Analysis of processes of cooperation and knowledge sharing in a community of practice with a diversity of actors

According to some literature, communities of practice should normally stem from a voluntary initiative within an organization, whose members share some knowledge or expertise they wish to improve. However, over time, we have seen that communities tend to be created within organizations, in order to attain objectives of learning and knowledge development. This represents a challenge in the context of a community of practice taking the form of a research network in partnership that brings together members with common interests certainly, but spread out in different organizations and even several countries in which they perform different types of work. Also, the community does not exist in a vacuum and the explanation for what happens within it does not lie solely within the way the group interacts; indeed the individuals are part of different organizations and thus have different priorities, in relation with these affiliations. In this context, our research objective was to determine the factors that facilitate or hinder cooperation within a community of practice composed by two groups of actors, community and university actors. We thus found that individuals’ different work affiliations might not facilitate the work within the CoP and that ICT/web 2.0 tools are not always a solution to increase participation in a CoP. Although participants are somewhat familiar with the tools, they mostly seem content with receiving and accessing information, not searching for a more active participation. Some explications and solutions will be proposed.

[1]  Angel Cabrera,et al.  Knowledge-Sharing Dilemmas , 2002 .

[2]  Alexander Ardichvili,et al.  Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice , 2003, J. Knowl. Manag..

[3]  J. Overhage,et al.  Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[4]  Paul Hildreth,et al.  Knowledge Management: Are We Missing Something? , 2005 .

[5]  E. Wenger Communities of practice: learning as a social system , 1998 .

[6]  E. Wenger,et al.  Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[7]  Carla O'Dell,et al.  Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge , 2001, J. Knowl. Manag..

[8]  Armand Hatchuel,et al.  The Two Pillars of New Management Research , 2001 .

[9]  Davide Nicolini,et al.  To Transfer is to Transform: The Circulation of Safety Knowledge , 2000 .

[10]  Joseph Cothrel,et al.  On-line communities: helping them form and grow , 1999, J. Knowl. Manag..

[11]  O. Guillaume Recherches partenariales : coordination et coopération entre chercheurs d’entreprise et chercheurs universitaires , 2011 .

[12]  Valéry Psyché,et al.  Apport de l'ingénierie ontologique aux environnements de formation à distance , 2003 .

[13]  Karl-Erik Sveiby,et al.  Collaborative climate and effectiveness of knowledge work - an empirical study , 2002, J. Knowl. Manag..

[14]  Sangmi Chai,et al.  What makes bloggers share knowledge? An investigation on the role of trust , 2010, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[15]  Robyn A. McDermott 10 critical success factors in building communities of practice , 2001 .

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

[17]  Davide Nicolini,et al.  The Organizational Learning of Safety in Communities of Practice , 2000 .

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

[19]  Romain Zeiliger,et al.  On the Use of Actor-Network Theory for Developing Web Services Dedicated to Communities of Practice , 2006, EC-TEL Workshops.

[20]  Susan Gasson,et al.  A genealogical study of boundary-spanning IS design , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[21]  Frédéric Créplet,et al.  Innovation organisationnelle, communauts de pratique et communauts pistmiques: le cas de Linux , 2003 .

[22]  Clay Spinuzzi,et al.  The Methodology of Participatory Design , 2005 .

[23]  Andrew Clement,et al.  Computing at work: empowering action by “low-level users” , 1994, CACM.

[24]  J. Lave Cognition in Practice: Outdoors: a social anthropology of cognition in practice , 1988 .

[25]  John Mitchell The potential for communities of practice to underpin the National Training Framework , 2002 .

[26]  Chris Kimble,et al.  Innovation and knowledge sharing across professional boundaries: Political interplay between boundary objects and brokers , 2010, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[27]  M. McLure Wasko,et al.  "It is what one does": why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice , 2000, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[28]  Ken Starkey,et al.  Bridging the Relevance Gap: Aligning Stakeholders in the Future of Management Research , 2001 .

[29]  Paul Hildreth,et al.  The duality of knowledge , 2002, Inf. Res..

[30]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Explorations in Learning & Instruction: The Theory Into Practice Database , 2003 .