Constructing interdisciplinary knowledge is particularly difficult because scientific knowledge is situated in its discipline. Researchers must find common ground to share, and this causes high transaction costs. This article reports a method of conceptual analysis to elicit, analyse and compare conceptual models used by individual researchers, with the ultimate aim to facilitate researchers in sharing these models. Using this method, an analyst derives concepts and their mutual relations from documents, and defines them in natural language. We qualitatively analysed all writings of four researchers from an interdisciplinary research project and validated the resulting conceptual models in semi-structured interviews. The method was found to be effective in eliciting concepts, even those used implicitly. The interviews also revealed mechanisms by which researchers adopt new concepts or choose particular terms. The analysis costs are high but not prohibitive, and are shown to diminish with each researcher added to the analysis.
M. DuPlessis, The role of knowledge management in innovation, Journal of Knowledge Management1(11) (2007) 20-29.
2.
P.K. Moser, D.H. Mulder and J.D. Trout, The Theory of Knowledge - A Thematic Introduction (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998).
3.
E. Rosch, Reclaiming concepts, The Journal of Consciousness Studies6(11-12) (1999) 61-77.
4.
S. Blackburn (ed.), Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996).
5.
H.H. Clark and E.F. Schaefer, Contributing to discourse, Cognitive Science13 (1989) 259-294.
6.
P. Leroy, Sciences environnementales et interdisciplinarité: une réflexion partant des débats aux Pays-Bas, Natures Sciences Sociétés12 (2004) 274-284.
7.
S.L. Star and K. Ruhleder, Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: design and access for large information spaces, Information Systems Research7(1) (1996) 111-134.
8.
B. Tress, G. Tress and G. Fry, Researchers' experiences, positive and negative, in integrated landscape projects , Environmental Management36 (2005) 792-807.
9.
E. Wenger, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity ( Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998).
10.
C. Despres and D. Chauvel (eds), The Present and the Promise of Knowledge Management (Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA, 2000).
11.
N.K. Kakabadse , A. Kakabadse and A. Kouzmin, Reviewing the knowledge management literature: towards a taxonomy, Journal of Knowledge Management7 (2003) 75-91.
12.
J.S. Brown and P. Duguid, Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified theory of working, learning, and innovation, Organization Science2 (1991) 40-57.
13.
J.S. Brown, A. Collins and P. Duguid, Situated cognition and the culture of learning, Educational Researcher18 (1989) 32-42.
14.
S.L. Star and J.R. Griesemer, Institutional ecology, `translations' and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39, Social Studies of Science19 (1989) 387-420.
15.
A. Kohlhase and M. Kohlhase, Communities of practice in mathematical knowledge management: an extensional model, Lecture Notes in Computer Science4108 (2006) 179-193.
16.
C.R. Nicolson , A.M. Starfield, G.P. Kofinas and J.A. Kruse, Ten Heuristics for Interdisciplinary Modeling Projects, Ecosystems5 (2002) 376-384.
17.
J.A.M. Vennix , Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1996).
18.
D. Shaw, F. Ackermann and C. Eden, Approaches to sharing knowledge in group problem structuring, Journal of the Operational Research Society54 (2003) 936-948.
19.
M. Bresnen , L. Edelman, S. Newell, H. Scarbrough and J. Swan, Social practices and the management of knowledge in project environments, International Journal of Project Management21(3) (2003) 157-166.
20.
R. McDermott , Learning Across Teams: The Role of Communities of Practice in Team Organizations, Knowledge Management Review2(2) (1999) 32-37.
21.
E. Motta, The knowledge modelling paradigm in knowledge engineering. In: S.K. Chang (ed.), Handbook of Software Engineering & Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 1 (World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore, 2002) 589-614.
22.
R. Studer , V.R. Benjamins and D. Fensel, Knowledge engineering: principles and methods, Data & Knowledge Engineering25 (1998) 161-197.
23.
P.H. Speel, A.T. Schreiber, W. van Joolingen, G. van Heijst and G.J. Beijer, Conceptual modelling for knowledge-based systems. In: A. Kent and J.G. Williams (eds) Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology, Vol. 44 ( Marcel Dekker, New York, 2001) 107-132.
24.
A.T. Schreiber , J.M. Akkermans, A.A. Anjewierden, R. de Hoog, N.R. Shadboldt, W. van de Velde and B.J. Wielinga, Knowledge Engineering And Management: The CommonKADS Methodology (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000).
25.
C. Wroe, R. Stevens, C. Goble, A. Roberts, and M. Greenwood, A suite of DAML+OIL ontologies to describe bioinformatics web services and data, International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems12 (2003) 197-224.
26.
J. Greenberg , K. Spurgin and A. Crystal, Functionalities for automatic metadata generation applications: a survey of metadata experts' opinions, International Journal of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies1 (2006) 3-20.
27.
S. Handschuh and S. Staab, CREAM: CREAting Metadata for the semantic web, Computer Networks42 (2003) 579-598.
28.
M. Vargas-Vera , E. Motta, J. Domingue, M. Lanzoni, A. Stutt and F. Ciravegna, MnM: Ontology driven semi-automatic and automatic support for semantic markup. In: Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management: Ontologies and the Semantic Web. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2473 (Springer, Berlin, 2002) 213-221.
29.
T.R. Gruber , Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies43(5-6) (1995) 907-928.
30.
N. Guarino , Formal ontology, conceptual analysis and knowledge representation, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies43 (1995) 293-310.
31.
D. Fensel and E. Motta, Structured Development of Problem Solving Methods, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering13(6) ( 2001) 913-932.
32.
J.M. Bradshaw , K.M. Ford, J.R. Adams-Webber and J.H. Boose, Beyond the repertory grid - new approaches to constructivist knowledge acquisition tool development , International Journal of Intelligent Systems8 (1993) 287-333.
33.
M.A. Meyer and R.C. Paton, Interpreting, representing and integrating scientific knowledge from interdisciplinary projects, Theoria et Historia Scientiarum6(2) (2002) 323-356.
34.
W.Y. Arms , Automated digital libraries: how effectively can computers be used for the skilled tasks of professional librarianship ? D-Lib Magazine: The Magazine of Digital Library Research6(7-8) (2000).
35.
B. Cronin, Bibliometrics and beyond: some thoughts on web-based citation analysis, Journal of Information Science27 ( 2001) 1-7.
36.
S. Fuchs, The Professional Quest for Truth: A Social Theory of Science and Knowledge (State University of New York, Albany, NY, 1992).
37.
H. Hasan and E. Gould, Support for the sense-making activity of managers, Decision Support Systems31 (2001) 71-86.
38.
M. Scardamalia and C. Bereiter, Computer support for knowledge-building communities, Journal of the Learning Sciences3 (1994) 265-283.
39.
E. Garfield, Citation indexing for studying science, Nature227 (1970) 669-671.
40.
H. Small, Visualizing science by citation mapping, Journal of the American Society for Information Science50(9) (1999) 799-813.
41.
D.R. Swanson , Two medical literatures that are logically but not bibliographically connected, Journal of the American Society for Information Science38 (1987 ) 228-233.
42.
D.R. Swanson and N.R. Smalheiser, An interactive system for finding complementary literatures: A stimulus to scientific discovery, Artificial Intelligence91(2) (1997) 183-203.
43.
Y. Kajikawa , K. Abe and S. Noda, Filling the gap between researchers studying different materials and different methods: A proposal for structured keywords , Journal of Information Science32 (2006) 511-524.
44.
V. Uren, P. Cimiano, J. Iria, S. Handschuh, M. Vargas-Vera, E. Motta and F. Ciravegna, Semantic annotation for knowledge management: Requirements and a survey of the state of the art, Journal of Web Semantics4(1) (2006) 14-28.
45.
A.M. MacEachren , M. Gahegan and W. Pike, Visualization for constructing and sharing geo-scientific concepts, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences101 (2004) 5279-5286.
46.
V. Uren, S. Buckingham Shum, M. Bachler and G. Li, Sensemaking tools for understanding research literatures: design, implementation and user evaluation, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies64(5) (2006) 420-445.
47.
P. Shvaiko and J. Euzenat, A survey of schema-based matching approaches. In: S. Spaccapietra (ed.), Journal on Data Semantics IV, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3730 (Springer, Berlin, 2005) 146-171.
48.
D. Pfeiffer and A. Gehlert, A framework for comparing conceptual models, presented at the Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architecture ( Klagenfurt, Austria, 2005).
49.
M.W. Van Someren, P. Reimann, H.P.A. Boshuizen and T. De Jong (eds), Learning with Multiple Representations (Elsevier, Oxford, UK, 1998).
50.
P.J. Beers , H.P.A. Boshuizen, P.A. Kirschner and W. Gijselaers, Common ground, complex problems and decision making, Group Decision and Negotiation15 (2006) 529-556.
51.
P. Buitelaar , P. Cimiano, and B. Magnini, Ontology lerning form text: An overview . In: P. Buitelaar, P. Cimiano and B. Magnini (eds), Ontology Learning from Text: Methods, Evaluation and Applications (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2005).
52.
F. Jackson, From Metaphysics toEthics: A Defence of Conceptual Analysis (Clarendon Press , Oxford, 1998).
53.
J.D. Novak and A.J. Cañas, The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 (Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, 2006). Available at: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf (accessed 31 January 2008).
54.
F. Marton , Phenomenography - a research approach to investigating different understandings of reality, Journal of Thought: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly21 ( 1986) 28-49.
55.
A.L. Strauss , Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1987).
56.
D.C. Dennett , The Intentional Stance ( MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987).
57.
J. Searle , Minds, Brains and programs, Behavioral and Brain Sciences3 ( 1980) 417-457.
58.
S.R. Jones , J.C. Miles and M.W. Read, Standardising the elimination of unnecessary data from interview transcripts for the purpose of knowledge-based systems a case study, Expert Systems13 (2007) 3-13.
59.
J. Novak, Helping knowledge cross boundaries: Using knowledge visualization to support cross-community sensemaking. In: 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Waikoloa, HI, 2007).
60.
P. Haase and J. Völker, Ontology learning and reasoning - Dealing with uncertainty and inconsistency . In: P.C.G. Costa, K.B. Laskey, K.J. Laskey, and M. Pool (eds), Proceedings of the Workshop on Uncertainty Reasoning for the Semantic Web, International Semantic Web Conference (Galway, Ireland, 2005) 45-55.
61.
A. Lenci, S. Montemagni, V. Pirrelli and G. Venturi, NLP-based ontology learning from legal texts. A case study. In: P. Casanovas, M. A. Biasiotti , E. Francesconi, and M.T. Sagri (eds) Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (LOAIT'07) (Stanford University, Stanford, CA, US, 2007) 113-129.
62.
M. Hall, Knowledge management and the limits of knowledge codification, Journal of Knowledge Management10 ( 2006) 117-128.
63.
P.J. Beers and P.W.G. Bots, Facilitating interdisciplinary research into industrial infrastructures. In: 4th International Conference of the International Society for Industrial Ecology (ISIE) (Toronto, Canada, 2007).
