Information as signal and symbol

For me, the article by Martha Feldman and James March, “Information as signal and symbol” (1981) is very seminal.  It influenced many streams of research into information use, which continue to this day. I mention it here as a waypoint in the exploration of information analysis.

The authors very clearly state the anomalies that drive the research:

“The literature reports phenomena that can be summarized by six observations about the gathering and use of information in organizations. The observations are consistent with research literature yet close enough to personal experience to be almost self-evident:

1. Much of the information that is gathered and communicated by individuals and organizations has little decision relevance.
2. Much of the information that is used to justify a decision is collected and interpreted after the decision has been made, or substantially made.
3. Much of the information gathered in response to requests for information is not considered in the making of decisions for which it was requested.
4. Regardless of the information available at the time a decision is first considered, more information is requested.
5. Complaints that an organization does not have enough information to make a decision occur while available information is ignored.
6. The relevance of the information provided in the decision-making process to the decision being made is less conspicuous than is the insistence on information.”

Technorati Tags: Information Use,Applied Theory

City of Bits

Most of the theories of theory seem to assume a "choice" model of how we interact with theory.

However, our definition also allows for the use of theory in the architectural sense. That is, we don't really use it to make choices of actions, but instead interact with it -- the same way that we navigate along buildings, roads and our environment in general.

This information architecture view was nicely explicated in William Mitchell's City of Bits. It also has some forerunners in early writers like F.F. Land who distinguished "operational information" from "management information". Nowadays, we are taking the architectural view to whole new levels with the likes of Second Life, which provide virtual worlds.

On the other hand, virtual worlds seem to model themselves largely on the physical world. Obviously that has some benefits, because we are familiar with navigating in those structures. Still... it leaves some interesting questions about how else we experience information -- and how theory gets absorbed into the information architecture.

Waypoints

The metaphor that provides context for this blog is one of exploration. I am journaling some explorations through the world of analysis.

To extend the metaphor I’ve added some gadgets to the side of the blog: "headings”, which tells you the directions I’m currently exploring into and “waypoints”, which provides some anchors, or vantage points along the way. Typically, I’ll provide links here to important definitions or theories that connect various postings.

Technorati Tags: research,methodology

The field of Information Analysis

Despite a broad interest in practical analysis, most of my work tends to revolve around what I call the field "information analysis” after an important book edited by Robert Galliers on roughly the same topic. It is somewhat of a constellation of topics across a number of different disciplines, view through philosophical lens.

Will the real theorist please stand

It strikes me that a lot of the research on making theory more relevant to practice talks about the required changes on the academic side of the fence.

However, there aren’t just “users” of theory in the business world. There are also plenty of analysts, designers, strategists, planners and so forth. Wouldn’t they qualify as theorists?

So, it would seem to me that we should also improve the applied practice of theory. In this arena, approaches like action research stand out, because it combines theory and action.

Technorati Tags: theory,action research

Don’t mention the theory

In previous posts, I supported the idea that theory (in the ordinary sense) was a useful bridge between academia and business.

But we might want to use other words to stay in business, so to speak. A quick look shows that the word “theory” is rarely used in practice, and then often in a negative sense.

On the other hand, in business we do seem to love words like “framework”, “model”, “concept”, “policy”, “approach”, “analysis” and so forth. They would qualify as theories.

Which raises the question, to what extent theories like these and those are actually practiced?

For a while, organisational learning was in vogue, but it seemed to focus on how theory was developed and embedded in organisations. Less so on what and why theory was used.

Technorati Tags: theory,practice,OrganizationalLearning

theory as we know it

Schneberger et al emphasise “theory with a little t” as an important bridge between academia and practice. In their view, Big-T Theories are “overarching, widely recognized” and typically have a name. Little-t theory can be thought of as “frameworks for understanding and organizing” a broad perspective about the work that practitioners perform.

I think they’re right in calling attention to theory (little-t), but I think the ordinary definitions of theory capture the meaning more accurately than the definition given in the article. Go to various dictionaries, such as the Oxford, or even Wordnet. The definitions usually talk of part or all of a system of ideas intended to explain something.

In the dictionary, there is usually a distinction that says both suppositions and accepted systems of ideas are included. A supposition (some use the word hypothesis) is seen as part of and systematically related to a larger body of ideas, and not yet accepted. Moreover, the explaining can be an accounting for some phenomena, or rules that guide actions.

Technorati Tags: theory,practice,ontology