Folksonomies to Support Coordination and Coordination of Folksonomies

Jackson, Corey; Crowston, Kevin; Østerlund, Carsten; Harandi, Mahboobeh

doi:10.1007/s10606-018-9327-z

Cited by 18 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Social systems are produced and reproduced recursively between the two. Structuration theory is beneficial for investigating groups or organisations and has been applied in work contexts [145,146] and in online communities [75]. In the same way that social structures are recursively reproduced and may be maintained or changed, every engagement with technology may see a different structure being enacted, and therefore affordances may also be reconstructed over time [120,146].…”

Section: Trust Affordancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fifty Shades of Grey

Thornton

Knowles

Blair

2021

Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental data science is uniquely placed to respond to essentially complex and fantastically worthy challenges related to arresting planetary destruction. Trust is needed for facilitating collaboration between scientists who may share datasets and algorithms, and for crafting appropriate science-based policies. Achieving this trust is particularly challenging because of the numerous complexities, multi-scale variables, interdependencies and multi-level uncertainties inherent in environmental data science. Virtual Labs-easily accessible online environments provisioning access to datasets, analysis and visualisations-are socio-technical systems which, if carefully designed, might address these challenges and promote trust in a variety of ways. In addition to various system properties that can be utilised in support of effective collaboration, certain features which are commonly seen to benefit trust-transparency and provenance in particular-appear applicable to promoting trust in and through Virtual Labs. Attempting to realise these features in their design reveals, however, that their implementation is more nuanced and complex than it would appear. Using the lens of affordances, we argue for the need to carefully articulate these features, with consideration of multiple stakeholder needs on balance, so that these Virtual Labs do in fact promote trust. We argue that these features not be conceived as widgets that can be imported into a given context to promote trust; rather, whether they promote trust is a function of how systematically designers consider various (potentially conflicting) stakeholder trust needs. CCS CONCEPTS• Human-centered computing → Computer supported cooperative work; HCI theory, concepts and models.

show abstract

Section: Trust Affordancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fifty Shades of Grey

Thornton

Knowles

Blair

2021

Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It suggests that a collaborative application might impede the effective collaboration between humans: in terms of vocabulary, it means introducing a third party into the conversation, which rises the effort to coordinate the meaning of terms (Chen, 1994). However, as research concerned with distributed collaboration shows, IT can help with establishing and maintaining a common lexicon among collaborators -be it through providing mechanisms for negotiation of meaning in form of folksonomies or through enforcing or proposing a controlled vocabulary (Lee and Schleyer, 2010;Jörgensen et al, 2012;Zarro and Hall, 2012;Jackson et al, 2018). While the research on coordinating meaning in online communities has been flourishing in the last years, the impact of collaborative application on vocabulary entrainment in co-located settings remains unsure.…”

Section: Related Work 21 Collaboration As Negotiating and Sharing Mementioning

confidence: 99%

“…We did not observe situations, where participants would negotiate the meaning of a term or the term itself with the application (e.g., by discounting or criticizing the vocabulary selection to be used in the SmartProtector). Consequently, the way the advisor and the advisee reacted to the interface vocabulary reflected more the controlled-vocabulary rather than folksonomy scenario from online studies (Lee and Schleyer, 2010;Jörgensen et al, 2012;Zarro and Hall, 2012;Jackson et al, 2018). Specifically, as exemplified in the correcting practice episode, the advisee and the advisor incorporate terms from SmartProtector and this behaviour initiates further specification and elaboration.…”

Section: Understanding the Role Of It Artefacts In Vocabulary Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translation and Adoption: Exploring Vocabulary Work in Expert-Layperson Encounters

Dolata

Schwabe

2019

Comput Supported Coop Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An advisory service encounter brings together a domain expert with a layperson in a complex life situation. Because of the different backgrounds and expertise levels, the interlocutors and meanings is an essential part of advisory services and, generally, of expert-layperson collaboration. Establishing and maintaining a common lexicon is a specific and, at the same type, frequent type of collaborative work. Nevertheless, it remains unclear what efforts this collaborative work involves and what role collaborative IT applications play in this regard. A collaborative application can well support the maintenance of a common lexicon by providing a way to externalize terms or definitions. Or it can generate additional work by providing further terms and definitions to be incorporated in the common lexicon. That puzzle gets reflected in specific design dilemmas: should the system use expert or conventional terms, what is the source of the adequate terminology, to what extent should the system adapt to the individual lexical choices, etc. This manuscript explores the work involved in establishing and maintaining a common lexicon in advisory services between an expert and a layperson. In particular, it demonstrates how external material, a dedicated collaborative application developed for supporting advisory services, impacts the maintenance of a common lexicon. First, the manuscript depicts practices involved in translation and adoption of terminology from the system into the conversation. Second, it characterizes the system's impact on interlocutors' vocabulary. Overall, the study contributes to the discourse on expert-layperson collaboration by characterizing an important type of work, the vocabulary work, and by depicting the role of collaborative applications for this type of work.Abstract. An advisory service encounter brings together a domain expert with a layperson in a complex life situation. Because of the different backgrounds and expertise levels, the interlocutors require a common lexicon to guarantee for smooth collaboration. Consequently, the negotiation of terms and meanings is an essential part of advisory services and, generally, of expert-layperson collaboration. Establishing and maintaining a common lexicon is a specific and, at the same type, frequent type of collaborative work. Nevertheless, it remains unclear what efforts this collaborative work involves and what role collaborative IT applications play in this regard. A collaborative application can well support the maintenance of a common lexicon by providing a way to externalize terms or definitions. Or it can generate additional work by providing further terms and definitions to be incorporated in the common lexicon. That puzzle gets reflected in specific design dilemmas: should the system use expert or conventional terms, what is the source of the adequate terminology, to what extent should the system adapt to the individual lexical choices, etc. This manuscript explores the work involved in establishing and maintaining a common lexicon in advis...

show abstract

“…While casual indexers are often associated with the rise of web folksonomies, casual indexing work has been performed for centuries as categorization or even simply naming or labeling objects. Some examples include untrained volunteers analyzing and categorizing classroom book collections (Holstrom, 2019) and citizen scientists describing instrumentation noise "glitches" (Jackson et al, 2018). Some might argue that subject indexing actors like folk biologists or master gardeners are casual indexers, but their level of expertise, scope of their domain, and size of their intended audience more often aligns these actors with domain experts.…”

Section: Casual Indexersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving Towards an Actor-Based Model for Subject Indexing

Holstrom

2019

nasko

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a preliminary exploration of an actor-based model for subject indexing, which considers four types of actors: professional indexers, domain experts, casual indexers, and machine algorithms. The paper describes each of the four actors, enumerating differences in approach, training, methodology, priorities, and tools, as well as similarities and historical collaborations between actors. The paper then explores how the actor-based model for subject indexing might serve as a complement to existing models that focus on processes, methods, disciplinary norms, and cultural biases by defining and exploring the following key properties of an actor-based model for subject indexing: 1) actors are the primary drivers of subject indexing work, 2) observing and understanding many types of actors’ processes in real-life situations is as valuable as prescribing correct methods for professional subject indexing, and 3) multiple and different types of actors can perform subject analysis work and subject representation work on the same information objects, and these hybrid (multi-actor) approaches to subject indexing are explicitly supported. These key properties suggest that an actor-based model for subject indexing might open new research opportunities and encourage new hybrid and collaborative approaches to knowledge organization.

show abstract

Folksonomies to Support Coordination and Coordination of Folksonomies

Cited by 18 publications

References 31 publications

Fifty Shades of Grey

Fifty Shades of Grey

Translation and Adoption: Exploring Vocabulary Work in Expert-Layperson Encounters

Moving Towards an Actor-Based Model for Subject Indexing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About