BOUNDARY DISCONTINUITY IN A CONSTELLATION OF INTERCONNECTED PRACTICES
| Published date | 01 June 2014 |
| Date | 01 June 2014 |
| Author | ROMAN KISLOV |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12065 |
doi: 10.1111/padm.12065
BOUNDARY DISCONTINUITY IN A CONSTELLATION
OF INTERCONNECTED PRACTICES
ROMAN KISLOV
This article uses the theory of ‘communities of practice’ to explore the discontinuity of knowledge
sharing across different groups co-located within a collaborative research partnership. It presents
the findings of a qualitative case study conducted within one of the Collaborations for Leadership
in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) – large-scale UK-based knowledge mobilization
initiatives bringing together the producers and users of health research. Focusing on the boundaries
emerging between and within the research and implementation strands of the CLAHRC, the article
describes how differences between communities of practice give rise to discontinuities in knowledge
sharing. Its findings highlight the role of fragmented organizational design, divergent meanings and
identities, and dysfunctional boundary bridges in the (re)production, legitimization, and protection
of boundaries between groups. Finally, the article questions the role of research implementation as
a boundary practice bridging the gap between academic research and clinical practice.
INTRODUCTION
The theory of communities of practice conceptualizes learning, meaning, and identity
as functions of groups created over time through sustained collective pursuits of shared
enterprises (Wenger 1998). Initially developed (Lave and Wenger 1991) to capture the
complexities of learning within tightly-knit, relatively homogeneous groupings, it later
evolved and expanded to include the processes of knowledge sharing between them. Pre-
vious empirical research has mainly analysed the processes taking place either in a single
community of practice or at a boundary between two adjacent communities rather than
in complex constellations of interconnected practices, including multiple, overlapping, inter-
dependent communities and, therefore, multiple boundaries (recent exceptions include
Barrett et al. 2012; Mørk et al. 2012). This article conceptualizes constellations of inter-
connected practices as dynamic boundary systems and aims to explore the mechanisms
of boundary discontinuity in collaborative organizational forms specifically created to
enable continuity across practices involved.
To address this objective, the article uses one of the Collaborations for Leadership in
Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) – a novel, large-scale UK-based knowl-
edge mobilization initiative aiming to bridge the gap between producers and users of
research – as an example of an institutionalized constellation of interconnected practices.
Focusing on boundaries that acted as a major source of discontinuity in knowledge
sharing and joint working, it describes how this discontinuity was enabled at the level of
practice by (re)producing, legitimizing, and protecting the differences between groups. It
highlights the roles of fragmented organizational structure, divergent meanings and iden-
tities, and dysfunctional boundary bridges in these interlinked processes. The article also
questions the effectiveness of current policy arrangements determining the relationship
between the fields of applied health research and its implementation and suggests the
possibility of fragmentation and divides within the implementation field.
The findings of this article are likely to be applicable beyond the context of the English
National Health Service (NHS). Its focus on implementation as a problematic boundary
Roman Kislov is at Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Public Administration Vol. 92, No. 2, 2014 (307–323)
©2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
308 ROMAN KISLOV
field is relevant for collaborative research partnerships dedicated to closing the gap
between academic research and clinical practice and improving the quality of healthcare
(Denis and Lomas 2003). Beyond the healthcare context, theoretical analysis presented
in the article has the potential to inform inclusive management practices that involve
boundary experiences, boundary objects, and boundary organizations (Feldman et al.
2006) and aim to cultivate ‘communities of participation’ in order to address public
problems (Feldman and Khademian 2007, p. 305).
The article is structured in the following way. Starting with a review of theoretical
and empirical literature on boundaries and boundary bridges in constellations of inter-
connected practices, it then briefly describes CLAHRCs as novel knowledge mobilization
initiatives and summarizes existing literature on barriers to knowledge sharing within
them. The Case and Method section introduces the collaboration that acted as a research
setting, describes the design of the study, and outlines procedures for data collection
and analysis. The findings of the study are then presented in two subsections, the first
describing the boundary between research and implementation, and the second, bound-
aries between the CLAHRC implementation teams. This is followed by the Discussion,
focusing on the role of organizational structure, systems of meanings, and boundary
bridges in (re)producing, legitimizing, and protecting discontinuity across boundaries.
The concluding section of the article outlines its contribution and limitations and draws a
number of practical implications for collaborative management practices.
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
Boundaries in constellations of interconnected practices
Organizations can be seen as complex ‘constellations of interconnected practices’ (Wenger
1998, p. 127), in which multiple practices differentiate themselves from and interlock with
each other at their boundaries. Boundaries are defined as sociocultural differences between
practices leading to discontinuities in action or interaction (Akkerman and Bakker 2011).
This definition echoes Abbott’s (1995, p. 862) conceptualization of boundaries as ‘sites
of difference’ emerging through local cultural negotiations and subsequently objectified
in the form of social entities. Boundaries between practices are unavoidable, being
underpinned by diverging regimes of competence, shared identities, and histories of
learning represented by different communities (Wenger 1998). They are dynamic, rather
than stable or static, and become the locus of activities mediating relations between inside
and outside, which may include integration, differentiation, interaction, and development
of relationships (Hyde 2006).
The nature of boundaries is fundamentally dual and ambiguous: they can lead to
innovation, learning, and cross-fertilization between practices, on the one hand, and to
separation, fragmentation, and disconnection, on the other (Wenger 2000; Akkerman and
Bakker 2011). In the latter case boundaries function as relatively impermeable frontiers
to the spread of innovation and new work practices (Ferlie et al. 2005). A number of
mechanisms of discontinuity at boundaries can be identified (cf. Lamont and Moln´
ar
2002). First, boundary development is closely interlinked with identity formation: on the
one hand, our ability to productively deal with boundaries depends on our ability to
engage and suspend our identities (Wenger 2000); on the other hand, salient boundaries
are necessary for the formation of an integrated sense of identity at individual, group, and
organizational levels (Hyde 2006), which includes emphasizing differences, rather than
Public Administration Vol. 92, No. 2, 2014 (307–323)
©2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial