Proteomics science and society :the role of knowledge translation in moving towards clinical applications

Gaining support for proteomics science requires effective knowledge translation. Knowledge translation (KT) processes turn the evidence generated by scientific discovery into recommendations for clinical applications, funding priorities, and policy/regulatory reforms. Clinicians, regulators, and funders need to understand why emerging proteomics knowledge is relevant, and what are the potential applications of that knowledge. A lack of clarity remains about what KT means.

Hydrogeological framework, conceptual and numerical groundwater flow model of Laidley Creek catchment, Queensland, Australia

This thesis studies the water resources of Laidley Creek catchment within the Lockyer Valley where groundwater is used for intensive irrigation of crops. A holistic approach was used to consider groundwater within the total water cycle. The project mapped the geology, measured stream flows and groundwater levels, and analysed the chemistry of the waters. These data were integrated within a catchment-wide conceptual model, including historic and rainfall records. From this a numerical simulation was produced to test data validity and develop predictions of behaviour, which can support management decisions, particularly in times of variable climate.

Critical reflection on the SIA’s professional project and the body of knowledge

Over the last few years the Safety Institute of Australia (SIA) has developed and implemented a number of strategies to gain professional status for the ‘generalist occupational health and safety professional’. Two of the most significant developments have been the publication of the ‘Core Body of Knowledge for the Generalist OHS Professional.’ and the accreditation of university OHS courses. Despite a considerable amount of work aimed at gaining professional status there has not been any public debate or reflection about how the professionalisation project may impact on OHS and how the project is being conducted. Professionalisation has been vigorously promoted as a sign of maturity for the SIA and which will provide unmitigated benefits for workplace health and safety. The aim of this paper is to critically reflect on the processes of professionalisation (the professional project) and discuss some of the ways in which this project may shape the field of occupational health and safety. The implications for the role of universities will also be discussed.

Measuring IS-support : a conceptual model

This paper reports on a conceptual model of a larger research effort proceeding from a central interest in the importance of assessing the IS-Support provided to key-user groups. This study conceptualised a new multidimensional IS-Support construct with four dimensions: training, documentation, assistance and authorisation, which form the overarching construct – IS-Support. We argue that a holistic measure for assessing IS-Support should consist of dimensions, and measures, that together assess the variety of the support provided to IS key-user groups. The proposed IS-Support construct is defined as the support the IS key-user groups receive to increase their capabilities in utilising information systems within the organisation. With two interrelated phases, conceptualisation phase and validation phase, to rigorously hypothesise and validate a measurement model, the IS-Support model, proposed in this study, is intended to include the characteristics of analytic theory.

Efficiency of knowledge integration in enterprise systems implementation

Recent literature has emphasized the pivotal role of knowledge integration in Enterprise Systems (ES) success. This research-in-progress paper, building upon Knowledge Based Theory of the firm (KBT), examines the efficiency of knowledge integration in the context of ES implementation and identifies the factors contributing to its enhancement. The proposed model in this paper suggests that the efficiency of knowledge integration in an ES implementation process depends upon the level of common knowledge and the level of coordination in the ES adopting organization. It further suggests that the level of common knowledge can be enhanced by proper training, improving ES users’intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and business process modeling and the level of coordination can be improved by articulating a clear unified organizational goal for the ES adoption in the organization, forming a competent ES team, enhancing interdepartmental communication and the cross-functionality in the organization structure.

A discourse on the non-method

In spite of the activism of professional bodies and researchers, empirical evidence shows that project management still does not deliver the expected benefits and promises. Hence, many have questioned the validity of the hegemonic rationalist paradigm anchored in the Enlightenment and Natural Sciences tradition supporting project management research and practice for the last 60 years and the lack of relevance to practice of the current conceptual base of project management. In order to address these limitations many authors, taking a post-modernist stance in social sciences, build on ‘pre-modern’ philosophies such as the Aristotelian one, specially emphasizing the role of praxis (activity), and phronesis (practical wisdom, prudence). Indeed, ‘Praxis … is the central category of the philosophy which is not merely an interpretation of the world, but is also a guide to its transformation …’ (Vazquez, 1977:. 149). Therefore, praxis offers an important focus for practitioners and researchers in social sciences, one in which theory is integrated with practice at the point of intervention. Simply stated, praxis can serve as a common ground for those interested in basic and applied research by providing knowledge of the reality in which action, informed by theory, takes place. Consequently, I suggest a ‘praxeological’ style of reasoning (praxeology being defined as study or science of human actions and conduct, including praxis, practices and phronesis) and to go beyond the ‘Theory-Practice’ divide. Moreover, I argue that we need to move away from the current dichotomy between the two classes ‘scholars experts-researchers’ and ‘managers/workers-practitioners-participants’. Considering one single class of ‘PraXitioner’, becoming a phronimos, may contribute to create new perspectives and open up new ways of thinking and acting in project situations. Thus, I call for a Perestroika in researching and acting in project management situations. My intent is to suggest a balanced praxeological view of the apparent opposition between social and natural science approaches. I explore, in this chapter, three key questions, covering the ontological, epistemological and praxeological dimensions of project management in action. 1. Are the research approaches being currently used appropriate for generating contributions that matter to both theory and practice with regards to what a ‘project’ is or to what we do when we call a specific situation ‘a project’? 2. On the basis of which intellectual virtues is the knowledge generated and what is the impact for theory and practice? 3. Are the modes of action of the practitioners ‘prudent’ and are they differentiating or reconciling formal and abstract rationality from substantive rationality and situated reasoning with regards to the mode of action they adopt in particular project situations? The investigation of the above questions leads me to debate about ‘Project Management-as-Praxis’, and to suggest ‘A’ (not ‘THE’) ‘praxeological’ style of reasoning and mode of inquiry – acknowledging a non-paradigmatic, subjective and kaleidoscopic perspective – for ‘Knowing-as-Practicing’ in project management. In short, this is about making a ‘Projects Science’ that matters.

What is a good project manager? Reconceptualizing the “do” : an Aristotelian perspective

In Social Science (Organization Studies, Economics, Management Science, Strategy, International Relations, Political Science…) the quest for addressing the question “what is a good practitioner?” has been around for centuries, with the underlying assumptions that good practitioners should lead organizations to higher levels of performance. Hence to ask “what is a good “captain”?” is not a new question, we should add! (e.g. Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997, p. 670; Söderlund, 2004, p. 190). This interrogation leads to consider problems such as the relations between dichotomies Theory and Practice, rigor and relevance of research, ways of knowing and knowledge forms. On the one hand we face the “Enlightenment” assumptions underlying modern positivist Social science, grounded in “unity-of-science dream of transforming and reducing all kinds of knowledge to one basic form and level” and cause-effects relationships (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20), and on the other, the postmodern interpretivist proposal, and its “tendency to make all kinds of knowing equivalent” (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20). In the project management space, this aims at addressing one of the fundamental problems in the field: projects still do not deliver their expected benefits and promises and therefore the socio-economical good (Hodgson & Cicmil, 2007; Bredillet, 2010, Lalonde et al., 2012). The Cartesian tradition supporting projects research and practice for the last 60 years (Bredillet, 2010, p. 4) has led to the lack of relevance to practice of the current conceptual base of project management, despite the sum of research, development of standards, best & good practices and the related development of project management bodies of knowledge (Packendorff, 1995, p. 319-323; Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006, p. 2–6, Hodgson & Cicmil, 2007, p. 436–7; Winter et al., 2006, p. 638). Referring to both Hodgson (2002) and Giddens (1993), we could say that “those who expect a “social-scientific Newton” to revolutionize this young field “are not only waiting for a train that will not arrive, but are in the wrong station altogether” (Hodgson, 2002, p. 809; Giddens, 1993, p. 18). While, in the postmodern stream mainly rooted in the “practice turn” (e.g. Hällgren & Lindahl, 2012), the shift from methodological individualism to social viscosity and the advocated pluralism lead to reinforce the “functional stupidity” (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012, p. 1194) this postmodern stream aims at overcoming. We suggest here that addressing the question “what is a good PM?” requires a philosophy of practice perspective to complement the “usual” philosophy of science perspective. The questioning of the modern Cartesian tradition mirrors a similar one made within Social science (Say, 1964; Koontz, 1961, 1980; Menger, 1985; Warry, 1992; Rothbard, 1997a; Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Boisot & McKelvey, 2010), calling for new thinking. In order to get outside the rationalist ‘box’, Toulmin (1990, p. 11), along with Tsoukas & Cummings (1997, p. 655), suggests a possible path, summarizing the thoughts of many authors: “It can cling to the discredited research program of the purely theoretical (i.e. “modern”) philosophy, which will end up by driving it out of business: it can look for new and less exclusively theoretical ways of working, and develop the methods needed for a more practical (“post-modern”) agenda; or it can return to its pre-17th century traditions, and try to recover the lost (“pre-modern”) topics that were side-tracked by Descartes, but can be usefully taken up for the future” (Toulmin, 1990, p. 11). Thus, paradoxically and interestingly, in their quest for the so-called post-modernism, many authors build on “pre-modern” philosophies such as the Aristotelian one (e.g. MacIntyre, 1985, 2007; Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Blomquist et al., 2010; Lalonde et al., 2012). It is perhaps because the post-modern stream emphasizes a dialogic process restricted to reliance on voice and textual representation, it limits the meaning of communicative praxis, and weaking the practice because it turns away attention from more fundamental issues associated with problem-definition and knowledge-for-use in action (Tedlock, 1983, p. 332–4; Schrag, 1986, p. 30, 46–7; Warry, 1992, p. 157). Eikeland suggests that the Aristotelian “gnoseology allows for reconsidering and reintegrating ways of knowing: traditional, practical, tacit, emotional, experiential, intuitive, etc., marginalised and considered insufficient by modernist [and post-modernist] thinking” (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20—21). By contrast with the modernist one-dimensional thinking and relativist and pluralistic post-modernism, we suggest, in a turn to an Aristotelian pre-modern lens, to re-conceptualise (“re” involving here a “re”-turn to pre-modern thinking) the “do” and to shift the perspective from what a good PM is (philosophy of science lens) to what a good PM does (philosophy of practice lens) (Aristotle, 1926a). As Tsoukas & Cummings put it: “In the Aristotelian tradition to call something good is to make a factual statement. To ask, for example, ’what is a good captain’?’ is not to come up with a list of attributes that good captains share (as modem contingency theorists would have it), but to point out the things that those who are recognized as good captains do.” (Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997, p. 670) Thus, this conversation offers a dialogue and deliberation about a central question: What does a good project manager do? The conversation is organized around a critic of the underlying assumptions supporting the modern, post-modern and pre-modern relations to ways of knowing, forms of knowledge and “practice”.

Strategies for mentoring pedagogical knowledge

Fundamental for mentoring a preservice teacher is the mentor’s articulation of pedagogical knowledge, which in this research draws upon specific practices, viz: planning, timetabling lessons, preparation, teaching strategies, content knowledge, problem solving, questioning, classroom management, implementation, assessment, and viewpoints for teaching. Mentoring is haphazard; consequently mentors need a pedagogical knowledge framework and a repertoire of pedagogical knowledge strategies to guide a preservice teacher’s development. Yet, what are strategies for mentoring pedagogical knowledge practices? This qualitative research investigates mentoring strategies assigned to pedagogical knowledge from 27 experienced mentor teachers. Findings showed that there were multiple strategies that can be linked to specific pedagogical knowledge practices. For example, mentoring strategies associated with planning for teaching can include co-planning, verbally reflecting on planning with the mentee, and showing examples of the mentor teacher’s planning (e.g., teacher’s plans, school plans, district and state plans). This paper provides a bank of practical strategies for mentoring pedagogical knowledge practices to assist a preservice teacher’s development.

Combining elicited expert knowledge into Bayesian priors

Information that is elicited from experts can be treated as `data', so can be analysed using a Bayesian statistical model, to formulate a prior model. Typically methods for encoding a single expert's knowledge have been parametric, constrained by the extent of an expert's knowledge and energy regarding a target parameter. Interestingly these methods have often been deterministic, in that all elicited information is treated at `face value', without error. Here we sought a parametric and statistical approach for encoding assessments from multiple experts. Our recent work proposed and demonstrated the use of a flexible hierarchical model for this purpose. In contrast to previous mathematical approaches like linear or geometric pooling, our new approach accounts for several sources of variation: elicitation error, encoding error and expert diversity. Of interest are the practical, mathematical and philosophical interpretations of this form of hierarchical pooling (which is both statistical and parametric), and how it fits within the subjective Bayesian paradigm. Case studies from a bioassay and project management (on PhDs) are used to illustrate the approach.

Knowledge transfer through dual degree programs between Australian and Indonesian universities : a case study

While dual degree programs (DDPs) between Australian and Indonesian universities are expected to facilitate knowledge transfer (KT) between the partnering universities, little is known about how and what KT process taking place within DDP partnerships. Using an inter-organisational KT framework, this study investigated Indonesian universities’ rationales and outcomes of establishing DDPs and mechanisms facilitating knowledge transfer between Australian and Indonesian universities. Two Indonesian universities along with their common Australian partner university participated in this case study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 key university officers and pertinent university documents provided the main data. Both data sources were thematically analysed to identify emerging patterns. The findings suggest that Indonesian universities prioritised developing capacity to improve their international recognition more than the Australian partner. Consequently, the DDPs benefited the Indonesian universities through capacity development made possible by KT from the Australian DDP partners. KT processes occurred in DDP partnerships, particularly through curriculum collaboration, but they were more limited for the managerial area. Factors enabling the KT included both technology-aided and face-to-face communication, intention to acquire knowledge from the partners, capitalising on the unequal power relations to advance KT opportunities, and knowledge management system. The findings of this study suggest the importance of prioritising capacity development in DDP partnerships to enable KT, executing the KT stages to ensure institutionalisation of acquired knowledge into the university’s systems and policies, and maintaining financial sustainability of the DDPs to reach mutually beneficial outcomes between Australian and Indonesian universities.

Information quality in social media : a conceptual model

Social Media (SM) is increasingly being integrated with business information in decision making. Unique characteristics of social media (e.g. wide accessibility, permanence, global audience, recentness, and ease of use) raise new issues with information quality (IQ); quite different from traditional considerations of IQ in information systems (IS) evaluation. This paper presents a preliminary conceptual model of information quality in social media (IQnSM) derived through directed content analysis and employing characteristics of analytic theory in the study protocol. Based in the notion of ‘fitness for use’, IQnSM is highly use and user centric and is defined as “the degree to which information is suitable for doing a specified task by a specific user, in a certain context”. IQnSM is operationalised as hierarchical, formed by the three dimensions (18 measures): intrinsic quality, contextual quality and representational quality. A research plan for empirically validating the model is proposed.

Analyzing and defining information requirements of knowledge intensive construction management tasks on BIM

With the increasing popularity and adoption of building information modeling (BIM), the amount of digital information available about a building is overwhelming. Enormous challenges remain however in identifying meaningful and required information from a complex BIM model to support a particular construction management (CM) task. Detailed specifications of information required by different construction domains and expressive and easy-to-use BIM reasoning mechanisms are seen as an important means in addressing these challenges. This paper analyzes some of the characteristics and requirements of component-specific construction knowledge in relation to the current work practice and BIM-based applications. It is argued that domain ontologies and information extraction approaches, such as queries could significantly bring much needed support for knowledge sharing and integration of information between design, construction and facility management.

Maintaining shared knowledge of acquaintance : methods people use to establish who knows whom

Acquaintance is a fundamental determinant of how people behave when interacting with one another. This article focuses on how this type of personal knowledge is an important consideration for people as social actors. Studying naturally-occurring social encounters, I describe how speakers use particular references to convey whether a recipient should be able to recognise a non-present third party. On some occasions, however, the presumption of recognisability or non-recognisability that underpins the use of a particular reference proves questionable. By exploring how recipients can challenge reference forms, and thereby reject claims of either recognisability or non-recognisability, I explain how people establish and maintain a shared understanding of who knows whom. I conclude by discussing motivations for this behaviour, and thereby contribute to understanding the commonsense reasoning that underpins orderly conduct in this aspect of social encounters.

Indigenous knowledge and IP food security : a review of concepts and cases

Dáwat, Pamahándí, Tawíd, Ságda, Lampísa, Ibabások, Lapát, Panedlák: for most of us gathered here, these are words that we don’t usually use in our daily lives. Others may consider them as exotic, alien, funny and even backward. However, for indigenous kindred among us, these words denote an intimate identity and deep understanding of the world around them. It constitutes a broader knowledge system, be written or otherwise, which guides them in the management of resources within their ancestral land. This paper will provide a brief theoretical framework of the concepts of indigenous knowledge systems—hereinafter called IKS, and indigenous peoples food security, and hopefully a deeper or continued appreciation in the study of both concepts in general.