No description available.

Over the recent years, technological changes in the music industry have altered the geography of music production and non-creative music work. Progress in information and communication technology has lead to decreasing revenues from record sales, which in turn has affected traditional income models for musicians, in particular income from record sales. Therefore, contemporary musicians need to spend longer periods on tour, thus being spatially fragmented in a multitude of geographies while performing artistic work practices. In light of such changes, new music geographies have started to gain the attention for performing artistic work, in particular temporary geographies at popular music festivals as well as digital online communities.This dissertation explores these spaces of music work and creativity, and the roles played by such spaces for Swedish musicians’ working lives. By using a triangulation of methods, this dissertation addresses three important features of the contemporary music profession. First, I explore the geographies of networks and network relations, and the role of networks for coping with contemporary working conditions. Second, I pay attention to the spaces of non-creative work, particularly in festival backstage areas. Third, I focus on how, when and where musicians perform creative work, and the relation between traditional studio locations and new opportunities for creative work while being on tour. Based on interviews, observations and netnographies, I argue that contemporary musicians perform much non-creative work in temporary festival backstage areas and in online communities while creative work preferably is located to traditional studio environments. I also argue that while female musicians and new-established musicians at large, due to increasing competition, have started to explore online communities, established musicians benefit from networking in face-to-face gatherings in order to gain job opportunities. Thus, there is a distinction between different groups of musicians based on career stage and gender.

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.

No description available.

Die 20. Tagung der Gemeinschaften in Neuen Medien (GeNeMe) stellt innovative Technologien und Prozesse zur Organisation, Kooperation und Kommunikation in virtuellen Gemeinschaften vor und bildet ein Forum zum fachlichen Austausch insbesondere in den Themenfeldern Wissensmanagement und E-Learning. Diskutiert werden nicht nur technologische oder ökonomische Gesichtspunkte der Nutzung neuer Medien, vielmehr werden auch soziologische, psychologische, personalwirtschaftliche, didaktische und rechtliche Aspekte betrachtet. Die GeNeMe richtet sich an Experten aus Forschung und Industrie und sucht den Erfahrungsaustausch zwischen Teilnehmern verschiedenster Fachrichtungen, Organisationen und Institutionen aus Wirtschaft und Verwaltung. [... aus der Einleitung]

The 20th Communities in New Media (GeNeMe) Conference presents innovative technologies and processes for the organization, cooperation, and communication in virtual communities. It is a forum for professional exchange especially in the fields of knowledge management and online learning. The conference focuses not only on technological and economic aspects of the use of new media, but takes a closer look at sociological, psychological, economic, didactic, and legal facets as well. GeNeMe is geared towards experts from research and industry. It is designed to promote practical and scholarly insights among participants from various disciplines, organizations, and institutions from academia, business and administration. [... from the introduction]

Die 20. Tagung der Gemeinschaften in Neuen Medien (GeNeMe) stellt innovative Technologien und Prozesse zur Organisation, Kooperation und Kommunikation in virtuellen Gemeinschaften vor und bildet ein Forum zum fachlichen Austausch insbesondere in den Themenfeldern Wissensmanagement und E-Learning. Diskutiert werden nicht nur technologische oder ökonomische Gesichtspunkte der Nutzung neuer Medien, vielmehr werden auch soziologische, psychologische, personalwirtschaftliche, didaktische und rechtliche Aspekte betrachtet. Die GeNeMe richtet sich an Experten aus Forschung und Industrie und sucht den Erfahrungsaustausch zwischen Teilnehmern verschiedenster Fachrichtungen, Organisationen und Institutionen aus Wirtschaft und Verwaltung. [... aus der Einleitung]

The 20th Communities in New Media (GeNeMe) Conference presents innovative technologies and processes for the organization, cooperation, and communication in virtual communities. It is a forum for professional exchange especially in the fields of knowledge management and online learning. The conference focuses not only on technological and economic aspects of the use of new media, but takes a closer look at sociological, psychological, economic, didactic, and legal facets as well. GeNeMe is geared towards experts from research and industry. It is designed to promote practical and scholarly insights among participants from various disciplines, organizations, and institutions from academia, business and administration. [... from the introduction]