Lots to think about within this matrix format: between dualities.
Nevertheless, standing back a bit I see 'groups' have actual and potential timelines. When I worked both across and within some civil service structures, we sometimes referred to 'institutional memory', which provided often a continuity of 'behaviour/knowledge' in the form mostly of an accepted or defined 'role' (i.e. 'context') and an 'accepted expertise' along with 'assumptions/attitude'. Membership included internalising and/or contributing to the institutional memory.
Given often group historical timelines, I would value identifying the many strands of philosophical assumptions that are commonplace, often dating back to antiquity, perhaps identifying their modern glosses; thus for example, 'utility', determinism', or what MacIntyre called 'emotivism', along with logical positivism et al. (I am not a philosopher, please forgive me spraying terms around.)
Similarly, 'information' is not always a useful category because it comes usually heavily contaminated with plausible factoids, (this is a 'scientific' age), built into an 'accepted' or 'acceptable' group knowledge base?
Likewise, 'attitude' to other groups' motives is often critical in directing group knowledge acquisition, and we are often enough presented with 'information' in something more like a complex interactive Venn structure than a quadrant?
Thanks. My article was a start on this issue and you've identified some important extra factors to consider in the future. Alongside time, there is an interesting question of who (and what!) to include in an epistemic community. Often those who have come before are still an important player in the group, as sometimes are rules and norms. For many people their tools or instruments play an interesting role.
And that's a good point about 'information'. I use it in a very neutral sense but I need to make that clearer.
This is great. Two dimensions represents a useful staring frame. But I wonder it is too abstract. Is there another dimension needed around 'purpose' (that what the information is going to be used for)?
Lots to think about within this matrix format: between dualities.
Nevertheless, standing back a bit I see 'groups' have actual and potential timelines. When I worked both across and within some civil service structures, we sometimes referred to 'institutional memory', which provided often a continuity of 'behaviour/knowledge' in the form mostly of an accepted or defined 'role' (i.e. 'context') and an 'accepted expertise' along with 'assumptions/attitude'. Membership included internalising and/or contributing to the institutional memory.
Given often group historical timelines, I would value identifying the many strands of philosophical assumptions that are commonplace, often dating back to antiquity, perhaps identifying their modern glosses; thus for example, 'utility', determinism', or what MacIntyre called 'emotivism', along with logical positivism et al. (I am not a philosopher, please forgive me spraying terms around.)
Similarly, 'information' is not always a useful category because it comes usually heavily contaminated with plausible factoids, (this is a 'scientific' age), built into an 'accepted' or 'acceptable' group knowledge base?
Likewise, 'attitude' to other groups' motives is often critical in directing group knowledge acquisition, and we are often enough presented with 'information' in something more like a complex interactive Venn structure than a quadrant?
Thanks. My article was a start on this issue and you've identified some important extra factors to consider in the future. Alongside time, there is an interesting question of who (and what!) to include in an epistemic community. Often those who have come before are still an important player in the group, as sometimes are rules and norms. For many people their tools or instruments play an interesting role.
And that's a good point about 'information'. I use it in a very neutral sense but I need to make that clearer.
This is great. Two dimensions represents a useful staring frame. But I wonder it is too abstract. Is there another dimension needed around 'purpose' (that what the information is going to be used for)?