Personalization of knowledge, personal knowledge ecology, and digital nomadism

Abstract

We examine the concept of personal knowledge management using data drawn from our study of digital nomads. We make two contributions: an empirical and conceptual development of knowledge management as it relates to independent workers and an advancement of social informatics that builds on Gibson's ecological perspective. Digital nomads provide an empirical basis to better understand how knowledge management is shifting from organization‐centric, with its concomitant emphasis on organizational information systems, to worker‐centric, which relies on personal knowledge ecologies. We advance this concept as a combination of personal knowledge management activities and the digital technologies that support them. Our data make clear that individuals are the locus of personal knowledge ecologies, but these ecologies are embedded in a larger community of collaborators, clients, and peers who are often extensively mediated by digital technologies. This embedding and mediation are at the core of the sociotechnical arrangements that define the personal knowledge ecologies that we document.

The social informatics of knowledge

“…They must create personal ecologies of resources, technologies, and people that make their work possible wherever they are while still allowing them to take advantage of their relative freedom from place to travel and explore. Jarrahi, Philips, Sutherland, Sawyer, and Erickson () explore this phenomenon with their article on knowledge practices of digital nomads who, as they write, have “escaped the traditional office work environment by engaging in digital work and by drawing on digital technologies. Digital nomads are unified most strongly by their motivation for living nomadically, which is, in almost every case, a desire for travel and a sense of adventure” [page 315].…”

An iSchool approach to data science: Human‐centered, socially responsible, and context‐driven

“…By providing this socially rich perspective of data practices in context, our human‐centered approach to data science foregrounds concerns about the vulnerability of data to misinterpretation, misuse and misappropriation, raising questions about how social values can be baked into data infrastructure. This theoretical framing of sociotechnical complexities focuses analytic attention on the connections (Jarrahi, Philips, Sutherland, Sawyer, & Erickson, 2019), makes us acutely aware of how substrate can become substance (Star & Ruhleder, 1996), and draws attention to the very human features of working with data and information in the “web of computing” (Kling & Saatchi, 1982).…”

Nomadic work and location independence: The role of space in shaping the work of digital nomads

“…Regardless of differences between nomadic workers, all of them have several issues in common, including the most prominent being the “burden of mobility” or the struggle to continuously find suitable environments for both working and living (Cass, Shove, & Urry, 2005; Jarrahi & Thomson, 2017). However, through their ability to creatively solve problems and consult others through knowledge sharing forums online, nomadic workers can learn how to prepare for any potential issues and ask questions through information and communication technologies (ICTs) before traveling to a certain area (Büscher, 2014; Jarrahi, Phillips, Sutherland, Sawyer, & Erickson, 2018; Messenger & Gschwind, 2016).…”

“…Their ability to learn and share their knowledge relies heavily on their access to ICTs (Lyu, Wang, Ma, Wang, & Zhao, 2019). The technologies and tools which serve as mediums for networking and finding gigs, sharing their work, as well as receiving payment are crucial to their work practices (Jarrahi et al, 2018). Tools such as strong Wi‐Fi connections and outlets for chargers are not found in every space and often nomads must seek out locations in which these tools are accessible (Hemsley et al, 2020).…”