Episteme or practice? Differentiated communitarian structures in a biology laboratory

This paper explores the different social structures coexisting within a biology laboratory. This work draws upon an empirical study and the results are analysed using the social network analysis toolbox. We evidence that actors form links between them in order to carry out cognitive activities. Depending on the content of this activity, resulting networks can take different shapes. When dealing with scientific knowledge, actors tend to form an epistemic community, whereas they form a community of practice when they seek to enhance their skills in setting experiments. Moreover, these two structures are connected by means of boundary objects and boundary spanners.

[1]  Marshall W. Van Alstyne,et al.  Electronic Communities : Global Village or Cyberbalkans ? , 1996 .

[2]  Ludovic Dibiaggio.  Information, connaissance et organisation , 1998 .

[3]  W. Ashby,et al.  An Introduction to Cybernetics , 1957 .

[4]  J. Brown,et al.  Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation , 1991 .

[5]  Deborah G. . Ancona,et al.  Bridging the Boundary: External Activity and Performance in Organizational Teams. , 1992 .

[6]  Daniel J. Whiteneck.  The Industrial Revolution and Birth of the Anti-Mercantilist Idea:Epistemic Communities and Global Leadership , 1996 .

[7]  R. Langlois,et al.  Capabilities and Governance: The Rebirth of Production in the Theory of Economic Organization , 1997 .

[8]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[9]  Jacques Lesourne,et al.  Economie de l'ordre et du désordre , 1991 .

[10]  M E J Newman,et al.  Community structure in social and biological networks , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  P. Haas.  Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination , 1992, International Organization.

[12]  Frank Blackler,et al.  Organizing Processes in Complex Activity Networks , 2000 .

[13]  D. Leonard-Barton,et al.  Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation , 1995 .

[14]  K. Knorr Cetina.  Epistemic Cultures , 1999 .

[15]  K. Weick.  The social psychology of organizing , 1969 .

[16]  S. Woolgar,et al.  The Manufacture of Knowledge: an Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science , 1982 .

[17]  E. Wenger.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[18]  M. Crossan.  The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation , 1996 .

[19]  M. Sawhney,et al.  Communities of Creation: Managing Distributed Innovation in Turbulent Markets , 2000 .

[20]  J. Storck,et al.  Knowledge Diffusion through “Strategic Communities” , 2000 .

[21]  P. Baumard.  Tacit Knowledge in Organizations , 1999 .

[22]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[23]  Robert Kevin Grigsby.  "Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation" , 1996 .

[24]  H. Gintis,et al.  Social Capital and Community Governance , 2002 .

[25]  Peter M. Haas,et al.  Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program , 1992, International Organization.

[26]  K. Knorr-Cetina.  The Manufacture of Knowledge: an Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science , 1985 .

[27]  Ross Ihaka,et al.  Gentleman R: R: A language for data analysis and graphics , 1996 .

[28]  William Snyder,et al.  Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge , 2002 .

[29]  Viktor Mikhaĭlovich Glushkov,et al.  An Introduction to Cybernetics , 1957, The Mathematical Gazette.

[30]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[31]  I. Nonaka,et al.  How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation , 1995 .