Using Heider’s Epistemology of Thing and Medium for Unpacking the Conception of Documents: Gantt Charts and Boundary Objects

Documents play a central role for many organizational processes. Current conceptualizations of documents predominantly engage with documents in two different ways. One sees documents as things with specific properties, and a second sees documents as medium enabling communication across different groups of actors. What is currently not well understood is how documents are perceived either as thing or as medium. This chapter engages with this issue by drawing from Fritz Heider’s epistemology of thing and medium, a concept stemming from social and media theory. According to Heider things are uniform and medium are multiform. Applying this concept to documents we argue that documents as things are perceived as uniform, whereas documents as medium are perceived as multiform. We exemplify the application of this conception of documents in the context of Gantt charts and the concept of boundary objects

A webometric analysis of Australian Universities using staff and size dependent web impact factors (WIF)

This study describes how search engines (SE) can be employed for automated, efficient data gathering for Webometric studies using predictable URLs. It then compares the usage of staffrelated Web Impact Factors (WIFs) to sizerelated impact factors for a ranking of Australian universities, showing that rankings based on staffrelated WIFs correlate much better with an established ranking from the Melbourne Institute than commonly used sizedependent WIFs. In fact sizedependent WIFs do not correlate with the Melbourne ranking at all. It also compares WIF data for Australian Universities provided by Smith (1999) for a longitudinal comparison of the WIF of Australian Universities over the last decade. It shows that sizedependent WIF values declined for most Australian universities over the last ten years, while staffdependent WIFs rose

The rise of metrics and fall of academic autonomy: the digital future of academic freedom

As citation-based metrics are increasingly used for measuring research performance, the formation of academics’ research choices and conceptions of academic freedom are affected. Critically examining the behaviours of academics in today’s competitive publishing landscape, we argue that creeping managerial practices are shaping research choices and perceived opportunities. In addition, observation indicates that the way in which academic freedom is conceptualised is changing as a result of considering academic performance through metrics. This raises questions of whether and to what extent professional and academic autonomy remains in the hands of authors or are instead being outsourced to metrics. Based on 21 semi-structured interviews with academics across the humanities and social sciences, we found metrics relating to assessment, rankings and funding all direct research choices. This research-in-progress paper identifies key issues and outlines future research to understand the wider influence of metrification

A webometric analysis of Australian Universities using staff and size dependent web impact factors (WIF)

This study describes how search engines (SE) can be employed for automated, efficient data gathering for Webometric studies using predictable URLs. It then compares the usage of staffrelated Web Impact Factors (WIFs) to sizerelated impact factors for a ranking of Australian universities, showing that rankings based on staffrelated WIFs correlate much better with an established ranking from the Melbourne Institute than commonly used sizedependent WIFs. In fact sizedependent WIFs do not correlate with the Melbourne ranking at all. It also compares WIF data for Australian Universities provided by Smith (1999) for a longitudinal comparison of the WIF of Australian Universities over the last decade. It shows that sizedependent WIF values declined for most Australian universities over the last ten years, while staffdependent WIFs rose

Human Agency in AI Configurations Supporting Organizational Decision-making

The integration of human intelligence with Artificial Intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly essential for leveraging benefits in organizational decision-making. This necessitates to understand human-AI collaboration configurations for managing collaborative intelligence. However, existing literature on Human-AI collaboration lacks structure and is fragmented regarding what exactly human intelligence (HI) contributes to AI collaboration and how AI systems can be configured in the decision-making process. This paper undertakes an organizing literature review to consolidate insights from existing literature. We identify six types of human agency as involved in collaborative intelligence and synthesize the findings into six Human-AI collaborative configurations explained by a matrix framework. By illuminating the complexities of Human-AI collaboration, the framework sheds light on the need for a nuanced understanding of the imbricating roles of HI and AI in decision-making, with important implications for the design and implementation of AI systems for organizational decision-making

Literature reviews and the hermeneutic circle

Conducting a literature review is a vital part of any research. Library and information science (LIS) professionals often play a central role in supporting academics in their efforts to locate relevant publications and in teaching novice researchers skills associated with literature reviews. This paper examines literature review processes with the aim to contribute to better understanding of their complexity and uncertainty and to propose a new approach to literature reviews that is capable of dealing with such complexity and uncertainty

Libcitations: A Measure for Comparative Assessment of Book Publications in the Humanities and Social Sciences

Bibliometric measures for evaluating research units in the book-oriented humanities and social sciences are underdeveloped relative to those available for journal-oriented science and technology. We therefore present a new measure designed for book-oriented fields: the “libcitation count.” This is a count of the libraries holding a given book, as reported in a national or international union catalog. As librarians decide what to acquire for the audiences they serve, they jointly constitute an instrument for gauging the cultural impact of books. Their decisions are informed by knowledge not only of audiences but also of the book world, e.g., the reputations of authors and the prestige of publishers. From libcitation counts, measures can be derived for comparing research units. Here, we imagine a matchup between the departments of history, philosophy, and political science at the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney in Australia. We chose the 12 books from each department that had the highest libcitation counts in the Libraries Australia union catalog during 2000–2006. We present each book’s raw libcitation count, its rank within its LC class, and its LC-class normalized libcitation score. The latter is patterned on the item-oriented field normalized citation score used in evaluative bibliometrics. Summary statistics based on these measures allow the departments to be compared for cultural impact. Our work has implications for programs such as Excellence in Research for Australia and the Research Assessment Exercise in the United Kingdom. It also has implications for data mining in OCLC’s WorldCat

Informations und bibliothekswissenschaftliche Zeitschriften in Literaturdatenbanken

Professional journals play an important role in the dissemination of research results and activity reports among scientists and practitioners. This article gives a brief introduction into the field of informetrics with the purpose of presenting a list of journals in the field of library and information science (LIS ; in German: IuB). By combining ten different lists of journals from databases which cover the relevant literature in this field, a comprehensive list of 1205 professional journals could be assembled. Based on the frequency of appearance in the list, it is possible to rank individual titles by significance to the field. Four different categories of journals were identified: fifteen core journals, 88 central journals, 173 selective journals, and 672 marginal journals. Further features of the study include language of publication, geographical distribution, and the overlap of various databases with one another

Journal Impact Factors for evaluating scientific performance : use of h-like indicators

This article introduces the Impact Factor squared or IF²-index, an h-like indicator of research performance. This indicator reflects the degree to which large entities such as countries and/or their states participate in top-level research in a field or subfield. The IF²-index uses the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) of research publications instead of the number of citations. This concept is applied to other h-type indexes and their results compared to the IF²-index. These JIF-based indexes are then used to assess the overall performance of cancer research in Australia and its states over 8 years from 1999 to 2006. The IF²-index has three advantages when evaluating larger research units: firstly, it provides a stable value that does not change over time, reflecting the degree to which a research unit participated in top-level research in a given year; secondly, it can be calculated closely approximating the publication date of yearly datasets; and finally, it provides an additional dimension when a full article-based citation analysis is not feasible. As the index reflects the degree of participation in top-level research it may favor larger units when units of different sizes are compared