Matching Items (7)
Filtering by
- Genre: Doctoral Dissertation
Description
Most people are experts in some area of information; however, they may not be knowledgeable about other closely related areas. How knowledge is generalized to hierarchically related categories was explored. Past work has found little to no generalization to categories closely related to learned categories. These results do not fit well with other work focusing on attention during and after category learning. The current work attempted to merge these two areas of by creating a category structure with the best chance to detect generalization. Participants learned order level bird categories and family level wading bird categories. Then participants completed multiple measures to test generalization to old wading bird categories, new wading bird categories, owl and raptor categories, and lizard categories. As expected, the generalization measures converged on a single overall pattern of generalization. No generalization was found, except for already learned categories. This pattern fits well with past work on generalization within a hierarchy, but do not fit well with theories of dimensional attention. Reasons why these findings do not match are discussed, as well as directions for future research.
ContributorsLancaster, Matthew E (Author) / Homa, Donald (Thesis advisor) / Glenberg, Arthur (Committee member) / Chi, Michelene (Committee member) / Brewer, Gene (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
Advancing sustainable food systems requires holistic understanding and solutions-oriented approaches that transcend disciplines, so expertise in a variety of subjects is necessary. Proposed solutions are usually technically or socially oriented, but disagreement over the best approach to the future of food dominates the dialogue. Technological optimists argue that scientific advances are necessary to feed the world, but environmental purists believe that reductions in consumption and waste are sufficient and less risky. Life cycle assessment (LCA) helps resolve debates through quantitative analysis of environmental impacts from products which serve the same function. LCA used to compare dietary choices reveals that simple plant-based diets are better for the environment than diets that include animal products. However, analysis of soy protein isolate (SPI) demonstrates that certain plant-based proteins may be less preferable for the environment than some unprocessed meats in several categories due to additional impacts that come from industrial processing. LCAs' focus on production risks ignoring consumers, but the food system exists to serve consumers, who can be major drivers of change. Therefore, the path to a sustainable food system requires addressing consumption issues as well. Existing methods for advancing sustainable food systems that equate more information with better behavior or performance are insufficient to create change. Addressing food system issues requires sufficient tacit knowledge to understand how arguments are framed, what the supporting content is, the findings of primary sources, and complex and controversial dialogue surrounding innovations and interventions for food system sustainability. This level of expertise is called interactional competence and it is necessary to drive and maintain holistic progress towards sustainability. Development strategies for interactional competence are informed by studying the motivations and strategies utilized by vegans. A new methodology helps advance understanding of expertise development by assessing levels of expertise and reveals insights into how vegans maintain commitment to a principle that influences their daily lives. The study of veganism and expertise reveals that while providing information to debunk fallacies is important, the development of tacit knowledge is fundamental to advance to a stage of competence.
ContributorsBerardy, Andrew (Author) / Seager, Thomas P (Thesis advisor) / Hannah, Mark (Committee member) / Costello, Christine (Committee member) / Landis, Amy (Committee member) / Wharton, Christopher (Christopher Mack), 1977- (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
Description
Corporations in biomedicine hold significant power and influence, in both political and personal spheres. The decisions these companies make about ethics are critically important, as they help determine what products are developed, how they are developed, how they are promoted, and potentially even how they are regulated. In the last fifteen years, for-profit private companies have been assembling bioethics committees to help resolve dilemmas that require informed deliberation about ethical, legal, scientific, and economic considerations. Private sector bioethics committees represent an important innovation in the governance of emerging technologies, with corporations taking a lead role in deciding what is ethically appropriate or problematic. And yet, we know very little about these committees, including their structures, memberships, mandates, authority, and impact. Drawing on an extensive literature review and qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with executives, scientists and board members, this dissertation provides an in-depth analysis of the Ethics and Public Policy Board at SmithKline Beecham, the Ethics Advisory Board at Advanced Cell Technology, and the Bioethics Committee at Eli Lilly and offers insights about how ideas of bioethics and governance are currently imagined and enacted within corporations. The SmithKline Beecham board was the first private sector bioethics committee; its mandate was to explore, in a comprehensive and balanced analysis, the ethics of macro trends in science and technology. The Advanced Cell Technology board was created to be like a watchdog for the company, to prevent them from making major errors. The Eli Lilly board is different than the others in that it is made up mostly of internal employees and does research ethics consultations within the company. These private sector bioethics committees evaluate and construct new boundaries between their private interests and the public values they claim to promote. Findings from this dissertation show that criticisms of private sector bioethics that focus narrowly on financial conflicts of interest and a lack of transparency obscure analysis of the ideas about governance (about expertise, credibility and authority) that emerge from these structures and hamper serious debate about the possible impacts of moving ethical deliberation from the public to the private sector.
ContributorsBrian, Jennifer (Author) / Robert, Jason S (Thesis advisor) / Maienschein, Jane (Committee member) / Hurlbut, James B (Committee member) / Sarewitz, Daniel (Committee member) / Brown, Mark B. (Committee member) / Moreno, Jonathan D. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
The main purpose of this action research study was to understand the most appropriate methods to replicate expertise and expert performance in an ever-changing and dynamic global organization. It was also meant to empower team members in becoming more decisive experts within their respective fields/domains. In this study, ten (10) “snackable” videos were created to support microlearning on expertise. Interviews were conducted with experts across Microsoft spanning the United States, Latin America, and Europe. Using knowledge management theory, deliberate practice, and organizational learning theory helped create the framework. Phenomenological inquiry, narrative inquiry, and digital storytelling supported the enactment of the study. The Expert-to-Expert Practice Framework (E2EPF) is a capability that was created to connect outsider knowledge with internal requirements using sensemaking, knowledge creation, and team building. It was developed to address the many challenges of building and fostering expertise within a hybrid workplace. The study was conducted during a six-month period starting from March 2022 to September 2022. Ten Microsoft experts, six team members, and one leader participated in this study that included interviews, expert panel discussions, surveys, and the development of the next generation of expert profiles. The qualitative data from this study provides a much richer understanding of the phenomenon of expertise within a global workplace. Insider experts identified that the E2EPF was able to create a differentiated experience for their practice within a relatively short time frame. Four phenomenological themes and the essence of expertise emerged from the data which indicates the effective utilization of the practice framework.
ContributorsMcLean, Leroy (Author) / Wolf, Leigh-Graves (Thesis advisor) / Hall, Allison (Committee member) / Fitzloff, Mark (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2023
Description
Northeastern Arizona has experienced a recent increase in helium extraction activity. This qualitative case study articulates and explores various sociotechnical imaginaries – or, collectively produced social justifications for technological decisions and systems – that inform this new stage of underground helium extraction. Leveraging two years of interviews, document analysis, and participant observations to understand and interrogate the political and cultural origins of perceptions around helium extraction, I examined how these imaginaries and associated power dynamics influenced communication within and between stakeholder groups. In order to mitigate the power differentials between stakeholder groups, and put these imaginaries in conversation with each other, I led the development of a series of short videos that explain controversial technoscientific concepts from this research. These videos were produced in continuous collaboration with multiple disparate stakeholders, including activists, regulators, and industry members, in order to create a space for a productive conversation and reflection to explore tensions between conflicting points of view between stakeholders. This iterative work used the imaginaries of helium extraction in Arizona to produce a space for collective deliberation that can result in negotiated shared knowledge through brokered dialogue amongst these disparate groups and their competing visions of Arizona’s helium futures.
ContributorsBruhis, Noa (Author) / Jalbert, Kirk (Thesis advisor) / Richter, Jennifer (Thesis advisor) / Williams, Wendy R (Committee member) / Jenkins, Lekelia (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022
Description
This dissertation explores the technolinguistic brokering experience of adolescents and (im)migrant non-English speaking mothers in acculturating families. By focusing on the performance of cultural intermediation, I examine the dimensions of technolinguistic brokering and their influence upon the Adolescent Language Technology Broker (ALTB) and mother relationship. Additionally, I explore the factors of power present as a result of the complexities of the ALTBs role to connect their mother to the English speaking community. This research uses a qualitative approach to explore concepts of expertise, knowledge, (inter)dependence, relational maintenance and quality, and power in the dialogic cultural relationship. Research indicates that expertise in the form of culture, cultural interactions, multilingual, and relational maintenance and quality contribute to the ALTBs capabilities in building cultural relationships. Moreover, to assist in dealing with power tensions created by differing levels of expertise and knowledge, ALTBs and mothers communicatively construct an (inter)dependent cultural relationship. I highlight practical implications, discuss limitations, and provide recommendations for future directions.
ContributorsCayetano, Catalina (Author) / Cheong, Pauline (Thesis advisor) / Pettigrew, Jonathan (Committee member) / Romero, Mary (Committee member) / Shin, YoungJu (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2020
Description
This dissertation investigates how ideas of the right relationships among science, the public, and collective decision-making about science and technology come to be envisioned in constructions of public engagement. In particular, it explores how public engagement has come to be constructed in discourse around gene editing to better understand how it holds together with visions for good, democratic governance of those technologies and with what effects. Using a conceptual idiom of the co-production of science and the social order, I investigate the mutual formation of scientific expertise, responsibility, and democracy through constructions of public engagement. I begin by tracing dominant historical narratives of contemporary public engagement as a continuation of public understanding of science’s projects of social ordering for democratic society. I then analyze collections of prominent expert meetings, publications, discussions, and interventions about development, governance, and societal implications human heritable germline gene editing and gene drives that developed in tandem with commitments to public engagement around those technologies. Synthesizing the evidence from across gene editing discourse, I offer a constructive critique of constructions of public engagement as expressions and evidence of scientific responsibility as ultimately reasserting and reinforcing of scientific experts' authority in gene editing decision-making, despite intentions for public engagement to extend decision-making participation and power to publics. Such constructions of public engagement go unrecognized in gene editing discourse and thereby subtly reinforce broader visions of scientific expertise as essential to good governance by underwriting the legitimacy and authority of scientific experts to act on behalf of public interests. I further argue that the reinforcement of scientific expert authority in gene editing discourse through public engagement also centers scientific experts in a sociotechnical imaginary that I call “not for science alone.” This sociotechnical imaginary envisions scientific experts as guardians and guarantors of good, democratic governance. I then propose a possible alternatives to public engagement alone to improve gene editing governance by orienting discourse around notions of public accountability for potential shared benefits and collective harms of gene editing.
ContributorsRoss, Christian (Author) / Hurlbut, James B. (Thesis advisor) / Maienschein, Jane (Thesis advisor) / Collins, James P. (Committee member) / Crow, Michael M. (Committee member) / Sarewitz, Daniel R. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2021