In my dissertation I describe uses of weblogs as a sense-making instrument that provides a way to deal with unexpected or complex ideas by supporting articulation and organising ideas at a personal level combined with distributed collaborative thinking in “sense-making networks“. While exploring this theme as part of the content of my research was somewhat expected, I did not realise how much reflecting on practices of others and my blogging experiences in that respect would challenge my research methodology-wise.

Blogging research not only turned into participatory research and involving others as co-researchers. As I experienced the flexibility of organising my thinking with the weblog, as well as the fun and added value of the social nature of it, it became more and more difficult to use conventional data analysis methods and tools.

As it’s easy to attribute to my own personality or strange choices, I was glad to hear that I’m not alone in it. Stuart French on blogs as study tool (once you are there check University 2.0 too):

The real research is happening in NVivo, but I find that I do a lot of my thinking better in a blog than a analytic memo, so I started interchanging the two. If a memo was about a specific data or participant then in went into NVivo and was linked, but the more general thoughts about underlying cause/efect relationships, theories in the literature and in use by the participants to make sense of their environments…they end up in the blog.

More and more though, I find the challenge of writing for public consumption adds something of an edge to the process of analysis so many of the recent posts have been to this blog rather than my private one.

In my own case blogging came before I made a choice for specific data analysis methods or considered using tools for qualitative data analysis. When I tried some of them, I missed two things in comparison to blogging: flexibility of dealing with fuzzy data and emergent assumptions, and an easy way to involve of others in the process . While on the technology side including those capabilities in the research tools is probably just a matter of time, I believe that addressing them methodology-wise provides a bigger challenge.

My experiences of sense-making as a flexible, intuitive and messy process raise questions about finding a methodologically sound way to accommodate for those:

If expertise is difficult to articulate, how would you specify (for example) explicit coding criteria to pinpoint patterns? How far the need to make things explicit, to categorise beforehand would ruin the richness of what could be found? How far the decisions on what are the patterns could be logically explained? How easily the process itself could be articulated for an examination by others?

The social nature of sense-making with blogging indicates other challenges. While action research methodologies do provide a way to include others in research, the ways of doing so rely on having a shared goal and cycles of planning, action and reflection. In the case of blogging research involvement of others is unplanned, casual, and fragmented. It is those characteristics that make involvement of others especially valuable (re: exposure and unexpected connections across boundaries), they difficult to account for methodologically.

• Making methodological choices
• Methodology chapter: blogging practices
• On the role of theory

In the core of my PhD research approach is active participation, which brings me somewhere between ethnography and action research. I’m still working on positioning what I do between existing approaches, but some elements and connections are getting clear.

I study my own people. This is something that would fall into auto-ethnography category.

The shared similarities among auto-ethnographies are that, in each case, the researchers posses the qualities of other permanent self-identification with a group and full internal membership, as recognised by themselves and the people of whom they are part. [Hayano, 1979:100]

I study my own people by being engaged in something that I found called thick participation, which

implies apprenticeship and practice, natural conversation and observation, lived experience and sensuous research. [Spittler, 2001: 1]

My study is heavily informed by reflecting on my personal experiences of “participating in the life of my tribe”, so calling is reflexive ethnography is another option.

In reflexive ethnographies, the researcher’s personal experience becomes important primarily in how it illuminates the culture under study. Reflexive ethnographies range along a continuum from starting research from one’s own experience to ethnographies where the researcher’s experience is actually studies along with other participants, to confessional tales where the researcher’s experience of doing the study become the focus of investigation. [Ellis&Bochner, 2000:740]

One day I’ll explain properly why those elements are important, but the short answer is that the focus of my PhD calls for it.

My PhD is focused on understanding personal knowledge management through studying blogging practices. For both personal knowledge management and blogging practices there are a few of things I consider important:

• “actor” perspective and holistic view – I’m interested how different practices are connected at individual level
• invisible and implicit nature – some elements of practices I’m studying either invisible for an outsider or, even worse, implicit

In this respect my PhD is about articulating the invisible from personal perspective, so personal engagement and reflection make a good starting point. Living between others who share similar practices and sometimes even share my research questions provides a space for learning from observing their practices, reflecting on differences, testing emergent interpretations and feedback on my results.

[To be continued. I also promise to be a good girl and add proper references]

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2005/04/13.html#a1547; comments are here.

• Role of RSS in weblog conversations (2)
• Weblog as a research notebook (1): reading ‘Life online’ and del.icio.us as bookmarking history
• PhD

Can someone explain me (or point to something) differences between action research and ethnography?

My feeling that the differences should be somewhere around:

• role of action (~action as intentional/explicit goal of action research)
• process (cycles in action research)
• data collection/documenting focus
• …

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2005/04/08.html#a1540; comments are here.

• ‘Those that belong to the Emperor’ (on weblog types)
• Weblog as a research notebook (2): types of notes
• Between cultures

Inna Kouper on disadvantages of participant observation as a research method (in relation to reading Milroy, 1987):

The researcher may be unable to fit the data in a wider context without additional broader studies. Participant observations can be very demanding in time, energy and emotional involvement. There might be a lot of “unanalyzable” data because the researcher has to record everything and then sort it out. Personal characteristics play essential role and can skew the sample (e.g. males attracted to a female researcher). There is a chance of data distortion from researcher’s side (who unconsiously may influence communication) and from the studied community side referred in sociolinguistics to as “observer’s paradox.” The paradox was formulated by Labov in late 60s – early 70s works as follows:

“… researchers want to find out how people talk when they are not being systematically observed; yet we can only obtain these data by systematic observation…”

It is usually ignored in blogs studies because we’re studying “publicly available” behavior. But if people know there is a blog researcher in their community and they’re being observed do they change their behavior?

I started to articulate my concerns regarding this issue in Hard choices: researcher vs. blogger?, but I guess I can make a bit more fine-grained distinctions of my influence:

1. bloggers I study may change their behaviour as a result of knowing that they are being observed (I guess this is what Inna refers to)
2. by participating in the community I influence behaviours of others

Before I get into the details, I’d like to specify that what I say applies to “my community”, broadly defined as “KM/learning/Internet research bloggers”. I do not have an objective way to describe it yet, but this is one of my goals in our work with Stephanie on defining weblog community boundaries.

Now to the points…

Bloggers I study may change their behaviour as a result of knowing that they are being observed

Sure there is a risk of that, but:

Blogging is a bit exhibitionistic anyway – you write in public and you are likely to know that you are “being observed” by your readers. I guess knowing that your family member/friend/colleague/potential employer may read your weblog would influence what is being said and how more than knowing that someone may study it for research purposes. Of course, it depends on a blogger awareness of public nature of blogging, which may not be the case in some groups, but definitely not an issue in “my community”.

Another reason I don’t think I have influence of this kind is a longitidinal nature of my study. You may be aware of a researcher around you for a week or month, but then life takes its own course (as Dina puts it, you can’t be consistently fake). It may have the same effect as videocamera that people stop noticing after some time of being videotaped (btw, anyone knows scientific evidence of it?)

Now to the second part – by participating in the community I influence behaviours of others.

The simple answer would be that it’s part of my design since what I do is pretty close to action research. And I’m still working on the complex answer since what I do is closer to research through active participation in a sense Torill uses in her dissertation (as a side remark – this is a nice example how sharing good Italian food and your research problems with another blogger influences your own research :)

The “complex answer” is still hard to articulate and I don’t have all the ingridients, but as an indication – questions I’m trying to tackle as part of it:

• My community: What is “my community”? Is it one or several? Characteristics? Boundaries? Who are the members?
• Me and others: What is my role in the community? Is it different from others’ roles? How?

This post also appears on channel weblog research

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2005/01/28.html#a1492; comments are here.

• The role of chocolate in PhD research
• Weblog as knowledge networker instrument
• Becoming a scientist

In one of the discussions about knowledge management someone asked if we were thinking of supporting “knowledge workers as they are” or some kind of “ideal knowledge workers”. I guess it’s true that most of people now have some elements of knowledge work in their job, but most of us are too far from what could be considered an ideal case.

We are still in the process of trying to understand what knowledge work is, how do we do it and what do we need to do it better. At the same time we want to make knowledge work more effective. I would say that we are targeting at understanding and developing knowledge work practices at the same time.

See also Is knowledge work improvable? by Jim McGee and Peter Schutt on knowledge worker productivity.

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2003/10/10.html#a790; comments are here.

• PKM: purposes and practices
• How Bob manages his conversations
• Paper: Blending blogging into an academic text

Christian asked KM Summer School 2003 organisers to reflect on key issues and challenges of KM based on our observations during last week. I believe this may be useful for a broader audience (and please don’t forget that these are my personal biased views :)

One trend I could observe is that “KM is about technologies” is not there anymore. We didn’t have to convince the participants about it. But it’s difficult to say why: we made the program without much space to talk about technologies and may be we just have not attracted “technology-oriented” KM crowd.

Action research is gaining momentum as research methodology in KM. It could be considered as a good sign, as action research allows better connection between KM research and practice. From another side, action research is still not widely accepted in academic circles that could lead to alienation of KM researchers who use it from “mainstream” research. I’ve got an impression that many participants liked the idea of doing action research, but I suspect that they are not aware that producing valid scientific results using action research requires a serious look at methodological issues and methods to be used. We didn’t have much discussion on this “practical” side of action research.

KM research challenges

Understanding how to make things work. Going beyond models and theories. Implementation. Acceptance by people. This brings the main research challenge – understand how KM initiatives could be connected to our everyday practices without being an “extra thing” or answering What’s in it for me? question (I’m so biased here, this is my own research focus :)

The related research/practical challenge is to understand emergent and self-organising nature of knowledge work and knowledge networks. I share beliefs of others that you can’t manage it, but I can also understand that in business context you need to do something with it. So, I would put it as understanding how to manage (=facilitate, or suggest better word) emerging complexity (still talking about KM context here).

Speed up learning curve for young researchers: it’s important to know the basics, but there is a need to go through them faster and join current discussions.

• Getting rid of old models (everyone is starting from Nonaka SECI model and is loosing much time on it, instead of reading something more advanced or at least critics of Nonaka next to him).
• Another observation feeds this – many of KMSS participants seem not to be aware of storytelling research, so they proposed and supported a “research proposal” to reinvent the wheel instead of going further.

Practice what we preach. Do KM in KM research community next to studying it. Build on results of others instead of reinventing them. Keep and eye on trends. Share and learn proactively.

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2003/09/18.html#a754; comments are here.

• KMSS03: Knowledge networks and communities
• Publishing preprints on-line: please explain the rules
• Reflecting on KMSS02 experiences

Open-Ended Manifesto on Research and Learning [via OLDaily]. Pieces that correlate with last few days thinking:

§2. To live is to learn and to learn is to live.

§4. What we know, we know together.

§9. The distinction between having knowledge and using knowledge will break down. Knowledge is becoming a dynamic phenomenon. Something is only knowledge when it circulates in networks and only when the knowledge facilitates actions. Then it becomes competence.

§16. We need much better tools of reflection to be able to organise and manage in a society where knowledge and symbolic work are central.

§23. To be meaningful, research today has to take place in networks.

§25. A socially meaningful and practically relevant form of human and social science today has to build on a renewal of the tradition of action research. What we need are common forms of reflection, common tools for reflection and reflexive practices that are not only effective but also constantly are a source of new experience and knowledge. We could call it second generation action research.

§27. Research and learning are converging. The distinction between a situation where knowledge is produced or created and a situation where it is used is breaking down. More and more often knowledge is created in the context of its application and use.

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2003/09/15.html#a748; comments are here.

• Learning: communities vs. courses
• Synchronicity
• eLearning’s Next Chapter

I decided to make two posts instead of one long… From the AREOL course – Approaching an action research thesis: an overview

For thesis purposes, you will also find it desirable to ensure that you document your procedures as you go. In particular, you will want to keep a record of:

• the emerging interpretations, and any changes in these
• the changing methods, any refinements in them, and any conclusions you can therefore draw about them
• the literature you access, and any confirming or disconfirming information you obtain from it
• quotes from raw information which capture well the interpretations you are developing.

Without adequate documentation, it will be very difficult to reconstruct this when you prepare the eventual thesis. It is much easier to keep good, if selective, records as you proceed.

After reading it I quickly realise that it’s very close to what I do working on the BlogTalk paper – I use my blog to document the process.

Now I have to think hard why I don’t do that for my PhD research. First reasons seem to be:

• confidentiality – many things in the project require formal agreement to go public and sometimes it’s safer to keep silence instead of trying to draw the line between confidential and open
• complexity – I don’t know where to start documenting it
• lack of shared context – with the BlogTalk paper I don’t have to explain much, but there is a long story behind my PhD ideas

I guess it’s time to start internal weblog. I’m ready, my colleagues are ready (at least for my weblog ;), so it’s just a matter of finding time. I hope I do it after all April’s deadlines are passed. I really feel loosing something from my PhD work because of not blogging it. (Is this a sign of addiction? :)

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2003/04/16.html#a550; comments are here.

• BlogTalk paper: draft version goes on-line
• Back and BlogTalk paper news
• Better tools and educative marketing

Jim McGee: Knowledge management and weblogs

Knowledge management has been premised on the notion that the knowledge to be managed already exists and simply needs to be collected and organized to obtain the promised benefits.

One reason that so many of us find weblogs exciting in the realm of knowledge management is that weblogs reveal that the most important knowledge needs to be created before it can be collected and organized.

This is similar to the argument about the important split between tacit and explicit knowledge but much simpler. There is a category of knowledge that lies between explicit and tacit–what a colleague of mine, Jeanie Egmon, labels as “implicit.” This is knowledge that is actually fairly simple to write down once you decide that it’s worth doing so and once you have tools that make it easy to do so. It’s the knowledge of context and the whys behind the whats. It’s the knowledge that’s obvious at the time and on site, but mysterious even to its creators six months and six hundred miles later.

In the knowledge economy that we all live in, even if we keep trying to stay comfortably ensconced in the industrial economy that used to make so much sense, we need to reflect on and learn from experience on a daily basis in order to maintain any sort of edge. That reflection and learning depends on having high quality raw material to work with. That’s what weblogs provide.

Albert Delgado:

It is called Praxis, which deals with the construction of knowledge in the here and now. That cyclical endeavor of making sense of our endeavors in light of new insights and information. It is lifelong learning in the concrete. If anything, this is the stuff that we need to be passing on to our students. We need to model this behavior. As a faculty, we need to practice this behavior as a group. If a faculty is not about focusing on practice and refining it, then there is no praxis on an organizational level, and most likely lacking at the classroom level. That is why I think that weblogs may be one tool to expose our practice.

Sebastian Fiedler:

A good part of the potential benefits of personal Webpublishing lies in the somewhat self-referential loop that is supported by this emerging practice.

The number one readers of my published items is me, myself, and I.

Of course, this is an exaggeration, but it points to the immediate benefit that a continued collection and publication of experiential “raw material”holds for the author. Loads of it would normally slip out of consciousness and memory in a matter of hours or days.

I wouldn’t say that the mere collection of this material already ensures reflection, elaboration, and deep, personal learning. But sifting through my self-created content becomes and increasingly important activity within my own learning projects.

For a last few days I kept thinking about another parallel – weblogs and action research. I participate in AREOL distance course on action research (actually I don’t do it properly as it is not visible in my weblog, but I hope to write about it later :)

In my interpretation action research is about regular and well-thought reflection on your practice. Looking at examples of reflective activities I that see many of them are about note-taking, diaries, debriefing, reviewing… So close to my blogging experiences…

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2003/04/16.html#a549; comments are here.

• Blogging: storytelling and listening (2)
• Difficult writing for BlogTalk
• KMSS02: Day 4 follow-up – introducing blogs

An observation: best discussions happen when you don’t have pen and paper, around a dinner table or in a bar. Next morning you come back and try to capture them, but not much left. I wonder, probably the value of this discussions not in their result (something to be captured), but in learning experiences you go through. Few more useful bits:

• Thigs to find and to read
  • action research course by Bob Dick (more action research resources)
  • Vivian Payley The boy who wanted to be a helicopter
  • www.patternlanguage.com
• Questions to think about
  • If KM is so context-specific, could it be researched in a scientific sense (fixed variables and repeatable conditions)? Could I run into a situation when I would have to omit important variables? Something to look for in the research methodologies.
  • Does organisational learning exist? Not as a result of knowledge flows in the networks of people in a company, but as something else?

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2002/09/03.html#a214; comments are here.

• Conference blogging
• KMSS03: back home
• KMSS02: Day 2 afternoon