Comparing Conceptual Structures: Consensus, Conflict, Correspondence and Contrast
نویسندگان
چکیده
One problem of eliciting knowledge from several experts is that experts may share only parts of their terminologies and conceptual systems. Experts may use the same term for different concepts, use different terms for the same concept, use the same term for the same concept, or use different terms and have different concepts. Moreover, clients who use an expert system have even less likelihood of sharing terms and concepts with the experts who produced it. This paper outlines a methodology for eliciting and recognizing such individual differences. It can be used to focus discussion between experts on those differences between them which require resolution, enabling them to classify them in terms of differing terminologies, levels of abstraction, disagreements, and so on. The methodology promotes the full exploration of the conceptual framework of a domain of expertise by encouraging experts to operate in a “brain-storming” mode as a group, using differing viewpoints to develop a rich framework. It reduces social pressures forcing an invalid consensus by providing objective analysis of separately elicited conceptual systems.
منابع مشابه
Comparing the Conceptual Systems of Experts
The knowledge to be acquired for the development of knowledge based systems is often distributed across a group of experts rather than available for elicitation from a single expert. Group elicitation presents major problems because experts can disagree on the use of concepts and vocabulary, and this disagreement may be tacit causing confusion. This paper describes a computer-supported methodol...
متن کاملKnowledge Support Systems for Constructively Channeling Conflict in Group Dynamics
The theoretical foundations for individual and collective dynamics are developed in terms of relations between knowledge structures. Neither individuals nor collectives need to be consistent in their knowledge structures to achieve effective performance, and the notion of conflict arises in modeling failures in coordination attributed to such inconsistency. Methodologies for eliciting and model...
متن کاملGovernance and Capacity to Manage Resilience of Health Systems: Towards a New Conceptual Framework
The term resilience has dominated the discourse among health systems researchers since 2014 and the onset of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. There is wide consensus that the global community has to help build more resilient health systems. But do we really know what resilience means, and do we all have the same vision of resilience? The present paper presents a new conceptual framework on go...
متن کاملTrade Union Responses to Immigrants and Ethnic Inequality in Denmark and the UK: The Context of Consensus and Conflict
▪ This article uses interviews with trade union activists in the UK and Denmark to explore union policies towards immigrant and ethnic minority members in each country. Danish policies emphasize education, communication, and awareness-raising, while the British focus on the structures of racism and exclusion, and the need for anti-discrimination and positive action policies. The article suggest...
متن کاملAir Traffic Controller Decision - Making Consistency and Consensus in Conflict Solution
Consistency and consensus in conflict solution performance was investigated in two real-time simulations involving experienced air traffic controllers and trainees. The simulations consisted of participants repeatedly playing a specific en route traffic scenario. Conflict solution performance and consistency was measured by analysing participant’s solutions to a specifically designed conflict. ...
متن کامل