Fall 2014 Reading Group Schedule

9/9/2014
11 am – 12 pm

2116 Hornbake Bldg, South Wing

Susan Winter, Nicholas Berente, James Howison, and Brian Butler (in press), “Beyond The Organizational ‘Container’:Conceptualizing 21st Century Sociotechnical Work.” Information and Organizations.

Optional reading: Sociotechnicalsystems-BaxterSommerville

Led by Susan Winter

 

9/23/2014
11 am – 12 pm
2116 Hornbake Bldg, South Wing

Clegg, T., Bonsignore, E., Ahn, J., Yip, J., Pauw, D., Gubbels, M., Lewittes, B., & Rhodes, E. (2014). Capturing Personal and Social Science: Technology for Integrating the Building Blocks of Disposition. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Boulder, CO.

Led by Tammy Clegg

 

9/30/2014
11 am – 12 pm
2116 Hornbake Bldg, South Wing

Sterne, J. (2014). What do we want?“ ”Materiality!“ ”When do we want it?“ ”Now! In T. Gillespie,, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 119–128). Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.

Led by Katie Shilton

 

10/21/2014
11 am – 12 pm
2116 Hornbake Bldg, South Wing

Abrahamson, E. (2011). The iron cage: Ugly, uncool, and unfashionable.Organization Studies32(5), 615-629.

Led by Ping Wang

 

11/4/2014
11 am – 12 pm
2116 Hornbake Bldg, South Wing

Jones, M. R., & Karsten, H. (2008). Giddens’s Structuration Theory and Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 32(1), pp. 127–157.

Led by Donal Heidenblad

 

11/18/2014
11 am – 12 pm
2116 Hornbake Bldg, South Wing

Led by Lou Anne Demattei

Maier, R. & Schmidt, A. (2014).  Explaining organizational knowledge creation with a knowledge maturing model. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Palgrave Publishers Ltd. (2014), 1-21. doi: 10.1057/kmrp.2013.56

Link:  http://proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/login?url=http://www.palgrave-journals.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/kmrp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/kmrp201356a.html

Abstract excerpt:
Social media challenge knowledge management because of encouraging conversations, networking and participation in more distributed, diverse and dynamic ways of knowledge development and individuals’ interests driving them. Hence, we need to understand the complex relationships between different qualities of knowledge developed in informal and formal processes as well as for overcoming misalignments in routines, tools and infrastructures supporting organizational knowledge creation. This paper contributes a maturation perspective towards explaining organizational knowledge creation and presents a knowledge maturing model, which is grounded in organizational practice and validated with qualitative and quantitative empirical and design studies. The results describe how characteristics of knowledge and support by IT change between phases of knowledge maturing.

 

12/2/2014
11 am – 12 pm
2116 Hornbake Bldg, South Wing

Led by Rebecca Follman

Thompson, M. (2005). Structural and Epistemic Parameters in Communities of Practice. Organization Science, 16(2), 151–164. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0120

Link:  http://pubsonline.informs.org.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/doi/abs/10.1287/orsc.1050.0120

Abstract:
If communities of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991) are best understood as fluid social relations, enacted among a self-selected group of participants, then are they best left alone, free from “interference” by organizational managers and policymakers? Or are there ways in which organizations can provide helpful support to such communities, without constraining the delicate dynamic by which they are sustained?
This paper supports the latter position, arguing that organizations should sponsor the creation of certain loose organizational structures, around which it is hoped that communities of practice may then interact. However, some recent empirical research is presented suggesting that attempts to control group interaction by introducing too much structure are likely to result in the demise of the community itself. It is therefore proposed that there are lower and upper parameters for structural intervention in communities of practice.
It is suggested that such communities also have epistemic parameters, where participants’ willingness to express their ideas as conceptual boundary objects around which others may engage and develop ideas is a minimum requirement, but where too much inward communicative focus is likely to result in gradual loss of meaning, with a negative effect on the community. In developing this position, this paper attempts to deepen our theoretical understanding of the interrelationship between organizational structure and the epistemic activity of members of communities of practice. Several practical implications of these insights are discussed for organizations wishing to cultivate and maintain communities of practice within their own working environments.