Theoretical implications for the Practice-Based View

Taken as a whole, this body of research has important ramifications for our understanding of the practice-based view of knowledge and the organization. One of my findings focused on the extent to which ENoPs were used as vehicles of information-sharing across specialist boundaries. My findings revealed that

individuals frequently sought information from a domain of expertise that may be primarily situated in another speciality. In my literature review, I suggested that ENoPs can be characterized as centres of trans-situated learning, because exchanges occur between individuals who perform similar practices, yet are not co-located in the same working context (Vaast and Walsham, 2009). However, this model of trans-situated learning does not fully reflect the reality of information-sharing in ENoPs. Learning not only occurs between two petroleum engineers employed in different organizations on similar projects, learning also occurs between the petroleum engineer and the chemical engineer. In fact, information-seeking across specialist boundaries is fairly frequent. Thus, the information-sharing patterns observed in the ENoP highlight an important issue: the definition of a practice in this context.

In the literature review, I also identified several key differences between CoPs, and ENoPs. One of these differences was the fact that members of ENoPs do not engage in a joint enterprise, which is defined by Wenger (1998) as the process of working toward a shared goal or purpose that is cooperatively developed. However, members of the ENoP may exhibit a shared repertoire to an extent, which is the co- constructed set of ideas and outcomes associated with a practice (Wenger, 1998). Unlike CoPs, in ENoPs member engagement is guided by individual motives and objectives. Members of the ENoP could be said to engage in a ‘common practice’ which does not exhibit joint enterprise, which is the act of working together to resolve a shared problem or issue (Wasko and Faraj, 2005). This ‘common practice’ is predicated on similar work experiences, background, and training (Wenger, 1998).

Essentially, there is a distinction between a ‘shared practice’ which is exhibited by a CoP, and a common practice, which characterizes ENoPs. Brown and Duguid (2000) suggest that a common practice enables knowledge to flow easily across that practice, leading to the development of social networks to support the exchange of that knowledge. But understanding what constitutes a ‘common practice’ within the context of the ENoP is less than straightforward. The issue raised in my research here is the level at which this “common practice” exists. What is apparent is the clear distinctions in different levels of practice that emerge from both training and work practices. Within the broad occupation of engineering, there are several distinct specialities; however, among these specialties there are certain domains of expertise that may overlap to an extent. This is depicted in Figure 8 below, which demonstrates an overlap between the specialities of mechanical and aeronautical engineering where a specific domain of expertise—airfoils—rests. A domain of expertise is most often found within a single specialty, but it may reside at the nexus of specialties. It can be conceptualized as a practitioners’ specific niche or area in which they contribute to practice.

Figure 8: Layers of Practice in Eng-Tips

OCCUPATION Engineering SPECIALTY Mechanical SPECIALTY Aeronautical Domain of Expertise (Airfoils)

My research in this area brings into sharp focus our conceptualizations of occupation, speciality, domain of expertise, and practice itself. Firstly, I reveal that within the ENoP, the notion of a ‘practice’ is highly dimensional and multi-faceted. Within the occupation itself there are clear boundaries and divisions. This suggests the occupation of engineering may technically be a ‘common practice’ but it is a fragmented one, because and there are clear boundaries in the occupation that influence information-seeking patterns, working relationships, terminology and communication. A shared specialty (e.g. Mechanical engineering) suggests a greater cohesion, because engineers from a shared specialty have strong similarities in training and perspectives. However, it is inappropriate to define ‘common practice’ at the level of a specialty, because nearly half of the information-sharing that occurs in ENoPs happens across specialties. It is the commonality of the practice of ‘engineering’ that allows this dialogue to occur. Obviously, the greatest overlap in practice resides at the domain of expertise; in this area, practitioners are likely to experience similar problems and issues. The type of sharing that occurs in this area most closely represents Vaast and Walsham’s (2009) conceptualization of trans- situated learning.

However, the type of information-sharing that took place in the ENoP studied most frequently occurred between people who perform dissimilar tasks. This problematizes the notion of ENoPs as a relative of Communities of Practice, because a ‘common practice' in the context of the ENoP does not have clear and definite parameters. If we adopt the loosest and most inclusive sense of the word ‘common practice’ by defining it as the occupation of engineering, then it is in only partially in keeping with Brown and Duguid’s (2000) conceptualization as an area in which knowledge flows easily across practice. There are some areas, such as biological

engineering, in which information exchanges with non-biological engineers is extremely infrequent. However, in other areas, such as materials, there the majority of information-sharing and exchange occur with non-materials engineers.

Generally speaking, information-exchanges in ENoPs do not follow a clear set of rules across the board, and ultimately, this increases the distinction between the ENoP and the CoP. Firstly, practice cannot be categorized neatly or distinctly, which is reflected by the lack of sharing across certain specialties in what should— theoretically—be a common practice of engineering. The inability to create distinct parameters for practice in this context further emphasizes the dissimilarities between the ENoP and the CoP, which focuses on people working together on a shared problem, thus engaging in a shared practice (Wenger, 1998). Furthermore, the pattern of information seeking I found in my study suggests the information search, and the ensuing information-sharing, does not always focus on what is shared by other members of the ENoP, it often focuses on what is not shared. This is reflected by the enhanced emphasis on seeking solutions when engaged in cross-speciality information seeking. This is a stark contrast to the purpose of the CoP, which fosters a strong emphasis on commonalities (Zboralski, 2009). Thus, the ENoP is a place where practice is fragmented, and differences are—to a large extent—amplified by the type of information seeking that occurs.

To conclude, my research here has explored the multi-dimensionality of practice, and I suggest that within the context of the ENoP studied, engineering can bet conceptualized as a broad, yet fragmented, practice that is comprised of various specialties. Within those specialties there are domains of expertise, which are the specific niches in which a person contributes knowledge or information. This

expansive array of specialities reveals a lack of cohesion in the ENoP itself, which subsequently problematizes ENoPs as a relative of CoPs. Furthermore, due to the large amount of information seeking across specialist boundaries (i.e. among individuals performing dissimilar roles), it is inappropriate to characterize ENoPs as centres of trans-situated learning as conceptualized by Vaast and Walsham (2009). By turning our attention to the way boundaries operate in ENoPs, we may be able to increase our understanding of the types of interactions that occur in these entities.