaningful social action and interaction, can no longer be denied to several species of nonhuman animals.

The purpose of this paper is to perform a typological analysis of research orientations in the field of organizational culture (OC) in order to provide a broad, original perspective on the nature of research in this field, beyond the current quantitative/qualitative dichotomy.

Documentary analysis, consisting of a content analysis of an appropriate and conceptually convenient selection of 200 source publications, was conducted. The analysis was performed in terms of four fundamental knowledge orientations and methodologies.

An analysis and description of the chosen set of examples for each of the four types of knowledge showed that, as with other areas in the field of organizational behavior and management (and also other scholarly disciplines), the typology finds clear expression in the area of OC.

In view of the aim and originality of the present paper, the sample size employed is not a worrying factor as sufficient and clear examples of each of the four basic types of research orientations have been provided. It is recommended that the broadly applicable knowledge (and by implication research) orientations that were introduced here, be considered by OC researchers. The analysis of fundamental approaches to research provides an inclusive perspective on the nature of different ways of studying and understanding OC. This should assist in expanding both scholarly and practitioner horizons. It is concluded that the analysis of research in the field of OC in terms of fundamental types of human knowledge provides a unique and expanded view on research in this area.

All stakeholders in the field of human resource management could benefit from taking cognizance of a broader perspective of knowledge development in the field of OC. The four-fold framework could also be utilized as a valuable source for restructuring and teaching of research methodology programs and courses in institutions of higher education, especially concerning the general need for greater attention to: theoretical (type I), and evaluation (type IV) research in management and organizational behavior.

The analysis of fundamental knowledge orientations provides an original and encompassing perspective on the nature of different approaches to the study and understanding of OC.

Questions the relationship between information science, the theory of science, and ethics. Defines the differences between the views of the theory of science used in information science and introduces the concept “The context of solution”, in addition to the entities “The context of discovery” and “The context of justification”. These three contexts constitute what is thought should be normative for the research community. Finally couples this unit to moral/ethical consequence considerations, where the basis is local knowledge. Concludes with a model for the integration of science and ethics.

The use of metaphoric language has grown in prevalence in recent years. Frontline organizations have become “magical kingdoms”: ethereal places where image and substance rarely coincide, and where metaphors turn into powerful tools for consultants and change agents. At the same time, scholars explore the “wonderful world of metaphors”. Once simple figures of speech, metaphors have been transformed into a respectable approach for organizational analysis. Although millenarian, the theatre metaphor constitutes an attractive system of ideas for studying organizational phenomena. In this paper, the theatre metaphor is used as a point of departure for the development of another dramaturgical metaphor: the cinema metaphor. It is suggested that the latter might provide a better perspective for studying contemporary organizations in the age of spectacle.