Peter Kastberg

Three perspectives on motivation and multicriteria assessment of organic food systems

Organic food systems are based on a complex of value criteria that often are not explicitly considered when agents think, communicate, and make decisions concerning organic food. Multicriteria assessment (MCA) refers to a group of tools that help the user to tackle such highly complex issues. The question is how an MCA tool should be designed to facilitate reflections, communication, and decision making in relation to organic food systems. A key issue is motivation. There are several divergent theories of motivation, and the question cannot be adequately answered by using any single theory. We discuss an economic, a psychosocial, and a relational perspective on motivation and MCA. Using the example of a consumer assessing and choosing products in the supermarket, the economic conception of motivation offers a focus on decision-making processes. The psychosocial approach to motivation draws attention to the influence of cognitive structures and experience-based emotional drivers. Finally, the relational approach stresses that motivation is situated in the relations between agents. We discuss how the three perspectives converge and diverge regarding the purpose of using an MCA tool, the scope of the MCA, the strategic focus, and challenges and potentials associated with an MCA tool. Through this multiple-perspective approach, the general idea of MCA is expanded and elaborated to refine the design of an MCA tool for organic food systems.

Multimodal Analysis: An Integrative Approach for Scientific Visualizing on the Web

The Multimodal approach offers technical communicators and science writers an analytical tool to synthesize the meaning made in the connections across communicative modes. This multimodal synthesis can help technical communicators better exploit the meaning-making potential of multimodal combinations and understand the needs of future generations shaped by their increasingly developed multimodal literacy.

Promoting communication, participation, and learning with regard to organic food products: a communication theoretical approach

The market for organic foods is growing, the proportion of consumers buying organic foods is, nevertheless, still considered to be low. Relevant research continuously shows that one of the most significant barriers prohibiting consumers from purchasing (more) organic foods is lack of information. Both with regards to organic foods as such as well as to the additional qualities of organic foods compared to conventionally produced foods. This has led the relevant body of research to rally behind a generic call for better organic communication. The same body of research, however, seems to take for granted what makes communication good and that we all agree on what communication is. Within the context of this paper, these underlying assumptions will be challenged from both a theoretical and a practical perspective. With a point of departure in communication theory’s credo-like statement that any model of communication is also a model for communication, I will demonstrate that and how the communicative approach one favors, when communicating about organic foods, critically influences the consumer impact of any instance of organic communication. Applying the communication theoretical formats of transmission, interaction and co-action respectively unto instances of organic communication activities, I will discuss and evaluate to what extent each format encourages participation and learning on the side of the consumer. From these discussions stem several insights: Whereas transmission (typically in the form of monologuous mass communication) is the cost-effective format of choice in much organic communication, it is also a format which bars a sender (e.g., producer or farmer) from gauging deposits in the consumer (be it in the form of understanding the message or trusting the sender for that matter). The format of interaction (typically in the form of dialoguous encounters of different kinds) integrates feedback into communication, thereby allowing the sender to appreciate the level of understanding, trust etc. which the communicative effort has given rise to – albeit at a higher price in terms of money, time and manpower. Last but not least, in the format of co-action (typically in the form of co-operative endeavors) the deposit is a matter of what is co-constructed by the participants – be it understanding or trust or the like. Needless to say, this format satisfies the organic communicators craving for involving the consumer to a much larger degree than the other two formats could ever do; and due to the fact that food is generally seen as a low-involvement commodity, this is critical. But emancipating the consumer, so to speak, comes at a price. First of all, co-actional communication is crucially dependent on highly motivated participants and, secondly, co-actional communication is difficult if not impossible to control.

Appreciating the ties that bind technical communication to culture: a dynamic model to help us understand differences in discourse structure

In order to support an explicit understanding of cultural patterns as both dynamic and structured, we examine Hofstedes model for stabilization of cultural patterns and use this model to explore some cultural consequences for patterns of logic and signs that influence the effectiveness of technical communication across cultures. In order to demonstrate the model, we apply it to examples from different cultures, which show different patterns of logic, terminology, and conventions. In light of these examples, we propose that cross-cultural technical communication studies can be situated in a dynamic context as a foundation for analysis.

On the Discursive Construction of Knowledge Deficits in the ‘Alter’

Our underlying understanding when discussing and analysing the discursive construction of knowledge deficits is that language, knowledge and power are inextricably linked (Foucault 1972). In a workplace setting these intrinsic features become even more pronounced. And even though we concur with Sarangi and Roberts when they state that ‘[w]orkplaces are held together by communicative practices (1999: 1), we should not allow ourselves to overlook the importance of Engestrom et al.’s addition that ‘[o]rganizations may emerge through conversation, but they do not emerge for the sake of conversation. They emerge and continue to exist in order to produce goods, services, or less-clearly-definable outcomes for customers or users. If you take away patients and illnesses, you do not have hospitals’ (1999: 170). When isolating a specific instantiation of workplace-related discourse, namely that of management communication (see section 2) — be it within late capitalist society or new capitalism (Gee et al. 1996) — we are dealing with a field of study where asymmetrical power relationships (Sarangi & Roberts 1999: 6) not only permeate discursive action but indeed structure it — and very openly so.

Research Design – Composition, Configuration and Interdependencies

In this essay I will present an integrative view on research design. I will introduce what I take to be the skeleton components of any research design within the social sciences, i.e. the elements of research question, philosophy of science, methodology, method and data. With this as my point of departure I will go on to focus on a presentation, a discussion and an evaluation of a new appreciation of the interdependencies of the elements in the research design. An appreciation that favors a relational rather than an atomistic outlook and which gives rise to an ecological conceptualization of research design. A research design, in other words, which promotes plasticity and fluidity over adherence to static protocol. And which, at the same time, does not relinquish control over project-relevant, multifaceted decision-making processes – and their respective interdependencies – but which deliberates each and every one of them. The aim of the paper is twofold. At a more abstract level, it aims at paving the way for establishing a reflexive approach to research design which, in turn, would be in tune with the tenets of the field of Organizational Knowledge Communication (e.g. Kastberg, 2014). At a more concrete level, it aims at presenting an idea of research design which would – hopefully – be an inspiration to (young) scholars.

Increasing Specialization of Knowledge Leads to Increasing Fragmentation

As an increasing number of industry reports, annual reports, and market analyses demonstrate, more and more public and private organizations face the challenge of keeping up with rapidly changing and expanding environments, industries, and markets (e.g. CNBC, 2015; KPMG, 2015). Such rapid changes are often caused by new technological innovations (e.g. Internet-of-Things, Big Data and increased connectivity), new policy initiatives (e.g. changed funding structures for specific public institutions), or new disruptive market forces (e.g. Uber, GoMore, or AirBNB). Achieving competitive advantages, market leads, or even just financial stability in such volatile environments often require organizations to streamline, focus their perspectives, trim away excess, and strengthen their core – all of which are meant to signal a redirection of efforts and resources towards fueling fewer and more specifically targeted activities. As more players enter the stage, the pressure for unique and specialized value increases.