Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa, Ann Majchrzak
Summary
According to Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa, and Ann Majchrzak, vigilant interaction in knowledge collaboration refers to an interactive emergent dialogue where knowledge is exchanged while it is protected. The article summarizes in a way that this type of interaction necessitates detailed evaluations of one another’s activities to ascertain how each action may affect the collaboration’s consequences.
The article starts with the argument that participating online exposes people to more new and unique concepts, potential connections, and the pleasure of rapid knowledge exchange.
In online knowledge collaborations with ambivalent relationships, where users cooperate to acquire advantages but simultaneously protect to prevent harm from perceived vulnerabilities, vigilant interactions are essential. Information systems researchers have a lot to learn about vigilant interactions because they might happen on message boards, informative websites, social media platforms, and online knowledge management systems. Trust irregularity, deception, and novelty are identified as three components of vigilant interactions.
Researchers can significantly influence business and societies by learning from and spreading information regarding how to motivate people who don’t engage in vigilant collaboration to do so. The security specialist will be able to turn to a write down the causes and obtain useful unique knowledge that would have otherwise been missed in our war on terrorism; the youngster who disregards the hazards while communicating with others in a discussion forum may then have techniques to interact cautiously.
My Reflection
After reading the article, ‘Vigilant Interaction in Knowledge Collaboration: Challenges of Online User Participation Under Ambivalence’, I assume that this is somewhat a modern-day practical explanation of vigilant interaction theory.  With the online user participation under ambivalence, yes reveals and give you knowledge not only about those who supports you, and favors you but also those who deceive you, cheats you, and ultimately make you to take decision or assume the situation rightly and wrongly.
So, you the assumption about what you see, or you came across, and such decision making will lead to act, despite the fact what type of action one might take. Basically, criticism, or assumption of being cheated or bullied by other partner can trigger the vigorous reaction that might be more fatal for other or all.
Not only this, but it also allows me to analysis the by decision making process at the different level now. So, one comes to make any decision regardless of being correct or incorrect, whether you trust someone or not, when you feel that it is your friends or enemy.
Despite the necessity to maintain both trust and distrust, trust asymmetry is common in ambivalent online cooperation due to social complexity.
So, it is more challenging to thoroughly evaluate incoming information and spot dishonesty and imbalances in watchful engagement because the originality of online participation heightens emotional reaction to connection. There is a need for research that looks at how successful watchful interactors control these factors. So, I feel that such study has practical implications as well because it questions long-held notions about knowledge collaboration. Such research also has significant practical implications as well.
