Understanding Users’ Response to Ontology Based Systems in the Context of an Enterprise Sponsored Virtual Community

  • Carla Pereira
  • Manuel Silva
  • Joana Fernandes
  • António Lucas Soares
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 243)


This paper aims at presenting the preliminary results of a research work that seeks to understand the users’ response to semantic based technologies, in the context of enterprise sponsored virtual communities. The research follows a qualitative methodology based on an action research approach. It particularly focuses on the socio-cognitive processes that underlie users’ learning and acquisition methods when training and interacting with a new knowledge management approach based on semantically enabled technologies in a collaborative, and sometimes virtual, learning/working environment. The outcomes of this research are expected to provide an assessment framework for a deeper level understanding of the cognition process in what concerns the evolution of individual’s knowledge, opinions, beliefs, and thoughts about ontology based systems.


Construction Industry Collaborative Network Action Research Approach Semantic Resource Action Research Cycle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Avison D, Lau F, Myers M, Nielsen P. Action research. Communications of the ACM, 42(1), 1999, 94–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baskcrvillc RL. Investigating Information Systems with Action Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2(19), October 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blumcnfcld P, Soloway E, Marx R, Krajcik J, Guzdial M, Palincsar A. Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3 & 4), 369–398, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boren MT, Ramey J. Thinking aloud: Reconciling theory and practice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 43(3), 261–278, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campione, JC, Brown AL. Guided learning and transfer: Implications for approaches to assessment. in N. Fredericksen, R. Glasser, A. Lesgold & M. G. Shafto (Orgs.), Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge acquisition (pp. 141–172). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carr W, Kemmis S.Becoming critical: education knowledge and action research. London: Falmcr Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Creswell J. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Chosing Among Five Traditions, United Kingdom, Sage Publications, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ericsson KA., Simon HA. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fowler D, Swatman P. Building Information systems Development Methods: Synthesising from a Basis in both Theory and Practice, Australian Software Engineering Conference, pp. 110–117, IEEE Computer Society, Adelaide South Australia, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Brien R. An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research. Faculty of Information Studies, University of Toronto, 1998. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carla Pereira
    • 1
    • 4
  • Manuel Silva
    • 1
    • 3
  • Joana Fernandes
    • 1
    • 3
  • António Lucas Soares
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.INESC PortoPortugal
  2. 2.Fac. Engineering Univ. PortoPortugal
  3. 3.ISCAP-IPPPortugal
  4. 4.ESTGF-IPPPortugal

Personalised recommendations