The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing
Abstract
Knowledge-intensive firms are composed of multiple communities with specialized expertise, and are often characterized by lateral rather than hierarchical organizational forms. We argue that producing knowledge to create innovative products and processes in such firms requires the ability to make strong perspectives within a community, as well as the ability to take the perspective of another into account. We present models of language, communication and cognition that can assist in the design of electronic communication systems for perspective making and perspective taking. By appreciating how communication is both like a language game played in a local community and also like a transmission of messages through a conduit, and by appreciating how cognition includes a capacity to narrativize our experience as well as a capacity to process information, we identify some guidelines for designing electronic communication systems to support knowledge work. The communication systems we propose emphasize that narratives can help construct strong perspectives within a community of knowing, and that reflecting upon and representing that perspective can create boundary objects which allow for perspective taking between communities. We conclude by describing our vision of an idealized knowledge intensive firm with a strong culture of perspective making and perspective taking, and by identifying some elements of the electronic communication systems we would expect to see in such a firm.
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
Cites
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation
Nonaka, I. (1994) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14 · Cited by 17,809
Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1997) · Reis · doi:10.2307/40183951 · Cited by 11,113
Information richness. A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1983) · doi:10.21236/ada128980 · Cited by 2,263 · cited 1×
“discussing media richness ( Daft and Lengel, 1984 ) and organization design (Galbraith,”
Background
Cited by
Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.13.3.249.2776 · Cited by 3,021
Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654311404435 · Cited by 2,361
Service Innovation: A Service-Dominant Logic Perspective1
Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2015/39.1.07 · Cited by 1,949
Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory
Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0612 · Cited by 1,753
Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework
Ipe, M. (2003) · Human Resource Development Review · doi:10.1177/1534484303257985 · Cited by 1,608
Metadata
- Authors
- Boland, R. J., & Tenkasi, R. V.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 1995-08
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 350-372
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2067825856
- Cited by
- 2,100
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 52.83
- 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.