introduction

toc

Introduction
This page http://tagunity.wikispaces.com/introduction DRAFT 1161149152

Research across multiple disciplines repeatedly demonstrates researchers' intentions to solve social problems with technologies (e.g. Tharp, 2005; Arnold, Gibbs, & Wright, 2003; Alani, Dasmahapatra, O'Hara, & Shadbolt, 2003; Alani, O'Hara & Shadbolt, 2002). An alternative approach might be to begin by trying to understand the importance of informal social activities and associated practices that might lead to community building and knowledge creation, and then to introduce technologies that aim to support those activities (Kling 1996). While much of the literature in the field of knowledge management, for example, takes a largely techno centric approach to knowledge creation (Schönström, 2005) it seems there is a common assumption that it is the //tools// that enable knowledge sharing (Correa da Silva, Vasconcelos, Robertson, Brilhante, de Melo, Finger, et al., 2002; Davies, Duke, & Stonkus, 2003; Gruber 1993; 1995) and even build community (Gurstein, 2000). Such assumptions run the risk of ignoring users changing practices, particularly those practices that might evolve concurrently with the development and availability of online tools that support social tagging (Garrett, 2005). Thus, the rationale for this research project is that there appears to be a lack of understanding (Denning & Dunham, 2006) of appropriate methods to guide the analysis of what individuals do with technologies and how such activities can contribute to what might be called //community// knowledge creation. Moreover, there seems to be little research on the activities of individuals who use online social-tagging tools for incremental data repository building, and little understanding of how such activities can be seen to lead to the creation of community artefacts which are the collective product of shared vocabularies related to users shared interests and professional practice captured as a set of tags in an online database system.

This research explores the rationale for applying practice based theories (PBTs) to the study social tagging, and the use of ontology instance creation tools in databases on the World Wide Web. It aims to understand how PBTs might help researchers investigate how the activities of individual users might contribute to knowledge sharing within communities.

Practice based theories (or PBTs) include activity theory, actor-network theory, and communities of practice.

Better known 'social tagging' applications include: Flickr™ ([|http://www.flickr.com]), Del.icio.us™ ([|http://del.icio.us]) and CiteULike ([|http://www.citeulike.org]). Tagging is also common in blogs (web logs) and some wikis. Blogs and wikis are also database applications belonging to the 'Content Management System' (CMS) category of Web software. In some situations databases and CMSs can be viewed as community artefacts, or dynamic shared archives of what one librarian has called community metadata (Hemmasi, 2004).

Some types of online-content-classification are seen as social and informal (e.g. see social_tagging; folksonomies). Others are seen as formal (e.g. see taxonomies; ontologies), and need to be centrally managed and tightly controlled.

[//todo//: include **ontologies**, e.g. UMLS, FOAF from Mika & Gangemi] [//todo//: compare to folksonomies]

This research comprises a critical literature review made available to an online audience (perhaps an emergent research community), together with an outline of a proposal for further research.

The literature review reveals the interconnections between the foundational concepts between practice based theories, and theories of knowledge sharing and theories of content classification, of which social tagging and ontology-instance-creation can be seen as subcategories. Rather than attempt to create or locate a single unifying theory (with a single methodology or set of principals), I follow Lave (1991) and consider the possibility of a "general theoretical perspective" informed by the "interconnected theories" (p. 66) and assumptions inherent in PBTs and related literature, as well as case studies, visions, and technical research associated with emerging forms of content classification.

This literature review investigates the interrelationships between concepts, visions and models across multiple fields. The CoPs literature may have a lot to offer technologists, it may also provide community leaders who are considering building new tools for their members may want to learn about the rationale for using particular technologies, while e-learning and knowledge management professionals may wish to know how established theories could be applied to emerging technologies and associated emergent practices. Thus, there appears to be a need for a conversations across various disciplines. With this in mind I have begun to build an online version of this literature review ([], see Why_a_wiki?). While the literature reveals conceptual overlaps, I propose there is a need for an online space that allows social researchers and technology developers to become aware of each other's perspectives and arguments, across disciplines. This project is that online space.

Analysis of the literature distinguishes three approaches to the development of knowledge sharing and data structures in online databases:
 * The facilitative approach argues that an online environment or database application should be owned and maintained by the community of users or volunteers who contribute the content.
 * The formal approach assumes that content structures and content classification can be formally and centrally managed, for example by an expert cataloger, taxonomist or ontology engineer (an ontology is an explicit formal representation of a body of knowledge).
 * Informal approaches suggest that content classification can be informal, decentralised, incremental and emergent. Such informal structures, sometimes called folksonomies, are shared vocabularies that emerge in an online environment where users independently assign their own categories; consensus is not required.

One view of the interrelation between the three approaches is that people who share a common practice also often have a shared and quite specific understanding of the language they use (e.g. Cuel, Bouquet & Bonifacio, 2006). This could inform a question like: How do applications like Del.icio.us ([|http://del.icio.us]) support the development of a shared practice and associated specialist language?

Aim
In the literature review I examine the foundational concepts of three selected Practice Based Theories (PBTs) in an attempt to identify the conceptual similarities and overlaps between these foundational concepts and how they might help inform an investigation of the relationship between language, local practice and the classification of content in online databases. I pay particular attention to the overlaps and connections between the three approaches outlined above, and consider the rationale for research at the intersection of all three, in particular the reasons to apply PBTs to the study of the social processes in social tagging and other acts of content classification in database environments on the World Wide Web.

This research examines the literature on knowledge sharing and Communities of Practice (CoPs); and also the rationale for building tools and spaces for 'virtual communities', or 'online networks'. I draw on the literature of CoPs and other practice based theories (esp. activity theory, and actor-network theory) in an attempt to understand the key social aspects of content classification for the purpose of knowledge sharing in databases on the World Wide Web (e.g. Flickr; Del.icio.us) as this provides a basis from which to examine content classification as a knowledge-sharing //practice//. I attempt to show how community, knowledge sharing, and practices associated with the use of online, and online content classification technologies contain interrelated concepts.

There is a growing amount of research into knowledge sharing and the idea of making simple ontologies (such as vCard and FOAF; see visions for overview) available in online environments such as community Web portals. Some of this research makes passing reference to community, or even 'communities of practice' strategically important to the population of online portals with 'community' content. While there may be a pool of researchers with interrelated views and expertise, there appears to be little discussion across disciplines. Anna Zhdanova and her colleagues, for example, recently argued that CoPs "often share similar backgrounds, work and information, [or] similar ontology items [or community 'terms']," (O'Murchu, Zhdanova, & Breslin, 2007, forthcoming, //Intro.// sect.). Zhdanova also suggests ontology management can be "community driven" (Zhdanova, Krummenacher, Henke, & Fensel 2005), and that community portals can make use of Semantic Web technologies to make it easier for portal users to connect with each other and the information they produce. (O'Murchu, Zhdanova, & Breslin, 2007, forthcoming, intro. sect.; see also ontology_engineering)

//todo// define semantic in this context

Analysis of the literature across several disciplines and studies of emerging practices (e.g. information architecture, and the study of blogging) suggests that in the future both formal and informal classification functionality may be integrated into community web portals (Morville, 2005; Bruns, 2005). So, for example, when tagging a URL or other object with the character string 'Melbourne' the user’s tagging application may prompt them with the opportunity to choose from either Melbourne //Australia// or Melbourne //Florida// or even Melbourne //other//. Experimentation with social bookmarking applications in a corporate environment (e.g. Onomi case study), and wikis in government agencies (e.g. see Jackson, 2006 on Wikis at the CIO Council to the CIA) demonstrate that ease-of-use is a key aspect for achieving end-user adoption of //social software// applications in these environments. Experimentation with simple semantic functionality in blogging-technologies suggests that if users are provided with easy to use tools they may create semantic metadata as a matter of course. The same may apply to wikis, so sometime in the not to distant future (perhaps as early as 2007-2008), we may see increased user up-take of semantic-social-software, i.e. //semantic// blogs (e.g. semantic blogging case study), semantic bibliographic applications (e.g. Connotea )   semantic travel-logs (like  realtravel: http://realtravel.com); //semantic// wikis and even //semantic// social-bookmarking applications, and perhaps even //semantic// photo-tagging applications.

Two final and important questions; firstly, if we are to move to a web that is more semantic and perhaps more social, what role, if any, can Practice-Based-Theories (PBTs) have in helping us to understand the knowledge-sharing possibilities of our //semantic// online technologies? Secondly, if online users of 'community' tools represent only a tiny proportion of an particular face-to-face community (perhaps as little as one per cent in a large organisation like IBM [Moore, 2006, email to actkm]), then what can we really say about who has influence in that particular community's changing practice, and the folksonomies or changing vocabularies that a minority of community members might create to represent their version of the community's knowledge? In other words, how do people's individual tagging-actions contribute meaning that ends up becoming part of a community's online shared knowledge?

Internal links

 * activity_theory activity theory (e.g. Yrjö Engeström; Sasha Barab)
 * ant actor-network theory
 * cms content management systems
 * companycommand a CoP-portal for Company Commander in the US Army
 * cops communities of practice
 * facilitative_approach
 * formal_approach
 * harriette_hemmasi
 * informal_approach
 * julian_orr
 * lucy_suchman
 * ontology_engineering
 * pbt practice based theories
 * peter_morville
 * roberta_cuel
 * social_tagging