理解实践社区:评估和前进

IF 14.3 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Academy of Management Annals Pub Date : 2022-04-05 DOI:10.5465/annals.2020.0330
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}
引用次数: 11

摘要

本文对实践社区(cop)的工作进行了全面、综合的概念性回顾。实践社区被广泛地定义为由共同的活动、共享的专业知识、对联合企业的热情以及学习或改进实践的愿望联系在一起的人群。关于缔约方会议的预期目的和预期效果,我们确定了三种不同的观点:作为促进学习和知识共享的机制,作为创新的来源,以及作为维护利益和长期控制专业领域的机制。我们使用这些不同的视角来理解cop概念化的方式,并回顾有关该主题的学术工作。我们认为,目前关于工作未来和新方法发展的辩论正在挑战关于cop的公认智慧,并提供了研究机会和新的概念组合。我们还认为,透镜之间的相互作用以及CoP理论与邻近文献之间的相互作用可能会产生新的理论和概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
36.00
自引率
1.40%
发文量
34
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.
期刊最新文献
Categorizing Concepts and Phenomena in Management Research: A Four-Phase Integrative Review and Recommendations Standardization: Research Trends, Current Debates, and Interdisciplinarity Purpose in Management Research: Navigating a Complex and Fragmented Area of Study Heuristics in Organizations: Toward an Integrative Process Model Understanding How People React to Change: A Domain of Uncertainty Approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1