The subtle difference between knowledge and 3D knowledge

This article discusses the implications of attaching three-dimensional artefacts with different labels such as visualisation, model or ‘virtual form’. The research focus is on how this affects the artefact itself, how it is produced and received, and in the end, how the artefact engages in knowledge production, and what kind of knowledge comes out of the process. It is proposed that there is not only a difference between knowledge and ‘three-dimensional’ knowledge but also between knowledge derived from artefacts called by different names. The three-dimensional artefacts are intermediaries or boundary objects between the past and the present, and the makers and users of these objects. Taking the differences in names and how they are linked to epistemological differences seriously and making them visible is argued to be a key to a more reflexive and productive making and use of three-dimensional artefacts

Archaeological practices, knowledge work and digitalisation

Defining what constitute archaeological practices is a prerequisite for understanding where and how archaeological and archaeologically relevant information and knowledge are made, what counts as archaeological information, and where the limits are situated. The aim of this position paper, developed as a part of the COST action Archaeological practices and knowledge work in the digital environment (www.arkwork.eu), is to highlight the need for at least a relative consensus on the extents of archaeological practices in order to be able to understand and develop archaeological practices and knowledge work in the contemporary digital context. The text discusses approaches to study archaeological practices and knowledge work including Nicolini’s notions of zooming in and zooming out, and proposes that a distinction between archaeological and archaeology-related practices could provide a way to negotiate the ‘archaeologicality’ of diverse practices

To whom it may concern? The users and uses of digital archaeological information

In order to ensure the functional, not only physical sustainability of the earlier and current archaeological information resources, a special emphasis is needed on the functional aspects of preservation. This paper reports on a study, which has explored the interface between the human patterns of information use and the methods of structuring and organizing archaeological information and knowledge. The empirical case study was based on a series of thematic interviews with archaeology professionals from the Nordic countries. The study informs future development of information systems and information services for archaeology and cultural heritage professionals. The results of the analysis shows that there are two critical success factors. Several recommendations are proposed on how to improve archaeological information work and its outcomes

Informaation ei niin lyhyt eikä erityisesti suoraviivainen historia

Arvio teoksesta: Gleick, James: Informaatio. Helsinki: Art House, 2013. Suom. Veli-Pekka Ketola

Organizational changes, trust and information sharing: an empirical study

Purpose While there is relatively plenty of evidence for the positive impact of communication on the perceptions of organizational change, how organizational changes affect information sharing is relatively unknown. The purpose of this paper is to investigate if a favorable perception of ongoing organizational changes has a positive impact on information sharing and whether trust mediates this relationship. Design/methodology/approach A questionnaire (n=317) was administered to the employees of a large Finnish multinational organization. Partial least square structural equation modeling was used to test the hypotheses based on earlier research findings. Findings The results show that a positive perception of recent organizational changes improves information sharing both directly and indirectly, mediated by trust. Consequently, when changes are perceived negatively, employees recoil from information sharing which is known to have negative implications for organizations. Research limitations/implications Data were collected in a single organization. The nature of the specific changes in the studied organization and its particularities undoubtedly had an effect on respondents’ perceptions. Originality/value This paper contributes to organizational information management research by elaborating on the relationship between organizational changes and interpersonal information sharing between employees. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first quantitative study confirming the impact of the perception of organizational changes on employee information-sharing behavior

Archaeological Practices, Knowledge Work and Digitalisation

Defining what constitute archaeological practices is a prerequisite for understanding where and how archaeological and archaeologically relevant information and knowledge are made, what counts as archaeological information, and where the limits are situated. The aim of this position paper, developed as a part of the COST action Archaeological practices and knowledge work in the digital environment (www.arkwork.eu), is to highlight the need for at least a relative consensus on the extents of archaeological practices in order to be able to understand and develop archaeological practices and knowledge work in the contemporary digital context. The text discusses approaches to study archaeological practices and knowledge work including Nicolini’s notions of zooming in and zooming out, and proposes that a distinction between archaeological and archaeology-related practices could provide a way to negotiate the ‘archaeologicality’ of diverse practices

Information behaviour research in dialogue with neighbouring fields

Information behaviour research has affinities with many neighbouring fields of research and practise. At the same time, a steady line of criticism has been directed to its modest impact and lack of meaningful dialogue with adjacent disciplines and the impact of information behaviour research on how people deal with information in various settings, and develop information systems and services. The lack of exchange has become increasingly evident as the term ’information behaviour’ has been adopted in disciplines far beyond the established information field. Besides impact of its results on research and practice in different domains, a livelier exchange can be expected to be enriching for information behaviour research itself. The purpose of the panel is to invite the members of the ISIC community to a discussion on the interfaces of information behaviour research with neighbouring research disciplines and practical domains. The panellists represent information behaviour researchers with an extensive experience of working in and with adjacent domains and bring their expertise to discuss with the audience 1) the relevance of information behaviour research and its findings in other domains, 2) what information behaviour research can learn from neighbouring fields, and 3) how the interdisciplinary dialogue could be promoted and nurtured.Peer Reviewe