liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Knowledge communities and knowledge collectivities: A typology of knowledge work in groups
Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Department of Management and Engineering, Business Administration .
2005 (English)In: Journal of Management Studies, ISSN 0022-2380, E-ISSN 1467-6486, Vol. 42, no 6, 1189-1210 p.Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The notion of a 'community-of-practice' (CmP) has become a highly influential way of conceptualizing how decentralized sub-units or groups within firms or organizations operate. CmPs refer to 'tightly knit' groups that have been practising together long enough to develop into a cohesive community with relationships of mutuality and shared understandings. The CmP notion, however, does not fit squarely with how temporary organizations or project organizations operate. Typically these kinds of groups consist of diversely skilled individuals, most of whom have not met before, who have to solve a problem or carry out a pre-specified task within tightly set limits as to time and costs. As a result they tend to become less well-developed groups, operating on a minimal basis of shared knowledge and understandings. Such a group, I suggest, constitutes a 'collectivity-of-practice' (ClP). Mirroring the above distinctions, two ideal-type notions of epistemology are developed. The one inspired from the CmP literature is discussed in a 'knowledge community' terminology, whereas the one associated with ClPs is conceived of as a 'knowledge collectivity'. Finally, I outline some new options for organizational analysis made possible by recognizing these as two different and complementary notions. © Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2005. Vol. 42, no 6, 1189-1210 p.
National Category
Social Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-50435DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00538.xOAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-50435DiVA: diva2:271331
Available from: 2009-10-11 Created: 2009-10-11 Last updated: 2017-12-12

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Lindkvist, Lars

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Lindkvist, Lars
By organisation
Faculty of Arts and SciencesBusiness Administration
In the same journal
Journal of Management Studies
Social Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 104 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf