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.
BYRNED. (1998) Complexity theory and the social sciences.London: Routledge.
2.
CILLIERSP. (1998) Complexity and Post-modernism.London: Routledge.
3.
CONTRACTORN., and MONGEP. (2002) Managing knowledge networks.Management Communications Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 249–258.
4.
DAVENPORTT., and PRUSAKL. (1998) Working knowledge: How organisations manage what they know.Harvard Business School Press: Boston.
5.
DRUCKERP. (1998) Peter Drucker on the profession of management.Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press
6.
ELIASN. (1994) The Civilising Process. (Trans.) E. Jephcott. Revised Edition. (Ed.) DunningE., GoudsblomJ., & MennellS.. Blackwell Publishing.
7.
EVER., HORSFALLS., and LEEM.E. (editors) (1997) Chaos, Complexity and Sociology.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
GIDDENSA. (1984) The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration.Los Angeles: University of California Press.
9.
GÖDELK. (1962) On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and related systems I. Trans. by B. Meltzer. Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Books.
10.
HABERMASJ. (2006) Political communication in media society: does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension?Communication Theory, Vol. 16. pp. 411–426.
11.
HABERMASJ. (1996) Moral consciousness and communicative action.Trans. by C. Lenhardt and S. W. Nicholsen. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
12.
HABERMASJ. (1987) The theory of communicative action: lifeworld and system: a critique of functionalism reason. Vol II.Trans. by Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.
13.
HABERMASJ. (1984) The theory of communicative action: reason and the rationalisation of society. Vol. I.Trans. by Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.
14.
HOLLANDJ. (1995) Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity.MA: Perseus.
15.
JACOBSONT. (July, 2004) Measuring communicative action for political and development participation. Paper presented at the International Association for Media and Communication Research. Porto Alegre, Brazil.
16.
KLUVERJ. (2004) The evolution of social geometry.Complexity, Vol. 9, no. 1. pp. 13–22. [doi: 10.1002/cplx.10114]
17.
KLUVERJ. (2002) An essay concerning sociocultural evolution.Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
18.
KLUVERJ., and SCHMIDTJ. (1999) Topology, metric and dynamics of social systems. Journal of artificial Societies and Social Simulation, <http://www.soc.surrey,ac.uk/JASSS/2/3/7.html>
19.
KNORR-CETINAK. (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the sciences make knowledge.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
LUHMANNN. (1990) Essays on self-reference.New York: Columbia University Press.
21.
MINGERSJ. (2004) Can social systems be autopoietic? Bhaskar's and Giddens’ social theories.Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, Vol. 34, no. 4. pp. 403–427. [doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5914.2004.00256.x]
22.
MORGAND., (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combing qualitative and quantitative methods.Journal of Mixed Methods Research,1 (1). 48–76. [doi: 10.1177/2345678906292462]
PALAZZOLOE., SERBD., SHEY., SUC., and CONTRACTORN. (2006) Coevolution of communication knowledge networks in transactive memory systems: Using computational models for theoretical development.Communication Theory, Vol. 16. pp. 233–250. [doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00269.x]
25.
PRIGOGINEI. (1997) The end of certainty.New York: The Free Press.
26.
QUINLANE., and ROBERTSONS. (2010). Mutual Understanding within Multi-Disciplinary Primary Health Care Teams.The Journal of Inter-Professional Care, 24. Posted online 26 January 2010: 1-23. <http://informahealthcare.com/toc/jic/0/0> (Forthcoming in print August 2010).
27.
SIMMELG. (1950) The sociology of Georg Simmel. Trans. by Reinhard Bendix. In Georg Simmel,Conflict and the web of group affiliations.Glencoe, Ill: Free Press.
28.
STEWARTP. (2001) Complexity theories, social theory, and the question of social complexity.Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 31, no. 3. pp. 323–360. [doi: 10.1177/004839310103100303]
29.
SZULANSKIG. (2003) Sticky knowledge: barriers to knowing in the firm.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
TURNERB. (2006) Classical sociology and cosmopolitanism.British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 57, no. 1. pp. 133–151. [doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2006.00097.x]
31.
TURNERE. (1997) Forward: Chaos and social systems. In EveR.A., HorsfallS., & LeeM.E. (editors) Chaos, complexity, and sociology. (pp. xi–xxvii). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
URRYJ. (2005) The complexity turn.Theory, Culture, and Society, Vol. 22, no. 5. pp. 1–14. [doi: 10.1177/0263276405057188]
33.
WENGERE.2000) Communities of practice: The key to knowledge strategy.In E. Less, M. Fontaine, J. Slusher (editor) Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
34.
WENGERE.1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity.New York: Cambridge University Press.
35.
WENGERE., McDERMOTTR., and SnyderW. (2002) Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
