Davide Nicolini, Igor Pyrko, O. Omidvar, Agnessa Spanellis
{"title":"理解实践社区:评估和前进","authors":"Davide Nicolini, Igor Pyrko, O. Omidvar, Agnessa Spanellis","doi":"10.5465/annals.2020.0330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper provides a comprehensive, integrative conceptual review of work on communities of practice (CoPs), defined broadly as groups of people bound together by a common activity, shared expertise, a passion for a joint enterprise, and a desire to learn or improve their practice. We identify three divergent views on the intended purposes and expected effects of CoPs: as mechanisms for fostering learning and knowledge-sharing, as sources of innovation, and as mechanisms to defend interests and perpetuate control over expertise domains. We use these different lenses to make sense of the ways CoPs are conceptualized and to review scholarly work on this topic. We argue that current debate on the future of work and new methodological developments are challenging the received wisdom on CoPs and offer research opportunities and new conceptual combinations. We argue also that the interaction between the lenses and between CoP theory and adjacent literatures might result in new theory and conceptualizations.","PeriodicalId":48333,"journal":{"name":"Academy of Management Annals","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":14.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding Communities of Practice: Taking Stock and Moving Forward\",\"authors\":\"Davide Nicolini, Igor Pyrko, O. Omidvar, Agnessa Spanellis\",\"doi\":\"10.5465/annals.2020.0330\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper provides a comprehensive, integrative conceptual review of work on communities of practice (CoPs), defined broadly as groups of people bound together by a common activity, shared expertise, a passion for a joint enterprise, and a desire to learn or improve their practice. We identify three divergent views on the intended purposes and expected effects of CoPs: as mechanisms for fostering learning and knowledge-sharing, as sources of innovation, and as mechanisms to defend interests and perpetuate control over expertise domains. We use these different lenses to make sense of the ways CoPs are conceptualized and to review scholarly work on this topic. We argue that current debate on the future of work and new methodological developments are challenging the received wisdom on CoPs and offer research opportunities and new conceptual combinations. We argue also that the interaction between the lenses and between CoP theory and adjacent literatures might result in new theory and conceptualizations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academy of Management Annals\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":14.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academy of Management Annals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2020.0330\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academy of Management Annals","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2020.0330","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Understanding Communities of Practice: Taking Stock and Moving Forward
This paper provides a comprehensive, integrative conceptual review of work on communities of practice (CoPs), defined broadly as groups of people bound together by a common activity, shared expertise, a passion for a joint enterprise, and a desire to learn or improve their practice. We identify three divergent views on the intended purposes and expected effects of CoPs: as mechanisms for fostering learning and knowledge-sharing, as sources of innovation, and as mechanisms to defend interests and perpetuate control over expertise domains. We use these different lenses to make sense of the ways CoPs are conceptualized and to review scholarly work on this topic. We argue that current debate on the future of work and new methodological developments are challenging the received wisdom on CoPs and offer research opportunities and new conceptual combinations. We argue also that the interaction between the lenses and between CoP theory and adjacent literatures might result in new theory and conceptualizations.
期刊介绍:
The mission of the Academy of Management Annals (Annals) is to publish up-to-date, in-depth and integrative reviews of research advances in management. Often called "reviews with an attitude," Annals papers summarize and/or challenge established assumptions and concepts, pinpoint problems and factual errors, inspire discussions, and illuminate possible avenues for further study. Reviews published in Annals move above and beyond descriptions of the field–they motivate conceptual integration and set agendas for future research.