Modelling Dimensions of ‘the Social’ in Knowledge Teams: An Operationalisation of Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of knowledge teams, as a new form of work organisation, is one of many institutional transformations associated with the knowledge economy. The research on the effects of this new form of work organisation on the social processes by which knowledge workers exchange, create, and apply knowledge is limited. The research that does exist uses various communication theories to explain the social interactions within knowledge teams. We offer an alternative theoretical framework, based on Habermas’ theory of communicative action. In this paper, we operationalise the theory using dynamic agent-based modelling to perform a series of ‘virtual experiments’ on the temporal dynamics of knowledge exchange within teams. The modelling results are used to critically reflect on the theory and draw conclusions regarding the lifeworld rationalisation within knowledge teams. The paper closes by specifying areas of future work and suggesting that a practical outcome of the completed research agenda will be an evaluation tool to be used by knowledge teams to assess how effective they are at communicating and producing knowledge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it