The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Actionable Knowledge: Design Causality in the Service of Consequential Theory
Abstract
Knowledge produced by empirical research can have external validity, which means it is relevant to the everyday world. Actionable knowledge is that knowledge required to implement the external validity (relevance) in that world. The claim is made that the concept of causality that underlies much rigorous empirical research makes it difficult to transform knowledge with high external validity into actionable knowledge. Moreover, this concept of causality can lead to knowledge that, if made actionable, could inhibit learning and, in some cases, produce undesirable unethical consequences. A different concept of causality is proposed that enhances actionability. Design causality is defined, and how it can be implemented is illustrated.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Big data analytics: transforming data to action
Bumblauskas, D., Nold, H., Bumblauskas, P., & Igou, A. (2017) · Business Process Management Journal · doi:10.1108/bpmj-03-2016-0056 · Cited by 130
Metadata
- Authors
- Argyris, C.
- Venue
- The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1996-12
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 390-406
- ISSN
- 0021-8863 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-6879
- OpenAlex
- W1982408789
- Cited by
- 261
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
