Beyond information – factors in participation in networks of practice. A case study of web management in UK higher education
| Pages | 765-787 |
| Published date | 11 September 2007 |
| Date | 11 September 2007 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410710827790 |
| Author | Andrew M. Cox |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Library & information science |
Beyond information – factors
in participation in networks
of practice
A case study of web management
in UK higher education
Andrew M. Cox
Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield,
Sheffield, UK
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to explore the pattern and significance of cross-organizational ties in an
emergent professional field, web production in UK higher education.
Design/methodolog y/approach – The research is based on in- depth interviews with 21
practitioners and analysis of activity in cross-organizational spaces, such as an online community
and a series of annual practitioner conferences on the web in HE (1997).
Findings – The cross-organizational spaces have support and sy mbolic roles as well as
informational ones. They have overlapping but different membership and agendas. Key factors
that govern individual participation and so the shape of cross-organizational spaces are differential
involvement in technical innovation, degree of organizational embedding or marginality, differences in
organizational position and role, orientation towards centralization or decentralization and orientation
towards marketing or IT. There is some sense of occupational community among web managers, but
within that also diversity and a significant fracture line between marketing and IT perspectives on
the role. This may explain the lack of formal professionalization. As a more natural boundary practice
between organizations than marketing, IT has more public visibility, possibly influencing the course
jurisdictional struggles over who should control the web.
Originality/value – Most studies of knowledge sharing have focussed on the factors which
influence it within an organization, yet cross-organizational sharing is also of importance, even for
established professions as the boundaries of organizations become more open. For new occupations
cross-organizational ties may be a critical resource, and not only for sharing information or support,
but for making sense of what the job is about at the deepest level. The research is also original in
analysing a relatively little researched occupational group, those producing web sites for a living. It
will be relevant to those interested in online and people centered information seeking, in
professionalization and occupational identity.
Keywords Networking,Higher education, United Kingdom
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm
The author would like to express his immense gratitude to the interviewees who participated in
the study, including Rhodri Windsor, Helen Sargan, David Supple, Stephen Emmott, Brian Kelly,
Michael Deyes, Duncan Ireland, Damon Querry, Patrick Lauke and Andrew Aird. He would also
like to acknowledge the help of his doctoral supervisors, Professor Cliff McKnight and Steve
Brown, and of Jodie Clark and also of the reviewers of Journal of Documentation.
Beyond
information
765
Received 8 May 2006
Revised 21 October 2006
Accepted 28 October 2006
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 63 No. 5, 2007
pp. 765-787
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/00220410710827790
Introduction
With increasing interest in the value to organizations and individuals of networking
and (often engineered) “communities of practice” there is a need to understand better
what determines participation in such activities. This paper examines a case study of
those involved in the production of UK university web sites to consider factors in
participation in cross-organizational networks of practice. In such relatively new fields
colleagues in different institutions may be quite important in offering practical help
and support but perhaps also in how the whole practice is understood.
A discussion of theoretical background and methodology is followed by two
sections of findings. These first analyze the character of the cross-organizational
spaces themselves and then consider what factors have determined the shape of these
activities and what influences individual participation.
Theoretical background
A familiar phenomenon on the internet is the expert forum in which practitioners share
information and discuss common “professional” interests, be this through a bulletin
board, Usenet or e-mail list or another of the burgeoning range of social software. In
such groups colleagues in different organizations help each other, often expending a
surprising amount of effort to do so. Brown and Duguid (2001, p. 205) label such
“loosely coupled systems” networks of practice (NOP) a term hinting at a continuum
with more tightly knit communities of practice (Wenger, 1998). It seems useful to make
a distinction for, at least in Wenger’s (1998, p. 125) earlier work, a community of
practice seems to mean a small, intensely interacting face to face group most online
groups have huge memberships, who are distributed in space and interaction is
intermittent, semi-public. NOPs seem more like networks forming at the boundaries
between local communities of practices (Wenger, 1998, pp. 126-33) refers to such
structures as constellations of practices. NOPs are perhaps particularly common in the
IT area, but may be increasingly found in many professional domains.
Kotamraju (2002) has suggested that in the web design field such informal groups
are for “keeping up” which implies a desire to maintain existing skills and parity with
others. Barley and Kunda (2004, p. 301) in their study of IT contractors stress both
lower level “fixing problems” but also “keeping ahead” Barley and Kunda (2004,
p. 245) – implying the need to differentiate oneself from others and a willingness to
cast aside old skills and reinvent oneself through acquiring knowledge of the latest
technology. None of these authors is seeking to produce a complete picture of the
information shared in such groups. A more comprehensive approach might seek to
evaluate the information shared in these groups, in terms of such parameters as
relevance, timeliness, currency, authority, depth and accuracy, completeness,
coherence, reliability, cost and uniqueness (Smith, 1997; Miller, 1996; SOSIG, 2005).
Yet if not comprehensive, Kotamraju’s and Barley and Kunda’s summaries may
encapsulate some key motives for participating in NOPs. Using such forums fits with
technicians’ known preferences for practical know how (Brown and Duguid, 1998;
Finholt et al., 2002) and hands on experience of using tools (Hertzum, 2000; Hertzum
et al., 2002). It is logical to suppose that the qualities of information shared will also be
influenced by such factors as the differential cost of generalising local problems so that
they can be understood by those outside the context and organization al fears about
leaking valuable knowledge. Actually the knowledge sharing dilemmas may in some
JDOC
63,5
766
To continue reading
Request your trial