Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [evonline2002_webheads] Study on Webheads in Action - progress report

Expand Messages
  • Teresa Almeida d'Eca
    Chris, First of all, congrats to you and then congrats to Webheads for having a member who has catapulted us to two firsts: WIA is the first group, virtual or
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 6, 2003
      Chris,

      First of all, congrats to you and then congrats to Webheads for having a
      member who has catapulted us to two firsts:

      "WIA is the first group, virtual or otherwise, that has been tested in this
      way."

      "Does the nature of CMC inhibit implicit knowledge transfer? Here, again, is
      a first for Webheads."

      In itself, this 'is' an achievement! And it feels great!!!

      Well, even if we don't measure up to all CoP criteria, it seems to me that
      we can certainly be considered as a 'sui generis' CoP, or a CoP in limited
      terms (as opposed to broad terms, meaning conforming to all criteria).

      Then there is another interesting point that seems to indicate that we may
      be 'sui generis', which is praiseworthy:

      "However, it would take several studies of several different distributed
      CoPs to validate the criteria itself (note: validate my criteria and not
      WIA)."

      Several studies! Wow! It does really seem that we are unique and not that
      linear. And, if that is so, it is very special and stimulating!

      These are my two cents on personal impressions of your message.

      I promise to think about the directions WiA may be straying away from the
      model as soon as possible.

      Thanks again, Chris, for putting us in such a special position! It is a
      privilege!

      Teresa
    • Vance Stevens
      Hi Chris and all, I ve just arrived back in Abu Dhabi and have started checking webheads messages. I feel honored that our group dynamic warrants a study of
      Message 2 of 3 , Apr 9, 2003
        Hi Chris and all,

        I've just arrived back in Abu Dhabi and have started checking
        webheads messages.

        I feel honored that our group dynamic warrants a study of this
        nature. Also, it appears to be an instance of action research, in
        that results will be fed back into the community.

        I take it that the independent variable scheme you mention is the
        same as the nine criteria 'filtered lens' you refer to. I presume
        these are 9 criteria which you take to define a CoP. As you say
        these criteria will not themselves be validated during your study,
        you will no doubt try to defend their logic if not their validity.

        Therefore your study will examine WIA wrt these 9 criteria and
        perhaps indicate changes in the group over time. It will of course
        be interesting to have insights and recommendations, especially as
        these might impinge on implicit knowledge transfer, which is what we
        are here for.

        This is a very interesting question: Does the nature of CMC inhibit
        implicit knowledge transfer? And if the imlicit knowledge being
        transfered is about CMC, I would imagine that use of CMC can only
        help. But here again, we await your verdict regarding the various
        knowledge domains we touch on (whatever those are, do we have a
        list?).

        I would also like to say that Webheads is a phenomenon rather than
        being the product of anyone's particular plan. The group has its own
        dynamic and does not aspire so much to be a CoP as to perhaps
        coincidentally be one. If we can learn from CoP theory something to
        improve our group dynamic and IKT, then that would be of benefit to
        all on this list.

        It's great that you are undertaking this study and I offer you all
        possible encouragement and assistance. Let us know when we can see
        something online.

        Vance



        --- In evonline2002_webheads@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Johnson
        <christopher.johnson@i...> wrote:
        independent
        > variable scheme I developed.
        >
        > 1. Will the study prove whether WIA is a CoP or not?
        > No. The study will weigh aspects that I consider unique to
        distributed
        > CoPs
        > (derived from two years of studying the theory and literature) with
        the
        > data.
        > The results would indicate whether WIA is a CoP, according to this
        > criteria. However, it would take several studies of several
        different
        > distributed CoPs
        > to validate the criteria itself (note: validate my criteria and not
        > WIA).
        >
        > 2. What if WIA does not measure up to the criteria?
        > First of all, this question is very simplistic. There are nine
        criteria
        > over 13 months to
        > "measure up to". There will be trends, fluctations, negative cases,
        > tagential cases, outside
        > influences, and a boatload of other things to consider. The
        conclusions
        > will be complicated,
        > as the whole procedure is.
        >
        > However, consider this. WIA is the first group, virtual or
        otherwise,
        > that has been
        > tested in this way. There have been studies on communication,
        > reflection, facilitation; all
        > of which draw on CoP theory. But no study actually looks at a group
        to
        > determine it is
        > a CoP. So this is a first, and Webheads is that first group. How
        does it
        > feel? :-)
        >
        > There are some conflicting characteristics between CMC and implicit
        > knowledge
        > transfer (knowledge transfer via action or doing). This is an
        > interesting situation to
        > observe in that respect. Does the nature of CMC inhibit implicit
        > knowledge transfer?
        > Here, again, is a first for Webheads.
        >
        > 3. So what's in it for WIA that is concrete and useful for the
        > community?
        > That's a question our resident crank would ask :-) Fair enough,
        > it's a good question. At the end of the analysis, I can make
        > recommendations
        > to keep WIA's "CoPness" alive or make WIA aware of areas they may
        be
        > drifting
        > away from "CoP land", assuming I see any directions
        > WIA is straying from the model.
        >
        > 4. What directions do you think WIA would stray away from the model?
        > No idea. I have to analyze the data and see.
        >
        > Basically, I'm looking at a very complicated phenomenon (WIA)
        through a
        > filtered lens (9 criteria).
        >
        > Looking forward to your comments,
        >
        > Chris
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.