A Review of the Literature on the Empathy Construct Using Cluster Analysis <s> Examination of the Cosine Results <s> This paper responds to the research note in this issue by Van Dyke et al. concerning the use of SERVQUAL, an instrument to measure service quality, and its use in the IS domain. This paper attempts to balance some of the arguments they raise from the marketing literature on the topic with the well-documented counterarguments of SERVQUAL's developers, as well as our own research evidence and observations in an IS-specific environment. Specifically, evidence is provided to show that the service quality perceptions-expectations subtraction in SERVQUAL is far more rigorously grounded than Van Dyke et al. suggest; that the expectations construct, while potentially ambiguous, is generally a vector in the case of an IS department; and that the dimensions of service quality seem to be as applicable to the IS department as to any other organizational setting. Then, the paper demonstrates that the problems of reliability of difference score calculations in SERVQUAL are not nearly as serious as Van Dyke et al. suggest; that while perceptions-only measurement of service quality might have marginally better predictive and convergent validity, this comes at considerable expense to managerial diagnostics; and reiterate some of the problems of dimensional instability found in our previous research, highlighted by Van Dyke et al. and discussed in many other studies of SERVQUAL across a range of settings. Finally, four areas for further research in this area are identified. <s> BIB001 </s> A Review of the Literature on the Empathy Construct Using Cluster Analysis <s> Examination of the Cosine Results <s> Education is in a state of rapid change. The influx of new information and communication technologies (ICTs) lead us to question: “How do we find the balance between continuity and discontinuity whilst critically renewing our educational traditions?” The paper develops a philosophical understanding that transcends utopian and dystopian claims that IT is either “becoming education” or “destroying the essence of education,” respectively. This philosophical perspective is developed around: (1) the question of student autonomy and the potential of its being undermined through ICT and (2) the processes through which students can potentially resist these threats. The paper develops and applies the philosophical understanding to the question of student autonomy. First, the paper emphasizes the importance of considering student autonomy in the debates around the relationship of ICT and education. Second, the paper proposes a conceptual model of autonomy, drawing upon some important ideas of Habermas and pragmatist thinking. Third, the paper identifies some systemic threats on educational processes arising from globalization and corporatization. Fourth, I outline the Habermasian response to these threats as a means to understand the nature of student response. Finally, drawing upon the conceptual ideas of autonomy presented, I consider five specific approaches to examine the question of the reform of MIS education. <s> BIB002 </s> A Review of the Literature on the Empathy Construct Using Cluster Analysis <s> Examination of the Cosine Results <s> In the early days of the Internet, an occasional sarcastic or confrontational remark was considered part of its "charm." Times have changed. <s> BIB003 </s> A Review of the Literature on the Empathy Construct Using Cluster Analysis <s> Examination of the Cosine Results <s> A long-standing dream of artificial intelligence has been to put commonsense knowledge into computers -- enabling machines to reason about everyday life. Some projects, such as Cyc, have begun to amass large collections of such knowledge. However, it is widely assumed that the use of common sense in interactive applications will remain impractical for years, until these collections can be considered sufficiently complete and commonsense reasoning sufficiently robust. Recently, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Media Laboratory, we have had some success in applying commonsense knowledge in a number of intelligent interface agents, despite the admittedly spotty coverage and unreliable inference of today's commonsense knowledge systems. This article surveys several of these applications and reflects on interface design principles that enable successful use of commonsense knowledge. <s> BIB004
The results of the projection of the IS paragraphs into the semantic space and compared to the six clusters is reported in Table 4 . The table includes the mean cosine between the IS paragraphs and the centroid of each cluster, and the number of IS paragraphs that had cosines in specific cosine ranges. Only the highest cosine for each IS paragraph is included in Table 4 (i.e., the cluster to which the IS paragraph was most similar). An ANOVA of the cosines between the IS paragraphs and the individual clusters showed that there were significant differences (F(5, 1308) = 39.74, p < .0001) among the projections of the IS paragraphs relative to the centroids of the six clusters. The first observation one can make when examining the results reported in Table 4 is that the mean cosines of the document projections are all relatively low. Cluster 2 has the highest mean cosine of .591, but the cluster only had two paragraphs projected into it. For all clusters with 30 or more IS paragraphs projected into them, the mean cosine is below .40. A cosine of one indicates perfect similarity and a cosine of zero indicates no similarity, so the mean cosines are closer to the no similarity end of the range. Furthermore, the results presented in Table 4 also identify clear differences among the mean cosines of the document projections. For instance, cluster 5 had a higher mean cosine than cluster 1, suggesting that overall the IS empathy research was more about the concept of empathy (cluster 5) than about how empathy is related to other factors and constructs (cluster 1). Differences among the projections of the IS paragraphs can also be identified by examining the distribution of the projections within specific cosine ranges. The cluster of empathy research that was most similar to the IS paragraphs was cluster 5, which contains research that studies the concept of empathy. Cosines between three IS paragraphs and the cluster were greater than .60; the other five clusters had a combined total of three paragraphs in this cosine range. Also, cosines between 12 paragraphs and cluster 5 were between .60 and .50, whereas no other cluster had more than 4 paragraphs in this cosine range. These results indicate that most of the IS papers we examined are simply focusing on the concept of empathy. For instance, cluster 3 (research studying the relationship between levels of empathy and social behavior) contained cosine measures for the IS paragraphs that were all lower than .40. Consequently, the IS discipline seems to be lacking a research focus on how empathy is related to social behavior in the IS environment. A potential issue with using each paragraph that contained the word "empathy" in the analysis (as reported in Table  4 ) is the influence of IS papers that contained multiple paragraphs with the word empathy. For instance, if a paper contained eight paragraphs that contained the word empathy, then the paper could bias the results if all of the paragraphs were projected into the same cluster. To negate the bias, another analysis was performed and only a single cosine measure for each IS paper was included. In this analysis, if a majority of a paper's paragraphs yielded the highest cosine when projected into a specific cluster (e.g., if three paragraphs yielded the highest cosine when projected into cluster 5 and two when projected into cluster 6), then only the paragraph from this majority with the highest cosine was included. If there was no majority in the projections into the clusters (e.g., if one paragraph yielded the highest cosine when projected into cluster 5 and one paragraph when projected into cluster 6), then only the paragraph with the highest cosine was utilized. The results of the projection of these 129 paragraphs (i.e., one paragraph per IS paper) are reported in Table 5 . An examination of the results yields similar conclusions as were drawn when using all of the IS paragraphs in the analysis. As shown in Table 5 , cluster 5 is still the cluster of empathy research that is most similar to the IS paragraphs. The projections into the other five clusters also share a pattern similar to that reported in Table 4 . Face Validity of the Cosines Measures The face validity of the cosine differences among the projections of the paragraphs into clusters can be verified by examining some of the IS paragraphs. For example, the three paragraphs that had cosines greater than .60 when projected into cluster 5 were paragraphs in BIB001 , BIB002 , and Avgerou [2005] . Pitt et al. discuss the concept of empathy in the context of the SERVQUAL service quality measurement, and explain the combining of the concepts of understanding and access into the concept of empathy within the SERVQUAL instrument. Sahan discusses the concept of empathy in the context of Western education, and talks about how the Western model of education emphasizes individualism instead of empathy and sympathy. Avgerou analyzes critical research and claims that the researcher cannot claim an objective truth because critical research builds empathy for a study's subjects. The paragraphs in these three papers clearly discuss the concept of empathy, and not aspects of empathy research such as the role of gender in empathy (cluster 2) or a group program to create empathy (cluster 4). Furthermore, cluster 6 (research dealing with developing, validating, and using empathy scales) had one IS paragraph with a cosine greater than .60. This is the Van Dyke et al. [1999] study that discusses the unidimensionality of the subscales of the SERVQUAL measurement, and states that the empathy subscale that is part of SERVQUAL is the only multidimensional subscale. So, the high cosine with cluster 6 is expected because the paragraph discusses an empathy scale and the reliability of the overall SERVQUAL instrument. Again, the face validity of the high cosine measure seems warranted. The Van Dyke et al. paragraph clearly is more similar to cluster 6 than to any other cluster. The face validity of the results can be further analyzed by examining the low cosines that occurred when the IS paragraphs were projected into each of the six clusters of empathy research. The IS paragraphs whose projections into each of the clusters resulted in very low cosines should represent IS research that discusses empathy in a context that is different from all of the six clusters of empathy research or represent articles that are not closely related to the empathy concept. One of the paragraphs of the BIB003 paper had the lowest cosine of all the IS paragraphs when projected into the six clusters (the high value was .071 when projected into cluster 3). Preece discusses the importance of etiquette in online communication (specifically in cyber-communities). The paragraph in the Preece [2004, p. 58] paper that resulted in the low cosine states, "In each culture, norms preserve or enforce comfort and empathy in the community. Consequently, when norms of etiquette are broken, discomfort, confusion, annoyance, embarrassment, and even fear may ensue." The context in which empathy is discussed is not similar to any of the six clusters of empathy research. The paragraph does not discuss empathy and its relationship to other factors (cluster 1), the differences in empathy between men and women (cluster 2), the role of empathy in social behavior (cluster 3), the development of empathy in a group of individuals (cluster 4), the concept of empathy or the process involved in exhibiting empathy (cluster 5), or the development and validation of empathy scales (cluster 6). The low cosine is clearly warranted because the Preece paragraph is discussing empathy in a way that differs from the research that is contained within the six clusters. In addition, one of the paragraphs of the BIB004 paper had the second lowest cosine (the high value was .098 when one of the two paragraphs was projected into cluster 4). The paragraph discusses an e-mail application that was built by the researchers called Empathy Buddy, which reacts to the user with facial expressions as he or she writes an email message. Once again, the low cosine seems appropriate because the paragraph is simply describing a software application, which should warrant a low cosine because this research is not related to the research in the six clusters.