Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Palgrave Macmillan , New York , 2009 , ISBN: 978-0230611733 , hardback, £45 , pp. 248 . This book is an empirical look inside the world of R&D co-workers, where individuals choose to share and not share knowledge with one another. It is a rigorous examination of the social mechanisms that come into play in the decision to voluntarily communicate scientific know-how with someone inside one's own firm. The book is noteworthy for its revelations into the darker side of interactions among scientists – the causes and rationale for denying a colleague's request for assistance. The book is multi-method in its approach, combining both survey and open-ended responses. The book offers insights for both scholar and practitioner. The practitioner will want to turn their attention to the introductory chapter, which provides a clear summary of findings, many of which are actionable. In fact, both academic and R&D manager would be advised to read the foreword to the book crafted by Melissa Appleyard, who laid the groundwork for this study (Appleyard, 1996). Her insights alone make this book worth further scrutiny. The book's research design is exemplar; it is both detailed and well structured. R&D work is technologically dispersed, covering a growing array of scientific disciplines with often increasingly deeper and broader bases of knowledge, while at the same time, R&D activity may be physically quite scattered across the globe. Ensign models the entrepreneurial decision to share or not to share knowledge as an event that is situated in time where consideration of past and future play a role. Reputation is seen as comprising past behaviour and expected action. The incident of sharing or not sharing with a fellow R&D scientist within the firm is also situated realistically. A potential recipient of knowledge looking for assistance with a basic research problem is more likely to find the holder of knowledge willing to share than a potential recipient seeking assistance with a technological problem that is much closer to commercialization. While we have responses to past events and future expectations in Ensign's book, getting both sides of the dyad or a wider swath of interactions in the network would be instructive – particularly if they were recorded as events unfold, as exchanges build off one another and reputations ebb and flow. Ensign himself notes that it would be worthwhile to look at the role of these social mechanisms of governance in situations involving the exchange of tangible assets – where a contract might suffice. Transmission of knowledge is often not simply a dichotomous event; there are gradients to success and effort taken. While Ensign explored situations in which technological expertise was sought informally, which may result in meaningful intellectual collisions and two-way sharing, it is probable that creative sparks also fly when knowledge is shared without a request. This too might warrant our scrutiny.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».