Information systems for supporting the Hegelian model have been the concern of some researchers, including Mitroff and Mason. Mason (1969) introduced the Hegelian approach to strategic planning. Mitroff (1971) developed a mathematical model of the Hegelian Dialectical Inquirer using Bayesian probability theory and Ackoff’s Behavioral Theory of Communication. Nelson and Mitroff (1974) conducted an experiment con- cerned with the investigation of presentation formats for Dialectic Information Systems (DIS) that generate information for a decision maker by means of intense conflict between proponents of two radically opposed positions, theories, and points of view. Mason (1981) introduced systemic information systems, the purpose of which is to expose assumptions or views-of-the-world so that they may be examined and reconsidered. He stated that “an information system is said to be dialectical if it examines data completely and logically with at least two different and opposing sets of assumptions or from two different points of view” (p. 93).
Also, other researchers have suggested that advanced information technologies may contribute to removing barriers to Hegelian inquiry within an organization. Klein and Hirschheim (1985) propose different roles for information systems to support a Hegelian- like pluralist concept of inquiry by removing barriers such as limited access, cost of communication, and emotional inhibition. By applying Harbermas’ theory to information systems, Lyytinen and Hirschheim (1988) argued that new forms of information systems need to be developed which facilitate discursive action and suggest the need for new and novel types of teleconferencing systems, GDSS, electronic brainstorming systems, and so forth. Based on Toulmin’s (1958) work, Nissen (1989) recognized communicative and discursive elements of information systems use. Lyytinen (1992) also suggested the potentional use of IS to harness discursive activity in organizations. Ngwenyama and Lyytinen (1997) provided groupware applications to support discursive and strategic as well as instrumental and communicative action.
Visual Tools
Visual tools are extremely useful in helping to see the processes and interactions within complex systems such as the wicked environments of Hegelian inquiring organizations.
For example, cognitive mapping is a set of techniques for understanding people’s perceptions about the structure of their environment. These perceptions are represented graphically in the form of box and arrow diagrams that show concepts (boxes) and relationships (arrows) between concepts (Sheetz et al., 1994). The cognitive map represents mental models that explain perceptions of the world. Cognitive maps are valuable tools for making thinking visible, and they are very effective in working with groups to discover all the members’ perceptions. The role of cognitive maps goes beyond the representation of thinking and learning of an individual. Maps can be developed for groups and organizations by aggregating maps from individuals by direct group mapping and inference from documentary evidence that relates to an organization (Eden, 1992).
Hodges’s (1991) Dialectron is a prototype system that supports diametrically opposed cognitive maps of a problem domain and manages the dialog necessary to generate synthesis. Two cognitive mapping tools, COCOMAP (Lee, Courtney & O’Keefe, 1992) and Spider (Boland, Tenkasi & Te’eni, 1994) have been designed to allow organizational members to represent their interpretations and to facilitate dialog with others through exchanging and merging their cognitive maps. Other computer tools that have been developed for cognitive mapping and illustration of feedback loops include Belvedere, developed by the Learning Research and Development Center at the University of Pittsburgh, the COPE software package (Sheetz et al., 1994), and Decision Explorer byScolari Software.
Also, other specific instruments like Schon and Rein’s (1994) frame analysis and Kelly’s repertoire grid technique (Shaw & Gaines, 1995) can be very useful for understanding the differences of individual phenomena. Schon and Rein (1994) suggested frame analysis to understand different actors’ mental structures, appreciations, world making, or framing. Depending on one’s frame, situations are imbued with different meanings.
Advanced computer tools can be designed and used to support the analysis of various actors’ frames. Based on personal construct psychology that emphasizes the idiographic nature of individual constructions of the world, Shaw and Gaines (1995) and their colleagues have introduced computer-based tools for eliciting and comparing different construction systems. Building on Kelly’s concept of learning experiments Harri- Augstein and Thomas (1991) developed the idea of learning conversations. These tools and techniques would help people and groups understand their own frames—perspec- tive making—as well as others’—perspective taking—and help develop mutual under- standing of each other. Boland and Tenkasi (1995) proposed five classes of forum-based electronic communication systems to support knowledge work by helping construct strong frames within a community of knowing and exchange them between communities.
For effective perspective taking, the terms translation, marginal people, and boundary objects developed by Star and Griesemer (1989) might offer social strategies for promot- ing the spread of knowledge between communities (Brown & Duguid, 1998).
Argumentation and Negotiation Systems
Some information systems have been designed to support argumentation and negotia- tion in groups using several different information technologies and techniques, such as hypertext, Internet technology, multimedia, and artificial intelligence. These systems help produce free debates and encourage dialog in groups. Ideally, they provide more multiple diverse perspectives on the focal information, and thus, group members find the differences among mental models of members. Finally, the group comes up with a new expanded solution to the problem. For example, Rittel (1970) developed the IBIS (Issue- Based Information Systems) notation to encourage debates among members by raising new issues. IBIS starts with a Question. The response to the Question is one or more Ideas. An Argument provides support for or against one or more of the Ideas. Based on Rittel’s work, Conklin and Begeman (1988) designed the gIBIS system, a hypertext prototype of IBIS, to facilitate a team conducting debates by building a graphical argumentation structure. Corporate Memory System, Inc. (1993) developed a commercial collaborative system called QuestMap, a hypermedia groupware system. In this system, rationale and debates are stored as audio, video, reports, spreadsheets, and more.
Hypermedia integrates all different forms of artifacts together. This kind of system not only provides free debates about wicked problems but also captures the debates so that they are available to support future decisions (Balasubramaniam & Sengupta, 1995;
Hashim, 1991; Tweed, 1998).
In the field of Human-Computer Interaction there is ongoing research about argumen- tation-based design rationales and notations to support them. DRL (Decision Represen- tation Language) and the QOC scheme (Questions, Options, and Criteria) are examples (Buckingham Shum, 1996). The DRL allows participants to explore Alternatives, back them up by Claims, and argue through Questions and Counter-Claims (Buckingham Shum, 1996). The QOC scheme is very similar to IBIS, starting with Questions. Options are alternative answers to the Questions. Criteria are used to assess the relative superiority of Options (Buckingham Shum, 1996).
There is also ongoing research on negotiation support systems (NSS) (e.g., Jain &
Solomon, 2000; Jarke et al., 1996; Kersten & Noronha, 1999) to support, formalize, and help visualize heterogeneous viewpoints. Dialectical structured languages to support argumentation and negotiation have also been developed. For example, ARBAS (Action- Resource Based Argumentation Support) was developed to provide a computer-based platform for exchange of dialectical arguments between parties involved in a negotiated situation (Bodart et al., 1997).
Computational dialectics, the subject matter of which is mathematical models of norms of rational discourse, can serve to support Hegelian inquiry. Computational dialectics is concerned with modeling a large process of argumentation and designing computer systems for supporting argumentation and negotiation in groups. Examples are Zeno and D3E (Buckingham Shum, 1996). Zeno (Gordon & Karacapilidis, 1997) is a mediating system based on Rittel’s IBIS model. The Zeno system offers assistance to mediators and other trusted third parties by providing an issue-based discussion forum or conferencing system. The Zeno system is designed to support the retrieval, use, and reuse of information practices and knowledge in cooperative distributed planning and decision-
making procedures on the World Wide Web. The system consists of four layers: logic, argumentation framework, actions, and protocol. The logic layer formalizes the notions of consequence and contradiction. In the argumentation layer, concepts such as claim, supporting argument, counter-argument, and issue are defined. The action layer defines the possible kinds of actions. The protocol layer defines the rights and responsibilities of the participants to perform the actions in the action layer. Zeno provides another dimension of information technology support for Virtual Hegelian inquiring organiza- tions through the World Wide Web and geographical information systems.
The Effects of Computer-Mediated Communication
It has been suggested that computer-mediated communication (CMC) may lead to democratizing effects on communications among members within and between organi- zations. Sproull and Kiesler (1991) claimed that computer-based communication could alleviate barriers and distortions in organizational communication and can create oppor- tunities for new connections among people. CMC systems may equalize communication opportunities for all organizational members (Hiltz & Turoff, 1978; Kiesler, 1986). CMC and GDSS technology can lead to dispersion of power and influence and to reduced dominance by powerful members of the community (DeSanctis & Gallupe, 1987). Further emerging technologies such as those for collaborative work, multimedia communica- tions, and information dissemination systems using intranet technology can be useful in Hegelian environments by helping to flatten the structure of organizations and promote dissemination of information to all members. Such technologies may help members of an organization to team build a shared vision and values. Ouksel, Mihavics and Chalos’s (1997) simulation-based study indicates that learning in organizations with flatter structures is generally faster than in hierarchies. Therefore, such technologies are expected to enable organizational members and groups to increase the speed of their learning.
Many studies show that rich media are better suited to perform tasks that are high in ambiguity, such as those found in wicked domains. Daft and Lengel’s (1986) study shows that equivocality resolution requires rich media, while uncertainty reduction occurs best in lean media. Rana and Turoff (1996) point out that a rich medium of communication is critical to the successful performance of group tasks involving conflictual approaches.
High equivocality requires a rich medium of communication, such as face-to-face meetings. Today, face-to-face meetings can be simulated with advanced video conferencing systems supported by high-bandwidth computer networks. Such tech- nologies enable members of an organizational unit or project team to collaborate across time and distance barriers while sitting in their offices (Balasubramanian, 1997).
Among available information technologies, hypermedia may be ideal for capturing knowledge that is hard to formalize and for linking ideas raised by team members (Buckingham Shum, 1996). Multimedia databases and advanced case-based reasoning techniques may be helpful for storing and retrieving dynamic and unsanctioned knowl- edge gained in Hegelian inquiring organizations (Kakola, 1995). Further combining multiple technologies, such as video-conferencing systems, multimedia communication, and multimedia databases, may offer the opportunity to produce more stories, capture
them with their drama and emotion, and make them more accessible to organizational members, thereby promoting more effective dialogs and organizational progress.