[When I talked about it with Bev in Copenhagen I realised it might be worth writing down]

I started my PhD research with an idealistic target to create something that people would read and find useful. As I worked on it the “people” turned into bloggers, my peers on the quest of figuring out where weblogs fit in knowledge-intensive environments. They were the audience that I wanted to reach with my work.

I didn’t realise that doing PhD research is extremely slow comparing to the fun of playing with new ideas in my professional community. As I moved beyond the early studies into doing research and writing about it, I felt more and more being behind. There were a few “objective” reasons to stop reading other blogs, but also  an emotional one next to them: reading about new ideas people in my network were playing with made me feel working on “yesterday’s news”. It also made clear that my work wasn’t that interesting for my imagined audience, so I was losing my main motivation to do it.

I struggled with it for a while. As I eventually figured out the problem was in my own expectations and I had the answers in the first paper I wrote on weblogs that I mechanically copy-pasted into the introduction chapter of my dissertation. I wanted to study blogging to get an understanding of where it fits for the “pragmatists” who come after “enthusiastic early adopters”, yet it’s early adopters I imagined as my audience.

That changed everything. As I realised that I’m not writing for my “early adopter” peers, but for people who were only getting into blogging, it suddently made more sense.

• Paper: Blending blogging into an academic text
• Connecting KM research and practice
• Hypertext writing

Two things coming from Sebastian Fiedler mould into my thinking on PhD methodology.

The first post What Is “Good” Education Research? points to an article by Karl Hostetler (.pdf) discussing the ethics and politics of education research (themes that much in my thinking due to all my ethnographic readings).

The second is a quote from Søren Kierkegaard:

Life can only be understood backwards.
In the meantime, it has to be lived forwards.

This one connects to retrospective coherence of complex domains (Dave Snowden/Cynefin, see the paper (.pdf)) and my attempts to figure out good methods of studying it.

What keeps bothering me is a misalignment of research methodologies that are perceived as “more scientific” (~easier to defend) and my own research values/interests (especially: complex domains and researcher accountability).

I’ll have to find a way for resolving it – this is the only way for completing a PhD without compromising my values.

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2006/03/31.html#a1752; comments are here.

• Studying weblogs at Microsoft: connecting the dots
• How to advise EU and do research in other countries
• What I want to do when I’m done with my PhD

Wendy Freeman comments on my post on the role of theory:

I think that in this sense theory distances people from the way that others view a particular event or book or technology or …. Viewing everyday practice through a particular theoretical lens is exciting because it gives depth to what we see, but trying to communicate that to others is a challenge. We lack a common language. Is this another social dimension to learning? Developing a shared way of looking at something? Of course, it’s called different things, shared beliefs, shared understanding, shared language, or shared theoretical frameworks.

Right on the point. Going further into theoretical explanations gives depth to the phenomenon you study, but it also deepens the gap between you as a researcher and others (people in general, people you study, other researchers who happen to go deep into other theories).

It is also about choices to whom you are accountable as a researcher. You have to satisfy your research community, taking care of theories, rigor and transparency. But going to far into that has risks of disconnecting with the reality and doing research just for the sake of intellectual curiosity.

For me research is about impact. Of course, intellectual curiosity, contribution to a theory and rigor should be there, but for me my own research makes sense only if it makes a difference in the lives of people. People who may or may not understand the language of theory.

Researchers make their own choices about that. Some would choose hunting for treasures deep in the theory land and let others bring it back to the world just because this enables them to go further. Others would take extra effort not to bring it back (at all or during the study time), out of ethical concerns (do you have a right to change the way indigenous people live with all your ideas on how things could be different?) or methodological consideration (keeping distance helps to avoid “polluting your data”*). I guess I belong to another group, those who feel that bringing it back is part of the research itself.

I’m not the first one to bring it up (and the researcher in me says that I should dig out references to “earlier work” :). It’s only now I’m starting to articulate** my implicit beliefs in researcher’s accountability to the broader community than his or her research peers, the responsibility to bring the research results back from the theory land to where most people live, either by translating them into everyday words, teaching the language of theory or even involving them as co-researchers…

*Although the concern is reasonable, I hate this expression.

** Heavily influenced by conversations at AOIR, especially those with Terri Senft, Annette Markham, Abby Goodrum and kat jungnickel.

Tags: aoir, aoir6

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2005/10/19.html#a1699; comments are here.

• Weblog research ethics
• PhD: experiential research and everyday grounded theory
• The power of visible loose ends

There was a great metaphor developed by one of the discussion groups at CPsquare open house.

Think of nurturing communities as a crossing a bridge (due to local circumstances the only transport offered was a bike ;) You can go pretty straight (and follow something like “10 tips for facilitating communities of practice”) and cross the bridge. However, in most cases it’s not that simple: many people fall from the bridge and discover deep waters of underlying theories and practices under it.

[I hope to find a photo and post it here. This one gives some impression.]

Some people just swim on a surface, others go diving to discover the treasures of depth. Divers are different as well: some are supported by a team on the surface, stay in depth longer, but explore only limited part of the bottom; others take risks of diving by themselves to get more flexibility.

Some people just want to cross the bridge as fast as possible and don’t want to go diving into theories. Others get addicted to diving and stay underwater with fading memories of the bridge. Others get out of the water, but forget to take of all their diving gear, surprising other bicyclists on the bridge with wetsuits and masks.

This metaphor provokes many questions:

Is it necessary to dive into deep waters of theories to cross the bridge? Some just want to get to another side faster. Are people prepared for diving? Do they need crash course or long training in a swimming pool to get ready for the surprises of the depth?

Which diving style to choose? Are there any “fitness” conditions to go diving?

How to make diving fun? Do you need an experienced guide to show you around?

What do you if you get addicted to diving?

How to remember to take you wetsuit off if you decide to go back on the bridge? How to explain others on the bridge what you have seen in the depth? How to share experiences of deep waters with those who can not even think of swimming?

Why do we have to stick to cycling on the bridge after all? One can use boat or fly over the river… Of course, the bridge is persistent; it embodies expertise of earlier generations to make crossing easier to newcomers. It also fast. However, the bridge keeps distance from the water, so those who fall down from their bicycles can get surprising cold showers. May be we should think of a ferry: a bit slower, but at least the waters do not get out of sight :)

Of course, I find the metaphor particularly appealing as it speaks diving language :) Thinking where I would position myself on the picture… I guess I will be a diver establishing a ferry business. My ferry would be fast enough to make a good alternative to cycling on the bridge. I’ll make sure that it has glass bottom, so those on board can see the beauty and depth of waters under the bridge. I’ll provide some safety training, so those falling in the water will not be shocked, and basic introduction to diving, so those interested get a starting point. I’ll do something “not super fast, but with a lot of fun on board” and make sure “deep water education” activities are well embedded into the river-crossing experience.

I guess I’ll also arrange for a helicopter flights across the river, so people (especially addicted divers who rarely get out of the water) can appreciate the surroundings and see that the river if only part of the landscape ;)

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2004/06/14.html#a1242; comments are here.

• Blog networking and crossing boundaries for CPsqure research and dissertation fest
• Beginners-friendly communities
• Can blogging replace communities of practice?

My (almost raw) notes on the session on Innovation.

Innovation success factors by Hank Kune

(background reading – Critical success factors for innovation in non-profit organizations, .doc)

• Organisational structure for innovation processes
  • Treat innovation as a systemic process
  • Create space for innovation (physical, emotional, budgetary…)
  • Set ambitious goals and combine them with small steps
  • Focus on results
  • Learn from innovation process
• Organisational culture
  • Create a climate for innovation
    • Making time for innovation, e.g.
    • Rewards and recognition
  • Foster valueing innovaton
  • Break patterns and abandon excepted truth, e.g.
    • Look for ideas that do not work, but still get implemented
    • Support nonconformists
    • Confronting solutions proposed by managers by ideas collected from schoolchildren
  • Motivate personal
• People
  • Make people central to the innovation process
  • Communicate about innovation
  • Involve senior managers directly
• Environment
  • Search for and make use of opportunities outside organisation
  • Be customer-oriented

“You can’t give people freedom and space without accountability”

Sources of innovation

• Burning platform (hot problem to work on)
• Burning passion (creative people driven by their own passion to find answers)
• Low threshold: everyone everywhere in the organisation knows how to do work, so listen to all people (e.g. secretaries) to find new ideas

How to facilitate creativity

• Network of facilitators, web-site with creativity techniques
• Finding people outside of organisation
• Artists functioning as translaters between different parties

Models of innovation and management of knowledge by Hilary Kane

See Models of Innovations and KM presentation (.pdf) and a corresponding paper How Might Models of Innovation Inform the Management of Knowledge? (.pdf).

During this talk I regretted of not reading the paper in advance. It’s worth it. And I also enjoyed much the way Hilary has presented – making links to presentations and discussions of two previous days.

Citing Kuhn: “If we don’t marry theory and practice we are not more than fact gatherers”

Interactive session on innovation by Gerald Prast

This was an interesting interactive session. First we have brainstormed do’s and don’ts of implementing innovation, then went into “what I can do to make it happen” and finished with discussion on connecting research and practice. Full brainstorming summary is on-line, but I’d like to cite the last piece:

How to marry theory and practice (“heaven and hell/hell and heaven”)

• Use what is there
• Teach each other
• Avoid big words
• Use the theory of innovation stages
• Bridge the (artificial) divide by people who have experience in both
• Do action research
• Use Free discussion
• Try to understand each others’ pressures
• Engage people with deep knowledge of one subject and an interest in one or two others (“T-professionals”)
• Use triads: Theoretician, practitioner, journalist/story-teller
• Re-wire the brain using Goleman theory
• Create common space to exchange points of view (e.g. Google answers)
• Act as a change agent, not as a lecturer
• Practice what you preach

Summary of the day (including parallel session on KM in SMEs) should be availiable here soon.

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2003/09/11.html#a740; comments are here.

• Experience of corporate (team) blogging
• Distributed everything
• Time is the currency in the knowledge economy

[after last two posts] What do you need to connect KM research and practice? Get more KM researchers blogging about their work. Get them writing on-line in small pieces and easy-to-read language.

I’m close to consider this as my personal challenge :)

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2003/01/23.html#a425; comments are here.

• Research results as yesterday’s news, audiences and expectations
• On the role of theory, researcher accountability and translation
• KMSS02: Day 3. KM research and practice

Core questions for today’s presentations: Why are you doing KM? What’s the connection with research? What are you looking for?

We worked in three groups to identify practical problems and research questions in three groups: private sector, SMEs and governmental/non-profit organisations.

Problem list for private sector

• informal networks (e.g. communities) vs. hierarchy
• where KM is located in a company? Is there KM department? Who is responsible?
• how to show KM success to managers and employees (=individual benefits): measurement and making people believing in KM
• knowledge is power vs. sharing
• right implementation decision on a small scale
• range of competencies in KM team
• KM competencies that enable people to share knowledge
• long-term vision: how to show that initial investments lead to future benefits
• communicating across different perspectives, background, languages
• articulating knowledge – how to scale up elicitation and active sharing
• how KM reaches those who don not have access to a computer
• finding who knows what
• technologies are not designed for people

Next to it we had extended discussions about connecting KM research and practice. I’ve got a feeling that we deal with typical KM problem: there are two groups of people with different goals, languages and mindsets, and knowledge is not openly flows between them. This discussion has triggered more thinking, but so far it’s too implicit to write about :)

I also thought about a couple of emerging research directions. One would be to look at motivation and embedding KM activities into everyday work. Next is KM introduction in a company: getting people involved, decision-making and power games. KM across heterogeneous groups is another: how to overcome barriers for knowledge flows between different contexts.

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2002/09/05.html#a217; comments are here.

• KMSS02 at one page
• Leaving for KMSS02
• Organising a conference