DOCSLIB.ORG

Social Media, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovation: Toward a Theory of Communication Visibility

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Social Media, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovation: Toward a Theory of Communication Visibility This article was downloaded by: [128.240.225.73] On: 10 January 2017, At: 01:57 Publisher: Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS) INFORMS is located in Maryland, USA Information Systems Research Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://pubsonline.informs.org Social Media, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovation: Toward a Theory of Communication Visibility Paul M. Leonardi To cite this article: Paul M. Leonardi (2014) Social Media, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovation: Toward a Theory of Communication Visibility. Information Systems Research 25(4):796-816. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.2014.0536 Full terms and conditions of use: http://pubsonline.informs.org/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used only for the purposes of research, teaching, and/or private study. Commercial use or systematic downloading (by robots or other automatic processes) is prohibited without explicit Publisher approval, unless otherwise noted. For more information, contact [email protected]. The Publisher does not warrant or guarantee the article’s accuracy, completeness, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Descriptions of, or references to, products or publications, or inclusion of an advertisement in this article, neither constitutes nor implies a guarantee, endorsement, or support of claims made of that product, publication, or service. Copyright © 2014, INFORMS Please scroll down for article—it is on subsequent pages INFORMS is the largest professional society in the world for professionals in the fields of operations research, management science, and analytics. For more information on INFORMS, its publications, membership, or meetings visit http://www.informs.org Information Systems Research Vol. 25, No. 4, December 2014, pp. 796–816 ISSN 1047-7047 (print) ISSN 1526-5536 (online) http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.2014.0536 © 2014 INFORMS Social Media, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovation: Toward a Theory of Communication Visibility Paul M. Leonardi Technology Management Program, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California 93106, [email protected] his paper offers a theory of communication visibility based on a field study of the implementation of a Tnew enterprise social networking site in a large financial services organization. The emerging theory sug- gests that once invisible communication occurring between others in the organization becomes visible for third parties, those third parties could improve their metaknowledge (i.e., knowledge of who knows what and who knows whom). Communication visibility, in this case made possible by the enterprise social networking site, leads to enhanced awareness of who knows what and whom through two interrelated mechanisms: message transparency and network translucence. Seeing the contents of other’s messages helps third-party observers make inferences about coworkers’ knowledge. Tangentially, seeing the structure of coworkers’ communication networks helps third-party observers make inferences about those with whom coworkers regularly communi- cate. The emerging theory further suggests that enhanced metaknowledge can lead to more innovative products and services and less knowledge duplication if employees learn to work in new ways. By learning vicariously rather than through experience, workers can more effectively recombine existing ideas into new ideas and avoid duplicating work. Moreover, they can begin to proactively aggregate information perceived daily rather than engaging in reactive search after confronting a problem. I discuss the important implications of this emerging theory of communication visibility for work in the knowledge economy. Keywords: social networking; innovation; knowledge sharing; metaknowledge; computer-mediated communication and collaboration; knowledge management; ethnographic research History: Chris Forman, John Leslie King, Kalle Lyytinen, Senior Editors; Jonny Holmström, Associate Editor. This paper was received July 1, 2013, and was with the author 4 months for 1 revision. Published online in Articles in Advance October 3, 2014. Introduction less interpersonal trust among coworkers (Cramton Most of the work conducted in today’s knowledge- et al. 2007). In addition, coordination suffers (Dey and intensive organizations is largely invisible. Workers de Guzman 2006), work duplication occurs (Lapré sit at computers typing reports, performing analyses, and Van Wassenhove 2001), and product and pro- writing copy, and performing other tasks that are dif- cess innovation are less likely (Majchrzak et al. 2004). ficult for observers to discern. As scholars have noted, Because of these negative consequences, scholars have work in the postindustrial economy is increasingly searched for technologies that might provide workers disembodied such that there are few physical mani- some visibility into the work of their colleagues. Tech- festations of activity for others to observe (Suchman nologies that make workflows (Kinnaird et al. 2012), 2007). Work is made even more invisible as organiza- activity status (Dourish and Bellotti 1992), and even tions increasingly rationalize it into smaller task units, worker location (Erickson 2010) visible to others pro- spreading them across workers in various groups and vide a means to learn about the work of colleagues departments, perhaps in different geographic loca- and, hopefully, to avoid some of the problems that tions. Even if there were some physical manifesta- occur when work is largely invisible to others. tion of work, there would be few relevant cowork- The past few decades have seen an increase in the Downloaded from informs.org by [128.240.225.73] on 10 January 2017, at 01:57 . For personal use only, all rights reserved. ers around to see it done. Consequently, Nardi and use of technology to make communication visible as Engeström (1999, p. 2) suggest that in a knowledge a work activity. Workplace communication by tele- economy “work is, in a sense, always invisible to phone or face-to-face encounters is largely invisible everyone but its own practitioners.” to all but the parties involved or those who may Work invisibility can have a number of negative be in proximity. The number of people who might consequences for organizations. Research has shown overhear an interpersonal conversation (even spoken that when people cannot see what others do, or loudly) is small relative to the size of most teams, when, with whom, and how they do it, there is departments, and organizations. More contemporary 796 Leonardi: Social Media, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovation Information Systems Research 25(4), pp. 796–816, © 2014 INFORMS 797 communication (e.g., email and instant messaging) is The findings demonstrate that the increased com- easily shared with others, and thus visible to a wider munication visibility associated with the social net- audience. Collaboration tools, decision support soft- working site enabled users to become more aware of ware, and worker databases have further increased what and whom their coworkers knew. This enhanced communication visibility by loosening the require- awareness allowed staff to avoid work duplication ment to select a target audience through email car- and to develop more innovative ideas for products bon copy features or the instant messaging forward and services. To realize these positive benefits, users feature. Instead, the sender can create a public com- had to enact fundamental changes in the way they munication platform that can be accessed by team worked. I conclude by discussing the implications of members. Still even shared communication platforms this emerging theory of communication visibility for limit visibility because membership in groupware research in information systems, management, and and other collaboration tools are normally limited to communication. specific team members. Shared databases and other repositories are often password protected and stored in a location unknown to most of the organization. Theoretical Background The introduction of social media tools, including Learning About Knowledge Through social networking sites, blogs, wikis, and microblogs, Communication into organizational contexts continues a long trend of Numerous studies conducted over the past two making workplace communication visible. However, decades have shown that successful organizations cre- as Treem and Leonardi (2012) show in their detailed ate the conditions under which employees can effec- review, social media are making routine communica- tively share knowledge with one another (Argote tions between coworkers even more visible to third et al. 2000, Hansen 1999, Tortoriello et al. 2012). parties than the many preceding communication tech- Most research on organizational knowledge sharing nologies. For example, the exchanges between two has focused on when, in the course of their work, people on an enterprise social networking site often appear on the wall or newsfeed of a third party not researchers should look for new knowledge (Katila involved in the communication (Hampton et al. 2011). and Chen 2008, March 1991) and what conditions That people can articulate their social networks and are likely to ease knowledge transfer (Reagans and tag documents and images produced by coworkers McEvily 2003, Szulanski and Jensen 2006). Clearly, within social networking sites gives outsiders further timing and knowledge transfer issues are important. visibility into the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Belief in Psyontology Cumstances (Ross & Schroeder, 2014; Schwitzgebel, 2015)
    Philosophers’ volume 20, no. 11 ow are full and partial belief related in psychology’s ontology? Imprint april 2020 H Credence-first philosophers think partial belief is more funda- mental. For example, Lockeans say that to believe P is just to have high credence in P. Whereas categorical-first philosophers make full beliefs fundamental instead. Having credence x in P might just amount to having a categorical belief that P’s probability is x, for example. Work in cognitive psychology supports a different view, however. In humans, beliefs come in both coarse and fine kinds, with neither BELIEF IN more fundamental than the other. Epistemologists who focus on one kind to the exclusion of the other, or who treat one as central and the other as an afterthought, risk toiling at a fiction. This conclusion is necessarily tentative. For one thing, the empir- PSYONTOLOGY ical work is nascent and ongoing, its results subject to revision. But more than that, it’s sometimes unclear what the present results tell us about the ontological and epistemological questions of interest to philosophers. Still, a prima facie case can be made. And making it is an essential step in bringing our best science to bear on what is, at least in part, an empirical question. 1. Background Jonathan Weisberg 1.1 Why Monism? Why think one kind of belief is more fundamental than the other? It’s not just that Anglophone philosophers use ‘belief’ for both kinds, so University of Toronto they must really be the same thing deep down.1 It’s rather what causes us to use ‘belief’ for both attitudes.
    [Show full text]
  • 3. Overview of Core Technical Areas of AI Research Roadmap Research
    A 20-YEAR COMMUNITY ROADMAP FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE RESEARCH IN THE US of actions.22 Future approaches to cybersecurity and defense will benefit from the powerful capabilities provided by AI systems. This report envisions how future AI systems can aid in responses to other types of threats as well, including natural disasters. 3. Overview of Core Technical Areas of AI Research Roadmap As discussed in section 1.2 the CCC, with the support of AAAI, held three community workshops in order to catalyze discussion and generate this research Roadmap. The three workshops were: ◗ Integrated Intelligence ◗ Meaningful Interactions ◗ Self-Aware Learning The research priorities from the three areas are summarized in Figure 3 below and expanded upon in the following three sections of the report. Research Priorities Integrated Intelligence Meaningful Interaction Self-Aware Learning • Science of integrated intelligence • Collaboration • Robust and trustworthy learning • Contextualized AI • Trust and responsibility • Deeper learning for challenging tasks • Open knowledge repositories • Diversity of interaction channels • Integrating symbolic and numeric representations • Understanding human intelligence • Improving online interaction • Learning in integrated AI/robotic systems Figure 3. Research Priorities. 3.1 A Research Roadmap for Integrated Intelligence 3.1.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW The development of integrated intelligent systems will require major research efforts, which we group into three major areas: 1. Integration: Science of Integrated Intelligence will explore how to create intelligent systems that have much broader capabilities than today’s systems. Approaches include finding small sets of primitives out of which a broad range of capabilities can be constructed (like many of today’s cognitive architectures) and composing independently developed AI capabilities (like 22 ibid 16 many of today’s deployed intelligent systems).
    [Show full text]
  • Naturalistic Cognition: a Research Paradigm for Human-Centered Design
    Published by AU Press, Canada Journal of Research Practice Journal of Research Practice Volume 6, Issue 2, Article M12, 2010 Main Article: Naturalistic Cognition: A Research Paradigm for Human-Centered Design Peter Storkerson Human Factors Program, College of Engineering University of Illinois Urbana Champaign, USA pks@illinois edu Abstract Naturalistic thinking and knowing, the tacit, experiential, and intuitive reasoning of everyday interaction, have long been regarded as inferior to formal reason and labeled primitive, fallible, subjective, superstitious, and in some cases ineffable. But, naturalistic thinking is more rational and definable than it appears. It is also relevant to design. Inquiry into the mechanisms of naturalistic thinking and knowledge can bring its resources into focus and enable designers to create better, human-centered designs for use in real-world settings. This article makes a case for the explicit, formal study of implicit, naturalistic thinking within the fields of design. It develops a framework for defining and studying naturalistic thinking and knowledge, for integrating them into design research and practice, and for developing a more integrated, consistent theory of knowledge in design. It will (a) outline historical definitions of knowledge, attitudes toward formal and naturalistic thinking, and the difficulties presented by the co-presence of formal and naturalistic thinking in design, (b) define and contrast formal and naturalistic thinking as two distinct human cognitive systems, (c) demonstrate the importance of naturalistic cognition in formal thinking and real-world judgment, (d) demonstrate methods for researching naturalistic thinking that can be of use in design, and (e) briefly discuss the impact on design theory of admitting naturalistic thinking as valid, systematic, and knowable.
    [Show full text]
  • A Structurationist View on Knowledge and Strategic Management
    Going Beyond the Resources Given: A Structurationist View on Knowledge and Strategic Management ALBRECHT BECKER STEPHAN DUSCHEK Department of Business Administration Free University, Berlin Garystr. 21 D- 14195 Berlin, Germany Tel.: +49 30 838 54069 Fax: +49 30 838 53307 [email protected] ELISABETH BRAUNER Institute for Psychology Humboldt-University in Berlin Oranienburger Str. 18 D-10178 Berlin, Germany Tel.: +49 30 285 165 349 Fax: +49 30 285 165-329 [email protected] Paper prepared for The Third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning, and Capabilities - OKLC - Athens, Greece April 5-6, 2002 Please do not cite without permission 2 Abstract Current knowledge-based theories explain firms' competitive advantages through the use of dynamic resources. They cannot, however, explicate how knowledge-based resources are created and why they are reproducible and inimitable at the same time. We present a model of resource usage and creation, which is based on structuration theory, phenomenology and the concept of transactive knowledge systems. The recursive process of the simultaneous creation and use of knowledge-based resources is conceptualized as a process of structuration. We argue that the concept of transactive knowledge systems may account for firm-specific usages of unshared expertise as the basis for competitive advantages as well as for the inimitability of resources. 3 1 Introduction Within the resource-based view of the firm it is widely acknowledged that knowledge is the main source of competitive advantages (Conner & Prahalad, 1996; Krogh & Roos, 1996). Correspondingly, the so-called knowledge-based view of the firm is gaining more and more acceptance within the overall framework of resource-based theorizing (cf.
    [Show full text]
  • Qualified Hope
    Qualified hope 2nd Huehls.indb 1 3/10/2009 10:58:49 PM 2nd Huehls.indb 2 3/10/2009 10:58:49 PM Q u a l i f i e d H o p e a postmodern politics of time mitchum huehls The ohio State university press Columbus 2nd Huehls.indb 3 3/10/2009 10:58:49 PM Copyright © 2009 by The Ohio State University. All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Huehls, Mitchum, 1976– Qualified hope : a postmodern politics of time / Mitchum Huehls. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8142-0617-1 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. American literature—20th century—History and criticism. 2. American literature—21st century—History and criticism. 3. Politics and literature—United States—History—20th century. 4. Politics and literature—United States—History—21st century. 5. Time in litera- ture. 6. Time—Political aspects. 7. Postmodernism (Literature)—United States. I. Title. PS228.P6H84 2009 810.9'3581—dc22 2008050627 This book is available in the following editions: Cloth (ISBN 978-0-8142-0617-1) CD-ROM (ISBN 978-0-8142-9184-9) Cover design by Mia Risberg Text design by Jennifer Shoffey Forsythe Type set in Adobe Minion Pro Printed by Thomson-Shore, Inc. The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials. ANSI Z39.48–1992. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2nd Huehls.indb 4 3/10/2009 10:58:49 PM for marissa 2nd Huehls.indb 5 3/10/2009 10:58:49 PM 2nd Huehls.indb 6 3/10/2009 10:58:49 PM C o n T e n ts acknowledgments
    [Show full text]
  • On the Relationship of Metaphysics to Transdisciplinarity 79
    Eric L. Weislogel On the Relationship of Metaphysics to Transdisciplinarity 79 On the Relationship of Metaphysics to Transdisciplinarity Eric L. Weislogel, Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, PA, USA, Email: [email protected] doi: 10.22545/2013/00040 his essay shows the parallels between meta- to. For who could possibly be \educated in every physics and transdisciplinarity, both in terms area"? It is no longer possible{if indeed it ever really Tof their aims and methods and in terms of were{to be a Renaissance person, engaged in the their place or role in academic institutions. It widest possible array of scientific, philosophical, and attempts to define metaphysics, addresses criticisms cultural pursuits. In our age of analysis and spe- of metaphysics, and indicates the necessary relation- cialization, one who posed as such could be seen as ship of metaphysics to transdisciplinary endeavors. no more than a dabbler. Perhaps only an Aristotle, who wrote on physics, logic, rhetoric, ethics, zoology, Keywords: metaphysics, philosophy, method, meteorology, poetics, politics, and so on, could make transdisciplinarity, hermeneutics, deconstruction. such a claim, but it seems far too late in the scientific and cultural evolution of humanity for us to expect another Aristotle to arrive on the scene. 1 Introduction But just exactly what did Aristotle mean by this insight that Terrence Irwin translates as being \ed- In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle recognizes that ucated in every area"? Did Aristotle mean by this \each person judges rightly what he knows, and is a that one would need to have developed \expertise" good judge about that; hence the good judge in a in every area, that (in today's terms) one would have given area is the person educated in that area." No to major in every subject, earn PhD's in every field, more succinct statement can be given as the basis in order to be the “unqualifiedly good judge"? And for our traditional disciplinary way of thinking, re- what does that latter phrase really signify? The searching, and educating.
    [Show full text]
  • Epistemology.Pdf
    Epistemology An overview Contents 1 Main article 1 1.1 Epistemology ............................................. 1 1.1.1 Background and meaning ................................... 1 1.1.2 Knowledge .......................................... 1 1.1.3 Acquiring knowledge ..................................... 5 1.1.4 Skepticism .......................................... 7 1.1.5 See also ............................................ 7 1.1.6 References .......................................... 8 1.1.7 Works cited .......................................... 9 1.1.8 External links ......................................... 10 2 Knowledge 11 2.1 Knowledge ............................................... 11 2.1.1 Theories of knowledge .................................... 11 2.1.2 Communicating knowledge ................................. 12 2.1.3 Situated knowledge ...................................... 13 2.1.4 Partial knowledge ...................................... 13 2.1.5 Scientific knowledge ..................................... 13 2.1.6 Religious meaning of knowledge ............................... 14 2.1.7 See also ............................................ 15 2.1.8 References .......................................... 15 2.1.9 External links ......................................... 16 2.2 Belief ................................................. 16 2.2.1 Knowledge and epistemology ................................. 17 2.2.2 As a psychological phenomenon ............................... 17 2.2.3 Epistemological belief compared to religious belief
    [Show full text]
  • Metaknowledge Management in Inquiring Organizations: Towards a Knowledge Ecology Alice Kienholz, Ph.D
    Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) Americas Conference on Information Systems AMCIS 2000 Proceedings (AMCIS) 2000 Metaknowledge Management in Inquiring Organizations: Towards a Knowledge Ecology Alice Kienholz, Ph.D. Alice Kienholz Associates, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2000 Recommended Citation Kienholz, Ph.D., Alice, "Metaknowledge Management in Inquiring Organizations: Towards a Knowledge Ecology" (2000). AMCIS 2000 Proceedings. 312. http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2000/312 This material is brought to you by the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in AMCIS 2000 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact [email protected]. Metaknowledge Management in Inquiring Organizations: Towards a Knowledge Ecology Alice Kienholz, Ph.D., Alice Kienholz Associates, [email protected] Abstract those various approaches to a situation, in the most appropriate way, that is important. This is metaknowledge Metaknowledge management is the judicious or management. strategic management or leveraging of the different ways in which we come “to know,” based on Churchman’s Inquiring Organizations (1971) classic work, “The Design of Inquiring Systems” so that we respond to situations in the most appropriate Building on Churchman’s insights, Courtney, way. It differs from knowledge management in that it is Croasdell and Paradice (1998) have recast Churchman’s concerned more with how we know what we know than (1971) models of inquiring systems in the language of a with what we know per se (information and knowledge). learning organization, to form the basis for effective By helping individuals and organizations to understand learning organizations which they refer to as inquiring and be aware of their preferred ways of thinking and organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • Domain Metatheories: Enabling User-Centric Planning
    Domain Metatheories: Enabling User-Centric Planning Karen L. Myers Artificial Intelligence Center SRI International 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA 94025 [email protected] Abstract planning knowledge base could completely capture the sub- tleties of a particular domain, users often want to participate Substantial improvements must be made in the usabil- in the plan development process to some extent, in order to ity of AI planning technology in order for it to achieve ensure that they understand both the structure of a plan and widespread adoption. In particular, approaches are re- quired that better serve the needs of users, who gen- the process by which planning decisions were made. erally want to play a central role in the plan develop- For these reasons, the future of automated planning lies in ment process. This user-centric perspective introduces the development of user-centric planning tools that can as- new requirements for the design of planning systems. sist human decision-makers rather than replace them. These In this paper, we argue that increased usability requires tools should enable a user to understand the complexity of a new representational layer that captures metatheo- the underlying problem, as well as providing guidance in retic properties of the planning application. A domain the determination of a solution that is well-suited to their metatheory would provide an abstracted characteriza- specific needs. tion of the planning domain that highlights key seman- tic differences among planning elements. This paper The main thesis of this paper is that effective interaction presents a candidate model for a domain metatheory, between users and planning technology requires an augmen- as well as an instantiation of that model for a simple tation of standard planning models to include an explicit travel domain.
    [Show full text]
  • Hegel's Philosophy of Science in Light of the Question of Naturalism
    Metascience as Self-Knowledge: Hegel’s Philosophy of Science in Light of the Question of Naturalism von der Fakultät für Sozialwissenschaften und Philosophie der Universität Leipzig genehmigte D I S S E R T A T I O N zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doktor der Philosophie Dr. phil. vorgelegt von M.A. Roi Bar geboren am 28.05.1978 in Aschkelon, Israel Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Pirmin Stekeler-Weithofer Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Neuser Tag der Verleihung: 21.07.2017 Contents Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... 6 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 7 1. IS THERE A PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE IN HEGEL’S ‘SYSTEM’? .............. 18 1.1 The formal hermeneutical problem ......................................................................... 19 1.1.1 The absence of an explicit ‘philosophy of science’ .......................................... 19 1.1.2 Two meanings of philosophy of science ........................................................... 21 1.2 The conceptual-historical problem .......................................................................... 26 1.2.1 The pseudoproblem of anachronism ................................................................. 26 1.2.2 The anti-Hegelian philosophy of science .......................................................... 29 1.3 The concrete research problem ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hierarchical Representation of Legal Knowledge with Metaprogramming in Logic
    J. LOGIC PROGRAMMING 1994:18:55-80 5.5 HIERARCHICAL REPRESENTATION OF LEGAL KNOWLEDGE WITH METAPROGRAMMING IN LOGIC JONAS BARKLUND AND ANDREAS HAMFELT D We present an application of metaprogramming in logic that, unlike most metaprogramming applications, is not primarily concerned with controlling the execution of logic programs. Metalevel computation is used to define theories from schemata that were either given explicitly or obtained by abstraction from other theories. Our main application is a representation of legal knowledge in a metalogic programming language. We argue that legal knowledge is multilayered and therefore a single level representation language lacks the needed expressiveness. We show that legal rules can be partitioned into primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary, and higher level rules. Our classification enables us to define a multilevel model of legal knowledge and a one-to-one correspondence with levels of metaprogram- ming in logic. We show that this framework has a potential for capturing important legal interpretation principles such as analogia legis, lex specialis Zegigeneruli derogut, etc. We have a running example from commercial law that utilizes rules up to the tertiary level, emphasizing unulogiu legis. The example is expressed in a multilevel metalogic programming language that provides a naming convention and employs reflection between levels. a 1. INTRODUCTION Metalogic programming provides an expressive power that facilitates an intelligible representation of complex knowledge. We exploit a framework based on that proposed by Bowen and Kowalski [4, 291 for representing multilayered legal knowledge and, in particular, show how the reflection principles naturally mirror Address correspondence IO Jonas Barklund and Andreas Hamfelt, Computing Science Department, Uppsala University, Box 311, S-751 05 Uppsala, Sweden.
    [Show full text]
  • Metatheory and Reflection in Theorem Proving: a Survey and Critique
    Metatheory and Reflection in Theorem Proving: A Survey and Critique John Harrison University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory New Museums Site Pembroke Street Cambridge CB2 3QG England [email protected] 15th February 1995 Abstract One way to ensure correctness of the inference performed by computer theorem provers is to force all proofs to be done step by step in a simple, more or less traditional, deductive system. Using techniques pioneered in Edinburgh LCF, this can be made palatable. However, some believe such an approach will never be efficient enough for large, complex proofs. One alternative, commonly called reflection, is to analyze proofs using a second layer of logic, a metalogic, and so justify abbreviating or simplifying proofs, making the kinds of shortcuts humans often do or appealing to specialized decision algorithms. In this paper we contrast the fully-expansive LCF approach with the use of reflection. We put forward arguments to suggest that the inadequacy of the LCF approach has not been adequately demonstrated, and neither has the practical utility of reflection (notwithstanding its undoubted intellectual interest). The LCF system with which we are most concerned is the HOL proof assistant. The plan of the paper is as follows. We examine ways of providing user ex- tensibility for theorem provers, which naturally places the LCF and reflective approaches in opposition. A detailed introduction to LCF is provided, em- phasizing ways in which it can be made efficient. Next, we present a short in- troduction to metatheory and its usefulness, and, starting from G¨odel'sproofs and Feferman's transfinite progressions of theories, look at logical ‘reflection principles'.
    [Show full text]