Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Roman Kislov
while it has been suggested that managers play a critical role in constructing, aligning or supporting
CoPs, <strong>the</strong>re is little empirical evidence for <strong>the</strong>se assertions (Swan et al. 2002).
Ano<strong>the</strong>r debated issue is <strong>the</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong> CoP formation in healthcare collaboratives which bring
toge<strong>the</strong>r representatives <strong>of</strong> different pr<strong>of</strong>essional and organisational groups (Bate and Robert 2002).
A number <strong>of</strong> factors may explain why <strong>the</strong> formation <strong>of</strong> CoPs in collaboratives is problematic.
Individuals, teams and organisations involved in collaboration may have different objectives (Øvretveit
et al. 2002); multiple internal and external barriers impede <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> trust and stable
working relationships (Johnson et al. 2003); <strong>the</strong>re is a discrepancy between <strong>the</strong> egalitarian ethos <strong>of</strong>
informal networks and <strong>the</strong> vertical ‘command and control’ structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> National Health Service
(NHS) with its emphasis on meeting targets and managing performance (Currie and Suhomlinova
2006). In addition, an excessive legitimisation and formalisation <strong>of</strong> ‘organic’ CoPs can disrupt, ra<strong>the</strong>r
than support, <strong>the</strong>ir knowledge sharing capacity (Addicott et al. 2006).
2.2 CoP identity building
Wenger (1998) suggests <strong>the</strong> following characterisations <strong>of</strong> identity:
Identity as negotiated experience: negotiating <strong>the</strong> meanings <strong>of</strong> participating in a CoP with o<strong>the</strong>r
CoP members;
Identity as community membership: translation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CoP membership into an identity as a form
<strong>of</strong> competence;
Identity as a learning trajectory: a coherent process <strong>of</strong> changing forms <strong>of</strong> participation within a
CoP over time;
Identity as nexus <strong>of</strong> multimembership: an experience <strong>of</strong> multimembership in various CoPs and
reconciliation <strong>of</strong> different identities to maintain one identity across boundaries;
Identity as a relation between <strong>the</strong> local and <strong>the</strong> global: negotiating local ways <strong>of</strong> belonging to
broader constellations <strong>of</strong> CoPs.
However, <strong>the</strong> processes <strong>of</strong> identity formation in multipr<strong>of</strong>essional and multi-organisational CoPs are
not specifically addressed in <strong>the</strong> seminal CoP literature. It might thus be useful to refer to <strong>the</strong> wider
literature on pr<strong>of</strong>essional and organisational identification.
Pr<strong>of</strong>essional identity is defined as ‘<strong>the</strong> relatively stable and enduring constellation <strong>of</strong> attributes, beliefs,
values, motives, and experiences in terms <strong>of</strong> which people define <strong>the</strong>mselves in a pr<strong>of</strong>essional role’
(Ibarra 1999, pp.764-765). Development <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essional identity in <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> healthcare
collaboration should be analysed in relation to pr<strong>of</strong>essional dominance, pr<strong>of</strong>essional collegiality and
pr<strong>of</strong>essional autonomy (Harrison and McDonald 2008). Firstly, interpr<strong>of</strong>essional collaboration may be
more difficult where <strong>the</strong>re are perceived status differentials between team members. Secondly,
dominant pr<strong>of</strong>essions have <strong>the</strong> capacity to become strong groups independent <strong>of</strong> employing
organisations and <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r occupations. Finally, where members <strong>of</strong> a pr<strong>of</strong>ession have similar
perceptions, values and experiences, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>re will be more agreement among members within a
pr<strong>of</strong>ession than between members <strong>of</strong> two different pr<strong>of</strong>essions (Hudson 2002).
Organisational identification is defined as a ‘form <strong>of</strong> psychological attachment that occurs when
members adopt <strong>the</strong> defining characteristics <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organisation as defining characteristics for
<strong>the</strong>mselves’ (Dutton et al. 1994, p. 242). A member’s level <strong>of</strong> organisational identification indicates <strong>the</strong>
degree to which his/her membership in an organisation is tied to <strong>the</strong> content <strong>of</strong> his/her self-concept
(Dukerich et al. 2002). Organisational identification is most likely to occur under conditions where <strong>the</strong>
boundaries between one’s own organisation and o<strong>the</strong>r organisations are salient, when membership in
<strong>the</strong> organisation is attractive, and when formal organisational structures optimally reflect similarities
and differences across individuals and groups (Pratt 1998).
A few studies are worth mentioning in this respect. In <strong>the</strong>ir research on interagency and
interpr<strong>of</strong>essional teams in <strong>the</strong> NHS, Robinson and Cottrell (2005) argue that in multipr<strong>of</strong>essional work,
pr<strong>of</strong>essional knowledge boundaries can become blurred and pr<strong>of</strong>essional identity can be challenged
as roles and responsibilities change. Team members may struggle to cope with <strong>the</strong> disintegration <strong>of</strong>
one version <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essional identity before a new version can be built. Baxter and Brumfitt (2008)
suggest that <strong>the</strong> depth <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essional knowledge and skills is perceived as <strong>the</strong> core element in
preserving pr<strong>of</strong>essional differences in interpr<strong>of</strong>essional collaboration; that <strong>the</strong>re is little evidence <strong>of</strong>
1043