... on networks and group effectiveness. Alison Dean. Danielle Tucker. Pamela Yeow. Linda Pomeroy. Kent Business School Imperial College Business. School ...
Communities of Practice in UK Higher Education: A case study on networks and group effectiveness
Alison Dean Pamela Yeow Kent Business School
Danielle Tucker Linda Pomeroy Imperial College Business School
Higher education context (1)
Higher education context (2)
Higher Education context (3)
Higher Education literature context • HE institutions a complex mix of activities but research remains the basis for assessing inter-University competitive standing (e.g., Lucas, 2000; Curran, 2001; Sharp & Coleman, 2005) • Universities adopt a formalised approach to organising research but growing trend towards informal groupings • Ng & Pemberton (2012): informal groupings (CoP) overcome intellectual isolation; increase synergy and leverage; create collaborative research • Business literature (e.g., Balkundi & Harrison, 2006; Soekijad et al., 2011) how formal groups can become more like Communities of Practice
Communities of Practice • Definition: Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly • An important aspect and function of communities of practice is increasing organisation performance. • Through the creation of a shared identity and purpose improved performance e.g. a competitive advantage, higher productivity, decreased learning curve, quicker response, preventing rework and encouraging new ideas.
Implications for Research • Research networks - collaboration is important with groups of similar interest and with those you can collaborate with to develop theory and practice • Requirement for support in order for it to function e.g. financial support, purposely co-ordinating groups and identifying specific leaders (type and role) • Working within groupings or between offer more results. • To offer some guidance as to how to create a higher performing research community which will be of interest to Higher Education Institutions
Our case study • An academic department founded in the 1980’s situated within a multi-campus university in the UK. • 5 UG and 5 PG programmes + specialist training & PhD • Approximately 1700 students in total • 71 academic and 30 support staff • Ranked in the top 25 in 2008 RAE • Top 10 in the National Student Survey in 2010: • Guardian (2011): Top 10 for graduate employment • 5 Research groups – Each managed by a senior academic (Head of Group)
Research questions Aims: • To understand current organisational clustering and identity • To understand the impact it has on research communities
Specific research questions include: 1. How do clusters within the network correspond with formal groups created by the organisation? 2. What role do leaders play in the network? 3. How does this impact of the performance of communities of practice?
Data collection (1) In a questionnaire administered to all staff in March 2010 (response rate 51%) • Identity and Classification • Meaningful interactions • Categorise interactions o o o o
R = Research related interaction T = Teaching related interaction S = Social interaction A = Administrative interaction
• Interviews with most group heads (n=5) and a selection of other group members and key administrators
Data collection (2) Performance Data: • Individual: o Promotions between 2007-2010 • Group: o Average Number of Publications in peer-reviewed journals between 2007-2010 per person o Total Number of Publications per person (including conference papers and working papers)
Research questions Aims: • To understand what makes a high performing research community • To understand current organisational clustering and identity Specific research questions include: 1. How do clusters within the network correspond with formal groups created by the organisation? 2. What role does the leader’s vision play in shaping the network? 3. How does this impact of the performance of communities of practice?
Research network Interaction
Density
Reciprocity
Research
2%
24%
Teaching
4.6%
18%
Social
6.3%
20%
Administration
7.4%
17%
Cliques: • Cliques – 44 cliques found. 3, 4, 5 groupings • N-Cliques – 62 cliques. • Mix between support staff and academics. Predominantly PhD secretary and strategy development manager from the support staff.
Density between Research groups Research network 1
Research questions Aims: • To understand what makes a high performing research community • To understand current organisational clustering and identity Specific research questions include: 1. How do clusters within the network correspond with formal groups created by the organisation? 2. What role does the leader’s vision play in shaping the network? 3. How does this impact of the performance of communities of practice?
Brokerage Roles Role
Description
Liaison B-->A-->C
Between different groups, neither of which they are a member
Representative A-->A-->B
Senior member of a group delegates the brokering role of external knowledge to someone else in the group Screens external knowledge to distribute within their own group
Gatekeeper B-->A-->A
Co-ordinator: A-->A-->A
All the actors are in the same group
Consultant B-->A-->B
Mediates between actors in the same group, however, the broker is not part of the group
Teaching v Research • Group 3 – T & R Not integrated
Teaching
Research
Teaching & Research • Group 4 – integrating T & R
Teaching
Research
Research questions Aims: • To understand what makes a high performing research community • To understand current organisational clustering and identity Specific research questions include: 1. How do clusters within the network correspond with formal groups created by the organisation? 2. What role does the leader’s vision play in shaping the network? 3. How does this impact of the performance of communities of practice?
Research network – CoP 3
• Peer review publications (avg) – 2.7 • Total publications (avg) – 9.6 • No. of promotions - 0
Research network – CoP 4 • Peer review publications (avg) – 4.79 • Total publications (avg) – 22.4 • No. of promotions - 5
Comparative Performance CoP
Density (%)
Total Publications Peer review No. of (avg) Publications (avg) Promotions (2007-2010)
1
15.5
20.3
4.5
1
2
2.2
8.4
1.9
1
3
2.9
9.6
2.7
0
4
10.4
22.4
4.79
5
5
8.2
6.5
3.3
1
Conclusions • Research groups have not produced independent Communities of Practice – Instead collaboration across groups remains
• Higher density of both within-group and between-group is related to higher performance • A group leader who is a good co-ordinator is not enough to increase the performance of that group • You also need: – The leader to perform other brokerage roles (gatekeeper, liaison, representative) – Other brokers within the group
