Critical examination of information: A discursive approach and its implementations

Informing Science

Volumn 11, Issue , 2008, Pages 125-146

  Yetim, Fahri ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SIEGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Critical research; Discourse theory; Discourse support systems; Examination dialogs; Examination of information; Information quality

Indexed keywords

EID: 58149287965     PISSN: 15214672     EISSN: 15214672     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.28945/443     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E, (2001), Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues, MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.
2. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
3. Boisot, M. H. (1995). Information space: A framework for learning in organizations, institutions and culture. London: Routledge.
4. Buckingham Shum, S. (2006). Sensemaking on the pragmatic web: A hypermedia discourse perspective. Proceedings of 1st International Conference on the Pragmatic Web. Stuttgart, Germany.
5. st century. International Information & Library Review, 32,257-276.
6. Cohen, E. (1999). Reconceptualizing information systems as a field of the transdiscipline informing science: From ugly duckling to swan. Journal of Computing and Information Technology, 7(3), 213-219.
7. Conklin, J. (2005). Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. Chichester:Wiley.
8. Dretske, F. (1981). Knowledge and the flow of information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Drucker, P. F. (1994). Post-capitalist society. New York: Harper Business.
10. Dunne, P. E., Doutre, S., & Bench-Capon, T. (2005). Discovering inconsistency through examination dialogues. Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-05), Edinburgh, pp. 1560-1561.
11. Farnham, S., Chesley, H. R., McGhee, D. E., Kawal, R., & Landau, J. (2000). Structured online interactions: Improving the decision-making of small discussion groups. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'00), ACM Press, New York, NY, USA.
12. Gackowski, Z. J, (2006). Diagnostic and functional dependencies of credibility. Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 9, 225-241. Retrieved from http://inform.nu/Artic1es/Vo19/ v9p225-241Gaekowski97.pdf
13. Gill, G., & Bhattacherjee, A. (2007). The informing sciences at a crossroads: The role of the client. Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 10, 17-39. Retrieved from http://inform,nu/Articles/Vol10/ISJv10p017-039Gill317.pdf
14. Greisdorf, H. (2000). Relevance: An interdisciplinary and information science perspective. Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 3(2), 67-72. Retrieved from http://inform.nu/ Articles/Vol3/v3n2p67-72.pdf
15. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol.1). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
16. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
17. Hoppenbrouwers, S., & Weigand, H. (2000). Meta-communication in the language action perspective. In: M. Schoop & C. Quix, (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling.
18. Karamüftüoglu, M. (1998). Collaborative information retrieval: Towards a social informatics view of IR interaction. JASIS, 12, 1070-1080.
19. Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S., & Carr, C. S. (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer Verlag.
20. Klamma, R., Spaniol, M., & Jarke, M. (2005). MECCA: Hypermedia capturing of collaborative scientific discourses about movies. Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 8, 3-38. Retrieved from http://inform.nu/Articles/Vol8/v8p003-038Klamma.pdf
21. Knight, S.-A. & Burn, J. (2005). Developing a framework for assessing information quality on the world wide web. Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 8,159-172. Retrieved from http://inform.nu/Articles/Vol8/v8p159-172Knig.pdf
22. Kovacic, Z. (2001). Communicating culture: An exploratory study of the key concepts in Maori culture on Maori web sites. Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 4(2),53-59. Retrieved from http://inforni.nu/Articles/Vol4/v4n2p053-059.pdf
23. Kuhlen, R. (1999). Die konsequenzen von informationsassistenten. Was bedeutet informationelle autonomic oder wie kann vertrauen in elektronische dienste in offenen informationsmärkten gesichert werden? [The consequences of information assistants. What does informational autonomy mean or how can trust in digital services be ensured in open information markets?] Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
24. Kunz, W., & Rittel, H. W. J. (1970). Issues as elements of information systems. Institute of Urban and Regional Development. Working Paper 131. University of California, Berkeley.
25. Machlup, F. (1980). Knowledge: Its creation, distribution, and economic significance (Vol. I). Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.
26. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design. Why we love (or hate) everyday things. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.
28. Ravenscroft, A., & McAlister, S. (2006). Digital games and learning in cyberspace: A dialogical approach. E-Learning Journal, 3(1), 37-50.
29. Reed, C, & Rowe, G. (2004). Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal of AI Tools, 14, 3-4.
30. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books
31. Schutz, A. (1970). Reflections on the problem of relevance. New Haven: Yale University Press.
32. Seel, M. (1985). Die kunst der entzweiung: Zum begriff der ästhetischen rationalität. [The art of divisiveness: On the notion of aesthetic rationality] Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
33. Smith, A. & Yetim, F. (2004). Global human-computer systems - Cultural determinants of usability. [Special issue]. Interacting with Computers, 1.
34. Stahl, B. C. (2006). On the difference or equality of information, misinformation, and disinformation: A critical research perspective. Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 9, 83-96. Retrieved from http://inform.nu/Articles/Vol9/v9p083-096Stahl65. pdf
35. Spender, J.-C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 54-62
36. Te'eni, D. (2001). Review: A cognitive-affective model of organizational communication for designing IT. MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 251-312.
37. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13, 127-145.
39. Tuomi, I. (1999). Data is more than knowledge: Implications of the reversed hierarchy for knowledge management and organizational memory. Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Hawaii International Conferences on Systems Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA.
40. Ulrich, W. (2001). Philosophical staircase for information systems definition, design and development. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 3, 55-84.
41. Uren, V., Buckingham Shum, S., Bachler, M., & Li, G. (2006). Sensemaking tools for understanding research literatures: Design, implementation and user evaluation. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64,420-445.
42. van den Braak, S.W., van Oostendorp, H., Prakken, H., & Vreeswijk, G. A. (2006). A critical review of argument visualization tools: Do users become better reasoners? Proceedings of the ECAI-06 Workshop.
43. van Gelder, T. (2007). The rationale for rationale™. Department of Philosophy, University of Melbourne and Austhink Software Pty Ltd.
44. Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
45. Walton, D. (2006). Examination dialogue: An argumentation framework for critically questioning an expert opinion. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 745-777.
46. Walton, D. (2007). The speech act of clarification in a dialogue model. Studies in Communication Sciences, 7, 127-159.
47. Walton, D., & Krabbe, E. C. (1995). Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press.
48. Wellmer, A. (1999). Ethik und dialog: Elemente des moralischen urteils bei Kant und in der diskursethik. [Ethics and dialog: Elements of moral judgment in Kant and discourse ethics] Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
49. Yetim, F. (2004). Universal actability: Towards an integral understanding of universal usability, (intercul- tural) action competence, and information systems actability. Proceedings of the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modeling (LAP 2004), June 2-3, Rutgers University, NI, USA.
50. Yetim, F. (2006). Acting with genres: Discursive-ethical concepts for reflecting on and legitimating genres. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(1), 54-69.
51. Yetim, F. (2007). DISCOURSIUM for cooperative examination of information in the context of the pragmatic web. Proceedings of the 2nd International Pragmatic Web Conference, 22-23 October, Tilburg,Holland.
52. Zack, M. H. (1999). Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 40(4), 45-57.