Working within Knowledge Communities as a Context for Developing Knowledge Practices

  • Patrick Sins
  • Jerry Andriessen
Part of the Technology Enhanced Learning book series (TEL, volume 7)


Rapid changes in the current knowledge society present new challenges to human competence. Productive participation in knowledge-intensive work requires that individuals, their professional communities, and their organizations develop new competencies, advance their knowledge and their understanding as well as produce innovations. This is reflected in developments in professional communities wherein work is increasingly focused on deliberate advancement of knowledge rather than on the mere production of material artefacts (Bereiter, 2002). In parallel with these changes in society, conceptions about learning, knowledge practices, and social organization of learning have to be transformed to facilitate corresponding competencies.


Knowledge Creation Knowledge Community Professional Development Activity Collaborative Knowledge Knowledge Practice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amason AC. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal. 1996;39:123–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andriessen JEB, Sandberg JAC. Where is Education heading and how about AI? International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 1999;10(2):130–150.Google Scholar
  3. Argyris C, Schön D. Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley; 1978.Google Scholar
  4. Bakhtin MM. The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press; 1981.Google Scholar
  5. Barab SA, Barnett M, Squire K. Developing an empirical account of a community of practice: Characterizing the essential tensions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2002;11(4):489–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bereiter C. Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2002.Google Scholar
  7. Capper, P. & Williams, B. (2004). Enhancing evaluation using systems concepts. American Evaluation Association. Retrieved from
  8. Deutsch M. The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1973.Google Scholar
  9. Dewey J. Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Free Press; 1966.Google Scholar
  10. Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The Social Development of the Intellect. International Series in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 10. Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dreu, C.K.W., de & Van de Vliert, E. (1997). Using Conflict in Organizations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki.Google Scholar
  13. Engeström Y. Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In: Engeström Y, Miettinen MR, Punamäki RL, editors. Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  14. Engeström Y. From Stabilization Knowledge to Possibility Knowledge in Organizational Learning. Management learning. 2007;38(3):271–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eraut M. Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education. 2004;26(2):247–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Festinger L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1957.Google Scholar
  17. George JM, Jones GR. Organizational behavior. 3rd ed. New York: Prentice Hall; 2005.Google Scholar
  18. Giddens A. The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity; 1984.Google Scholar
  19. Guignon C. Heidegger and the Problem of Knowledge. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishers; 1983.Google Scholar
  20. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row. (Original work published 1952).Google Scholar
  21. Jehn K, Bendersky C. Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. In: Kramer RM, Staw BM, editors. Research in organizational behaviour. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; 2003. p. 187–242.Google Scholar
  22. Koschmann T, Kuutti K, Hickman L. The concept of breakdown in Heidegger, Leont’ev, and Dewey and its implications for education. Mind, Culture, and Activity. 1998;5:25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuutti K. Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In: Nardia BA, editor. Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 1996. p. 17–44.Google Scholar
  24. Latour B. On interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity. 1996;3(4):228–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leont’ev AN. Problems of the Development of the Mind. Moscow: Progress Publishers; 1981.Google Scholar
  26. Little JW. Teachers as colleagues. In: Lieberman A, editor. Schools as collaborative cultures: Creating the future now. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press; 1990. p. 165–193.Google Scholar
  27. Murphy, E. & Rodriguez-Manzanares (2008). Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 442-457.Google Scholar
  28. Nelson, C. (2002). Contradictions in learning to write in a second language classroom: Insights from radical constructivism, activity theory, and complexity theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  29. Nevis EC, DiBella AJ, Gould JM. Understanding organizations as learning systems. Sloan management review. 1995;36(2):75–85.Google Scholar
  30. Paavola S, Hakkarainen K. The Knowledge Creation Metaphor - An Emergent Epistemological Approach to Learning. Science & Education. 2005;14:535–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Perkins D. King Arthur’s Round Table: How Collaborative Conversations Create Smart Organizations. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2003.Google Scholar
  32. Pondy L. Reflections on organizational conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1992;13:257–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Prins E. Framing a conflict in a community-university partnership. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2005;25:57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reckwitz A. Toward a Theory of Social Practices. European Journal of Social Theory. 2002;5(2):243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schatzki T. The Site of the Social: A Philosophical Exploration of the Constitution of Social Life and Change. Pennsylvania State University Press: University Park; 2002.Google Scholar
  36. Schön D. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Temple Smith; 1983.Google Scholar
  37. Sfard A. On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher. 1998;27(2):4–13.Google Scholar
  38. Sins, P.H.M. & Karlgren, K. (2009). Identifying and overcoming tension in interdisciplinary teamwork in professional development: Two cases and a tool for support. Paper presented at the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) conference, Rhodes, Greece.Google Scholar
  39. Suchman, L. (2007) Human-Machine reconfigurations. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Tjosvold D. Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 1998;47:285–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tjosvold D. Conflicts in the study of conflict in organizations. In: De Dreu CKW, Gelfand MJ, editors. The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2007.Google Scholar
  42. Van de Vliert E, de Dreu CKW. Optimizing performance by stimulating conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management. 1994;5:211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wickman P-O, Östman L. Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education. 2002;86:1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Winograd T, Flores F. Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex; 1986.Google Scholar
  45. Yamagata-Lynch LC, Haudenschild MT. Using activity systems analysis to identify inner contradistinction s in teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2009;25:507–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Sins
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jerry Andriessen
    • 3
  1. 1.School of EducationSaxion University of Applied SciencesThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Graduate School of TeachingLeiden UniversityThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Wise & Munro Learning ResearchThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations