Giving Voice to the Voiceless: The Use of Digital Technologies by Marginalized Groups

This paper reports on a workshop hosted at the University of Massachusetts Amherst in September, 2018. The workshop, called “Giving Voice to the Voiceless: The Use of Digital Technologies by Marginalized Groups”, focused on discussing how marginalized groups use digital technologies to raise their voices. At the workshop, a diverse group of scholars and doctoral students presented research projects and perspectives on the role that digital technologies have in activist projects that represent marginalized groups that have gained momentum in the last few years. The studies and viewpoints presented shed light on four areas in which IS research can expand our understanding about how marginalized groups use digital technologies to address societal challenges: 1) the rise of cyberactivism, 2) resource mobilization for cyberactivism, 3) cyberactivism by and with marginalized groups, and 4) research methods for examining how marginalized groups use digital technologies

Evolving the theory and praxis of knowledge translation through social interaction: a social phenomenological study

Background: As an inherently human process fraught with subjectivity, dynamic interaction, and change, social interaction knowledge translation (KT) invites implementation scientists to explore what might be learned from adopting the academic tradition of social constructivism and an interpretive research approach. This paper presents phenomenological investigation of the second cycle of a participatory action KT intervention in the home care sector to answer the question: What is the nature of the process of implementing KT through social interaction? Methods: Social phenomenology was selected to capture how the social processes of the KT intervention were experienced, with the aim of representing these as typical socially-constituted patterns. Participants (n = 203), including service providers, case managers, administrators, and researchers organized into nine geographically-determined multi-disciplinary action groups, purposefully selected and audiotaped three meetings per group to capture their enactment of the KT process at early, middle, and end-of-cycle timeframes. Data, comprised of 36 hours of transcribed audiotapes augmented by researchers\u27 field notes, were analyzed using social phenomenology strategies and authenticated through member checking and peer review. Results: Four patterns of social interaction representing organization, team, and individual interests were identified: overcoming barriers and optimizing facilitators; integrating \u27science push\u27 and \u27demand pull\u27 approaches within the social interaction process; synthesizing the research evidence with tacit professional craft and experiential knowledge; and integrating knowledge creation, transfer, and uptake throughout everyday work. Achieved through relational transformative leadership constituted simultaneously by both structure and agency, in keeping with social phenomenology analysis approaches, these four patterns are represented holistically in a typical construction, specifically, a participatory action KT (PAKT) model. Conclusion: Study findings suggest the relevance of principles and foci from the field of process evaluation related to intervention implementation, further illuminating KT as a structuration process facilitated by evolving transformative leadership in an active and integrated context. The model provides guidance for proactively constructing a \u27fit\u27 between content, context, and facilitation in the translation of evidence informing professional craft knowledge

Negation and the functional sequence

There exists a general restriction on admissible functional sequences which prevents adjacent identical heads. We investigate a particular instantiation of this restriction in the domain of negation. Empirically, it manifests itself as a restriction the stacking of multiple negative morphemes. We propose a principled account of this restriction in terms of the general ban on immediately consecutive identical heads in the functional sequence on the one hand, and the presence of a Neg feature inside negative morphemes on the other hand. The account predicts that the stacking of multiple negative morphemes should be possible provided they are separated by intervening levels of structure. We show that this prediction is borne out

Laterality indices consensus initiative (LICI): A Delphi expert survey report on recommendations to record, assess, and report asymmetry in human behavioural and brain research

Laterality indices (LIs) are used to quantify the left-right asymmetry of a wide range of brain and behavioural variables and to provide a single measure that is statistically convenient and seemingly easy to interpret. However, there is substantial variability in how structural and functional asymmetries are recorded, calculated, and reported, suggesting little agreement on the conditions required for its valid assessment. The present study aimed for consensus on general aspects in this context of laterality research, and more specifically within a particular method or technique (i.e., dichotic listening, visual half-field technique, performance asymmetries, preference bias reports, electrophysiological recording, functional task-related MRI, structural MRI, and functional transcranial Doppler sonography). Experts in laterality research were recruited by snowball sampling and invited to participate in a three-round online Delphi survey to evaluate consensus and stimulate discussion. In Round 0, 106 experts generated 453 statements on what they considered good practice in their field of expertise. A team of moderators organized the statements into a 295-statement survey that the experts then were asked, in Round 1, to independently assess for perceived importance and their level of support, and further reduced the survey to 241 statements that were presented again to the experts in Round 2. Based on the Round 2 input, we present a set of critically reviewed key recommendations to record, assess, and report laterality research for various methods