Talk:Organizational information theory

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aw1014. Peer reviewers: Aw1014.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amsensenbrenner.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Fall 2016 Communication Theory and Frameworks Course Peer Review

Hi, everyone! I am a graduate student from Georgetown University's Communication Theory and Frameworks course. It is my pleasure to be assigned to edit the Organizational Information Theory on Wikipedia. This is my first time to join the Wikipedia community and make my contribution to it. I am open to any advice which can help me improve this page.

My opinion about the strength and weakness about the page: This page provides an overview for readers to have a general comprehension about the main arguments of the theory. Besides, the page gives a detailed explanation about the critical concepts raised by Karl Weich such as loose coupling and sense making. It also describes the related research conducted by Dr. Brenda Dervin which is inspired by the sense making concept. However, some explanations are written in a complex way which make readers hard to understand. Furthermore, the proportion of the direct quotes in this page need to be decreased. More importantly, the page makes few contributions to the applications and critique.

My goals: 1. The page only write about the application of the theory in healthcare. Thus, I may add more information about the use of the theory in health communication, profit organizations' management and education (students' participation in the classroom). 2. I want to improve the balance of the page by providing more information about the theory's critique. My main focus is explaining hoe Weich neglects the role of larger social and historical context in sensemaking which is based on my source.

I will summarize all the changes which I have made on this page later. Thank you for my peers in the course or anyone who have suggestion and comment about my editing.---Aw1014 (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aw1014 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review From Moruomi

Hi Ai-ling, as you might be still in the editing process, I guess I will give my feedback freely. First of all, I think it would be better if you merge some current sections and put them under some broader titles. For example, "The organization", "Informative environment", "Equivocality" and "Choice Points, Behavior Cycles and Assembly Rules" could be put under "Key concepts" or "Overview"; "Sensemaking" and "The sense-making approach" can be merged, etc. Another small tip: you should use sentence capitalization, not title capitalization; only the first word of the title, and proper nouns, should be capitalized.

Another issue I find is that the page is not developed equally in length: some parts are pretty long, such as "The Organization" and "Loose Coupling and The Information Environment", while other parts are extremely short, such as "Applications", "Utility" and "Critique". I think there should be three or fewer paragraphs in a single section. You may consider cutting off or merging some paragraphs under "The Organization" and "Loose Coupling and The Information Environment".

I agree with you that there should be more applications to help the readers better understand the theory. Some pictures or graphs may also help improve the readability. Other materials that you might consider adding to the page might be "Origin/Background" and "Assumptions". You may also add some key points to the leading section once you finish editing the content. Hope these suggestions are helpful. Fighting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuentinValentino (talk • contribs) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review from Noura

Ai-Ling,

You have good ideas here to work on!

First, I suggest to edit the definition and add to it. Remember, wikipedia should be easy to read and understand by everyone, especially unacademic readers. Therefore, try to clarify this section by using your resources to enrich the introduction, which is the most important section that most people will be looking at first. Also, check the hyperlinks that are included in your page; some of them are not necessary, such as: organization, culture, conflict, and others.

I encourage you to add more subsections under the application section and add more information to the ones that already exist; I think that would make a big difference. Also, I think adding to the critique section is a good idea, but beside the critiques, think of adding more data in the ‘utility of theory’ section, which is important but it does not include much right now.

Overall, your page includes a lot of good sections and interesting information, all what they need is to be presented in a better way. The structure of the page and the flow from one section to the other is something you might consider to work on. Small changes, like how to title a section will improve your page. For example, “Choice Points, Behavior Cycles and Assembly Rules” is written incorrectly, it should be “Choice points, behavior cycles and assembly rules”. Same thing apply on other headings. Therefore, I suggest that you start with the small and basic changes that are part of wikipedia’s rules.

--Nha33 (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Ai-Ling's questions for peer review

Hi, everyone! I have added more information into the theory's application in education. Do you think it is wordy or too theoretical? Can these information help you better comprehend the theory? In general, what do you think of the page's structure? What part is difficult for you to understand?

Thank you for your answers! ---Aw1014 (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review- Adri

Hi- First, I think the introduction on this page is very good! It’s well written. You might want to include some of the theory’s main points in it though? Something like: the main assumptions are XYZ. In terms of flow, I agree with some of the other feedback above- it is always helpful to me if things are categorized. So, it would be very good if there was a section labeled key concepts, and then have the key concepts listed in sub sections. That way, it’s easy to identify what’s the most important.

I don’t understand why the “Utility of Theory” section is so far down-actually, I would probably add this either to the introduction, or add it into the key concepts. However, I do not understand why “Dr. Brenda Dervin: the sense-making approach” is it’s own major section at all- that seems like it should be a subsection at most. The same for “Organizational information theory and innovation.” Major sections should be for major ideas, not for little ones or something very specific.

I think the “Applications in Education” is good! Nice addition. I think the page would also benefit from more in that section, and some additions to the critique section. Overall, I think you should look at how this page is organized… try to come up with 3-4 major sections, then move the sections that you have to fall under them. Then add where you see fit!

Good luck! Ang59 (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Fall 2018 Communication Theory and Frameworks Course Peer Review

I appreciate that the Wiki page opens with a brief summary of what Organizational Information Theory is and how it can be applied in organizations. The page offers quite a bit of information so that readers can get a pretty good understanding of the theory without having to read an entire book communication theory.

As for critiques of what can be improved on the page:

Graphics: The page has nothing but text, and there are no graphics of any kind to break up the text. Consider adding a flow chart or a graphic that illustrates the theory at play. For example, a graphic could be used to illustrate the three principles of Equivocality or the facets which surround the sensemaking process.

Assumptions to OIT: Consider including the three Assumptions that center Organizational Information Theory in order for readers to understand the basis of the theory and what is assumes about organizations.

Restructuring Information: Currently, the extension of OIT comes before the applications of the theory which I believe can be confusing. Instead, include the applications after the key concepts and then include the applications, critiques and finally the extensions of the theory. Hopefully, that will help readers to get an holistic understanding of the theory before being introduced to other theories relating to the OIT.

Applications: Are there other applications of OIT other than health care, education and conflict management? If so, I would include an opening sentence that states there are a number of fields that have applied the Organizational Information Theory in its research, however below is information specifically related to health care, education and conflict management. Also consider just quickly listing other fields that have used OIT and links to other Wiki sites in case the reader wants information on those fields. --WMMaddox (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Adriana's Additional Resources

I found these two sources that could bode well under the "application" section of this wikipedia page-

Chadwick, Scott. “Assessing Institutional Support for Service-Learning: A Case Study of Organizational Sensemaking.” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2007. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ831323.pdf

Mumtaz, Ali, et al. “Organizational Information Theory (OIT) a Mechanism to Ensure Community Participation; A Case Study of A Malaysian NGO,” NICE Research Journal, v. 8, 2015. file:///Users/adrianasensenbrenner/Downloads/OrganizationalInformationTheoryOITaMechanismtoEnsureCommunityParticipation.pdf Amsensenbrenner (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

CCTP Anna Yu review

I think this page is well organized and easy for people who don’t have communication background to understand. I really appreciate the little examples the student/ editor put in between lines in the organization section, which gives reader a better understanding of the concept. The weakness of this page is the order of the sections, I think it would be better if the sections were in the following order: key conceptions -> applications of the theory -> critiques -> extensions of OIT. I think this order makes more sense, at least to me, that all the original ideas and concepts of OIT are in same part in a consistence order, and then goes to the extensions of the original theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annnnayu (talk • contribs) 19:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Georgetown University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)