Search results

By taking the collective character of scientific research seriously, some philosophers have claimed that scientific knowledge is indeed collective knowledge. However, there is little clarity on what exactly is meant by collective knowledge. In this article, I argue that there are two notions of collective knowledge that have not been well distinguished: irreducibly collective knowledge (ICK) and jointly committed knowledge (JCK). The two notions provide different conditions under which it is justified to ascribe knowledge to a group. It is argued that ICK and JCK need to be approached independently, each of which can shed light on different aspects of science, knowledge production, and acceptance.

Cover -- Title Page -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Epigraph -- Contents -- Preface -- Introduction. An "I" That Is "We": Revisiting the Epistemic Potential of Collective Truth Telling -- Part I: Telling Stories, Writing Praxis: Decolonizing Knowledge Production -- 1. Situating Testimonio: A Spirit of Resistance in Textual Form -- 2. Feminism, Epistemology, and Experience -- 3. Constructing Feminist Transnational Bridges through Polyvocal Praxis -- Part II: Transnational Translations -- 4. Activist "Co/Labor/Actions": Polyvocality, Pedagogy, and Praxis -- 5. Resisting Representational Stasis: Dialogic Collaborations in Flux -- Part III: Testifying to the Politics of the Imagined -- 6. "Sometimes My Geographies Get Jumbled": The Temporal and Spatial Disruptions of Living Memory -- 7. Cultivating Community through Creative Communication -- Part IV: Storytelling the Archive -- 8. Retransmissions: Reaching across Languages, Genres, and Readerships with Danticat's Multilingual "Fake-lore -- 9. Diasporic Consciousness and Realism in Behind the Mountains and Brother, I'm Dying -- Postscript. Countering Restriction with Expansion: Cultivating Kaleidoscopic Counterpublics -- Notes -- References -- Index -- A -- B -- C -- D -- E -- F -- G -- H -- I -- K -- L -- M -- N -- O -- P -- R -- S -- T -- U -- V -- W.

Alliances are volatile key components of many corporations' competitive strategies. They offer fast and flexible means of achieving market access, scale economies, and competence development. However, strategic alliances can encounter difficulties that often lead to disappointing performance. The authors suggest that the way partners manage the collective learning process plays a central role in the success and failure of strategic alliances. Present understanding of interorganizational learning primarily focuses on how the individual organization can be a "good partner" or try to win the internal "race to learn" among the partners. The interorganizational learning dilemma is that (1) being a good partner invites exploitation by partners attempting to maximize their individual appropriation of the joint learning, and (2) such opportunistic learning strategies undercut the collective knowledge development in the strategic alliance. The authors develop a framework for understanding the dilemma through consideration of trade-offs between how collective learning is developed in alliances and how the joint learning outcomes are divided among the partners. They create a typology of five different learning strategies based on how receptive as well as how transparent an organization is in relation to its partners. The strategies are: collaboration (highly receptive and highly transparent); competition (highly receptive and nontransparent); compromise (moderately receptive and transparent); accommodation (nonreceptive and highly transparent); and avoidance (neither receptive nor transparent). Interorganizational learning outcomes are proposed to be the interactive results of the respective partners' type of adopted learning strategy. By synthesizing strategic alliance, organizational learning, collective action, and game theories, the framework contributes to understanding the variety in alliance development, performance, and longevity. Interorganizational learning is likely to be hindered by lack of either motivation or ability to absorb and communicate knowledge between the partner organizations. The dynamics of power, opportunism, suspicion, and asymmetric learning strategies can constitute processual barriers to collective knowledge development. In contrast, prior related interaction between the partners, high learning stakes, trust, and long-term orientation are likely to empower the collective learning process. Comparison of previous case studies and surveys of interorganizational learning provides partial empirical support for the proposed framework. The comparison also indicates several omissions in previous research, such as failure to consider either how receptive or how transparent the partners are, the interaction between their learning strategies, and their dynamic processes over time. Because these omissions are due partly to the methodological limitations of traditional case studies and crosssectional surveys, the authors suggest a bridging case survey design for a more comprehensive test of their interactive, dynamic, and situational framework.

There is a large literature on social epistemology, some of which is concerned with expert knowledge. Formal representations of the aggregation of decisions, estimates, and the like play a larger role in these discussions. Yet these discussions are neither sufficiently social nor epistemic. The assumptions minimize the role of knowledge, and often assume independence between observers. This paper presents a more naturalistic approach, which appeals to a model of epistemic gain from others, as mutual consilience—a genuinely social notion of epistemology. Using the example of Michael Polanyi's account of science as an illustration, it introduces the notion of double heuristics: that individuals, each with their own heuristics, each with cognitive biases and limitations, are aggregated by a decision procedure, like voting, and this second order procedure produces its own heuristic, with its own cognitive biases and limitations. An example might be the limited ability of democracies to assimilate expert knowledge.

There is a large literature on social epistemology, some of which is concerned with expert knowledge. Formal representations of the aggregation of decisions, estimates, and the like play a larger role in these discussions. Yet these discussions are neither sufficiently social nor epistemic. The assumptions minimize the role of knowledge, and often assume independence between observers. This paper presents a more naturalistic approach, which appeals to a model of epistemic gain from others, as mutual consilience—a genuinely social notion of epistemology. Using the example of Michael Polanyi's account of science as an illustration, it introduces the notion of double heuristics: that individuals, each with their own heuristics, each with cognitive biases and limitations, are aggregated by a decision procedure, like voting, and this second order procedure produces its own heuristic, with its own cognitive biases and limitations. An example might be the limited ability of democracies to assimilate expert knowledge.

Background:The Bristol Knowledge Mobilisation (KM) Team was an unusual collective brokering model, consisting of a multi-professional team of four managers and three academics embedded in both local healthcare policymaking (aka commissioning) and academic primary care.
Aims and objectives:They aimed to encourage 'research-informed commissioning' and 'commissioning-informed research'. This paper covers context, structure, processes, advantages, challenges and impact.
Methods:Data sources from brokers included personal logs, reflective essays, exit interviews and a team workshop. These were analysed inductively using constant comparison. To obtain critical distance, three external evaluations were conducted, using interviews, observations and documentation.
Findings:Stable, solvent organisations; senior involvement with good inter-professional relationships; secure funding; and networks of engaged allies in host organisations supported the brokers. Essential elements were two-way embedding, 'buddying up', team leadership, brokers' interpersonal skills, and two-year, part-time contracts. By working collectively, the brokers fostered cross-community interactions and modelled collaborative behaviour, drawing on each other's 'insider' knowledge, networks and experience. Challenges included too many taskmasters, unrealistic expectations and work overload. However, team-brokering provided a safe space to be vulnerable, share learning, and build confidence. As host organisations benefitted most from embedded brokers, both communities noted changes in attitude, knowledge, skills and confidence. The team were more successful in fostering 'commissioning-informed research' with co-produced research grants than 'research-informed commissioning'.
Discussion and conclusions:Although still difficult, the collective support and comradery of an embedded, two-way, multi-professional team made encouraging interactions, and therefore brokering, easier. A team approach modelled collaborative behaviour and created a critical mass to affect cultural change.

Although the notion of 'collective knowledge' has become a building block of many knowledge-based studies on the organization, there is little clarity about the precise meaning of the term. This paper aims at closing this explanatory gap by investigating the question of what it can mean for knowledge to be collective. In drawing on relevant literatures it analytically distinguishes three types of collective knowledge and elaborates on their nature. Through analysis of their interrelationship and interaction within the organization, these types are integrated into an overarching framework forming a pluralistic epistemology of collective knowledge. Finally, some implications of the proposed epistemological framework for our understanding of higher-order knowledge-related constructs (such as routines and capabilities) as well as for the architecture of firms and industries are outlined.