Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015843712 = product of:
  0.04753113 = sum of:
    0.04753113 = product of:
      0.09506226 = sum of:
        0.09506226 = weight(_text_:group in 4994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09506226 = score(doc=4994,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.43394202 = fieldWeight in 4994, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The authors describe a study of the social dynamics of new media in Scottish households. The evolving project drew on dialogues with multiple household members elicited in group conversations. This approach to interviews captured different and conflicting points of view, a feature shared with certain social approaches to systems design. Analysis of the interview transcripts revealed that there are recurrent narratives and behavioral genres across households (and across sample groups), and that these reflect tactics, stratagems, and plans by means of which respondents navigate social space. The authors' approach contrasts with prevailing "needs and uses" models in information science, in offering a methodological framework based on group narrative and genre analysis that contributes to a theory of social informatics in the household

0.013070395 = product of:
  0.039211184 = sum of:
    0.039211184 = product of:
      0.07842237 = sum of:
        0.07842237 = weight(_text_:group in 1670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07842237 = score(doc=1670,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.35798392 = fieldWeight in 1670, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1670)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Communities of practice have been identified as sites where knowledge is created in organisations. The author reviews studies of situated learning and situated action and suggests that these two activities may characterise the learning process in communities of practice where they are supported by a distinctive 'social' infrastructure. She analyses recent fieldwork in three online communities (a digital library reference service, a virtual enterprise and an online shopping group) to discover to what extent they may be described as communities of practice, and to establish how they support participants' learning.

0.011203195 = product of:
  0.033609584 = sum of:
    0.033609584 = product of:
      0.06721917 = sum of:
        0.06721917 = weight(_text_:group in 4293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06721917 = score(doc=4293,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.30684334 = fieldWeight in 4293, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4293)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A community of practice has recently been defined as "a flexible group of professionals, informally bound by common interests, who interact through interdependent tasks guided by a common purpose thereby embodying a store of common knowledge" (Jubert, 1999, p. 166). The association of communities of practice with the production of collective knowledge has long been recognized, and they have been objects of study for a number of decades in the context of professional communication, particularly communication in science (Abbott, 1988; Bazerman & Paradis, 1991). Recently, however, they have been invoked in the domain of organization studies as sites where people learn and share insights. If, as Stinchcombe suggests, an organization is "a set of stable social relations, dehberately created, with the explicit intention of continuously accomplishing some specific goals or purposes" (Stinchcombe, 1965, p. 142), where does this "flexible" and "embodied" source of knowledge fit? Can communities of practice be harnessed, engineered, and managed like other organizational groups, or does their strength lie in the fact that they operate outside the stable and persistent social relations that characterize the organization?

0.010687098 = product of:
  0.032061294 = sum of:
    0.032061294 = product of:
      0.06412259 = sum of:
        0.06412259 = weight(_text_:22 in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06412259 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

31. 7.2001 20:22:57

0.009335997 = product of:
  0.028007988 = sum of:
    0.028007988 = product of:
      0.056015976 = sum of:
        0.056015976 = weight(_text_:group in 103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056015976 = score(doc=103,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.2557028 = fieldWeight in 103, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=103)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The authors propose a system for organizing situational knowledge, or knowledge of appropriate conduct, in workplaces that rely on web-based interaction. The conceptual framework that underlies the system is based on five propositions. First, recurrent and routine practice in organizations is articulated in, and co-evolves with distinct documentary forms, or genres. Second, the presence of sets of documentary genres in a group or other form of organization is indicative of activities that characterize such organization. Third, such indexicality may be observed at different levels of organization (the project, the unit, the firm), and clusters of genres at different levels of aggregation may provide profiles of activities at those different levels. Fourth, a notation (such as XML) which captures the 'shape' of documents may be used to model flexible documentary 'compounds' that capture situational knowledge, or knowledge of appropriate activity in an organization. Fifth, such encodings may be used compare organizations and sort them on the basis of their genre and activity profiles; visualization may accelerate the sorting process. An activity classifying system that integrates these proposals might improve organizational experience in a number of evaluative contexts (like benchmarking, team formation, or merger)

0.007468797 = product of:
  0.02240639 = sum of:
    0.02240639 = product of:
      0.04481278 = sum of:
        0.04481278 = weight(_text_:group in 285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04481278 = score(doc=285,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.20456223 = fieldWeight in 285, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=285)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Household Information Systems (HIS) project in Queen Margaret College was funded to explore the use of new media in a group of Edinburgh households (Davenport & Higgins, 1995). One of the motivations of the HIS 'programme' was to find a suitable theoretical and/or exploratory framework, which takes account of multiple aspects of behaviour surrounding technologies, and thus avoids assumptions about their role in information-seeking or other isolated activities. A focus on single activities would occlude knowledge of other motivations: bonding, killing time, defining boundaries. In Phase One, `information management' rather than `information seeking' was used as a conceptual framework, embracing work on the `life cycle' of ICTs as illustrated by Kopytoffs `biography of things' approach (1986), Johnson's cultural circuit (1986), research on households as micro-organisations by McCrone and his colleagues (1994), and work by Silverstone and others on ICTs in the home as tools for internal and external adaptation (Silverstone, 1994, Silverstone et al 1994). The `management' framework has been productive - Phase One allowed us to identify patterns of ICT acquisition and deployment in the home, and, more interestingly, structures of appropriation which reflect rules, roles and responsibilities in individual households. These constitute what may be called a `reproduction lattice' (adapting terminology used by Kling (1987) in his analysis of the `web of computing' in organisations), a structure which captures the political and cultural economy of a household. Phase One's findings are consistent with those of other researchers working in the area of domestic consumption of ICTs but a major limitation of the work is the homogeneous nature of the respondents. Among our Edinburgh 'household managers', internal culture was a more compelling explanation for use than technical functionality.