LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Nordholm, Daniel (2016)
Publisher: Education Inquiry
Journal: Education Inquiry
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: community of practice, design, curriculum implementation, educational change, temporary organisation
This article reports findings from a case study carried out in a Swedish municipality focusing on a school-to-school collaboration established to support implementation of a nation-wide curriculum. The aim was to study how ideas for improvements in this temporary organisation were transferred to the local schools. The findings presented are derived from audio-recordings (n=13) and semi-structured interviews (n=21). Community of practice theory and the concepts of boundary objects and brokering guided the analysis work. The results revealed that, generally, transfer was restricted to boundary objects with a closed character, meaning these objects should be distributed to and unpacked in the local schools without further dialogues and modifications. In addition, non-formal brokers had less capacity to extend and lead improvement processes in local schools. This approach also reduced the possibilities for principals and teachers in the local schools to benefit from more advanced learning discussions and understandings developed in the temporary organisation. The article shows that designers of improvement work must consider boundary objects with a more open-ended character, permitting an innovative interpretation and learning process. Finally, in this process the findings also reveal the importance of formal brokers underpinning a transfer process in which both participation and reification are considered.Keywords: community of practice, design, curriculum implementation, educational change, temporary organisation(Published: 5 December 2016)Citation: Education Inquiry (EDUI) 2016, 7, 28013, http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/edui.v7.28013
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Akkerman, S. F. and Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132 169.
    • Amin, A. and Roberts, J. (2008). Knowing in action: Beyond Communities of Practice. Research Policy, 37(2), 353 369.
    • Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150 169.
    • Becket, R. C. and Hyland, P. (2011). Communication and learning structures that facilitate transfer of knowledge at innovation transition points. Journal of Science Communication, 10(4), 1 8.
    • Bjo¨rn, C., Ekman Philips, M. and Svensson, L. (2002). Organisera f¨or utveckling och l¨arande. Om skolprojekt i n¨atverksform [Organising for development and learning. School projects in networks]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
    • Boh, W. F. (2007). Mechanisms for sharing knowledge in project-based organizations. Information and Organization, 17(1), 27 58.
    • Chapman, C. and Allen, T. (2005). Partnership for improvement: the specialist schools achievement programme. Coventry: University of Warwick.
    • Chreim, S., Williams, B. E. and Coller, K. E. (2012). Radical change in healthcare organization. Mapping transition between templates, enabling factors, and implementation processes. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 26(2), 215 236.
    • Czarniawska-Joerges, B. and Sevo´n, G., (eds.). (1996). Translating organizational change. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    • Dalin, P. (2005). School development. Theories and strategies: an international handbook. London: Continuum.
    • Datnow, A., Hubbard, L. and Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: from one school to many. London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge/Falmer.
    • Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and act locally: language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 461 490.
    • Engestro¨m, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133 156.
    • Fernie, S., Green, S. D., Weller, S. J. and Newcombe, R. (2003). Knowledge sharing: context, confusion and controversy. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3), 177 187.
    • Fullan, M. (2004). System thinkers in action. London: DfES/NCSL.
    • Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography Routledge.
    • principles in practice. 3rd ed. London:
    • Hanisch, B., Lindner, F., Mueller, A. and Wald, A. (2009). Knowledge management in project environments. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 148 160.
    • Harris, A., Chapman, C., Muijs, D., Russ, J. and Stoll, L. (2006). Improving schools in challenging circumstances: Exploring the possible. School Effectiveness and Improvement: An International Journal of Research. Policy and Practice, 17(4), 409 424.
    • Jaquith, A., and McLaughlin, M. (2010). A temporary, intermediary organization at the helm of regional education reform: lessons from the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative. In Second International Handbook of Educational Change, A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan and D. Hopkins (eds.): 85-103. London: Springer.
    • Kreps, G. L. (1990). Organizational communication: theory and practice. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Longman.
    • Lake, D. G. and Miles, M. B. (1975). Communication Networks in the Designing and Starting of New Schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C.
    • Lieberman, A. and Grolnick, G. (1996). Networks and reform in American education. Teachers' College Record, 98: 7 45. Accessed http://www.tcrecord.org/library ID Number: 9622
    • Liebowitz, J., (ed.) (1999). Knowledge management handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
    • Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, N. and Yashkina, A. (2007). Distributing leadership to make schools smarter: taking the ego out of the system. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 37 67.
    • Lindberg, K. and Czarniawska, B. (2006). Knotting the action net, or organizing between organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 22(4), 292 306.
    • Lindner, F. and Wald, A. (2011). Success factors of knowledge management in temporary organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 29(7), 877 888.
    • Lundin, R. A. and So¨derholm, A. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 437 455.
    • McPhee, R. D. and Zaug, P. (2001). Organizational theory, organizational communication, organizational knowledge, and problematic integration. Journal of Communication, 51(3), 574 591.
    • Miles, M. B. (1964). On temporary systems. In Innovation in Education, M.B. Miles (ed.), 437 490. Columbia University New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
    • Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analyses. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    • Miller, K. (2009). Organizational communication: approaches and processes. 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
    • Muijs, D. (2010). A fourth phase of school improvement? Introduction to the special issue on networking and collaboration for school improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research. Policy and Practice, 21(1), 1 3.
    • Muijs, D. (2008). Widening opportunities? a case study of school-to-school collaboration in a rural district. Improving Schools, 11(1), 61 73.
    • Muijs, D., Ainscow, M., Chapman, C. and West, M. 2011. Collaboration and networking in education. Springer Science Business Media B.V.
    • Muijs, D., West, M. and Ainscow, M. (2010). Why network? Theoretical perspectives on networking. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 21(1), 5 26.
    • Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice Theory, Work, and Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Nordholm, D. and Blossing, U. (2014). Designing temporary systems: Exploring local school improvement intentions in the Swedish context. Journal of Educational Change, 15(1), 57 75.
    • Peet, M. (2012). Leadership transitions, tacit knowledge sharing and organizational generativity. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(1), 25 60.
    • Ragin, C. C. and Becker, H. S. (1992). What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Roth, W.-M. and Lee, Y.-J. (2007). ''Vygotsky's neglected legacy'': cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186 232.
    • Runkel, P. J. (1978). Transforming the school's capacity for problem-solving. Oregon: Center for Educational Policy and Management (CEPM), University of Oregon.
    • Saldan˜a, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
    • Soekijad, M. and Andriessen, E. (2003). Conditions for knowledge sharing in competitive alliances. European Management Journal, 21(5), 578 587.
    • Stake, R. E. (2005). Case studies. In Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed., N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 443 466. California, CA: Sage.
    • Star, S. L. (2011). This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology. and Human Value, 35(5), 601 617.
    • Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, 'translations' and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907 39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387 420.
    • Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: a diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 9 27.
    • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Wenger, E. (2009). A social theory of learning. In Contemporary Theories of Learning, K. Illeris (ed.), 209 218. London and New York, NY: Routledge.
    • Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
    • West, M. (2010). School-to-school cooperation as a strategy for improving student outcome in challenging contexts. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research. Policy and Practice, 21(1), 93 112.
    • Whittle, A., Suhomlinova, O. and Mueller, F. (2010). Funnel of interests: the discursive translation of organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46(1), 16 37.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Collected from