egos 2013 final-libre

Communities of Practice in UK Higher Education: A case study on networks and group effectiveness

Alison Dean Danielle Tucker

Pamela Yeow Linda Pomeroy

Kent Business School 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, 2006; 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


• 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.

Our case study

• Aﾐ acadeﾏic departﾏeﾐt fouﾐded iﾐ the ヱΓΒヰ’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 on 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 R = Research related interaction

o T = Teaching related interaction

o S = Social interaction

o 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







practice?

Research network

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.

Interaction Density Reciprocity

Research 2% 24%

Teaching 4.6% 18%

Social 6.3% 20%

Administration 7.4% 17%

Density between Research groups - Research network

1

2

3

4

5

1

15.5 2.7 0 7.8 2.5

2

0.9 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.6

3

1.7 0 2.9 0.4 0

4

1.3 0.7 0.4 10.4 0.6

5 1.7 2.7 0 0.6 8.2

Research network - Academic

Imperial College Business School ©

Research questions

Aims:


community







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

Gatekeeper B-->A-->A Screens external knowledge to distribute

within their own group

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

6.25% CoOrdinator Gatekeeper Representative Consultant Liaison

37 - - - - -

88 - - - - -

61 - - - - -

78 - - - - -

30 - - - - -

21 84.48 - - - -

62 - - - - -

24 - - - - -

13 - - - - -

35 - - - - -

58 - - - - -

81 - - - - -

70 - - - - -

46 - 3.73 - - 0.93

45 - - - - -

34 84.48 - - - -

Research network – CoP 3

36% CoOrdinator Gatekeeper Representative Consultant Liaison

39 - - - - -

63 40.88 3.98 1.08 - 0.09

52 - - - - -

44 - 1.53 4.58 1.02 0.51

66 - - - - -

43 36.21 6.40 - - -

15 - - - - -

51 - - - - -

36 21.1 5.60 2.80 - -

48 - - - - -

72 - - - - -

65 9.39 7.47 1.25 - 0.15

91 - - - - -

86 - - - - -


Teaching v Research

• Group 3 – T & R Not integrated

Teaching Research

Teaching & Research

• Group 4 – integrating T & R

Teaching Research

• け..itげs good that the Head of Group feels ﾏore or less like ┘orkiﾐg together without even thinking about working together – thatげs very, very, very important really, without having some, say, rules,

or guideliﾐes or soﾏe targets or soﾏetiﾏes.. So itげs ﾏore that you have that idea of feeling comfortable with them so everyone

will do it without knowing that they are doing itげ • ‘What I do I try and go for cups of tea with members of staff, different

oﾐes aﾐd say けWhy doﾐげt ┘e go for a Iup of tea?げ partiIularly ﾐe┘ ﾏeﾏHers of staff, try aﾐd e┗ery so ofteﾐ say けIoﾏe aﾐd ha┗e a Ihat. Talk about anything...Research is really iﾏportaﾐt to ﾏe Hut I thiﾐk itげs got to emanate from the main reasons we are there: providing the

degrees.げ

Research questions

Aims:


community







practice?


• Peer review publications (avg) – 2.7 • Total publications (avg) – 9.6 • No. of promotions - 0


• Peer review publications (avg) – 4.79

• Total publications (avg) – 22.4 • No. of promotions - 5

Comparative Performance

CoP Density (%) Total Publications

(avg)

Peer review

Publications (avg)

No. of

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


– 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

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

egos 2013 final-libre

Documents