NAVEL Gazing: Studying a Networked Scholarly Organization

Many North Americans now work in a global economy where corporations foster networked work – with employees participating in multiple teams and often for multiple purposes – and they do so in networked organizations – whose workers may be physically and organizationally dispersed. We analyze networked workers in one networked scholarly organization: the GRAND Network Centre of Excellence. Drawing on qualitative and social network data, we present our preliminary findings at the early stages of GRAND. Early discussions viewed networked organizations as the antithesis of traditional bureaucratic organizations and expected bureaucratic characteristics such as hierarchy, centralization and formalization to be absent and cross-boundary flows – the hallmark of networked organizations – to be prominent. Our research shows that reality is more complex than the early deductive expectations for networked organizations. The GRAND network is well positioned for cross-boundary flows but they are not yet extensive. In the distributed GRAND network, researchers communicate mostly via now-traditional email although in-person contact is almost as frequent. GRAND is designed with few formal hierarchical differences. Yet hierarchy matters when it comes to communication – researchers in higher positions have higher centrality in communication structures, both GRAND-wide and within projects, suggesting consistent advantages in their communication. Cross-disciplinary exchanges in GRAND are low at the network’s early stages, with little collaboration between Computer Science and Engineering, on the one hand, and Social Sciences and Humanities, on the other. Researchers in Arts and Technology emerge as the most active collaborators in the network both internally and externally. Work within provinces is still the norm.

[1]  E. Wenger,et al.  cultivating communities of practice , 2002 .

[2]  J. Reichardt,et al.  Statistical mechanics of community detection. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[3]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994, Structural analysis in the social sciences.

[4]  Demosthenes Akoumianakis,et al.  Virtual Community Practices and Social Interactive Media: Technology Lifecycle and Workflow Analysis , 2009 .

[5]  R. Hanneman Introduction to Social Network Methods , 2001 .

[6]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams , 1999 .

[7]  R. Breiger The Duality of Persons and Groups , 1974 .

[8]  B. Berg Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences , 1989 .

[9]  P. Kollock,et al.  Communities in Cyberspace , 2002 .

[10]  Robert N. Stern,et al.  Informal Networks and Organizational Crises: An Experimental Simulation , 1988 .

[11]  Dimitrina S. Dimitrova,et al.  Managing Collaborative Research Networks: The Dual Life of a Virtual Community of Practice , 2010, Int. J. Virtual Communities Soc. Netw..

[12]  Jun Zheng,et al.  Trust without touch: jumpstarting long-distance trust with initial social activities , 2002, CHI.

[13]  D. Sonnenwald Scientific collaboration , 2007, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology.

[14]  Jonathan Bishop,et al.  Networked: The New Social Operating System , 2013, Int. J. E Politics.

[15]  T. D. Wilson,et al.  Review of: Berg, Bruce L. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences, 6th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2007 , 2008, Inf. Res..

[16]  James R. Taylor The Other Side of Rationality , 1999 .

[17]  S. Livingstone,et al.  Handbook of new media : social shaping and consequences of ICTs , 2002 .

[18]  Thomas L. Friedman,et al.  The World is Flat : Sejarah Ringkas Abad Ke-21 , 2007 .

[19]  S. Borgatti,et al.  Making Invisible Work Visible: Using Social Network Analysis to Support Strategic Collaboration , 2002 .

[20]  D. Rhoten,et al.  LEAD, FOLLOW, GET OUT OF THE WAY: SIDESTEPPING THE BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE PRACTICE OF INTERDISCIPLINARITY A New Mechanism For Knowledge Production And Re-Integration In The Age Of Information , 2001 .

[21]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  Networks and Organizations , 2006 .

[22]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Mitigating the effects of distance on collaborative intellectual work , 2003 .

[23]  Barry Wellman,et al.  Does citation reflect social structure?: Longitudinal evidence from the Globenet interdisciplinary research group , 2004, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[24]  Janice A. Black,et al.  Emergence of virtual or network organizations: fad or feature , 2000 .

[25]  Peter Cappelli,et al.  Change at Work , 1997 .

[26]  S. Newell,et al.  Social practices and the management of knowledge in project environments , 2003 .

[27]  S. Rafaeli,et al.  Psychological Aspects of Cyberspace: Online Motivational Factors: Incentives for Participation and Contribution in Wikipedia , 2008 .

[28]  Anne E. Trefethen,et al.  E-Science, Cyberinfrastructure, and Scholarly Communication , 2008 .

[29]  David Walters,et al.  The new economy, new opportunities and new structures , 2001 .

[30]  W. Wulf,et al.  Collaborative Research across Disciplinary and Organizational Boundaries , 2008 .

[31]  Barry Wellman,et al.  Local Virtuality in a High-Tech Networked Organization , 2004 .

[32]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research , 2006 .

[33]  Sandeep Chalasani,et al.  On the Value of a Social Network , 2008, ArXiv.

[34]  G. Olson,et al.  Scientific Collaboration on the Internet , 2008 .

[35]  David Krackhardt,et al.  PREDICTING WITH NETWORKS: NONPARAMETRIC MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF DYADIC DATA * , 1988 .

[36]  Wesley Shrum,et al.  Trust, Conflict and Performance in Scientific Collaborations , 2001 .

[37]  Ann Zimmerman,et al.  A Theory of Remote Scientific Collaboration , 2008 .

[38]  Xavier Folgado Networked: The New Social Operating System , 2014 .

[39]  Emmanuel Koku,et al.  Research Communities in Context: Trust, Independence, and Technology in Professional Communities , 2009 .

[40]  Carolyn Penstein Rosé,et al.  Motivation and Collaboration On-Line , 2009, AIED.

[41]  Jeremy Birnholtz,et al.  When do Researchers Collaborate? Toward a Model of Collaboration Propensity in Science and Engineering Research , 2005 .

[42]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  Network Structure in Virtual Organizations , 1999 .

[43]  Diana Crane,et al.  Invisible colleges. Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities , 1972, Medical History.

[44]  R. Florida The Rise of the Creative Class , 2002 .

[45]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication , 1986 .

[46]  Nicholas Negroponte,et al.  Being Digital , 1995 .

[47]  Darren Gergle,et al.  Being there versus seeing there: trust via video , 2001, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[48]  Azy Barak,et al.  Psychological Aspects of Cyberspace: Theory, Research, Applications , 2008 .

[49]  P. Kollock The Economies of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace , 1999 .

[50]  Mark Mortensen,et al.  Conditions Enabling Effective Multiple Team Membership , 2007, Virtuality and Virtualization.

[51]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  From Shared Databases to Communities of Practice: A Taxonomy of Collaboratories , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[52]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Distance Matters , 2000, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[53]  B. Wellman,et al.  Netting Scholars , 2001 .

[54]  Caroline Haythornthwaite,et al.  Work, Friendship, and Media Use for Information Exchange in a Networked Organization , 1998, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[55]  Noshir Contractor,et al.  New media and organizing at the group level , 2002 .