Knowledge Networks

Knowledge Networks

Bibliography

Carsten Tams

Cambridge, 7/24/00

Contents

1. Communication science

Allen, T. 1970. “Communication networks in R&D laboratories,” R&D Management, 1: 14-21.

Back, K. W. 1951. “Influence through social communication,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 9 - 22.

Bavelas, A. 1950. “Communication patterns in task oriented groups,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22: 271-282.

Berger, C. R. 1987. “Communicating under uncertainty,” in M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Brass, D. J., & D. Krackhardt (in press). “Communication networks and organizations: A Meso approach,” in H. L. Tosi (ed.), Extensions of the Environment/Organization/Person Model: Volume II, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Brenner, M. H., & N. B. Sigband. 1973. “Organizational communication - An analysis based on empirical data,” Academy of Management Journal, 16: 323-325.

Cohen, B. P., & S. D. Silver. ????. In Sociological Theories in Progress. New Formulations, in J. Berger, Morris Zelditch, Jr., & Bo Anderson (eds.), Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

The authors propose a theory of information exchange mediated by group structure. It is to serve as “a framework within which to consider the effects of structure on interaction and outcomes of group problem solving.” (179) They differentiate channels of communication according to source, target, and content mode of a communication. Possible modes are ideas, data, positive evaluations, negative evaluations, and (…) source and/or third-party data. (…) The proposition of the theory link channel usage and channel choice to the status structure of the group through propositions about the cost of receiving negative evaluations from various sources who differ in status. For ill-structured problems, the theory relates successful solution to the frequency of usage of idea and negative evaluation channels and also to the time patterns of the usage. (…) the probability of choosing each type of channel depends in part on the status structure of the group and the individual’s position in that structure.” (179)

“For ill structured problems, (..) the asymmetric communication of evaluation that occurs in hierarchies is likely to have both inhibitory and facilitating effects. In the idea-generation phase, actual or anticipated negative evaluation may constrict the flow of ideas. But in the idea-evaluation phase, communication of evaluation may promote the strengthening or discarding of weak ideas.” (167)

The authors posit “ that the probability of choosing a channel varies inversely with ‘cost differential’ (the difference between expected loss and gain in, say, status). [They] also assert that negative evaluations and ideas are more likely to have negative cost differentials than data or positive evaluations. Moreover, [they] claim that the cost differential for transmission of ideas increases as member status differences increase, for all but the highest-status group member. As a consequence of this analysis, that transmission of ideas in a group is likely to decrease as status differences increase.” (180)

Finally, the authors suggest three sets of analysis. “The first two sets relate status factors to the communication of ideas and negative evaluations, while the third set deals with the effects of the communication structure on the communication of negative evaluations. Where the communication structure allows the segregation of channels and/or the anonymity of sources, the theory assumes that it is possible to reduce the negative channels will increase when private and/or anonymous channels are available, and that the impact of negative evaluations will be reduced in such structures.” (180)

Cohen & Silver’s theory is relevant to the paper on networks in teamwork in that it suggests another interesting variable for the analysis of team/group performance: hierarchy. It seems worthwhile to ask how hierarchy relates to the concept of centrality. Secondly, the authors make an interesting distinction between two types of group tasks in problem solving: idea generation vs. idea evaluation. They posit that hierarchy is useful for the latter, but dysfunctional for the former. Drawing on this distinction, you could derive the following hypothesis: Centrality is functional for teams in the idea evaluation phase, but dysfunctional in the idea generation phase.

Conrath, D. 1973. “Communication environment and its relationship to organizational structure,” Management Science, 4: 586-603.

Contractor, N. S., & E. M. Eisenberg. 1990. “Communication networks and new media in organizations,” in J. Fulk & C.W. Steinfield (eds.), Organizations and Communication Technology, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Contractor, N. 1994. “Self-organizing systems perspective in the study of organizational communication,” in B. Kovacic (ed.), New approaches to organizational communication, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Contractor, Noshir, Whitbred, Robert, Fonti, Fabio, Hyatt, Andrew, O'Keefe, Barbara, Jones, Patricia, SELF-ORGANIZING COMMUNICATION NETWORKS IN ORGANIZATIONS: VALIDATION OF A COMPUTATIONAL MODEL USING EXOGENOUS AND ENDOGENOUS THEORETICAL MECHANISMS, @…

“Research over the past two decades has found communication networks to be significantly associated with organizational phenomena such as formal organizational structures, work-related attitudes, and power. This work has led to a greater interest in the theoretical mechanisms influencing the emergence -- creation, maintenance, and dissolution -- of organizational communication networks. Complexity theory in general, and self-organizing systems theory in particular, offer a framework to systematically and dynamically study the complex non-linear influences, implied by these theoretical mechanisms, on the emergence of communication networks.

This study identifies seven exogenous (that is, based on factors other than the communication network itself) and three endogenous (that is, based on local and global characteristics of the communication network itself) mechanisms which influence the emergence of communication networks in organizations. The seven exogenous mechanisms posited are supervisor-subordinate relationships, peer communication at higher levels of the hierarchy, spatial proximity, adoption of email, workflow dependencies, friendship, and common activity foci. The three endogenous mechanisms posited to influence the emergence of communication networks are the drive towards transitivity in the network, the attraction of group network cohesion, and the management of structural holes in the network.

Each of these ten theoretical mechanisms seeks to explain dynamically the creation, maintenance, and dissolution of networks links within the organization. These mechanisms are explicated in non-linear dynamic equations. Four computational organizational network models -- baseline, exogenous, endogenous, and combined -- are used to specify the system dynamics associated with these multiple theoretical mechanisms. Simulations of these computational models are used to assess the dynamic implications of the various theoretical mechanisms for network emergence. The emergent network structures resulting from these simulations are validated using longitudinal communication network data collected at 13 points in time over a two year period from employees of a public works organization.

The results of the validation suggest that two of the exogenous mechanisms (supervisor-subordinate relationships and spatial proximity) and two of the endogenous mechanisms (transitivity and group cohesion) are important and consistent contributors to the emergence of the communication network. Further, the simulated communication network generated from the combined set of exogenous and endogenous theoretical mechanisms maps more closely to the observed communication network than a simulated communication network generated from the baseline (random) model.

In addition to these substantive insights, the study represents a pioneering effort in the specification and empirical validation of a theoretically deduced computational organization network model. In doing so, it demonstrates how computational organizational models are well suited to studies of organizations premised on tenets of complexity theory.”

Corman, S. R. 1997. “The reticulation of quasi-agents in systems of organizational communication,” in G. A. Barnett & L. Thayer (eds.), Organization ? ? Communication emerging perspectives V: The renaissance in systems thinking, Greenwich, CT: Ablex.

Corman, S. R. 1996. “Cellular automata as models of unintended consequences of organizational communication,” in J. H. Watt & C. A. Van Lear (eds.), Dynamic patterns in communication processes, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Corman, S. R. 1990. “A mode of perceived communication in collective networks,” Human Communication Research, 16: 582-602.

Corman, S. R., & C. R. Scott. 1994. “Perceived networks, activity, foci, and observable communication in social collectives,” Communication Theory, 4: 171-190.

Eisenberg, E. M., R. V. Farace, P. R. Monge, E. P. Bettinghaus, R. Kurchner-Hawkins, K. Miller, & L. Rothman. 1985. “Communication linkages in interorganizational systems,” in B. Dervin & M. Voight (eds.), Progress in communication sciences (Vol. 6, pp. 210-266), Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Eisenberg, E. M., P.R. Monge, & K. L. Miller. 1984. “Involvement in communication networks as a predictor of organizational commitment,” Human Communication Research, 10: 179-201.

Farace, R. V., P. R. Monge, & H. M. Russell. 1977. Communicating and Organizing, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fulk, J., & B. Boyd. 1991. “Emerging theories of communication in organizations,” Yearly Review of the Journal of Management, 17: 407-446.

Fulk, J., A. J. Flanagin, M. E. Kalman, P. R. Monge, & T. Ryan. 1996. “Connective and communal public goods in interactive communication systems,” Communication Theory, 6: 60-87.

Abstract: This paper extends theories of public goods to interactive communication systems. Two key public communication goods are identified. Connectivity provides point-to-point communication, and communality links members through commonly held information, such as that often found in databases. These extensions are important, we argue, because communication public goods operate differently from traditional material public goods. These differences have important implications for costs, benefits, and the realization of a critical mass of users that is necessary for realization of the good. We also explore multifunctional goods that combine various features and hybrid goods that link private goods to public ones. We examine the applicability of two key assumptions of public goods theory to interactive communication systems. First, jointness of supply specifies that consumption of a public good does not diminish its availability to others. Second, impossibility of exclusion stipulates that all members of the public have access to the good. We conclude with suggestions for further theoretical development.

Hartman, R. L., & J. D. Johnson. 1989. “Social contagion and multiplexity: Communication networks as predictors of commitment and role ambiguity,” Human Communication Research, 15: 523-548.

Huber, G. P., & R. L. Daft. 1987. “The information environments of organizations,” in L. L. Putnam, F. M. Jablin, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jablin, F. M. 1987. “Organizational communication theory and research: An overview of communication climate and network research,” in D. Nimmo (ed.), Communication Yearbook 4, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Jang, H., & Barnett, G .A. 1994. “Cultural differences in organizational communication: A semantic network analysis,” Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique, 44: 31-59.

Johnson, J. D. 1992. “Approaches to organizational communication structure,” Journal of Business Research, 25: 99-113.

Johnson, J. D. 1993. Organizational communication structure, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Kaufer, D. S., & K. M. Carley. 1993. Communication at a distance : the influence of print on sociocutural organization and change, Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

KERR N. L., & C. M. KAUFMAN. 1994. “COMMUNICATION, COMMITMENT, AND COOPERATION IN SOCIAL DILEMMAS,” JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 66: 513-529

Abstract: Intragroup communication promotes cooperation in social dilemmas. Two explanations are plausible: Discussion may (a) enhance feelings of group identity or (b) induce commitments to cooperate. Some remedies for social dilemmas (like group communication) may be subclassified as public-welfare remedies (of which enhanced group identity is an example) versus cooperation-contingent remedies (of which commitment is an example). The efficacy of a cooperative act for enhancing the collective welfare should moderate remedies of the former but not the latter type. An experiment is reported in which group communication and the efficacy of cooperation were manipulated. As expected if communication induced commitments, but contrary to the group identity explanation, efficacy did not moderate the effect of group discussion. Other analyses provided more direct evidence that group members made and honored commitments to cooperate.

McPhee, R. D. & S. R. Corman. 1995. “An activity-based theory of communication networks in organizations, applied to the case of a local church,” Communication Monographs, 62: 1-20.

Monge, P. R., & N. Contractor, N. 1988. “Communication networks: Measurement techniques,” in C.H. Tardy (ed.), A handbook for the study of human communication, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

The chapter has three tasks:

Discussion of properties of linkage data that have been used in communication network studies. The authors suggest strength, symmetry/directionality, reciprocation, and confirmation as measures of linkage.

Discussion of the boundary specification problem. According to the authors, the boundary of a communication network is defined as “a set of criteria that result in the specification of membership over a particular period of time. (111).

Description of the various ways that network data is collected, with an emphasis on field studies methodology.

Monge, Peter R., & N. Contractor. 1998. Running head: Emergence of Communication Networks. Emergence of Communication Networks, @ …

“Communication networks are the patterns of contact between communication partners that are created by transmitting and exchanging messages through time and space. These networks take many forms in contemporary organizations, including personal contact networks, flows of information within and between groups, strategic alliances between firms, and global network organizations, to name but a few. This chapter examines the theoretical mechanisms that theorists and researchers have proposed to explain the creation, maintenance and dissolution of these diverse and complex intra- and interorganizational networks. This focus provides an important complement to other reviews of the literature that have been organized on the basis of antecedents and outcomes (Monge & Eisenberg, 1987) or research themes within organizational behavior (Brass & Krackhardt, in press; Krackhardt & Brass, 1994).

The chapter begins with a brief overview of network analysis, an examination of the relationship between formal and emergent networks, and a brief discussion of organizational forms. The core of the chapter focuses on ten families of theories and their respective theoretical mechanisms that have been used to explain the emergence, maintenance, and dissolution of communication networks in organizational research. These are: (a) theories of self-interest (social capital theory and transaction cost economics), (b) theories of mutual self-interest and collective action, (c) exchange and dependency theories (social exchange, resource dependency, and network organizational forms), (d) contagion theories, (social information processing, social cognitive theory, institutional theory, structural theory of action), (e) cognitive theories (semantic networks, knowledge structures, cognitive social structures, cognitive consistency), (f) theories of homophily (social comparison theory, social identity theory), (g) theories of proximity (physical and electronic propinquity), (h) uncertainty reduction and contingency theories, (i) social support theories, and (j) evolutionary theories. The chapter concludes with a discussion of an agenda for future research on the emergence and evolution of organizational communication networks“