Wisdom Knowledge

But what if you wanted wisdom, not knowledge? Are there books that contain wisdom? In other words, are there books that give you general-purpose, one-size-fits-all advice for navigating life? Of course there is! It’s called self-help.

“a wise person knows what to do in most situations, while a [knowledgeable]1 person knows what to do in situations where few others could.” In other words, wise people are moderately successful in many domains, while knowledgeable people are very successful in a few.

there are two sources of feeling like a noob: being stupid, and doing something novel. Our dislike of feeling like a noob is our brain telling us "Come on, come on, figure this out."

the more of a noob you are locally, the less of a noob you are globally.For example, if you stay in your home country, you'll feel less of a noob than if you move to Farawavia, where everything works differently. And yet you'll know more if you move. So the feeling of being a noob is inversely correlated with actual ignorance.

Data Model

MkDocs is a fast, simple and downright gorgeous static site generator that's geared towards building project documentation. Documentation source files are written in Markdown, and configured with a single YAML configuration file.

We tend to treat our knowledge as personal property to be protected and defended. It is an ornament that allows us to rise in the pecking order.

The antidote to this overconfidence boils down to our relationship with knowledge. The anti-scholar, as Taleb refers to it, is “someone who focuses on the unread books, and makes an attempt not to treat his knowledge as a treasure, or even a possession, or even a self-esteem enhancement device — a skeptical empiricist.

Because we underestimate the value of what we don’t know and overvalue what we do know, we fundamentally misunderstand the likelihood of surprises.

activist groups are more likely to tap into unconscious values and emotions — like using the term “Frankenfoods” to describe G.M.O.s

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Bouman

Any relevant material can be mentioned there

of WP:1E

Someone who isn't even an assistant professor is certainly not notable as a scientist.

Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited.

The Event Horizon Telescope project is notable in itself, and has its own article, but anyone who are in some way (remotely) associated with it are not inherently notable.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Bouman • en.wikipedia.org

edn supports a rich set of built-in elements, and the definition of extension elements in terms of the others. Users of data formats without such facilities must rely on either convention or context to convey elements not included in the base set. This greatly complicates application logic, betraying the apparent simplicity of the format. edn is simple, yet powerful enough to meet the demands of applications without convention or complex context-sensitive logic.

My suspicion is, a good KPI for a knowledge tool is minimum threshold of time required to make a negentropic update to it, with every halving of the threshold increasing its capacity to hold positive-interest-rate knowledge repos by an order of magnitude.

This btw is the maker time/manager time problem pg wrote about. Making needs 4 hour chunks because anything less tends to increase entropy rather than decrease it in any non-trivial knowledge work project. So anything that lowers that lower limit is a big win.

Of what a strange nature is knowledge

Bakkah Inc.Bakkah is a national consulting and training company formed by multinational professionals that have a wide experience in management consulting and professional training.We develop solutions tailored to our customers needs. Based on our knowledge, experience and best practices of several industries, we help organizations reach the best decisions to ensure accountability for project success, cost reduction and profit uplifts.Our experts with their sufficient skills enables us to provide solutions ranging from business strategy to the most functional and operative areas.

“NextNow Collaboratory is an interesting example of a new kind of collective intelligence: an Internet-enabled, portable social network, easily transferable from one social cause to another.”

Show HN: Deskulu – Opensource knowledgebase and ticketing system

Raneto

anarcho-communist

Otlet viewed knowledge as something related to humanity and which could extend it.

The problem with the annotation notion is that it's the first time that we consider a piece of data which is not merely a projection of data already present in the message store: it is out-of-band data that needs to be stored somewhere.

many of the searches we want to do could be accomplished with a database that was nothing but a glorified set of hash tables

There are objects, sets of objects, and presentation tools. There is a presentation tool for each kind of object; and one for each kind of object set.

After the success of MORE, he went on to develop a scripting language whose syntax (for both code and data) was an outline. Kind of like Lisp with open/close triangles instead of parens! It had one of the most comprehensive implementation of Apple Events client and server support of any Mac application, and was really useful for automating other Mac apps, earlier and in many ways better than AppleScript.

After the success of MORE, he went on to develop a scripting language whose syntax (for both code and data) was an outline.

More was great because it had a well designed user interface and feature set with fluid "fahrvergnügen" that made it really easy to use with the keyboard as well as the mouse. It could also render your outlines as all kinds of nicely formatted and stylized charts and presentations. And it had a lot of powerful features you usually don't see in today's generic outliners.

Engelbart also showed how to embed lists and outlines in maps:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJDv-zdhzMY&t=15m39s

The realization of this truth dissolves the beliefs in distance, separation and otherness. The common name we give to this absence of distance, separation and otherness is love and beauty. It is that for which everyone longs – not just those of us that are interested in non-duality but all seven billion of us. In this realization true knowledge and love are revealed to be one and the same – the experiential realization that the true nature of the apparently inside self and the apparently outside world are one single reality made out of the transparent light of Awareness, that is, made out of the intimacy of our own being.

It is critical to understand that within systems, there is no isolation from the context, though we often view context as the invisible elephant in the room. When context is not addressed explicitly, equity issues are overlooked, and conversations about diversity in the science curriculum become only necessary for the poor, or students of color, or bilingual students. Issues of equity and context must be integrated in a wider systemic approach for the implementation of the NGSS to be deemed useful. We have to allow for boundary crossing and interdisciplinary connections into domains that make context and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, girls, students of cultural and linguistic diversity, and students in urban, suburban, and rural areas want to engage in science and see themselves in science. We believe that a culturally responsive approach to the implementation of the NGSS will achieve this goal.

Within the vignette and the experiences of the four teachers, there is a fundamental equity and diversity issue that is shared among them: whose responsibility is it to address equity and diversity? How do we address it in science and within our particular contexts, and with our particular student populations? What supports must be present to allow us to promote equity and diversity in our teaching, learning, and curriculum? What supports are present in the NGSS to assist all teachers to teach in culturally responsive ways so that teachers meet the educational science needs of all students? Our position and the ways in which we address these questions center on implementation of the NGSS with equity and diversity as theoretical and pedagogical foundations to science teaching. In this way, equity and diversity becomes a vision and goal for implementation.

The Lisp Machine (which could just as easily have been, say, a Smalltalk machine) was a computing environment with a coherent, logical design, where the “turtles go all the way down.” An environment which enabled stopping, examining the state of, editing, and resuming a running program, including the kernel. An environment which could actually be fully understood by an experienced developer.  One where nearly all source code was not only available but usefully so, at all times, in real time.  An environment to which we owe so many of the innovations we take for granted. It is easy for us now to say that such power could not have existed, or is unnecessary. Yet our favorite digital toys (and who knows what other artifacts of civilization) only exist because it was once possible to buy a computer designed specifically for exploring complex ideas.  Certainly no such beast exists today – but that is not what saddens me most.  Rather, it is the fact that so few are aware that anything has been lost.

I also strongly support the public annotation, archiving and active curation of artifacts (papers, reports, student projects, annotated list of resources, slideshows etc.) that are produced within the COI so as to provide resources for other and subsequent COIs located around the globe (Tibbo, 2015; Ungerer, 2016).

La idea es que Vincent, gracias a los algoritmos de inteligencia artificial, “entiende” el documento que se le proporciona y su contexto, de esa forma es capaz de sugerir los documentos, sentencias y otra información jurídica relevante para el caso concreto.

minimizar el tiempo y el esfuerzo necesario

cuando el usuario sube un documento a Vicent, vLex no se queda el documento. Únicamente lo procesa el algoritmo, pero la búsqueda que se construye sí queda en el historial del usuario. El objetivo es que el usuario puede recuperar los resultados de una búsqueda Vicent, aunque no tenga a mano el documento que lo originó

The individual does not use this information and this processing to grapple directly with the sort of complex situation in which we seek to give him help. He uses his innate capabilities in a rather more indirect fashion, since the situation is generally too complex to yield directly to his motor actions, and always too complex to yield comprehensions and solutions from direct sensory inspection and use of basic cognitive capabilities.

While the predominant value of existentialist thought is commonly acknowledged to be freedom, its primary virtue is authenticity.[6] In the view of the existentialist, the individual's starting point is characterized by what has been called "the existential attitude", or a sense of disorientation, confusion, or dread in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.[7] Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophies, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience.[8][9]

A Vision for Scholarly Communication Currently, there is a strong push to address the apparent deficits of the scholarly communication system. Open Science has the potential to change the production and dissemination of scholarly knowledge for the better, but there is no commonly shared vision that describes the system that we want to create.

Overview of Learning Theories

We'll stick to working with prose text in our examples—most people can grasp easily enough what we are doing there without having to have special backgrounds in mathematics or science as they would to gain equal comprehension for some of the similar sorts of things we do with diagrams and mathematical equations.

such as scope, simplicity, fruitfulness, accuracy

Like in evolution, the process does not change toward some fixed goal according to some fixed rules, methods or standards, but rather it changes away from the pressures exerted by anomalies on the reigning theory (Kuhn 1962, 170–173). The process of scientific change is eliminative and permissive rather than instructive.

but you will not yet have been given much of a feel for how a computer-based augmentation system can really help a person

your Friendships arc not cemented by Intrigues nor spent in vain Diversions, but in the search of Knowledge

Obscurity, verbosity, and pretentiousness are to be avoided; unusual words are to be used only when they aid clarity and prevent the aforementioned faults. For Aslell, women's rheloric should focus on the art of conversation, us both Sutherland and Renaissance scholar Jane Donawerth have argued. This is women's proper rhetori­cal sphere, different from but in no way inferior to the public sphere in which men use oratory.

If we argue falsly and know not that we do so, we s hall be more pillicd than when we do, but either way disappointed.

docs not grow a little less concern'd for her Body that she may at­tenc.J her Mind

You know very well 'tii-inlinitcly better lo be good than to .�eem so.�

ou please your selves.

Alas, Human Knowledge is al best defective. and always pro­gressive.

the ability to effectively use content knowledge and skill

What we concluded is that people needed the map to be more approachable, accessible, and applicable for learning and teaching web literacy skills.

They can evaluate web content, and identify what is useful and trustworthy

1) develop more educators, advocates, and community leaders who can leverage and advance the web as an open and public resource, and 2) impact policies and practices to ensure the web remains a healthy open and public resource for all.

whether it is possible to know the real es!.ences of' things

We have direct sen1-ations. of course, hul we know only the ideas of these sensations; all other ideas arc fom1ed by reflecting upon the primary ideas caused by scn~ory pcrceplion

He that has complex ideas, without particular names for them, would be in no better case than a bookseller, who had in his warehouse volumes that lay there unbound, and without titles, which he could therefore make known to others only by showing the loose sheets, and communicate them only by tale.

Vico, Sheridan, and Campbell, as well as a number of philosophers, pursued Locke's suggestive but incomplete account of the relation-ship of language and knowledge, though never far enough to link rhetoric explicitly with the process of creating "true" knowledge. T

Locke believes that there b a real external world and that knowledge of it is pos!-iblc. hul only ii' we underst:md the processes by which we come lo ~uch knowledge.

and the pre!.umption lhal direcl knowledge is available through revelation or perception.

Knowledge itself is independent of language.

argument

I Know not how to Please All, t

each mind perceives a differentbeauty.

}-lume who seeks to understand the operations of mind.

composes a new ontological framework ofbecoming-subjects

Knowledge-production

We know by now that there is no GreenwichMean Time in knowledge production in the posthuman era.

new subjects of knowledge

“It seems like everything used to be something else, yes?”

Pragmatism (similar to cognitivism) states that reality is interpreted, and knowledge is negotiated through experience and thinking.

Co-Organizing the Collective Journey of InquiryWith Idea Thread Mapper

there is no guarantee that the generality signified by a word will convey the same idea to all users of the language

common knowledge

hese con-ditions are sedimented not solely in cultural narrative, ritual, and practice, but in howthey are made, accumulated, and enacted in (or through) material forms.

our hesitation is not unjustified.

o one, or almost no one, fads to beheve 1n climate chan~Je out of sincere ignorance. Ttiey •choose-to d1sbeheve either for material gain or 1ust to be dicks.

To doubt Blum was to doubt the traditional edu-cational system and therefore the entire society. Nobody wanted to do it.

Value-free language and the possibility of a self-contained discipline make possible both modern sci-ence and that mapping of humanistic inquiry onto a scientific model which has created modern social science as well.

We must digest it: otherwise it will merely enter the memory and not the reasoning power

Experimentation, the third affordance, refers to theuse of technology to encourage participants to try outnovel ideas.

Recombinability refers to forms of technology-enabled action where individual contributors build oneach others’ contributions.

Reviewability refers to the enactment of technology-enabled new forms of working in which participantsare better able to view and manage the content offront and back narratives over time (West and Lakhani2008). By allowing participants to easily and collab-oratively review a range of ideas, technology-affordedreviewability helps the community respond to tensionsin disembodied ideas, because the reviews can provideimportant contextual information for building on others’ideas.

Technology platforms used by OCs can providea number of affordances for knowledge collabora-tion, three of which we mention here: reviewability,recombinability, and experimentation. These affordancesevolve as new participants provide new ways to use thetechnologies, new social norms are developed around thetechnology affordances, and new needs for fresh affor-dances are identified.

Given the fluid nature of OCsand their rapidly evolving technology platforms, and inline with calls to avoid dualistic thinking about tech-nology (Leonardi and Barley 2008, Markus and Silver2008, Orlikowski and Scott 2008), we suggest technol-ogy affordance as a generative response, one that viewstechnology, action, and roles as emergent, inseparable,and coevolving. Technology affordances offer a relationalperspective on human action, where neither the technol-ogy nor the actor is dominant in the sense that the tech-nology does not define what is possible for the actor todo, nor is the actor free from the limitations of the tech-nological environment. Instead, possibilities for actionemerge from the reciprocal interaction between actor andartifact (Gibson 1979, Zammuto et al. 2007). Thus, anaffordance perspective focuses on the organizing actionsthat are afforded by technology artifacts.

third response to manage tensions is to promoteknowledge collaboration by enacting dynamic bound-aries. In social sciences, although boundaries divide anddisintegrate collectives, they also coordinate and inte-grate social action (Bowker and Star 1999, Lamont andMolnár 2002). Fluidity brings the need for flexible andpermeable boundaries, but it is not only the propertiesof the boundaries but also their dynamicity that helpmanage tensions.

We have observed in OCs that no single narrative isable to keep participants informed about the current stateof the OC with respect to each tension. These commu-nities seem to develop two different types of narratives.Borrowing from Goffman (1959), we label the two nar-ratives the “front” and the “back” narratives.

Based on our collective research on to date, we haveidentified that as tensions ebb and flow, OCs use (or,more precisely, participants engage in) any of the fourtypes of responses that seem to help the OC be gen-erative. The first generative response is labeledEngen-dering Roles in the Moment. In this response, membersenact specific roles that help turn the potentially negativeconsequences of a tension into positive consequences.The second generative response is labeledChannelingParticipation. In this response, members create a nar-rative that helps keep fluid participants informed ofthe state of the knowledge, with this narrative havinga necessary duality between a front narrative for gen-eral public consumption and a back narrative to airthe differences and emotions created by the tensions.The third generative response is labeledDynamicallyChanging Boundaries. In this response, OCs changetheir boundaries in ways that discourage or encouragecertain resources into and out of the communities at cer-tain times, depending on the nature of the tension. Thefourth generative response is labeledEvolving Technol-ogy Affordances. In this response, OCs iteratively evolvetheir technologies in use in ways that are embedded by,and become embedded into, iteratively enhanced socialnorms. These iterations help the OC to socially and tech-nically automate responses to tensions so that the com-munity does not unravel.

Tension 5: Positive and Negative Consequences ofTemporary ConvergenceThe classic models of knowledge collaboration in groupsgive particular weight to the need for convergence. Con-vergence around a single goal, direction, criterion, pro-cess, or solution helps counterbalance the forces ofdivergence, allowing diverse ideas to be framed, ana-lyzed, and coalesced into a single solution (Couger 1996,Isaksen and Treffinger 1985, Osborn 1953, Woodmanet al. 1993). In fluid OCs, convergence is still likelyto exist during knowledge collaboration, but the conver-gence is likely to be temporary and incomplete, oftenimplicit, and is situated among subsets of actors in thecommunity rather than the entire community.

ension 2: Positive and Negative Consequencesof TimeA second tension is between the positive and negativeconsequences of the time that people spend contribut-ing to the OC. Knowledge collaboration requires thatindividuals spend time contributing to the OC’s virtualworkspace (Fleming and Waguespack 2007, Lakhani andvon Hippel 2003, Rafaeli and Ariel 2008). Time has apositive consequence for knowledge collaboration. Themore time people spend evolving others’ contributedideas and responding to others’ comments on thoseideas, the more the ideas can evolve

We argue that it is the fluidity, the tensions that flu-idity creates, and the dynamics in how the OC respondsto these tensions that make knowledge collaboration inOCs fundamentally different from knowledge collabora-tion in teams or other traditional organization structures.

As fluctuations in resource endowments arise overtime because of the fluidity in the OC, these fluctua-tions in resources create fluctuations in tensions, makingsimple structural tactics for managing tensions such ascross-functional teams or divergent opinions (Sheremata2000) inadequate for fostering knowledge collaboration.As complex as these tension fluctuations are for the com-munity, it is precisely these tensions that provide thecatalyst for knowledge collaboration. Communities thatthen respond to these tensions generatively (rather thanin restrictive ways) will be able to realize this potential.Thus, it is not the simple presence of resources that fos-ter knowledge collaboration, but rather the presence ofongoing dynamic tensions within the OC that spur thecollaboration. We describe these tensions in the follow-ing section

Fluidity requires us to look at the dynamics—i.e., thecontinuous and rapid changes in resources—rather thanthe presence or the structural form of the resources.Resources may flow from outside the OC (e.g., pas-sion) or be internally generated (e.g., convergence), sub-sequently influencing and influenced by action (Feldman2004). Resources come with the baggage of having bothpositive and negative consequences for knowledge col-laboration, creating a tension within the community inhow to manage the positive and negative consequencesin a manner similar to the one faced by ambidextrousorganizations (O’Reilly and Tushman 2004).

However, failure to examine the critical roleof even the inactive participants in the functioning of thecommunity is to ignore that passive (and invisible) par-ticipation may be a step toward greater participation, aswhen individuals use passivity as a way to learn aboutthe collective in a form of peripheral legitimate partici-pation (Lave and Wenger 1991, Yeow et al. 2006).

Fluidity recognizes the highly flexible or permeableboundaries of OCs, where it is hard to figure out whois in the community and who is outside (Preece et al.2004) at any point in time, let alone over time. Theyare adaptive in that they change as the attention, actions,and interests of the collective of participants change overtime. Many individuals in an OC are at various stagesof exit and entry that change fluidly over time.

We argue that fluid-ity is a fundamental characteristic of OCs that makesknowledge collaboration in such settings possible. Assimply depicted in Figure 1, we envision OCs as fluidorganizational objects that are simultaneously morphingand yet retaining a recognizable shape (de Laet and Mol2000, Law 2002, Mol and Law 1994).

a growing consensus on factors that moti-vate people to make contributions to these communities,including motivational factors based on self-interest (e.g.,Lakhani and von Hippel 2003, Lerner and Tirole 2002,von Hippel and von Krogh 2003), identity (Bagozzi andDholakia 2006, Blanchard and Markus 2004, Ma andAgarwal 2007, Ren et al. 2007, Stewart and Gosain2006), social capital (Nambisan and Baron 2010; Waskoand Faraj 2000, 2005; Wasko et al. 2009), and socialexchange (Faraj and Johnson 2011).

For instance, knowledge collaboration in OCscan occur without the structural mechanisms tradition-ally associated with knowledge collaboration in orga-nizational teams: stable membership, convergence afterdivergence, repeated people-to-people interactions, goal-sharing, and feelings of interdependence among groupmembers (Boland et al. 1994, Carlile 2002, Dougherty1992, Schrage 1995, Tsoukas 2009).

Knowledge collaboration is defined broadly as thesharing, transfer, accumulation, transformation, andcocreation of knowledge. In an OC, knowledge collab-oration involves individual acts of offering knowledgeto others as well as adding to, recombining, modify-ing, and integrating knowledge that others have con-tributed. Knowledge collaboration is a critical elementof the sustainability of OCs as individuals share andcombine their knowledge in ways that benefit them per-sonally, while contributing to the community’s greaterworth (Blanchard and Markus 2004, Jeppesen andFredericksen 2006, Murray and O’Mahoney 2007, vonHippel and von Krogh 2006, Wasko and Faraj 2000).

Online communities (OCs) are open collectives of dis-persed individuals with members who are not necessarilyknown or identifiable and who share common inter-ests, and these communities attend to both their indi-vidual and their collective welfare (Sproull and Arriaga2007).

The situated and emergent nature of coordinationdoes not imply that practices are completely uniqueand novel. On the one hand, they vary accordingto the logic of the situation and the actors present.On the other hand, as seen in our categorizationof dialogic coordination, they follow a recognizablelogic and are only partially improvised. This tensionbetween familiarity and uniqueness of response is atthe core of a practice view of work (Orlikowski 2002).

Recently, Brown and Duguid (2001, p. 208) sug-gested that coordination of organizational knowledgeis likely to be more challenging than coordination ofroutine work, principally because the “elements to becoordinated are not just individuals but communitiesand the practices they foster.” As we found in ourinvestigation of coordination at the boundary, signif-icant epistemic differences exist and must be recog-nized. As the dialogic practices enacted in responseto problematic trajectories show, the epistemic dif-ferences reflect different perspectives or prioritiesand cannot be bridged through better knowledge

nature point to the limitations of a structuralist viewof coordination. In the same way that an organi-zational routine may unfold differently each timebecause it cannot be fully specified (Feldman andPentland 2003), coordination will vary each time.Independent of embraced rules and programs, therewill always be an element of bricolage reflecting thenecessity of patching together working solutions withthe knowledge and resources at hand (Weick 1993).Actors and the generative schemes that propel theiractions under pressure make up an important com-ponent of coordination’s modus operandi (Bourdieu1990, Emirbayer and Mische 1998).

These practices are highly situated, emer-gent, and contextualized and thus cannot be prespec-ified the way traditional coordination mechanismscan be. Thus, recent efforts based on an information-processing view to develop typologies of coordina-tion mechanisms (e.g., Malone et al. 1999) may be tooformal to allow organizations to mount an effectiveresponse to events characterized by urgency, novelty,surprise, and different interpretations.

Our findings also point to a broader divide in coor-dination research. Much of the power of traditionalcoordination models resides in their information-processing basis and their focus on the design issuessurrounding work unit differentiation and integra-tion. This design-centric view with its emphasis onrules,structures,andmodalitiesofcoordinationislessuseful for studying knowledge work.

Boundarywork requires the ability to see perspectives devel-oped by people immersed in a different commu-nity of knowing (Boland and Tenkasi 1995, Star andGriesemer 1989). Often, particular disciplinary focilead to differences in opinion regarding what stepsto take next in treating the patient.

The termdialogic—as opposed to monologic—recognizes dif-ferences and emphasizes the existence of epistemicboundaries, different understandings of events, andthe existence of boundary objects (e.g., the diagnosisor the treatment plan). A dialogic approach to coordi-nation is the recognition that action, communication,and cognition are essentially relational and highlysituated. We use the concept of trajectory (Bourdieu1990, Strauss 1993) to recognize that treatment pro-gressions are not always linear or positive.

A dialogic coordination practice differs from moregeneral expertise coordination processes in that itis highly situated in the specifics of the unfoldingevent, is urgent and high-staked, and occurs at theboundary between communities of practice. Becausecognition is distributed, responsibility is shared, andepistemic differences are present, interactions can becontentious and conflict laden.

xpertisecoordination refers to processes that manage knowl-edge and skill interdependencies

we describe two categories ofcoordination practices that ensure effective work out-comes. The first category, which we callexpertise coor-dination practices, represents processes that make itpossible to manage knowledge and skill interdepen-dencies. These processes bring about fast response,superior reconfiguration, efficient knowledge shar-ing, and expertise vetting. Second, because of therapidlyunfoldingtempooftreatmentandthestochas-tic nature of the treatment trajectory,dialogic coordina-tion practicesare used as contextually and temporallysituated responses to occasional trajectory deviation,errors, and general threats to the patient. These dia-logic coordination practices are crucial for ensuringeffective coordination but often require contentiousinteractions across communities of practice. Figure 1presents a coordination-focused model of patienttreatment and describes the circumstances underwhich dialogic coordination practices are called for.

We found that coordination in a trauma settingentails two specific practices.

Based on a practice view, we suggest the followingdefinition ofcoordination: a temporally unfolding andcontextualized process of input regulation and inter-action articulation to realize a collective performance.

Theprimarygoalispatientstabilizationandini-tiating atreatment trajectory—a temporally unfolding

rauma centersare representative of organizational entities that arefaced with unpredictable environmental demands,complexsetsoftechnologies,highcoordinationloads,and the paradoxical need to achieve high reliabilitywhile maintaining efficient operations.

We sug-gest that for environments where knowledge work isinterdisciplinary and highly contextualized, the rele-vant lens is one of practice. Practices emerge from anongoing stream of activities and are enacted throughthe contextualized actions of individuals (Orlikowski2000). These practices are driven by a practical logic,thatis,arecognitionofnoveltaskdemands,emergentsituations,andtheunpredictabilityofevolvingaction.Bourdieu (1990, p. 12) definespracticesas generativeformulas reflecting the modus operandi (manner ofworking) in contrast to the opus operatum (finishedwork).

In knowledge work, several related factors sug-gest the need to reconceptualize coordination.

Usinga practice lens (Brown and Duguid 2001, Orlikowski2000), we suggest that in settings where work iscontextualized and nonroutine, traditional models ofcoordination are insufficient to explain coordinationas it occurs in practice. First, because expertise is dis-tributed and work highly contextualized, expertisecoordination is required to manage knowledge andskill interdependencies. Second, to avoid error andto ensure that the patient remains on a recoveringtrajectory, fast-response cross-boundary coordinationpractices are enacted. Because of the epistemic dis-tance between specialists organized in communitiesofpractice,theselattercoordinationpracticesmagnifyknowledge differences and are partly contentious.

In this paper, we focus on the collective perfor-manceaspectofcoordinationandemphasizethetem-poral unfolding and situated nature of coordinativeaction. We address how knowledge work is coor-dinated in organizations where decisions must bemade rapidly and where errors can be fatal.

Creating KGs is not trivial.

Instructional Design Strategies for Intensive Online Courses: An Objectivist-Constructivist Blended Approach

At the intersection of technology and pedagogy:considering styles of learning and teaching

Distance Education Trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration

One of the proposals would be togenerate more spaces for sharing knowledges. Eg providing virtual spaces, eg I have done this, what has and hasn ́t worked. I admire what you do in Unitierra, and the Zapatista, and my context is very different, so we need to change the way of looking atthings.

To document this confluence, and in which way we are building this knowledge—not only logical, but emotional and relational. Putting much more the tools of knowledge building.

cash crops

Another big takeaway from decades of scientific research is that, while we use our eyes to read, the starting point for reading is sound. What a child must do to become a reader is to figure out how the words she hears and knows how to say connect to letters on the page. Writing is a code humans invented to represent speech sounds. Kids have to crack that code to become readers.

The basic assumption that underlies typical reading instruction in many schools is that learning to read is a natural process, much like learning to talk. But decades of scientific research has revealed that reading doesn't come naturally. The human brain isn't wired to read. Kids must be explicitly taught how to connect sounds with letters — phonics.

Far from ‘competition’ supposedly driving ‘innovation’, Connell (2013) argues that it does the reverse. In the first instance, what a neo-liberal conception of the university produces, is the ‘reproduction of global dependency’ (p. 2)—through a ‘neocolonial dependence...built into performativity through international rankings of journals, depart-ment and universities’, whereby local intellectual cultures are under-mined and obliterated through an unhealthy reliance on ‘impact factors and ‘citations’ (p. 2). Secondly, the ‘entrenchment of social hierarchies in knowledge production and circulation’ (p. 2), act to further sediment privilege in the already advantaged—institutionally, in Australia in the older so-called ‘sandstone’ universities, and individually in the scions of the privileged who attend them.

Transformed in this process is the very nature of knowledge:Neoliberalization replaces education aimed at deepening and broadening intelligence and sensibilities, developing historical consciousness and her-meneutic adroitness, acquiring diverse knowledge and literacies, becom-ing theoretically capacious and politically and socially perspicacious, with [forms of] education aimed at honing technically-skilled entrepreneurial actors adept at gaming any system. (p. 123)

Other foundational accounts, like Moglen (1999) and Weber (2004),attended to the emergence of informal hierarchies and governance arrange-ments within communities.

Peer productioncould, Benkler argued, outperform traditional organizational forms underconditions of widespread access to networked communications technologies,a multitude of motivations driving contributions, and non-rival informationcapable of being broken down into granular, modular, and easy-to-integrate

knowledge workers—business professionals who interpret and transform information (Drucker, 1973).

Part of the reason is because an undergraduate education doesn't really train a person to think like a scientist. Instead, undergraduates focus on learning the large amount of foundational material in a field. It really isn't until graduate school (or after several years at the bench) that a person is taught how to generate new knowledge in the field. Once you can generate new knowledge in the field, then you call yourself a scientist.

Actually, no, it hasn't, no matter what the Bunny's sign says. The scientific method is designed specifically to root out bias and false assumptions, including political ones. Sure, individual scientists can be political, but the scientific method is not. Its ideological agnosticism is why it works so well. In fact, the self-correcting nature of science means it is the best source of secular knowledge that humankind possesses.

And the fourth concerns the idea of the adjacent possible. It just may be the case that biospheres on average keep expanding into the adjacent possible. By doing so they increase the diversity of what can happen next. It may be that biospheres, as a secular trend, maximize the rate of exploration of the adjacent possible.

We are met at the very threshold of that realm with a statement which is calculated to check our steps for the moment, and if we approach with a sense of knowing or possessing anything already, with a sense of contentment, of personal satisfaction, or with any sense other than that of needing to know everything, then this word should bring us to a standstill at once: "...no one knoweth the Son, save the Father..." Maybe we thought we knew something about the Lord Jesus, and that we had ability to know; that study, and listening, and various other forms of our own application and activity could bring us to a knowledge, but at the outset we are told that "...no one knoweth the Son, save the Father..." All that the Son is, is locked up with the Father, and He alone knows.