Successful knowledge transfer is all about relationships. As anyone who has conducted research with non-academic partners knows, it takes a considerable amount of time and effort for these relationships to be fruitful. The great benefit of placing this work within the context of a community of practice is that it gives researchers and decision makers a structure within which to interact.<p> This study explored ways in which a community of practice framework can be used to develop and nurture relationships between researchers and decision makers. Further, it investigated how these communities of practice can be supported by online communications technologies. Its major contribution is the development, testing and refinement of a checklist of six ways that researchers can connect with decision makers in communities of practice, both in person and online. This checklist provides concrete, practical suggestions on how to develop an effective community of practice. Items in the checklist are based on both the academic literature on knowledge transfer and communities of practice, and the authors experience as part of an academic research unit focused on conducting collaborative research with community and government partners. Each item in the checklist was validated through interviews with members of two communities of practice. While the initial checklist had five items, a sixth was added following analysis of the interviews.<p> This checklist is generalizable, in that it can help guide any kind of community of practice, not just those in which members work on early childhood development issues, nor those communities in which researchers and decision makers interact. It is a valuable contribution to knowledge transfer methods at a time when both interest levels and efforts to improve knowledge implementation are widespread. The final checklist reads as follows:<p> A community of practice should:<p> 1. provide opportunities for regular interaction between community members;<p> 2. allow members to participate at varying levels that can change over time;<p> 3. provide both public and private spaces for interaction;<p> 4. document its goals, activities and outcomes, in order to develop a knowledge repository;<p> 5. identify and document the value of the community itself; and <p> 6. enlist the guidance of a technology champion in order to use online communications technologies effectively.

Successful knowledge transfer is all about relationships. As anyone who has conducted research with non-academic partners knows, it takes a considerable amount of time and effort for these relationships to be fruitful. The great benefit of placing this work within the context of a community of practice is that it gives researchers and decision makers a structure within which to interact.<p> This study explored ways in which a community of practice framework can be used to develop and nurture relationships between researchers and decision makers. Further, it investigated how these communities of practice can be supported by online communications technologies. Its major contribution is the development, testing and refinement of a checklist of six ways that researchers can connect with decision makers in communities of practice, both in person and online. This checklist provides concrete, practical suggestions on how to develop an effective community of practice. Items in the checklist are based on both the academic literature on knowledge transfer and communities of practice, and the authors experience as part of an academic research unit focused on conducting collaborative research with community and government partners. Each item in the checklist was validated through interviews with members of two communities of practice. While the initial checklist had five items, a sixth was added following analysis of the interviews.<p> This checklist is generalizable, in that it can help guide any kind of community of practice, not just those in which members work on early childhood development issues, nor those communities in which researchers and decision makers interact. It is a valuable contribution to knowledge transfer methods at a time when both interest levels and efforts to improve knowledge implementation are widespread. The final checklist reads as follows:<p> A community of practice should:<p> 1. provide opportunities for regular interaction between community members;<p> 2. allow members to participate at varying levels that can change over time;<p> 3. provide both public and private spaces for interaction;<p> 4. document its goals, activities and outcomes, in order to develop a knowledge repository;<p> 5. identify and document the value of the community itself; and <p> 6. enlist the guidance of a technology champion in order to use online communications technologies effectively.

No description available.

Originally presented as the author's thesis: Universität Genf, 2006. / Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Originally presented as the author's thesis: Universitat Genf, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available in print.

Abstract Increasing global interest in coaching science research has resulted in a greater recognition of the complexities and dynamics existing in the coaching process (Cushion, Armour, & Jones, 2003). Associated with the dynamic and complex nature of the coaching process are the many social relationships that operate within this process. A high performance coach’s network is often associated with athletes, officials, support staff and administrators. In essence, coaches form dynamic social networks (DSN; (Mallett, Rossi, & Tinning, 2007) that are paramount to developing their coaching practice, and therefore their coaching knowledge. The aim of this project was to understand how high performance football coaches (HPFC) learn. The research questions were as follows: • What are the major sources of information for HPFC? • What sources of information are most valuable to the HPFC? • What role does the interaction with other coaches’ play in developing knowledge? In order to better understand the nature of coach interactions in developing knowledge it is useful to consider the notions of communities of practice (CoP) (Wenger, 1998), networks of practice (NoP) (Nichani & Hung, 2002), informal knowledge networks (IKN) (Allee, 2000) and dynamic social networks (DSN) (Mallett, et al., 2007). This qualitative research was conducted with six high performance football coaches (HPFC) in Australia using semi-structured interviews. Each interview was transcribed and analysed into meaning units through the process of triangular consensus. The coaches in this sample did not display a fully functioning CoP, IKN, or NoP. The HPFCs failed to display the critical element of a joint enterprise. Mutual engagement was partially reported between coaches of the same team but was not reported between opposition coaches. The coaches reported the final element of a shared repertoire. Nichani & Hung’s (2002) notion of a NoP and Allee’s (2000) research on IKN were considered as possible social networks to describe the coaching context. These coaches did not develop relationships that could be characterised as a NoP. The data suggests that the development of knowledge through face-to-face interactions with other people was valued over use of Internet exchanges and chat rooms. There was evidence to suggest the formation of a coaches’ IKN, however it is proposed that this was not the major source for these coaches in developing knowledge. Most importantly it was found that HPFC in the Australian context are engaged in a DSN. It was reported by the coaches in this study that their interactions are dynamic, in that they change throughout their careers to the extent that their people of influence can be numerous; this is due to two key findings. The nature of the work of HPFC is highly contested and thus the information and knowledge is sacred. This is a barrier for information and knowledge transfer and can inhibit learning. In addition finding a person of influence is a lengthy process as it can take years to build mutual trust and respect. By understanding how coaches learn their craft through their interactions with others, coach development could potentially assist coaches through the learning process.

Abstract Increasing global interest in coaching science research has resulted in a greater recognition of the complexities and dynamics existing in the coaching process (Cushion, Armour, & Jones, 2003). Associated with the dynamic and complex nature of the coaching process are the many social relationships that operate within this process. A high performance coach’s network is often associated with athletes, officials, support staff and administrators. In essence, coaches form dynamic social networks (DSN; (Mallett, Rossi, & Tinning, 2007) that are paramount to developing their coaching practice, and therefore their coaching knowledge. The aim of this project was to understand how high performance football coaches (HPFC) learn. The research questions were as follows: • What are the major sources of information for HPFC? • What sources of information are most valuable to the HPFC? • What role does the interaction with other coaches’ play in developing knowledge? In order to better understand the nature of coach interactions in developing knowledge it is useful to consider the notions of communities of practice (CoP) (Wenger, 1998), networks of practice (NoP) (Nichani & Hung, 2002), informal knowledge networks (IKN) (Allee, 2000) and dynamic social networks (DSN) (Mallett, et al., 2007). This qualitative research was conducted with six high performance football coaches (HPFC) in Australia using semi-structured interviews. Each interview was transcribed and analysed into meaning units through the process of triangular consensus. The coaches in this sample did not display a fully functioning CoP, IKN, or NoP. The HPFCs failed to display the critical element of a joint enterprise. Mutual engagement was partially reported between coaches of the same team but was not reported between opposition coaches. The coaches reported the final element of a shared repertoire. Nichani & Hung’s (2002) notion of a NoP and Allee’s (2000) research on IKN were considered as possible social networks to describe the coaching context. These coaches did not develop relationships that could be characterised as a NoP. The data suggests that the development of knowledge through face-to-face interactions with other people was valued over use of Internet exchanges and chat rooms. There was evidence to suggest the formation of a coaches’ IKN, however it is proposed that this was not the major source for these coaches in developing knowledge. Most importantly it was found that HPFC in the Australian context are engaged in a DSN. It was reported by the coaches in this study that their interactions are dynamic, in that they change throughout their careers to the extent that their people of influence can be numerous; this is due to two key findings. The nature of the work of HPFC is highly contested and thus the information and knowledge is sacred. This is a barrier for information and knowledge transfer and can inhibit learning. In addition finding a person of influence is a lengthy process as it can take years to build mutual trust and respect. By understanding how coaches learn their craft through their interactions with others, coach development could potentially assist coaches through the learning process.

Abstract Increasing global interest in coaching science research has resulted in a greater recognition of the complexities and dynamics existing in the coaching process (Cushion, Armour, & Jones, 2003). Associated with the dynamic and complex nature of the coaching process are the many social relationships that operate within this process. A high performance coach’s network is often associated with athletes, officials, support staff and administrators. In essence, coaches form dynamic social networks (DSN; (Mallett, Rossi, & Tinning, 2007) that are paramount to developing their coaching practice, and therefore their coaching knowledge. The aim of this project was to understand how high performance football coaches (HPFC) learn. The research questions were as follows: • What are the major sources of information for HPFC? • What sources of information are most valuable to the HPFC? • What role does the interaction with other coaches’ play in developing knowledge? In order to better understand the nature of coach interactions in developing knowledge it is useful to consider the notions of communities of practice (CoP) (Wenger, 1998), networks of practice (NoP) (Nichani & Hung, 2002), informal knowledge networks (IKN) (Allee, 2000) and dynamic social networks (DSN) (Mallett, et al., 2007). This qualitative research was conducted with six high performance football coaches (HPFC) in Australia using semi-structured interviews. Each interview was transcribed and analysed into meaning units through the process of triangular consensus. The coaches in this sample did not display a fully functioning CoP, IKN, or NoP. The HPFCs failed to display the critical element of a joint enterprise. Mutual engagement was partially reported between coaches of the same team but was not reported between opposition coaches. The coaches reported the final element of a shared repertoire. Nichani & Hung’s (2002) notion of a NoP and Allee’s (2000) research on IKN were considered as possible social networks to describe the coaching context. These coaches did not develop relationships that could be characterised as a NoP. The data suggests that the development of knowledge through face-to-face interactions with other people was valued over use of Internet exchanges and chat rooms. There was evidence to suggest the formation of a coaches’ IKN, however it is proposed that this was not the major source for these coaches in developing knowledge. Most importantly it was found that HPFC in the Australian context are engaged in a DSN. It was reported by the coaches in this study that their interactions are dynamic, in that they change throughout their careers to the extent that their people of influence can be numerous; this is due to two key findings. The nature of the work of HPFC is highly contested and thus the information and knowledge is sacred. This is a barrier for information and knowledge transfer and can inhibit learning. In addition finding a person of influence is a lengthy process as it can take years to build mutual trust and respect. By understanding how coaches learn their craft through their interactions with others, coach development could potentially assist coaches through the learning process.

Thesis (M. Information Science)--University of Pretoria, 2005. / Summaries in English and Afrikaans. Includes bibliographical references.

Government policy for economic development across Scotland and the UK is driving an increasing number of strategic alliances in higher education to achieve economies of scale and economies of experience. Higher education institutions have been encouraged through strategic funding to further develop externally facing university-business engagement. Effective collaboration could theoretically produce the advantage of a better student experience and, at the same time, make the market for higher education more competitive. Collaborative structures are complex including the interaction between the people or agents who work within and between them. The challenge is how such collaboration can best be organised to deliver across organisation boundaries. The purpose of the study was to explore and report on a causal story of collaborative practice by examining the insider perspectives of the people engaged in collaborative strategic projects in higher education. Collaboration is defined as a relationship which is mutually beneficial to organisations to achieve common aims, including the structure, roles and relationships within collaborations. The study considered one such strategic project, the Scottish HE Employability Forum,in particular, the lived experience of the members of its project management group and was informed by the evidence based literature. The interpretivist qualitative approach to the study, with semi-structured interviews, represented one specific time interval of the participant voice considering the set-up, implementation and evaluation of the strategic project. The data analysis and findings confirmed a priori themes, for example, the need for trust building, effective leadership and strategic planning. A principle emergent theme was that the notions of agency and reciprocity were not mutually exclusive and impacted on the causal mechanisms and explanation of observed behaviours and relationships of the participant members. A conceptual framework from the current study is presented suggesting themes of collaborative activity being comprised of a broader pattern requiring relational behaviour, expert and champion roles for successful collaboration. A series of recommendations is given for collaborative practice; for project management, effectiveness and sustainability along with key messages of knowledge transfer and learning.