走向对知识边界的过程性理解:对专业人员(错误)如何结盟、竞争和合作的人种学研究

IF 2.1 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
D. Kravčenko
{"title":"走向对知识边界的过程性理解:对专业人员(错误)如何结盟、竞争和合作的人种学研究","authors":"D. Kravčenko","doi":"10.1108/jwl-04-2022-0046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nExtant literature tends to consider knowledge boundaries as a necessary property of interdisciplinary work. Knowledge boundaries are, thus, reified and treated as something to be traversed, transcended or otherwise negotiated. There is, however, very little work that closely examines the process of emergence of boundaries. The purpose of this paper is to critically consider the emergence, stabilization and dissolution of knowledge boundaries among experts during the design stage of a building project to understand whether knowledge boundaries are as delineated and predictable as the literature makes them out to be.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nA process-based, ethnographic study of a construction project is used. Building on a large data set collected over 13 months of research, this paper closely examines collaborative work around one specific issue during design development work that tripped up collaboration of the multidisciplinary and inter-organizational design team.\n\n\nFindings\nKnowledge boundaries do not exist based on differences of substance among groups (e.g. being an engineer vs being an architect) but rather that they are a function of divergent constellations of interests, work tools and practical concerns. While holding binding powers, they evolve in the face of alignments and misalignments, agreements and conflicts. As interests shift, concerns unfold and tools are dropped or used; boundaries emerge or dissolve.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nA processual view of knowledge boundaries is advanced by demonstrating how they evolve in face of convergent (or divergent) work tools, practical concerns and interests. Existing research tends to equate knowledge boundaries with occupational/professional differences directly, but this paper demonstrates that work across expertise domains does not generate boundaries by itself. Resulting theoretical contributions are twofold: first, the current understanding of knowledge boundaries is refined by explaining how and why they emerge and dissolve across and within specialist knowledge domains, and second, the role of power and politics in this process is empirically foregrounded, highlighting how constellations of interests can lead to dynamic alliances or divisions.\n","PeriodicalId":47077,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Workplace Learning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards processual understanding of knowledge boundaries: an ethnographic examination of how professionals (mis-)align, compete, and collaborate\",\"authors\":\"D. Kravčenko\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jwl-04-2022-0046\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nExtant literature tends to consider knowledge boundaries as a necessary property of interdisciplinary work. Knowledge boundaries are, thus, reified and treated as something to be traversed, transcended or otherwise negotiated. There is, however, very little work that closely examines the process of emergence of boundaries. The purpose of this paper is to critically consider the emergence, stabilization and dissolution of knowledge boundaries among experts during the design stage of a building project to understand whether knowledge boundaries are as delineated and predictable as the literature makes them out to be.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nA process-based, ethnographic study of a construction project is used. Building on a large data set collected over 13 months of research, this paper closely examines collaborative work around one specific issue during design development work that tripped up collaboration of the multidisciplinary and inter-organizational design team.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nKnowledge boundaries do not exist based on differences of substance among groups (e.g. being an engineer vs being an architect) but rather that they are a function of divergent constellations of interests, work tools and practical concerns. While holding binding powers, they evolve in the face of alignments and misalignments, agreements and conflicts. As interests shift, concerns unfold and tools are dropped or used; boundaries emerge or dissolve.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nA processual view of knowledge boundaries is advanced by demonstrating how they evolve in face of convergent (or divergent) work tools, practical concerns and interests. Existing research tends to equate knowledge boundaries with occupational/professional differences directly, but this paper demonstrates that work across expertise domains does not generate boundaries by itself. Resulting theoretical contributions are twofold: first, the current understanding of knowledge boundaries is refined by explaining how and why they emerge and dissolve across and within specialist knowledge domains, and second, the role of power and politics in this process is empirically foregrounded, highlighting how constellations of interests can lead to dynamic alliances or divisions.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":47077,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Workplace Learning\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Workplace Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jwl-04-2022-0046\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Workplace Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jwl-04-2022-0046","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的现有文献倾向于将知识边界视为跨学科工作的必要属性。因此,知识边界被具体化,并被视为需要跨越、超越或以其他方式协商的东西。然而,很少有工作能仔细研究边界出现的过程。本文的目的是批判性地考虑建筑项目设计阶段专家之间知识边界的出现、稳定和溶解,以了解知识边界是否像文献所说的那样清晰和可预测。设计/方法/方法对建筑项目进行基于过程的人种学研究。基于在13个月的研究中收集的大量数据集,本文仔细研究了设计开发工作中围绕一个特定问题的协作工作,这些问题阻碍了多学科和跨组织设计团队的协作。发现知识边界的存在并不是基于群体之间的实质差异(例如,工程师与建筑师),而是兴趣、工作工具和实际问题的不同星座的函数。在拥有约束性权力的同时,它们在结盟和不结盟、协议和冲突面前不断演变。随着利益的转移,关注点逐渐展开,工具被放弃或使用;边界出现或消失。独创性/价值通过展示知识边界在面对趋同(或发散)的工作工具、实际问题和兴趣时如何演变,提出了知识边界的过程观。现有研究倾向于将知识边界与职业/专业差异直接等同起来,但本文表明,跨专业领域的工作本身不会产生边界。由此产生的理论贡献有两方面:首先,目前对知识边界的理解是通过解释它们如何以及为什么在专业知识领域内出现和消失来提炼的;其次,权力和政治在这一过程中的作用是基于经验的,突出了利益集团如何导致动态联盟或分裂。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Towards processual understanding of knowledge boundaries: an ethnographic examination of how professionals (mis-)align, compete, and collaborate
Purpose Extant literature tends to consider knowledge boundaries as a necessary property of interdisciplinary work. Knowledge boundaries are, thus, reified and treated as something to be traversed, transcended or otherwise negotiated. There is, however, very little work that closely examines the process of emergence of boundaries. The purpose of this paper is to critically consider the emergence, stabilization and dissolution of knowledge boundaries among experts during the design stage of a building project to understand whether knowledge boundaries are as delineated and predictable as the literature makes them out to be. Design/methodology/approach A process-based, ethnographic study of a construction project is used. Building on a large data set collected over 13 months of research, this paper closely examines collaborative work around one specific issue during design development work that tripped up collaboration of the multidisciplinary and inter-organizational design team. Findings Knowledge boundaries do not exist based on differences of substance among groups (e.g. being an engineer vs being an architect) but rather that they are a function of divergent constellations of interests, work tools and practical concerns. While holding binding powers, they evolve in the face of alignments and misalignments, agreements and conflicts. As interests shift, concerns unfold and tools are dropped or used; boundaries emerge or dissolve. Originality/value A processual view of knowledge boundaries is advanced by demonstrating how they evolve in face of convergent (or divergent) work tools, practical concerns and interests. Existing research tends to equate knowledge boundaries with occupational/professional differences directly, but this paper demonstrates that work across expertise domains does not generate boundaries by itself. Resulting theoretical contributions are twofold: first, the current understanding of knowledge boundaries is refined by explaining how and why they emerge and dissolve across and within specialist knowledge domains, and second, the role of power and politics in this process is empirically foregrounded, highlighting how constellations of interests can lead to dynamic alliances or divisions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Workplace Learning
Journal of Workplace Learning EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
10.50%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: The Journal of Workplace Learning aims to provide an avenue for the presentation and discussion of research related to the workplace as a site for learning. Its scope encompasses formal, informal and incidental learning in the workplace for individuals, groups and teams, as well as work-based learning, and off-the-job learning for the workplace. This focus on learning in, from and for the workplace also brings with it questions about the nature of interventions that might assist the learning process and of the roles of those responsible directly or indirectly for such interventions. Since workplace learning cannot be considered without reference to its context, another aim of the journal is to explore the organisational, policy, political, resource issues and other factors which influence how, when and why that learning takes place.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信