Principles for Cultivating Scientific Communities of Practice

Kienle, Andrea; Wessner, Martin

doi:10.1007/1-4020-3591-8_15

Cited by 19 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Expert status further influences the individual contribution to cultural artefact development. As a preliminary validation, the results of the cluster analysis are in line with the core--periphery structure described unanimously in the CoP literature (Boylan, 2010;Brown, 2001;Fuller et al, 2007;Handley, Sturdy, Fincham & Clark, 2006;Jordan, 1989;Kienle & Wessner, 2006;Lave & Wenger, 1991;Rovai, 2002;Thompson & MacDonald, 2005;Wenger, 1999).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…From the perspective of empirical research, several scholars (e.g., Kienle & Wessner, 2006) describe expert status as central to the social network, therefore taking into account the number and intensity of relationships with other CoP members (Borgatti, Mehra, Brass & Labianca, 2009). …”

Section: Expert Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such participation shapes not only what we do, but also who we are and how we interpret what we do." This definition is complemented by the numerous examples of CoPs described in the research literature (e.g., Bonsen & Rolff, 2006;Brown, 2001;Jordan, 1989;Kienle & Wessner, 2006;Lave & Wenger, 1991;Rovai, 2002;Thompson & MacDonald, 2005), which reveal also differences in the intensity of participation, depending on the members' individual levels of expertise. Members with higher expertise are involved in more activities, including those with a higher degree of difficulty and responsibility.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Communities of practice in academia: Testing a quantitative model

Nistor

Fischer

2012

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Up to now, the relationships among the fundamental notions of communities of practice (CoPs), i.e. knowledge, participation, identity, and artefact development have been based mainly on results from qualitative studies; they are not yet sufficiently based on quantitative evidence. Starting from a literature review, we formulate a quantitative, causal model of CoPs that describes these variables in the context of academic communities, and aim to validate this model in two academic CoPs with a total of N = 208 participants. A cluster analysis classifies the participants into clusters that are in line with the core--periphery structure known from previous qualitative studies. A regression analysis provides evidence for the hypothesized model on the basis of quantitative data. Suggested directions for future research are to focus on factors that determine CoP participants' contributions to artefact development and on approaches to automated monitoring of virtual CoPs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Expert Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Communities of practice in academia: Testing a quantitative model

Nistor

Fischer

2012

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By applying the concept of community to research communities, we describe the subject matter of the people in the community, not the physical location. Our meaning for research communities is fairly similar to what others have called knowledge communities (Andriessen, 2005) or scientific communities (Kienle and Wessner, 2005).…”

Section: The Concept Of Communitymentioning

confidence: 80%

Knowledge dissemination in the global service marketing community

Lages

Simões

Fisk

2013

Managing Service Quality: An International Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -The evolution of the service marketing field was marked by the emergence of a global, vigorous and tolerant community of service marketing researchers. This paper seeks to examine the history of the service marketing community and argues that it may be an archetype for building the emergent global service research community. Design/methodology/approach -The study combines qualitative and quantitative approaches. The authors interviewed four pioneering service scholars and also collected descriptive data (e.g. Authorship, Affiliation, Title, Keywords) of all service related articles published in 13 top peerreviewed marketing and service journals over the last 30 years (5,432 articles; 6,450 authors). In a dynamic analysis the authors mapped global collaboration between countries over time and detected clusters of international collaboration. Findings -Findings suggest a growing international collaboration for the USA and the UK, while for other countries like Israel the global collaboration started from a high level and decreases now. Further, the service marketing community never became polarized and there were always contributions from researchers all over the world. Research limitations/implications -As the global service research community is developing, service marketing becomes a research neighborhood within the broader service research community. Simultaneously, other research neighborhoods are emerging within this new community (e.g. service arts, service management, service engineering, service science). Originality/value -Anchored on the social evolution and biological evolution metaphors, this study explains the evolution of the service marketing field from both qualitative and quantitative perspectives. Furthermore, it explains the development of the service marketing community as an archetype for building the global service research community.

show abstract

“…Due to the wide diversity of participation forms, the CoP borders often appear fuzzy, so that the observer can hardly discern between participation and non-participation, or estimate the precise number of CoP members. Several examples show that although CoPs can emerge within very large populations of hundreds and thousands of interested persons, such as in the case of the Linux developer community (Lee & Cole, 2003), or in the case of scientists participating in regular conferences (Kienle & Wessner, 2006), the group of members who actively sustain the community practice (experts and intermediates) is usually much smaller, e.g. few tens of persons (cf.…”

Section: Knowledge Sharing and Conceptual Artifacts In Communities Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online help-seeking in communities of practice: Modeling the acceptance of conceptual artifacts

Nistor

Schworm

Werner

2012

Computers & Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interactive online help systems are considered to be a fruitful supplement to traditional IT helpdesks, which are often overloaded. They often comprise user-generated FAQ collections playing the role of technology-based conceptual artifacts. Two main questions arise: how the conceptual artifacts should be used, and which factors influence their acceptance in a community of practice (CoP). Firstly, this paper offers a theoretical frame and a usage scenario for technology-based conceptual artifacts against the theoretical background of the academic help-seeking and CoP approach. Each of the two approaches is extensively covered by psychological and educational research literature, however their combination is not yet sufficiently investigated. Secondly, the paper proposes a research model explaining the acceptance of conceptual artifacts. The model includes users' expectations towards the artifact, perceived social influence and users' roles in the CoP as predictors of artifact use intention and actual usage. A correlational study conducted in an academic software users' CoP and involving structural equations modeling validates the model, suggesting thus a research line that is worth further pursuing. For educational practice, the study suggests three ways of supporting knowledge sharing in CoPs, i.e. use of technology-based conceptual artifacts, roles and division of labor, and purposeful communication in CoPs. Highlights• FAQ collections play the role of technology-based conceptual artifacts.• Artifact use and acceptance in communities of practice is insufficiently studied. • This study combines the community of practice and the help-seeking approach. • A conceptual model of artifact use and acceptance is empirically tested.• The findings suggest ways of fostering communities of practice at workplace.

show abstract

Principles for Cultivating Scientific Communities of Practice

Cited by 19 publications

References 15 publications

Communities of practice in academia: Testing a quantitative model

Communities of practice in academia: Testing a quantitative model

Knowledge dissemination in the global service marketing community

Online help-seeking in communities of practice: Modeling the acceptance of conceptual artifacts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About