Reading Discussion 04 – May 13, 2020

• Something to note (from INF2240); collaborative tools like Figma are taking away agency of work from designers
• Collaborative (and especially web based) software act as platforms of design surveillance; by working within this virtual space hosted by Figma, who really owns the work?
• Best practice guidelines, blogs, etc. are agents of surveillance that control the way designers practice
• Resources that share how to enter and succeed in UX practice indirectly express the attitude and behaviour that designers are expected to conform to
• Instead of designers having creative agency over their products, design software tools/organizations (like Figma) are controlling the designer, thus forcing designers to turn to “communities” to find alternative forms of having agency over their identity as creative practitioners..

Grounded Theory
Chapter 4, Doing Formal Theory

• What I learned about Formal grounded theory (FGT); making the human learning process explicit
• Substantive grounded theory vs formal grounded theory
  • + how to avoid over-generalization
• FGT as a goal; is this suitable for my research?
  • How can I work towards developing a GT that covers “a wide range of empirical areas virtually forever”?
• What is a “core”?
• Does my SGT focus on KM of UX designers?
• Can a FGT from my research explain phenomena in other emerging occupations (in ICTs)?
• Validity; replicating FGT method vs. FGT outcomes

Grounded Theory
Chapter 5: On Solid Ground: Essential Properties for Growing Grounded Theory

Practical Data Collection Tips

• Let your developing theory guide your next steps on where to collect data from. The process of sampling throughout theoretical development will be important to keep track of and articulate
• Conduct ~20-30 interviews and/or x hrs. of observation to reach “saturation of categories”
• “Saturation is reached when the learner hears nothing new”; when nothing is surprising anymore
• Don’t tape/transcribe interviews; you get distracted by the details on the content which prevents you from sensing the overall concepts that should feed into your hypotheses
• Tip: Avoid being forced to “pay attention to accuracy of data”, let the “cream rise to the top”
• Analysts use memos to reflect on what they think about the data; annotating on the data
• Don’t use software to process your memos; theoretical coding is a hands-on creative activity—is Glaser anti-tech?
  • What is coding vs. theoretical coding?

Writing Tips

• When writing the final paper, (1) begin describing the concepts you found, (2) walk through the methods you used to collect the data and analysis, and lastly (3) discuss the literature review. This order will help you make sure all pieces are coherent with each other and the origins of your concepts are clear
• Use diagrams as visual guides to the written work; don’t rely on readers to actually understand your findings through the diagram
• Show how your work ADDS a NEW dimension to previous work; not about verifying your topic only

Communities of Practice:
Community of practice or practices of a community?

Author describes how CoPs are described in different literature: (1) learning literature, (2) KM literature, (3) online communities literature.

Learning literature

• Lave and Wenger claim that learning happens in the process of participating in a group and it does not exist alone in the minds of individuals
• Learning happens in the community, and the community as a collective learns together
• Lave and Wenger’s studies focused on the way situated learning “concerns the process by which newcomers become part of a community of practice”

KM literature

• CoPs expanded to management literature as Wenger continued his practice as a consultant and collaborated with authors of diverse disciplinary backgrounds
• This resulted in Wenger leaving “a margin of ambiguity in his work” on what he means by “community”
• CoPs bring value to organizations by fulfilling business-oriented tasks:
  • driving strategy, starting new lines of business, solving problems quickly, transferring best practices, develop professional skills, recruit and retain talent
• In Wenger’s version of CoP, the community is always a body of practitioners within the same organization

Online communities literature

• Debates in this literature ask whether or not online groups can be called communities of practice, and “what facilitates or obstructs their becoming ‘communities’ in the absence of face-to-face interaction.”
  • ICTs make collaboration happen virtually everyday; knowledge sharing can happen daily without formal F2F meetings in CoPs
  • ICTs allow different types of communication (stable, continuous, sporadic, asynchronous, etc.), which creates multiple opportunities to come in contact and form a CoP—out of control
  • CoPs can be developed spontaneously as ICTs allow communication to happen outside of work
  • ICTs can facilitate numerous forms for interaction and communication (synchronous, asynchronous, access to stored information, different forms of interaction) that can form CoPs
• Overall, literature on CoPs in virtual space define community by how they are formed through ICTs; this is not the lens I want to use for my research

High level criticisms

• Community
  • Assumption at communities remain harmonious without conflict
  • Lindkvist (2005): Studies in CoPs should only stay within context of occupational communities (apprenticeships) studied by Lave where knowledge in communities is homogenous
  • Knowledge in urban industrial society is much diverse, so Lave’s concept of community is CoPs does not apply
• Power
  • In Lave and Wenger’s early work, influential power from experience was important to consider within a community. Power dynamics shaped the participation of newcomers.
  • Their observation of power was limited to levels of experience, which seems short sighted in today’s urban industrial context
• Trust
  • Lave and Wenger takes trust in CoPs for granted—it does not happen automatically
• Participation
  • In the apprenticeship model, participation is a linear path that leads to knowledge
  • The knowledge outcomes in CoPs are also seen to be dependent on the individual
• Size, spatial reach, duration
  • “location, proximity, and distance should be considered relationally, rather than as geographically determined.”
  • Communities move at a different pace
  • Not all CoPs are CoPs; “concept of CoP should be abandoned for different definitions (collectivities, networks, configurations) that focus on the nature of knowledge”

Community of Practice:
Cultivating network analysis: Rethinking the concept of ‘community’ within ‘communities of practice’

• Nick Jewson sets out to define communities using network theory / network analysis
• Overall, Wenger’s theories are “slippery and elusive”, which allowed scholars to use this concept inconsistently
• Areas that lack explanation:
  • “Processes of disagreement, conflict and struggle, other than as tensions between newcomers and old-timers.
  • Processes of exclusion, discrimination and oppression.
  • Sources of innovation, the emphasis being on the transmission of existing practices.
  • The full range of learning trajectories, the emphasis being solely on the absorption of newcomers into positions of authority.
  • The social and spatial boundaries of communities of practice, resulting in inflation of the concept to include more and more types of social situations.
  • Power differentials and struggles within and between communities of practice.
  • Broader historical and cultural contexts of communities of practice.”

Issues in the concept of community

• Wenger and Lave need to define what community means in the academic context, but they fail to do so, which led to conflicts in interpretation and usage
• The word carries reference to times when “social bonds were supposedly more local, simple, warm and face-to-face”
• Thus, “community” is influenced by multiple dimensions as a “sociological concept, popular mythology and social policy principle”
• Wenger’s definition of community is closely tied to the process of identity development
• Wenger does not incorporate in his theory that conflict, competition and rivalry can also count as participation in communities

Network Analysis as an alt. approach to understand community

• Network theory: “Network theories examine relationships, bonds and interdependences between people, groups and institutions.”
• “The concept of power is integral to network models of social relations”; Wenger’s theory excludes concepts of power
• Power; Everyone has a degree of influence on others
• Concepts within network analysis:
  1. Stars and bridges
  2. Centralized and decentralized networks
  3. Clusters and cliques
  4. Network density
  5. Network boundaries
  6. Learning trajectories

1. Stars and Bridges

• Everyone has a strategic location within a network
  • Strategic powers are determined by frequency of contact, friendship choices, financial links
• Those with many networks with others are ‘stars’
• You still have power on the outside of the network because you are closer to other clusters
• Individuals that link clusters are ‘bridges’—they are “sources of innovation, since their structural position enables them to transmit and translate ideas from one context to another”—I wonder if UX designers are bridges between engineers, visual designers, clients, etc…

2. Centralized and decentralized networks

• Centralized networks are (like the typical) web-shaped connections
• Decentralized networks are lattice-shaped and polycentric
• Both types of networks have their pros and cons; but one is not necessarily better than other; one may be more suitable for an organization’s business strategy
• Thus, communities must be analyzed by their central/decentral structure, because that plays a large role in the way identities and relationships are formed
• The impact of the centralization or decentralization is also influenced by the size of the network

3. Clusters and cliques

• Clusters and cliques don’t dominate the network, but can each have a centralized structure;  I have to be attentive to know the differences between the whole community/network vs. clusters/cliques within them
• UX designers may be clusters within the organization, not a CoP
• Clusters can have subcultures that are different from the network’s dominant norms and values; they form when members believe they have more common interests than other members of the network

4. Network density

• High vs. low density; this is interesting!
• High density:
  • Directly linked
  • Established connections despite members not knowing each other
  • Pressure to conform attitude, behaviour and emotions; identity is collective and harmonious; sense of surveillance is strong
  • More resistant to change; inward looking
  • High chance of cross-contact
• Low density:
  • Linked indirectly through intermediaries
  • Not all aware of each other
  • Sense of identity is individualistic; formed through personal achievements, personal ties with others
  • Membership is voluntary; adds onto what I read before about how most influential members in CoPs are also the ones contributing to it the most
  • More open to innovation and adaptation
  • Low chance of cross-contact

5. Network boundaries

• Criticism: Wenger’s description of boundaries and peripheries is used as a metaphor without concrete explanation
• The above concepts on centrality, centralization, cliques, clusters, bridges and density are concrete ways to articulate and understand the boundaries of a community
• It is more important to understand CoPs by their internal structures than comparing the external structures of multiple communities
• Perhaps I will have to focus on one particular CoP for UX designers to unpack its internal structure
• Example:
  • Ex. strong group + weak grid boundaries = cult / sect
  • Ex. strong group + strong grid boundaries = church organization
  • What combination will equal to UX tribe?
• “Network analysis points to the many different relational forms that may comprise communities of practice”
  • I may have to follow the concepts of network analysis more closely than Wenger’s theory on CoPs as it seems more suitable for exploratory research

6. Learning trajectories

• Again, Lave and Wenger only focus on a newcomer’s development to becoming an old-timer when describing the concept of learning trajectories; they remain largely metaphorical to explain this concept
• Using the concepts of network theory mentioned above, it is possible to identify members with greater nuance than just rookie, novice, old-timer: Ex. bridges, stars, isolates, mediators, gatekeepers
• Each position has its own strategic power which shapes the overall learning trajectory