Translating Local Knowledge at Organizational Peripheries
This article theorizes about the kinds of knowing present in organizations that share both a structural similarity in the organization of work and work practices – a ‘double periphery’ in which a community of practitioners acts across both a horizontal, geographic periphery and a vertical, hierarchi...
Uložené v:
| Vydané v: | British journal of management Ročník 15; číslo S1; s. 9 - 25 |
|---|---|
| Hlavný autor: | |
| Médium: | Journal Article |
| Jazyk: | English |
| Vydavateľské údaje: |
Oxford, UK
Blackwell Publishing
01.03.2004
Blackwell Publishing Ltd |
| Predmet: | |
| ISSN: | 1045-3172, 1467-8551 |
| On-line prístup: | Získať plný text |
| Tagy: |
Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
|
| Shrnutí: | This article theorizes about the kinds of knowing present in organizations that share both a structural similarity in the organization of work and work practices – a ‘double periphery’ in which a community of practitioners acts across both a horizontal, geographic periphery and a vertical, hierarchical periphery – and a common mode of practice – translating across these peripheral borders. In principle, these workers develop knowledge in interaction with clients and customers that could be valuable to the organization, were it but to learn from them. Instead, the ‘local knowledge’ they learn in acting across these peripheries is discounted, if not disparaged, by more centrally‐located managers and executives. The article theorizes about the nature of translating local knowledge concerning organizational practices and about the structural character of local versus ‘expert’ knowledge. |
|---|---|
| Bibliografia: | ArticleID:BJOM397 ark:/67375/WNG-KNT8BHQF-X istex:5DFA399AE4D1935B9BA75D28B36AFD5126366236 Earlier versions of this article were presented in a seminar at the University of Amsterdam (June 25, 2001); the ICOS Seminar, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (March 30, 2001); the symposium 'Theorizing organizational learning as situated practice', Academy of Management, Toronto, CA (August 4-9, 2000); a Beijing Administrative College lecture (June 9, 2000); the panel 'Collective, non-community ways of knowing', Society for Organizational Learning Research Greenhouse on 'Managing knowledge, learning and change', Cambridge, MA (October 8-9, 1999); and the Institute for Research on Learning staff seminar, Menlo Park, CA (September 14, 1999). I thank Budd Kass, Zara Mirmalek, John O'Neill, Hari Tsoukas and Nicos Mylonopoulos and two anonymous reviewers for their critical readings and comments on an earlier version; Maarten Hajer, Michael Cohen and Jane Dutton, and Libby Bishop for making the seminars possible; and the participants in these several sessions for their lively discussion and insightful comments. Earlier versions of this article were presented in a seminar at the University of Amsterdam (June 25, 2001); the ICOS Seminar, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (March 30, 2001); the symposium ‘Theorizing organizational learning as situated practice’, Academy of Management, Toronto, CA (August 4–9, 2000); a Beijing Administrative College lecture (June 9, 2000); the panel ‘Collective, non‐community ways of knowing’, Society for Organizational Learning Research Greenhouse on ‘Managing knowledge, learning and change’, Cambridge, MA (October 8–9, 1999); and the Institute for Research on Learning staff seminar, Menlo Park, CA (September 14, 1999). I thank Budd Kass, Zara Mirmalek, John O'Neill, Hari Tsoukas and Nicos Mylonopoulos and two anonymous reviewers for their critical readings and comments on an earlier version; Maarten Hajer, Michael Cohen and Jane Dutton, and Libby Bishop for making the seminars possible; and the participants in these several sessions for their lively discussion and insightful comments. * ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 |
| ISSN: | 1045-3172 1467-8551 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2004.00397.x |