SHARING KNOWLEDGE: AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL, GROUP AND ORGANISATION

David P MankinOxford Brookes University Business School

dmankin@brookes.ac.uk

Abstract

If the academic community is not to alienate itself further from the ‘world’ of HRD practitioners there needs to be less emphasis on what are often little more than esoteric debates and more commitment to research into how and why knowledge is shared. This paper places this discussion within the context of a research project that is investigating the relationship between individual, group and organisation in the sharing of knowledge and which incorporates the role of communities-of-practices and informal processes. Relevant literature is discussed along with some emerging themes from the first phase of data collection. Implications for HRD are also considered and the question is posed: can, or should knowledge be managed?

Key Words: Communities-of-practice; knowledge sharing; informal groups

Introduction

Much has been written about the importance of knowledge as a source of competitive advantage with recent CIPD research reports providing summaries of relevant literature and research ( e.g. Scarborough et al, 1999; Scarborough & Carter, 2000 ); as well as considering HRD implications ( e.g. Stewart & Tansley, 2002 ). The topicality of knowledge management is reflected in the number of current management texts that make reference to it ( e.g. Handy, 2002 ). However, until recently the debate has been dominated by ICT contributions with the notion of knowledge management being “in danger of being hijacked by the IT community and turned into a vehicle for the marketing of new IT systems” ( Scarborough et al, 1999: 2 ). Although sharing knowledge, either face-to-face or via a computer system, is an important theme in the literature some authors describe this process as knowledge transfer and/or conversion; the latter being popularised particularly by Nonaka & Takeuchi ( e.g. 1995 ). There is also an emphasis on formal processes for knowledge sharing at the expense of informal processes ( Oliver & Roos, 2000; Brown & Duguid, 2002; Duke, 2002 ). The emergence of the concept of communities-of-practice ( Lave & Wenger, 1991; Brown & Duguid, 1991; Wenger, 1998; Brown &

Duguid, 1998; Wenger, 2000 ) provides an opportunity to explore the role that informal processes play in facilitating knowledge sharing in organisations while at the same time questioning the notion that knowledge can, or should be, managed.

However, group processes should not be the sole focus of any research as it is argued that it is the relationship between individual, group and organisational knowledge that is a central focus for knowledge management (Quintas, 2002 ). As with organisational learning and the learning organisation, there has been limited investigation into the nature of the relationship between these. Consequently, there is a need for more empirical studies in order to counter the same criticisms that have been levelled at organisational learning and the learning organisation ( e.g. Starkey, 1996; Probst & Büchel, 1997; Bertels & Savage, 1998; Easterby-Smith et al, 1999; Fenwick, 2001 ).

The aim of this paper is to describe and report on the first phase of an ongoing research project that is investigating the relationship between individual, group and organisation in sharing knowledge. ‘Group’ is further differentiated between ‘formal groups’ ( e.g. departments; working parties; project teams etc ) and ‘communities-of-practice’. The research project is attempting to answer the following questions:

What do individuals claim constitutes knowledge? What account do individuals give of how knowledge is shared or exchanged

within organisations? What do individuals claim are the similarities and differences between self-

knowledge and shared-knowledge? What accounts do individuals give of choosing to share knowledge or not? What barriers and facilitators do individuals claim exist in the sharing or

exchange of knowledge in organisations?

In order to address these questions it is necessary to identify the landscape ( i.e. pattern of relationships ) of each participant .

This paper will focus primarily on a critique of relevant literature linked to an explanation of an emergent conceptual framework. It will provide an overview of the methodology and offer some insights emerging from the initial data collection phase. However, it is intended to offer tentative observations only at this time as data collection is still ongoing. A fuller analysis of the data will form the subject of future papers. The paper will also consider potential implications for HRD.

Critique of literature and the emergent conceptual framework

In recent years knowledge has been viewed increasingly as a principal source of competitive advantage for organisations ( e.g. Drucker, 1988; Nonaka, 1991; Boud & Garrick, 1999; Burton-Jones, 1999; Huseman & Goodman, 1999; Handy, 2002 ). However, much of the work on organisational knowledge has been predicated on a positivist perspective ( Spender, 1996 ) by which knowledge is viewed as an object or entity which exists separately from people and can be stored on paper or computer databases. Fortunately, the debate has started to broaden out from the rather narrow, technological focus, often referred to as the codification of knowledge, with its rather

simplistic, and spurious, emphasis on the conversion of tacit to explicit knowledge ( and vice versa ) which, to date, has provided the basis of much practitioner-based activity. As Cook and Brown ( 2002: 73 ) argue “explicit and tacit are two distinct forms of knowledge ( i.e. neither is a variant of the other ); that each does work the other cannot; and that one form cannot be made out of or changed into the other”. A perspective shared by Wenger ( 1998: 69 ) who observes that the tacit and explicit aspects of knowledge “are always present to some degree”. While Stacey ( 2001: 222 ) emphasises that tacit and explicit are facets of the same communicative process and that:

“Communicative interaction is human relationship and that is a living process, which cannot be captured, stored or owned by anyone…the prescriptions to do with converting tacit into explicit knowledge, capturing and storing it, all reveal a particular ideology to do with control.”

However, in terms of the debate on managing knowledge within contemporary organisations these perspectives have been overshadowed in the past by the prevalence of ICT perspectives. Whilst the notion of codification may be attractive to senior managers seeking a ‘fast-track’ solution to the management of knowledge as a competitive ( strategic ) tool, recent organisational history/literature is replete with numerous examples of potentially useful concepts being undermined by the overzealous demands of CEOs who feed off the hype and rhetoric that is seemingly easier to grasp than the harsh and apparently elusive realities of effective organisational change. Of course, an (in)ability or (un)willingness to understand the issues involved may be as lacking as the apparent (in)ability or (un)willingness to understand how organisations really work.

Definitions of knowledge abound in the literature, with each author ( apparently ) attempting to add something original to the debate. Whether it is about describing knowledge as a veil ( Sternberg, 1994 ) or as an output of cognitive processes ( Burton-Jones, 1999 ) or emphasising its fluidity ( Ruggles, 1997; Davenport & Prusak, 2000 ) or its transience ( Blackler et al, 1998 ), or differentiating between philosophical perspectives, there is little doubt that the literature to date has highlighted the extent to which knowledge can be described as a multi-faceted concept ( Blackler et al, 1998 ). Although this may accurately reflect the complexities, subtleties and ambiguities of this topic ( concept ) it also highlights a potential dilemma for the academic community – is it alienating itself from the world of the practitioner through this diverse and perhaps overly protracted debate on the meaning and utilisation of knowledge? Indeed, it has been argued that some researchers have gone as far as suggesting that because knowledge is such a tricky concept formal definitions of knowledge are unnecessary since they end up complicating the debate further ( Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2001 ). Certainly, there is a pressing need to (a) engage in the collection of empirical data to validate the plethora of prevailing hypotheses, theories, models and perspectives, and (b) engage more practitioners, such as HRD professionals, in this research so that the academic community can be seen to be working in partnership to assist, rather than frustrate the private and public sector organisations that comprise the lifeblood of so much academic work ( in terms of teaching, learning and research ).

The importance of informal processes; and the implications of organisations as self-organising systems ( Stacey, 2001 ) require much more discussion and exploration than has been witnessed to date; and should not be so readily criticised and dismissed ( e.g. Brown & Duguid, 1998 ). Complexity and Chaos theory may yet prove to be the most significant step in recent years towards an improved understanding of how organisations actually work. It has been applied already to an education setting ( e.g. Waddock, 1999 ). Stacey’s ( 2001 ) concept of complex responsive processes in organisations draws on complexity theory. He argues that collective memory/knowledge is contained within the pattern of relationships within an organisation. This resonates with the view that knowledge is distributed throughout the whole of an organisation ( e.g. Nixon, 1999 ) although it does not resolve the ‘codification-personalisation’ debate. However, the role of the individual and the groups, both formal and informal, within which individuals operate, and build and maintain social relations, is moved to a much more central, and arguably pivotal, place in the whole knowledge management debate. This should be welcomed by HRD practitioners who are still struggling to demonstrate that learning and development processes and practices can, and do contribute to organisational success.

Unfortunately, more ‘rational’ perspectives on what organisations are and how they function are well established. Although as Scott ( 1987: 24 ) observes, “it is essential to remember that definitions [ of an organisation ] are neither true nor false but are only more or less helpful in calling attention to certain aspects of the phenomenon under investigation.” Despite the emergence of some new organisational forms, such as ‘networks’ or ‘webs of participation’ ( Oliver & Roos, 2000 ), many organisations are still deeply rooted in some ‘modern’ variant of Weber’s bureaucracy and riddled with management practices that owe more to Taylor’s notion of scientific management than to the human relations movement or any of its antecedents. The reality is that “organisations are made up of a confusing and strictly speaking incomprehensible muddle of people moved by an infinite number of known and recognised motives” ( Duke, 2002: 36 ). Consequently, more consideration needs to be given to the impact of informal processes and activities within organisational settings. This may be termed informalisation. It is not the intention of this paper to present a case for the impact of ‘informalisation’ on all aspects of organisational life but to focus on its relevance to sharing, and exchanging knowledge. The view that informal processes, such as knowledge sharing within and between communities-of-practice, can be managed formally ( e.g. Hanley, 1998; McDermott, 1999 ), including the utilisation of incentives and reward mechanisms ( e.g. Stevens, 2000 ), indicates a lack of real understanding of how and why these informal processes occur, reflecting both the lack of empirical research to date and the increasingly over-popularisation of certain knowledge management concepts. Indeed, the very over-hyping of the belief that all organisational knowledge can in fact be managed. There is a need to view informal and formal processes as necessary, complementary and parallel processes in the same way that tacit and explicit knowledge should be viewed; although this does run counter to the notion that informal processes can be managed or transformed in the same way that explicit and tacit knowledge can be converted into each other.

The conceptual framework illustrated in figure 1 is the product of the ongoing research project that is concerned with the relationship between individual, group and

organisation in the sharing of knowledge. It is based on several propositions which may be summarised as:

There is a relationship between individual, group and organisation ( although that between the individual and the organisation may be abstract or focus specifically on the actions and behaviour of the senior management team )

There are differences between communities-of-practice ( informal ) and formal groups

The activities of communities-of practice and formal groups are interrelated by the outcomes of particular activities, shared practice, or experience gained by individuals

There is a difference between individuals choosing to share knowledge and exchanging knowledge

Exchange and sharing imply different notions of reciprocity ( with trust, identity and belonging playing a pivotal role )

The categories of individual, communities-of-practice, formal groups and organisation resonate with the notion of human, social and organisational capital.

The framework reflects the existing argument that the relationship between individual, group and organisational knowledge is “a central focus for knowledge management” ( Quintas, 2002 ). Pivotal to the framework is the differentiation between formal and informal groups ( reflecting the importance of informalisation ). Such a differentiation is not new as evidenced in the work of authors prior to the early 1990s ( e.g. Schein, 1980; Blackler & Shimmin, 1984; Scott, 1987; Hucynski & Buchanan, 1991 ). However, The role of informal processes has not received as much coverage in the academic literature as that of formal processes. “The importance of communities of practice is sometimes underestimated in organisations, yet they play a critical role in linking individual knowledge with that of the organisation as a whole” ( Oliver & Roos, 2000: 49 ). As Duke ( 2002: 40 ) observes: “people behave in their own different and often purposeful ways ‘informally’ within the formal planned structure of the organisation”. As Hucynski and Buchanan pointed out over a decade ago informal groups “emerge in an organisation and are neither anticipated, nor intended, by those who create the formal organisation” ( 1991: 168 ). While Blackler and Shimmin ( 1984: 47 ) had previously argued that informal groups “arise spontaneously out of shared interests…”. As such groups lie outside the formal structure of the organisation, “to identify different informal groups, one does not look at the work flow or the organisation chart, but needs to note who interacts with whom, and what friendship relations exist between individuals” ( Huczynski & Buchanan, 1991: 171 ). This resonates with the more recent literature on ‘communities of practice’

Today technology is demanding a degree of formality that creates tensions with informal processes. Increasingly, organisations are trying to control interaction via intranets and e-mail systems. “Yet these systems in many ways replace the coffee pot and the water cooler as the site of informal but highly important knowledge diffusion. Limiting their informality is likely to limit their importance” ( Brown & Duguid, 2002: 34 ). Or as Duke ( 2002: 43 ) observes: “trying to manage knowledge through these new media and means of its manipulation, we risk losing sight of what we know about human behaviour in organisations, factoring out initiative, ingenuity and

individualism in an new form of Fordism”. In this sense the use of technology can be said to go hand-in-hand with management’s desire to control all aspects of organisational life.

The relationship between individuals and groups has also been much discussed in the past ( e.g. Simmel, 1955; Lazarsfeld & Menzel, 1961; Ellis & Dick, 2003 ) as has, more recently, the relationship between the individual and the organisation in terms of the psychological contract. However, there has been limited empirical research into these relationships in relation to knowledge sharing processes although the relationships have been much discussed at a theoretical level. Within the framework shown at figure 1 the importance of trust, identity and belonging are highlighted, as well as politics and power. The importance of trust has been identified in relation to the processes of knowledge transfer ( e.g. Huemer et al, 1998; Levin et al, 2002 ) and knowledge exchange ( e.g. Davenport & Prusak, 2000 ). The importance of trust in social relationships has been highlighted in the academic literature of the last twenty years ( e.g. Eisenstadt & Roniger, 1984; Good, 1988; Seligman, 1997; Sztompka, 1999 ); and social relations have been identified as critical to effective knowledge transfer ( e.g. Hansen, 1999 ). The concept of communities-of-practice is predicated on the notion of learning through social participation. Consequently, trust is believed to play a critical role in knowledge sharing processes within and between individuals, communities, formal groups and the organisation. Huemer et al ( 1998 ) emphasise the relationship between knowledge and trust arguing that the two concepts are intertwined and both cannot exist without the other. Trust is no longer seen as a personal attitude but as a “trait of interpersonal relations” ( Sztompka, 1999: 14 ). Trust transcends the individual and is a feature of social interaction although, “the motivations of those we interact with can be inferred but never known directly” ( Kollock, 1994: 317 ). It is intended to explore with individual participants in the research project the role of trust and the relationship between trust, identity and belonging.

Until recently power has not been emphasised within organisational learning literature ( Easterby-Smith et al, 1998 ). Interestingly, the extensive literature on power does not provide a model tracing the linkages between the individual and group levels and describing how power develops and is transferred between individuals and groups ( Fiol, et al, 2001 ). However, power has been associated with particular perspectives for understanding organisations; for instance, Nohria ( 1992 ) argues that a network perspective sheds light on the distribution of power within an organisation. It has been argued that you need to study the different communities of practice within an organisation and the distribution of power within these in order to better understand the way information is constructed and travels within an organisation ( Brown & Duguid, 1991 ). Particular studies on power are potentially informative; for instance, Blackler and McDonald’s ( 2000 ) exploration of the links between power, expertise and organisational learning; and, Fiol et al’s ( 2001 ) exploration of how power at the group level can influence the power of individuals in the group. In terms of the relationship between power and knowledge, the latter has been described as a resource ( Gaventa & Cornwall, 2001 ); and the concepts of power and knowledge have been argued as being inextricably linked ( Foucalt, 1977; Gaventa & Cornwall, 2001 ).

It has been argued that the relationship between communities of practice and organisations presents a parallel to that between individuals and communities of practice. Yet there are important differences in the way knowledge moves in each relationship ( Brown & Duguid, 2002 ). Local knowledge ( i.e. that which is developed within a community ) is ‘sticky’ and therefore difficult to develop for broader use – such knowledge “doesn’t readily turn into something with exchange value or use value elsewhere” ( Brown & Duguid, 2002: 28 ). The research project will explore whether participants perceive a difference between sharing and exchanging, and if a difference is identified whether exchange is a characteristic of participation in formal groups only. The research parallel’s Brown and Duguid’s ( 2002 ) and Oliver and Roos’ ( 2000 ) observations on the emergent nature of knowledge within organisational settings. Indeed as Oliver and Roos comment: “new ideas and knowledge emerge through collaborative interactions among individuals and communities. These interactions are notoriously difficult to track and measure, and defy much traditional management theory, which tends to assume that the process of moving from individual to community to organisation follows logical, rational and understandable practices” ( 2000: 53 ). The project will be investigating the extent to which such informalisation is a characteristic of the groups being studied.

The project will also attempt to identify the nature of the relationship between communities and formal groups. At present it is felt that this relationship may be based on the sharing of particular activities and/or outcomes ( which are dependent on the focus or shared practice of each particular formal group and community; and on the motivations of individuals ). This hypothesis is predicated on Lave’s ( 1996 ) discussion of situated learning and activity; and on the work of Engeström ( 1996; 2000 ) and Blackler and Crump ( 2000 ) on activity theory.

This discussion also highlights the extent to which there has been too little exploration of the specific processes that help to explain the relationship between individual, group and organisation. Often theoretical assumptions are made that knowledge ‘flows’ between these different levels of aggregation in some unspecified, indeed even mysterious or magical, way. Just as the literature on organisational learning and the learning organisation lacks sufficient empirical evidence of the processes and practices propounded by ‘experts’, with different authors emphasising the role of different levels in different ways, so the literature on knowledge management is in danger of continuing along the same path. Whether it is the role of the organisational leader ( Nonaka, 1991 ) or the social group ( Davenport & Prusak, 2000 ) or the individual acting as an agent of the organisation ( popular with organisational learning theorists ), the criticisms levelled at organisational learning and the learning organisation by Easterby-Smith and Araujo ( 1999 ) remain valid i.e. there is a shortage of studies that attempt to:

induce theory from existing practice use a small sample of in-depth cases focus on micro-practices within organisational settings

A theoretical perspective that organisational processes and practices replicate those of the individual may be seriously flawed. Organisational practices do differ from those of individuals ( Spender, 1996 ). Consequently, if there is a role for academics and practitioners acting in partnership, it is in the identification of, and successful

implementation, and completion of research projects that explore, for instance, how and why knowledge is shared. The dilemma we face is how do we, as academic researchers engage HRD practitioners, especially given the very different constraints and shorter timescales under which they often work?

Methodology

A case study strategy has been adopted with a subject group within the Business School of a ‘new’ university acting as the first ‘case’. The focus of the research is on knowledge sharing among and between staff working in the subject group and does not involve students. This reflects the author’s interest in how the academic community within the higher education sector shares knowledge. Today, the role of the university is changing. The move towards mass higher education and the government’s emphasis upon lifelong learning reflects a shift toward a learning society ( although the government tends to emphasise the vocational requirements and economic outputs of such a ‘society’ ). Tapper and Palfreyman ( 2000 ) argue that universities are changing due to pressures from managerialism, massification and marketing. The Dearing report ( published July 1997 ) stressed the concept of lifelong learning and this has major implications for staff development and the notion of knowledge sharing. Indeed universities tend to be viewed as centres of knowledge. However, many universities fail to qualify as knowledge or learning organisations because whilst they may have been effective at creating or acquiring knowledge they have been much less successful at applying that knowledge to their own activities ( Garvin, 1993 ). Increasingly, workplaces are being seen as sites of learning rather than educational institutions ( Watson & Taylor, 1998; Boud & Garrick, 1999 ). In terms of HRD activity within universities much of the literature tends to discuss staff development only ( Duke, 1992; Watson & Taylor, 1998 ); although some attempt has been made to relate staff development issues to organisational learning ( Duke, 1992 ). Many studies on the HE sector have also tended to focus on teaching, and the student-tutor relationship, with other aspects being neglected. Universities have tended to be described as institutions of higher education rather than organisations of higher education. Although “it is not agreed whether universities and other educational institutions differ in any essential way from other, especially industrial, organisations…my central proposition is that universities…are different from the classic model of industrial organisation, especially in their need to function as learning organisations and by virtue of the ‘core business’” ( Duke, 2002: 35 )

The principal methods being used are:

two in-depth interviews with each participant. - which enable the researcher “to gather an ‘authentic’ understanding of people’s experiences” ( Silverman, 1993: 10 ). The interviews are central to the research project as researchers relying on observational techniques have had some difficulty in having their work recognised by other members of the ‘academic community’ ( Adler & Adler, 1994 ).

Participant observation - which is fundamental to understanding the culture of the research setting ( Silverman, 1993 ).

Analysis of documents and artefacts – which is important in understanding how participants categorise and reify issues/objects etc ( Silverman, 1993 ). “Documents can also reveal secret, hidden worlds which are difficult to fathom through observed behaviour and events or participants’ accounts” ( Holliday, 2002: 96 ).

Recording and transcribing - which is used to understand how participants organise their talk. The accounts individuals give during the interviews are being recorded and transcribed by the author in order to capture accurately what is said with additional notes also being made to describe the behaviour of the participants.

The strategy and methods adopted reflect a belief that whilst there may be only one reality ( the external world ) there can never be any notion of absolute truth or true knowledge. Different people will perceive, and construct, the external world in different ways and bring to any discussion ( verbal or text ) their own interpretation(s) of what that reality is. This reflects a realist perspective which argues there is “a reality independent of the researcher whose nature can be known” ( Hammersley, 2002: 66 ) and acknowledges the notions of ‘subtle realism’ ( Hammersley, 2002 ), ‘critical realism’ (Guba & Lincoln, 1994), and ‘transcendental realism’ ( Miles & Huberman, 1994 ). These last two perspectives have been usefully combined by Tashakkori & Teddlie ( 1998: 28 ) as: “there are some lawful, reasonably stable relationships among social phenomena that may be known imperfectly, or in probabilistic terms”. An emphasis on participants’ perspective and the primacy of discourse reflects Gergen’s ( 1999 ) emphasis on the role of language in giving meaning to a socially constructed reality. A qualitative approach is preferred because qualitative data:

“are a source of well-grounded, rich descriptions and explanations of processes in identifiable local contexts. With qualitative data one can preserve chronological flow, see precisely which events led to which consequences, and derive fruitful explanations… [ and they ] are more likely to lead to serendipitous findings and to new integrations; they help researchers to get beyond initial conceptions and to generate or revise conceptual frameworks” ( Miles & Huberman, 1994: 1 ).

Cassell and Symon ( 1994 ) argue that qualitative methods are more appropriate to research studies focusing on organisational processes, as well as outcomes, and trying understand both individual and group experiences of work.

Emerging findings From the initial analysis of interviews carried out in the first phase of the project it has been possible to identify various themes that will form the basis of further investigation in the next phase. These may be summarised as follows: First, although it is possible to identify more than one community of practice it would be erroneous at this stage to describe all the informal groups in this way. There appears to be some resonance with Collison and Parcell ( 2001 ) who identified three different types of community within a large energy company ( i.e. Communities of interest, of practice, and of commitment ). In terms of the overall landscape the categories identified by

Wenger and Synder ( 2000 ) of formal workgroups, project teams, and informal networks, as well as communities of practice, appear to have some validity. Second, the importance of identity ( which is shaped by the community ) and biography ( which helps to shape the community ). Third, the role of trust which has previously been identified as a central factor in the willingness of individuals to share knowledge ( e.g. Andrews & Delahaye, 2000 ). Fourth, the willingness of community members to share their knowledge freely with each other without any explicit expectation of receiving something in return. Although there is some indication of what may be termed tacit reciprocity. Fifth, emerging confirmation of Wenger’s ( 1998: 6 ) argument that “although workers may be contractually employed by a large institution, in day-to-day practice they work with – and, in a sense, for a much smaller set of people and communities”. Sixth, the importance of face-to-face sharing in the same physical space ( the case study participants have not identified any virtual communities ). Seventh, the acceptance of communities of practice and other informal groups and processes as a natural feature of organisational life.

Conclusions and implications for HRD

The realities of organisational life are far removed from the ordered, rational picture that many managers, HRD practitioners and academics ‘paint’. Consequently, it is not surprising that the effective management of organisational knowledge may prove to be so illusory and elusive. Unless these realities are confronted and attempts made to understand better how and why certain things happen, or do not happen, in organisations, it is very likely that the concept of knowledge management will follow the same, well trodden path that is already littered with the wreckage of Total Quality Management, Business Process Re-engineering, Organisational Learning and the Learning Organisation. Sadly, much of the rhetoric that currently surrounds knowledge management suggests that this is all too likely.

By investigating how and why knowledge is shared between individuals, formal groups and communities-of-practice, it may be possible to identify how better to stimulate the culture of an organisation so that knowledge sharing is a naturally occurring process that can be nurtured rather than formally managed or controlled. This may prove to be a challenging goal within universities as the higher education sector cannot change easily and is characterized by a natural inertia ( Laurillard, 1993 ); as evidenced by the resistance among academics in universities until just recently to be trained to teach ( Jarvis, 2001 ). Knowledge-based boundaries within universities, which reflect the disciplinary nature of subject groups, can isolate highly productive communities from one another:

“Different precepts and attitudes, shaped by practice, make interchange between quite similar subjects remarkably difficult, and thus invisibly pressure disciplines to work among themselves rather than to engage in cross-disciplinary research. Over time, disciplines increasingly divide rather than combine” ( Brown & Duguid, 2002: 30 ).

Although many would claim that universities “are in principle at the forefront of knowledge-based organisations” Duke ( 2002: 4 ) unfortunately, the predilection for information systems and knowledge databases would appear to pervade the university sector in the same manner as other sectors. With vice-chancellors increasingly

behaving in a presidential manner ( Duke, 2002 ), the ‘new managerialism’ which “has invaded many universities” ( Duke, 2002: 29 ) are tempted by new management information systems which, in turn, “offer the temptation to substitute knowledge management for people management” ( Duke, 2002: 29 ); thus undervaluing the contribution of informal groups to organisational knowledge processes. It is unfortunate, if not tragic, that universities would appear unable to ‘practice what they preach’. The initial findings of the research project would seem to suggest that the role and significance of communities of practice and other informal groups and processes may not be fully understood or appreciated by management. It is intended to explore this in more depth during the second phase of the project.

In terms of moving forward, we need to actively engage HRD practitioners in this discussion and focus on studies that counter the plethora of esoteric debates on the topic of knowledge. Moving forward there will be a need to consider the implications of virtual communities-of-practice and it may be that the concept of ba ( Nonaka et al, 2002 ) may be helpful here although Nonaka tends to emphasise formal rather than informal processes. Providing communities-of-practice with the time and space to interact ( Lesser & Everest, 2001 ) may be a realistic proposal but designating leadership or facilitation roles (Lesser & Everest, 2001 ) may not. But the most fundamental question that probably needs to be asked, and answered is: can, or should organisational knowledge be managed? Tsoukas and Vladimirou ( 2001 ) argue that heuristic knowledge developed by employees while doing their job cannot be managed formally in the same way that ‘information’ can be. They propose sustaining a spirit of community at work and encouraging employees to improvise and take the initiative. Whether, these are the right ingredients for the nurturing of informal processes will require further research. Perhaps the final point should be left to Wenger ( 1998: 10 ) who stresses that:

“if we believe that people in organisations contribute to organisational goals by participating in practices that can never be fully captured by institutional processes…we will have to make sure that our organisations are contexts within which the communities that develop these practices may prosper”.

Nexus of relations

Communities of practice

Legitimate peripheral participation – learning

through co-participation - engaging in the practice of experts within the context

of the social world

Self-organising

Formal groups

Communities of commitment – delivering specific organisational goals

Knowledge creation, transfer/sharing

Individual

Quality and nature of relationships with communities and formal groups; perception of organisation

Sharing ExchangeSharing

Belonging – whole personIdentity construction PowerTrustPoliticsPower equality vs inequality

Belonging – part personIdentity – roleObligationPoliticsPower inequality vs equality

Organisation

Abstract concept? - Employees organise their working lives with immediate colleagues. Interplay of formal and informal processes and activities.

Social capital

Human capital

Organisation capital

Situated learning: learning is an integral and inseparable outcome of social practice. Communities are the source of learning; learning is distributed among co-participants

Knowledge is embedded in the community

Behavioural learning: training processes – programmed instruction etc Cognitive learning: learner internalises ‘explicit’ knowledgeKnowledge construction: knowledge is personal and subjective ( ‘tacit’ ) – constructivism . Learner is at the centre of the learning experience.

Activities &Outcomes

Activity theory: established/formalised patterns of social interaction are a source of learning at work

Knowledge management: knowledge can be codified

Figure 1: conceptual framework

References

Adler, P. A. and Adler, P. ( 1994 ) ‘Observational techniques’ in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln ( eds. ) A Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Andrews, K. M. and Delahaye, B. I. ( 2000 ) ‘Influences on knowledge processes in organisational learning: The psychosocial filter’, Journal of Management Studies, 37: 6 ( Sep ), pp. 797 – 810.

Bertels, T. and Savage, C. M. ( 1998 ) ‘Tough questions on knowledge management’ in G. von Krogh, J. Roos and D. Kleine ( eds. ) Knowing in Firms: Understanding, Managing and Measuring Knowledge, London: Sage Publications.

Blackler, F. and Crump, N. ( 2000 ) ‘Organising Processes in Complex Activity Networks’ Organisation, Vol. 7 ( 2 ), pp. 277-300.

Blackler, F. and McDonald, S. ( 2000 ) ‘Power, Mastery and Organisational Learning’ Journal of Management Studies, 37 ( 6 ), 833 – 51.

Blackler, F. and Shimmin, S. ( 1984 ) Applying Psychology in Organisations, London: Metheun.

Blackler, F., Crump, N. and McDonald, S. ( 1998 ) ‘Knowledge, organisations and competition’, in G. von Krogh, J. Roos and D. Kleine ( eds. ) Knowing in Firms: Understanding, Managing and Measuring Knowledge, London: Sage Publications.

Boud, D. and Garrick, J. ( 1999 ) ‘Understandings of workplace learning’ in D. Boud and J. Garrick ( eds. ) Understanding Learning at Work. London: Routledge.

Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. ( 1998 ) ‘Organising Knowledge’, California Management Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, spring, pp. 90- 111.

Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. ( 1991 ) ‘Organisational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation’ in Organisation Science, Vol 2, No. 1, Feb, pp. 40-57.

Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. ( 2002 ) ‘Organising Knowledge’ in S. Little, P. Quintas and T. Ray Managing Knowledge: An Essential Reader, London: Sage

Burton-Jones, A. ( 1999 ) Knowledge Capitalism: Business, Work, and Learning in the New Economy, Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Cassell, C. and Symon, G. ( 1994 ) ‘Qualitative Research in Work Contexts’ in C. Cassell and G. Symon ( eds. ) Qualitative Methods in Organisational Research, London: Sage.

Collison, C. and Parcell, G. ( 2001 ) Learning to Fly: Practical lessons from one of the world’s leading knowledge companies, Oxford: Capstone.

Cook, S. D. N. and Brown, J. S. ( 2002 ) ‘Bridging Epistemologies: the Generative Dance between Organisational Knowledge and Organisational Knowing’ in S. Little, P. Quintas and T. Ray Managing Knowledge: An Essential Reader, London: Sage

Davenport , T. H. and Prusak, L. ( 2000 ) Working Knowledge: How organisations manage what they know, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Drucker, P. ( 1988 ) ‘The Coming of the New Organisation’ in Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management, Harvard Business Review: Boston.

Duke, C. ( 1992 ) The Learning University: Towards a New Paradigm?, SRHE & Open University Press.

Duke, C. ( 2002 ) Managing the Learning University, Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Easterby-Smith, M. and Araujo, L. ( 1999 ) ‘Organisational Learning: Current Debates and Opportunities’ in M. Easterby-Smith, J. Burgoyne and L. Araujo ( eds. ) Organisational Learning and the Learning Organisation, London: Sage.

Easterby-Smith, M., Snell, R. and Gherardi, S. ( 1998 ) ‘Organisational learning: diverging communities of practice?’ Management Learning, 29 ( 3 ), pp. 259 – 72.

Eisenstadt, S. N. and Roniger, L. ( 1984 ) Patrons, Clients and Friends, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Ellis, S. & Dick, P. ( 2003 ) Introduction to Organisational Behaviour, Maidenhead: McGraw Hill

Engeström, Y. ( 1996 ) ‘development studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: the case of primary care medical practice’ in S. Chaiklin and J. Lave ( eds. ) Understanding practice; Perspectives on activity and context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Engeström, Y. ( 2000 ) ‘Comment on Blackler at al. Activity Theory and the Social Construction of Knowledge: A Story of Four Umpires’, Organisation, Vol. 7 ( 2 ), pp. 301-310.

Fenwick, T. ( 2001 ) ‘Questioning the concept of the Learning Organisation’ in C. Paechter, M. Preedy, D. Scott and J. Soler ( eds. ) Knowledge, Power and Learning, London: Paul Chapman Publishing/The Open University.

Fiol, C. M., O’Connor, E. J. and Aguinis, H. ( 2001 ) ‘All for one and one for all? The development and transfer of power across organisation levels’ Academy of Management Review, 26 ( 2 ), pp. 224 – 42.

Foucault, M. ( 1977 ) Discipline and Punish, Harmondsworth: Peregrine Books.

Garvin, D.A. ( 1993 ) ‘Building a Learning Organisation’ in Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management, Harvard Business Review: Boston.

Gaventa, J. and Cornwall, A. ( 2001 ) ‘Power and Knowledge’ in P. Reason and H. Bradbury ( eds. ) Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, London: Sage Publications.

Gergen, K. J. ( 1999 ) An Invitation to Social Construction, London: Sage.

Good, D. ( 1988 ) ‘Individuals, interpersonal relations, and trust’ in D. Gambetta ( ed. ) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Oxford: Blackwell

Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. ( 1994 ) ‘Competing paradigms in qualitative research’ in N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln ( eds. ) Handbook of qualitative research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage ( pp. 105-117 )

Hammersley, M. ( 2002 ) ‘Ethnography and Realism’ in A. M. Huberman and M. B. Miles ( eds. ) The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion’, London: Sage.

Handy, C. ( 2002 ) The elephant and the flea, London: Arrow.

Hanley, S. ( 1998 ) ‘Knowledge-based communities of practice at AMS: How to motivate busy people to share and contribute their knowledge’, Knowledge Management Review, Issue 3, July-August, pp.8-9.

Hansen, M. T. ( 1999 ) ‘The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organisation subunits’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, pp. 82-111.

Holliday, A. ( 2002 ) Doing and writing Qualitative Research, London: Sage.

Hucynski, A. and Buchanan, D. ( 1991 ) Organisational Behaviour: An Introductory Text, London: Prentice Hall.

Huemer, L., von Krogh, G. and Roos, J. ( 1998 ) ‘Knowledge and the concept of trust’, in G. von Krogh, J. Roos and D. Kleine ( eds. ) Knowing in Firms: Understanding, Managing and Measuring Knowledge, London: Sage Publications

Huseman, R.C. & Goodman, J.P. ( 1999 ) Leading with Knowledge: The Nature of Competition in the 21st Century, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

Jarvis, P. ( 2001 ) Universities and Corporate Universities, London: Kogan Page.

Kollock, P. ( 1994 ) ‘The emergence of exchange structures: an experimental study of uncertainty, commitment and trust’ in American Journal of Sociology, vol. 100, No. 2, pp. 131-345.

Laurillard, D. ( 1993 ) Rethinking University Teaching: a framework for the effective use of educational technology, London: Routledge.

Lave, J. ( 1996 ) ‘Introduction: the practice of learning’ in S. Chaiklin and J. Lave ( eds. ) Understanding practice; Perspectives on activity and context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. ( 1991 ) Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Lazarsfeld, P. F. and Menzel, H. ( 1961 ) ‘On the relation between Individual and Collective Properties’ in A. Etzioni ( ed. ) Complex Organisations: A Sociological Reader, pp. 422-40, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston

Lesser, E. and Everest, K. ( 2001 ) ‘Using communities of practice to manage intellectual capital’, Ivey Business Journal, Vol. 65, Issue 4, pp. 37-41.

Levin, D., Cross, R. and Abrams, L. C. ( 2002 ) ‘The strength of weak ties you can trust: the mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer’, Academy of Management Proceedings, pp. D1-6.

McDermott, R. ( 1999 ) ‘Nurturing three-dimensional communities of practice’, Knowledge Management Review, Issue 11, Nov., pp. 26-29.

Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. ( 1994 ) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook ( 2nd edn. ), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nixon, N. M. ( 1999 ) ‘The changing face of knowledge’, The Learning Organisation, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 212-216.

Nohria, N. ( 1992 ) ‘Is a Network Perspective a Useful Way of Studying Organisations?’ in N. Nohria and R. G. Eccles ( eds. ) Networks and Organisations: Structure, Form, and Action, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. ( 1995 ) The Knowledge-Creating Company, New York: Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Konno, N. ( 2002 ) ‘SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation in S. Little, P. Quintas and T. Ray Managing Knowledge: An Essential Reader, London: Sage

Nonaka, I. ( 1991 ) ‘The Knowledge-Creating Company’ in Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management, Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Oliver, D. & Roos, J. ( 2000 ) Striking a balance: Complexity and Knowledge Landscapes, McGraw-Hill: Maidenhead.

Probst, G. and Büchel, B. ( 1997 ) Organisational Learning: The competitive advantage of the future, London: Prentice Hall.

Quintas, P. ( 2002 ) ‘Managing Knowledge in a New Century’ in S. Little, P. Quintas and T. Ray Managing Knowledge: An Essential Reader, London: Sage

Ruggles, R. L. ( 1997 ) ‘Tools for Knowledge Management: An Introduction’ in R.L. Ruggles ( ed. ) Knowledge Management Tools, Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Scarborough, H., Swan, J. and Preston, J. ( 1999 ) Investigating Knowledge Management, London: CIPD.

Scarborough, H. and Carter, C. ( 2000 ) Investigating Knowledge Management, London: CIPD.

Schein, E. ( 1980 ) Organisational Psychology ( 3rd ed. ), Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Scott, W. R. ( 1987 ) Organisations: Rational, natural, and Open Systems ( 2nd ed. ), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall International

Seligman, A. ( 1997 ) The Problem of Trust, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

Silverman, D. ( 1993 ) Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction, London: Sage.

Simmel, G. ( 1955 trans. ) Conflict and The Web of group-Affiliations, Glenco, Ill.: Free Press

Spender, J. C. ( 1996 ) ‘Organisational knowledge, learning and memory: three concepts in search of a theory’, Journal of Organisational Change, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 63-78.

Stacey, R. ( 2001 ) Complex Responsive Processes in Organisations: Learning and Knowledge creation, London: Routledge.

Starkey, K. ( 1996 ) ‘Introduction’ in K. Starkey ( ed. ) How Organisations Learn. London: International Thomson Business Press.

Stevens, L. ( 2000 ) ‘Incentives for sharing’, Knowledge Management, Vol. 3, Issue 10, pp. 54-59.

Sternberg, R. J. ( 1994 ) ‘PRSVL: an integrative framework for understanding mind in context’, in R. J. Sternberg and R. K. Wagner ( eds. ) Mind in Context:

Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ( pp. 218-32 ).

Stewart, J. and Tansley, C. ( 2002 ) Training in the Knowledge Economy, London: CIPD.

Sztompka, P. ( 1999 ) Trust: A Sociological Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Tapper, T. and Palfreyman, D. ( 2000 ) Oxford and the Decline of the Collegiate System, London: Woburn Press.

Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. ( 1998 ) Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, London: Sage.

Tsoukas, H. and Vladimirou, E. ( 2001 ) ‘What is organisational knowledge?’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38, Issue 7, pp. 973-993.

Waddock, S. A. ( 1999 ) ‘Paradigm shift: toward a community-university community of practice’, International Journal of Organisational Analysis, Vol. 7, Issue 3, pp. 244-264.

Watson, D. and Taylor, R. ( 1998 ) Lifelong Learning and the University: A Post-Dearing Agenda, London: Farmer Press.

Wenger, E. ( 1998 ) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Wenger, E. ( 2000 ) ‘Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems’ in Organisation, Vol. 7 (2), pp.225-246.

Wenger, E. and Snyder, W. ( 2000 ) ‘Communities of practice: The organisational frontier’, Harvard Business Review, ( Jan – Feb ).