| 1. |
- Bergquist, Magnus, 1960-, et al.
(författare)
-
From fever to flu : The rhetoric of reporting Asia in a Swedish business magazine
- 1999
-
Ingår i: AI & Society. - London : Springer London. - 0951-5666 .- 1435-5655. ; 13:3, s. 235-246
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this paper some aspects of the stereotyping of China and Japan are explored by using a sample of articles from a Swedish business magazine. The main objective is to show how stereotypes are adapted to capture new developments in economy and technology. During the years of high hopes for the largest Asian economies, stereotypes proved to be far from timeless and unchanging. Also a large number of metaphors were used to express perceived similarities between East and West, further undermining tradi-tional Western understanding of Asia as inert and eternally different. The recent decline of Japan put an end to this, creating a return to a vocabulary of cultural characterisations and explanations.
|
|
| 2. |
- Bergquist, Magnus, 1960, et al.
(författare)
-
Practising Peer Review in Organizations: a Qualifier for Knowledge Dissemination and Legitimization
- 2001
-
Ingår i: Journal of Information Technology. - London : SAGE Publications. ; 16:2, s. 99-112
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- A key issue in many organizations is how to disseminate information in an effective way and, more importantly, how to make use of this information in order to create new knowledge. One way of addressing this problem is to focus on how information is socially transformed into knowledge. This includes how knowledge is handled in practice and how the knowledge produced is quali ed as being something worth knowing and acting upon. Two well-established practices for doing this are the refereeing system and the peer review process. These are used in scienti c communities as a means of validating and legitimating knowledge, for example by reviewing journal papers before publishing or project proposals before granting funds, etc. This paper argues that peer review is a useful concept when looking at knowledge creation and legitimization in organizations. The social meaning of peer review is to legitimize new knowledge by organizationally sanctioning it and thereby creating a platform for collective sense making. This paper uses an example from a eld study in a pharmaceutical company in order to illustrate this argument. The study took place in a quality support department where the quality of health care products and processes was assessed. The organization had a need for fast and reliable updating of information that could in uence how the production process of pharmaceuticals should be carried out. In order to cope with these problems the department established an ‘evaluation loop’, which shared several characteristics with the peer review process.
|
|
| 3. |
- Bergquist, Magnus, 1960, et al.
(författare)
-
The Power of Gifts: Organizing Social Relationships in Open Source Communities
- 2001
-
Ingår i: Information Systems Journal. - Chichester : Wiley. ; 11:4, s. 305-320
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In writings on the open source software development model, it is often argued that it is successful as a result of the gift economy that embraces activities in online communities. However, the theoretical foundations for this argument are seldom discussed and empirically tested. Starting with the ‘classic’ theories of gift giving, we discuss how they need to be developed in order to explain giftgiving practices in digital domains. In this paper, we argue that the gift economy is important, not only because it creates openness, but also because it organizes relationships between people in a certain way. Open source software development relies on gift giving as a way of getting new ideas and prototypes out into circulation. This also implies that the giver gets power from giving away. This power is used as a way of guaranteeing the quality of the code. We relate this practice to how gifts, in the form of new scientific knowledge, are given to the research community, and how this is done through peer review processes.
|
|
