A discussion has ensued across three email lists following a question asked about Charters for Communities of Practice.
It’s all mixed up really, with the thorny question of trying to agree what constitutes a CoP, since some people will view a charter as totally contrary to the spirit of a flat hierarchical group while others believe one to be essential or at least preferred. Two possible resolutions to the definitional dissensus are emerging – one is to create a taxonomy which diverges from at least two seperate starting points, and the other is for a completely new concept and terminology to emerge from out of the present or future vibrant discussion. I believe I have a contribution to make, see: Taxonomy of CoPs, but that’s not what this post is about.
Rosanna Tarsiero wrote:
Another reason why I tend to like charters is that I think they foster trust in that one knows exactly what to expect (ie: which rules are in place, why, how they are enforced and by whom).
I suspect there is a cultural component in preferring such clarity that has escaped many studies. Plus, the field needs a study on it badly. Just as a starter, it would be nice to have somebody study the impact of charters on motivations of employee, their organizational loyalty AND (most interesting for VCoPs and CoPs) the psychological contract issue.
Man is a social animal… behaviours in small group tend to adhere to some form of rules (like most animals and most primates) imposed by some kind of majority, whether one is aware of it or not.
Which poses problems on how to design such studies… how can one explore subconscious/implicit constructs? This is the fascinating part, IMHO.
So I started mulling over the idea of trying to design a research proposal which would investigate the implications of charters and chartering on distributed communities of practice.
I know where to look for the data, and I have reason to be confident it will be found. I can envisage a lengthy reconaissance phase just looking at the historical data during which a method for selecting likely CoPs would be developed. A study of the past fortunes of a number of both chartered and unchartered CoPs would be undertaken, and then some which began as one and changed into the other. We might then attempt to interview some of the participants to obtain their stories, and finally arrive at some conclusions upon which an action research project to improve some CoPs might be designed and implemented.
The problem is, who might fund such a project?
Technorati Tags: cop2.0, communitiesofpractice, distributedactionresearch, actionresearch, research
Thanks for subscribing to Andy Roberts blog
Research proposal