Abstract
In the previous section I conducted a thorough review of the CoP literature which revealed that we need to know more about how such self-organized communities emerge and embed within the context of formal organizational hierarchy. In traditional research, one would now expect a theoretical discussion from which arguments about the embeddedness would be honed. However, I choose to explore the research questions of this study using an interpretative research approach that develops theory from the ground up instead of deductively testing theorized relationships. In such a grounded theory approach the theory usually appears after qualitative data presentation (Nag, Corley, & Gioia, 2007; Suddaby, 2006). Yet, to give the reader a better understanding of how I look at the data spreading in front of me, and to advance the clarity of this manuscript, I will provide a theoretical overview first.
There is nothing as practical as a good theory
Lewin 1943
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In much of contemporary social theory there is a divide between a process and an entity understanding of the world (Chia, 1997; van de Ven & Poole, 2005). Within an entity ontology, the world is composed of discrete, self-identifying, stable things that only change in their position in time and space. Thus, in this view, entities are primary to process, and stability as well as equilibrium are natural states of things. Within a process ontology, in contrast, the world is not a constellation of things but instead is constituted through ever-unfolding processes. That is, the reality is made up of fluctuating, ongoing activities, and is in a constant state of becoming (Rescher, 1996). Both viewpoints result in fundamentally different styles of theorization of organizational phenomena; namely, entity-based theorizing and process-based theorizing (Wenzel & Koch, 2018).
- 2.
Note that several authors in practice-oriented studies argue for a practice ontology, in the sense that practice is ontologically prior to action and activity. Such a perspective assumes that “all there is, is practices”, meaning that practices become the primary social thing (Nicolini, 2012). Paroutis and Pettigrew (2007), however, note that a practice view is similar to a process understanding in that they both focus on events and activities. Given this, I abstain from further distinguishing a practice from process ontology.
- 3.
Some practice scholars also note that the divide in levels such as micro, meso, and macro in much of contemporary theory is superficial and needs to be reconceptualized in the sense that the distinction between micro and macro is dissolved when we focus on practices that transcend beyond levels as they are always locally situated but also globally embedded (Miettinen, Samra-Fredericks, & Yanow, 2009).
- 4.
To be precise, authors such as Giddens, Foucault, and Bourdieu depict the second wave of practice-oriented social theory with the first wave often attributed to philosophers such as Marx (1845/ 1977), Wittgenstein (1953) and Heidegger (1929), who in their respective works provide first perspectives on social praxis in the social world.
- 5.
For a more comprehensive overview of these vast sociological theories see also Nicolini (2012).
- 6.
The notion of being in the world stems form Heidegger (1929).
- 7.
There are multiple conceptions on human agency, in particular, in the fields of sociology and philosophy. Agency describes the capacity to act purposefully. According to Emirbayer and Mische (1998) agency is influenced through the past because past patterns of thought and action become incorporated in actors’ practical activities. Moreover, agency is oriented towards the future as actors imagine future possible trajectories of action and it is oriented towards the present because actors are capable of making judgements between different possibilities of action.
- 8.
The RBV’s primary goal is to explain firm performance by answering the question of why some firms are more successful than others in establishing sustained competitive advantages that yield superior returns. In this view, firms consist of idiosyncratic bundles of resources and capabilities which, when they are valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, and non-substitutable, are the prime source of competitive advantage (Barney, 1991).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH , part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schulte, B. (2021). Theoretical Background. In: The Organizational Embeddedness of Communities of Practice. Forschungs-/Entwicklungs-/Innovations-Management. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31954-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31954-0_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-31953-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-31954-0
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)