Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intellectual ...

Annukka Jyrämä et al.
knowledge creation by studying <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> communities <strong>of</strong> practice (see e.g. Brown and Duguid 1991,
2001, Lave and Wenger 1991, Wenger 1998, Wenger and Snyder 2000, Cox 2004) or
microcommunites <strong>of</strong> knowledge (von Korgh et al. 2000) and <strong>the</strong>ir inherent dominant logic (e.g. Bettis
and Prahalad 1995, Von Korgh and Grand 2000) as barriers to or enablers for learning and sharing
knowledge.
The paper reports a large survey conducted among <strong>the</strong> city <strong>of</strong> Helsinki employees. Altoge<strong>the</strong>r 1800
responses were received. The following sections elaborate <strong>the</strong> chosen <strong>the</strong>oretical approaches and
research methodology, and <strong>the</strong> research site, <strong>the</strong> city <strong>of</strong> Helsinki. Consequently, <strong>the</strong> key results and
major findings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> study are presented. The final sections conclude by presenting key issues to
reflect in future research and by managerial implications.
2. Learning in communities and dominant logic
The <strong>the</strong>oretical discussion underpinning our study consists <strong>of</strong> literature on <strong>the</strong> contextual nature <strong>of</strong>
learning and <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> understanding <strong>the</strong> situational and cultural aspects affecting employee
perceptions on learning and development work. (see e.g. Bäcklund, 2007, Bäcklund et al. 2010,
Brown and Duguid, 2001, Lave and Wenger, 1991)
Learning is regarded as an ongoing and dynamic social process, which occurs intentionally or
unintentionally in everyday activities, (see e.g. Araujo 1998, Gherardi, 1999, also Leonard and
Sensiper, 1998: implicit learning -concept). In addition to <strong>the</strong> process nature <strong>of</strong> learning, <strong>the</strong>
contextual and experiential nature <strong>of</strong> learning is emphasized (e.g. Dalley and Hamilton 2000, Gibb
1997, Kolb 1984, Johannisson, 1996). In <strong>the</strong> following, <strong>the</strong> contexts <strong>of</strong> learning and knowledge
creation are discussed.
The concept <strong>of</strong> communities <strong>of</strong> practice, a context for learning and knowledge creation, (e.g. Lave and
Wenger 1991, Wenger 1998, Wenger and Snyder 2000, Brown and Duguid 1991, 2001, Cox 2004)
has traditionally been defined as a freely created community that engages in an activity and <strong>the</strong>n
gradually evolves into a tight community that learns through joint practice. It includes “<strong>the</strong> language,
tools, documents, images, symbols, well-defined roles, specified criteria, codified procedures,
regulations, and contracts that various practices make explicit for a variety <strong>of</strong> purposes” (Wenger
1998: 47). Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, Wenger (1998: 73) defines <strong>the</strong> dimensions <strong>of</strong> practice as <strong>the</strong> property <strong>of</strong> a
community through mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire. There are
communities <strong>of</strong> people, who share some activity or practice and possess similar values, norms and
language (Lave and Wenger 1991, Wenger 1998).
The boundaries <strong>of</strong> communities <strong>of</strong> practice are blurred. It has been stated that we may have various
ways and levels to participate in a community, we may be active members engaged in <strong>the</strong> creation <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> shared values and norms, or we may be newcomers only having peripheral access, learning <strong>the</strong>
ways <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> community. The term ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ (Lave and Wenger 1991) points
out two ways in which one can become a part <strong>of</strong> a community. Peripherality refers to <strong>the</strong> fact that one
can experience exposure before becoming a part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> actual practice. This can be achieved by
assistance, e.g. through lessons. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, <strong>the</strong>re are big differences between lessons that
concern <strong>the</strong> practice and lessons that occur within <strong>the</strong> practice. Peripheral participation ought to
provide access to all dimensions <strong>of</strong> practice: to mutual engagement with o<strong>the</strong>r members, to <strong>the</strong>ir
actions and <strong>the</strong>ir negotiation practices, and to <strong>the</strong> repertoire <strong>of</strong> practices in use (Lave and Wenger
1991, Wenger 1998). Moreover, in order to become a member, newcomers need to be granted
enough legitimacy to be treated as potential members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> community.
The concept <strong>of</strong> a microcommunity <strong>of</strong> knowledge has been presented as ano<strong>the</strong>r context for joint
activity, especially as an enabler for <strong>the</strong> knowledge creation process (von Krogh et al., 2000, 1997).
Both <strong>of</strong> concepts imply shared values and norms that underlie <strong>the</strong> shared practices <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> group. A
microcommunity <strong>of</strong> knowledge refers to a small core group <strong>of</strong> participants that engage in knowledge
sharing and creation. The group is characterized by its own rituals, language, practices, norms, and
values. The group may also include people with various backgrounds and expertise; yet <strong>the</strong>y share
<strong>the</strong> group’s aim and participate actively in its activities. A microcommunity <strong>of</strong> knowledge may have
various tasks and aims, e.g. product development, but generally it is created to enhance knowledge
creation and sharing within a company or an organization (von Krogh et al., 2000, 1997).
293