The over-arching action research question which I am pursuing is:
If I encourage collaboration through the use of social learning technologies, will it contribute to the development of a thriving, sustainable community of practice?
MediaWiki Logo
Knowledge Building with a Wiki
The primary action research question which I am pursuing is focused on my role in fostering the development of a sustainable community of practice within my work team. This focus is broad and includes many possible approaches that might be tied to different outcomes and variables. These include a variety of tools and processes and concepts related to building a community of practice and what that means within my organizational context. In order to begin my research I chose a specific tool and process through which my initial action could be taken: The use of a wiki to build and share learning content.
The research question used for the initial cycle of my project was:
If I design and implement the use of a wiki to develop and maintain employee learning materials, will it result in reduced development time, less redundancy, increased transparency, and higher quality of materials?
This question is broad and includes many areas of evaluation. I will be focusing primarily on the reduction of redundant work processes and increase of transparency to the design processes. Measuring development time in a meaningful way given the uniqueness of each project is challenging as is determining the actual “quality” of the materials. In these cases I will be discussing any and all qualitative indicators within the course of my research into my action that may point to improvements in these areas.
Process:
To better align the values of my team with my values I took the following actions: 1) I discussed using wikis to collaboratively build learning content with my manager who was supportive and asked me to bring the concept to my team right away; 2) I brought the plan of using a wiki to my team during a team meeting where we discussed the value of this approach. A list of pros and cons was created and the decision of the team was to pilot this method with some upcoming learning events. While the entire team was not completely convinced, most were in support of the pilot and after weighing the pros and cons, the decision of the team was to proceed.
The primary reasons that I saw a wiki as a solution to the problems I noted were due to the availability of the technology, transparency of the tool including history, and the relative ease of helping others begin to learn to use the tool based on the simplicity of editing.
Action Outcomes:
The first two months following the meeting about piloting the use of wikis for developing learning content were the most active in terms of new wiki content creation. This was partly due to the natural business cycle which includes a large number of learning events from September through December and partly due to the newness of the approach. During this time we focused on use of Wikis to collaboratively build and share content which has lead to the use of this type of content being widely accepted by the a large percentage of my direct team as well as leadership within the business. Rather than simply piloting the process with one learning event, a large amount of learning content continued to be actively built within the wiki with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) and leaders from outside my team also joining in to add and update content. In the past this had been done through various methods, including meetings, emails, and Microsoft Word documents with track changes enabled.
Wiki participation clearly increased through the action of introducing them as a tool for collaboratively building employee learning materials and there was a significant amount of action mediated between the members of my team who engaged in the use of this tool. Even with this success there is more involved in developing a Community of Practice (CoP) than common use of a knowledge sharing tool. One property of a CoP is that participation is not normally driven by institutional requirement but rather by some degree of shared, voluntary interest. Wiki participation was voluntary and several members of my team chose not to use this tool for any aspect of their job. Some of the resistance to participation in using the wiki was seen to be due to a reliance on other processes and tools and some resistance might be related to cultural norms of privacy leading to closed processes. This norm of privacy may be rooted in fears of job security based on the use of tools and processes that are limited in terms of access and skill level for most members of the team.
The analysis of forces for and against change in my work context, that was completed during the study and plan phase of my initial action-reflection cycle, has proven accurate as the individuals that were most initially resistant to the concept of wiki use within our team have continued to remain resistant and have not actively engaged in the use of the tool.
My action yielded three main reactions among my co-workers. 1) There were those that quickly embraced the new collaborative processes and began to actively use and promote them without additional input; 2) There were others open to the concept but for various reasons did not actively engage in the use of social knowledge building processes supported by wikis; 3) Finally, there was a small group of people who resisted the move to using new tools to mediate connections between people within our team and across our organization. I believe the latter group formed out of fear; fear of new tools and processes which may seem odd or difficult to master or fear of the loss of perceived job-security based on methods of practicing based upon highly specialized knowledge. These reactions did not equate directly to groupings on my team in all instances. In the case of those that did embrace the use of the wiki there was a connection formed as they were also primarily working together collaboratively on projects. Team members that were open but not actively engaged, and those that resisted the new process did not form a constituency and were seen as individuals in their response to the action.
While those resistant to the change were vocal, they constituted on a small percentage of the team and my main interest was in the second group identified above – those open to the new approach but who have not yet gained the self-momentum necessary to identify them as full members of a community of practice within my team. While evidence of what Lave and Wenger (1991) term “legitimate peripheral participation” is clear, ongoing participation within this group is primarily based on outside influence rather than internal motivation to pursue social knowledge building processes and tools for most individuals on my team. The results of a survey taken of my team regarding wikis and collaboration were interesting as most indicated that intrinsic motivation was most important to them in participating, which would lead me to believe they do not yet see how they can “help the ‘bigger team’ win” by using a wiki or similar tool.
Overall I have seen much progress in the results of my action both internal to myself and externally in my team and outward into my organization. I still have a great deal of work to do to further understand the full impact of the change within my team and organization. However, one thing is very clear, the use of wikis for fast, collaborative knowledge-building is more evident now than it ever was in the past. A main challenge is in letting go of previously held methods and reaching out to the new. Adoption of a new way of working is difficult as there is a period of time when the new ways and old ways overlap and it can appear to be more difficult. This has been true in my environment as some continue to hold onto methods ingrained in the culture over many years, including large amounts of email communication and the use of relatively static media, such as Flash-based training modules, PDFs, PowerPoint and Word documents.
While any change can be difficult it is particularly critical that my team and organization overall be adept at managing and embracing change. I often hear leadership speak of the ability to lead change as essential to the future of our company and I believe this is becoming more true every day. With the ever increasing speed by which technology is advancing our own products and services are being designed, developed, and delivered at such a rate that all supporting functions must learn to work in new ways to keep up. Whether a wiki is the answer in the long run is not the issue, but being technologically literate and able to quickly learn and apply new tools will be necessary for any knowledge workers within my organization.
Evidence Collected:
The evidence that I was able to collect during the first cycle of my Action Research Project was in the form of discussions with team members, communication in emails, high-level participation results from the wiki, and qualitative and quantitative survey results. The following is a break down of my evidence by type:
Team Discussion and Recognition:
Much of my evidence was collected through discussions with members of my team and teams that we support in our processes. This evidence was collected within regular reflection blog entries in order to capture how it affected both myself and those with whom I interact. It was through this process that I experienced some of the most observable changes both in my own thinking and in the thinking of others within my team. Over the course of my initial action there were several interactions that indicated a growing acceptance of wikis. During a meeting with leadership from our outsource partners at the end of September one of them said, “The wiki is the key,” when referring to the learning wiki that we created for a recent training event at work. At that time one of my colleagues who had assisted in creating the learning wiki also indicated approval of the effort. During the monthly staff meeting in September I was acknowledged for my work in introducing Wikis into my team’s development process. During the staff meeting the same colleague also recognized another team member for their efforts in developing the wiki. In October I was again recognized by a different team member for collaborating with them in building content on the learning wiki. Both of the public recognitions I received included references to the speed (efficiency) with which the content was developed using the wiki.
Email Correspondence:
Email conversations provided a way to capture direct input and feedback on the use of Wikis in this new way for my team. From September through December 2008 I received a number of emails from across our organization that referenced the use of the new learning content wiki. The reasons for these emails included: awareness of new content, requests for updating or adding content, sharing of materials with other teams, requests for assistance with wiki content, or the email may simply have included a link to an existing wiki page for reference. There were a small subset of the emails that were directed specifically to the work that I had done with Wikis. For example, on September 9, 2008 a colleague thanked me for my efforts to move our team to the use of Wikis. There are also five specific occasions where I was referred to as an expert in wiki use and pointed out as a source of knowledge.
Observable Behavior:
Much of the evidence that I collected was through observations of others within my work place and was documented in my Action Research Blog. The following narrative includes examples of these noted observations:
When I began my Cycle One in August, 2008 I participated in a team meeting where I suggested the use of Wikis to build and host learning content. The team took some time to weigh the various benefits and risks of this option and decided to move forward and pilot this method with an upcoming project. A few months later, in October, I was using the wiki to take notes during a meeting and one of my team members attending the meeting stopped the meeting to focus attention on how effective this process was and pointed to it as one of the unanticipated benefits of having the wiki available. Later that same day, I overheard another colleague discussing how a wiki might be used to manage a learner Q & A process as it could easily be updated and shared with the team.
Another observed behavior occurred when a colleague used a shared dry-erase board in a community hallway at work to capture input on “Encouraging participation in communities.” The image below shows the board and the free-form nature of the input. This board was posted for about one week in January of 2008. See Image 1.
Image 1: Hallway community interaction: Encouraging Participation in Communities
Wiki Participation:
While detailed wiki usage data is not readily available over the entire time of my initial cycle, Table 1 includes from the learning content wiki which was created at the start of my cycle provides a look into the amount of activity that as taken place and the participation from my team in this process. This new wiki was created for my team on August 27, 2008 with a snapshot of wiki usage taken on February 15, 2009.
Table 1:
| Team Members Who Have Logged Into the Wiki |
9 out of 13 (excluding myself) |
| Total Unique Wiki Users |
98 (excluding myself) |
| Total Page Views |
98,803 |
| Total Page Edits |
2,374 |
Note: Viewing of wiki content may be done without logging into the site, logging in is required in order to edit or add content.
Survey Results:
A survey was created and sent to my team to collect both quantitative and qualitative data related to both the use of Wikis as well as gain an understanding of current sentiments regarding collaboration. Participation in the survey was strong with 97 individuals starting the survey and 90 completing it for a completion percentage of 92.8%. This group represented a larger audience than was initially planned in my survey request, however the data is easily filtered by participant job role allowing discrete analysis to be done for a given group. The primary groups that were targeted through this survey were Learning and Development teams and Business Unit leadership. Of that group there were 26 respondents to the survey, 8 of which self-identified as members of my direct team.
While the larger data set has provided some directional input for subsequent cycles, the primary group that is the focus of my action is my direct team. This group is made up of 13 individuals beside myself, one of whom is my manager and one of whom is the administrative support individual for our team. Of the 13, eight responded to my survey, for a completion percentage for this population of 61.54%.
This group of eight individuals included seven Instructional Designers and one Facilitator/Trainer. The age range of participants in my study group was between 30 and 69 years of age with the majority (six of eight) identifying themselves as being between the ages of 30 and 49. There were slightly more male respondents than female (62.5% to 37.5%).
A cross-tab was created based on respondent’s positive or negative response to a question about adding to or changing the wiki. While it was no surprise that individuals that had not added to or edited wiki content were not as confident in their ability to do so, what was interesting to note were the collaboration responses. Those who had not engaged in adding to or editing wiki content also indicated a slightly lower levels of agreement regarding collaboration processes and tools currently available and in use by the team. Also, these individuals provided far less responses to open-responses questions on the survey itself. Too see the cross-tab data, please follow this link: Cross Tabs*
One of the areas of response that stood out on the survey was the question, “Please indicate which one of the following items would be the most important to you as a motivation to sharing your knowledge with others using a tool such as a wiki:” 75% of those responding indicated that their own satisfaction in contributing to the success of the “bigger team” would be enough to motivate them to participate. The intrinsic motivation is seen as the strongest motivator to participation, which corresponded with what I found in the literature on the topic of individual benefits seen as motivators to participation that indicated “…the benefits are primarily organizational and work-related” (Majchrzak et al., 2005, p. 101).
*Survey Note:
Due to an error in setting up the survey one of the questions was initially set in a way that presumed participant feelings. This was unintended and caused by user-error in setting up the survey on an internet-based survey tool. The question was, “Which of the following reasons keep you from being more active on a Wiki: (Please check all that apply.)” and was intended to be a “partially-open” question. The question required an answer and a setting was missed that would allow the open comment field to serve as an answer choice on its own. The result was that participants had to select one of the pre-determined choices, even if they wanted to provide their own comment.
This error was caught early in the application of the survey by a colleague who self-disclosed the correction required to accurately reflect their answer. The setup error was corrected and a review of the small number of surveys that had been submitted up to that point determined that no other responses were invalid. The learning that came from this experience is to test the survey more extensively the next time that I plan to use one for research purposes. An adjustment has been clearly noted on the cross tab data that is posted.
Reflection:
My interactions with my team through the first cycle of my ARP has helped me to understand more about the motivating forces behind most resisters to the wiki and it has allowed me to find ways to align with them and help introduce them to using wikis within their current context. This is an ongoing process and will take longer with some, and may not happen for everyone. As a high percentage of my team indicated on the survey that they are motivated by helping the “bigger team” there appears to be a connection between seeing the use of the wiki as a pathway to that goal. My belief is that until someone personally has a chance to build something they see as useful, on the wiki, they will not see the value of this tool.
The reasons for resisting the use of the tool could be many. For some it may be a challenge in learning the new tools, for others it may be a feeling that there is not enough time to use the tools as they are seen as additional work rather than a way to work more efficiently. There are some on the team that may be resistant just for the sake of standing their ground with their current methods. This could be about pride, a sense of ownership, fear of new things, fear of looking bad if they are not good at the new tools, or just a true disinterest in them. Each of these relates to the type of culture that exists within my team and the greater organization and whether the emphasis is placed on individual success or recognition of collaboration and shared knowledge building over silo-like approaches to working.
The Changes Within
The Action-Reflection process of my Action Research Project has yielded noticeable changes in me over the past several months. In the past I saw myself reacting more aggressively to perceived or real resistance of others to my ideas and found myself forming opinions about what I thought was motivating this action without seeking deeper understanding. During the course of this initial cycle I began to move to a place of curiosity about reactions to my actions and to seek further evidence and clarity so that I could try a new approach in an effort to see results that were more in line with my values. In the future I believe I will continue this approach of curiosity and work to gain understanding of why a particular approach did or did not have the desired affect in my context.
Through the process of deep reflection I have gained a clearer understanding of the motivation behind my own actions and the internal reasons for the way I respond to the actions of others. It has been enlightening to begin to recognize the patterns of behavior that I have developed through the years, and how my own perception can be a stumbling block to progress. I am learning that by using reflective processes I can approach what I would previously have considered challenging situations and not be triggered, but rather come with a sense of curiosity and a desire to learn.
I believe others are seeing me in a different light as well, based on this change, as I have responded positively to situations that had been points of frustration for me in the past. A few colleagues have remarked about the more positive outlook I have taken to negativity, or even the direct challenge of some of my efforts. Based on input from others, my colleagues seem to normally view me as someone who his easy going and positive, although they have also seen what can be trigger points for me. I desire to continue to form my professional identify around a thoughtful demeanor and remain open even in light of direct challenge. Reflective practices tied to my actions are helping me in this process.
My thinking has been evolving over the course of my Action Research Project as I am growing in my appreciation for and desire to encourage social constructivism within my work place from a different perspective. In the beginning of my project my action was about trying something new that I felt would have a positive impact. After working on my project for the past several months and engaging closely with my team in the process I find my actions coming from a much deeper alignment with my personal values, and that even my values are becoming clearer. When I work with members of my team now I have a desire to understand what would be beneficial to them in using social knowledge building tools.
I value my relationships with those I work with and find that the building of a Community of Practice is largely about the way others are included into the community. As we read in Smith (1998) learning is about being a part of the club. My new way that I approach my thought processes around interacting within my team are oriented toward helping others become a part of the club of social knowledge building tools. Through my research about my topic and within my organization I am seeing myself develop a healthier view of my organization and the potential for development and improvement. Working through the steps of the project and understanding from the research what types of obstacles may exist helps to validate my findings and allows for a realistic approach that helps reduce feelings of disappointment if something does not go as intended. I see myself becoming a much more positive person, both in terms of internal thought processes as well as the outward expression of my thinking.
| Action Research Home | | Literature Review | | Cycle One | | Cycle Two | | Cycle Three | | Final Reflection | | References | |