Activity systems, information sharing and the development of organizational knowledge in two Finnish firm s: An exploratory study using Activity Theory

Information Research

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2007, Pages

  Widén Wulff, Gunilla ^a   Davenport, Elisabeth ^b  

^a ÅBO AKADEMI UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

^b EDINBURGH NAPIER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247483047     PISSN: None     EISSN: 13681613     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Bartlett, J. & Toms, E. (2005). Developing a protocol for bioinformatics analysis: an integrated information behaviour and task analysis approach. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(5), 469-482
2. Bates, M.J. (2005). Information and knowledge: an evolutionary framework for information scienceInformation Research, 10(4) Retrieved 22 February 2007 from http://InformationR.net/ir/10-4/paper239.html
3. Bowker, G. &Star, L. (1999). Sorting things out. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
4. Byström, K. & Hansen, P. (2002). Work tasks as units for analysis in information. In H. Bruce, R. Fidel, P. Ingwersen & P. Vakkari (Eds.)Emerging Frameworks and Methods. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Concepts of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4) (pp. 239-251). Greenwood Village: Libraries Unlimited.
5. Capurro, R. (1997). Stable knowledge? Paper presented at the workshop: Knowledge for the Future - Wissen für die Zukunft, Brandenburgische Technische Universitüt Cottbus, Zentrum für Technik und Gesellschaft, March 19-21 1997. Retrieved 10 February 2007 from http:// www.capurro.de/cottbus.htm
6. Chatman, E. &Pendleton, V. (1995). Knowledge gap, information-seeking and the poor. Reference Librarian, (49/50), 135-145
7. Cool, C. &Belkin, N.J. (2002). A classificationn of interactions with information. In H. Bruce, R. Fidel, P. Ingwersen & P. Vakkari (Eds.)Emerging Frameworks and Methods. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Concepts of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4) (pp. 1-15). Greenwood Village: Libraries Unlimited.
8. Davenport E. & Snyder, H. (2005). Managing social capital. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 39, 517-550.
9. Dervin, B. (1992). From the mind's eye of the user: the sense-making qualitative-quantitative methodology. In J. D. Glazier &R.R. Powell (Eds.), Qualitative research in information management (pp. 61-84). Englewood: Libraries Unlimited.
10. Elliott, M. &Kling, R. (1997). Organizational usability of digital libraries: case study of legal research in civil and criminal courts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48 (11) 1023-1035
11. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In. Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen &R-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.
12. Fisher, K., Erdelez, S. &McKechinie, L. (Eds.) (2005). Theories of information behavior. Medford NJ: Information Today.
13. Hine, C. (2006). New infrastructures for knowledge production: understanding science. Hershey PA: Information Science Publishing.
14. Huvila, I. &Widén-Wulff, G. (2006). Perspectives to the classification of information interactions: the Cool and Belkin faceted classification scheme under scrunity. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Information Interaction in Context 18-20 October, Copenhagen (pp. 144-152).Copenhagen: Association for computing Machinery (ACM).
15. Ingwersen, P. &Järvelin, K. (2005). The turn: integration of information seeking and retrieval in context. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
16. Kling, R. &Scacchi, W. (1982). The web of computing: computer technology as social organization. Advances in Computers, 21 1-90.
17. Kling, R. &McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1306-1320.
18. Krishna, A. &Schrader, E. (2002). The social capital assessment tool. In C. Grootaert &T. v. Bastelaer (Eds.), Understanding and measuring social capital (pp. 17-44). Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Developments.
19. Kuhlthau, C.C. (2004). Seeking meaning: a process approach to library and information services. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
20. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction, (pp. 17-44). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
21. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
22. Nardi, B. (1996). Some reflections on the application of activity theory. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 235-246). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
23. Newell, S. & Huang, J. (2005). Knowledge integration processes and dynamics within the context of cross-function projects. In P. Love, P.S.W. Fong &Z. Irani (Eds.), Management of knowledge in projects (pp. 19-40). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
24. Poltrock, S., Grudin, J., Dumais, S., Fidel, R., Bruce, H. & Pejtersen, A.M. (2003). Information seeking and sharing in design teams. Proceedings of the 2003 International ACM SIGGROUP conference on supporting group work (pp. 239-247). New York, NY: ACM Press.
25. Schuller, T. (2001). The complementary roles of human and social capital. Isuma, 2(1). Retrieved 22 February 2007 from http://www.isuma. net/v02n01/schuller/schuller_e.shtml
26. Spasser, M.A. (2002). Realist activity theory for digital library evaluation: conceptual framework and case study. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 11(1/2), 81-110. Also available at http://www.ics.uci.edu/-redmiles/activity/final-issue/Spasser/Spasser.doc
27. Spink, A. &Cole, C. (2006). New directions in human information behaviour. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
28. Tyler, T.R. &Blader, S.L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
29. Tyler, T.R. &Blader, S.L. (2001). Identity and cooperative behavior in groups. Group Processing &Intergroup Relations, 4(3) 207-226.
30. Vakkari, P. (2003). Task based information searching. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37, 413-464.
31. Virkkunen, J. &Kuutti, K. (2000). Understanding organizational learning by focusing on activity systems. Accounting Management and Information Technologies,10 291-319.
32. Widén-Wulff, G. (2007). Motives for sharing: social networks as information sources. Advances in Library Administration and Organization, 25, (forthcoming).
33. Widén-Wulff, G. & Davenport, E. (2005). Information sharing and timing: findings in two Finnish organizations. In F. Crestani &I. Ruthven (Eds.), Information Context: Nature, Impact, and Role: 5th International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Sciences, CoLIS 2005, Glasgow, UK, June 4-8 2005 (pp. 32-46). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
34. Widén-Wulff, G. &Ginman, M. (2004). Explaining knowledge sharing in organizations through the dimensions of social capital. Journal of Information Science, 30(5), 448-458.
35. Wilson, T.D. (2006). A re-examination of information seeking behaviour in the context of activity theory. Information Research, 11(4) paper 260 Retrieved 20 March, è00ø from http://InformationR.net/ir/11- 4/paper260.html
36. Wilson, T.D. &Allen, D. (Eds.) (1998). Exploring the contexts of information behaviour. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts. London: Taylor Graham.
37. Woolcock, M. &Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: implications for development theory, research, and policy. World Bank Research Observer, 15(2) 225-249.