Matching cognitively sympathetic individual styles to develop collective intelligence in digital communities
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.
KeywordsArgumentation research Cyber humanistic Cognition Collaboration Knowledge building Knowledge management Teamwork Virtual groups
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.
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.
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.
- Andriessen J (2006) Arguing to learn. In: Sawyer RK (ed) The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Routledge, Cambridge, pp 443–459Google Scholar
- Baruch Y, Nicholson N (1997) Home, sweet work: requirements for effective home working. J Gen Manag 23:15–31Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Chinn CA, Anderson RA, Waggoner MA (2001) Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Res Q 36(4):378–411Google Scholar
- De Bono E (2000) Thinking course. BBC Book, Great BritainGoogle Scholar
- dschool S (2015) Our point of view. http://dschool.stanford.edu/our-point-of-view/. Accessed 26 May 2016
- Dunn K, Dunn R, (1987) Dispelling Outmoded Beliefs about Student Learning. Educ Leadersh 44(6):55–62Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Plattner H, Meinel C, Weinberg U (2009) Design thinking. FinanzBuch Verlag, MünchenGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Scardamalia M, Bereiter C (2003) Knowledge building. In: Guthrie JW (ed) Encyclopedia of education. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Scardamalia M, Bereiter C (2010) A brief history of knowledge building. Can J Learning Technol 36:2Google Scholar
- 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
- Stahl G (2006) Group cognition: computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Routledge, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Wenger E, Snyder W (2000) Communities of practice: the organisational frontier. Harvard Bus Rev 78(1):139–145Google Scholar
- 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