Perspectives on Knowledge Communication: Concepts and Settings 1032258098, 9781032258096

Citation preview

Perspectives on Knowledge Communication

This collection elaborates an innovative analytical framework for knowledge communication, bringing together insights from a range of professional settings to highlight how a cross-disciplinary approach can promote a new view of knowledge that emphasizes constructivist and cognitivist perspectives. The volume seeks to draw connections between diferent disciplines’ traditionally disparate studies of knowledge communication, defined here as the communication of domain knowledge between experts of the same discipline, experts of diferent disciplines, or non-experts with an interest in developing expert knowledge. Featuring work from scholars across linguistics, corporate communication, and sociology on diverse professional environments, chapters focus on one of three central aspects in the communication of expert knowledge: the textual carrier of the interaction, the roles and relationships between parties in these interactions, and the contexts in which the texts and communication occur. Taken together, the collection elucidates the value of an approach that supposes that expertise is co-created in interaction under the conditions of human cognitive systems and that knowledge asymmetries can ofer both challenges and opportunities to better understand and generate new forms of communication and specialized knowledge. This book will be of interest to scholars interested in language and communication, professional communication, organizational communication, and sociology of knowledge. Jan Engberg is Professor of Knowledge Communication at the School of Communication and Culture, Section of German Business Communication, Aarhus University, Denmark. His main research interests are the study of texts and genres in the academic field, cognitive aspects of domain-specific discourse, and the relations between specialized knowledge and text formulation as well as basic aspects of communication in domain-specific settings. His research is focused upon communication, translation, and meaning in the field of law.

Antoinette Fage-Butler is Associate Professor at the Department of English, School of Communication and Culture, where she gained her PhD in Knowledge Communication. Her research interests lie primarily in discursive and cultural aspects of knowledge communication, with particular focus on the communication of risk and trust between authorities and the public. She is currently Principal Investigator of the (Mis)trust of Scientific Expertise research project at Aarhus University, Denmark. Peter Kastberg is a full professor of organizational communication and the founding director of the Communicating Organizations research group at the Faculty of the Humanities, Aalborg University, Denmark. He is the founder and main organizer of the Dark Side conference series. He holds a BA and an MA degree in International Business Communication as well as a PhD in Applied Linguistics/Technical Communication. Among his current research interests are philosophy of communication, communication theory, as well as critical organizational communication.

Routledge Research in Language and Communication

The Language of Pick-Up Artists Online Discourses of the Seduction Industry Daria Dayter and Sofia Rüdiger Revisiting Trustworthiness in Social Interaction Mie Femø Nielsen and Ann Merrit Rikke Nielsen Communicative Spaces and Media in Bilingual Contexts Discourses, Synergies and Counterflows in Spanish and English Edited by Ana Sánchez-Muñoz and Jessica Retis The Impact of Plain Language on Legal English in the United Kingdom Christopher Williams Political Myth-making, Populist Performance and Nationalist Resistance Examining Kwame Nkrumah’s Construction of the African Unity Dream Mark Nartey Metaphor and Argumentation in Climate Crisis Discourse Anaïs Augé Perspectives on Teaching Workplace English in the 21st Century Mable Chan The Discursive Construction of Place in the Digital Age Edited by Alejandro Parini and Francisco Yus Perspectives on Knowledge Communication Concepts and Settings Edited by Jan Engberg, Antoinette Fage-Butler, and Peter Kastberg For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/Routledge-Researchin-Language-and-Communication/book-series/RRLC

Perspectives on Knowledge Communication Concepts and Settings

Edited by Jan Engberg, Antoinette Fage-Butler, and Peter Kastberg

First published 2024 by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 and by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 selection and editorial matter, Jan Engberg, Antoinette Fage-Butler, and Peter Kastberg; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Jan Engberg, Antoinette Fage-Butler, and Peter Kastberg to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Engberg, Jan, 1962– editor. | Fage-Butler, Antoinette, editor. | Kastberg, Peter, editor. Title: Perspectives on knowledge communication: concepts and settings / edited by Jan Engberg, Antoinette Fage-Butler, Peter Kastberg. Description: New York, NY: Routledge, 2024. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2023007162 (print) | LCCN 2023007163 (ebook) | ISBN 9781032258096 (hardback) | ISBN 9781003285120 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Knowledge management. | Social sciences. | Interpersonal communication. Classification: LCC HD30.19 .P477 2024 (print) | LCC HD30.19 (ebook) | DDC 658—dc23/eng/20230628 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023007162 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023007163 ISBN: 978-1-032-25809-6 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-25810-2 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-28512-0 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003285120 Typeset in Sabon by Apex CoVantage, LLC

Contents

List of contributors

ix

Introduction

1

JAN ENGBERG, ANTOINETTE FAGE-BUTLER, AND PETER KASTBERG

1 Research methods to investigate knowledge types in professional text production

18

CARMEN HEINE

2 Knowledge communication as an imitation game: about conceptual and empirical boundaries of co-construction in human-bot interaction

37

ALEXANDER HOLSTE

3 The dynamics of knowledge and expertise in social media interactions: knowledge types, processes of co-constructing knowledge and discursive reactions

57

JAN ENGBERG AND CARMEN DANIELA MAIER

4 Communication network roles as knowledge communicative positions

78

MIA THYREGOD RASMUSSEN

5 Knowledge asymmetry, and Corvus Corax in Greenland/ Denmark: locating method

97

USHMA CHAUHAN JACOBSEN

6 Modelling knowledge communication as co-actional communication PETER KASTBERG

113

viii

Contents

7 Knowledge communication during the pandemic: constructing the emergent knowledge of COVID-19 on Danish institutional webpages

132

ANTOINETTE FAGE-BUTLER

8 Students’ activation, construction, and use of knowledge

151

HELLE DAM JENSEN AND ANJA KROGSGAARD VESTERAGER

9 Knowledge work of professional clients

171

SAE OSHIMA

10 Knowledge communication in interdisciplinary settings: ontological solutions and conceptual challenges

193

CHRISTIANE ZEHRER

11 How knowledge moves across social fields: a conceptual illustration of the antenarrative field of economic degrowth thinking

215

KLARISSA LUEG AND JENS RENNSTAM

12 Language and law in the post-disciplinary landscape: a knowledge communication perspective

232

PATRIZIA ANESA

Index

249

Contributors

Patrizia Anesa is Associate Professor in English Language and Translation, Bergamo University, Italy. She holds a PhD in English Studies, with a specialization in professional communication. Her research interests lie primarily in the area of specialized discourse and, in particular, in the investigation of knowledge asymmetries in expert-lay communication. Helle Dam Jensen, PhD, is Associate Professor at the School of Communication and Culture, Aarhus University, Denmark. Her research interests cover text production strategies and processes, human-computer interaction, and linguistics. She is a founding member of the international research network Humans, Applications and Languages: Exploring human interactions with language technology. Her teaching focus areas are text production, translation, and communication. Jan Engberg is Professor of Knowledge Communication at the School of Communication and Culture, Section of German Business Communication, Aarhus University, Denmark. His main research interests are the study of texts and genres in the academic field, cognitive aspects of domain-specific discourse, and the relations between specialized knowledge and text formulation as well as basic aspects of communication in domain-specific settings. His research is focused upon communication, translation, and meaning in the field of law. Antoinette Fage-Butler is Associate Professor at the Department of English, School of Communication and Culture, Aarhus University, Denmark, where she gained her PhD in Knowledge Communication. Her research interests lie primarily in discursive and cultural aspects of knowledge communication, with particular focus on the communication of risk and trust between authorities and the public. She is currently Principal Investigator of the (Mis)trust of Scientific Expertise research project at Aarhus University.

x

Contributors

Carmen Heine, Associate Professor (PhD), is a writing and translation scholar at the School of Communication and Culture, Aarhus University, Denmark. Her research area is the interdisciplinary interface between writing research and translation studies. Her core research areas are research methodology, technical writing and translation, web-based communication, academic writing, writing didactics, and text production process research. As a member of the advisory board of the German Society for Applied Linguistics, she co-heads the section “Writing Research”. Alexander Holste is a research associate at the University of DuisburgEssen, Germany, focusing on knowledge communication, especially textual knowledge. He conceptualizes “automated knowledge communication” (postdoctoral thesis). The German Association for Applied Linguistics awarded the prize “professional communication” (2021/22) for his doctoral thesis on the topic of semiotic efciency. He worked as a technical writer (Deutsche Bahn/German Railways) and currently assists tendering authorities (State of North Rhine-Westphalia). Ushma Chauhan Jacobsen is Associate Professor at the Department of English, Aarhus University, Denmark. Her research areas include professional and transcultural communication, English as a global/ international language, cosmopolitanism, and language and cultural representations in the media and creative industries. She has earlier published her work in the European Journal of Cultural Studies, Language and Intercultural Communication, and Arts Management Quarterly and has co-edited The Global Audiences of Danish Television Drama (2020). Her current research follows decolonization processes in contemporary Greenland with a focus on its changing language ecology and the articulation of postcolonial identities in Greenland’s cultural and creative industries. Peter Kastberg is a full professor of organizational communication and the founding director of the Communicating Organizations research group at the Faculty of the Humanities, Aalborg University, Denmark. He is the founder and main organizer of the Dark Side conference series. He holds a BA and an MA degree in International Business Communication as well as a PhD in Applied Linguistics/Technical Communication. Among his current research interests are philosophy of communication, communication theory, as well as critical organizational communication. Anja Krogsgaard Vesterager, PhD, is Associate Professor at the School of Communication and Culture, Aarhus University, Denmark. Her main research interests are specialized translation, translation didactics, and

Contributors

xi

human-computer interaction. She has published articles in international journals and edited volumes. Her teaching areas cover translation, text production, and communication. Klarissa Lueg is Associate Professor, South-Danish University, Denmark, Dr. phil. habil. She has published extensively on knowledge and power in higher education settings. Her empirical and conceptual work is suspended between organization studies, sociology, and cultural studies. She runs the research group “Organizing Social Sustainability” at University of Southern Denmark. Carmen Daniela Maier is Associate Professor at the School of Communication and Culture, Department of English Business Communication, Aarhus University, Denmark. Her areas of research interest and expertise are knowledge communication and organizational communication. Her knowledge communication research is focused on the interplay between specialized knowledge and digital domain-specific contexts. Her organizational communication research includes aspects of crisis communication, CSR communication, and environmental communication. Her main research goal is the theoretical and methodological development of the multimodal perspective on knowledge communication and organizational communication. Sae Oshima is Principal Academic of Corporate and Marketing Communications at Bournemouth University in the UK. She is a trained microethnographer of social interaction, and her research objectives include revealing the micro-foundations of marketing and corporate communication and proposing implications for training in diferent workplaces. Her research has been disseminated through various academic outlets, as well as collaborations with media agencies and consultations for industrial researchers in Denmark, Japan, the UK, and US. Mia Thyregod Rasmussen, PhD, is Assistant Professor of the Communicating Organizations research group at the Department of Culture and Learning at Aalborg University, Denmark. Her research interests include organizational communication, human resources communication, organizational socialization, and organizational knowledge communication. She applies a range of diferent qualitative methods to study communicative phenomena in various organizational contexts. Jens Rennstam is Associate Professor at the Department of Business Administration, Lund University, Sweden. One of his key research interests revolves around the control of knowledge work and knowledge in organizations, which has appeared in outlets such as Human Relations and Organization Studies. He also has an interest in post-growth

xii

Contributors theory and its consequences for the organization of production and consumption.

Christiane Zehrer is an IT consultant who studied International Information Management at the University of Hildesheim, where she also earned her doctorate degree. She has researched knowledge communication in fields ranging from engineering and software projects to teaching and sports. Her know-how of the approach strongly informs her present practice as an IT consultant and academic teacher.

Introduction Jan Engberg, Antoinette Fage-Butler, and Peter Kastberg

In this introduction, we describe the cornerstones of the knowledge communication approach to the study of the communication of experts and of expertise in a broad sense as developed at Aarhus University and Aalborg University since 2004 (Anesa & Fage-Butler, 2016; FageButler & Anesa, 2016; Kastberg, 2007, 2010, 2019; Engberg, 2016, 2020; Porup Thomasen, 2015). The idea was and is to develop an open framework built on the following three pillars: expert knowledge is seen as constructed through communication, it is empirically present in ways that reflect conditions of human cognition and it is expressed in a broad range of forms and formats that are textual in a broad sense and contextually situated. We will discuss these three pillars in the following sections and follow this by presenting the diferent contributions to the volume. 1.

A constructivist worldview as methodological basis

The first pillar of the knowledge communication approach relates to perceiving expert knowledge and expertise as communicatively constructed. The meta-theoretical undercurrent of this anthology – and the field of knowledge communication that it represents – is constructivism, ontologically as well as epistemologically. For the purpose of this anthology, we do not subscribe to one particular branch of constructivism – that is, social constructivism (e.g., Berger & Luckmann, 1966), radical constructivism (von Glasersfeld, 1995) or social constructionism (e.g., Gergen, 1985). Instead, we go ad fontes, as it were, and take our point of departure in what has been popularized as Immanuel Kant’s so-called Copernican or Critical Turn (e.g., Rohlf, 2020). Von Förster’s succinct rendering of the core argument of the Kantian turn reads: What tends to be overlooked [i.e., before Kant and, today, in many a realist conception of ontology] usually is that [. . .] distinctions are not DOI: 10.4324/9781003285120-1

2

Jan Engberg, Antoinette Fage-Butler, and Peter Kastberg out there in the world, are not properties of things and objects but properties of our descriptions of the world.

Most significantly, these “descriptions reveal the properties of observers and speakers” (von Förster quoted in Poerksen, 2003, p. 21). What this boils down to – within the scope of this anthology – is a formative, twopronged realization. First of all, what the world “is” depends on the conceptual interface of an observer (e.g., Maturana & Varela, 2015 [1984]). Secondly, knowledge of the world is the product of an active, constructive process that takes place in communication. This anthology, then, is open to all constructivist worldviews that position themselves within the scope of the Kantian Turn.1 Methodologically speaking, knowledge communication research is agnostic, albeit clearly gravitating towards qualitative approaches. With respect to research designs, the knowledge communication approach tends not to look for general rules of the world as we perceive it. Instead, the idea is to describe the construction, representation and communication of knowledge in specific contexts and at a level of complexity that allows us to understand the actual processes deeply. Focusing on the construction, representation and communication of knowledge means that the empirical analysis of texts where knowledge is constructed, represented and communicated is central to knowledge communication research. Whereas the knowledge communication studies conducted so far have been qualitative in nature, this does not mean that future studies cannot be carried out using quantitative or mixed methods approaches. Also, systematic literature reviews could help to establish general “evidencebased” (Hansen & Rieper, 2009, p.  141) mechanisms in knowledge communication. Returning to our constructivist credo, we stated that knowledge is constructed through communication. As such, communication is pivotal to knowledge communication research, which is why we delve more deeply into the understanding of communication that underpins our approach in the following section. 2.

Communication in a constructivist perspective2

The term communication may, etymologically speaking, refer either to “communicatio” (message) or “communis esse” (being together). In runof-the-mill university textbooks that focus on a more instrumental, narrow or positivist view, “communicatio” is often the favored understanding of communication. However, for authors such as us that take a broader or

Introduction

3

constructivist outlook on communication, the term communication refers to “communis esse”, or being together. In the first perspective, communication is seen as a malleable tool, something to be designed and employed in the service of specific interests. In the latter, it becomes the very medium – evanescent though it may be – in which humans, as social beings, live. Diferent though they may be, both of these understandings of what communication “is” and “does” originate within the field of communication theory and constitute the current poles of the discipline’s doxa. According to a commonly acknowledged doxa of the field of communication theory (e.g., evident in university textbooks such as Beebe et al., 2004; Windahl et al., 2009; Littlejohn & Foss, 2011; West & Turner, 2018), “communicatio” marks the beginning of the modern field of communication theory. Modern communication theory began with the seminal work of Shannon and Weaver (1949) on the mathematical model of communication. The point of departure of the “communis esse” understanding, on the other hand, springs from the linguistic turn in philosophy and the social sciences (Rorty, 1992 [1967]), the main tenet of which holds that language does not merely reflect social reality but is involved in constructing it.3 The dictum that social reality is – to a large degree – “communicated into being” (Ashcraft et al., 2009, p. 5) gave rise to a significant shift in appreciating what communication “is” and “does” – that is, a shift from a functional or instrumental view (“communicatio”) to a constitutive one (“communis esse”).4 Viewing communication not as transmissive but as constitutive implies that communication “is” much more than the mere mechanical sending and receiving of messages and that it, in fact, “does” much more. Seen as constitutive, communication “is a process of meaning creation or social construction”, and as such, “communication is assumed to be the basic building block for social entities” (Nicotera, 2009). The most recent ofspring of the linguistic turn within communication theory is the so-called CCO principle, which stands for “communication constitutes organization” (e.g., Putnam et al., 2009; Schöneborn & Blaschke, 2014). In many ways, the CCO principle echoes Bateson’s credo that we communicate content as well as a relationship. The constitutive force of communication implies that in communication, we discursively coconstruct not only, say, the identity of communicator A and communicator B – one or both of whom could be an individual or an organization  – but communication also constitutes, maintains or alters social reality. Even if the slogan-like statement that communication constitutes reality was not intended to mean that communication alone would produce the screen at which you are currently looking or the study in which you are sitting. It is, nevertheless, tarnished by the brush of transubstantiation. Heeding this,

4

Jan Engberg, Antoinette Fage-Butler, and Peter Kastberg

one of the champions of the CCO principle cautiously put forward this caveat: Advocating a communicative constitution of reality does not amount to falling into some degenerate form of constructivism (or solipsism). It means, on the contrary, that for instance, preoccupations, realities, and situations get expressed and translated in what we say or write. (Cooren, 2004, as quoted in Schöneborn & Blaschke, 2014, p. 303) As such, the CCO principle is curiously on a par with von Förster, when he said – almost half a century ago – that what we constitute is not reality per se but exactly those descriptions of reality that our conceptual and perceptual interfaces, as well as our motor skills, allow us to do: I could by no means claim in all seriousness that the lectern, my wrist watch, or the Andromeda Nebula is being computed [i.e. constructed in an ontological sense] by me. At the most, one could say that a “description of reality” is computed, because with my verbal references (“lectern”, “wristwatch”, “Andromeda”), I have just demonstrated that certain sequences of motion of my body combined with certain hissing and grunting sounds, permitted listeners to interpret these as a description. (von Förster, 2003 [1974], p. 232) In the same critical vein, holding that communication constitutes reality – and not, say, descriptions of it – seems to run perilously close to an inputoutput logic of a causal nature (and, consequently, establishing a kinship to the meaning of “communicatio” introduced earlier). Try as s/he may, for the communicator, there is no “open sesame” that would ensure that a message is understood and its intentions complied with by a desired reader, listener or viewer. In other words, we are acutely aware that communication, seen as “communis esse”, is no magic wand. It is rather the case that when two (or more) communicators commit themselves to being in the flux of communication, they have the possibility of constituting their social reality in ways that are not predetermined. One of the reasons why no “open sesame” can exist is that knowledge as constructed in communication on the basis of diferent forms of text as input to the construction process can only be empirically found in human minds. Texts do not carry knowledge; they give rise to knowledge. Such knowledge is always the knowledge of someone as constructed on the basis of individual and personal experience or insight or on the basis of communicative interaction with others about their personal experiences or insights. Most importantly in the context

Introduction

5

of the lack of a guarantee that a message is understood according to the intention of the utterer, an individual’s knowledge will always be influenced by the specific knowledge base of the communicative parties involved. This fact and its implications constitute the second pillar of the knowledge communication approach, which is presented in the following section. 3.

Characteristics of human cognition as a framework for the communication of expert knowledge and expertise

The knowledge communication approach focuses on the knowledge of experts and the communication of expert knowledge. This means that it is inspired, among other things, by approaches to the study of professional and specialized communication. It is important to acknowledge here that the knowledge to be communicated is embedded in contexts of specialization. Specialization in this sense has to do with contexts where experts from a specific discipline are central participants. Kalverkämper (1998, p. 8) lists the following central aspects that are relevant for pragmatically characterizing a specialized domain: A specialized domain is (a) what is institutionalized as such, (b) from the point of view of social and factual needs is motivated as a unified complex, (c) functions efciently as an identified field of work, and (d) is accepted through social convention (by whatever groups). (Our translation) We thus talk about knowledge in institutionalized settings connected to professional duties. Specialized knowledge is characterized along the lines of diferent disciplinary epistemologies, describing phenomena that may be the focus of several disciplines (Pennarola, 2019, p. 9; Adamzik, 2018). According to the quotation, specialized domains or disciplines can best be seen as social constructions that are upheld both from the outside and the inside through communication and that communication leads to acceptance of the existence and content of the domain or discipline. This constructivist character of specialized domains aligns perfectly with the idea that the shape of a domain’s knowledge is based upon the communicative exchange between individual experts. Individuals learn from speaking to other experts about what is the accepted knowledge of the domain. However, this accepted knowledge changes over time, based on communicative exchanges in which people with new insights convince others of the power of these insights. Hence, knowledge exchange

6

Jan Engberg, Antoinette Fage-Butler, and Peter Kastberg

between experts is the bread and butter of creating and upholding a domain – and also one of the reasons why we cannot guarantee communicative outcomes. We have seen earlier that a specialized domain is constituted by a group of people that, based on their shared knowledge constituting a specific expertise, see themselves as belonging to the same discipline. In other words, expertise and its constituting knowledge are characteristics of a domain culture. By “culture”, we mean a conglomerate of accepted ways of interacting in which specific accepted symbols function as indicators of the group constituting the culture. Thus, communicating expertise constitutes the domain culture. Knowing that one belongs to a specific domain culture presupposes specific cognitive abilities and ways of thinking about the world that seem to be special for humans. Central in this context is the ability to achieve interpersonal understanding in considerable depth. The cognitive psychologist Michael Tomasello has suggested that the emergence of shared intentionality in human evolution is central in this context. It can be seen as the motor behind developing the kind of highly complex collaboration and communication that characterize modern humans and distinguishes them from higher primates (Tomasello, 2008, 2014). The ability of modern humans to share intentionality means that we are able to adopt the perspective of others, adjust to it and thus consciously have joint attention on things and concepts in our situational context, as well as pursue the same goals in a coordinated way. The relevant type of shared intentionality that functions as the basis of culture and thus of experts’ disciplines is what Tomasello calls collective intentionality. For a culture to emerge, it is necessary that the members of the culture share the perception that a larger group exists to which “we” (the individual and others of the same kind) belong (Tomasello, 2014, p. 123). Collective intentionality is characterized by three basic aspects: modern human individuals came to imagine the world in order to manipulate it in thought via ‘objective’ representations (anyone’s perspective), reflective inferences connected by reasons (compelling to anyone), and normative self-governance so as to coordinate with the group’s (anyone’s) normative expectations. (Tomasello, 2014, p. 81; emphasis added) This personal view of oneself as part of a larger “we” is a social phenomenon. We know (or at least presume) that what we know is not just our own insight but that anyone else from our “we” would know the same. However, although our cognition is collectively and collaboratively oriented, it is bound to the individual and the stock of knowledge built up by

Introduction

7

the individual. Collaborative human thinking is carried out by individuals with difering experiences (Polanyi, 1958). Hence, knowledge is inherently social and individual at the same time. This means that the task of communicating knowledge has to cope with asymmetries in the knowledge base of the participants in the process. Kastberg (2011, p. 145) presents the following defining aspects of the concept of knowledge asymmetries: Knowledge asymmetry is a relation which is produced in communication. The discursive construction of knowledge asymmetry is observable via perturbations. Knowledge asymmetry becomes communicatively salient where a single-plane distinction is observed between the knowledges of ‘alter’ and ‘ego’. The distinction is one which allows one or more positions to appreciate the knowledge of ‘alter’ and ‘ego’ as being non-identical under the same sortal. (Emphasis added) In other words, what people communicating with each other know is not exactly the same (non-identical under the same sortal). Because we talk about an asymmetry, the diference does not have to be one of quantity. Two people may hold networks of knowledge in their mind that show an equal level of detail and complexity without them being identical. This could be the case if we look at virologists and economists considering the impact of the coronavirus on Danish society in April 2020. They both knew a lot about the societal consequences of the virus, but virologists have more detailed knowledge about how the virus influences society by way of its efects on public health. Economists, on the other hand, have more detailed knowledge of how the virus influences the economical behaviour of citizens and, in this way, influences economic growth within a society. In Tomasello’s terms, such knowledge asymmetries reflect the fact that the people who are communicating belong to diferent cultural groups with diferent “objective” representations connected to the concept under discussion. For mutual communicative understanding (i.e., for the construction of knowledge by an individual based on communicative input from another individual according to the intentions of this individual), this is not a problem as such – as long as those who are communicating recognize the asymmetry. In this context, the knowledge communication approach underlines that knowledge asymmetries with relevance for knowledge communication are constituted through communication in the same way as communication constitutes organizations. This means that asymmetries are only communicatively relevant if they are introduced in communication. The interest of the approach lies in instances of communication

8

Jan Engberg, Antoinette Fage-Butler, and Peter Kastberg

and the way knowledge asymmetries are treated in specific contexts. Knowledge asymmetries are evident in the reactions of the communicators (“observable via perturbations”). Along the same lines, Jacobsen (2012, p.  169) stresses the awareness of knowledge asymmetries as a prerequisite for communicative relevance: More often than not, knowledge asymmetries appear as granitic bastions of permanent difference. However, I argue that they exist, and become real, the moment we recognize them. We recognize them partly because our history compels us to. [. . .] And we recognize them because there are obviously differences in what you and I know. (Emphasis added) Interest in the knowledge communication approach lies mainly in how communicators make asymmetries recognizable. In brief, the underlying communicative reasons for intending to disseminate knowledge will normally be presumed to be knowledge asymmetries between the people involved. How these presumed asymmetries are communicatively constituted is interesting from the perspective of the knowledge communication approach. Making knowledge asymmetries recognizable is one way of making addressees aware that they do not belong to the same in-group as the communicator. It can thus indicate that the addressees cannot rely on their “objective” representations but have to resort to a more openminded cognitive mode, where reflective reasoned inferencing plays a more important role than the “objective” representations of the addressees’ own in-groups. 4.

Forms and formats for communicating knowledge in discourse: Texts and contexts

The third pillar of the knowledge communication approach that is central to this edited volume is its focus on “texts” in a broad sense as representations of knowledge for communicative purposes in discourse situated within “contexts”. The approach provides a useful framework with which to explore “texts” that are language based and/or include other modes of representation (e.g., images), often relating to disciplinary or professional knowledge, as described earlier, and reflecting the constructivist stance of knowledge communication, as outlined earlier. Because knowledge communication is largely concerned with the textual representations of knowledge, it can be used as a way of conceptualizing representations of knowledge in many disciplines and communicative contexts, providing a means of re-theorizing data in investigations

Introduction

9

concerned with the textual representation of knowledge and sharpening the focus on knowledge by making it its specific concern. Regarding the “texts” (or data) of knowledge communication that can be analysed in knowledge communication research, the knowledge communication approach acknowledges that knowledge can be communicated in many diferent modes, media and genres, such as corporate annual reports, legal texts, multimodal academic articles, public health campaigns, educational theatre and online forums. Further heterogeneity is evident in the multiplicity of formal and informal knowledge communicators: those working in business, academia or other areas of professional expertise, as well as the general public who have acquired or claim some specialized knowledge of an area. The term “discourse” is relevant to elaborate on at this point, as are two of its meanings. First, “discourse” relates to the language and images, etc., evident in texts that communicate knowledge – we talk about texts as consisting of discourse; indeed, often, “text” and “discourse” are used interchangeably, where “discourse” relates to language “above the sentence” level or language “in use” (Cameron & Panovic, 2014, p. 3). Second, “discourse” is also used to refer to broader societal discourses that underpin the language and images that are used in texts (Foucault, 1972; Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996) (e.g., the discourse of environmentalism). Discourse analytical approaches (whatever form they take, dependent on the research question, the ontological commitments of the researcher and their field of research) are central to exploring the communication of knowledge: • they allow us to explore what counts as knowledge, with some degree of granularity • they make it possible to see absences – what is not considered to count as knowledge, also relevant for the study of knowledge asymmetries In short, our volume recognizes the importance of language and other forms of semiosis, such as images for the mediation of knowledge in a variety of contexts. Most chapters involve some element of empirical analysis of a knowledge communication text or texts, where contributors do the following: • briefly and clearly outline the relevant method(s) of discourse/textual analysis, and • analyse empirical data (texts) to show how knowledge is communicated in them Combined, the variety of text types and methods used and exemplified in this volume indicates something of the scope of possibilities in knowledge

10

Jan Engberg, Antoinette Fage-Butler, and Peter Kastberg

communication research and we hope may inspire its application to frame and analyse other forms of knowledge communication than those included here. 5.

Methodological characteristics of the knowledge communication approach

Drawing together our deliberations so far, we now outline the characteristics of empirical studies within the knowledge communication approach. The contributions in this anthology are all – to varying degrees – anchored in the aforementioned pillars of knowledge communication: that is, a constructivist worldview which entails that communication is constitutive, that knowledge is consequently constructed in communication and that the knowledge thus produced is expressed in a broad range of forms and formats that are textual in a broad sense. In the following, we will outline some possible focal points of the study of knowledge communications and use the contributions as examples of the diferent foci. In transitional texts at the beginning of each section of the volume, a more comprehensive presentation of the chapters may be found. A knowledge communication inquiry can involve who, what, how, where/when and why questions that each chapter addresses to the extent that they are deemed relevant by the contributors. • Who: Both the identities of the senders and receivers may be in focus. Besides identifying their identities and considering their significance for a knowledge communication event, their identities as constructed/ reflected in knowledge communication texts may also be the object of analysis. This question is central in the chapter by Alexander Holste (Knowledge communication as an imitation game). Here, Holste explores the co-construction of knowledge in human-bot interactions, in efect, ofering critical insights into how knowledge communication ideas may be applied and made productive in web-based communication settings. “Who” is also in focus in Mia Thyregod Rasmussen’s chapter entitled Communication networks as knowledge communication positions. Methodologically, she uses a sequential mixed methods design, first, conducting a survey to identify which organizational members in the organizational setting of an NGO talked to each other about workrelated topics and, following this with semi-structured interviews with the members themselves.

Introduction

11

Finally, in the conceptually oriented chapter by Patrizia Anesa (Language and law in the post-disciplinary landscape: A knowledge communication perspective), the author discusses the “who” in the form of diferent approaches to describing the communities underlying expert communication and uses legal communication and the quest for plain and understandable legal communication as her empirical example. • What: In line with our constructionist perspective, the chapters of this book explore what is represented as knowledge in various data sets. A focus on “what” in the chapters may be concerned with the following questions: • Does the knowledge represented in the texts relate to recognized disciplines or professions, or is it a form of counter-knowledge? • What representations of knowledge are evident in knowledge communication texts? • Are certain forms of knowledge obviously excluded from the representations? Antoinette Fage-Butler’s chapter (Knowledge communication during the pandemic: Constructing the emergent knowledge of COVID-19 on Danish institutional webpages) is an example of this type of focus. Fage-Butler examines how Danish authorities represented expert, health-related COVID-19 knowledge on a national, governmental website. For her analysis, she uses in-depth Foucauldian discourse analyses to identify, discuss and evaluate the main representations of COVID-19 knowledge. In their chapter (How knowledge moves across social fields – a conceptual illustration of the antenarrative field of economic degrowth thinking), Klarissa Lueg and Jens Rennstam explore how knowledge moves across diferent social fields. Their conceptual focal point is an in-depth investigation of the antenarrative field as a social space for knowledge exchange between agents relying on Bourdieusian practice theory and antenarrative theory. Finally, in their chapter, Helle Dam Jensen and Anja Krogsgaard Vesterager report an observational study of what types of knowledge groups of students co-construct as a basis for making concrete translational decisions (change or keep suggested machine translations). As descriptive instrument for assessing knowledge types, they use competence types found to be relevant for translation tasks. • How: As scholars working within a knowledge communication framework, we are concerned with identifying how knowledge is manifest in

12 Jan Engberg, Antoinette Fage-Butler, and Peter Kastberg knowledge communication texts. In order to explore this, contributors characterize the choice of modes, media and genres used in the text(s) they are analysing. Jan Engberg and Carmen Daniela Maier in their chapter (The dynamics of knowledge and expertise in social media interactions: Knowledge types, processes of co-constructing knowledge and discursive reactions) present a study with this focus. They investigate how knowledge is constructed through co-construction processes manifested through diferent types of discursive reactions in a SoMe context. Hence, from the point of view of methodology, they combine two analytical approaches. Another such example is Sae Oshima’s chapter (Knowledge work of professional clients) which demonstrates the subtle interplay of diferent knowledge forms in the client/professional setting of the hair salon using videographic data and drawing on a microethnographic approach. Oshima demonstrates the value of conversation analysis for efectively capturing these delicate and potentially face-threatening moments of knowledge navigation. • Where/When: No text emerges into a context-free space. The reasons why knowledge communication texts are written may be clear from their immediate context or be explicitly stated in the texts themselves. Moreover, knowledge communication texts reflect general cultural understandings – for example, of the topic and receivers. Thus, a text about climate communication may have been catalysed by a recent climate summit as well as reflect cultural discourses, such as climate crisis and denialism. As such, knowledge communication texts tell stories about the “where” and “when” of their production. Discussion of such features serve to highlight the inherently contextual nature of knowledge communication. A chapter with this focus is Christiane Zehrer’s (Knowledge communication in interdisciplinary settings – ontological solutions and conceptual challenges). In this chapter, Zehrer examines the communication of professional domain knowledge from the point of view of a multidimensional analysis relying on concepts from multimodality and knowledge communication, following a fairly microethnographic methodological path. Ushma Chauhan Jacobsen’s chapter (Knowledge asymmetry, and Corvus Corax 20XX in Greenland/Denmark: Locating method) also highlights the importance of situating discussions of knowledge asymmetries within their contexts, conceptualizing an artistic collaboration project involving a partnership between two theatres in Denmark

Introduction

13

and Greenland as an epistemic community. She uses the method-theory of multi-sited ethnography to explore knowledge as part of communicative processes and outcomes. Finally, in her contribution (Research methods to investigate knowledge types in professional text production), Carmen Heine uses professional text production as empirical case in order to conceptually investigate the influence of diferent knowledge types and the range of methods relevant for assessing these types. The basis for her concepts is the field of writing process research. • Why: It is possible to engage with the “why” question in two main ways: • The construction of knowledge in the data: Why is knowledge represented in this way? Do the representations of knowledge identified in the analysis serve strategic purposes? • The contribution of knowledge communication to the research field: Why is a knowledge communication perspective relevant for this topic? What is achieved by applying it in this field with this data? What new questions does it raise? A chapter with a focus related to this category is the one by Peter Kastberg (Modelling the terra firma of dialogical communication from a CCO perspective). Kastberg presents a conceptual investigation of the communication theoretical foundations of knowledge communication. Taking his point of departure in radical constructivism and a constitutive understanding of communication, Kastberg reconceptualizes communication as co-actional and, in the ensuing visualization, develops an alternative gestalt to the mainstream message-oriented perceptions of communication. Notes 1. This does not mean that we do not acknowledge the epistemological and/or ontological diferences between the various branches of constructivism. We do, but that is beside the point here. 2. This section draws heavily on Kastberg (2020). 3. The direct predecessor to this understanding of a linguistic turn is German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. 4. Within the field of modern communication theory, this translates to a history of ideas that depicts a development of its general formats along these lines: from viewing communication as action via viewing communication as interaction to viewing communication as transaction; each of which, in turn, gives rise to a prototypical (Kleiber, 1993) communication model (see Kastberg, 2015 for elaborations and discussions).

14

Jan Engberg, Antoinette Fage-Butler, and Peter Kastberg

References Adamzik, K. (2018). Fachsprachen. Die Konstruktion von Welten. Narr. Anesa, P., & Fage-Butler, A. M. (2016). Popularizing biomedical information in an online forum. Pragmatics and Society, 7(2), 196–216. https://doi.org/10.1075/ ps.7.2.02fag Ashcraft, K. L., Kuhn, T. R., & Cooren, F. (2009). Constitutional amendments: “Materializing” organizational communication. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 1–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520903047186 Beebe, S. A., Beebe, S. J., & Ivy, D. K. (2004). Communication: Principles for a lifetime (2nd ed.). Pearson, Allyn and Bacon. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Doubleday. Cameron, D., & Panovic, I. (2014). Working with written discourse. SAGE Publications. Cooren F. (2004). Textual agency: How texts do things in organizational settings. Organization, 11, 373–394. Engberg, J. (2016). Conceptualising corporate criminal liability: Legal linguistics and the combination of descriptive lenses. In G. Tessuto, V. K. Bhatia, G. Garzone, R. Salvi, & C. Williams (Eds.), Constructing legal discourses and social practices: Issues and perspectives (pp. 28–56). Cambridge Scholars. Engberg, J. (2020). Institutional dissemination of legal knowledge – An instance of knowledge communication. In M. Gotti, S. Maci, & M. Sala (Eds.), Scholarly pathways: Knowledge transfer and knowledge exchange in academia (pp. 175– 205). Peter Lang. Fage-Butler, A. M., & Anesa, P. (2016). Discursive construction and negotiation of laity on an online health forum. Pragmatics and Society, 7(2), 196–216. https:// doi.org/10.1075/ps.7.2.02fag Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. Pantheon. Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40(3), 266–275. Hansen, H. F., & Rieper, O. (2009). The evidence movement. Evaluation, 15(2), 141–163. Jacobsen, U. C. (2012). Knowledge asymmetries. A situated inquiry in three sites of professional communication [PhD, Dept. of Business Communication, Aarhus University]. Kalverkämper, H. (1998). Fach und Fachwissen. In L. Hofmann, H. Kalverkämper, & H. E. Wiegand (Eds.), Fachsprachen. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Fachsprachenforschung und Terminologiewissenschaft (pp. 1–24). De Gruyter. Kastberg, P. (2007). Knowledge communication: The emergence of a third order discipline. In C. Villiger & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Kommunikation in Bewegung: Multimedialer und multilingualer Wissenstransfer in der Experten-Laien-Kommunikation. Festschrift für Annely Rothkegel (pp.  7–24). Peter Lang. Kastberg, P. (2010). Knowledge communication. Formative ideas and research impetus. Pragmatic Perspectives, 2(1), 59–71. Kastberg, P. (2011). Knowledge asymmetries: Beyond to have and have not. Fachsprache – International Journal of Specialized Communication, 34(3–4), 137–151.

Introduction

15

Kastberg, P. (2015). Promoting communication, participation, and learning with regard to organic food products: A communication theoretical approach. Ecology and Society, 20(1), article 3. Kastberg, P. (2019). Knowledge communication. Contours of a research agenda. Forum für Fachsprachenforschung. Frank & Timme. Kastberg, P. (2020). Modelling the reciprocal dynamics of dialogical communication: On the communication-philosophical undercurrent of radical constructivism and second-order cybernetics. Sign Systems Studies, 48(1), 32–55. https:// doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2020.48.1.03 Kleiber, G. (1993). Prototypensemantik: Eine Einführung. Francke Verlag. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. Routledge. Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. (2011). Theories of human communication. Waveland Press. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (2015[1984]). Der Baum der Erkenntnis: Die biologischen Wurzeln menschlichen Erkennens. Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag. Nicotera, A. M. (2009). Constitutive view of communication. In S. W. Littlejohn & K. A. Foss (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communication theory (online). Sage. Pennarola, C. (2019). From knowledge to empowerment: The epistemologies of ESP. International Journal of Language Studies, 13(4), 7–14. www.ijls.net/pages/ volume/vol13no4.html. Poerksen, B. (2003). At each and every moment I can decide who I am – Heinz von Förster on the observer, dialogic life, and a constructivist philosophy of distinctions. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 10(3–4), 9–26. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. University of Chicago Press. Porup Thomasen, U. (2015). Exploring the communicative dimensions of knowledge-intensive innovation: An ethnographic insight into the innovation culture initiative of Novo Nordisk. Department of Business Communication, Aarhus University. https://pure.au.dk/ws/files/86923107/Exploring_the_Communicative_Dimensions_of_Knowledge_Intensive_Innovation.pdf. Putnam, L. L., Nicotera, A. M., & McPhee, R. D. (2009). Communication constitutes organizations. In L. L. Putnam & A. M. Nicotera (Eds.), Building theories of organizations: The constitutive role of communication (pp. 1–20). Routledge. Rohlf, M. (2020). Immanuel Kant. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/ entries/kant/ Rorty, R. M. (1992[1967]). The linguistic turn: Essays in philosophical methods. University of Chicago Press. Schöneborn, D., & Blaschke, S. (2014). The three schools of CCO thinking: Interactive dialogue and systematic comparison. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 285–316. Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press. Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. MIT Press. Tomasello, M. (2014). A natural history of human thinking. Harvard University Press.

16

Jan Engberg, Antoinette Fage-Butler, and Peter Kastberg

von Förster, H. (2003[1974]). Cybernetics of epistemology. In H. von Förster (Ed.), Understanding understanding: Essays on understanding and cognition (pp. 229– 246). Springer. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radikaler Konstruktivismus: Ideen, ergebnisse, probleme. Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft, 1326. West, R., & Turner, L. H. (2018). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application. McGraw-Hill. Windahl, S., Signitzer, B., & Olson, J. T. (2009). Using communication theory: An introduction to planned communication. Sage.

I

Text

As a common point of departure, all three papers in this first section of the anthology pay homage to the text-oriented legacy of Knowledge Communication research. However, each paper also breaks new ground when it comes understanding what constitutes ‘text’ within Knowledge Communication research. Each paper does so in its own unique way. For Carmen Heine who examines the real-life production of professional texts, ‘text’ is both process and product. In her empirically grounded, theoretical modelling of text production, the element of knowledge is singled out and examined in-depth. By means of an advanced, multifaceted model of analysis she is able to zoom in on and shed new light on the critical knowledge-making facets of professional text production. In his paper, Alexander Holste takes both ‘text’ and text production into the realm of new media. In his investigations into human-bot interaction, not only does he challenge the traditional view of ‘text’, he also challenges traditional authorship. By conducting in-depth semantic network analyses of the co-construction of knowledge as it can be inferred in human-bot interaction, he establishes the theoretical contours of Automated Knowledge Communication. Jan Engberg and Carmen Daniela Maier investigate in their chapter how knowledge is co-constructed in comments to a Facebook post by the WHO on measures to be taken in households with COVID-19 infections. Through the empirical analysis, the relations between types of discursive reactions, co-construction processes and types of constructed content knowledge are assessed. Furthermore, the authors investigate the quality and depth of co-construction processes in this type of context. Looking at all three papers, it is obvious that Knowledge Communication research has transgressed the traditional linguistic confines of the ‘text’. Quite tellingly, however, for Knowledge Communication research as such as well as for its researchers, this is done without discarding of ‘text’ as a legitimate object of study. This section is testimony to the many avenues of research that a text-oriented focus may hold in store for future Knowledge Communication research.

1

Research methods to investigate knowledge types in professional text production Carmen Heine

1.

Introduction

Professional text production is performed by writers in their respective domains. These communicate knowledge in a text-based knowledge communication format. The degree of professionalism and specialization of the communication may vary, as may the circumstances, the aims of the production, and a multitude of other complex and intertwined factors. The intricate process is embedded in a situation driven by the interaction between the cognitive state of the text producer and the situation in which a written text is designed for an intended audience. Like other text production concepts, knowledge is difcult to research, operationalize, and conceptualize. Clear-cut insights into the considerations at play that lead text producers to turn knowledge into texts are difcult to achieve. Recent research methods enlighten the construct of knowledge as it unfolds in various knowledge types in text production. This chapter examines knowledge types and describes current methods and method combinations of text production research. Knowledge-type conceptualizations of the interdisciplinary fields of educational research, writing research, and specialized discourse communication research are discussed. Data collection methods, means of analysis, and designs are presented, with the aim to provide insight into the text production research on knowledge types and to illustrate research gaps and desiderata.

2.

Early approaches to conceptualize knowledge in text production

The stages of knowledge development described later and the cognitive affordances in text production and how they develop over time are based on the early distinction between declarative knowledge about facts and things and procedural knowledge about how to perform cognitive tasks. Reasoning, decision-making, and problem-solving, basic activities that require DOI: 10.4324/9781003285120-2

Research methods to investigate knowledge types

19

these knowledge types, are, therefore, at the core of models of writing processes and competence models alike. However, there are diferent stances on pieces of knowledge as components of text production. Early writing research departed from the investigation of acts of writing, such as planning, translating (which means transferring thoughts into text produced so far), and reviewing (Hayes & Flower, 1980). In this view, information accessed from memory is organized in a meaningful and useful way, reflected, and transcribed into writing, which continuously is reviewed to allow for the reader’s comprehension and acceptance of the resulting text product as written conversation. 2.1 From learning-to-write to crafting expert texts

Reflections about how to organize information in a meaningful way resulted in considerations regarding expertise in writing and how it develops from novice stages of learning-to-write to expert skills, such as designing and crafting text products. Bereiter shows how skills, such as, for example, written language production, mechanics of writing, cognition, critical judgement, and reflection, are integrated into writing development from associative writing via performative, communicative, and unified writing to epistemic writing (1980, p. 84). Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) and Kellogg (2008) have described the development of expertise based on knowledge and suggested that the development of writing skills advances incrementally from knowledge telling via knowledge transforming to knowledge crafting. In knowledge telling, thoughts are retrieved based on author ideas and restated. The acts of writing (planning, translating, and reviewing as described earlier) are limited. Novices focus on converting thoughts into writing (rendering). While content knowledge, discourse knowledge, and genre identifiers are applied and the appropriateness of the text (adequacy) is tested to a limited degree, Bereiter and Scardamalia’s (1987) work does not provide detailed information about the elaborateness of these skills. They describe knowledge telling as follows: authors “tell what they know” based on the afordances of the content and discourse situation (the text type in question) – without additional means to create coherence. I would argue that this “beginner strategy” is also practiced by experts when deemed appropriate. In knowledge transforming, the writing development stage of beginning proficiency, writers interact with their text, re-produce, re-formulate, and get triggered by ideas, thoughts, and external influences to actively constitute knowledge. Cognitive processes at play are rational and complex; production process components are embedded and connected. Knowledge transforming is problem analysis and goals setting that, based on the mental representation of the writing assignment, balances content knowledge

20

Carmen Heine

(in the content problem space) against discourse knowledge (in the rhetorical problem space) (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987, p. 146). The availability and evaluability of the knowledge representation (between the two spaces) forms critical thinking and problem-solving at the core of text production, and the results reflect in the quality of the text. This critical thinking, as fostered by writing, does not come automatically with the acquisition of knowledge (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993, p. 45). Knowledge transforming might even restructure the writer’s knowledge about the subject. Günther (1993, p.  28) links these ideas and stretches the notion of epistemic influences a little further by explaining that during knowledge-transforming text production, the content itself also has a function: to allow the writer access to evolving mental knowledge representations. In Kellogg’s (2008) knowledge crafting, which also builds on the notion that there is more to (expert) writing than knowledge telling and transforming, the stage of epistemic writing comes to light. As does – implicitly – the idea of influential factors of production processes, the situational perspective. In knowledge crafting, writers have their readers and those readers’ potential interpretation of the text and other text production process elements in mind while writing. Examples of such elements are the task, the experience, the domain, the situation, and the individuals’ idiosyncratic disposition and the knowledge type(s) at their disposal. Research questions to be asked are how the transfer aspects between ideas and actual text production are in fact linked with the individual knowledge pools of writers; when, how, and why they interplay; and which factors lead to knowledge activation, selection, and formulation. Knowledge crafting can, therefore, be described as juggling. This implies the iterativeness, recursiveness, speed, and complexity, to name but a few features, of the phases of text production processes. In Kellogg’s understanding of knowledge crafting, the expert text producer balances the cognitive and physical text production processes more adroitly than writers at earlier writing stages. The picture of the juggling applied to a (professional) text producer also suggests that multiple “things” (the juggler’s props) impact the writing process and are dealt with at one time. Examples are conscious and unconscious thoughts and processes of planning, decision-making, evaluating, and reflecting about the text that is produced; information derived from external information sources; and the means that are used to aid the writing activity. 3. Knowledge development, knowledge types, and competence Text production disciplines have approached knowledge as a concept, entity, and process element from multiple angles. The developmental

Research methods to investigate knowledge types

21

perspective was pursued by researchers interested in text production competence, the ability to write successfully and efciently, and links knowledge types with their activation. In parallel with the studies by Bereiter and Scardamalia, Feilke and Augst (1989) introduce the ontogenetical perspective that knowledge develops from conceptional via realization to routine knowledge. Conceptional knowledge is based on world knowledge and knowledge about communication norms. In their model (Feilke & Augst, 1989, p. 302), realization knowledge includes linguistic knowledge about the microstructure of texts (e.g., cohesion, syntax, and lexis) and the macrostructure of texts (e.g., knowledge about text types, coherence, and planning techniques). These lead to routine knowledge about writing. Quite rightly, recent research refocuses on Feilke and Augst’s knowledge categorization on an ontogenetical-processual perspective and re-includes routines. Their categorization has unfolded in diferent directions (e.g., into multilingual writing research, technical communication research, and translator training), to name but a few, as scholars from the text production disciplines felt the need to organize the elements of the complex process of text production. The majority of studies on competence development are carried out with L1 text producers – most often learners. But some studies incorporate the multicompetence perspective of knowledge and text construction to include L2 writing. Kobayashi and Rinnert show that as the repertoire of writing knowledge expands and evolves, the relations between L1 and L2 knowledge change from almost separate systems to greater degrees of overlap and non-language-specific writing knowledge is incorporated in cross-language writing transfer during text production (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012, p.  101). This transfer, the knowledge involved in it, and the knowledge that the individual acquires from it remains an under-researched aspect of multilingual text producers’ processes. Conceptualized on its own, L1 competence is often based on the classical distinction between declarative and procedural knowledge (and in addition to problem-solving and metacognitive knowledge, in the model by Becker-Mrotzek and Schindler [2007]). Knorr’s language-sensitive model for academic writing includes declarative and procedural knowledge, problem-solving, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge and incorporates language and literacy dimensions, which are typically underrepresented in other competence models (Knorr, 2019, p.  170). In her model, the knowledge types are aligned with five aspects of academic writing: processual, textual, language, language form, and medial aspects. The model explicates 56 elements, which makes it detailed and borderline exhaustive. It does not provide insight into the interconnectedness of the elements of the writing process, as it does not provide

22

Carmen Heine

relations between elements. Instead, its emphasis is on the link between the individual afordances of writing and the respective knowledge required to facilitate these (via competence under development) and is intended for diagnostic purposes. It can be used for didactic and counselling settings to prospectively train and explain and to retrospectively detect glitches in writing processes and texts. As claimed earlier, competence is one of the complex elements of text production that is closely linked with knowledge, and scholars define text production as problem-solving, which establishes the link between the concepts of knowledge and competence. Therefore, a logical consequence of defining text production as problem-solving is that the given “problem” is likely to be solved by applying a metacognitive and strategic competence to text production. In the model by Göpferich (2015, p. 195), a combination of strategic control, motivation, information gathering, and evaluation is the central driver of text production processes. It controls, metacognitively reflects, and reciprocally influences the conception and exteriorization phases of text production. The control activates all conscious and subconscious processes involved in text production. It draws on two major elements: the individuum and the writing environment. The writing environment in which text is produced includes the task, documents, interim versions of the product, text production aids and tools, informants, partners, and incentives. In the individuum, a pool of 11 knowledge types is stored in the long-term memory. These include knowledge about the audience, subject matter, legal requirements, cultural differences, tools, quality criteria, discourse community, and knowledge deficits. From a theoretical perspective, I deem Göpferich’s long-term memory pool of pieces of knowledge particularly relevant for description and hypothesis generation, as it includes task schemas and knowledge about attitudes and predispositions (Göpferich, 2015, p.  129). The latter two are under-researched areas of text production research that require exploration. One may wonder whether the number and the level of abstraction of the subtypes in the Göpferich model are right, whether the labelling of the types is fitting, whether the type lists are (too) exhaustive, and whether they fit writing processes other than multilingual writing, L2 writing processes, and academic multiliteracy, as implied by the author, given that the same model was published as a didactic model for technical communication previously. As with knowledge distinctions and categorizations by Göpferich, one can question Hayes’s (1996, p.  4) five knowledge types (task schemas, topic knowledge, audience knowledge, linguistic knowledge, and genre knowledge) as not incorporating the procedural versus declarative knowledge distinction. Rothkegel (2005, p. 60)

Research methods to investigate knowledge types

23

lists domain-specific distinction into text knowledge (knowledge about linguistic processes), documentation knowledge (related to the writing environment), and specialized knowledge (further distinguished into knowledge application, field-specific knowledge, and everyday knowledge) but excludes the production perspective of technical documentation processes. Beaufort (2007, p.  221) similarly lists subject-matter knowledge, genre knowledge, rhetorical knowledge, writing process knowledge, and discourse community knowledge but for a non-generalizable, isolated writing-to-learn case. The apparent similarities and diferences in the conceptualizations are not trivial findings. The similarities point in the direction that some knowledge types appear to be static across various text production settings, while others can be linked with the familiarity of the individual with the subject domain, with expertise, and with writing experience, to name but a few aspects. These overview highlights and the situational aspect discussed in the following section will underline that further research into process components and their elements, such as knowledge types, and theorizing about text production, classifications, definitions, and comparisons across the interdisciplinary field is required to gain a broader understanding of them. 4.

The situated, the social, and the “making” of knowledge in writing scenarios

Graham (2018, p. 265) takes a situated approach and explains writer(s)within-community by modelling the cognitive mechanisms involved in writing as a pair of long-term memory resources – similarly to Göpferich (2015). The pair consists of knowledge types and beliefs. Beliefs are defined as what an individual thinks and trusts about writing. This includes favorable or unfavorable attitudes and judgements about writing, whether one finds topics, context, and situations compelling; whether one trusts that one can write successfully; and whether one trusts in fixed or modifiable competencies as a writer. Graham’s set of beliefs includes intrinsic motivation (reminiscent of the central motivation component in, for example, Göpferich [2015] and other European models of writing) and extrinsic motivation. His conceptualization of extrinsic motivation is that of fear or punishment, while models of professional writing have seen extrinsic motivation as a form of inducement (e.g., prestige in the job or financial rewards). What appears obvious at first glance regarding Graham’s (2018, pp.  266–267) knowledge types is in fact not trivial either: He stresses that content knowledge may be more important for some writing tasks than for others and that depending on the topic, more or less

24

Carmen Heine

discipline-specific knowledge might be needed. Other authors have compared further knowledge types: Comparing subject-domain specialists and language specialists regarding their dominant knowledge types, Göpferich states that “subject-domain specialists can be assumed to possess more subject-matter knowledge and discourse community knowledge in their specific disciplines than language specialists can be expected to possess in them” (Göpferich, 2015, p. 185). Shanahan (2004, p. 90) points out that subject-domain specialists can also be assumed to possess more genre knowledge about the specific genres they produce frequently. In addition, it can be assumed that language specialists possess more writing process knowledge and knowledge of their writing community, as introduced by Beaufort (2007). The situational aspect is also prominent in Dengscherz’s (2019) heuristic approach and in her situation-zoom model (Dengscherz, 2021, p. 177), which focuses on the influence factors that shape rhetorical knowledge. “The heuristic dimension refers to the development of thoughts through writing, the rhetoric dimension is focused on the presentation of those thoughts for a specific audience” (Dengscherz, 2021, p.  176). Writers work on their own understanding of the topic in the heuristic dimension (knowledge transforming) and try to make their insights understandable for others in the rhetorical dimension (knowledge crafting). But according to Dengscherz, the dimensions must not be equated with content and language, as writers work with language in both dimensions (2021, p. 177). 5.

Knowledge types and supra-individuality

The rich variety of knowledge-type categorizations calls for a more thorough comparison of the types as is possible here. Small-scale attempts to categorize and compare knowledge types are available in Heine (2010, p. 152), Göpferich (2015, p. 132), and Dengscherz (2019, p. 115). Looking at the comparison thus far, an element of uncertainty remains regarding which types are relevant for the individual writer and which types of knowledge are at play in given situations and domains. Much of the uncertainty regarding the knowledge types is related to the aim behind category building for research and didactic purposes: to cover supraindividual commonalities of writing (Dengscherz, 2021, p. 174). But with respect to the diferentiation of knowledge, supra-individuality might be a tricky beast since we know that writers act and solve writing problems against the background of their language and writing biographies, which change and evolve over time, as well as of the traditions of institutions and discourse communities (Russell, 2010; Dengscherz,

Research methods to investigate knowledge types

25

2021) to which writers adapt. And they do so based on their learning and experience – and on instruction and via reflection practices. To make matters even more complicated, the latter is brought in alignment with the individual knowledge writers possess and are applied in a given situation, which does not guarantee that the same author will reflect, align, and apply in the exact same way in a similar situation again. 6.

“Making knowledge” and “doing language” as a social activity

The situation-interaction model (Dengscherz, 2021, p. 179) integrates the distinction between text production routines and strategies. It shows that text producers apply their knowledge by choosing routines that meet the requirements of the text production task in the situation by way of applying writing habits – which are often unconscious and not focused – and they chose strategies as writing behavior by explicitly and consciously focusing to overcome problems and challenges. Dengscherz’s writing habits correspond with Graham’s knowledge about typified actions, “how writing commonly occurs, what tools are typically used, and how writing is distributed among community members” (Graham, 2018, p. 266). Without explicitly stating it, both Graham and Dengscherz draw on Bazerman, who defines typified action as “more a matter of habit, afective security, and compulsion than it is of understanding and conscious choice making” (Bazerman, 2013, p. 112). Estrem (2016) calls the aforementioned writing behavior a knowledgemaking activity and deems it’s sometimes ephemeral and often informal aspects critical to text producer’s development and growth. For writing in academia, Kristiansen points out that it is necessary to understand the interdependence between knowledge-making, disciplinary thinking, and textual features (Kristiansen, 2019, p. 2). This view is based on Carter (2007), who explains that a mere delivery of knowledge from a more or less static point of view sees writing as separated from the discipline, the so-called “knowing what”, as opposed to the active ways of knowing, the “knowing how”. In this line of argumentation, the “doing” of the discipline is at the core of knowledge-making practices (Kristiansen, 2019). In addition, the social context plays an important role in knowledge-making practices at the crossroads between subject-specific knowledge and disciplinary ways of producing knowledge and texts. This was already established by Pennycook (2010), who points out that the language practices in the given communicative situation for which texts are written result in the “doing of language as social activity”. Social activities relate to intentions and conventions in the fields of professional text production, which in turn raises thoughts about perceived and intended roles, expertise, experiences,

26

Carmen Heine

adapted and modified standards (Young, 2013, p. 138), and concepts of culture, to name but a few. 7.

From knowledge-type categories to research and back

All knowledge-type categorization approaches have in common that they help researchers, practitioners, and learners to structure, order, generalize, and simplify their conceptualizations of the complex activity of text production. The knowledge-type conceptualizations are based on considerable research and synthesized to form generalizations about the types. Some of the knowledge types are empirically proven and theorized, others are deduced from theoretical considerations as continuations of existing knowledge in the (research) domain, yet others are a mixture of both. The knowledge types – though difcult elements of text production processes to research, due to their cognitive nature – already have provided and will likely continue to provide a rich opportunity for hypothesis generation. They are prone to evoke interesting research designs, method combinations, and data triangulation possibilities. 7.1 Knowledge types – potential investigation

The research questions listed below are ones that I deem particularly worthy of investigation. They show how knowledge types can be used as starting points for further text production research (e.g., Helle Dam Jensen and Anja Krogsgaard Vesterager’s translation studies approach, this volume). The questions are grouped into three broader categories and are exemplary for the areas of application envisioned: the educational field and writing in the professional domains. Each of the questions could be addressed by a variety of methods and combinations (explained later). Given the scarcity of research into knowledge types, each would also be the groundwork for methodology testing. Research departing from the conception and exteriorization phases of text production could investigate the following: • how text producers consciously choose knowledge types (e.g., how they activate and select their different knowledge[s] during planning, goal setting, decision-making, organizing, and evaluating their processes) • which types of knowledge are activated at which stage during text production processes when text producers juggle with elements of the process • how the knowledge available to the individual is linearized at macro and micro-level phrase generation

Research methods to investigate knowledge types

27

• how knowledge-related habitual behavior can be traced in individuals and compared across groups of text producers (e.g., novices and experts) • how writing literacy development relates (and clashes) with knowledge types of diferent domains Research could advance from the viewpoint of influence and environments and investigate the following: • how discipline-general and discipline-specific knowledge types influence knowledge-type activation, knowledge selection, and text production (e.g., whether the process is the influential factor or the knowledge type or other elements of the process, such as the external environment) Research could depart from interpersonal and longitudinal perspectives and investigate the following: • how knowledge about information deficits is linked with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation • how writing biographies and knowledge types are linked (e.g., whether biographical approaches of investigation can use knowledge types to explain writing expertise status and development) The common theme of these research questions is the investigation of the relationship between the knowledge types and other elements of writing processes. Abstract and descriptive writing models often fail to establish the relations between the knowledge types and other elements. The reason for this may be that knowledge types are seldomly isolated for in-depth investigation, particularly not across a range of participants. Quite the contrary, the knowledge types depicted in most of the models and approaches mentioned derive from qualitative, non-comparative research and theorization and require further in-depth research. 8.

Methods

Methods and method combinations and their distinctions have occupied text production process researchers particularly since the technological advances of keystroke logging, screen capturing, and videography. Research designs and methods are reflected upon in volumes on European writing research methodology and in US-American text production literature: Knorr et al. (2014) investigates text production processes qualitatively and quantitatively. Brinkschulte and Kreitz (2017) focus on qualitative-empirical methods of writing research. Becker-Mrotzek et al.

28

Carmen Heine

(2017) focus on what they perceive as the apparent lack of quantitative research in the field (Becker-Mrotzek et al., 2017, p. 18). Heine and Knorr’s (2021) ranges from classical qualitative and quantitative methods of text production research to exploratory real-life writing and corpus linguistics-based methods. Scott (2021) maps writing research as a transatlantic discipline and describes similarities and diferences between Grutsch McKinney’s (2016) US-American studies-based list of key research methods: discourse analysis, interviews, surveys, field work, and action research. She elicits from her investigation into Austrian, German, and Swiss research methods that “linguistics feature more prominently, given the early and continued role of linguistics in the field’s formation” (Scott, 2021). 8.1 Systematized data collection methods – a desideratum

While several research volumes with isolated studies on method combinations have been published, comparisons of method triangulations and systematic presentations and diferentializations of data analysis are a desideratum in text production research. A systematic overview that distinguishes data collection methods into peri-actional and post-actional methods according to when the data is collected is suggested by Krings (2005). This does not include pre-actional data collection methods. Pre-actional data could investigate writing expertise or educational background (individual resource/heuristic dimension) or self-perception, motivation, and beliefs (attitudes/rhetorical dimension) to provide additional information about the text producer prior to the investigation (e.g., to support pre-test and post-test designs). Pre-actional data may comprise online and/or ofine data (e.g., questionnaire and copy task measurement [Van Waes et al., 2021, p.  107]), and I would locate them in the center of an online-ofine methods continuum. Ofine methods are related to the text itself and tangible artifacts of the production process. Verbal reports, like retrospective comments, interviews, and questionnaires, belong to this group. Online methods comprise verbalizations collected during text production, such as think-aloud and dialogue data and observation protocol, video recording, screen capturing, keylogging, and eye tracking (Krings, 2005, p. 348). 8.1.1

Linguistic methods and analysis

Linguists will continue to claim that the “text” is still the most essential element in any text production investigation (Knorr & Heine, 2021, p. 10), typically as product analysis performed via qualitative textual analysis, content analysis, or corpus-linguistic means. Content knowledge can

Research methods to investigate knowledge types

29

be analysed by product analysis, but for an analysis of the strategies and heuristics, the inclusion of process methods is vital. 8.1.2

Think aloud

Inspired by Ericsson and Simon’s research in the early 1980s, verbalization while producing text has become a prominent online research method. The simultaneousness of the production and verbalization causes participants to typically express what is going on in their working memory (think-aloud protocol), rather than expressing metacognitive thoughts (metacognitive verbal protocol). The researcher is only provided with verbal accounts of what is accessible to the verbalizer in the situation, not necessarily a direct record of mental processes of composing (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986, p. 781). Arguments against think-aloud protocols circulate around the potential incompleteness, irrelevance, and epiphenomenalism (Ericsson & Simon, 1993, p.  61). Think-aloud research settings are typically experimental, as an observing researcher is required to remind participants of thinking aloud. Besides the “second” task (thinking aloud while doing the first task, producing text), reminders not to forget to think aloud might be perceived as a potential source of interference. Think-aloud data is rich and often a source for qualitative analysis – a reason why studies with think-aloud are often drawing on relatively few participants. Regarding knowledge-type analysis, working memory verbalizations can be analysed well with this method, which allows insight into knowledge retrieval (Heine, 2010, p. 232). Think-aloud lends itself to be used in combination with other research methods. Ethnographic writing at the workplace studies including think-aloud are not feasible, given the disruption and potential irritation of others. 8.1.3

Keystroke logging

Less invasive is keystroke logging, an online method which records participants’ behavior. Keystrokes, mouse actions, and browser window changes are logged in real time, and statistical data and visualizations of the text production process are available. The data gathered with keystroke logging software can be qualitatively and quantitatively interpreted. Some keystroke logging tools run unobtrusively in the background, while others are additional text editors that text producers might be unfamiliar with. While pause behavior and fluency provide insight into the way in which texts come into being and re-writing or re-formulating can provide insight into the knowledge at play during phrase generation types (when interpreted qualitatively and in accordance with the text produced), reading during writing or re-reading of text produced so far, and phases, where the

30

Carmen Heine

text producer thinks (or does other things and does not type), remain nonresearchable with keystroke logging. Hence, this method is also prone to be flanked with other observation methods that can help interpret the data. 8.1.4

Screen capturing

Screen capturing is also a more unobtrusive online research method. It captures processes on the text producer’s screen, including searches, split screens, and actions performed that take writers’ attention away from the text production process (e.g., an incoming notification). Replays of the video allow researchers to re-watch and interpret the process data. Screen capturing ofers possibilities to observe processes from a remote device, which makes presence of a researcher during the recording possible. This replay function is useful for self-reflection purposes and can be used as cue for producer comments on what went on in their minds during production. Screen capturing used in combination with observation (online, see next section) or retrospective interviews (ofine, see next section) provides insight into the (remembered) thought processes of text producers and can help shed light on knowledge types applied during production. 8.1.5

Videography

The possibility to re-watch and interpret is also the advantage of the online method videography. Video recordings are made of the text producer in situ. This allows for both ethnographic and experimental research, yet with the disadvantage that a recording camera can be perceived as obtrusive by participants. Video recordings provide data, such as gestures, verbal utterances, and body movements, that may yield more reliable data about the writing environment and the writing situation than, for example, a method-mix of, for example, keystroke logging and screen capturing. The ability to observe a person’s behavior (in the form of videography and in real-life observation, as described later) can also serve as an entryway to understand a writer’s attitude and emotions in a situation. In a mixed methods research design that includes a retrospective interview, researchers can ask about thoughts and emotions (about the problem-solving activities for which the knowledge types are activated in the individual’s memory), displayed by body movements perceived in the replay. 8.1.6

Retrospective interviews and questionnaires

Retrospective interviews and questionnaires are methods ideally applied shortly after the text production session occurred. These ofine methods that are based on the memory of the text producer – often used in

Research methods to investigate knowledge types

31

combination with an online method of recording as a comment cue. While participants potentially can tell researchers something about their processes that they make up as they are engaged in a dialogue, these methods are prone to help researchers ask questions regarding the research object in relation to the observed and lived production process. With regards to knowledge types, cue-based retrospective comments provide the researcher with a rich opportunity to inquire deeper into which elements of knowledge were at play during text production. Questionnaires based on researcher’s hypothesis on process elements (as for instance, a particular knowledge type and its influence on text production) are another helpful source. They bear the possibility to gather quantitative data across a sample of similar demographics, tasks, or research questions and can be online or ofine. 8.1.7

Observation and diaries

Observation and diaries are used in both experimental and field studies and in qualitative and quantitative research, both online and ofine. Quantitative observation typically uses the technology described earlier in laboratory settings. Field observation and introspective, researcher, participant, and learner diaries are qualitative research methods that are (additionally) used in natural settings, where the situations of participants and their activities are observed. In observation research, researchers are an important part of the research process, particularly with their reflexivity, which is a key to interpreting observed situations that display traces of knowledge types. Researchers may relate their findings to their own expert knowledge – against the odds of questioning their own opinions, preconcepts, biases, and prejudices (Borg et al., forthcoming). Observation studies often take an incremental approach that is hypothesis generating, rather than hypothesis testing. While a researcher present might distract the text producers observed, the researcher is able to see and experience text production in situ. In a method-mix, observation data (especially research field notes) are, therefore, a valuable source of information for the interpretation and triangulation of the data. If the possibility to inquire into the participants’ own perceptions is given, the researcher might enter a fruitful dialogue that may enlighten the researcher about knowledge types. Diaries can be online and ofine research methods, depending on their purpose. Borg et al. (forthcoming) distinguish between two diferent types of diaries: researcher diaries and participant diaries. Researcher diaries include researcher field notes, which are taken by the researcher during observation. They are produced by the researcher after the observation based

32

Carmen Heine

on the field notes and yield the researcher’s explanation and perspective of the observation. Participant diaries fall into three groups: non-instigated process notes made by the participants in the situation anyway; instigated process or diary notes, which are taken by the participants in relation to research or for didactical purposes; and instigated participant reports, which are written out by the participants upon researchers request and in addition to the text production situation. Observational data in the form of researcher diaries (e.g., taken by the teacher) and participant diaries (e.g., in the form of notes taken during text production) are easily accessible in didactical settings. Dialogical, non-directive conversations cued by process reports can be facilitated and evaluated, and (best) practices can be taught (Heine & Knorr, 2016, Helle Dam Jensen & Anja Krogsgaard Vesterager, this volume) based on the knowledge about knowledge types and their influences on the process, the individual, and their text production. 8.1.8

Other methods

Linguistic and rhetorical methods can also be used to shed light on the author’s knowledge via content analysis of the ofine data they yield. They feature prominently in text production research – often also as a triangulation method. Two additional online methods are eye tracking and brain pattern measurement. Eye tracking studies can, for example, show areas of the screen that writers seem to focus on and can help to distinguish between reading (of own text) and eye focus while writing. Eye fixations may, in combination with, for example, pauses in keystroke logging data or actions before and after a pause, shed light on instances of thought processes. But to my knowledge, the link between such focus areas and knowledge types is yet to be established. Eye tracking data is difcult to gather, tedious to analyse, and does not yet contribute to text production research to an extent that may enlighten the interplay between text production components. Ditto for brain pattern measurement, as brain pattern measurement is yet to prove its fitness for text production research. 8.1.9

Dialogue protocols

Online dialogue protocols were mentioned earlier in connection with didactic methods to investigate knowledge and to diferentiate knowledge types in learners’ process comments. A recorded dialogue can enlighten researchers about which kind of knowledge is activated in which situation. Researcher- (and teacher-) guided dialogues allow rich access to knowledge types. Heine and Engberg (2017) investigate semi-experienced and

Research methods to investigate knowledge types

33

experienced academic writers’ knowledge about their processes. In their study, process reports, keystroke logging, screen capturing, and cue-based retrospective interviews are supported by a hermeneutics-based dialogueconsensus and structural mapping technique. This technique claims to be able to represent the structured knowledge representations of the participant, which is mapped out with table cards of themes from process and retrospective interview and relation cards that help the participant to explain what they know. The dialogical approach focusses on the interviewers’ understanding of the knowledge representation of the interviewee that is developed during the dialogue to ensure deep understanding. 9.

Conclusion

Knowledge types impact text production and vary across individuals. They are applied diferently in text production and knowledge-making activities and are under-researched, even though they influence text production processes and are influenced by the domains in which they occur, by the situations in which they occur and by the way in which individuals deal with them consciously and subconsciously. Knowledge types are as manifold and varied as the methods and method-mixes available to investigate them. Many of the knowledge types deduced for model building, used in teaching, and applied (theoretically and explanatorily) to pinpoint and illustrate their status and influence on text producer, text, and text production have yet to be applied and tested by inductive and deductive reasoning and inferential statistics to prove their validity. This is especially valid across participants, domains, and situations. Also, longitudinal approaches and studies in professional text production to counterbalance the currently prevailing experimental studies are crucial and potentially fruitful. In addition, data representation in the form of transcripts, notes, etc., coding, analysis, and triangulation methods require scholarly investigation not least because quantitative research is underrepresented in text production research, and meta-reflection about the conclusions drawn based on small-scale research is required. Text production research should take inventory of the knowledge types that are representative of the research areas and disciplinary fields. Taxonomies, especially those that bridge across the disciplines, are a desideratum. While small-scale comparisons have been made already, it would be fruitful endeavor to identify, describe, discuss, and represent research foci in the domains to highlight characteristics and overlaps and to ease reference and access to and communication about the conceptualizations of knowledge, not least to allow other disciplines access to the status quo of research in text production and to encourage interdisciplinary work between the text production research disciplines.

34

Carmen Heine

References Bazerman, C. (2013). A theory of literate action: Literate action volume 2. The WAC Clearinghouse/Parlor Press. Beaufort, A. (2007). College writing and beyond: A new framework for university writing instruction. Utah State University Press. Becker-Mrotzek, M., Grabowski, J., & Steinhof, T. (2017). Forschungshandbuch empirische Schreibdidaktik. Waxmann. Becker-Mrotzek, M., & Schindler, K. (2007). Schreibkompetenzen modellieren. In M. Becker-Mrotzek & K. Schindler (Eds.), Texte schreiben (pp. 7–26). Gilles & Francke. Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 73–93). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Routledge. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Open Court. Borg, C., Heine, C., & Risku, H. (forthcoming). Observations and diaries. In A. M. Rojo López & R. Muñoz Martín (Eds.), Innovative data collection methods in cognitive translation and interpreting studies. John Benjamins. Brinkschulte, M., & Kreitz, D. (2017). Qualitative methoden in der Schreibforschung. W. Bertelsmann Verlag. Carter, M. (2007). Ways of knowing, doing, and writing in the disciplines. College Composition and Communication, 58(3), 385–418. www.jstor.org/stable/ 20456952 Dengscherz, S. (2019). Professionelles Schreiben in mehreren Sprachen. Strategien, Routinen und Sprachen im Schreibprozess (pp. 89–123). Lang. Dengscherz, S. (2021). Considering individual and situational variation in modeling writing processes. In M. Gustafsson & A. Eriksson (Eds.) (2022), Negotiating the intersections of writing and writing instruction (pp. 165–194). The WAC Clearinghouse/University Press of Colorado. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. MIT Press. Estrem, H. (2016). Writing is a knowledge-making activity. In L. Adler-Kassner & E. Wardle (Eds.), Naming what we know. Threshold concepts of writing studies (pp. 19–20). University Press of Colorado. Feilke, H., & Augst, G. (1989). Zur Ontogenese der Schreibkompetenz. In G. Antos & H. P. Krings (Eds.), Textproduktion. Ein Interdisziplinärer Forschungsüberblick (pp. 297–327). Niemeyer. Göpferich, S. (2015). Text competence and academic multiliteracy. From text linguistics to literacy development. Narr Francke Attempo. Graham, S. (2018). A revised writer(s)-within-community model of writing. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018. 1481406 Grutsch McKinney, J. (2016). Strategies for writing center research. Parlor Press. Günther, U. (1993). Texte planen – Texte produzieren. Kognitive Prozesse der schriftlichen Textproduktion. Westdeutscher Verlag.

Research methods to investigate knowledge types

35

Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding and afect in writing. In M. C. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual diferences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Erlbaum. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Heine, C. (2010). Modell zur Produktion von Online-Hilfen. Frank & Timme. Heine, C., & Engberg, J. (2017). Das Dialog-Konsens/Struktur-Lege-Gespräch als Schreibprozessforschungsmethode. In M. Brinkschulte & D. Kreitz (Eds.), Qualitative methoden in der Schreibforschung (pp. 85–101). W. Bertelsmann Verlag. Heine, C., & Knorr, D. (2016). Selbstreflexion akademischen Schreibhandelns anstoßen. Nicht-direktive Gesprächsführung als Haltung des Betreuenden. In K. Schindler, K. Lehnen, & D. Knorr (Eds.), Schreiben im Übergang von Bildungsinstitutionen (pp. 109–131). Lang. Heine, C., & Knorr, D. (2021). Methoden der Schreibwissenschaft. Forum Angewandte Linguistik F.A.L, Bd. 67. Lang. Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1, 1–26. Knorr, D. (2019). Sprachensensibles Kompetenzmodell wissenschaftlichen Schreibens. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 24(1), 165–189. https:// ojs.tujournals.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/index.php/zif/ Knorr, D., & Heine, C. (2021). Forschungslinien und Methoden in der Schreibwissenschaft. In C. Heine & D. Knorr (Eds.), Schreibwissenschaft methodisch (pp. 9–23). Peter Lang. Knorr, D., Heine, C., & Engberg, J. (2014). Methods in writing process research. Lang. Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (2012). Chapter 5. understanding L2 writing development from a multicompetence perspective: Dynamic repertoires of knowledge and text construction. In R. Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 101–134). De Gruyter Mouton. Krings, H. P. (2005). Wege ins Labyrinth – Fragestellungen und Methoden der Übersetzungsprozessforschung im Überblick. Meta, 50(2), 342–358. Kristiansen, B. (2019). Knowledge making practices as vehicles for teaching academic literacy. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, 15, 1–18. Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice. Routledge. Rothkegel, A. (2005). Zur Modellierung von Schreibaufgaben. In E.-M. Jakobs, K. Lehnen, & K. Schindler (Eds.), Schreiben am Arbeitsplatz (pp. 57–72). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Russell, D. R. (2010). Writing in multiple contexts: Vygotskian CHAT meets the phenomenology of genre. In C. Bazerman, R. Krut, K. Lunsford, S. McLeod, S. Null, P. Rogers, & A. Stansell (Eds.), Traditions of writing research (pp. 353– 364). Routledge. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/engl_pubs/278 Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Research on written composition. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Macmillan Education Ltd. Scott, A. (2021). Mapping a transatlantic discipline: The role of handbooks in discipline-building in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. The Writing Center Journal, 38(3), 143–164. www.jstor.org/stable/27108279

36

Carmen Heine

Shanahan, C. (2004). Teaching science through literacy. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 75–93). Guilford. Van Waes, L., Leijten, M., Roeser, J., Olive, T., & Grabowski, J. (2021). Measuring and assessing typing skills in writing research. Journal of Writing Research, 13(1), 107–153. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2021.13.01.04 Young, V. A. (2013). Keep code-meshing. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Literacy as translingual practice between communities and classrooms (pp. 139–145). Routledge.

2

Knowledge communication as an imitation game About conceptual and empirical boundaries of co-construction in human-bot interaction Alexander Holste

1.

Introduction The new form of the problem can be described in terms of a game which we call the ‘imitation game’. It is played with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. [. . .] He [the interrogator; AH] knows them by labels X and Y, and at the end of the game he says either ‘X is A and Y is B’ or ‘X is B and Y is A’. [. . .] We now ask the question, ‘What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?’ (Turing, 1950, p. 433f.)

The imitation game – labelled Turing test by subsequent research – is the starting point of a multitude of research approaches that deal with humancomputer interaction, especially interaction based on language (Searle, 1980; Suchman, 2021; and many more). The Loebner Award for the best execution of the test has certainly inspired engineers to construct machines like Weizenbaum’s ELIZA (Crevier, 1993, pp. 132–144), A.L.I.C.E., and currently, Mitsuku. Natural language processing has already garnered very much scientific attention (e.g., Clark et al., 2010). However, an approach that broadens the concept of knowledge communication to include human-computer interaction, a kind of automated knowledge communication, is as yet missing. The imitation game lends itself to this aim as a point of departure because it investigates complex communication via language to gain insights into the ways information is processed so that thereby knowledge could be constructed. In this chapter, the conceptualization and investigation of the process of knowledge construction involving machines is based on the paradigm of situated cognition (Risku et al., 2011, p.  170) because it allows us to understand individual cognitive processes of knowledge construction by using languageprocessing machines. Vice versa, this conceptualization and resulting research findings can help to improve strategies to communicate. DOI: 10.4324/9781003285120-3

38

Alexander Holste

This concept of automated knowledge communication is especially relevant to empirical research because machines are increasingly being used in interactive settings to construct knowledge: human-bot interaction involved in business communication, automatic educational assessments, computer-aided processes of translation, etc. Especially human-bot interaction has begun to be adopted in the most diverse domains of knowledge. For example, it has become an element in the customer communication of banks, public services, and even of the communication between universities and their students. This development is usually motivated by the wish to communicate efficiently (Holste, 2023a) with customers, clients, or learners. As regards human-bot interaction, organizations may use a chatbot to answer questions that clients frequently ask and that can be answered by the same reply and to help employees with a limited number of working hours to focus on questions that cannot be met by preformulated answers. From the point of view of the employees, it may seem as if this entailed personnel layofs – and sometimes machines do replace humans. For the most part, the interaction between organizations and individuals, such as customers, clients, patients, citizens, and so forth, is shaped by a knowledge asymmetry: The individual with their need of certain information addresses the organization with the intention to find an answer to their question or perhaps to clarify a specific request. In this setting, the co-construction of knowledge on an individual as well as on an organizational level becomes relevant. One domain in which human-bot interaction is highly relevant is the domain of citizen-public services communication, especially e-government because the knowledge that is being communicated in these interactions enables the clients to solve a real-world problem and to directly change their lives accordingly, for example, by drawing unemployment benefits. In this domain, representatives of the administration (administrative staf with administrative tasks) interact as agents with citizens who contact the administration to apply for benefits, services, or permission (e.g., social benefits, building permit) in the role of clients. The administration assigns a developer, who is part of the administrative team, to program a bot for its needs. This leads to the triad applicable to e-governmental human-bot interaction: administrative team, machine agent, and (human) client. In dialogic interactive situations like human-bot interaction, expert knowledge can be indirectly ofered by the administrative team through the machine agent. A representative of an organization has relevant knowledge about his organization, while the external communicant, who approaches the organization as a layman with a communicative request, has not. In addition to this knowledge asymmetry, the representative’s knowledge about the communication with the layman leads to an asymmetry1 of

Knowledge communication as an imitation game

39

communication because the communicative event may be routine for the representative whereas it is a novelty for the layman. The following sections approximate such a case of knowledge asymmetry by critically investigating human-bot interaction in the domain of e-government. In order to be able to sufciently and clearly pursue this rather broad research interest within the limits of a research article, the following question sets a focus: Under what premises can it be said that machine agents ofer apt representations of knowledge so that a human client may co-construct relevant knowledge in interactional situations? An example taken from the domain of e-government (see section 4) illustrates the answer developed in the framework of automated knowledge communication (see section 2) and its analysis through semantic networks (see section 3) by focusing on the complexity of the machine’s and the client’s texts. 2. Automated knowledge communication As stated in the introduction (see Engberg et al., this volume), research on knowledge communication is based on the co-construction of expert knowledge through communication, on its empirical presence as reflection of human cognition, and on its expression through text in a broad sense. I would like to follow this definition for now. In order to understand human-bot interaction as a part of knowledge communication, a closer look at these three cornerstones is necessary (sections 2.1–2.3). In the following, I will thus outline reciprocal conditions of automated knowledge communication and illustrate them by an example of human-bot interaction. 2.1 Co-construction of expert knowledge and of communication

Knowledge communication as a strategic action co-constructs knowledge: “Strategic action [. . .] means that an action is oriented towards the possible co-action of the other (communicative partner), and that the co-action of the other is anticipated in advance” (Kastberg, 2019, p. 70). In which ways machines are conceptualized as participating in the process of coconstruction very much depends on the definitions of expert knowledge and communication in contrast to information and interaction (see Figure 2.1). As regards the definition of expert knowledge (Fachwissen), I follow Kalverkämper’s concept with its four features. Expert knowledge includes (a) knowledge gained in institutionalized instructional contexts; (b) knowledge about a subject area or an action context; (c) language competence showing in the ability to communicate in a specialized subject domain and in a group of experts in this domain; and (d) abilities that are evolutive, correctable, and improvable (1998, pp. 14–15).

40

Alexander Holste

Figure 2.1 Overview of reciprocal conditions of automated knowledge communication (for further details, see section 2.1 to 2.3).

Expert knowledge – as shown in (c) – relies on a social group in which knowledge constitutes a common ground (i.e., prior knowledge, drawn on whenever communicants act in communicative situations and interpret the therein realized representations of knowledge). Hence, the co-construction of expert knowledge occurs dynamically in communicative processes at an individual and community level in specific situations (Risku et al., 2011, p. 170). Features (c) and (b) illustrate that both knowledge about actions (knowing how) or ‘competence’ and ‘declarative knowledge’ (knowing that) (Ryle, 2000 [1949], pp. 28–32) are types of expert knowledge. The construction of declarative knowledge depends on activity and – related to the acquisition of expert knowledge (a) – has an afective-emotional side: knowledge that is actively constructed by individuals is always influenced by emotions (Maiese, 2014, p. 527). In contrast to expert knowledge, I understand information as types of representations of knowledge. I consider information to be informationas-thing: It is physically represented by objects and events with which communicants can deal directly (Buckland, 1991, p. 359) like books, digital, and other physical media that can be used synonymous to the term document (Buckland, 2017, p. 22). The concept of information-as-thing can be set of against information-as-knowledge. The latter is intangible, personal, subjective, and conceptual (Buckland, 1991, p. 351) and can be represented by forms of information-as-thing.

Knowledge communication as an imitation game

41

In the context of this chapter, interaction is understood in a broad sense as actions and reactions with which two entities relate, for example, two machines, a human and an animal, a machine and a human. In contrast to this, a definition of communication of a prototype-linguistic provenance runs as follows: “[C]ommunication is the ongoing, dynamic, interactive process of manipulating symbols” (Ashcroft et al., 2009, p. 22). Symbols can here be understood as Peirce’s conventionalized signs – in the context of human-bot interaction as written language. Against the backdrop of bodily experiences as a fundamental part of processes in the material world of an organization, Ashcroft et al. (2009, p. 34) further define communication “as the ongoing, situated, and embodied process whereby human and non-human agencies interpenetrate ideation and materiality towards meanings”. Hence, embodiment is a vital condition of communication, although the authors leave open such questions as how communication – for example, in the shape of computermediated communication between two people – takes place in digital space. Further, this second definition explicitly includes non-human beings in its concept of communication. It is therewith hardly compatible with a notion well-established in communication science, namely, that communication is based on intentionality. In communication studies, intentionality, especially shared intentionality – the so-called “[t]hinking for co-operating” (Tomasello, 2014, p. 125, emphasis in original) – is a key feature “of the uniquely human collaboration and communication” (ibid.). A prerequisite of shared intentionality is people’s ability to recognize a common ground for making joint decisions (ibid., p. 38–44) and to communicate (ibid., p. 50). In accordance with these considerations, I understand communication to be an intentionally performed interaction between at least two communicants, based on a common ground, carried out drawing on conventionalized signs, and including bodily experiences. 2.2

Human cognition in machines as part of knowledge communication

Weizenbaum, the programmer of the so-called original chatbot ELIZA, aimed to make a computer appear intelligent (Crevier, 1993, p.  133). Documented dialogues with ELIZA show that “through plain me-you transformation, the program simply mirrored sentences entered from the terminal” (ibid., p. 135). Hence, the representation of relevant parts of human cognition is mirrored by the chatbot. 2.2.1

Boundaries of language-processing machines

By now, machines can produce text that does more than just mirroring the questions of their human alter ego. However, the claim that

42

Alexander Holste

machines co-construct knowledge through communication is problematic because they lack a body2 whereas knowledge in the form of imagination is generated by embodied experience and, hence, particular, concrete, subjective, and idiosyncratic (Johnson, 1987, p. 194). In comparison, machines do not exhibit genuine afective-emotional features because machines lack embodiment. Rather, machines are constructed to “be used to simulate logical thinking” (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986, p.  53). As a prerequisite to his imitation game, Turing built a logical machine based on algorithms. This machine draws on Leibniz’s ars characteristica, a universal formal language, and his calculus ratiocinator that apparently was able to generate true statements (Krämer, 1988, p. 179). The representations of expert knowledge generated by machines in interactive situations are, therefore, rather information-asthing than expert knowledge. The most important point concerning human-computer interaction is that humans insinuate that machines actually understand something (as humans would) in interactional situations because “intentionality in artifacts we extend our own intentionality” (Searle, 1980, p. 422). Yet such “intentionality as computers appear to have is solely in the minds of those who program them and those who use them, those who send in the input and those who interpret the output” (ibid., p. 428). As shown by the concept of shared intentionality, intentionality is closely related to sharing a common ground; this holds especially true for the command over expert knowledge achieved by group (inter-)action (see section 2.1). As the machine neither acts as an expert group member nor is thoroughly familiar with the subject matter, it cannot draw on common ground. Because of their lacking embodiment and emotionality, intentionality, and awareness of conventionality in the sense of a common ground, I consider bots to merely participate in interactive instead of communicative situations with clients (see Figure 2.1). Human-bot interaction is therewith part of a complex kind of knowledge communication between organization and client. It follows that the machine cannot anticipate clients’ behaviour in interaction and is therewith not immediately involved in the co-construction of knowledge, though it indirectly takes part in the co-construction taking place between the administrative team and human clients. 2.2.2

Technical details about natural language processing

Nonetheless, machines react in an interactive situation and realize representations of knowledge autonomously. They are far more efcient than their predecessors, such as FAQs or books, because they are able to process natural language. This means that machines can generally recognize and

Knowledge communication as an imitation game

43

process users’ free-text input so that they can allocate to them particular question-answer pairs, although they may make mistakes at various levels. This is possible because of the so-called parsing which means that the machine checks a user’s input for keywords indexed in a database so that it can allocate a given keyword to an answer provided by this database that is then presented to the user (Jurafsky & Martin, 2020, p. 260f.). When parsing, machines also recognize and allocate synonyms of a term (like couch or sofa) because the machine provides suitable semantic structures and uses antonymy, meronymy, hypo-/hypernymy, troponymy, and – as the central relation – synonymy to represent word senses (ibid., p. 358 f.). Based on user cases, the already existing system of the machine can actually be improved when the developers manually incorporate new user case documentations unless the machine automatically broadens its semantic structure on basis of frequency of recurring words as a kind of deep learning (ibid., 173 f.). Furthermore, this can be made possible by a simple incorporation of the Google search function complemented by the so-called whitelisting that limits the search to – for example – a department’s websites (see section 4). This way to generate boilerplates has the advantage that amendments of legislation or – more often – of regulations must only be adopted on the homepage of the respective department in charge. The confirmation to legal standards (rechtssichere Texte) is one of the most important points in administrative communication. These modifications of websites’ or boilerplates’ contents usually can be carried out by a member of the administrative team. Also, when using an internal database with boilerplates instead of whitelisting, the machine agent is not able to grasp new contents – for example, an updated regulation of unemployment benefits that asks the client to act diferently than before – and edit its boilerplates autonomously. In such cases, the machine agent depends on the administrative team. 2.3 Expression of knowledge through texts and dialogues

Knowledge communication is expressed through texts and dialogues in a broad sense (see Figure 2.1). Text is prototypically seen as monological yet can, as we all know, be understood to represent a turn of a dialogue in a so-called stretched situation of communication (zerdehnte Kommunikationssituation). In contrast, dialogues as a form of spoken language usually are subject to the elusiveness of words and happen synchronously as well as spontaneously (for further discussion, see Wichter, 2011).3 As has been mentioned, the representation of knowledge through texts is one pillar of the concept of knowledge communication (see Engberg et al., this volume). Especially on an individual level, knowledge is

44

Alexander Holste

constructed through a recipient of a text as he/she constructs textual coherence, drawing on his/her prior knowledge (Risku et al., 2011, p. 171, 182). Further, knowledge is tied to a language and its cultural models (Holland & Quinn, 1997, pp. 32–35). Hence, as generally known text is based on a language resp. culture, although more than one language can constitute a text. Although by now, artificial intelligence (AI) based bots that autonomously produce language in dialogue exist, almost all chatbots corresponding with legal standards rely solely on the manual or intelligent allocation of a keyword in the question to a possibly applicable boilerplate that can be used as an answer. It is not the case that the machine agent produces new text, and neither can it create textual/dialogical coherence. This chatbot basically draws on a series of boilerplates resembling FAQs (i.e., a collection of texts). Therefore, in the context of this chapter, a chatbot’s output is considered a mixture of dialogue and text. Human-bot interaction can be situated in the typology of so-called communicats (Wichter, 2011, p. 117) – a conceptual prerequisite to describe human-bot interaction in terms of semantic networks – as follows. The category of ‘mixed communicats’ as ‘collective text communicats with dialogic elements’ (two-way communication) comprises those communicats that evolve in written human-bot interaction. This is because the description of websites as a “dynamic, potentially interactive inventory of texts” (ibid., p. 270)4 also applies to those chatbots which work like a search engine by whitelisting. This seems to apply even if they rarely present an inventory of boilerplates in answer to a request and instead choose one particular text from the inventory. Together with the user’s question, the ofered text component presents a ‘mixed text communicat with dialogic elements’ (henceforth, ‘mixed text’). Accordingly, a text is composed from fragmented texts components that become part of mixed text in a given situation. This concept of text allows to investigate machine agent-client interaction: Clients contact an organization because they would like to gain knowledge and thus pose their question. This means that the clients determine the topic of the mixed text. They cannot pose any question they like, however, because the machine agent’s collection of text component is limited. So it could be argued that the machine agent has a kind of veto power when it comes to the range of topics that can be broached. It answers all other topics with a default answer when another answer is not found. These concepts of text, when connected to concepts of semantic networks, facilitate the investigation of the aforementioned knowledge asymmetries that result from the particular situation in which knowledge communication occurs.

Knowledge communication as an imitation game 3.

45

Using semantic networks to describe knowledge structures in dialogues – an empirical approach

My aim is to describe and analyse knowledge structures expressed in texts because it allows us to understand how the cognition of communicants works in the process of constructing knowledge when dealing with language-processing machines. Conversely, this analysis can be used to facilitate administrative communication strategies. In order to be able to interpret knowledge structures on the basis of texts, this analysis draws on the approach of semantic networks deduced from technical texts. In the case of human-bot interaction, one challenge is to analyse dialogues rather than monologic texts, although these are at least documented in written language. In the following, the concept of semantic networks is introduced before it is employed to deduce the knowledge asymmetries described earlier. The analysis of the degree of complexity of the text is – that is, the great advantage of this concept – visualized with semantic networks (see Figure 2.4): “In this version I restrict myself to representing associative relations between arguments (prototype: noun) and relators (prototype: verb) in the text without indicating the specific kind of relation between them” (Engberg, 2009, p. 232). In this context, the approach of semantic networks is not used to visualize the individual knowledge structure of recipients. Rather, they can be used to assess the degree of causal complexity of a text because it presents the recipients’ opportunity to build up the corresponding complex knowledge structure – so that the analysis formulates a hypothesis about the complexity of the knowledge structure (Engberg, 2023). As has been mentioned in the introduction of this chapter, administrative communication, especially e-government, is investigated which is closely related to legal communication. The following tripartite basic structure capturing contents and rationales is used for the analysis that follows the logic of legal knowledge which also applies to the domain of e-governance: “When contextual condition A is fulfilled, the legal consequence B follows unless the contextual exception C applies” (Engberg & Heller, 2020, p. 80).5 These categories are complemented by the category of instruments (ibid., p. 81). This categorization of basic legal rationales is used in empirical investigations to determine the degree of complexity of the texts or knowledge communication which can, however, be assessed by Keil’s (2003) tripartite model modified by Engberg (2023): • ‘Causal relevance’ refers to a few detailed structures that assume causal relations and ‘causal directions’ between elements (for example, a judge belongs to a court, but it is unclear to which kind of court and in which function).

46

Alexander Holste

• ‘Causal powers’ describe how an element has an immediate impact on the function of another in the semantic network, though no information on background knowledge is provided (for example, that magnets attract each other but why remains unspecified). • ‘Causal system’ provides background knowledge relevant to know how the central element functions. To some extent, it contains theory structures. This degree of complexity describes knowledge structures that have a systematic character that consisting of multiple levels with main units and their causal relations (for example, cars take people from place to place, are moved by an engine, and can be stopped by brakes). Engberg (2009) and Engberg (2023) apply the concept of semantic networks to monologic texts. In order to use it for an analysis of human-bot interaction, the term text must be more broadly defined to include dialogic elements and to comprise the chatbot-specific system of preformulated text components. The analysis aims to compare the complexity of the client’s question with the complexity of the boilerplate. This comparison facilitates the assessment of knowledge asymmetries in individual interactive situations represented by mixed texts. 4.

Exemplary analysis of human-bot interaction in e-government

This exemplary analysis serves as an example exploring the empirical field of automated knowledge communication.6 The exemplary analysis deals with administrative communication, as the administrative statements are legally valid and immediately relevant for the client’s everyday life. To the best of my knowledge and research, there is no bot similar to an AI-based bot like ChatGPT able to generate text independently being used by an American department of labor whenever legal standards have to be met, perhaps because it cannot warrant compliance with legal standards (see section 2.2 and 2.3). I focus on American departments because the Center for Digital Government, a national research and advisory institute, supports departments to innovate their ofcial and everyday internet presence by the usage of chatbots. The following exemplary analysis investigates the ‘Missouri Department of Labor (MdoL) unemployment virtual assistant’ as the machine agent. I picked this chatbot on account of its elaborate data basis and of its technical transparency. Taking on the role of a client, I contacted the machine agent.7 It answered immediately with a list of department websites it found (see Figure 2.2). The client can then click on the title of the websites within the machine agent’s display to read it. However, the client cannot ask the

Knowledge communication as an imitation game

47

Figure 2.2 Exemplary dialogue between machine agent and client. Source: MdoL (2023b)

machine further questions but only answer the machine agent’s question (see Figure 2.3) as to whether his original question was answered (boilerplate Knowledge is power issued when I clicked on Yes) or not (No, I need help). In the interactive situation, only two options are available: In case 1, the machine agent (i.e., the representatives of the civil services) has the knowledge required by the client. In case 2, the machine agent does not have this knowledge. However, the organizational asymmetry between client and civil service persists in case 2 because the machine agent would then forward the client to a human advisor. In both cases, however, there is an organizational asymmetry between machine agent and client because, metaphorically speaking, the inquiry is a matter of routine for the machine agent (see introduction) whereas it is an individual experience on behalf of the client. But let us go into details: I contacted the machine agent with the statement I’m looking for a job (see Figure 2.2) that only implicitly included a question. With this wording, I intended to check the machine’s reaction to linguistic vagueness because a communicant has to be aware of conventionality and must include situational information to interpret the (intended)

48 Alexander Holste

Figure 2.3 Entry on work search and inquiries as anchor for human advice. Source: MDoL (2023a)

meaning of this sentence. The machine agent can process this client inquiry. It answered immediately with a specification of my inquiry. Thus, a few answers featured as headings of responding articles that the machine found on the department’s website when scanning for the keywords look* and job* (obviously, with the synonyms search* and work*) (see Figure 2.2; MdoL, 2023b). By suggesting these answers, the machine agent, metaphorically speaking (see section 2.2.1, especially Searle, 1980), assumes that the client, when posing I’m looking for a job, intends to look for a job on the condition that he/she draws unemployment benefits. This becomes clear when looking at the answers that are presented at the level below the headings and that become visible when the headings in the dialogue display are clicked on (see Figure 2.3). In the semantic network (see Figure 2.4) visualizing the client’s inquiry I’m looking for a job, the checkered rectangle presents the client’s keywords

Knowledge communication as an imitation game

Figure 2.4 Semantic network of the mixed text: Do I need to search for work? Source: MdoL (2023a)

49

50 Alexander Holste that determine the focus of the topic. The grey double arrows illustrate the client inquiry’s transformation process carried out by the machine agent (see section 2.2). They are key elements in the new conceptualization of semantic networks to model human-machine interaction because they visualize the machine’s involvement in knowledge communication. The boilerplate results are represented by grey rectangles. The arguments of the semantic network (see section 3, especially Engberg, 2009) are presented as rectangles that are connected by relators (civil service staf: white oval shapes; client: checkered oval shapes). The qualities of these arguments, as described in the following, are oriented at the basic structure of legal rationales (see section 3) because the mixed text investigated here (see Figure 2.3) is based on administrative regulations. The client activates an existing knowledge structure by focusing on a particular topic when he uses it in an interactive situation with a machine agent. The inquiry of the client thus, and at first, without further restrictions, implies the possibility that a person can find work because of his/her search activities. With my statement, I’m looking for a job, I – as a client – intended to receive concrete job ofers. But my inquiry is deliberately ambiguous. It is not clear what the client expects the MdoL to do. Does the client do any of the following? a) seek specific tools to help him find a job b) want to be placed with a work program c) seek unemployment benefits, etc. In this context, a dialogue between two people would require the administrative agent to ask further questions in order to figure out what exactly the client would like to know. But the machine agent does not ask further questions. It rather takes up the knowledge structure that the client put into words and limits the topical foci. In the example, it presents possible answers (see Figure 2.2).8 The machine agent thus fills only two of the possible gaps – option (b) and (c) – within the client’s knowledge structure. The presented semantic network is generated interactively on basis of the client’s (or my) decision when he/she chooses between the three available machine agent’s ofers (see Figure 2.2), in our case, eligibility for unemployment benefits (see Figure 2.3). This selection causes the machine agent’s reply. This text can be presented as a part of a complex semantic network (see Figure 2.4). The complex semantic network consists of the client’s semantic network and the machine agent’s semantic network that relate to each other: On the left side, the client’s inquiry is systemized as the first part of the complex semantic network. The elements I and job* are connected by the relator look* with a ‘causal direction’ that basically runs from I to relator look* and from the relator look* to job*. As elaborated earlier (see section 3),

Knowledge communication as an imitation game

51

the specific qualities of these relations are unclear. Hence, this part of the complex semantic network only attains the degree of complexity called ‘causal relevance’. The machine agent transforms the relators and arguments that are presented in the client’s semantic networks (work*/job*; look*/search*; I/you). Depending on the answer the client chooses, the following semantic network – presented by the machine but representing legal knowledge edited by the administrative team (see Figure 2.3) – emerges that contains the already mentioned basic structure of legal rationales (see section 3) as pertaining to the key phrase eligibility for unemployment benefits (see Figure 2.4). The prerequisite for attaining benefits are three completed work search activities. The ‘causal direction’ in this case runs from condition to central concept. The consequence results from fulfilling the prerequisite and therewith from the key phrase to be eligible for unemployment benefits, specifically the payment of unemployment benefits. The ‘causal direction’ in this case runs from key phrase to consequence. In this case, the machine realizes expert knowledge as a kind of ‘knowing that’ which does not directly enable the client to solve his/her real-world problem. In the machine agent’s text, the exception of the prerequisite is unless directed otherwise by the division. This exception is specified: unless you (1) are approved in training, (2) have a definite recall date from an employer, and (3) are in the Shared Work Program. The cause direction in this case runs from exception to prerequisite. Filing Weekly Request for Payment is the instrument9 of the key phrase that can be accessed in a digital form when the Work Search Details can be provided by the client. These instruments are, however, not immediate instruments of the key phrase but instruments of the prerequisite of the key phrase. Because of this, the ‘causal direction’ in this case runs from instruments to prerequisites. In this case, the machine represents expert knowledge as a kind of ‘knowing how’ that may enable the client to solve his/her problem. Because of its elements and their basic relations, the conceptualized knowledge structure that represents the machine agent’s text reaches the level of ‘causal powers’ (see section 3). This level is reached by the exception unless directed otherwise by the division because this exception can be caused by the cases approved in training, specific recall date of the employer, and Shared Work Program – the latter has an immediate impact on the function of another element of the semantic network. The degree of complexity of a ‘causal system’, however, is not reached by the machine agent’s text because it does not use background knowledge of a theoretical nature or on a metalevel to explain how the key element works. Hence, the degree of complexity of the semantic network the machine agent’s text represents (‘causal powers’) is higher than that of the client’s text (‘causal relevance’). It might seem as if the efort of the previous analysis and its profit – allegedly culminating in the last sentence – are disproportionate.

52 Alexander Holste But it would be wrong to reduce the result of this exemplary analysis to this comparison of degrees of complexity. Rather, the analysis of both degrees reveals problems as to how knowledge is constructed in specific situations of human-bot interaction. Furthermore, it is problematic to conclude from this comparison of both degrees of complexity that there is a knowledge asymmetry between client and machine agent because the machine agent does not specify the client’s inquiry by asking him further questions. For this reason, it remains unclear whether the machine agent’s text supplies the knowledge that will enable the client to construct relevant knowledge on basis of the machine agent’s question-answer-strategy. At bottom line, the material at hand cannot yield enough information to clarify whether a knowledge asymmetry between client and machine agent exists at all. Only when the client gives a feedback by clicking the button Yes or No, I need help (see Figure 2.3), this allows an insight into this efect and this only in the form of a self-assessment on behalf of the client. 5.

Conclusion: First inferences about the automatization of knowledge communication

Turning’s description of his experimental setup delivered some reference points indicating how human-bot interaction can be understood as knowledge communication. This chapter has, therefore, investigated under what premises it can be said that machine agents ofer apt representations of knowledge so that a human client may co-construct relevant knowledge in interactional situations. To this aim, the three pillars of knowledge communication (see Engberg et al., this volume) were discussed: co-construction of expert knowledge through communication, its empirical presence as reflection of human cognition, and its expression through text. The results of the discussion were an initial conceptualization of human-bot interaction rendered as reciprocal conditions of automated knowledge communication (see Figure 2.1): First, I have argued that chatbots are only able to interact (rather than communicate) with humans in an individual situation because they lack embodiment and emotionality as well as intentionality and an awareness of conventionality in the sense of a common ground between communicants. Human-bot interaction is thus only one element of the complex knowledge communication taking place between organization and client. The bot merely – in Turing’s words – imitates knowledge communication. From this, it follows that the machine can neither anticipate the client’s behaviour nor interpret his/her intentions when interacting with them. It is thus not immediately involved in the co-construction of knowledge but only a mediating agent taking part in the co-construction of the administrative team and human clients. Nonetheless, machines react in an interactive situation and realize representations of knowledge autonomously.

Knowledge communication as an imitation game

53

Therefore, it would be imprecise to model the products of human-bot interaction similarly to text in books, in FAQs, and so forth. Second, I employed the specification of the text concept developed in Wichter (2011) and conceptualized the human-bot interaction at hand on the basis of its dialogic deficits as ‘mixed text communicat with dialogic elements’. In the methods section, the concept of semantic networks was introduced and modified to prepare the following exemplary analysis. As this approach was conceived with a focus on the analysis of monologic texts (Engberg, 2023), a suitable concept of text that can conceptualize the (quasi-)dialogic texts of human-bot interaction had to be found. My exemplary analysis showed how the concept of semantic networks in monologic texts can be broadened to incorporate complex semantic networks: The network resulting from the analysis of the human client’s text was related to the network deduced from the machine agent’s text. As a conclusion, the degrees of complexity of both networks were determined and compared to each other. As this approach is exploring new territory, it requires the following further elaboration. The following results of the exemplary analysis can be summarized: • There is an organizational asymmetry between client and civil service. But even after analysing the mixed text, it remains unclear whether this asymmetry also persists in the individual interaction between machine agent and client. If the machine agent cannot yield the relevant knowledge to the client, the latter can contact a human advisor. In order to balance an individual asymmetry, machine agent and client would have to be able to ask further clarifying questions and answer each other. As the machine agent cannot autonomously generate apt text in a given situation, there can be, strictly speaking, no individual knowledge asymmetry simply because the machine agent does not co-construct knowledge. • It remains to be pointed out that the machine agent is not the author of whatever text it issues on the display so that possible knowledge asymmetries between machine agent and client only indirectly apply to the machine agent’s allocation of the boilerplate or websites, respectively, to the question. The bot cannot generate text autonomously because it can be assumed that, at least at the current stage of technical development, these would not reliably fulfil the restriction of administrative communication to confirm to legal standards. A direct asymmetry would exist if the website’s author stood in direct contact with the client. It should also have become clear that the machine agents depend on context and world knowledge provided by the administrative team. It is as yet impossible that a machine can modify a given piece of information of the internal database or website autonomously, for example, due to an updated regulation of the department. This fact already indicates that the machine agent cannot be investigated independently from his administrative team whenever knowledge asymmetries are researched.

54

Alexander Holste

• The analysis of the complex semantic network showed that the semantic network generated from the client’s text has a lower degree of complexity than the network capturing the text issued by the machine agent. However, this divergence of degrees of complexity does not necessarily imply a knowledge asymmetry because the machine agent failed to specify the ambiguous statement of the client. Hence, the answer text issued by the machine agent might be irrelevant for the client’s knowledge structure. Only when the client gives a feedback (by clicking a corresponding button) does this allow an insight into this efect and this only in the form of a self-assessment on behalf of the client. Five research gaps result from my investigation: First, on basis of this analysis, user tests could be carried out that could possibly optimize the makeup of the machine agent. Second, design imitates the surface of human-to-human instant messengers and can therewith create the impression on behalf of the human client that he is actually communicating with a person. Due to this, multimodality is another relevant aspect when investigating human-bot interaction. Third, it would be interesting to carry out similar investigations of human-bot interaction in e-government in other languages and countries. In this way, it could be researched how knowledge depends on language and if there are diferences in this regard between the languages. Also, another legal framework could be addressed that would have a bearing on the specific quality of human-bot interaction. Fourth, the role more sophisticated machines play in the co-construction of knowledge can be investigated in other domains than administrative communication (e.g., AI-based chatbots or neuronal machine translation that spontaneously generates new text) or devices that can contribute situational factors because of sensory input (such as patterns of movement of people, information about the device’s functions itself, and so forth). Fifth, a comprehensive model of automated knowledge communication could conceptualize human-machine interaction as an aspect of knowledge communication independently from individual objects, such as the object of human-chatbot interaction (see Holste, 2023b). Notes 1. For a rather sociological and power-oriented approach, see Lueg/Rennstam (this volume). 2. Because of its materiality, an object can substitute words to express social relations as is shown by Latour (2000 [1991], p. 19) in his illustration of the use of the Berlin Key – a key with two key bits. 3. Ashcroft et al. (2009, p. 20), in contrast, understand text diferently from an organizational research point of view: Textual modality is seen as a product of communication that identifies and describes an organization, while conversational

Knowledge communication as an imitation game

4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9.

55

modality refers to the process of communication (co-constructive side) that allows to experience an organization. Translation by AH: “dynamisches, potentiell interaktives Inventar von Texten” (ibid.; emphasis in original). “Wenn die kontextuelle Bedingung A erfüllt ist, gilt die rechtliche Konsequenz B, es sei denn, die kontextuelle Ausnahme C greift ein” (ibid.; Translation by AH). Please note on the method of investigation employed in the following: The human-bot interactions presented here can be repeated as long as the developer does not modify the investigated machine. For a comprehensive qualitative investigation, for example, see Dam Jensen/Vesterager (this volume). The design of the human-bot interface imitates the surface of human-to-human instant messengers and can therewith create the impression on behalf of the human client that he/she is actually communicating with a person. It is assumed that the client is registered as unemployed by the department. These are not part of the screenshot (Figure 2.3) but become visible when scrolling down the messenger window or alternatively on the imported homepage (MDoL, 2023b).

References Ashcroft, K. L., Kuhn, T. R., & Cooren, F. (2009). Constitutional amendments: “Materializing” organizational communication. Annals/The Academy of Management, 3(1), 1–64. http://doi.org/10.5465/19416520903047186 Buckland, M. (1991). Information as thing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42, 351–360. Buckland, M. (2017). Information and society. The MIT Essential Knowledge Series. MIT Press. Clark, A., Fox, C., & Lappin, S. (2010). Introduction. In A. Clark, C. Fox, & S. Lappin (Eds.), The handbook of computational linguistics and natural language processing (pp. 1–8, Blackwell handbooks in linguistics). Wiley-Blackwell. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781444324044 Crevier, D. (1993). Al: The tumultuous history of the search for artificial intelligence. HarperCollins. Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1986). Mind over machine. The power of human intuition and expertise in the era ot the computer. The Free Press. Engberg, J. (2009). Individual conceptual structure and legal experts’ efcient communication. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 22(2), 223–243. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-009-9104-x Engberg, J. (2023). Dissemination of science and communicative efciency of texts – is the level of explanatory ambition a relevant diagnostic tool? K. Pelikan & A. Holste, special issue Communicative Efciency, trans-kom, 16(1). Engberg, J., & Heller, D. (2020). Rechtliches Wissen auf einer institutionellen Webseite. In K. Beckers & M. Wassermann (Eds.), Wissenkommunikation (pp. 64–110). Peter Lang. Holland, D., & Quinn, N. (1997). Culture and cognition. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 3–40). Cambridge University Press.

56

Alexander Holste

Holste, A. (2023a). Semiotic efciency of notational iconicity. Negotiating text conventions and text functions in interdisciplinary editorial teams. K. Pelikan & A. Holste, special issue Communicative Efciency, trans-kom, 16(1). Holste, A. (2023b). Automatisierte Wissenskommunikation. Ein Modell zur Integration von sprachbasierter Mensch-Maschine-Interaktion in ein-und mehrsprachige Fachkommunikation. Habilitationsschrift, Hildesheim. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago Press. Jurafsky, D., & Martin, H. (2020). Speech and language processing. An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. https://web.stanford.edu/%7Ejurafsky/slp3/ed3book.pdf Kalverkämper, H. (1998). Allgemeine Aspekte von Fachkommunikation. In L. Hofmann, H. Kalverkämper, & H. E. Wiegand (Eds.), Fachsprachen. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Fachsprachenforschung und Terminologiewissenschaft. HSK, Band 14.1 (pp. 1–24). De Gruyter. Kastberg, P. (2019). Knowledge communication. Contours of a research agenda (Vol. FFF 157). Frank & Timme.Keil, F. C. (2003). Categorisation, causation, and the limits of understanding. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(5–6), 663–692. Krämer, S. (1988). Symbolische Maschinen. Die Idee der Formalisierung in geschichtlichem Abriß. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Latour, B. (2000 [1991]). The Berlin key or how to do words with things. In P. Graves-Brown (Ed.), Matter, materiality and modern culture (pp. 10–21). Routledge. http://doi.org/10.4324/9780203351635 Maiese, M. (2014). How can emotions be both cognitive and bodily?Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 13, 513–531. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-014-9373-z Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations/MDoL. (2023a, June 3). Do I need to search for work? https://laboranswers.mo.gov/hc/en-us/articles/ 4403609886615-Do-I-need-to-search-for-workMissouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations/MDoL. (2023b, June 3). Home. https://laboranswers.mo.gov/hc/en-us Risku, H., Mayr, E., Windhager, F., & Smuc, M. (2011). An extended model of knowledge communication. Fachsprache, 3–4, 168–186. http://doi.org/10.24989/ fs.v33i3-4.1370 Ryle, G. (2000 [1949]). The concept of mind. Penguin. Searle, J. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–457. Suchman, L. (2021). Talk with machines, Redux. Interface Critique, 3,  69–80. http://doi.org/10.11588/ic.2021.3.81328 Tomasello, M. (2014). A natural history of human thinking. Harvard University Press. http://doi.org/10.4159/9780674726369 Turing, A. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 236(59), 433–460. Wichter, S. (2011). Kommunikationsreihen aus Gesprächen und Textkommunikaten: Zur Kommunikation in und zwischen Gesellschaften. De Gruyter. http:// doi.org/10.1515/9783110234107

3

The dynamics of knowledge and expertise in social media interactions Knowledge types, processes of co-constructing knowledge and discursive reactions Jan Engberg and Carmen Daniela Maier

1.

Introduction

Based on previous work on online academic knowledge communication (e.g., Engberg & Maier, 2015a, 2020; Maier & Engberg, 2021), we will present an analysis of comments to a Facebook contribution posted by experts in the context of WHO’s communication with the public. In this setting, the afordances of modern interactive online formats enable collaborative knowledge generation through commenting. Two related types of interaction can be observed here. Interactors may supplement, correct, or challenge the knowledge communicated by expert hosts (in the original SoMe post itself or in the discussion thread). Alternatively, interactors may together construct new knowledge more or less loosely related to the original SoMe post. We want to look at both types and the balance between them. We are interested in a global description of links between commenting on a Facebook post and co-constructing knowledge of a specific thematic type. Hence, we distinguish between discursive reactions of interactors, co-construction processes of knowledge, and (thematic) knowledge types. Our main interest is in the interplay between the co-construction processes (generating the knowledge types) and the discursive reactions (materializing the processes). For this purpose, we apply two sets of analytical concepts. One is developed in the works cited earlier, focusing on the process of co-construction: With a basis in the knowledge appearing in the original Facebook post, we analyse whether the comments contribute to coconstruction processes of knowledge expansion (i.e., supplementing with further aspects of the core knowledge presented or with peripheral knowledge), knowledge enhancement (i.e., deepening the presented knowledge to a level of more detail), or knowledge evaluation (i.e., assessing the truth of the presented knowledge). Furthermore, for the analysis of the discursive reactions to the original post, we adopt and expand the conceptual DOI: 10.4324/9781003285120-4

58 Jan Engberg and Carmen Daniela Maier framework and coding scheme provided by Dubovi and Tabak (2020) in their study of collaborative knowledge construction in asynchronous online discussions. Our analysis is founded on an understanding of discourse that foregrounds how discourses reflect the purposeful transformations of reality when this reality is recontextualized in texts for achieving various communicative goals (Van Leeuwen, 2008). Such an understanding allows us to explore a series of cognitive and emotional discursive reactions through which the Facebook interactors contribute to constructing various versions of reality while participating in processes of knowledge co-construction. In a previous study (Engberg & Maier, 2022), we found that, on Harvard Business Review’s Facebook site, SoMe comments tend not to be exploited to any substantial degree for knowledge expansion or knowledge enhancement despite the afordances of the online medium. Rather, interactors use the comments for generating personal relations with the experts or with co-interactors through expressing support or linking to others. Furthermore, we did not find any major attempts by interactors to construct an expert identity and thus acquire an expert position among the community of interactors. From the literature that we will go deeper into in the theory section later, however, we know that this is often the case. Therefore, in this contribution, we have chosen to look at a diferent but similar Facebook site host (WHO) and examine whether our observation concerning HBR Facebook posts is also to be found in comments here. HBR is a journal aimed at popularizing academic knowledge to make it available to business practitioners, giving them research-based advice for their practical context. To include a diferent dimension in our present analysis, we have chosen to analyse a post by an institution oriented towards ofering health-related advice for practical contexts (WHO). Thus, the focus on giving advice for practical purposes is similar, whereas there is a diference in the institutional characteristics of the hosts. The Facebook Post WHO (2022) was published on 2 January 2022. It presents an infographic issued by WHO with the title “What to do if someone is sick in your household”. The infographic presents advice to citizens about COVID-19 infections. The post itself consists of a picture of the infographic, followed by the following text: How can you stay safe if someone from your household gets COVID-19 infection? - Know your risk. Lower your risk. Hence, this post presents the graphic in its full form as part of the post and thus has a clear informational function. Furthermore, the text accompanying the graphic and cited earlier is formulated as a question (a kind of test question to test understanding). Hence, it explicitly invites comments. Our focus is not on analysing the post itself. Instead, we have looked at a selection of the user comments to the post and are interested in finding

The dynamics of knowledge and expertise

59

out whether we can find patterns in the way users engage themselves in coconstructing knowledge in such comments. Hence, the core research question of the present study is the following: What relations may be established between discursive reactions and interactive co-construction processes in the comments to a WHO Facebook post? 2.

Theoretical approaches/lenses

2.1 Co-construction of knowledge

The main theoretical approach that we adopt in this study is related to our understanding of knowledge as being generated and co-constructed through three recurrent and overlapping processes that take place during communicative interactions: knowledge expansion, knowledge enhancement, and knowledge evaluation. The approach has proven fruitful when approaching (multimodal) data from diferent contexts (Engberg & Maier, 2015a, 2015b, 2020; Maier & Engberg, 2021). From this perspective, we emphasize the roles of the three types of co-constructing processes in producing various types of knowledge or ways of perceiving the provided knowledge: • Knowledge expansion’s (core and peripheral knowledge) focus is on the variety of concepts presented for the co-construction process and actually co-constructed by the interactors. In knowledge expansion processes, additional concepts are introduced. The addition may concern the core knowledge treated in the communication (i.e., topics that are central, for instance, due to the headlines of the communicative instances involved). In our case, the topics from the original Facebook post are core. Peripheral knowledge, on the other hand, is knowledge with relevance for the topic, but that is supplementary in comparison with the original Facebook post (Engberg & Maier, 2015a, p. 231). • When it comes to knowledge enhancement (new domain-specific, repeated knowledge), the focus is on the innovative quality of the knowledge. We look at whether the co-construction process leads to knowledge that is new to the interactors or whether the knowledge must be deemed as repeated to them, based on their interaction (Engberg & Maier, 2015a, pp. 231–232). • In the context of knowledge evaluation, the focus is on the (perceived) truth quality or relevance of the knowledge in the original post or in a previous comment. Prototypically, such evaluations do not ofer any expansion or enhancement of the knowledge but are mainly oriented

60

Jan Engberg and Carmen Daniela Maier towards assessing the truth value or relevance of the declarative knowledge presented. Evaluations may be directed towards the original posts and towards interactors. Often, instances of knowledge evaluation are not supported by arguments but rather subjective assessment.

From the last type of co-construction process, it is clear that such processes must not lead to agreement between the interactors. Following Dubovi and Tabak (2020, p. 8), we talk about a co-construction process if, as it is often the case in the knowledge evaluation processes here, one interactor tells another interactor how he/she evaluates the truth of the knowledge presented by the other interactor. They do not have to come to an agreement about the evaluation. In the coding scheme used by Dubovi and Tabak (2020), this constitutes the first step in a process consisting of five steps: 1) Sharing/Adding, 2) Negotiating meaning, 3) Elaborating, 4) Proposing synthesis, and 5) Consensus/Applying constructed knowledge. Hence, due to our interest in investigating the collaborative quality of the interactions as co-construction processes, we use a more encompassing concept of coconstruction than what is used in Helle Dam Jensen and Anja Krogsgaard Vesterager (this volume). 2.2 Knowledge communication in social media

Previous work on academic knowledge development has led us to the conclusion: if academic knowledge emerges from participants trying to understand each other, this intent in itself will generate ongoing developments of the knowledge through the ongoing process of (mentally) constructing understandings of the knowledge and (communicatively) disseminating the understanding (being constructed by other participants, and so on). (Engberg & Maier, 2020, p. 229) Since the present study is focused on exploring SoMe data, this framework is further refined by the idea that each new comment made by a SoMe interactor represents an attempt not only to understand but also specially to contribute to the knowledge already existing in the respective context, either by supporting, supplementing, or subverting it. This idea is based on Jovanovic and Van Leeuwen’s understanding of SoMe dialogue in which “the initiating move sets the stage for what is to follow, and the response replies to, modifies, complies with or rejects what the initiator puts on the table” (2018, p. 686). Researchers focused on the roles of SoMe in knowledge communication, or on SoMe communicative impact in general, have always had manifold

The dynamics of knowledge and expertise

61

interests: from defining new concepts and models necessary for approaching such topics to exploring the factors that motivate SoMe users to enter this new communicative arena in diferent academic or corporate contexts. For example, Greenhow and Gleason clarify and reconsider the concept of social scholarship that “seeks to leverage social media afordances [. . .] and potential values [. . .] to evolve the ways in which scholarship is accomplished in academia” (2014, p. 395). They also acknowledge that by becoming part of scholarly activities, the new forms of SoMe can also have an influence on the interests, practices, and power structures of this context. Kent and Li (2020) also strive to contribute to theory building by examining the substantial features of SoMe, such as network, culture, relationships, and dialogue, in order to help both scholars and professionals in understanding SoMe’s communicative impact. Issues related to the factors that motivate SoMe users to enter in interactions have been explored across various academic and corporate contexts too. When exploring SoMe as tools of knowledge exchange in academic context, Chatterjee et al. (2020) develop a conceptual model that clarifies what factors influence the knowledge contributors’ and knowledge seekers’ intention to use social media for knowledge sharing in academia: the importance of knowledge exchange (IKE), the perceived usefulness of social media (PUS), and the experience of the use of social media (EUS). In Facebook’s marketing context, Borges-Tiago et al. (2019) also found a series of diferences between socially driven and search-driven users’ motivations to participate in viral communication based on content characteristics such as meaningfulness, emotional tone, and arousal. Voorveld et al. (2018) address similar issues but focus on the diferentiating role of platform type (i.e., Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, Twitter, Google, and Instagram) when explaining users’ engagement with SoMe and SoMe advertising and evaluation. According to them, despite the common inherently interactive nature of all SoMe platforms, the diferent functionalities and characteristics of these platforms translate into diferent experiences for the users. Thus, “each digital platform is experienced in a unique way” (Voorveld et al., 2018, p. 50). However, they have also revealed that across all SoMe platforms, exchanging information is a means to an end rather than an end in itself. According to Dubovi and Tabak (2020), the new mediascapes redefine also informal learning by providing novel user-generated content and user interactions. When assessing users’ discourse and knowledge-collaborative interactions on YouTube, these researchers not only identify the communicative patterns existing in YouTube’s informal settings but also compare these with those from formal settings. Although their focus has been on “whether or how social media can serve as a platform for the informal learning of conceptually rich domains” (Dubovi & Tabak, 2020, p.  3), their study has a special relevance for this study, as they employ a series of

62

Jan Engberg and Carmen Daniela Maier

discursive markers of knowledge co-construction that can be embedded in the conceptual framework of our study related to Facebook interactions. Thus, during the last decade, researchers have become increasingly interested in exploring the communicative afordances of SoMe in order to explain their possible roles in knowledge co-construction in various contexts and for various purposes. Such an interest is motivated by the fact that this informal virtual space “is becoming a valuable platform for facilitating knowledge sharing (KS) and communication, not only on a personal or individual level, but also for organizations” (Ahmed et al., 2019, p. 72). In their systematic review of research works focused on knowledge sharing in SoMe contexts, Ahmed et al. (2019) draw attention to the fact that researchers are mainly interested in user behaviour, platforms and tools, concerns with privacy, and utilizations and benefits. Apart from that, they have also identified certain research gaps within current research about social media for knowledge sharing. One of them is related to the investigation of the usage of knowledge sharing in disaster management contexts. The present study responds in a way to the call for more studies related to this topic because we consider the pandemic to be a global health disaster that people try to make sense of across mediascapes and contexts (for a similar contribution but with a focus on an institutional sender, see Fage-Butler (this volume). Ahmed et al. (2019) have also identified a methodological limitation across the investigated research, namely, that the mixed research method has not been widely used. As can be seen later, this study does employ a predominantly qualitative method but includes frequency aspects and thus responds to a call for more of such studies. 3.

Methods and research design

In what follows, we present our study systematically to ensure the transparency of our methodological process. A succinct visualization of the conceptual frameworks can be seen in Figure 3.1. It is our assumption behind the analyses in section 4 that the dynamics of knowledge construction in dialogic settings are relevantly explained through a combination of factors from the diferent stages of the model.

Figure 3.1 Visualization of the conceptual frameworks.

The dynamics of knowledge and expertise 3.1

63

The qualitative analysis

In the beginning, we created tentative tables for relevant data units and sets of concepts. The criteria for selecting the data units have been related to the date of the original post (2 January 2022) and to the content of the interactive threads. These tables were verified and refined independently by the researchers until a common template has been agreed upon (see Table 3.1). The first column contains the segments of raw data selected at the end of our first analysis stage. The second column shows those segments of the data that contain specific discursive reactions. The last column shows what type of co-construction processes the respective discursive reactions

Table 3.1 Excerpt from one of the analytical tables. See Tables 3.2 and 3.3 for explanations of the categories No.

Commentaries

Discursive reactions

Processes of coconstructing knowledge

 

 

• Approval/Disapproval • Evidence validation (Authority reference and personal experience) • Emotional reactions (Negative and positive expressions) • Alleging (Triggered or not triggered) • Advising

• Knowledge expansion (Core and peripheral knowledge) => • Knowledge enhancement (New domain-specific, repeated knowledge) • Knowledge evaluation

1.

KIE (Name of the interactor) Take care of the person - where is the early treatment protocol? WHO you can do better than this. The world is asking you to shoulder your responsibility and become the organization you profess to be. Thank you in advance for your change of heart!

Implicit disapproval Take care of the person - where is the early treatment protocol? Advising WHO you can do better than this. The world is asking you to shoulder your responsibility and become the organization you profess to be. Negative emotional reaction (Irony) Thank you in advance for your change of heart!

Knowledge expansion (Peripheral knowledge) Where is the early treatment protocol? Knowledge enhancement (New domain-specific) and Knowledge evaluation WHO you can do better than this. The world is asking you to shoulder your responsibility and become the organization you profess to be.

64 Jan Engberg and Carmen Daniela Maier contribute to. During this stage of our work with the data, we have also determined what thematic knowledge types are introduced through the co-construction processes. Thus, by using such tables, each row can reveal how we reached our findings and built up our conclusions. The two analytical dimensions will be presented in detail later. Concerning the sets of concepts, we have thus employed a set for labelling discursive reactions and another one for identifying types of processes of co-constructing knowledge. The choice of concepts for discursive reactions is based on our purpose to find out how co-constructing knowledge processes take place at the level of the Facebook site; thus, we take a discursive perspective on these processes. We consider that co-constructing processes appear when interactors’ discourse strategies transform reality according to their specific communicative purposes. This perspective on co-constructing processes stems from an understanding of discourse “not in the sense of ‘an extended stretch of connected speech or writing’, a text, but in the sense of social cognition”. Thus, discourse is “a socially constructed knowledge of some social practice” (Van Leeuwen, 2008, p. 6). As this study is about co-constructing knowledge in a social media context, the focus of our analysis is on how reality is transformed through reactions of various social actors during their exchange of opinions. According to Van Leeuwen, reactions “can often be related to the concerns of a recontextualizing social practice” (Van Leeuwen, 2008, p. 19). While reacting to each other’s opinions, the interactors participate in ongoing co-construction of knowledge about this pandemic reality through two categories of discursive reactions: cognitive and emotional reactions. With cognitive reactions, the interactors refer to the scientific content of the interaction, whereas emotional reactions indicate the feelings they connect with the concepts discussed (Dubovi & Tabak, 2021, p. 3). The cognitive reactions that we have detected in our data include Approval/Disapproval, Evidence validation, Triggered or untriggered alleging, and Advising. The emotional reactions can have both negative and positive expressions in the comments. These concepts have been developed inductively, departing from Dubovi and Tabak’s framework (2020). Furthermore, as we assume (see Figure 3.1) that these cognitive and emotional reactions contribute to the development of specific processes of co-constructing knowledge, we have employed a second set of concepts: knowledge expansion, knowledge enhancement, and knowledge evaluations. The first two types of processes we have developed and applied in previous studies (see the introduction). In this study, however, it has proven relevant to introduce a third type, namely, the process of knowledge evaluation, in accordance with Jovanovic and Van Leeuwen’s understanding of SoMe dialogue as “a functional interactional dynamics which, at the same time realizes emotive or evaluative correspondence” (2018, p. 683).

The dynamics of knowledge and expertise

65

Table 3.2 Codebook for discursive reactions Discursive reactions

Coding aspects related to each reaction type

Examples

Approval

Reactions in which interactors expresses agreement with previous statement

so true. Even in the US SENATE hearings, doctors were not allowed to give EARLY TREATMENT.

Disapproval

Reactions in which interactors attack or disagree with previous statement

Evidence validation

Reactions in which outside information or personal experience is introduced as evidence Reactions in which interactors claim something without proof or before proof is available as a response to another interactor’s statements Reactions in which interactors claim something without proof or before proof is available Reactions in which the interactor tells WHO or other interactors how they should behave Reactions expressing empathy, positive feedback, or encouragements towards interactors Reactions expressing rudeness or similar negative emotions towards interactors (Reactions containing irony are coded under this reaction type.)

I read your mostly gibberish conspiratorial nonsense. Nothing you’ve said really makes any sense without evidence. Worked well enough for us . . . twice . . .

Triggered alleging

Untriggered alleging Advising

Positive emotional reaction Negative emotional reaction

my understanding was that Delta variant came from your country. Was that a decision Modi made? they want isolation so the rest can not obtain natural immunity Follow the guidelines properly and they work. Sorry about your health situation man, hope you don’t have any other long term efects, take care All I’m saying is your comment was reckless and counter productive

The research work on developing the tables and the two sets of analytical concepts has included both a descriptive and an interpretative stage as we connected the data units both to discursive reactions and subsequently to processes of co-constructing knowledge. Some of the selected data units have been associated with overlapping discursive reactions and/or processes of co-constructing knowledge.

66

Jan Engberg and Carmen Daniela Maier

The codebooks in tables 3.2 and 3.3 emerged from the dialectic procedure of the qualitative analysis. As we acknowledge that discourse analyses can be considered highly interpretative because they emphasize the discursive construction of complex Table 3.3 Codebook for knowledge co-construction processes Knowledge co-construction

Coding aspects related to each process type

Examples

Knowledge expansion – core (= related to knowledge from the organization’s material) Knowledge expansion – periphery (= related to knowledge provided by one of the interactors)

Especially challenging, supporting, or discussing aspects of knowledge on nature of virus and of isolation as treatment

with the addition of hydrate & panadol, rest is the correct treatment for most cases.

Especially challenging, supporting, or discussing early treatment and other suggested treatments + vaccination + consequences of COVID-19 Knowledge based on the interactors’ understanding of what happens or should happen outside the sphere of their own experiences

Knowledge evaluation

Focus on the value of the knowledge presented by others (other interactors or the organizations); no arguments, no corrections, no supplements; diferent from argument-based statements on the correctness of core knowledge (basically, what YOU say or think is incorrect) Especially personal experiences deepening the core knowledge but not challenging core knowledge (= what is stated as general core knowledge is given detail through personal experience) or personal understanding of aspects of the core knowledge

Most countries on the planet still have mask mandates, what 2/3 of certain states in the United States do, doesn’t constitute the entire planet. We had deaths in Canada today from Omicron. UK, US and France also report deaths. It isn’t over and mutations are still occurring. I read your mostly gibberish conspiratorial nonsense. Nothing you’ve said really makes any sense without evidence. Does a dalit like you know what evidence is? Or is just being loud and shouting mentally unstable words a constructive way to get your message across? I had convid symptoms I isolated not because of a dodgy test 93% false positive but because I was too ill to go out and stayed in for 3 weeks not by choice because I was ill.

Knowledge enhancement – new domain specific

(Continued)

The dynamics of knowledge and expertise

67

Table 3.3 (Continued) Knowledge co-construction

Coding aspects related to each process type

Examples

Knowledge enhancement – repeated

Especially answering WHO’s question by citing the poster, thus strengthening the knowledge presented by WHO through repetition

Easy, you isolate the suspect

realities, we have been engaged in several cycles of individual analyses and in iterative processes of reflexive discussions to avoid both rigid standardization and over-interpretations. Furthermore, to address this challenge, we have also tried to provide enough evidence when presenting the findings to make it obvious to our readers how realities are constructed and redefined by discursive interactions in the processes of knowledge co-construction. 3.2

The frequency analysis

Based on the conceptual frameworks developed during the qualitative analysis work, we have selected the first 300 comments and coded them in NVivo according to the two sets of criteria developed in the qualitative round. On that basis, we investigate the distribution of knowledge construction processes and the discursive reactions and look for relations between the two sets of criteria. 4.

Findings

In what follows, our findings are presented and explained. Spelling, semantic, or/and grammar mistakes from the interactors’ comments have not been corrected in the examples. We are aware that this makes it easy to find the original comments through internet searches and thus detect the author of the comment, although we have removed this information from the examples. However, as we feel obliged to indicate the original FB post in detail for reasons of traceability, it will anyway be possible to find the original thread of comments and its components. Furthermore, it is our position that comments in FB have an inherently public character, other than what is the case (e.g., in dedicated online health fora), which makes it less pertinent to hide authorship fully.1 The thematic knowledge types treated in the processes of co-constructing knowledge in the FB interactions are the following: • knowledge about the virus infection and its monitoring that exists in the organizations’ communicative materials posted on FB • knowledge related to the interactors’ personal experiences with the virus infection and its monitoring

68 Jan Engberg and Carmen Daniela Maier • knowledge related to the interactors’ understanding of what happens or should happen outside the sphere of their own experiences as far as the virus infection and its monitoring are concerned In the remainder of this section, we will focus on the two remaining components of our model (see Figure 3.1) separately and in combination. In 4.1, we will motivate our interpretative analytical results with brief consideration with respect to constructed thematic knowledge types, whereas in 4.2, we will focus on the frequency-oriented results concerning reactions and co-construction processes (see Table 3.1). 4.1

Processes of co-constructing knowledge materialized through discursive reactions

In the comments on the studied post on WHO’s FB site, we find all three processes of co-constructing knowledge. In the following, we will present our findings on combinations of discursive reactions, processes, and thematic knowledge types. One way of materializing knowledge enhancement processes is for the interactors to discursively provide each other with Evidence validation through their own personal experience. For example, Worked well enough for us . . . twice . . . (WHO, 4). Another discursive reaction that contributes to knowledge enhancement processes is Advising: Follow the guidelines properly and they work (WHO, 4). The thematic knowledge type that emerges through these discursive strategies is related to their personal experiences with the virus infection. Such processes are also created when triggered Alleging reactions are discursively combined with implicit Disapproval and new domain-specific knowledge is provided: Lots have no. means to basics look after the sick. The sick get worse in lockdowns when cut of from amenities food heating bills that cannot be paid then homeless while their loved ones are dying or died (WHO, 3). In this case, the knowledge is related to their personal understanding of what is going on around them in terms of monitoring’s consequences. Knowledge evaluation processes may be generated by discursive reactions of implicit Disapproval: So your saying do the same thing that we have always done when someone gets sick (WHO, 5). They can also be accompanied by negative Emotional reactions: you’re a musician, not a medical professional. If you’re curious about how things are done in ICU, you’re free to catch Covid and see how you go. Report back and let us know if it’s a scam or not (WHO, 15). The type of knowledge that is negatively evaluated in these cases is the one provided by the interactors in relation to monitoring the virus infection: In the first case, the one provided by WHO, and in the second case, the one provided by another interactor.

The dynamics of knowledge and expertise

69

Combinations of knowledge enhancement and knowledge evaluation processes within the same comment are also encountered. These combinations can be brought about through discursive reactions, such as Advising: WHO you can do better than this. The world is asking you to shoulder your responsibility and become the organization you profess to be (WHO, 1). An implicit Disapproval reaction can also be detected here. In this case, the commentator enters into dialogue with the organization, but interestingly, no answer is given either by the organization or by another person. Such combined processes can also appear when Advising and negative Emotional reactions are expressed together with implicit Disapproval. Irony is often encountered as negative Emotional reaction in such cases: Get the whole household tested then send the sick ones of to the purpose-build isolation center where they’ll get properly treated and the rest of the family won’t get sick -oh I forgot, the British government doesn’t do that (WHO, 2). Knowledge expansion processes also emerge on WHO’s FB site. As an example, they are manifested through Evidence validation: We had deaths in Canada today from Omicron. UK, US and France also report deaths. It isn’t over and mutations are still occurring. Less sever, but not over (WHO, 13). However, they may also be manifested through triggered Alleging: Most don’t get these symptoms, To late when you have the symptoms (WHO, 298). This type of knowledge is typically related to the interactors’ understanding of what happens or should happen outside the sphere of their own experiences. Knowledge evaluation processes can also appear alone and often do, namely, in contexts where the commentator does not contribute with any kind of new or repeated knowledge but makes an appraisal of the truth value or relevance of the knowledge provided by the organizations or by another interactor when interacting in the dialogue. In the following examples, the knowledge provided by another interactor is negatively evaluated: All I’m saying is your comment was reckless and counter productive. Please be more cautious (WHO, 12), and I read your mostly gibberish conspiratorial nonsense. Nothing you’ve said really makes sense without evidence (WHO, 19). 4.2

Results of frequency analysis

In this part of the analysis, we will give the frequency-based picture of the diferent combinations we have described in 4.1. The focus in the description is on the processes and their combinations with discursive reactions. We see a fairly equal distribution between the three knowledge coconstruction processes (enhancement: 114; evaluation: 96; expansion: 129; see table 3.4). However, knowledge enhancement in the form of interactors repeating the information presented in the graphic through answering the question is the most infrequent process (eight instances in total). Looking across the diferent comments, 90/300 (30%) may be interpreted

70

Jan Engberg and Carmen Daniela Maier

Table 3.4 Frequencies of processes of co-constructing knowledge Processes of co-constructing knowledge Codes

Occurrences

Knowledge enhancement – new domain-specific Knowledge enhancement – repeated Knowledge evaluation Knowledge expansion – core Knowledge expansion – peripheral

106 8 96 50 79

Knowledge enhancement 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

A : Advising B : Alleging - non-triggered C : Alleging - triggered D : Approval - explicit E : Approval - implicit F : Disapproval - explicit G : Disapproval - implicit H : Emotonal reactons - negatve I : Emotonal reactons - positve J : Evidence validaton - authority reference K : Evidence validaton - personal experience

Figure 3.2 Distribution of discursive reactions materializing knowledge enhancement.

to treat the infographic and its content. This shows that the interactors do not predominantly enter the communication proposed by WHO, viz. to verify or comment the content of the infographic. Instead, the majority of the contributions use Facebook as a medium for talking about COVID-19 and only use the original post as an excuse for interaction. Diving deeper into the frequencies, the distribution of discursive reactions in connection with the process of knowledge enhancement is clearly dominated by Evidence validation, especially based on personal experience (see Figure 3.2). So the dominant reaction type (45/114, 40%) applied to enhance the knowledge of the other interactors is one where the interactor draws on his or her own experience. Attempts to deepen and specify the knowledge in the form of alleging something or producing evidence based on authorities,

The dynamics of knowledge and expertise

71

on the other hand, are considerably less frequent (in total 8/114, 7%). Connected to this process, we find 21/114 (18%) reactions with an inherently positive note (positive Emotional reaction, Approval) balanced by 41/114 (36%) reactions that are negative by definition (negative Emotional reaction, Disapproval). Hence, a predominance of reactions is negative to previous reactions. In the rest of the reaction types, there is more or less a balance between positive and negative reaction. Looking at the process of knowledge evaluation, we see a predominance of negative discursive reactions (see Figure 3.3): 81 out of 96 instances of this process (84%) are manifested through Disapproval, negative Emotional reactions, and Alleging, which are always negative. Only Approval (4/96) leads to a clearly positive evaluation. Advising (5/96) is in this context, generally negative towards the post or comment it reacts to (Follow the guidelines properly and they work [WHO, 4]). Finally, of the six instances of Evidence validation (6/96), two are positive towards another reaction and four are negative. All in all, only six of the instances of knowledge evaluation (6%) are positive. Concerning knowledge expansion, the distribution of discursive reactions is shown in Figure 3.4. Compared to the distribution connected to knowledge evaluation, we hardly have any Emotional reactions here. Especially triggered Alleging (31/129, 24%) plays a larger role here than in connection with any of the other two processes. Hence, knowledge expansion is ofered much more frequently in the form of Alleging than in the form of validating Evidence, which is a sign of a rather superficial type of knowledge co-construction.

Knowledge Evaluaton A : Advising B : Alleging - non-triggered C : Alleging - triggered D : Approval - explicit E : Approval - implicit F : Disapproval - explicit G : Disapproval - implicit H : Emotonal reactons - negatve I : Emotonal reactons - positve J : Evidence validaton - authority reference K : Evidence validaton - personal experience 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Figure 3.3 Distribution of discursive reactions materializing knowledge evaluation.

72

Jan Engberg and Carmen Daniela Maier

Knowledge expansion A : Advising B : Alleging - non-triggered C : Alleging - triggered D : Approval - explicit E : Approval - implicit F : Disapproval - explicit G : Disapproval - implicit H : Emotonal reactons - negatve I : Emotonal reactons - positve J : Evidence validaton - authority reference K : Evidence validaton - personal experience 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Figure 3.4 Distribution of discursive reactions materializing knowledge expansion.

Furthermore, Alleging, triggered or untriggered, as well as Advising are always used to counter a previous reaction in the studied comments. Therefore, we can also here see a clear tendency towards negative reactions: Alleging, Advising, and Disapproval add up to 107 of the 129 instances (83%). So the overall frequency-based picture of the distribution of reactions across co-construction processes is that Evidence validation based on personal experience is the dominant reaction combined with knowledge enhancement, whereas knowledge evaluation is predominantly combined with negative Emotional reactions and Disapproval, and knowledge expansion is predominantly combined with Disapproval and Alleging. However, the frequency-based results demonstrate that there is no direct relation between any one reaction and any one process. Hence, it seems justified to work with the two levels we have suggested in Figure 3.1. Finally, a look at the distribution of the discursive reactions corroborates the predominance of negative reactions in the selected comments (see Table 3.5). The total number of discursive reactions is higher than the number of comments, as one comment may contain more than one type of reaction. If we just concentrate on the distribution of inherently negative vs. inherently positive reactions, we see a proportion of 49% negative against 11% positive reactions. Furthermore, it is interesting that Evidence validation (authority reference) is relatively low compared to Evidence validation (personal experience) and mere Alleging of “facts”. This gives us an idea of the basic type of knowledge co-construction found here: The interactors do not try to build knowledge together by elaborating on reactions from other interactors. Instead, they tend to stick to co-construction in the form

The dynamics of knowledge and expertise

73

Table 3.5 Distribution of discursive reactions – inherently negative reactions in bold, inherently positive reactions in italics Discursive reactions Codes

Occurrences

Advising Alleging – not triggered Alleging – triggered Approval – explicit Approval – implicit Disapproval – explicit Disapproval – implicit Emotional reactions – negative Emotional reactions – positive Evidence validation – authority reference Evidence validation – personal experience Total

30 6 36 18 15 73 65 24 4 13 48 332

of sharing and adding (see section 2.1) to each other’s knowledge by presenting personal experiences or subjectively perceived “facts”. 5.

Discussion

A dominant characteristic of the investigated comment thread to be induced from our results in section 4 is that comments are used to a large degree to channel the worries, frustrations, and anger related to authorities and their (lack of) action instead of co-constructing more core knowledge.2 An explanation of this specific use of SoMe in pandemic times could be that the feeling of powerlessness experienced by common people resulted in a tendency to appropriate the channel for this purpose. The characteristic of Facebook to provide the type of wider communicative arena that people could no longer access in real life due to the isolation imposed by authorities and the virus could play a role here. Furthermore, other studies of FB interaction have also found a high degree of emotionalization (e.g., Bucher, 2020). Related to this characteristic of personalization of the interaction, two more things spring to mind. First, knowledge enhancement in the form of talking about interactors’ personal experience with the disease play a major role in the interactions. This is interesting in the wider context of health communication, where there is growing awareness of the importance of personal experiences even for research in the field (Caron-Flinterman et al., 2005). Second, it strikes us that the WHO does not at any point take part in the interaction, although this could be relevant in some of the parts where knowledge is to be constructed, which runs directly counter to the

74 Jan Engberg and Carmen Daniela Maier original post. We saw the same characteristic in our previous study of a HBR FB post (see section 1). It indicates a monological approach to FB interaction and the afordances of a Web 2.0 application. However, it must be seen in the context of a certain level of disinterest among interactors, who only to a minor extent react to the original post. 6.

Concluding remarks

In the analysis reported and discussed in this chapter, we have looked at comments to a Facebook post as contributions to a process of co-constructing knowledge among the interactors. In our concluding remarks, we would like to draw attention to three further aspects in the material that we think may be relevant from the point of view of developing methods with relevance for the knowledge communication approach to the study of such communication. First, in the investigated comments, non-verbal components play a limited role. Hence, we decided not to include any multimodal analysis in the study. In terms of non-verbal components, we found a few emojis and GIFs, which all contributed to the critical emotionalization playing a major role from the verbal perspective. Despite their general limited role, it would be relevant in future work to focus on the concrete role of nonverbal components on the negative emotionalization. Secondly, the idea from Dubovi and Tabak (2020) about conceptualizing knowledge co-construction as a five-step process reaching from an introductory Sharing/Adding to a final Consensus on the knowledge developed in interaction is one that we find highly useful (see section 2.1). Specially to describe the interaction in occasional communities like the ones created in our setting, a process model distinguishing diferent steps is valuable. This conceptualization allows it to describe the many attempts at co-construction that are not carried through to the final stage but still probably influence the personal knowledge of the interactors. In their analysis of YouTube comments, Dubovi and Tabak (2020, p. 11) report a total of 81.5% of the reactions not going beyond phase 2 (Negotiating meaning). We would like to use this analysis in future analyses. Our impression from the present study is that very few interactors managed to go beyond phase 2 and start to elaborate on what other interactors have said. It would be interesting to investigate to what extent a tendency to unconstructive reactions like Disapproval and negative Emotional reactions in the form of irony or explicit rudeness is decisive here. Finally, a result of our analysis that is relevant for theoretically modelling knowledge communication is that the proposed relations between different constituents in the knowledge communication process (Figure 3.1) have been substantiated. Three thematic knowledge types were found in the

The dynamics of knowledge and expertise

75

comments. They are generated and shaped through combinations of three more general knowledge construction processes (expansion, enhancement, and evaluation). And these processes are on their side materialized through diferent types of interactive reactions in a dialogic exchange. From a methodological point of view, the distinction between the three interrelated layers opens avenues for understanding the knowledge communication process: The reactions materializing the co-construction processes (see Figure 3.1) will shape these processes and give them a more or less constructive and collaborative direction, as the direction will depend on the chosen reaction. The processes, on the other hand, will have an impact on the characteristics and the quality of the resulting types of thematic knowledge. This will depend on whether the focus is, for instance, on core or peripheral knowledge or whether processes of knowledge evaluation dominate the interaction. In the latter case, the knowledge that interactors take away will be dominated by aspects of the positions of diferent people to the treated topics rather than the content of the topics. From the point of view of the societal importance of the communication of expert knowledge outside the context of experts, insights into the inner workings in such situations could be valuable. Notes 1. For a methodology for hiding authorship to examples from the internet, see Fage-Butler (2021, pp. 172–173). 2. This distribution of functions in health communication is also discussed in the introduction to Fage-Butler (this volume).

References Ahmed, Y. A., Ahmad, M. N., Ahmad, N., & Zakaria, N. H. (2019). Social media for knowledge-sharing: A systematic literature review. Telematics and Informatics, 37, 72–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.01.015 Borges-Tiago, M. T., Tiago, F., & Cosme, C. (2019). Exploring users’ motivations to participate in viral communication on social media. Journal of Business Research, 101, 574–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.011 Bucher, H.-J. (2020). Zwischen Deliberation und Emotionalisierung: Interaktionsstrukturen in Sozialen Medien. In K. Marx, H. Lobin, & A. Schmidt (Eds.), Deutsch in Sozialen Medien: Interaktiv – multimodal – vielfältig (pp. 123–146). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110679885-007 Caron-Flinterman, J. F., Broerse, J. E. W., & Bunders, J. F. G. (2005). The experiential knowledge of patients: A new resource for biomedical research? Social Science & Medicine, 60, 2575–2584. Chatterjee, S., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2020). Social media as a tool of knowledge sharing in academia: An empirical study using valence, instrumentality and expectancy (VIE) approach. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(10), 2531–2552. http://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2020-0252

76

Jan Engberg and Carmen Daniela Maier

Dubovi, I., & Tabak, I. (2020). An empirical analysis of knowledge co-construction in YouTube comments. Computers & Education, 156, 1–16. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103939 Dubovi, I., & Tabak, I. (2021). Interactions between emotional and cognitive engagement with science on YouTube. Public Understanding of Science, 30, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662521990848 Engberg, J., & Maier, C. D. (2015a). Challenges in the new multimodal environment of research genres: What future do Articles of the Future promise us? In N. Artemeva & A. Freedmann (Eds.), Genre studies around the Globe. Beyond the three traditions (pp. 225–250). Inkshed Publications. Engberg, J., & Maier, C. D. (2015b). Exploring the hypermodal communication of academic knowledge beyond generic structures. In M. Bondi & D. Mazzi (Eds.), Discourse in and through the media (pp. 46–63). Cambridge Scholars. Engberg, J., & Maier, C. D. (2020). Getting ready for the next steps: Multimodal and hypermodal knowledge communication in academic context. In S. Maci, M. Sala, & C. Spinzi (Eds.), Communicating English in specialised domains. A festschrift for maurizio gotti (pp. 225–241). Cambridge Scholars. Engberg, J., & Maier, C. D. (2022). Multimodal generic trends of Harvard Business Review knowledge communication in and beyond social media context: Exploiting afordances, neglecting opportunities. Publications, 10(4), 1–17. https:// doi.org/10.3390/publications10010004 Facebook Post WHO (2022). www.facebook.com/WHO/photos/a.16766820994 5237/5045095032202506/ Fage-Butler, A. (2021). Poststructuralist discourse analysis: Investigating representations of knowledge and knowledge-related subjectivities in an online forum on HPV vaccination. In G. Brookes & D. Hunt (Eds.), Analysing health communication: Discourse approaches (pp. 161–188). Palgrave Macmillan. Greenhow, C., & Gleason, B. (2014). Social scholarship: Reconsidering scholarly practices in the age of social media. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 392–402. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12150 Jovanovic, D., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2018). Multimodal dialogue on social media. Social Semiotics, 28(5), 683–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2018.150 4732 Kent, M. L., & Li, C. (2020). Toward a normative social media theory for public relations. Public Relations Review, 46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019. 101857 Maier, C. D., & Engberg, J. (2021). Harvard Business Review’s reframing of digital communication: From professional expertise to practical guidance. Journal of Pragmatics, 176, 186–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.02.005 Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice. New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford University Press. Voorveld, H. A. M., van Noort, G., Muntinga, D. G., & Bronner, F. (2018). Engagement with social media and social media advertising: The diferentiating role of platform type. Journal of Advertising, 47(1), 38–54. http://doi.org/10.1080/0 0913367.2017.1405754

II

Communication and organisations

In the second section of this anthology, the papers are all firmly embedded in a communicative view on Knowledge Communication research. As such, these papers follow on from the papers in the previous section in the sense that while the papers in this section take the primacy of the ‘text’ for granted, as it were, they venture into the communicative context of ‘texts’, a context that is constituted in interactions, relationships, roles and positions. In her paper, Mia Thyregod Rasmussen takes us into the real-life interactions of a work-related communication network. By means of a multifaceted social network analysis she is able to address the knowledge positions that employees attach both to themselves and to their co-workers. She documents the highly dynamic, knowledge positional relationships between employees as well as points to the contingencies that spur them. In a conceptual paper, Ushma Chauhan Jacobsen delves into the raison d’être of Knowledge Communication research, i.e., the existence of knowledge asymmetries. In this exploratory essay, knowledge asymmetry is employed as a potent concept-metaphor. As such, it is functions as a prism through which new and multifaceted light is shed on Knowledge Communication, theory and practice alike. An epistemic community, i.e., a theatre partnership, serves as nexus for multi-sited ethnographic interpretations of praxis. In the last paper of the second section, Peter Kastberg reconceptualizes the building blocks of dialogical communication and, hence, what constitutes ‘communication’ as seen from the point of view of the tenets of Knowledge Communication. With a point of departure in radical constructivism and 2nd order cybernetics, a critical reading of traditional communication models is presented. Based on this, a new appreciation of communication as co-actional is presented and subsequently given a gestalt. With the three papers of this section, their common denominator – for all their individual diferences – is a devotion to exploring and questioning the taken for granted of what communication ‘is’ and what communication ‘does’. Hence, they cast new light on what constitutes both the context in which Knowledge Communication takes place and its constituents – as well as their interrelationships and interdependencies.

4

Communication network roles as knowledge communicative positions Mia Thyregod Rasmussen

1.

Introduction

This chapter focuses on patterned interactions of organisational members as related to everyday situations where knowledge communication takes place. The research project reported on took its departure in the question How are knowledge communicative positions linked to organisational members’ roles in internal work-related communication networks? The purpose is to shed light on the connection between communication network, network roles, and knowledge communication through investigating how organisational members relate to and perceive the position and knowledge that they themselves and others in the network have. I am thus investigating an organisation’s work-related communication network (Waldstrøm, 2007) and knowledge communication in order to learn how attributes related to these can lead to certain connections. In addition to identifying dynamics of the construction of knowledge communicative positions and roles in the network, in relation to the first pillar of the framework mentioned in the introduction to this volume, “expert knowledge is seen as constructed through communication”, I show that people can have a position partly due to being (considered) experts in something not actually related to their ofcial job position. I discuss reasons behind and implications of communication networks not necessarily following formal organisation charts. In line with the general topic of this volume, and the approach as outlined in the introduction chapter, this chapter highlights factors influencing how employees are ascribed certain knowledge communication expert positions and central roles in internal work-related communication networks and shows that this includes both perceptions of what they are experts in, as well as more practical aspects, such as the location of their ofce and the extent of their physical presence. The chapter first introduces two central streams of literature and their integration, namely, communication networks and organisational

DOI: 10.4324/9781003285120-5

Communication network roles

79

knowledge communication. Next, the empirical setting and the methods employed for researching the network and knowledge communication are presented. The findings include the identified network roles and knowledge communicative positions and central factors and conditions impacting these and thus the relationship between network and knowledge communication. I then discuss theoretical implications, as well as practical implications for managers and employees. The chapter ends with a conclusion and points to areas for further research. 2.

Central literature and theory

Two streams of literature form the theoretical backdrop for investigating knowledge communication in networks, namely, literature on communication networks and literature on knowledge in the context of organisations, viewed from a communicative perspective. The central aspects of each will be dealt with in turn, and I then present a synthesis, focusing on how the aspects are integrated for the aims and purposes of the study. 2.1

Communication networks

Theory on communication networks and the method of social network analysis (SNA) have some natural interconnections. In the following, I focus on communication network theory. The SNA method applied is elaborated on in the Methods section (3.2). Rogers and Kincaid (1981) define communication networks as consisting of “interconnected individuals who are linked by patterned communication flows” (p. 141). Of specific interest to the topic of this chapter, Rogers and Kincaid (1981) further note that “Communication network analysis is one of the [. . .] methods for studying the pattern or structure of communication that results from [. . .] information-sharing” (p. 282), indicating a connection between communication networks and the purposes of communication. In addition, these networks afect behaviour as “the behavior of an individual is partly a function of the communication networks in which the individual is a member” (Rogers & Kincaid, 1981, p. 141, emphasis in original). There are three overall theoretical perspectives of communication networks: the relational, the positional, and the cultural (Monge & Eisenberg, 1987, in Monge, 1987). The relational perspective emphasises emergent networks as well as direct and indirect connections between members (Monge, 1987). The positional perspective focuses on hierarchy and structural equivalence (Monge, 1987). Finally, the cultural perspective focuses on how symbols and meanings in communication create linguistic cultures and subcultures in a network and can thus have a structural function

80

Mia Thyregod Rasmussen

(Monge, 1987). The three perspectives have diferent starting points and epistemic interests, and it is the relational perspective which has informed the present study the most. In a more recent turn on network analysis from a communicative constitution of organizations (CCO) perspective, Blaschke et al. (2012) propose to focus on organisations as networks of communicative events (i.e., focusing on communication first) and then the members who take part in various communicative episodes. While this chapter’s focus on roles aligns with the classical perspective of relations between individuals, the focus on the construction of positions and the method applied to facilitate this investigation have afnities with Blaschke et al.’s (2012) ideas of communicationcentered social network analysis (Schoeneborn et al., 2019). A central aspect of both communication network theory and in SNA is network roles. Here, I identified roles on the basis of members’ relational positions in the network, following Wasserman and Faust’s (1994) definition: “role refers to the patterns of relations which obtain between actors” (p. 348, emphasis in original). As a number of typologies of diferent network roles exist, I reviewed a range of these in order to develop a workable typology for the context of the present study. Table 4.1 lists the labels used in a number of central publications on the topic, showing overlap between the typologies. Sometimes the roles are labelled diferently, although being defined in the same way. However, it is also the case that authors use the same label but with slight diferences in definitions. Waldstrøm’s (2007) typology is included, as it focuses specifically on roles in relation to knowledge. Table 4.1 Overview of network role typologies Author(s) Rogers and Monge Kincaid (1987) Role (1981)

Brass (1995/2003)

Cross and Prusak (2002)

Central connector Information Bridge broker Peripheral specialist Liaison Liaison Isolate Isolate Group member Wanderers Sellers

Star

Star

Bridge

Bridge (Gatekeeper)

Central Stars connector Information Bridgebroker builder Peripheral Experts specialist

* Translation from Danish

Waldstrøm (2007)*

Liaison Liaison Isolate Isolates Group member Wanderers Sellers

Communication network roles

81

The column furthest to the left lists the roles which can be distilled from the reviewed typologies. Central connectors are the members with the largest number of connections to other members. Information brokers are members of one group, connecting it to other groups. Peripheral specialists are people on the outskirts of the network with few connections. It is difcult to ascertain through SNA alone whether these people really are peripheral specialists or just members with few connections, but interviews help in establishing this. Liaisons are people who are not members of any group in the network but who connect groups. I follow Rogers and Kincaid (1981) and define isolates as people with no relations. Group members are all who are a part of the network (i.e., they have at least one connection). All of Waldstrøm’s (2007) roles focus on knowledge sharing, but some of his roles overlap with those found in other typologies. However, two of them, namely, wanderers and sellers, cannot be identified through a network diagram but were identified through interviews. Wanderers move around freely, collecting and disseminating knowledge, and build relations (Waldstrøm, 2007, p.  148), while sellers are identified as people who are able to move knowledge and ideas between people by way of their charisma, persuasiveness, or status (Waldstrøm, 2007, p.  148). Even though six of the roles in the typology were identified based on their structural properties, all roles found in the network diagram were a topic for discussion in the ensuing interviews. 2.2 A communicative perspective on knowledge in organisations

This study follows the orientations towards communication, knowledge, and organisations that were laid out in the introduction to this volume. In this section, I thus focus on highlighting aspects of a communicative perspective on knowledge in organisations related to communication networks. Windahl et al. (2009) describe the processual communication paradigm as the communication network tradition (p. 95). As regards the analytical focus of this perspective, they note that “In most communication models, the single individual is the unit of analysis; in the network model, the dyad, i.e. two elements – individuals, groups, etc. – linked together by communication [. . .] are studied” (Windahl et al., 2009, p. 99). Thus, in line with the focus on relations, emphasis is not on one person’s communication or reception but on communication as a relational process. An additional perspective relevant to the study of knowledge communication and networks is transactive memory (TM) (e.g., Canary & McPhee, 2011; Palazzolo, 2011). This is “a network-based approach to explain how second-order ‘knowledge about knowers’ afects knowledge use and difusion within particular groups” (Canary & McPhee, 2011, pp. 9–10). TM

82

Mia Thyregod Rasmussen

has its starting point in studies of memory as a socio-cognitive structure but later found its way into knowledge management research (Choi et al., 2010). Transferred to an organisational perspective, the theory states that a group of employees together possess a larger collective memory (Palazzolo, 2011). Notably, TM has an important communicative dimension, as “a TM system is made up of two or more memories, and the communication between the people to access knowledge as needed” (Palazzolo, 2011, p. 113). A transactive memory system has three processes “(1) directory updating; (2) communication to allocate information; and (3) communication to retrieve information” (Palazzolo, 2011, pp. 116–117). Directory updating is the process whereby members “learn what each of the other members know” (Palazzolo, 2011, p. 117). Palazzolo (2011) describes this as a kind of labelling: “people are learning labels, associate those labels with specific people, and, where relevant, assigning a relative value regarding how much the individual knows” (p.  117). Thus, members are not gaining knowledge about all topics themselves but knowledge about who knows what. This meta-knowledge is also mentioned by Cross et al. (2001) as relational knowledge (p. 108), meaning that “Other people can only be useful to us in solving problems if we have some awareness of their expertise” (p. 108). Cross et al. (2001) further note that “assessing this relational knowledge of ‘who knows what’ at a network level provides insight into the potential for members of a network to be able to tap others with relevant expertise when faced with a new problem or opportunity” (p. 108). Meta-knowledge is thus the central element in a transactive memory system. The system is maintained through the second process, communication to allocate information (Palazzolo, 2011). In this process, new information from the surroundings, which a person from the network encounters, is passed on to the member who is the expert in the respective area (Palazzolo, 2011). The third process, communication to retrieve information, concerns use of knowledge in the network (Palazzolo, 2011). Members contact other members whom they believe to be knowledgeable about a topic which they need to solve their tasks (Palazzolo, 2011). If a person turns out not to be able to help and the member turns to someone else, the process of directory updating also takes place (Palazzolo, 2011), updating knowledge about who to contact next time. These directories are a kind of mental roadmaps and are related to what Rogers and Kincaid (1981) refer to as know-who, an expression highlighting that it is important to know who knows what in order to be efective (p. 344). Thus, a good sense of who knows what in an organisation might afect the connection between knowledge communication and communication networks (e.g., considering that from a TM perspective, the strength

Communication network roles

83

of networks is that each member does not need to know everything; they just need to know who knows what they do not know). 2.3

Synthesis

Many network theories and studies share the underlying assumption that networks should be investigated for management’s sake (Cross & Prusak, 2002; Krackhardt & Hanson, 1993; Waldstrøm, 2007), as understanding networks can improve management of strategic processes (Krackhardt & Hanson, 1993; Waldstrøm, 2007). Although the research presented in this chapter includes practical implications useful for managers to be aware of, the initial motivation was to investigate communication network members’ perceptions and ideas of knowledge and their own and others’ roles in the network in order to clarify the connection between communication network and organisational knowledge communication, rather than focusing on how management can use the network to control knowledge communication or vice versa. Although knowledge as a theoretical concept is heavily discussed, in the empirical study, it is necessary to attend to what is understood as knowledge in the specific context. Thus, I focus on the content, process, and conditions for knowledge communication taking place in the organisation, rather than the theoretical form of the knowledge, drawing on a network approach, where communication is viewed as a process resulting in and from relations. 3.

Methods

The purpose of the study was to shed light on the connections between communication networks, network roles, and knowledge communication. This was accomplished through an investigation of the internal workrelated communication network and the knowledge communication in this network in a case organisation, viewed from a perspective of positioning (i.e., with a focus on roles and subject positions). The following sections describe the case organisation and the collection and analysis of empirical material. 3.1

Case organisation

The empirical setting was a Danish NGO with approximately ten employees and several volunteers. While the local organisation is relatively small, it is part of a network of organisations fulfilling the same mission of supporting volunteer organisations and making volunteer work visible. More than 60 of these organisations exist across Denmark. Although the

84

Mia Thyregod Rasmussen

case is a special context, it is illustrative, considering that phenomena like knowledge communication and communication networks are nuanced and complex even in an organisation of this size, and the complexity likely increases with the number of employees. The organisation is formed as an umbrella association, with more than 80 other associations (especially focusing on social work) as members at the time of study. The organisation has a board of voluntary members and a secretariat. This study focuses on the secretariat, which ofers consultancy services to associations and member services, such as meeting facilities, and helps potential volunteers find the right match with an association. In addition, the secretariat is involved in projects with external parties. Being a non-commercial consultancy, the financial means primarily stem from the (at the time) Ministry of Social and Interior Afairs and the local municipality. The secretariat had seven employees (including the daily manager, a wagesubsidised employee, and one maternity cover), one intern, two administrative trainees, and three volunteers helping out every week. In addition, various volunteers helped in the ofces sometimes or were freelancers, who were never or only rarely physically present. The employees had diferent areas of responsibility. The secretariat has a daily manager, but aside from that, the hierarchy is flat. There are a number of teams, structured according to diferent primary services, including a team of consultants, an administrative team, and a team handling counselling of potential volunteers. Some employees were members of several teams. 3.2 SNA and discursive positions

The study relied on a sequential mixed methods research design (Johnson et al., 2007). First, a SNA was conducted, beginning with a questionnaire used to identify which organisational members talked to each other about work-related topics. SNA is itself a mixed methods approach (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009), as quantitative data from the questionnaire is used to produce a socio-matrix (a binary table with 1 indicating a connection between two persons and 0 indicating no connection), which is converted into a network diagram as a qualitative visualisation with the help of additional questionnaire data. This diagram was then analysed for network roles based on the definitions in the typology introduced earlier. The second step of the research design consisted of semi-structured interviews with employees who exhibited certain characteristics in the network diagram. The interviews were used to identify aspects that shape the connection between communication network and organisational knowledge communication by investigating members’ views of positions and roles

Communication network roles

85

and the reasons why certain members occupy specific positions, insights which traditional SNA cannot facilitate. After having initially asked about knowledge communication, the network diagram was used as a projective method in the form of visual elicitation (Belk et al., 2013, p. 55) (i.e., the visualised network was shown to informants), facilitating deeper talks about the topics of the research. The interviews were analysed through discourse analysis focusing on subject positions, inspired by Davies and Harré (1990), who define positioning as “the discursive process whereby selves are located in conversations as observably and subjectively coherent participants in jointly produced storylines” (p. 48). They distinguish between two types of subject positioning, namely, interactive positioning (utterings positioning others) and reflexive positioning (positioning oneself) (Davies & Harré, 1990, p. 48). Positions are “created in and through talk as the speakers and hearers take themselves up as persons” (Davies & Harré, 1990, p. 62). This means that discourse analysis is a useful, indeed, necessary, approach to analysing positions. As a position is a construction, this is identified through investigating how the informants discursively relate to their colleagues and themselves: by extracting the autobiographical aspects of a conversation in which it becomes possible to find out how each conversant conceives of themselves and of the other participants by seeing what position they take up and in what story. (Davies & Harré, 1990, p. 48) Mühlhäusler and Harré (1990) use pronouns to investigate relationships. The same approach was adopted here, as I analyse how the individuals engage in interactive and reflexive positioning through their use of names and pronouns, specifically personal pronouns (e.g., ‘I’, ‘she’) and possessive pronouns (e.g., ‘mine’). By focusing on the co-text of passages in which the individuals refer to themselves and their colleagues, it is possible to investigate how they position with respect to the communication network, network roles, and organisational knowledge communication. Thus, subject positions were used to investigate interpersonal relationships, including how the employees perceived their own and others’ positions and the overall communication network based on network roles and the types of knowledge they shared or sought. By using both SNA and investigating how the informants discursively related to the network, the roles, and the organisational knowledge communication, it is possible to investigate the connections between the communication network and knowledge communication.

86

Mia Thyregod Rasmussen

4.

Findings

The first part of the analysis showed that several members held structurally distinctive network roles. The second part of the analysis showed that the members positioned themselves and colleagues in relation to diferent knowledge types. Furthermore, positioning as regards the network and roles was based on a range of contingency factors. Overall, the results show that from a position perspective, there are relationships between the organisation’s work-related communication network, network roles, and knowledge communication. 4.1 Communication network and network roles

There were 12 individuals in the network, illustrated in Figure 4.1. Since all had at least one connection, there were no isolates, and they were all group members. The network can be characterised as interlocking (Rogers & Kincaid, 1981), as the people that one member spoke to also spoke to each other to a significant extent.

Figure 4.1 Network diagram. Arrows indicate direction of communication. Shadings indicate frequency of communication: Black signals weekly interaction; grey signals less than weekly interaction.

Communication network roles

87

The member with fewest connections was a volunteer IT supporter, who can thus be said to be a peripheral specialist, which was confirmed in the interviews. Anna (all names are pseudonyms) was a central connector as the most sought-out person with most of the other members (nine out of 11) contacting her about topics related to work tasks. Sarah and Kate were the only ones to have indicated that they communicated with everyone in the network. Besides Anna, also Sarah, Kate, and Mary had central positions. For each of them, seven members had indicated talking to them. It is interesting to note that Kate, the newest salaried member, seemed to have developed a central position in the organisation’s work-related communication patterns. There were no information brokers or liaisons, as there were no groups or cliques, which might be due to the limited size of the organisation. Also, few of the members had tasks that were completely alike, and they might need to talk to various other members. Thus, the roles group member, central connector, and peripheral specialist were identified, while the roles liaison, information broker, and isolate were not. 4.2 Discursive positions: Knowledge communication and network

The members positioned themselves and each other as knowledgeable about diferent areas and to diferent extents not just areas wholly or partly related to their line of work but also within topics which were not necessarily logically connected to their occupation, function, or job description. The members expressed that they were open to sharing knowledge with each other and had a good idea of which colleagues were knowledgeable about specific topics. They all had professional specialist knowledge about one or more topics. But several of the members were also described as having more general and practical knowledge that was important for making the daily work in the organisation run smoothly. Anna was mentioned here due to her knowledge of the organisation’s facilities, but also, Sophie and Eliza, the two administrative trainees, were mentioned as go-to persons when it came to practical tasks. Even though they all shared a part of the same basic knowledge of the organisation (what Christensen [2010] would call coordinating knowledge), they difered in their knowledge about various professional areas and the more general practical knowledge. It was the members themselves who made the distinction between professional knowledge and practical/general knowledge. Anna’s central connector role in the network diagram was confirmed in the interviews (e.g., as one member said that Anna was the organisation and the rock, and others agreed that she was a central member). Although this positioning confirmed the result of the initial network analysis, there were diferent ideas about why Anna was central. Her

88

Mia Thyregod Rasmussen

own perception was that it was more about her job functions than her personal merits and that if other persons had those functions, they would also have been central. However, her colleagues suggested that it also had to do with her character and demeanour; it is not just that she knew a lot, she was also very helpful. Ultimately, a range of factors were mentioned, for example, she was central because she knew a lot about a specific professional area as well as having practical knowledge of the organisation and its facilities (a colleague referred to her as the ‘house elf’), she was easy to talk to, and because of her areas of responsibility. There was thus no doubt that Anna was central, but the reason was multifaceted, as she was positioned as central based on diferent factors. Part of the reason she was very knowledgeable could also be that because of her specific areas of responsibility, she accumulated a lot of knowledge, and because she was also a helpful person, this enhanced her role as a central connector, and thus, it was the combination of the different positions which made her so central. In addition to her function, knowledge, and accommodating manner, the central physical location of her desk was also mentioned as a parameter, and furthermore, she was often physically present. As regards Kate’s central position, the manager described her as curious and interested, leading to relations being formed. According to Sarah, Kate’s position could be due to a combination of her job position and experience-based knowledge from previous jobs. In addition, she was described as easy to talk to. Thus, her central position in the work-related communication network seems to be due to her openness and eforts to reach out, her function, and her experience-based knowledge. In addition, the location of her ofce was mentioned. As for the last two roles in the typology, Waldstrøm’s (2007) wanderers and sellers, none of the members exhibited the specific characteristics connected to those roles. Anna and Kate were the ones positioned closest to the wanderer role. Mary mentioned that Anna was good at creating relations but primarily on a social level and Kate was good at creating relations due to her curiosity. Josephine and Tanya were positioned closest to the role of seller (e.g., as Tanya was described as someone who liked to discuss new ideas). Mary also mentioned herself and Kate in relation to the seller role. Based on the ways in which the members positioned themselves and each other, central positions in the communication network were constructed as contingent on several factors, namely, 1) which job positions members had; 2) what they were knowledgeable about and what knowledge needs colleagues had; 3) their character, including how much they reached out and how accommodating they were when colleagues contacted them; 4) how central the location of their ofce space/desk was; and 5) how often they were physically present. These factors are elaborated further later, but

Communication network roles

89

first, I address the connection between roles and positions in the knowledge and network discourse. 4.3

Connections between knowledge communication positions and network

Based on the way in which the members positioned themselves and each other in relation to knowledge communication, communication network, and network roles, it seems that the communication network and knowledge communication afected each other. This was, for example, seen when some members, because of their position, were better placed as being relevant communication partners for more of their colleagues and thus also had better opportunities for exchanging knowledge. On the other hand, knowledge communication could also afect the communication network, as those who were perceived as being knowledgeable about many topics were sought out by more colleagues. This dynamic was seen with Anna, who was relevant for all colleagues as a communication partner in relation to their work tasks, and at the same time, because many came to her, she also ofered good opportunities for them to share knowledge with her. Thus, there is a kind of structuration connection, as the communication network afected knowledge communication, while knowledge communication played a part in forming the structure of the communication network. The communication network in the network diagram is a static picture of a structure which, according to the interviews, changed depending on the content of the communication about work tasks. The knowledge communication was situationally dependent. Sometimes, it was afected by whom the members usually talked to. At other times, it was not, and they reached out to someone whom they did not talk to everyday (e.g., because they were easily accessible that day). It is difcult to paint an unequivocal analytic picture. As the central survey question was “Who do you talk to about topics related to your work tasks?” there is likely already an element of knowledge communication in the answers to that question. For example, Mary mentioned that communication could include “unacknowledged knowledge sharing”, and especially Anna and Kate’s positions were partly connected to their knowledge. On the other hand, Mary said that when it came to knowledge communication specifically, who she talked to was dependent on the topic she sought knowledge about. Kate also mentioned that who she communicated knowledge with depended on her knowledge need. It was not just the knowledge communication and the communication network that were contingent as regards knowledge need, communication topics, and more practical conditions. The network roles were also contingent, as the members’ positions were, in some cases, dependent on the

90

Mia Thyregod Rasmussen

situation (i.e., a member could have diferent roles in diferent situations because they knew about diferent areas). For instance, Josephine was primarily mentioned in relation to knowledge of a professional orientation, and she was not likely to have the most important role when it came to communication about practical topics. It is also possible that central positions in the communication network afected members’ knowledge because they got in touch with many areas through their position, reinforcing their centrality both in the communication network and the knowledge communication. 4.4

Contingency factors for knowledge communication positions and network roles

As mentioned, the relationship between knowledge communication and the communication network is dynamic. Specifically, interactive and reflexive positioning as well as network roles were accounted for as resulting from five factors. 4.4.1

Job position and responsibilities

The first contingency factor was job position and functional responsibilities, both of a formal and informal kind. Several members mentioned that job position could afect the positions in the communication network, so the content of the areas of responsibility connected to the diferent functions was important. However, function was both about the tasks that were formally listed in a member’s job description and about the informal tasks a member could have. Informal tasks could both be tasks which a member was given without them being part of the job description and tasks which the member assigned to herself. Thus, we might take for granted that there is a connection between knowledge and job position, and there is, but some members were also knowledgeable about topics not necessarily related to their formal job position. In the interviews, practical knowledge turned out to be important. More professionally, specialised knowledge related to job positions was also important, but the central connector in the communication network was a person who had both important practical and specialised job-related knowledge. This person’s job position meant that for some areas of responsibility, the practical and functional knowledge were closely connected. 4.4.2

Knowledge and knowledge needs

Furthermore, members mentioned that it mattered what the diferent members were knowledgeable about, and in the positioning analyses in relation to knowledge communication, I identified that the members were positioned as knowledgeable in relation to diferent topics.

Communication network roles

91

Knowledge was in itself connected to other factors because a person was knowledgeable in a way that was afected by and connected to their web of relations. Here, it also makes sense to distinguish between diferent levels of knowledge. Each member could have certain areas of competence, which is one level. But there was also meta-knowledge (i.e., having an idea of one’s colleagues’ competences, thus knowing who to go to with diferent questions). The connection between the communication network and knowledge communication was also afected by the members’ knowledge needs (e.g., whether they had a practical question or a domain-specific question). 4.4.3

Behaviour

Members’ behaviour was also talked of as afecting knowledge communicative positions and network roles. If one was good at reaching out, helpful, and easy to talk to, this made a diference. If not, then even if a member was regarded as skilled and knowledgeable, colleagues might go to others whom they feel more comfortable talking to. Trust has been shown to be key for knowledge sharing in multiple studies (e.g., Zhang & Chen, 2018). 4.4.4

Proximity

The final two factors addressed diferent aspects of accessibility. First, the physical location of one’s desk (e.g., in a shared ofce) or ofce space was touched upon as members talked about physical proximity (i.e., whether you were sitting alone in a remote ofce or instead at a desk in a central shared ofce could have implications for which colleagues passed by naturally and who it was thus easy to converse with). 4.4.5

Physical presence

The second accessibility aspect was physical presence. It might sound trivial, but since a lot of knowledge communication happened face to face, then having reduced working hours made a diference, and it could also mean that other colleagues had stronger ties (i.e., if you are the most competent in an area but not present, colleagues might go to others instead of waiting for you to be in the ofce). On the other hand, someone who is often co-present with others will have more opportunities for direct, realtime exchanges. These five factors are important to take into account; although seemingly mundane, they have real consequences in practice, as knowledge communication and its interplay with other organisational practices are complex

92

Mia Thyregod Rasmussen

phenomena. Therefore, it is also important to emphasise that there might be additional factors that were not visible in the material investigated here. 5.

Discussion

In this section, I address consequences of the findings, including how, on a theoretical level, the study adds to our knowledge of the dynamics of knowledge communication in networks and practical implications. 5.1

Theoretical implications

The findings warrant a discussion of earlier theoretical approaches to network management, here seen from a more interpersonal and contingent perspective. As part of this, this section addresses the contribution of a knowledge communication perspective to the field of communication networks. The analysis showed that a role can be the result of a person having multiple positions. Even if an organisation has multiple central connectors, there can be diferent reasons for the centrality of each of them. The original roles are likely theoretically based in a more static view of communication, where diferent communicative situations are not taken into consideration. On the basis of the findings here, network roles should be seen as contingent and dynamic (e.g., as a range of factors afect who can be said to have a specific role). This contingency aspect (i.e., that the connection between knowledge communication, communication network, and network roles is dependent on a range of factors) is yet another reason why a nuanced approach to network management is needed. If changes happen in the communication network, it can afect knowledge communication (e.g., as roles change). It is thus important to think of knowledge as something that is dynamic and not static, and the members are knowledgeable in relation to each other, which afect the positions and thus roles, together with other factors, such as job position. Due to the many situational and contingency factors, the connection between knowledge communication, communication networks, and network roles cannot be reduced to a single descriptive theory. The second overall critique warranted by the results and an interpersonal perspective is also directed at early theory and studies of network management, which have often been discussed from a management or production-oriented efectiveness perspective or in relation to individuals’ career opportunities (Waldstrøm, 2007). Network studies should be seen from an open perspective, taking a point of departure in dynamics between members and not just treating them as afecting network management. Viewed from the perspective of organisational communication, networks

Communication network roles

93

and knowledge are more processual, contrasting with the control perspective often employed in traditional knowledge management and early network theory. If a control perspective is applied to network management, there is a risk that many interpersonal and contingent factors will be overlooked. Colleagues with diferent job positions can have knowledge that is valuable to others, without the manager necessarily being aware of it. Waldstrøm (2007) argues that with network analysis, it is possible to identify cooperation problems between departments and give a qualified suggestion as to which individuals need to work together (p. 33). However, viewed from an interpersonal perspective, the problem of lack of cooperation is not necessarily a sign of a lack of alliances or relations. It could also be that it does not make sense for these people to be connected. The problem is rather why these people think so than it is a missing tie between two names in the network. Without qualitative insight, network diagrams might lead us to treat symptoms, where management should instead be treating, for example, problems related to the working environment. The strength in network analyses lies not only in seeing who is connected but just as much in understanding how it afects them and the organisation. 5.2

Practical implications

The research reported here also involves implications for the practices of network management and facilitating knowledge communication. For managers, meta-knowledge of the work-related communication network and knowledge communication is expedient for ensuring that employees are recognised for their contributions. Furthermore, this knowledge is relevant for recruitment processes (e.g., when existing members leave). Managers should be wary of taking for granted what individual employees are knowledgeable about, who they talk to, and why. As shown, there are several factors to be aware of, some of which relate to implications of peer evaluation for career management. An example illustrates these points. A manager might think that an employee in accounting is often approached because her colleagues need refunds on expenses. But it could be that she helps her colleagues with Excel due to her skills in this program. If the manager is not aware of this when the employee leaves, colleagues miss their Excel help, and the hiring manager does not know this. A replacement might be hired, but helping colleagues with Excel might not feature in the job description, and if colleagues ask, the newcomer might find this to be disturbing. On the other hand, colleagues are likely to be more withholding because they have not yet built a relationship with the new colleague. In this example, several factors afect the organisational knowledge communication, including 1) the job description, 2) the question of which

94

Mia Thyregod Rasmussen

behaviour is recognised and rewarded and which behaviour ought to be rewarded, 3) the social aspect of organisational knowledge communication (i.e., the importance of relationships), and 4) members’ knowledge is not restricted to being directly related to their job positions; their practical knowledge is important for keeping the organisation going on a day-today basis, and knowing which members in a network are resourceful as regards diferent types of knowledge is valuable know-who. Thus, meta-knowledge about members’ knowledge is not only important for ensuring the organisation runs smoothly every day but it is also important when members leave and new ones arrive. Managers need to be aware of the range of knowledge competences in a network. A member’s departure can leave a knowledge communication hole which managers might not, at least initially, be aware of. Here, it is problematic to think of knowledge as an object (e.g., if one’s solution to the mentioned knowledge hole is to think that it can be filled by hiring someone with the same professional qualifications). When it comes to knowledge communication, relations are important (e.g., due to the significance of trust); and furthermore, in a network perspective, the situational and contingency factors discussed previously can have a big impact. Especially as regards knowledge brokers (i.e., members who have good meta-knowledge of what others are knowledgeable about and can facilitate contacts), this knowledge is highly social. If a knowledge broker leaves, it takes time for a newcomer to build this knowledge and position, also since parts of the practical knowledge might be connected to the social context, something which the newcomer first needs to become part of and understand. This points to the importance of making room for both formal and informal conversation, as both can have important transactive memory and trust-building functions. Having this updated meta-knowledge makes demands on managers. However, a first step is being careful of taking roles and positions for granted and being curious of employees’ knowledge. One important source could be staf and team development dialogues. This also points toward how self-awareness of one’s position can serve as an empowerment tool for employees in negotiations. 6.

Conclusion and outlook

Network roles can be viewed as knowledge communicative positions dependent on formal job positions, members’ knowledge of diferent topics (which is influenced by job position, experience, and access to knowledge), and how accommodating, outreaching, and accessible (determined by physical location, proximity, and physical presence) a person is. Thus, network roles are far from just being the result of members’ job positions,

Communication network roles

95

and there are connections between communication network, network roles, and knowledge communication, but they are not unequivocal. From the perspective of positions, the connections are mutual but situationally dependent, as they are nuanced by a complex mix of contingency factors. The methodical approach combining SNA with interviews, making it possible to identify who talks to each other and why, is relevant to other topics included in this volume (e.g., studies of knowledge asymmetries, as in the chapter by Jacobsen). In relation to Heine (this volume), the combination of methods suggested in the present chapter exemplifies an additional methodical approach to the study of knowledge communication attuned not to the study of knowledge communicative texts but to the study of knowledge communicative practices, conditions, and agents. The interpersonal perspective resonates with the co-actional understanding of knowledge communication in Kastberg (this volume). A holistic approach to future studies of network roles, communication networks, and organisational knowledge communication is recommended. An additional interesting aspect in organisations of all sizes is the impact of knowledge politics (Davenport & Prusak, 1998) (e.g., leading to knowledge hiding). Although not prevalent in the case organisation, it could be in other organisations, impacting the phenomena studied here. These insights into the interplay of communication networks, network roles, and knowledge communication have implications for how we study these phenomena as well as how we approach them in practice. References Belk, R., Fischer, E., & Kozinets, R. V. (2013). Depth interviews. In R. Belk, E. Fischer, & R. V. Kozinets (Eds.), Qualitative consumer and marketing research (pp. 31–56). Sage. Blaschke, S., Schoeneborn, D., & Seidl, D. (2012). Organizations as networks of communication episodes: Turning the network perspective inside out. Organization Studies, 33(7), 879–906. Brass, D. (2003). A social network perspective on human resources management. In R. Cross, A. Parker, & L. Sasson (Eds.), Networks in the knowledge economy (pp.  283–323). Oxford University Press (Reprint from: Research in personnel and human resources management, 13, pp. 39–79, 1995, JAI Press). Canary, H. E., & McPhee, R. D. (2011). Introduction: Toward a communicative perspective on organizational knowledge. In H. E. Canary & R. D. McPhee (Eds.), Communication and organizational knowledge: Contemporary issues for theory and practice (pp. 1–14). Routledge. Choi, S. Y., Lee, H., & Yoo, Y. (2010). The impact of information technology and transactive memory systems on knowledge sharing, application, and team performance: A field study. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 855–870. Christensen, P. H. (2010). Mere videndeling. Hans Reitzels Forlag.

96

Mia Thyregod Rasmussen

Cross, R., Parker, A., Prusak, L., & Borgatti, S. P. (2001). Knowing what we know: Supporting knowledge creation and sharing in social networks. Organizational Dynamics, 30(2), 100–120. Cross, R., & Prusak, L. (2002). The people who make organizations go – or stop. Harvard Business Review, 80(6), 104–112. Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Harvard Business School Press. Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. Krackhardt, D., & Hanson, J. R. (1993). Informal networks: The company behind the chart. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 104–111. Monge, P. R. (1987). The network level of analysis. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chafee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 239–270). Sage. Monge, P. R., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1987). Emergent communication networks. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective  (pp. 304–342). Sage Publications, Inc. Mühlhäusler, P., & Harré, R. (1990). Pronouns and people: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity. Basil Blackwell. Palazzolo, E. T. (2011). Transactive memory and organizational knowledge. In H. E. Canary & R. D. McPhee (Eds.), Communication and organizational knowledge: Contemporary issues for theory and practice (pp. 113–132). Routledge. Rogers, E. M., & Kincaid, D. L. (1981). Communication networks: Toward a new paradigm for research. Free Press. Schoeneborn, D., Kuhn, T. R., & Kärreman, D. (2019). The communicative constitution of organization, organizing, and organizationality. Organization Studies, 40(4), 475–496. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative techniques in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage. Waldstrøm, C. (2007). (Med Bent Engelbrecht). Ledelse af netværk: Virksomhedens skjulte ressource. Børsens Forlag. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press. Windahl, S., Signitzer, B., & Olson, J. T. (2009). Using communication theory: An introduction to planned communication (2nd ed.). Sage. Zhang, M. J., & Chen, H. (2018). To ask or not to ask: The roles of interpersonal trust in knowledge seeking. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), 71–86.

5

Knowledge asymmetry, and Corvus Corax in Greenland/ Denmark Locating method Ushma Chauhan Jacobsen

1.

Introduction

Knowledge communication research is committed to understanding the construction and communication of specialised, expert or professional knowledge and investigating the significant challenges and opportunities these entail in specific contexts and in societies at large. Within this research landscape, ‘knowledge asymmetry’ is a central and resilient conceptual resource (e.g., Kastberg, 2007; Kim, 2019; Anesa, this volume). Some would go so far as suggesting that to a knowledge society, “knowledge asymmetries are not merely one among many issues, they are probably the issue” (emphasis in the original, Ditlevsen & Kastberg, 2011, p. 134). As a term, ‘knowledge asymmetry’ has been used to denote a definite dichotomy between ‘expert’ and ‘lay’ knowledge and, as an extension to this, in the construction of dichotomies between ‘experts’ and ‘laymen’ (Parsons, 1975). The term has also been used to distinguish ‘experts’ from ‘novices’, where expert knowledge “distinguishes outstanding individuals in a domain from less outstanding individuals in that domain, as well as from people in general” (Ericsson & Smith, 1991, p. 2). These dichotomies have served the establishment of professions, the legitimacy of professionals and experts as key categories of powerful societal actors (Abbott, 1988), as well as the knowledge systems, such as education, health and law, in which these well-established professionals have been traditionally entrenched (Kurtz, 2022). Recent knowledge communication research is more cautious of such hygienic dichotomies. For example, Kastberg (2011) challenges the hegemonic and ‘proverbial’ perspective that divides the ‘haves’ from the ‘have nots’ by emphasising the nature of the interdependent relationship between the two, for “without domain laymanship there would be no domain expertise – and vice versa” (p. 147). The idea of knowledge asymmetry is further extended to discuss knowledge diferences between ‘experts’ and ‘other experts’ located in fields with diferent scientific perspectives,

DOI: 10.4324/9781003285120-6

98

Ushma Chauhan Jacobsen

cultures of practice and political agendas (Alrøe & Noe, 2011; Fløttum & Dahl, 2011). Knowledge asymmetry is also used to distinguish ‘domain experts’ from ‘decision makers’ (Eppler, 2007), implying that there are many categories of influential actors circulating in societies. In addition, the hierarchical distinctions between codifiable expert knowledge and tacit, experiential knowledge are questioned in terms of their efcacy in producing desired outcomes. The significance of experiential knowledge is increasingly deemed important in making practical, situation-based choices (e.g., Tian & Zhiang, 2022). I have earlier written about how the term knowledge asymmetry is a resilient conceptual resource used to understand how knowledge diferences appear great, small, disturbing, serious, irrelevant, constructive or detrimental in moments of deliberate knowledge communication. The term provides an overwhelmingly powerful form of explanation for communicative successes or failures when diferent peoples engage with learning, understanding, discovery, empowerment or decision-making (Jacobsen, 2012, 2014). As the field of knowledge communication emerges from research traditions centred on language for specific or special purposes (LSP), its empirical and methodological approaches have been primarily directed at investigating knowledge asymmetries in well-established spheres of professional practice, such as medicine, law and education, using the rich and diverse methodologies of discourse analysis. However, given the 21st century recognition that expert and professional knowledge is locatable in all spheres of society, knowledge communication research also captures empirical sites of investigation, such as the construction of artificial bouldering routes in the sports industry (Zehrer, this volume) or client-professional interactions in beauty salons (Oshima, this volume) or in exploring the communication of science through pedagogic theatre practices (Chemi & Kastberg, 2015). Such work expands the scope of knowledge communication research: It engages with domains embedded in the creative and cultural industries; it dissects contemporary types of texts (e.g., Zehrer’s digital podcast); it subverts the client from a passive receiver to an actor “performing artful work of doing knowing and not knowing in a material environment” (Oshima, this volume); and it fuses, for example, dramaturgical epistemologies with communication research (Chemi & Kastberg, 2015). In this contribution, I present some conceptual and methodological considerations related to the beginnings of a research inquiry embedded within Corvus Corax 20XX, which is an artistic collaboration project (2021– 2024) involving a partnership between Nordisk Teaterlaboratorium – Odin Teatret (Holstebro, Denmark) and Nunatta Isiginnaartitsisarfia (The National Theatre of Greenland). I suggest that the project can be viewed as a complex knowledge or epistemic community, which is textured with different forms of knowledges that are negotiated over, via, by, with, among,

Knowledge asymmetry, and Corvus Corax in Greenland/Denmark

99

and beyond knowledge asymmetr(y/ies). In this way, Corvus Corax is both a valuable site of knowledge communication as well as a site where knowledge communication’s central conceptual resources may be used. However, given the nature of this empirical site, I explain why its investigation necessitates the method-theory of multi-sited ethnography as an epistemological approach to understand and document communicative processes and outcomes. This, in turn, contributes to widening the methodological repertoire of knowledge communication research. Interesting to Corvus Corax is the Danish word ‘gensidighed’ (mutuality), which appears as a key mantra in the partnership. The meanings of mutuality bring sensations of interdependence, evenness, exchange, reciprocity and symmetry between the people involved. However, the world is far from symmetrical. I would like to start with this. 2.

Knowledge + asymmetry

The term ‘knowledge asymmetry’ comprises two semantically complex words brought in close proximity. Both words are socio-culturally, politically and emotionally overcharged. Together, they help to create a sharp division (the asymmetry) between people, the division being rooted in the messy material that is used to recognise their diferences (their knowledge). The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), a knowledge repository that claims to be the ‘definitive record of the English language’, refuses to settle on a tidy definition of ‘knowledge’. It ofers instead a lengthy list of meanings that include ‘recognition, condition of knowing something, understanding, intelligence, clear perception of fact or truth, perception by means of the senses, intellect, cognizant awareness, consciousness, competence or skills in a particular subject’. The point to note about this kaleidoscopic entry is that the meanings of knowledge are asymmetrical. It may also be inferred that the idea of asymmetry emerges from knowledge itself. In contrast to ‘knowledge’, the word ‘asymmetry’ in the OED is distinctly brief, its root specifically related to mathematics and chemistry. Asymmetry is defined as “the relation of two quantities which have no common measure, as 1 and √2; defective correspondence between things or their parts; disproportion; or a want or lack of symmetry”. The online dictionary entry is devoid of references to social phenomena and instead pushes in the direction of see symmetry, n. Using the hyperlink transport to the substantially longer entry on ‘symmetry’, this entry abounds with references from physiology, algebra, architecture, higher mathematics, logic, anatomy, zoology and botany. What catches the eye, however, are the just as many meanings of symmetry connected to the realms of culture, knowledge and desire. The socio-cultural saturates definitions of symmetry, which include perceptions such as mutual relation of the parts

100

Ushma Chauhan Jacobsen

of something in respect of magnitude and position and relative measurement and arrangement of proportion. The entry presents qualifying adjectives, such as just, right, true, and as a condition or quality of being well-proportioned or well-balanced and having a beauty of form, perfection. The meanings of symmetry are related to justice and truth in a general sense or to immaterial or abstract things, as action, thought, discourse and literary composition. The themes of magnitude and positions arising from asymmetry also occur here, but the wants, defects and lacks are replaced by ‘the harmony of parts with each other and the whole’ (own emphasis). However, physicists and biologists convincingly remind us of the omnipresence of asymmetry (e.g., Gardner, 2005). They state that life itself is a result of cosmic asymmetry and that true understandings of the universe can only become clear from identifying and understanding the asymmetries that surround us. Drawing multitudes of examples capturing human embryos, hydrogen molecules, the left and right in human bodies, minerals and plants, narwhals and sheep, we are left with the sensation that everything is essentially asymmetric. Yet, the social world is filled with eforts of symmetrisation: These are layered in social organisation and kinship rules; they are bound in architecture from every historical period; they are pervasive in the symbols of ancient cosmologies and new religions; they are captured in the multitude of musical scales from around the world; they determine the labours of love in art, literature and poetry; and they are forcefully leveraged in political ideologies and revolutionary movements that unsettle established sociopolitical and economic hierarchies. Symmetry is, in short, “one idea by which man through the ages has tried to comprehend and create order, beauty and perfection” (Weyl, 1952, p. 5). The meanings and practices of (a)symmetry not only help to describe countless worldly assemblages but they also allow us to consider the extent to which (a)symmetries are intrinsic to social life. In addition, considering which came first – the knowledge or the asymmetry – seems to be quite futile. It is like what Engberg (2009, p. 127), writing on the difculty of assuming strict dichotomies between individual and collective knowledge, calls “a chicken-and-egg type of problem”. It may be more useful to take another route towards the ‘concept-metaphor’ instead. 3.

A concept-metaphor

Have you ever encountered a person who cannot relate to the idea of knowledge asymmetry but without calling it that? In my experience of the realm of the everyday, practical and concrete, knowledge asymmetry is experientially and intuitively known by all people, irrespective of researchers following established knowledge-making practices in established knowledge institutions. In quotidian instances, knowledge asymmetries are perhaps

Knowledge asymmetry, and Corvus Corax in Greenland/Denmark

101

most often understood as measures or types of knowledge diferences between people. These people may be further distinguished as having diferent knowledges because of their ages, their professions, their biographies, their cultural backgrounds, their histories or the environmental conditions that influence their life worlds. They may be recognised as diferent because they are woman, man or transgendered; animal, human or spirit; barbaric, evolving or civilised; or literate, semi-literate or illiterate. It is what they know and do that diferentiates them. These distinctions between people are easily called upon using ‘cookbook’ or ‘recipe’ knowledge (Schütz, 1964), which refers to the repertoire of knowledge “that is automatically at hand for coping with the confrontations of daily life” and is further defined as “eminently pragmatic, non-reasoned and, if nothing unforeseen happens, unproblematic” (Hausmann-Muela & Ribera, 2003, p. 89). Such recipe knowledge continues to be significant in our post-globalisation condition saturated by populist politics and the echo chambers of social media platforms. Knowing about knowledge diferences is a sort of knowing that is both shared and mundane at the same time. Furthermore, this intuitive and tacit knowledge of knowledge diferences between people is often closely connected to (un)fortunate predictions of their efects and consequences. Knowledge diferences may be held responsible for causing misunderstanding, communication breakdown or non-communication between people who know diferent things. Or when turned around, the absence of knowledge diferences could be held responsible for causing and enabling understanding and resonance between people who know the same. Knowledge diferences may be used as powerful tools to maintain status quos and stability or powerful tools to create ripples that change established orders, agendas and attitudes. Not only are the usefulness and efects of knowledge diferences known, they are known with opinion and feeling. Knowledge diferences evoke sentiments of joy and harmony or sentiments that jam our actions and our relations. My point is that ‘knowledge asymmetry’ is intriguing. It is both a resilient conceptual resource for knowledge communication research as well as mundane ‘common ground’ knowledge, which is “generally undisputed, uncontroversial and taken for granted” (van Dijk, 2002, p. 218). Textured in this unruly way, knowledge asymmetry can be likened to a ‘conceptmetaphor’ (Moore, 2004), or a “conceptual shorthand for domain terms that orient us to areas of shared exchange, which is sometimes academically based” (Moore, 2004, p.  73). Concept-metaphors, such as ‘global, gender, the self and the body’, are ‘pre-theoretical’ and shared “to greater and lesser extents – between practicing academics and the individuals who are the subject of academic enquiry” (Moore, 2004, p.  74). Such metaphors serve multiple purposes: They carry status as theoretical abstractions as well as describe sets of concrete processes, experiences and connections

102

Ushma Chauhan Jacobsen

in the world that people themselves make. Thus, analyses of the construction, efects and outcomes of knowledge asymmetry at a particular site must proceed methodologically by accepting that the idea of knowledge asymmetry/diference is something everyone knows and shares. Following Frederik Barth’s broad sensibility to knowledge as “materials for reflection and premises for action” (2002, p.  1), I approach knowledge asymmetry as a spatiotemporal expression of knowledge that grapples with cognitive structures of understanding and explanation; allows systematic organisation of mess, prediction, reflection and pondering on experience; and remains vigorous through its continuous animation by routine performance and practice. By spatiotemporal, I mean that the idea of knowledge diferences is so useful to social life and the processes of stratification that it is ubiquitous, albeit given diferent names at diferent times and in diferent places. The notion of diference is also fundamental to large academic fields, for example, anthropology and sociology, gender and race studies, cultural and media studies, which all study social life. Even if these fields have diferent empirical or theoretical foci, they are strongly concerned about investigating the enactment, curtailment and resistance of diferences that are created by society, politics and culture for the purposes of something else. Postcolonial studies, for example, is built on examining processes of constructing and distributing diference but without the need to rely on a mathematical and purely theoretical term such as asymmetry. Here, words like the ‘border’, the ‘in-between’ or the ‘liminal’ are privileged (Bhabha, 1994). The notion of border is also used in translation studies, which is interested in ‘dialogue with diference’. Translations sites are argued to often occur in border zones “where the wounds of history are still legible” (Simon, 2019, p. 2). Given that scholars use competing terms to label asymmetries, diferences and borders, an analysis of knowledge asymmetry at a given site leads to methodological anxieties related to how we name and represent phenomena. 4. Corvus Corax 20XX Corvus Corax 20XX is a four-year partnership (2021–2024) between Nordisk Teaterlaboratorium – Odin Teatret and The National Theatre of Greenland aimed at establishing spaces for a series of “inspiring and innovative theatre activities in Greenland and Denmark”.1 Using the Latin term for the raven, which has significance in both Greenlandic and Nordic mythology, Corvus Corax aims at creating artistic, cultural and research impact to promote stronger and renewed postcolonial (and substantially asymmetric) relations between Greenland and Denmark. The project comprises the following: 1) artistic cooperation based on a strong commitment to outreach in remote areas, local anchoring and participatory

Knowledge asymmetry, and Corvus Corax in Greenland/Denmark

103

festival formats; 2) touring performances, workshops and seminars from both theatres to benefit Greenlandic audiences and to create Holstebro as a central point for “the communication and dissemination of knowledge of Greenland through a just exchange of the artistic work of both theatres” (own translation); 3) developing artistic formats, creative processes and new strategies for outreach in a ‘laboratory’ modelled on the ‘cultural barter’; and 4) the creation of new sustainable partnerships. The project also comprises a research component where diferent researchers follow, document and share their results and insights to the wider public. The digitalised archive is an important component for the storage and dissemination of knowledge produced within and about Corvus Corax. The project has, at its heart, an interest in working with knowledge diferences. If knowledge communication is understood as ‘strategic communication’ which is “deliberately goal-oriented, the goal being the mediation of understanding across knowledge asymmetries” (Kastberg, 2007, p. 8), then Corvus Corax fulfils several criteria for empirical selection. Starting with the obvious, the project is deliberately goal-oriented in mediating different forms of understanding for the strategic purpose of renewing the strained postcolonial relations between Greenland and Denmark. It seeks to promote Holstebro as a hub of knowledge on Greenland, and the series of planned encounters imply deliberate and conscious acts of knowledge exchange and coproduction. The references to ‘objectives, impacts, collection of results and knowledge dissemination’ leave no doubt about the strategic directions of the knowledge partnership. The scholarly literature on theatre as provoking direct encounters with knowledge has a long history that cannot be done justice here. The ability of theatre to “unsettle and expand the idea of knowing in ways that no other practice can achieve” (Kornhaber, 2020, p. 19) expresses the close relation between the two succinctly. Theatre professionals build their specialised knowledge and routinised practices through discipline, systematic training in codified techniques, craftmanship and reflections on practical experience (Barba & Savarese, 2019). Theatre professionals are organised in communities, unions and societies following written and unwritten codes of conduct. Those initiated within specialised knowledge domains are known to surround themselves with practical and symbolic material objects that distinguish them from others: the doctor’s stethoscope, the lawyer’s books and the hairdresser’s scissors. In this regard, theatre overflows with materiality that possibly outcompetes every other domain. Actors have an ability and legitimacy to appropriate, chop and rearrange the ideas, identities and objects of all other professional communities into their performances. Performance is not only knowledge exchange but performance is also theorised as research (see Arlander et al., 2018) and

104 Ushma Chauhan Jacobsen where scholarship has been argued to be a “kind of theatre performance” (Gluzman, 2018, p. 106). All these ideas enter the ‘laboratory’ in Corvus Corax and the liminal spaces of knowledge exchange and production in Masterclasses, workshops and seminars. Additionally, the expansion of the digitalised archive, which captures, systematises and stores the knowledge produced within the project, and the inclusion of diferent researchers who follow Corvus Corax, point to very diferent types of containers and viaducts of specialised knowledge in circulation. The ‘mediation of understanding’ is a practice. The concept of ‘the skilled body’ as “the common meeting point of mind and activity and of individual activity and society” (Schatzki, 2001, p. 3) privileges the doing over the having of specialised knowledge. Schatzki distinguishes between integrative practices defined as complex practices found in and constitutive of specific domains (e.g., farming, business or performance arts) and dispersed practices, which are found in multiple domains and include “describing, ordering, following rules, explaining, questioning, reporting, examining, and imagining” (Schatzki, 1996, p.  91). Unlike integrative practices, dispersed practices take place within and across domains. Schatzki’s distinction resonates well with Savarese’s (2019, p. 7) discussion of the actor’s relation with the spectator that are built on two elements of equal efcacy and importance: ‘Body-mind techniques’ that are specific to the theatre domain and ‘auxiliary techniques’ that concern, for example, the economic, organisational, informational and spatial aspects of arranging the interactions with spectators. Corvus Corax embraces both integrative and dispersed knowledge practices. Although it may, at first glance, appear that the project comprises a mélange of diverse participants performing diferent roles, such as actors, project managers, scenographers, audiences, volunteers, researchers, ticket sellers, caterers, image makers and musicians, these roles are interchangeable in practice. Ethnographic field work shows how audiences become actors, how researchers become caterers and how musicians become managers. Not only do these shifts in practices challenge the dichotomy of integrative and dispersed practices but they also motivate the use of ethnographic methods, which privilege longterm participant observation and interaction to embrace the minute and paradoxical details of everyday practice. The idea of the ‘cultural barter’ also provides an empirical detail in the planned activities of Corvus Corax to examine (a)symmetry. These activities, structured as events in diferent places in Greenland and Denmark, are sites of ‘cultural exchange’ between spectators and actors. The barter refers to a theatre practice with deep roots in Odin Theatre’s history since its establishment in the early 1970s and associated with its Italian founder Eugenio Barba. It is an event where actions become the

Knowledge asymmetry, and Corvus Corax in Greenland/Denmark

105

commodities and currency of exchange. The barter takes place when the following occurs: one group of people performs for another and, rather than the second group paying money, it performs for the first. A scene from a play is exchanged for a traditional song, a display of acrobatics for a folk dance, a poem for a monologue. (Watson, 2002, p. 95) The barter encapsulates the idea that both products are equal, diference is acknowledged and celebrated and the diference itself is not seen as a case of the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ – but rather between ‘haves’ and ‘haves’. There are neither domain experts nor lays. The participatory model, where the boundaries between actors and audiences shift roles, creates instability and fluidity in the performer/spectator relationship. Furthermore, barters are geographically mobile and not performed within theatres but in everyday spaces, where people live, work, relax and gather: “where the audience no longer travels to the theatre, the theatre comes to it” (Watson, 2002, p. 102). The barter’s location is always a site of ‘socio-political relevance’ that raises questions of socio-cultural identity, history and origins (p. 107). In this way, Corvus Corax strikes at the heart of the legacy and futures of the postcolonial relationship between Greenland and Denmark (see Christofersen, 2022). The cultural barter is certainly a beautiful idea, resonating strongly with the dictionary descriptions of symmetry given earlier. However, as Stewart (2007) is cautious to remind us, mathematical understandings of symmetry are only exact because they are only theoretical. 5.

Method considerations

What happens in practice will always be diferent, and the understanding of this diference in practice brings in considerations of method. A first point is that Corvus Corax is an empirically valuable knowledge communication site characterised by specialised/expert knowledges; overlapping professional identities and practices; concept-metaphors; deliberate transgressions of national, geographical and socio-cultural borders; and it is intentionally assembled at a very specific spatiotemporal moment that is alert to the historical contexts from which it emerges. A second point is that an analysis of the processes and products of the partnership causes methodological anxiety because how can a site that explicitly contains all the elements earlier be captured by who, and for which purpose? For starters, methodologies that “celebrate richness, depth, nuance, context, multi-dimensionality and complexity rather than being embarrassed or inconvenienced about them”

106 Ushma Chauhan Jacobsen (Mason, 2002, p. 1) would have to be used. Next, a heightened awareness of the relationship between the context of Corvus Corax, as well as the context in which the knowledge of Corvus Corax is produced, needs to be maintained. I will start with context. ‘Context’ has been described as the “information that surrounds an event” (Hall & Hall, 1990, p. 6). This is fairly straightforward but largely inadequate because how does information get into any event in the first place? Strathern (1992) calls the scholarly act of getting information into an event as ‘merographic’ practice that makes sense of one context by describing it as part of another context. This strategy of assembling adequate context functions to convey a sense that a fuller picture has been used to understand and explain the object of study. Ethnographic materials are rich sources for fuller pictures, and ethnography has become a bona fide contextualising strategy (Schlecker, 2010). This is reflected in Oberhuber and Krzyzanowski (2008), who argue that ethnography is vital to establishing the context of the discourse to be studied when they write that “an analysis of linguistic elements of discourse presupposes a proper appraisal of their context of production and reception” (p. 183). This is an example of merographic practice at work: Analysing linguistic elements as part of a context that the researcher has delineated and elaborated upon. It is not my intention to deny the value of this but rather to consider two central challenges of ‘context’. The first is that ethnographic materials comprising minute and unruly details have a cunning ability to open a myriad of contexts that surround an event. A number of multiple connections between multiple parts may be established, dispelling the idea of one context. The second is that once the context has been delineated, it has a peculiar propensity of assuming autonomy and agency to explain the phenomena under study. A classic example is when a situation is described as ‘intercultural’, miscommunication is explained in terms of cultural diferences (Sarangi, 1994). Likewise, if a situation is described as a site of knowledge communication, then the challenges of communication are contextualised as emerging from the presence of knowledge asymmetries. Context, thus, is problematic, but there are several ways to negotiate this. One would be to accept that when multiple perspectives that deny synthesis surround the site of research, then merographic practice ofers an expedient route to stabilise the objects of study by contextualising them as political, economic, cultural, social, legal, creative, theatrical, activist, humanistic, social scientific, etc. These methods help to maintain the asymmetries and boundaries between disciplines, and when two or more contexts are joined, they justify interdisciplinary research. Another way would be to analytically abandon context in favour of following actors and their networks of alliances wherever they move, which is

Knowledge asymmetry, and Corvus Corax in Greenland/Denmark

107

associated with actor-network theory (e.g., Callon, 1986). The theoretical principle of ‘generalised symmetry’ in ANT studies, which allows the anthropomorphising of non-humans, other animals, objects, places or ideas is interesting here. It is argued that if these entities show signs of humanlike behaviour, they must be approached with the same, or symmetrical, method of approaching human phenomena. Once again, the principle of symmetry is leveraged as a powerful thought, but it has severe limitations. Tsing (2010) argues that the complete abandonment of context and the principle of symmetry is untenable because actors do have situated backgrounds surrounding them. Referring to Callon’s study on the introduction of Japanese techniques in scallop farming in Brittany, Tsing accepts that Callon’s study does show how actor-networks involve both human and non-humans making things happen but alerts us to the necessity for context: “Consider the Japanese scientist and scallops hovering in the background. Most readers come away from Callon’s article not remembering that Japan is part of it all” (Tsing, 2010, p.  48). To address this, Tsing argues in favour of the practice of ‘worlding’, which not only highlights a key function of ethnography to provide context but it also describes the precarious situation researchers face when categorising and labelling people, places and contexts to situate their research. This is because they constantly risk that ‘worlding’ is always “experimental and partial, and often quite wrong” (2010, p. 48). A third way to engage with context would be to allow and show how context and ‘worlding’ is co-produced by a community of collaborating actors in which researchers are implicated. If empirical sites, such as Corvus Corax, were approached as existing in a world of ‘distributed knowledge systems’ (Marcus, 2009, p. 189) rather than in a world of ‘distributed cultures’ (which the focus on Greenlandic-Danish relation in Corvus Corax would fit comfortably), then a number of new perceptions of contexts that challenge traditional recipe-like dichotomies could emerge. Working in distributed knowledge systems also implies that the people amongst whom the researcher interacts cannot be seen as ‘subjects’, ‘informants’ or ‘knowledge-holders’ from whom the researcher collects and harvests data but rather that all actors in the community of collaboration are legitimate ‘knowledge makers’ or ‘research co-producers’. It is here that multi-sited ethnography and its developments ofer generous conceptual and methodological sensibilities to approach knowledge communication at Corvus Corax. Initially associated with George Marcus’s seminal article ‘Ethnography In/Of the World System’ (1995), multi-sited ethnography has had salient conceptual and methodological ambitions related to the ‘rescaling’ and ‘refunctioning’ of ethnography. These notions have disturbed critical elements of ethnographic knowledge production that are conventionally

108

Ushma Chauhan Jacobsen

described as concerned with the ‘cultural beliefs and practices of a people’. Multi-sited ethnography encourages the reimagining of field work in multiple locations and seeks enrichment from other academic fields to intermingle and influence the well-established talismans of ethnography. These elements comprise field/site immersion, participant observation and the production of excessive empirical resources. The latter takes form in fieldnotes composed of snippets of conversations and insights, material objects and written and visual texts. In addition, a reflexivity of researcher positionality is strongly privileged. These techniques and approaches are then used to analyse the topic of inquiry, or is very often the case, serve as materials that subvert and change the topic of inquiry. The ‘rescaling’ of ethnography ofers entries into a post-cultural world of global assemblages (Ong & Collier, 2005) that crisscross and territorialise heterogeneous, contingent, partial and situated localities, spaces, people, ideologies and objects, which characterise ‘entangled modernities’ (Beck, 2002). ‘Rescaling’ extends the repertoire of phenomena that can be treated ethnographically, and this is demonstrated in works pursuing diverse discourses, such as transgender identities (Valentine, 2007), climate change (Crate & Nuttall, 2016), and the digitalisation of societies (Knox & Nafus, 2018). Having opened new vistas to conventional ethnography, multi-sited ethnography enables the movement out of single distinct sites into multiple entangled sites to follow ‘people, things, metaphors, plots, biographies or conflicts’ in spatially dispersed fields (Marcus, 1995). The ‘refunctioning’ of ethnography concerns a continued awareness of how the acts of knowledge production and knowledge representation are intricately entangled in webs of relations with ‘ethnography’s subjects, partners, and intended audiences and readerships’ (Marcus, 2010, p. 33). Thus, the concern with how and why knowledge is produced, who produces it, as well as assuming responsibility for the efects of its (co)production remains. This becomes even more critical when collaborative ‘knowledge makers’ are conscious of their own professionalism and expertise and when they share the critical sensibilities of the researcher. The notion of ‘refunctioning’ appears in many academic trajectories engaged in the value and practices of collaborative research; for example, Hansen and Ren (2021) discuss how the Arctic can be understood through collaboration with actors not necessarily associated with academia. The respect and acknowledgment of the knowledge of others are convincingly articulated by Holmes and Marcus (2021) when they write: Within the epistemic communities that we seek to explore, our subjects are themselves fully capable of doing superb ethnography in their own idioms. Within their own situated discourses, the basic descriptive

Knowledge asymmetry, and Corvus Corax in Greenland/Denmark

109

function of ethnography is very likely to be already exercised. [. . .] Anthropologists are not needed to add critique, moral injunction, or higher meanings to these accounts. (p. 26) 6. Multi-sited ethnography and Corvus Corax Corvus Corax is just as much an epistemic community as it is a project or a partnership. It is a community with a history that has been long concerned with knowledge communication. It is filled with specialised knowledge practices and critically aware of the myriad of knowledge asymmetries that are actively constructed, debated, negotiated and overturned. The context of the strained postcolonial relation riddled with historically formed sociocultural and political asymmetries between Greenland and Denmark cannot be discarded. The pursuits of mutuality, ‘just’ exchange, collaboration and sustainable partnerships are, in efect, the pursuits of symmetry in an otherwise asymmetrical world. To investigate this pursuit, multi-sited ethnography provides a valuable method that actively works with knowledge asymmetry. At a practical level of rescaling, it allows the following of epistemic communities, which Corvus Corax is, as they move in diferent geographical spaces in Greenland and Denmark that involve rearrangements of who is expert or not. The sensibility to knowledge asymmetry as a concept-metaphor allows a grappling with the domain terms that knowledge communication research is concerned with. Committed to the ‘refunctioning’ of ethnography, which seeks to establish greater symmetry between researchers and the epistemic communities they become part of, multi-sited ethnography engages in a co-constructed ‘worlding’ of research inquiries. At the level of concrete practice, ‘refunctioning’ entails, for example, using techniques of purposeful dialogue to pursue joint articulations of research questions and exercising genuine tolerance and willingness to resolve relational friction when making agreements on common terminologies and the delineations of contexts. In addition, refunctioning approaches include mutual transparency with processes of knowledge elicitation, engagement in co-produced writing and co-organisation of events, as well as collaborative forms of knowledge dissemination through formats that are attentive and bold enough to break with the traditions and preferences of specific academic communities. Although the outcomes of Corvus Corax’s deliberate goals are still in the making, negotiations on the roles and methods of collaborating researchers are cautiously underway. This contribution has been read, discussed and approved by the project makers of Corvus Corax 20XX.

110

Ushma Chauhan Jacobsen

Note 1. https://odinteatret.dk/nordisk-teaterlaboratorium/ntl-projects/corvus-corax-20xx/

References Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. University of Chicago Press. Alrøe, H. F., & Noe, E. (2011). The paradox of scientific expertise: A perspectivist approach to knowledge asymmetries. Fachsprache, International Journal of Specialized Communication, 34(3–4), 152–167. Arlander, A., Barton, B., Dreyer-Lude, M., & Spatz, B. (Eds.). (2018). Performance as research: Knowledge, methods, impact. Routledge. Barba, E., & Savarese, N. (2019). The five continents of theatre: Facts and legends about the material culture of the actor. Brill. Barth, F. (2002). An anthropology of knowledge. Current Anthropology, 43(1), 1–11. Beck, U. (2002). The cosmopolitan society and its enemies. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(1–2), 17–44. Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. Routledge. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action, and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–223). Routledge and Kegan Paul. Chemi, T., & Kastberg, P. (2015). Education through theatre: Typologies of science theatre. Applied Theatre Research, 3(1), 53–65. Christofersen, E. E. (2022, June 9). Teater og partnerskab: Corvus Corax. Peripeti. www.peripeti.dk/2022/06/09/teater-og-partnerskab-corvus-corax-ravnen/ Crate, S. A., & Nuttall, M. (Eds.). (2016). Anthropology and climate change: From actions to transformations. Routledge. Ditlevsen, M. G., & Kastberg, P. (2011). Editors’ preface. Fachsprache, International Journal of Specialized Communication, 34(3–4), 134–136. Engberg, J. (2009). Assessing the dynamic character of legal terms. Fachsprache, International Journal of Specialized Communication, 31(3–4), 126–138. Eppler, M. (2007). Knowledge communication problems between experts and decision makers: An overview and classification. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(3), 291–300. Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (Eds.). (1991). Towards a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. Cambridge University Press. Fløttum, K., & Dahl, T. (2011). Climate change discourse: Scientific claims in a policy setting. Fachsprache, International Journal of Specialized Communication, 34(3–4), 205–219. Gardner, M. (2005) [1964]. The New ambidextrous universe: Symmetry and asymmetry from mirror reflections to superstrings. Freeman. Gluzman, Y. (2018). Research as theatre: Positioning theatre at the centre of PAR, and PAR at the centre of the academy. In A. Arlander et al. (Eds.), Performance as research: Knowledge, methods, impact (pp. 105–32). Routledge.

Knowledge asymmetry, and Corvus Corax in Greenland/Denmark

111

Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding cultural diferences: Keys to success in West Germany, France and the United States. Intercultural Press. Hansen, A. M. & Ren, C. (Eds.). (2021). Collaborative research methods in the Arctic: Experiences from Greenland. Routledge. Hausmann-Muela, S., & Ribera, J. M. (2003). Recipe knowledge: A tool for understanding some apparently irrational behaviour. Anthropology & Medicine, 10(1), 87–103. Holmes, D. R., & Marcus, G. E. (2021). How do we collaborate? An updated manifesto. In D. Boyer & G. E. Marcus (Eds.), Collaborative anthropology today: A collection of exceptions (pp. 22–39). Cornell University Press. Jacobsen, U. C. (2012). Knowledge asymmetries: A situated inquiry in three sites of professional communication [PhD thesis, Aarhus University]. Jacobsen, U. C. (2014). Knowledge asymmetry in action. Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 53, 57–71. Kastberg, P. (2007). Knowledge communication – The emergence of a third order discipline. In C. Villiger & H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast (Eds.), Kommunikation in Bewegung: multimedialer und multilingualer Wissenstransfer in der ExpertenLaien-Kommunikation: Festschrift für Annely Rothkegel zum 65. Geburtstag (pp. 7–24). Peter Lang. Kastberg, P. (2011). Knowledge asymmetries: Beyond “to have and have not”. Fachsprache, International Journal of Specialized Communication, 34(3–4), 137–151. Kim, Y. (2019). “What is stoyr-steruh type?”: Knowledge asymmetry, intersubjectivity, and learning opportunities in conversation-for-learning. Applied Linguistics, 40(2), 307–328. Knox, H., & Nafus, D. (Eds.). (2018). Ethnography for a data-saturated world. Manchester University Press. Kornhaber, D. (2020). Theatre and knowledge. Red Globe Press. Kurtz, T. (2022). The end of the profession as a sociological category? Systemstheoretical remarks on the relationship between profession and society. The American Sociologist, 53, 265–282. Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95–117. Marcus, G. E. (2009). Multi-sited ethnography: Notes and queries. In M. A. Falzon (Ed.), Multi-sited ethnography: Theory, praxis and locality in contemporary research (pp. 181–196). Ashgate. Marcus, G. E. (2010). Holism and the expectations of critique in post-1980s anthropology: Notes and queries in three acts and an epilogue. In T. Otto & N. Bubandt (Eds.), Experiments in holism: Theory and practice in contemporary anthropology (pp. 28–46). Wiley-Blackwell. Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching. Sage. Moore, H. L. (2004). Global Anxieties: Concept-metaphors and pre-theoretical commitments in anthropology. Anthropological Theory, 4(1), 71–88. Oberhuber, F., & Krzyzanowski, M. (2008). Discourse analysis and ethnography. In R. Wodak & M. Krzyzanowski (Eds.), Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences (pp. 182–203). Palgrave Macmillan.

112

Ushma Chauhan Jacobsen

Ong, A., & Collier, S. J. (2005). Global assemblages: Technology, politics, and ethics as anthropological problems. Blackwell Publishing. Parsons, T. (1975). The sick role and the role of the physician reconsidered. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Health and Society, 53(3), 257–278. Sarangi, S. (1994). Intercultural or not? Beyond celebration of cultural diferences in miscommunication analysis. Pragmatics, 4(3), 409–427. Savarese, N. (2019). Introduction. In E. Barba & N. Savarese (Eds.), The five continents of theatre: Facts and legends about the material culture of the actor (pp. 6–11). Brill. Schatzki, T. R. (1996). Social practices: A Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the social. Cambridge University Press. Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 1–14). Routledge. Schlecker, M. (2010). Context and value: Anti-contextualist rationality and resistance. The case of burial customs in late socialist Vietnam. Max Planck institute for social anthropology. Working paper no. 128. Schütz, A. (1964). Studies in social theory. Collected papers (Vol. II). Martinus Nijhof. Simon, S. (2019). Translation sites: A field guide. Routledge. Stewart, I. (2007). What is symmetry? Why beauty is truth – A short history of symmetry. Podcast series, University of Warwick. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/ newsandevents/podcasts/media/more/symmetry/ Strathern, M. (1992). After nature: English kinship in the late twentieth century. Cambridge University Press. Tian, X., & Zhiang, S. (2022). Expert or experiential knowledge? How knowledge informs situated action in childcare practices. Social Science and Medicine, 307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115195. Tsing, A. (2010). Worlding the matsutake diaspora: Or, can actor-network theory experiment with holism? In T. Otto & N. Bubandt (Eds.), Experiments in Holism: Theory and practice in contemporary anthropology (pp.  47–66). Wiley-Blackwell. Valentine, D. (2007). Imagining transgender: An ethnography of a category. Duke University Press. van Dijk, T. A. (2002). Political discourse and political cognition. In P. A. Chilton & C. Schäfner (Eds.), Politics as text and talk. Analytical approaches to political discourse (pp. 204–236). Benjamins. Watson, I. (2002). The dynamics of barter. In I. Watson (Ed.), Negotiating cultures: Eugenio Barba and the intercultural debate (pp. 94–111). Manchester University Press. Weyl, H. (1952). Symmetry. Princeton University Press.

6

Modelling knowledge communication as co-actional communication Peter Kastberg

1.

Knowledge communication as communication: Radical constructivism as a point of departure

This chapter subscribes to radical constructivism (von Glasersfeld, 2015 [1997]) (i.e., one of the core beliefs forming the philosophical underpinning of knowledge communication research). What is ‘radical’ in this strand of constructivism is the fact that it radicalizes the Kantian legacy of the distinction between the noumenal world, or the things-in-themselves, and the world of phenomena, or things-as-they-are-to-us, and that it stringently derives its tenets from said distinction. Radical constructivism draws the consequences of the Kantian proposition that time and space are not ‘out there’ as properties of an ontological world but are perceived (radically) diferent, namely, as forms of perception (von Glasersfeld, 1992, p. 11). In doing so, the observer becomes the sole arbiter of everything that ‘is’ or ‘does’, or put diferently: The observer produces what s/he observes (Thyssen, 2013, p. 374). This, however, does not mean that the observer is endowed with the powers to produce ontological reality at will – that would be the property of the realm of magic. Radical constructivism is on a par with von Förster when he says that what we constitute as observers is not reality per se but exactly those descriptions of reality that our conceptual and perceptual interfaces – as well as our motor skills – allow for: I could by no means claim in all seriousness that the lectern, my wristwatch, or the Andromeda Nebula is being computed [i.e., constructed in an ontological sense] by me. At the most, one could say that a “description of reality” is computed, because with my verbal references (“lectern”, “wristwatch”, “Andromeda”), I have just demonstrated that certain sequences of motion of my body combined with certain hissing and grunting sounds, permitted listeners to interpret these as a description. (von Förster, 2003a [1974], p. 232) It also does not mean that radical constructivism denies the existence of an ‘out there’, of an ontological reality, but to a radical constructivist, the DOI: 10.4324/9781003285120-7

114 Peter Kastberg role of the ‘out there’ is diferent than it is to, say, a realist: It is a “heuristic fiction” (von Glasersfeld, 1998, p. 22) in the following sense: whatever ideas or knowledge we have must have been derived in some way from our experience, which includes sensing, acting, and thinking. If this is the case, we have no way of checking the truth of our knowledge with the world presumed to be lying beyond our experiential interface, because to do this, we would need access to such a world that does not involve our experiencing it. (von Glasersfeld, 1990, p. 20) Following through on the Kantian legacy, von Glasersfeld gives a succinct rendering of its core epistemological ramifications in this way: all knowledge, regardless of how one would define it, exists only in the minds of humans, and [.  .  .] the cognizing subject can only construct knowledge based on the subject’s own experiences. What we make of our experiences that alone constructs the world in which we consciously live. (von Glasersfeld, 2015 [1997], p. 221) This, is turn, links up with Piaget’s credo that “The intelligence [. . .] organizes the world as it organizes itself” (quoted in von Glasersfeld, 1982, footnote 2) in the following sense: This world is not an unchanging independent structure, but the result of distinctions that generate a physical and social environment to which, in turn, we adapt as best we can. (von Glasersfeld, 1990, p. 23) Consequently, what we adapt to is of our own making, so to speak. This line of thought was – in this sense – initially introduced by von Uexküll (1921) under the heading of ‘Umwelt’2: all animals – no matter how simple or complex – had to be understood as subjects and the worlds they lived in as constituted and made meaningful through their specific ways of perceiving and acting upon their worlds, their Umwelt. (Schroer, 2021, p. 132; emphasis in the original) This implies discarding of traditional objectivity, for, as von Förster laconically puts it, “[o]bjectivity is a subject’s delusion that observing can be done without him” (quoted in von Glasersfeld, 1992, p. 31). This does not, however, lead to rampant relativism; what it gives rise to is a commitment to

Modelling knowledge communication as co-actional communication 115 an ideal of intersubjective consensus (von Glasersfeld, 1992, p. 33) and its corollary: The constitutive and socializing power of communication. And precisely this corollary (i.e., communication) is the nucleus of this chapter. For if indeed the ‘Umwelt’ is a function of the observer’s perceptual and conceptual interfaces, then communication simply cannot be a matter of sending and receiving information nor can it be a matter of a sharing messages (see section 3); communication must be something else entirely. Addressing this ‘something else entirely’ is what will fill the remainder of this chapter. Realizing that everybody is living in their own ‘Umwelt’ does neither lead to the cul-de-sac of solipsism nor to a discarding of ‘the other’. Echoing Geertz’ credo “that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun” (Geertz, 1973, p. 311), von Förster augments the web metaphor with a social component emphasizing communication as critical: Of course, every human being is tied into a social network, no individual is an isolated wonder phenomenon but dependent on others and must – to say it metaphorically – dance with others and construct [social] reality through communality. (von Förster in Poerksen, 2003, p. 23) In sum, radical constructivism is firmly cleaved to the idea of the “coextensiveness of being and communication” (Deely, 2004, p. 16f). 2. On the principle of undiferentiated coding A foundational radical constructivist concept is that of “undiferentiated coding” (von Förster, 2003a [1974], p.  233). Although this concept is fraught with a neurobiological legacy, coming to terms with the general idea, and not its scientific intricacies, will sufce. To facilitate this level of understanding, I will introduce an everyday example and from that extract the starting point for the conceptualizing of knowledge communication as co-actional communication. If you are like most people, you take for granted that you have senses and that these senses give you direct access to the world you live in. That is, you see what is ‘out there’ to see, and you do so with your eyes. You smell what is ‘out there’ to smell, and you do so with your nose. You hear with your ears, etc. Granted, the senses of some people are keener than others’ (e.g., some people may need glasses, while others do not); for some, a particular rose smells divine, while others hardly recognize its smell and so on and so forth. But as a rule, you do not question that your senses give you direct access to the world you live in. For radical constructivism, alas, that is quite simply wrong. Let us take a closer look at hearing to ease ourselves into the reasoning behind this seemingly contra-intuitive position. Imagine that you meet a couple

116

Peter Kastberg

of colleagues in the hallway and strike up a conversation. You may talk about the weather, about grading exam papers, or about an upcoming conference. Whatever the topic, the mechanics of the conversation revolve around you saying something to which your colleagues respond – and vice versa. But if you think that what you are uttering are words and coherent sentences and – equally – if you think that what you hear are words and coherent sentences, well then, again, you are wrong. This, in turn, is the contra-intuitive notion that one needs to digest and accept to grasp communication as seen from a radical constructivist perspective. To substantiate this, admittedly, radical point of view, we need to detour slightly to neurobiology before returning to what radical constructivism deducts from that point of view. Not that we should dwell on neurobiology per se but because both Ernst von Glasersfeld and Heinz von Förster draw on neurobiology in their fundamental understanding of ‘construction’. At the same time, it is imperative that we not forget that both von Glasersfeld and von Förster would vehemently maintain that the truth value of neurobiology is no greater than that of constructivism. Put diferently: You cannot prove a constructivist idea by referring to neurobiology – or to any other discipline for that matter. For, as von Glasersfeld would always point out, both the natural sciences, as well as the insights they may give rise to, are themselves nothing but constructions. As such, they do not hold a privileged position from which they would be capable of uncovering or verifying ‘truths’, neither their own nor those of other disciplines or fields. Consequently, von Glasersfeld proposes that in case some of his ideas were fortunate enough to be supported by neurobiological insights, then that does not mean that they were then proven but merely – or rather, precisely – that they had been just that: supported. In such instances, von Glasersfeld would say that his ideas had shown themselves to be “viable” (2015 [1997]) also outside of his own field. Leaning on Karl R. Popper, this is comparable to “corroboration” (Popper, 2005 [1959]), i.e., even if multiple diferent experiments or analyses of a phenomenon may have rendered the same result, that per se is no guarantee that we have arrived at a ‘truth’ about said phenomenon. It is merely an expression that an idea has been (provisionally) corroborated – and not that it has been verified. So even if radical constructivism rejects truth claims and debunks a traditional notion of ‘objectivity’, due to the impossibility of the immaculate locus observandi (as per the von Förster quote earlier), this does not exempt the observer from all constraints. The constraints imposed on the observer, however, are of a diferent nature than they would have been, had the observer adhered to traditional objectivity. They take on the form of intersubjective acceptance – or not, of consensus in a setting/an institution/a field/a discussion/a literature – or not. Implying that contingencies stop at the point where they are no longer warranted or accepted by the relevant community, the relevant discussants, and the relevant other observers. Hence, the corroboration – and not the ‘truth’ – that I will focus on in the following is the corroboration between the foundational

Modelling knowledge communication as co-actional communication 117 constructivist idea that it is the observer who constructs what s/he observes and the scientific principle of undiferentiated coding. The principle of undiferentiated coding is the name von Förster gave the circumstance that it is not our sensory organs per se that give us a neutral depiction of an objective world. The neurobiological reasoning behind undiferentiated coding dates to the middle of the 18th century and to Müller’s seminal experiments into human perception: The same cause, such as electricity, can simultaneously afect all sensory organs, since they are all sensitive to it; and yet, every sensory nerve reacts to it diferently; one nerve perceives it as light, another hears its sound, another one smells it; another tastes the electricity, and another one feels it as pain and shock. (Clarke & O’Malley, 1996, p. 205) What Müller demonstrates experimentally is that if you afect all the human sensory organs simultaneously with one and the same stimulus – in his case, electricity – then this stimulus is perceived diferently depending on which sensory organ is afected. That is, each of the five basic human senses (i.e., touch, sight, hearing, smell, and taste) can perceive electricity, but each sense perceives electricity diferently. In popular terms, this means that one’s sight ‘sees’ electricity, that one’s hearing ‘hears’ electricity, etc. This leads to the conclusion that although all sensory organs can perceive the very same external stimulus, each one of them is only capable of perceiving it in exactly the way that the individual sensory organ anatomically and physiologically allows for. What can be inferred from the experiments – and later experiments have unequivocally corroborated this – is that upon being stimulated, and contrary to popular belief, the eyes do not pass on images to the brain, the tongue does not pass on taste, etc. What is passed on from each sensory organ – diferent though they may be – to the nervous system is qualitatively the same: The “language” of the nervous system is itself semantically neutral (or as H. von Förster used to drastically put it: “>clickclickklickklick