Advertisement

AI & SOCIETY

pp 1–11 | Cite as

Matching cognitively sympathetic individual styles to develop collective intelligence in digital communities

  • Salim ChujfiEmail author
  • Christoph Meinel
Original Article

Abstract

Creation, collection and retention of knowledge in digital communities is an activity that currently requires being explicitly targeted as a secure method of keeping intellectual capital growing in the digital era. In particular, we consider it relevant to analyze and evaluate the empathetic cognitive personalities and behaviors that individuals now have with the change from face-to-face communication (F2F) to computer-mediated communication (CMC) online. This document proposes a cyber-humanistic approach to enhance the traditional SECI knowledge management model. A cognitive perception is added to its cyclical process following design thinking interaction, exemplary for improvement of the method in which knowledge is continuously created, converted and shared. In building a cognitive-centered model, we specifically focus on the effective identification and response to cognitive stimulation of individuals, as they are the intellectual generators and multiplicators of knowledge in the online environment. Our target is to identify how geographically distributed—digital—organizations should align the individual’s cognitive abilities to promote iteration and improve interaction as a reliable stimulant of collective intelligence. The new model focuses on analyzing the four different stages of knowledge processing, where individuals with sympathetic cognitive personalities can significantly boost knowledge creation in a virtual social system. For organizations, this means that multidisciplinary individuals can maximize their extensive potential, by externalizing their knowledge in the correct stage of the knowledge creation process, and by collaborating with their appropriate sympathetically cognitive remote peers.

Keywords

Argumentation research Cyber humanistic Cognition Collaboration Knowledge building Knowledge management Teamwork Virtual groups 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This article is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled “Prototyping a Cognitive-Centered Model to Improve Knowledge Creation in Geographically Distributed Teams” presented at the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Applications (ICKEA), Singapore, 2016, pp. 181–187.

Author contributions

SC carried out the evaluation of theories and models, validated the different cognitive dimensions and participated in the evaluation of different scenarios and results with a team of teleworkers in Austria. The sequence alignment and drafting of the manuscript was done by SC. CM led the design of the study.

Funding

This research has not received any funding and is part of a doctoral promotion at the Hasso Plattner Institute, which is affiliated to Potsdam University in Germany.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Agreements with organizations working with teleworkers have been undertaken to anonymously collect information. Data protection agreements remain unchanged.

Availability of data and material

Data collected from organizations and their teleworkers are under data protection agreement and cannot be shared even if they are anonymously collected and evaluated.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Ahuja MK, Galletta DF, Carley KM (2003) Individual centrality and performance in virtual R&D groups: an empirical study. Manag Sci 49(1):21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alavi M, Leidner DE (2001) Review: knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quart 25:107–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allport FH, Lepkin M (1943) Building war morale with news headlines. Public Opin Quart 7:211–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andriessen J (2006) Arguing to learn. In: Sawyer RK (ed) The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Routledge, Cambridge, pp 443–459Google Scholar
  5. Baruch Y, Nicholson N (1997) Home, sweet work: requirements for effective home working. J Gen Manag 23:15–31Google Scholar
  6. Chan CK (2013) K. Collaborative knowledge building: Towards a knowledge creation perspective. In: Hmelo-Silver CE, Chinn CA, Chan C. K. K., O’Donnell AM (eds) International handbook of collaborative learning. Routledge, New York, pp 437–461Google Scholar
  7. Chinn CA (2006) Learning to argue. In: O’Donnell AM, Hmelo-Silver C, Erkens G (eds) Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology. Routledge, Mahwah, pp 355–383Google Scholar
  8. Chinn CA, Anderson RA, Waggoner MA (2001) Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Res Q 36(4):378–411Google Scholar
  9. Chinn CA, Anderson RC, Waggoner MA (2001) Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Read Res Quart 36:378–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark DB, Sampson VD (2007) Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. Int J Sci Educ 29:253–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daft RL, Lengel RH (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Manag Sci 32:554–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Bono E (2000) Thinking course. BBC Book, Great BritainGoogle Scholar
  13. dschool S (2015) Our point of view. http://dschool.stanford.edu/our-point-of-view/. Accessed 26 May 2016
  14. Dunn K, Dunn R, (1987) Dispelling Outmoded Beliefs about Student Learning. Educ Leadersh 44(6):55–62Google Scholar
  15. Ferrari M, Sternberg RJ (1998) The development of mental abilities and styles. In: Damon W, Kuhn D, Siegler RS (eds) Handbook of child psychology: vol 2, 5th edn. Wiley, NY, pp 899–946Google Scholar
  16. Fischer F, Kollar I, Ufer S, Sodian B, Hussmann H, Pekrun R, Eberle J (2014) Scientific reasoning and argumentation: advancing an interdisciplinary research agenda in education. Front Learning Res 2:28–45Google Scholar
  17. Heald MR, Contractor NS, Koehly LM, Wasserman S (1998) Formal and emergent predictors of coworkers perceptual congruence on an organizations social structure. Hum Commun Res 24:536–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hewitt J, Scardamalia M (1998) Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes. Educ Psychol Rev 10:75–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hill EJ, Miller BC, Weiner SP, Colihan J (1998) Influences of the virtual office on aspects of work and work/life balance. Pers Psychol 51:667–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hutchins E (1995) How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cogn Sci 19:265–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Järvelä S, Hadwin AF (2013) New frontiers: regulating learning in CSCL. Educ Psychol 48:25–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jarvenpaa SL, Leidner DE (1999) Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organ Sci 10(6):791–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jehng JJ (1997) The psycho-social processes and cognitive effects of peer-based collaborative interactions with computers. J Educ Comput Res 17:19–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kimmerle J, Cress U (2008) Group awareness and self-presentation in computer-supported information exchange. Int J Comput Support Collab Learning. 3:85–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ko D-G, Kirsch LJ, King WR (2005) Antecedents of knowledge transfer from consultants to clients in enterprise system implementations. MIS Q 29:59–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mark G (2001) Meeting current challenges for virtually collocated teams: participation, culture, and integration. In: Chidambaram L, Zigurs I (eds) Our virtual world: the transformation of work, play and life via technology. Idea group publishing, Hershey, pp 74–93 InCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nonaka I, Toyama R (2003) The knowledge—creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowl Manag Res Pract 1:2–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Paul DL, McDaniel RR Jr (2004) A field study of the effect of interpersonal trust on virtual collaborative relationship performance. MIS Q 28:2183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Plattner H, Meinel C, Weinberg U (2009) Design thinking. FinanzBuch Verlag, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  30. Scardamalia M (2002) Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In: Smith B (ed) Liberal education in a knowledge society. Routledge, Chicago, pp 67–98Google Scholar
  31. Scardamalia M, Bereiter C (1994) Computer support for knowledge-building communities. J Learning Sci 3:265–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scardamalia M, Bereiter C (2003) Knowledge building. In: Guthrie JW (ed) Encyclopedia of education. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Scardamalia M, Bereiter C (2010) A brief history of knowledge building. Can J Learning Technol 36:2Google Scholar
  34. Shelley Evenson S, Dubberly G (2011) Design as learning or knowledge creation the SECI model, ACM interactions, volume XVIII. January + February 2011—on modeling forumGoogle Scholar
  35. Stahl G (2006) Group cognition: computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Routledge, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Sternberg RJ (1997) Thinking styles. Cambridge University Press, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stout RJ, Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Milanovich DM (1999) Planning, shared mental models, and coordi-nated performance: an empirical link is established. Hum Factors 41:61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taranto MA (1989) Facets of wisdom: a theoretical synthesis. Int J Aging Hum Dev 29:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Volkma RJ, Gorman RH (1998) The influence of cognitive-based group composition on decisionmaking process and outcome. J Manag Stud 35:105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wenger E, Snyder W (2000) Communities of practice: the organisational frontier. Harvard Bus Rev 78(1):139–145Google Scholar
  41. Wieland R (1999) Mental workload in VDU-assisted office work: Consequences for the design of telework. Zeitschrift Fur Arbeits Und Organisationaspsychol 43:153–158Google Scholar
  42. Woolley AW (2010) Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330:686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Workman M, Kahnweiler W, Bommer WH (2003) The effects of cognitive style and technology media on commitment to telework and virtual teams. J Vocat Behav 63:199–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhang J, Scardamalia M, Reeve R, Messina R (2009) Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. J Learning Sci 18:7–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hasso Plattner InstitutePotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations