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, 2000; 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

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.

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

Our case study

• An academic department founded in the 1980’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• To understand current organisational clustering and identity

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?

Research network – naturally occurring cliques

• Looked at this in two ways:Components:• No obvious divisions/sub-structures within the 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.

Research network - Academic

Imperial College Business School ©

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 questions

Aims:• To understand what makes a high performing research community• To understand current organisational clustering and identity

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 of the performance of communities of practice?

Brokerage Roles

Role Description

Liaison B-->A-->C Between different groups, neither of which they are a member 

Representative B-->C-->A Senior member of a group delegates the brokering role of external knowledge to someone else in the group

Gatekeeper C-->A-->B Screens external knowledge to distribute within their own group 

Co-ordinator: A-->B-->C All the actors are in the same group

Consultant A-->B-->C Mediates between actors in the same group, however, the broker is not part of the group

6.25% CoOrdinator Gatekeeper Representative Consultant Liaison37 - - - - -88 - - - - -61 - - - - -78 - - - - -30 - - - - -21 84.48 - - - -62 - - - - -24 - - - - -13 - - - - -35 - - - - -58 - - - - -81 - - - - -70 - - - - -46 - 3.73 - - 0.9345 - - - - -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 - - - - -

Research network – CoP 4

Informal v formal (1)

• ‘..Sometimes it’s good to come (together) informally.. I think because that is more successful. You do it because you want to do it, not because you think you have to help someone because they said as Head of Group, you have to do it.’

• ‘..it’s good that the Head of Group feels …like working together without even thinking about working together – that’s very, very, very important really, without having some, …, rules, or guidelines or some targets. So it’s more that you have that idea of feeling comfortable with them so everyone will do it without knowing that they are doing it’

Informal v formal (2)

• ‘..How much contact do you have with members of your Group? (Answer) Some more than others I would think.. mainly formal interactions’

• ‘..the 20% (time spent on encouraging research activity) of the Head of Group that I spend on that would probably be to encourage Group members to publish more.’

• ‘..how many of your professorial skills are being used in teaching management..........?(Answer) Nothing. I mean I don’t see any of that. I mean this is very stupid, EXCEL number crunching which I ....It’s not a good use of my time, let’s put it that way.’

Teaching & Research

• Group 4 – integrating T & R

Teaching Research

Teaching v Research

• Group 3 – T & R Not integrated

Teaching Research

Research questions

Aims:• To understand what makes a high performing research community• To understand current organisational clustering and identity

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 of the performance of communities of practice?

Research network – CoP 3

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

Research network – CoP 4

• 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

Communities of Practice– 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

Thank you Any questions?