Learning in context: Extensively computerized work groups as communities-of-practice

Three characteristics of work group environments help explain why learning varies: differential valuation of work roles in organizations (clerical vs professional work groups); differential participation in legitimate peripheral learning (through the presence of local expertise and time to interact and learn); and differential levels of participation in noncanonical communities-of-practice (especially through grass roots computing implementations).

Abstract

As computing becomes increasingly integral to organizational life, how work groups learn to successfully use computing becomes a critical issue. The current focus in the management information systems literature is on individual training and teaching methods. The context in which people and groups learn is overlooked in these studies. But work groups provide different types of learning environments, some which encourage learning while others discourage it. Three characteristics of work group environments help explain why learning varies: differential valuation of work roles in organizations (clerical vs professional work groups); differential participation in legitimate peripheral learning (through the presence of local expertise and time to interact and learn); and differential levels of participation in noncanonical communities-of-practice (especially through grass roots computing implementations). Two contrasting case studies illustrate how these concepts result in different learning environments. Professional work groups are more highly valued in organizations and members are given more autonomy to participate in legitimate peripheral learning and emerging communities-of-practice, while clerical groups are less valued, isolated from other practitioners and more rigorously held to canonical work practices. Participation in computing implementations also provides opportunities for learning that are missing in groups that have computing forced on them by management.