ONLINE PROACTIVE REVIEWS: Doctoral Paper at OLKC

Research output: Contribution to conference without publisher/journalConference abstract for conferenceResearchpeer-review

Abstract

IntroductionInitially this was not a scientific research, but a task for me to solve in my role as manager of Organizational Learning, Oracle, EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa). The empirical setting is this world leading IT company with 30.000 employees in EMEA. The research follows the development of an educational design for learning from experience in the context of work from the very start in 2005 until 2012.Description of the dissertation proposalAn important aspect of organizational learning and knowledge sharing studies has been based on the idea that through knowledge sharing between individuals organizational learning will occur. However,clear explanation of the process is not available (Abbariki, 2013).The aim of this study is to meet the challenge stated in the quote above and provide a theoretical founded and practical tested educational design for organizational learning. The theoretical rationale is to explore learning, knowledge creation and innovation in organizations. The development from the industrial to the informational society required a change of skills, as workers became the source of knowledge and services rather than repetitive producers of tangible products (Qvortrup, 1998). Knowledge develops through engagement with an activity, and it is embodied in individuals and groups. When these process raw data into their own purpose and context, they construct knowledge (von Krogh, 2012). The construction of knowledge means that the individual or the group makes sense of the raw data involving experiences, feelings, activities and ideas. This complex action is learning (McKenzie and Winkelen, 2004). When knowledge becomes an important resource, the process of learning is the access to this resource. Consequently learning becomes an increasingly important skill for workers to keep abreast of knowledge developments. According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), enabling employees to learn in the context of work helps to improve business results, competitive advantage and revenue.The practical rationale is a proposal for an educational design called Proactive Review which is based on dialogues in the context of work with the results of learning, knowledge sharing and innovation. Proactive Reviews include learning from the past, dialogues about the present and development of the preferred future. Attending a Proactive Review enable the participants to access each other and interact either face or face or on-line. Proactive Reviews leads to circuits of knowledge within and between organizations. 2. Main research problem and research questionThis research is concerned about: How do we understand learning, what is important to learn at the work place, and how may learning occur in the context of work? The questions imply that learning is both and individual and a collective activity, and that “What is important to learn” is not described in a curriculum as it is not stable but follows the continuous internal and external changes that the organization has to adapt to (Engeström 1996, Orlikowsky 2002). Below theories briefly touch upon how learning may occur, that is both individual and organisational learning .Knowledge is dependent on the context which may be historical, social, or cultural, and knowledgearises in a variety of forms and media (Nicolini et al. 2003). When a team settles down to learn from experience, they already know the case and a number of reasons why the outcome may have occurred. This knowledge enables the participants to connect to something they already know as the foundation of learning something new. In collaboration with more capable peers, they can learn by constructing new knowledge and/or by solving complex issues. This approach to learning was conceptualized by L. Vygotsky (1978), who described it as the zone of proximal development, emphasizing the importance of being aware of what we do know when we need to learn something new. Learning from experience is explored and described in the work of G. Bateson (1972), who distinguished between four classes of learning (The titles of the learning classes and the examples are those of the author ): 0. Sensing. There is a stimulus that causes only one response. The learners will change nothing in their behaviour. For example, we feel cold, but we do not do anything about it. Because the stimulus does not cause a change, this is called zero learning. 1. Realizing. We receive a stimulus, and we choose a response from a set of alternatives. For example, we feel cold, and we put on a jacket or we go inside. 2. Adapting. We receive a stimulus, and we incorporate the context before we react. We are aware of repetitions, and we consider how to learn from repeated experiences. For example, we feel cold every winter so we install fireplaces in the house. 3. Changing. We receive a stimulus, and we change the context as a part of our reaction. The double bind is a prerequisite for learning of the class three type. For example, we feel cold every winter, so we put on a jacket, and we warm up our house. Still, we are bothered by the cold, so we decide to move long-distance to a new and warmer environment (Bateson, 1972). Organizational learning may be seen as ‘the capability of a company as a whole to create new knowledge, disseminate it throughout the organization, and embody it in products, services and systems’ (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995, 3). They highlight the importance of understanding how organizations create new knowledge through knowledge conversations (ibid, 61) and claim that individual knowledge is an important part of the organizational knowledge creation as tacit knowledge is embedded in the mind of the individual (ibid, 72). They describe the process of knowledge creation as a spiral, starting in the individual who transforms the tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge (and vice versa) during meaningful dialogues with colleagues, which may lead to new ways of doing things. When shared with other parts of the organization the knowledge improves and spread to more groups, the whole organization and in the end to customers as well (ibid, 71).Etienne Wenger’s (1999) perceives learning as a process of social participation within the context of work. Wenger describes informal network of peers, and calls such a network a community of practice if the members live up to three important learning behaviours: mutual engagement, a joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire. Mutual engagement means that the participants build relationships by socializing so that they feel like a group. They are interested in others’ points of view, conduct co-coaching and peer reviews, ask for second opinions on a regular basis, and they accept disagreements (Wenger, 1999). A joint enterprise encompasses a high degree of alignment. The participants share values; not necessarily from the very beginning, but they negotiate until they agree. They build mutual accountability and define what they want to achieve, such as improved business results, improved processes, or new inventions (Wenger, 1999). To create something new, they develop a common understanding by participating in conversations, share emotions, and build social relations. They give form to their experience by producing abstractions, tool, symbols, stories, terms, and concepts (Wenger, 1999). A shared repertoire includes a shared language in the group, like certain jargon or metaphors. The participants share ―good‖ and ―bad‖ stories as well as ―good‖ and ―bad‖ behaviours. They use the same artefacts, such as technology and working tools, and they tend to look alike by following a similar dress code. They live up to the same concepts and traditions. These are all strong signals to the organization that this group is special and wants to be perceived as a special team: a community of practice (Wenger, 1999). Yrje Engeström (1996) provides a model for learning in the context of work called the activity system, which is partly based on Vygotsky’s work and partly including Gregory Bateson’s view on learning. Engeström describes “expansive learning” as a spiral that takes its departure in the “current way of working”, which over time turns out to include contradictions that need to be handled. By solving the issues, people create new models of work or new tools that need to be implemented in the organization, which leads to new ways of working – and over time the spiral continues. An important aspect in this model is the tension between the long perspective of history and the short perspective of goal-achievements (Engeström 2011).Nonaka and Takeuchi, Wenger and Engeström highlights the importance of learning in the context of work and describe different theoretical models for enabling knowledge sharing and learning in the context of work. But neither of them provides an educational design for how to do it in practice in organisations.The research question is: How may an educational design for expanding individual knowledge to organizational learning look like?3. Theoretical foundation and key conceptsNonaka and Takeuchi talk about dialogues that enable team members to create knowledge and innovate through dialogue and discussion (Nonaka 1995). Krogh et al. (2000) claim that conversation is the foundation of knowledge creation; whereas Wegerif points out how important dialogue is for enabling reflection and learning (Wegerif 2007). They agree that dialogues may lead to mutual change of ideas, viewpoints and beliefs. From their point of view dialogues are the basis of knowledge creation within organisations. But none of them describe the dialogue.Engeström(1996) and Nonaka & Takeuchi(1995) describes the development from individual learning to organisational learning as a spiral. But they do not describe what starts the spiral or what it takes to make the spiral work in practice.Wegerif (2007) and von Krogh(2000) points out the importance of establishing a caring atmosphere between the participants in a rich dialogue. Otherwise they may lack the courage of not knowing and the willingness to embrace discrepancies. Wegerif and von Krogh suggest a facilitator to establish and maintain a caring atmosphere, but they do not explain the challenges of this role or how to overcome these challenges.Hodley (2010) describes that the technology structures the collaborative learning in CSCL (Computer Supported Collaborative Learning) in the educational environment. He suggests that researchers look into the relationships between learners, tools and their context; which I will explore during this dissertation.4. Research design (including unit of analysis, and empirical setting)The method of the research must bridge theoretical research and the real-life learning process. In addition the method has to imply a) me as the researcher and b) me as an active participant in the research object. The research area is Educational Research with the theory-driven design of learning environments. (Design-Based Research Collective 2003: 8). Design Based Research (DBR) combines theory and practice. Research and development is an iterative process where the research is driven by the test and vice versa. DBR takes place in the authentic learning environment without a strong distinction between the researcher and the participants of the learning processes, and the participants are invited to influence the educational design. It is important to include as many variables of the educational design as possible (Collins 2004: 20). DBR is developed for in-class training, but in this research it is used for learning in the context of work, namely Proactive Reviews that are certainly not anything like classroom training. I would like to discuss considerations in this regard. The research includes a number of iterations. The analysis takes its departure in a revised format of Collins suggestion (2004).1.Problem identification2.Theoretical considerations3.Educational design4.Methodological considerations5.Analysing the educational designa.Variables in DBR 6.Reporting7.Final conclusionsMy mixed role as researcher and manager of the implementation of the educational design raise questions about transparency, reliability and bias. Transparency enables the reader to understand why the researcher chose the methodologies in use (Justesen and Mik-Meyer, 2012). The point is not for another researcher to replicate the data gathering, the point is to enable the reader to assess the research design, the prerequisites and the results (Brinkmann and Tanggaard, 2010). Reliability provides clear objective and intentions of the researcher and the researched people (Petersen et al., 2012). Reliability is specifically important in the interview situation, where the researcher unconsciously could ask leading questions and by doing so create a certain result (Kvale, 2002). Bias is the “tendency to confirm the researcher’s pre-convinced notions, so the study therefore becomes of doubtful scientific value” (Flyvbjerg, 2006, 234). Even the bias may be strong, the engagement of the researcher – placed within the context being studied – leads to the best understanding of what is going on (Flyvbjerg, 2006).In order to achieve the requirements for “good or excellent research”, the study includes mixed methods (Moran-Ellis 2006) mirroring three perspectives (Schraube, 2010). The first person’s perspective data comes from direct unsolicited feedback from end users, in this case diaries from participants in the pilot. Second person’s perspective unfolds the inner life of the researched people through interaction with the researcher, here in interviews with managers who initiated Proactive Reviews, facilitators who conducted PRs and participants in PRs. The interviews consist of over a period of seven years. Third person’s perspective holds a distance between those researched and the researcher’s observations of the field unchanged by interaction. This study includes observation of a number of Proactive Reviews from different lines of business and different geographical regions and countries. The gathering of data includes ethical considerations consisting of informed consent from the researched people, confidentiality, anonymity and considerations regarding the formal power distance between the researcher and the researched people (Justesen and Mik-Meyer, 2010).Aspects of my thesis include connectivity and electronically mediated Proactive Reviews, which requires considerations on methods for on-line research.5. Preliminary findings, if any•Proposal for an educational design for dialogues leading to knowledge sharing and creation called Proactive Reviews.•Preliminary proposals for code of conduct for Proactive Reviews. •Proposal for a process to expand the individual knowledge and group knowledge to organizational learning including several circuits of knowledge.•Proposal for running Proactive Reviews on-line6. Discussion and expected contributionsThere is a reticence in many organizations to even legitimize conversation; and it seems like dialogue is a much more intense and demanding process that requires continuous and conscious attention. Whilst many authors (Engeström, 2011;Scott et al., 2013 von Krogh 2012; Wegerif 2007, ) advocate dialogue as an important part of learning in the context of work, there is little examination of why it is hard to establish ideal conditions for productive dialogue in organizational settings, which contain inherent constraints and obstacles that may inhibit and even stop the spread of learning within and across groups in the organization. This research will explore how to initiate and maintain rich dialogues in organizations in order to learn from experience by identifying potential obstacles and enablers for these dialogues.Expected contributions•Look at knowledge sharing and creation and organizational learning from a learning perspective•Provide an educational design for learning in the context of work i.e. Proactive Review•Provide a process to expand individual knowledge to organizational learning i.e. The Learning Spiral•Provide more insights in the term “dialogue” when used for learning in the context of work•Identify organisational requirements for initiating and maintaining rich dialogues in Proactive Reviews for the organisation to learn from experience7. Current challenges in your research projectHow to explicitly incorporate philosophy of science in the project and the report, and ensure the included theories, methodology and data-analysis are aligned with the philosophy of science.Design Based Research is developed for in-class research. I use it in quite another context, and I change the format from a number of variables to fewer variables. I consider this needs some explanation – I need help for an academic argumentation.I am not entirely sure about the philosophic science foundation of DBR. I tend to place it in pragmatism. As it is important that the philosophy of science, the theories applied and the methodology is aligned, this is a very important issue for the quality of the research and I need a proper discussion about it.Until now I have based my data gathering on on-line Proactive Review on traditional data like observation and interviews. What I would like to know more about is how to research in cyberspace (besides reading logs). I would love to have new literature in this field (Netnography).Netnography. If your thesis will consist of a kappa and a collection of articles; please provide an overview of the status of your papers in the table below.Papers The reporting from this research covers some of the iterations of the development of Proactive Reviews.First Iteration: From AAR to PR Second Iteration: Hoe PR may be used as a design for Lessons Learned Third Iteration: The role of the Facilitator Fourth Iteration: Dialogue as the foundation for learning in the context of workFifth Iteration: On-line Proactive ReviewTitleJour./conf.FutureHow to expand individual knowledge to organizational learningConference presentation atOrganization, Knowledge, Culture and Change, Vancouver 2013Article in the International Journal of Knowledge ManagementTo be published in 2014Proactive Review as a process of Lessons LearnedChapter in an anthology, published by IGI, CanadaTo be published in 2014The Facilitator of Proactive ReviewsErhvervspsykologiPublished in 2013Dialogue as the foundation for learning in the context of workJournal of Knowledge ManagementUnder constructionOn-line Proactive ReviewsOLKCPaper presentation 2014What do you hope to gain out of attending the doctoral consortium?•To give rich feedback and to learn from other doctoral dissertations, specifically what is important to include in an article based dissertation. Of course Theories, Methodology, Data-gathering, Analysis and Conclusions – but where to fill in my reflection on important choices (of theories, methodology, data) and my doubts about the conclusions.•How can I use new literature in the theory section, when the research started in 2005? The new literature was not available at that time.•To know what is regarded high quality for a kappa and for articles in a PhD dissertation.•To further elaborate the ideas of developing a structured method of learning from experience in the context of work. ReferencesAbbariki, M., (2013), Knowledge Sharing and Work Identity: AQualitative Perspective, Knowledge Management an International Journal, Vol12, Issue 2, pp 45- 60Barab, S. and Squire, K. (2009), ‘Design-based research: putting a stake in the ground’, Journal of Learning Sciences, vol. 13 no.1, pp. 1–14.Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York, NY: Chandler Publishing Co.Bohm, D. (1996), On Dialogue, Routledge, London, UK.Brinkmann, Svend and Tanggaard, Lene (2010), Kvalitative Metoder, en grundbog, Hans Reitzels ForlagCollins, A., Joseph, D. and Bielaczyc, K. (2004), ‘Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues’, The Journal of Learning Sciences, vol. 13 no. 1, pp. 15–42.Dede, C. (2004), ‘If design-based research is the answer, what is the question? A commentary on Collins, Joseph, and Bielaczyc; diSessa and Cobb; and Fishman, Marx, Blumenthal, Krajcik, and Soloway in the JLS special issue on design-based research’, Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 13 no. 1, pp. 105–114.Design-Based Research Collective (2003), Design-Based Research: An emerging paradigm for educational Inquiry, Educational Researcher, Vol 32, No.1, pp5-8, January 2003Engeström, Y. (1996). ‘Developmental work research as educational research’ Nordisk Pedagogik, vol 16, no 3 pp 131 - 143Engeström, Y. (2011), ‘From design experiments to formative interventions’, Theory & Psychology, vol. 21 no. 5, pp. 598–628.Flyvbjerg, Bent (2006), Five Misunderstandings about case-study research, Qualitative Inquiry,Volume 12, No 2, Sage Publications Hoadley, C. (2010), ‘Roles, design, and the nature of CSCL’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 26, pp. 551–555.Justesen, Lise, Mik-Meyer, Nanna (2010) Kvalitative Metoder I organisations- og ledelsesstudier, Hans Reizels ForlagKolbaek, D. (2012), Proactive Review, BoD, Copenhagen, DK.Kvale, Steinar (2002): InterView. En introduktion til det kvalitative forskningsinterview, Hans Reizels ForlagMcKenzie, J. and Winkelen, C., (2004) Understanding the Knowledgeable Organization: Nurturing Knowledge Competence, Thomson Learning, London, UK Mora-Elis et al. (2006, ‘Triangulation and intergration: Processes, claims and implications’, Qualitative Research February 2006, vol 6 no.1 45-59Nicolini, D., Silvia Gherardi, S., Yanow, D.,(2003), Introduction: Toward a Practice-Based View of Knowing and Learning in Organizations. M.E. Sharpe Inc, New YorkNonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company, Oxford University Press, New York, USA. ORLIKOWSKI, V.J.(2002), Knowing in Practice: Enacting a collectivecapability in distributed organizing, ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, INFORMSVol. 13, No. 3, May–June 2002, pp. 249–273Pedersen, M., Klitmøller, J. and Nielsen, K. (eds) (2012), Deltagerobservation, Hans Reitzels Forlag, Copenhagen, Denmark.Qvortrup L. (2000) Det Hyperkomplekse Samfund, Gyldendal, Copenhagen, Denmark.Schraube, E. (2010), ‘Første-persons perspektivet i psykologisk teori og forskningspraksis’, Nordiske Udkast, vol. 38 no. 1/2, pp. 93–104.Scott C. Allen J. A. Bonilla D. L. Baran B. E. and Murphy D. (2013) "Ambiguity and Freedom of Dissent in Post-Incident Discussion", Journal of Business Communication, Vol 50, No 4, pp 383-402.Stahl, G., Koschmann, T. and Suthers, D. (2006), ‘Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective’ in Sawyer, R.K. (ed), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 409–426. Available at http://GerryStahl.net/cscl/CSCL_English.pdf.Tracy, S.J. (2010), ‘Eight ‘big tent’ criteria for excellent qualitative research’, Qualitative , vol. 16 no. 10, pp. 837–851.Vera, D. and Crossan, M. (2000), Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Intellectual Capital: An Integrative Conceptual Model, Ontario, University of Western Ontario, Richard Ivey School of Business, USA.Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K. and Nonaka, I. (2000), Enabling Knowledge Creation, Oxford University Press, USA.Von Krogh G. (2012) "How does social software change knowledge management? Toward a Strategic Research Agenda", Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol 21, No 154-164, pp.Vygotsky, L. (1978), Mind in society: The development of higher psycological processes. Cambridge, MA: Havard University PressWegerif, R. (2007), Dialogic Education and Technology. Expanding the Space of Learning. New York, Springer.Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice; Learning, Meaning and Identity.Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, Cambridge University Press
Original languageEnglish
Publication date2014
Number of pages13
Publication statusPublished - 2014
EventOLKC: International Conference on Organizational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities - Oslo, Norway
Duration: 22 Apr 201424 Apr 2014

Conference

ConferenceOLKC
CountryNorway
CityOslo
Period22/04/201424/04/2014

Fingerprint

learning
dialogue
learning organization
organization
knowledge
earning a doctorate
stimulus
philosophy of science
experience
conversation
Group
collective research
knowledge management
methodology
research planning
qualitative research
interview
science
human being
manager

Cite this

Kolbæk, D. (2014). ONLINE PROACTIVE REVIEWS: Doctoral Paper at OLKC. Abstract from OLKC, Oslo, Norway.
Kolbæk, Ditte. / ONLINE PROACTIVE REVIEWS : Doctoral Paper at OLKC. Abstract from OLKC, Oslo, Norway.13 p.
@conference{ea316ecf798d43ecab7962cb6bf569d3,
title = "ONLINE PROACTIVE REVIEWS: Doctoral Paper at OLKC",
abstract = "IntroductionInitially this was not a scientific research, but a task for me to solve in my role as manager of Organizational Learning, Oracle, EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa). The empirical setting is this world leading IT company with 30.000 employees in EMEA. The research follows the development of an educational design for learning from experience in the context of work from the very start in 2005 until 2012.Description of the dissertation proposalAn important aspect of organizational learning and knowledge sharing studies has been based on the idea that through knowledge sharing between individuals organizational learning will occur. However,clear explanation of the process is not available (Abbariki, 2013).The aim of this study is to meet the challenge stated in the quote above and provide a theoretical founded and practical tested educational design for organizational learning. The theoretical rationale is to explore learning, knowledge creation and innovation in organizations. The development from the industrial to the informational society required a change of skills, as workers became the source of knowledge and services rather than repetitive producers of tangible products (Qvortrup, 1998). Knowledge develops through engagement with an activity, and it is embodied in individuals and groups. When these process raw data into their own purpose and context, they construct knowledge (von Krogh, 2012). The construction of knowledge means that the individual or the group makes sense of the raw data involving experiences, feelings, activities and ideas. This complex action is learning (McKenzie and Winkelen, 2004). When knowledge becomes an important resource, the process of learning is the access to this resource. Consequently learning becomes an increasingly important skill for workers to keep abreast of knowledge developments. According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), enabling employees to learn in the context of work helps to improve business results, competitive advantage and revenue.The practical rationale is a proposal for an educational design called Proactive Review which is based on dialogues in the context of work with the results of learning, knowledge sharing and innovation. Proactive Reviews include learning from the past, dialogues about the present and development of the preferred future. Attending a Proactive Review enable the participants to access each other and interact either face or face or on-line. Proactive Reviews leads to circuits of knowledge within and between organizations. 2. Main research problem and research questionThis research is concerned about: How do we understand learning, what is important to learn at the work place, and how may learning occur in the context of work? The questions imply that learning is both and individual and a collective activity, and that “What is important to learn” is not described in a curriculum as it is not stable but follows the continuous internal and external changes that the organization has to adapt to (Engestr{\"o}m 1996, Orlikowsky 2002). Below theories briefly touch upon how learning may occur, that is both individual and organisational learning .Knowledge is dependent on the context which may be historical, social, or cultural, and knowledgearises in a variety of forms and media (Nicolini et al. 2003). When a team settles down to learn from experience, they already know the case and a number of reasons why the outcome may have occurred. This knowledge enables the participants to connect to something they already know as the foundation of learning something new. In collaboration with more capable peers, they can learn by constructing new knowledge and/or by solving complex issues. This approach to learning was conceptualized by L. Vygotsky (1978), who described it as the zone of proximal development, emphasizing the importance of being aware of what we do know when we need to learn something new. Learning from experience is explored and described in the work of G. Bateson (1972), who distinguished between four classes of learning (The titles of the learning classes and the examples are those of the author ): 0. Sensing. There is a stimulus that causes only one response. The learners will change nothing in their behaviour. For example, we feel cold, but we do not do anything about it. Because the stimulus does not cause a change, this is called zero learning. 1. Realizing. We receive a stimulus, and we choose a response from a set of alternatives. For example, we feel cold, and we put on a jacket or we go inside. 2. Adapting. We receive a stimulus, and we incorporate the context before we react. We are aware of repetitions, and we consider how to learn from repeated experiences. For example, we feel cold every winter so we install fireplaces in the house. 3. Changing. We receive a stimulus, and we change the context as a part of our reaction. The double bind is a prerequisite for learning of the class three type. For example, we feel cold every winter, so we put on a jacket, and we warm up our house. Still, we are bothered by the cold, so we decide to move long-distance to a new and warmer environment (Bateson, 1972). Organizational learning may be seen as ‘the capability of a company as a whole to create new knowledge, disseminate it throughout the organization, and embody it in products, services and systems’ (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995, 3). They highlight the importance of understanding how organizations create new knowledge through knowledge conversations (ibid, 61) and claim that individual knowledge is an important part of the organizational knowledge creation as tacit knowledge is embedded in the mind of the individual (ibid, 72). They describe the process of knowledge creation as a spiral, starting in the individual who transforms the tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge (and vice versa) during meaningful dialogues with colleagues, which may lead to new ways of doing things. When shared with other parts of the organization the knowledge improves and spread to more groups, the whole organization and in the end to customers as well (ibid, 71).Etienne Wenger’s (1999) perceives learning as a process of social participation within the context of work. Wenger describes informal network of peers, and calls such a network a community of practice if the members live up to three important learning behaviours: mutual engagement, a joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire. Mutual engagement means that the participants build relationships by socializing so that they feel like a group. They are interested in others’ points of view, conduct co-coaching and peer reviews, ask for second opinions on a regular basis, and they accept disagreements (Wenger, 1999). A joint enterprise encompasses a high degree of alignment. The participants share values; not necessarily from the very beginning, but they negotiate until they agree. They build mutual accountability and define what they want to achieve, such as improved business results, improved processes, or new inventions (Wenger, 1999). To create something new, they develop a common understanding by participating in conversations, share emotions, and build social relations. They give form to their experience by producing abstractions, tool, symbols, stories, terms, and concepts (Wenger, 1999). A shared repertoire includes a shared language in the group, like certain jargon or metaphors. The participants share ―good‖ and ―bad‖ stories as well as ―good‖ and ―bad‖ behaviours. They use the same artefacts, such as technology and working tools, and they tend to look alike by following a similar dress code. They live up to the same concepts and traditions. These are all strong signals to the organization that this group is special and wants to be perceived as a special team: a community of practice (Wenger, 1999). Yrje Engestr{\"o}m (1996) provides a model for learning in the context of work called the activity system, which is partly based on Vygotsky’s work and partly including Gregory Bateson’s view on learning. Engestr{\"o}m describes “expansive learning” as a spiral that takes its departure in the “current way of working”, which over time turns out to include contradictions that need to be handled. By solving the issues, people create new models of work or new tools that need to be implemented in the organization, which leads to new ways of working – and over time the spiral continues. An important aspect in this model is the tension between the long perspective of history and the short perspective of goal-achievements (Engestr{\"o}m 2011).Nonaka and Takeuchi, Wenger and Engestr{\"o}m highlights the importance of learning in the context of work and describe different theoretical models for enabling knowledge sharing and learning in the context of work. But neither of them provides an educational design for how to do it in practice in organisations.The research question is: How may an educational design for expanding individual knowledge to organizational learning look like?3. Theoretical foundation and key conceptsNonaka and Takeuchi talk about dialogues that enable team members to create knowledge and innovate through dialogue and discussion (Nonaka 1995). Krogh et al. (2000) claim that conversation is the foundation of knowledge creation; whereas Wegerif points out how important dialogue is for enabling reflection and learning (Wegerif 2007). They agree that dialogues may lead to mutual change of ideas, viewpoints and beliefs. From their point of view dialogues are the basis of knowledge creation within organisations. But none of them describe the dialogue.Engestr{\"o}m(1996) and Nonaka & Takeuchi(1995) describes the development from individual learning to organisational learning as a spiral. But they do not describe what starts the spiral or what it takes to make the spiral work in practice.Wegerif (2007) and von Krogh(2000) points out the importance of establishing a caring atmosphere between the participants in a rich dialogue. Otherwise they may lack the courage of not knowing and the willingness to embrace discrepancies. Wegerif and von Krogh suggest a facilitator to establish and maintain a caring atmosphere, but they do not explain the challenges of this role or how to overcome these challenges.Hodley (2010) describes that the technology structures the collaborative learning in CSCL (Computer Supported Collaborative Learning) in the educational environment. He suggests that researchers look into the relationships between learners, tools and their context; which I will explore during this dissertation.4. Research design (including unit of analysis, and empirical setting)The method of the research must bridge theoretical research and the real-life learning process. In addition the method has to imply a) me as the researcher and b) me as an active participant in the research object. The research area is Educational Research with the theory-driven design of learning environments. (Design-Based Research Collective 2003: 8). Design Based Research (DBR) combines theory and practice. Research and development is an iterative process where the research is driven by the test and vice versa. DBR takes place in the authentic learning environment without a strong distinction between the researcher and the participants of the learning processes, and the participants are invited to influence the educational design. It is important to include as many variables of the educational design as possible (Collins 2004: 20). DBR is developed for in-class training, but in this research it is used for learning in the context of work, namely Proactive Reviews that are certainly not anything like classroom training. I would like to discuss considerations in this regard. The research includes a number of iterations. The analysis takes its departure in a revised format of Collins suggestion (2004).1.Problem identification2.Theoretical considerations3.Educational design4.Methodological considerations5.Analysing the educational designa.Variables in DBR 6.Reporting7.Final conclusionsMy mixed role as researcher and manager of the implementation of the educational design raise questions about transparency, reliability and bias. Transparency enables the reader to understand why the researcher chose the methodologies in use (Justesen and Mik-Meyer, 2012). The point is not for another researcher to replicate the data gathering, the point is to enable the reader to assess the research design, the prerequisites and the results (Brinkmann and Tanggaard, 2010). Reliability provides clear objective and intentions of the researcher and the researched people (Petersen et al., 2012). Reliability is specifically important in the interview situation, where the researcher unconsciously could ask leading questions and by doing so create a certain result (Kvale, 2002). Bias is the “tendency to confirm the researcher’s pre-convinced notions, so the study therefore becomes of doubtful scientific value” (Flyvbjerg, 2006, 234). Even the bias may be strong, the engagement of the researcher – placed within the context being studied – leads to the best understanding of what is going on (Flyvbjerg, 2006).In order to achieve the requirements for “good or excellent research”, the study includes mixed methods (Moran-Ellis 2006) mirroring three perspectives (Schraube, 2010). The first person’s perspective data comes from direct unsolicited feedback from end users, in this case diaries from participants in the pilot. Second person’s perspective unfolds the inner life of the researched people through interaction with the researcher, here in interviews with managers who initiated Proactive Reviews, facilitators who conducted PRs and participants in PRs. The interviews consist of over a period of seven years. Third person’s perspective holds a distance between those researched and the researcher’s observations of the field unchanged by interaction. This study includes observation of a number of Proactive Reviews from different lines of business and different geographical regions and countries. The gathering of data includes ethical considerations consisting of informed consent from the researched people, confidentiality, anonymity and considerations regarding the formal power distance between the researcher and the researched people (Justesen and Mik-Meyer, 2010).Aspects of my thesis include connectivity and electronically mediated Proactive Reviews, which requires considerations on methods for on-line research.5. Preliminary findings, if any•Proposal for an educational design for dialogues leading to knowledge sharing and creation called Proactive Reviews.•Preliminary proposals for code of conduct for Proactive Reviews. •Proposal for a process to expand the individual knowledge and group knowledge to organizational learning including several circuits of knowledge.•Proposal for running Proactive Reviews on-line6. Discussion and expected contributionsThere is a reticence in many organizations to even legitimize conversation; and it seems like dialogue is a much more intense and demanding process that requires continuous and conscious attention. Whilst many authors (Engestr{\"o}m, 2011;Scott et al., 2013 von Krogh 2012; Wegerif 2007, ) advocate dialogue as an important part of learning in the context of work, there is little examination of why it is hard to establish ideal conditions for productive dialogue in organizational settings, which contain inherent constraints and obstacles that may inhibit and even stop the spread of learning within and across groups in the organization. This research will explore how to initiate and maintain rich dialogues in organizations in order to learn from experience by identifying potential obstacles and enablers for these dialogues.Expected contributions•Look at knowledge sharing and creation and organizational learning from a learning perspective•Provide an educational design for learning in the context of work i.e. Proactive Review•Provide a process to expand individual knowledge to organizational learning i.e. The Learning Spiral•Provide more insights in the term “dialogue” when used for learning in the context of work•Identify organisational requirements for initiating and maintaining rich dialogues in Proactive Reviews for the organisation to learn from experience7. Current challenges in your research projectHow to explicitly incorporate philosophy of science in the project and the report, and ensure the included theories, methodology and data-analysis are aligned with the philosophy of science.Design Based Research is developed for in-class research. I use it in quite another context, and I change the format from a number of variables to fewer variables. I consider this needs some explanation – I need help for an academic argumentation.I am not entirely sure about the philosophic science foundation of DBR. I tend to place it in pragmatism. As it is important that the philosophy of science, the theories applied and the methodology is aligned, this is a very important issue for the quality of the research and I need a proper discussion about it.Until now I have based my data gathering on on-line Proactive Review on traditional data like observation and interviews. What I would like to know more about is how to research in cyberspace (besides reading logs). I would love to have new literature in this field (Netnography).Netnography. If your thesis will consist of a kappa and a collection of articles; please provide an overview of the status of your papers in the table below.Papers The reporting from this research covers some of the iterations of the development of Proactive Reviews.First Iteration: From AAR to PR Second Iteration: Hoe PR may be used as a design for Lessons Learned Third Iteration: The role of the Facilitator Fourth Iteration: Dialogue as the foundation for learning in the context of workFifth Iteration: On-line Proactive ReviewTitleJour./conf.FutureHow to expand individual knowledge to organizational learningConference presentation atOrganization, Knowledge, Culture and Change, Vancouver 2013Article in the International Journal of Knowledge ManagementTo be published in 2014Proactive Review as a process of Lessons LearnedChapter in an anthology, published by IGI, CanadaTo be published in 2014The Facilitator of Proactive ReviewsErhvervspsykologiPublished in 2013Dialogue as the foundation for learning in the context of workJournal of Knowledge ManagementUnder constructionOn-line Proactive ReviewsOLKCPaper presentation 2014What do you hope to gain out of attending the doctoral consortium?•To give rich feedback and to learn from other doctoral dissertations, specifically what is important to include in an article based dissertation. Of course Theories, Methodology, Data-gathering, Analysis and Conclusions – but where to fill in my reflection on important choices (of theories, methodology, data) and my doubts about the conclusions.•How can I use new literature in the theory section, when the research started in 2005? The new literature was not available at that time.•To know what is regarded high quality for a kappa and for articles in a PhD dissertation.•To further elaborate the ideas of developing a structured method of learning from experience in the context of work. ReferencesAbbariki, M., (2013), Knowledge Sharing and Work Identity: AQualitative Perspective, Knowledge Management an International Journal, Vol12, Issue 2, pp 45- 60Barab, S. and Squire, K. (2009), ‘Design-based research: putting a stake in the ground’, Journal of Learning Sciences, vol. 13 no.1, pp. 1–14.Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York, NY: Chandler Publishing Co.Bohm, D. (1996), On Dialogue, Routledge, London, UK.Brinkmann, Svend and Tanggaard, Lene (2010), Kvalitative Metoder, en grundbog, Hans Reitzels ForlagCollins, A., Joseph, D. and Bielaczyc, K. (2004), ‘Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues’, The Journal of Learning Sciences, vol. 13 no. 1, pp. 15–42.Dede, C. (2004), ‘If design-based research is the answer, what is the question? A commentary on Collins, Joseph, and Bielaczyc; diSessa and Cobb; and Fishman, Marx, Blumenthal, Krajcik, and Soloway in the JLS special issue on design-based research’, Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 13 no. 1, pp. 105–114.Design-Based Research Collective (2003), Design-Based Research: An emerging paradigm for educational Inquiry, Educational Researcher, Vol 32, No.1, pp5-8, January 2003Engestr{\"o}m, Y. (1996). ‘Developmental work research as educational research’ Nordisk Pedagogik, vol 16, no 3 pp 131 - 143Engestr{\"o}m, Y. (2011), ‘From design experiments to formative interventions’, Theory & Psychology, vol. 21 no. 5, pp. 598–628.Flyvbjerg, Bent (2006), Five Misunderstandings about case-study research, Qualitative Inquiry,Volume 12, No 2, Sage Publications Hoadley, C. (2010), ‘Roles, design, and the nature of CSCL’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 26, pp. 551–555.Justesen, Lise, Mik-Meyer, Nanna (2010) Kvalitative Metoder I organisations- og ledelsesstudier, Hans Reizels ForlagKolbaek, D. (2012), Proactive Review, BoD, Copenhagen, DK.Kvale, Steinar (2002): InterView. En introduktion til det kvalitative forskningsinterview, Hans Reizels ForlagMcKenzie, J. and Winkelen, C., (2004) Understanding the Knowledgeable Organization: Nurturing Knowledge Competence, Thomson Learning, London, UK Mora-Elis et al. (2006, ‘Triangulation and intergration: Processes, claims and implications’, Qualitative Research February 2006, vol 6 no.1 45-59Nicolini, D., Silvia Gherardi, S., Yanow, D.,(2003), Introduction: Toward a Practice-Based View of Knowing and Learning in Organizations. M.E. Sharpe Inc, New YorkNonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company, Oxford University Press, New York, USA. ORLIKOWSKI, V.J.(2002), Knowing in Practice: Enacting a collectivecapability in distributed organizing, ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, INFORMSVol. 13, No. 3, May–June 2002, pp. 249–273Pedersen, M., Klitm{\o}ller, J. and Nielsen, K. (eds) (2012), Deltagerobservation, Hans Reitzels Forlag, Copenhagen, Denmark.Qvortrup L. (2000) Det Hyperkomplekse Samfund, Gyldendal, Copenhagen, Denmark.Schraube, E. (2010), ‘F{\o}rste-persons perspektivet i psykologisk teori og forskningspraksis’, Nordiske Udkast, vol. 38 no. 1/2, pp. 93–104.Scott C. Allen J. A. Bonilla D. L. Baran B. E. and Murphy D. (2013) {"}Ambiguity and Freedom of Dissent in Post-Incident Discussion{"}, Journal of Business Communication, Vol 50, No 4, pp 383-402.Stahl, G., Koschmann, T. and Suthers, D. (2006), ‘Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective’ in Sawyer, R.K. (ed), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 409–426. Available at http://GerryStahl.net/cscl/CSCL_English.pdf.Tracy, S.J. (2010), ‘Eight ‘big tent’ criteria for excellent qualitative research’, Qualitative , vol. 16 no. 10, pp. 837–851.Vera, D. and Crossan, M. (2000), Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Intellectual Capital: An Integrative Conceptual Model, Ontario, University of Western Ontario, Richard Ivey School of Business, USA.Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K. and Nonaka, I. (2000), Enabling Knowledge Creation, Oxford University Press, USA.Von Krogh G. (2012) {"}How does social software change knowledge management? Toward a Strategic Research Agenda{"}, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol 21, No 154-164, pp.Vygotsky, L. (1978), Mind in society: The development of higher psycological processes. Cambridge, MA: Havard University PressWegerif, R. (2007), Dialogic Education and Technology. Expanding the Space of Learning. New York, Springer.Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice; Learning, Meaning and Identity.Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, Cambridge University Press",
author = "Ditte Kolb{\ae}k",
year = "2014",
language = "English",
note = "null ; Conference date: 22-04-2014 Through 24-04-2014",

}

Kolbæk, D 2014, 'ONLINE PROACTIVE REVIEWS: Doctoral Paper at OLKC', Oslo, Norway, 22/04/2014 - 24/04/2014, .

ONLINE PROACTIVE REVIEWS : Doctoral Paper at OLKC. / Kolbæk, Ditte.

2014. Abstract from OLKC, Oslo, Norway.

Research output: Contribution to conference without publisher/journalConference abstract for conferenceResearchpeer-review

TY - ABST

T1 - ONLINE PROACTIVE REVIEWS

T2 - Doctoral Paper at OLKC

AU - Kolbæk, Ditte

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - IntroductionInitially this was not a scientific research, but a task for me to solve in my role as manager of Organizational Learning, Oracle, EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa). The empirical setting is this world leading IT company with 30.000 employees in EMEA. The research follows the development of an educational design for learning from experience in the context of work from the very start in 2005 until 2012.Description of the dissertation proposalAn important aspect of organizational learning and knowledge sharing studies has been based on the idea that through knowledge sharing between individuals organizational learning will occur. However,clear explanation of the process is not available (Abbariki, 2013).The aim of this study is to meet the challenge stated in the quote above and provide a theoretical founded and practical tested educational design for organizational learning. The theoretical rationale is to explore learning, knowledge creation and innovation in organizations. The development from the industrial to the informational society required a change of skills, as workers became the source of knowledge and services rather than repetitive producers of tangible products (Qvortrup, 1998). Knowledge develops through engagement with an activity, and it is embodied in individuals and groups. When these process raw data into their own purpose and context, they construct knowledge (von Krogh, 2012). The construction of knowledge means that the individual or the group makes sense of the raw data involving experiences, feelings, activities and ideas. This complex action is learning (McKenzie and Winkelen, 2004). When knowledge becomes an important resource, the process of learning is the access to this resource. Consequently learning becomes an increasingly important skill for workers to keep abreast of knowledge developments. According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), enabling employees to learn in the context of work helps to improve business results, competitive advantage and revenue.The practical rationale is a proposal for an educational design called Proactive Review which is based on dialogues in the context of work with the results of learning, knowledge sharing and innovation. Proactive Reviews include learning from the past, dialogues about the present and development of the preferred future. Attending a Proactive Review enable the participants to access each other and interact either face or face or on-line. Proactive Reviews leads to circuits of knowledge within and between organizations. 2. Main research problem and research questionThis research is concerned about: How do we understand learning, what is important to learn at the work place, and how may learning occur in the context of work? The questions imply that learning is both and individual and a collective activity, and that “What is important to learn” is not described in a curriculum as it is not stable but follows the continuous internal and external changes that the organization has to adapt to (Engeström 1996, Orlikowsky 2002). Below theories briefly touch upon how learning may occur, that is both individual and organisational learning .Knowledge is dependent on the context which may be historical, social, or cultural, and knowledgearises in a variety of forms and media (Nicolini et al. 2003). When a team settles down to learn from experience, they already know the case and a number of reasons why the outcome may have occurred. This knowledge enables the participants to connect to something they already know as the foundation of learning something new. In collaboration with more capable peers, they can learn by constructing new knowledge and/or by solving complex issues. This approach to learning was conceptualized by L. Vygotsky (1978), who described it as the zone of proximal development, emphasizing the importance of being aware of what we do know when we need to learn something new. Learning from experience is explored and described in the work of G. Bateson (1972), who distinguished between four classes of learning (The titles of the learning classes and the examples are those of the author ): 0. Sensing. There is a stimulus that causes only one response. The learners will change nothing in their behaviour. For example, we feel cold, but we do not do anything about it. Because the stimulus does not cause a change, this is called zero learning. 1. Realizing. We receive a stimulus, and we choose a response from a set of alternatives. For example, we feel cold, and we put on a jacket or we go inside. 2. Adapting. We receive a stimulus, and we incorporate the context before we react. We are aware of repetitions, and we consider how to learn from repeated experiences. For example, we feel cold every winter so we install fireplaces in the house. 3. Changing. We receive a stimulus, and we change the context as a part of our reaction. The double bind is a prerequisite for learning of the class three type. For example, we feel cold every winter, so we put on a jacket, and we warm up our house. Still, we are bothered by the cold, so we decide to move long-distance to a new and warmer environment (Bateson, 1972). Organizational learning may be seen as ‘the capability of a company as a whole to create new knowledge, disseminate it throughout the organization, and embody it in products, services and systems’ (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995, 3). They highlight the importance of understanding how organizations create new knowledge through knowledge conversations (ibid, 61) and claim that individual knowledge is an important part of the organizational knowledge creation as tacit knowledge is embedded in the mind of the individual (ibid, 72). They describe the process of knowledge creation as a spiral, starting in the individual who transforms the tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge (and vice versa) during meaningful dialogues with colleagues, which may lead to new ways of doing things. When shared with other parts of the organization the knowledge improves and spread to more groups, the whole organization and in the end to customers as well (ibid, 71).Etienne Wenger’s (1999) perceives learning as a process of social participation within the context of work. Wenger describes informal network of peers, and calls such a network a community of practice if the members live up to three important learning behaviours: mutual engagement, a joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire. Mutual engagement means that the participants build relationships by socializing so that they feel like a group. They are interested in others’ points of view, conduct co-coaching and peer reviews, ask for second opinions on a regular basis, and they accept disagreements (Wenger, 1999). A joint enterprise encompasses a high degree of alignment. The participants share values; not necessarily from the very beginning, but they negotiate until they agree. They build mutual accountability and define what they want to achieve, such as improved business results, improved processes, or new inventions (Wenger, 1999). To create something new, they develop a common understanding by participating in conversations, share emotions, and build social relations. They give form to their experience by producing abstractions, tool, symbols, stories, terms, and concepts (Wenger, 1999). A shared repertoire includes a shared language in the group, like certain jargon or metaphors. The participants share ―good‖ and ―bad‖ stories as well as ―good‖ and ―bad‖ behaviours. They use the same artefacts, such as technology and working tools, and they tend to look alike by following a similar dress code. They live up to the same concepts and traditions. These are all strong signals to the organization that this group is special and wants to be perceived as a special team: a community of practice (Wenger, 1999). Yrje Engeström (1996) provides a model for learning in the context of work called the activity system, which is partly based on Vygotsky’s work and partly including Gregory Bateson’s view on learning. Engeström describes “expansive learning” as a spiral that takes its departure in the “current way of working”, which over time turns out to include contradictions that need to be handled. By solving the issues, people create new models of work or new tools that need to be implemented in the organization, which leads to new ways of working – and over time the spiral continues. An important aspect in this model is the tension between the long perspective of history and the short perspective of goal-achievements (Engeström 2011).Nonaka and Takeuchi, Wenger and Engeström highlights the importance of learning in the context of work and describe different theoretical models for enabling knowledge sharing and learning in the context of work. But neither of them provides an educational design for how to do it in practice in organisations.The research question is: How may an educational design for expanding individual knowledge to organizational learning look like?3. Theoretical foundation and key conceptsNonaka and Takeuchi talk about dialogues that enable team members to create knowledge and innovate through dialogue and discussion (Nonaka 1995). Krogh et al. (2000) claim that conversation is the foundation of knowledge creation; whereas Wegerif points out how important dialogue is for enabling reflection and learning (Wegerif 2007). They agree that dialogues may lead to mutual change of ideas, viewpoints and beliefs. From their point of view dialogues are the basis of knowledge creation within organisations. But none of them describe the dialogue.Engeström(1996) and Nonaka & Takeuchi(1995) describes the development from individual learning to organisational learning as a spiral. But they do not describe what starts the spiral or what it takes to make the spiral work in practice.Wegerif (2007) and von Krogh(2000) points out the importance of establishing a caring atmosphere between the participants in a rich dialogue. Otherwise they may lack the courage of not knowing and the willingness to embrace discrepancies. Wegerif and von Krogh suggest a facilitator to establish and maintain a caring atmosphere, but they do not explain the challenges of this role or how to overcome these challenges.Hodley (2010) describes that the technology structures the collaborative learning in CSCL (Computer Supported Collaborative Learning) in the educational environment. He suggests that researchers look into the relationships between learners, tools and their context; which I will explore during this dissertation.4. Research design (including unit of analysis, and empirical setting)The method of the research must bridge theoretical research and the real-life learning process. In addition the method has to imply a) me as the researcher and b) me as an active participant in the research object. The research area is Educational Research with the theory-driven design of learning environments. (Design-Based Research Collective 2003: 8). Design Based Research (DBR) combines theory and practice. Research and development is an iterative process where the research is driven by the test and vice versa. DBR takes place in the authentic learning environment without a strong distinction between the researcher and the participants of the learning processes, and the participants are invited to influence the educational design. It is important to include as many variables of the educational design as possible (Collins 2004: 20). DBR is developed for in-class training, but in this research it is used for learning in the context of work, namely Proactive Reviews that are certainly not anything like classroom training. I would like to discuss considerations in this regard. The research includes a number of iterations. The analysis takes its departure in a revised format of Collins suggestion (2004).1.Problem identification2.Theoretical considerations3.Educational design4.Methodological considerations5.Analysing the educational designa.Variables in DBR 6.Reporting7.Final conclusionsMy mixed role as researcher and manager of the implementation of the educational design raise questions about transparency, reliability and bias. Transparency enables the reader to understand why the researcher chose the methodologies in use (Justesen and Mik-Meyer, 2012). The point is not for another researcher to replicate the data gathering, the point is to enable the reader to assess the research design, the prerequisites and the results (Brinkmann and Tanggaard, 2010). Reliability provides clear objective and intentions of the researcher and the researched people (Petersen et al., 2012). Reliability is specifically important in the interview situation, where the researcher unconsciously could ask leading questions and by doing so create a certain result (Kvale, 2002). Bias is the “tendency to confirm the researcher’s pre-convinced notions, so the study therefore becomes of doubtful scientific value” (Flyvbjerg, 2006, 234). Even the bias may be strong, the engagement of the researcher – placed within the context being studied – leads to the best understanding of what is going on (Flyvbjerg, 2006).In order to achieve the requirements for “good or excellent research”, the study includes mixed methods (Moran-Ellis 2006) mirroring three perspectives (Schraube, 2010). The first person’s perspective data comes from direct unsolicited feedback from end users, in this case diaries from participants in the pilot. Second person’s perspective unfolds the inner life of the researched people through interaction with the researcher, here in interviews with managers who initiated Proactive Reviews, facilitators who conducted PRs and participants in PRs. The interviews consist of over a period of seven years. Third person’s perspective holds a distance between those researched and the researcher’s observations of the field unchanged by interaction. This study includes observation of a number of Proactive Reviews from different lines of business and different geographical regions and countries. The gathering of data includes ethical considerations consisting of informed consent from the researched people, confidentiality, anonymity and considerations regarding the formal power distance between the researcher and the researched people (Justesen and Mik-Meyer, 2010).Aspects of my thesis include connectivity and electronically mediated Proactive Reviews, which requires considerations on methods for on-line research.5. Preliminary findings, if any•Proposal for an educational design for dialogues leading to knowledge sharing and creation called Proactive Reviews.•Preliminary proposals for code of conduct for Proactive Reviews. •Proposal for a process to expand the individual knowledge and group knowledge to organizational learning including several circuits of knowledge.•Proposal for running Proactive Reviews on-line6. Discussion and expected contributionsThere is a reticence in many organizations to even legitimize conversation; and it seems like dialogue is a much more intense and demanding process that requires continuous and conscious attention. Whilst many authors (Engeström, 2011;Scott et al., 2013 von Krogh 2012; Wegerif 2007, ) advocate dialogue as an important part of learning in the context of work, there is little examination of why it is hard to establish ideal conditions for productive dialogue in organizational settings, which contain inherent constraints and obstacles that may inhibit and even stop the spread of learning within and across groups in the organization. This research will explore how to initiate and maintain rich dialogues in organizations in order to learn from experience by identifying potential obstacles and enablers for these dialogues.Expected contributions•Look at knowledge sharing and creation and organizational learning from a learning perspective•Provide an educational design for learning in the context of work i.e. Proactive Review•Provide a process to expand individual knowledge to organizational learning i.e. The Learning Spiral•Provide more insights in the term “dialogue” when used for learning in the context of work•Identify organisational requirements for initiating and maintaining rich dialogues in Proactive Reviews for the organisation to learn from experience7. Current challenges in your research projectHow to explicitly incorporate philosophy of science in the project and the report, and ensure the included theories, methodology and data-analysis are aligned with the philosophy of science.Design Based Research is developed for in-class research. I use it in quite another context, and I change the format from a number of variables to fewer variables. I consider this needs some explanation – I need help for an academic argumentation.I am not entirely sure about the philosophic science foundation of DBR. I tend to place it in pragmatism. As it is important that the philosophy of science, the theories applied and the methodology is aligned, this is a very important issue for the quality of the research and I need a proper discussion about it.Until now I have based my data gathering on on-line Proactive Review on traditional data like observation and interviews. What I would like to know more about is how to research in cyberspace (besides reading logs). I would love to have new literature in this field (Netnography).Netnography. If your thesis will consist of a kappa and a collection of articles; please provide an overview of the status of your papers in the table below.Papers The reporting from this research covers some of the iterations of the development of Proactive Reviews.First Iteration: From AAR to PR Second Iteration: Hoe PR may be used as a design for Lessons Learned Third Iteration: The role of the Facilitator Fourth Iteration: Dialogue as the foundation for learning in the context of workFifth Iteration: On-line Proactive ReviewTitleJour./conf.FutureHow to expand individual knowledge to organizational learningConference presentation atOrganization, Knowledge, Culture and Change, Vancouver 2013Article in the International Journal of Knowledge ManagementTo be published in 2014Proactive Review as a process of Lessons LearnedChapter in an anthology, published by IGI, CanadaTo be published in 2014The Facilitator of Proactive ReviewsErhvervspsykologiPublished in 2013Dialogue as the foundation for learning in the context of workJournal of Knowledge ManagementUnder constructionOn-line Proactive ReviewsOLKCPaper presentation 2014What do you hope to gain out of attending the doctoral consortium?•To give rich feedback and to learn from other doctoral dissertations, specifically what is important to include in an article based dissertation. Of course Theories, Methodology, Data-gathering, Analysis and Conclusions – but where to fill in my reflection on important choices (of theories, methodology, data) and my doubts about the conclusions.•How can I use new literature in the theory section, when the research started in 2005? The new literature was not available at that time.•To know what is regarded high quality for a kappa and for articles in a PhD dissertation.•To further elaborate the ideas of developing a structured method of learning from experience in the context of work. ReferencesAbbariki, M., (2013), Knowledge Sharing and Work Identity: AQualitative Perspective, Knowledge Management an International Journal, Vol12, Issue 2, pp 45- 60Barab, S. and Squire, K. (2009), ‘Design-based research: putting a stake in the ground’, Journal of Learning Sciences, vol. 13 no.1, pp. 1–14.Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York, NY: Chandler Publishing Co.Bohm, D. (1996), On Dialogue, Routledge, London, UK.Brinkmann, Svend and Tanggaard, Lene (2010), Kvalitative Metoder, en grundbog, Hans Reitzels ForlagCollins, A., Joseph, D. and Bielaczyc, K. (2004), ‘Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues’, The Journal of Learning Sciences, vol. 13 no. 1, pp. 15–42.Dede, C. (2004), ‘If design-based research is the answer, what is the question? A commentary on Collins, Joseph, and Bielaczyc; diSessa and Cobb; and Fishman, Marx, Blumenthal, Krajcik, and Soloway in the JLS special issue on design-based research’, Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 13 no. 1, pp. 105–114.Design-Based Research Collective (2003), Design-Based Research: An emerging paradigm for educational Inquiry, Educational Researcher, Vol 32, No.1, pp5-8, January 2003Engeström, Y. (1996). ‘Developmental work research as educational research’ Nordisk Pedagogik, vol 16, no 3 pp 131 - 143Engeström, Y. (2011), ‘From design experiments to formative interventions’, Theory & Psychology, vol. 21 no. 5, pp. 598–628.Flyvbjerg, Bent (2006), Five Misunderstandings about case-study research, Qualitative Inquiry,Volume 12, No 2, Sage Publications Hoadley, C. (2010), ‘Roles, design, and the nature of CSCL’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 26, pp. 551–555.Justesen, Lise, Mik-Meyer, Nanna (2010) Kvalitative Metoder I organisations- og ledelsesstudier, Hans Reizels ForlagKolbaek, D. (2012), Proactive Review, BoD, Copenhagen, DK.Kvale, Steinar (2002): InterView. En introduktion til det kvalitative forskningsinterview, Hans Reizels ForlagMcKenzie, J. and Winkelen, C., (2004) Understanding the Knowledgeable Organization: Nurturing Knowledge Competence, Thomson Learning, London, UK Mora-Elis et al. (2006, ‘Triangulation and intergration: Processes, claims and implications’, Qualitative Research February 2006, vol 6 no.1 45-59Nicolini, D., Silvia Gherardi, S., Yanow, D.,(2003), Introduction: Toward a Practice-Based View of Knowing and Learning in Organizations. M.E. Sharpe Inc, New YorkNonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company, Oxford University Press, New York, USA. ORLIKOWSKI, V.J.(2002), Knowing in Practice: Enacting a collectivecapability in distributed organizing, ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, INFORMSVol. 13, No. 3, May–June 2002, pp. 249–273Pedersen, M., Klitmøller, J. and Nielsen, K. (eds) (2012), Deltagerobservation, Hans Reitzels Forlag, Copenhagen, Denmark.Qvortrup L. (2000) Det Hyperkomplekse Samfund, Gyldendal, Copenhagen, Denmark.Schraube, E. (2010), ‘Første-persons perspektivet i psykologisk teori og forskningspraksis’, Nordiske Udkast, vol. 38 no. 1/2, pp. 93–104.Scott C. Allen J. A. Bonilla D. L. Baran B. E. and Murphy D. (2013) "Ambiguity and Freedom of Dissent in Post-Incident Discussion", Journal of Business Communication, Vol 50, No 4, pp 383-402.Stahl, G., Koschmann, T. and Suthers, D. (2006), ‘Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective’ in Sawyer, R.K. (ed), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 409–426. Available at http://GerryStahl.net/cscl/CSCL_English.pdf.Tracy, S.J. (2010), ‘Eight ‘big tent’ criteria for excellent qualitative research’, Qualitative , vol. 16 no. 10, pp. 837–851.Vera, D. and Crossan, M. (2000), Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Intellectual Capital: An Integrative Conceptual Model, Ontario, University of Western Ontario, Richard Ivey School of Business, USA.Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K. and Nonaka, I. (2000), Enabling Knowledge Creation, Oxford University Press, USA.Von Krogh G. (2012) "How does social software change knowledge management? Toward a Strategic Research Agenda", Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol 21, No 154-164, pp.Vygotsky, L. (1978), Mind in society: The development of higher psycological processes. Cambridge, MA: Havard University PressWegerif, R. (2007), Dialogic Education and Technology. Expanding the Space of Learning. New York, Springer.Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice; Learning, Meaning and Identity.Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, Cambridge University Press

AB - IntroductionInitially this was not a scientific research, but a task for me to solve in my role as manager of Organizational Learning, Oracle, EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa). The empirical setting is this world leading IT company with 30.000 employees in EMEA. The research follows the development of an educational design for learning from experience in the context of work from the very start in 2005 until 2012.Description of the dissertation proposalAn important aspect of organizational learning and knowledge sharing studies has been based on the idea that through knowledge sharing between individuals organizational learning will occur. However,clear explanation of the process is not available (Abbariki, 2013).The aim of this study is to meet the challenge stated in the quote above and provide a theoretical founded and practical tested educational design for organizational learning. The theoretical rationale is to explore learning, knowledge creation and innovation in organizations. The development from the industrial to the informational society required a change of skills, as workers became the source of knowledge and services rather than repetitive producers of tangible products (Qvortrup, 1998). Knowledge develops through engagement with an activity, and it is embodied in individuals and groups. When these process raw data into their own purpose and context, they construct knowledge (von Krogh, 2012). The construction of knowledge means that the individual or the group makes sense of the raw data involving experiences, feelings, activities and ideas. This complex action is learning (McKenzie and Winkelen, 2004). When knowledge becomes an important resource, the process of learning is the access to this resource. Consequently learning becomes an increasingly important skill for workers to keep abreast of knowledge developments. According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), enabling employees to learn in the context of work helps to improve business results, competitive advantage and revenue.The practical rationale is a proposal for an educational design called Proactive Review which is based on dialogues in the context of work with the results of learning, knowledge sharing and innovation. Proactive Reviews include learning from the past, dialogues about the present and development of the preferred future. Attending a Proactive Review enable the participants to access each other and interact either face or face or on-line. Proactive Reviews leads to circuits of knowledge within and between organizations. 2. Main research problem and research questionThis research is concerned about: How do we understand learning, what is important to learn at the work place, and how may learning occur in the context of work? The questions imply that learning is both and individual and a collective activity, and that “What is important to learn” is not described in a curriculum as it is not stable but follows the continuous internal and external changes that the organization has to adapt to (Engeström 1996, Orlikowsky 2002). Below theories briefly touch upon how learning may occur, that is both individual and organisational learning .Knowledge is dependent on the context which may be historical, social, or cultural, and knowledgearises in a variety of forms and media (Nicolini et al. 2003). When a team settles down to learn from experience, they already know the case and a number of reasons why the outcome may have occurred. This knowledge enables the participants to connect to something they already know as the foundation of learning something new. In collaboration with more capable peers, they can learn by constructing new knowledge and/or by solving complex issues. This approach to learning was conceptualized by L. Vygotsky (1978), who described it as the zone of proximal development, emphasizing the importance of being aware of what we do know when we need to learn something new. Learning from experience is explored and described in the work of G. Bateson (1972), who distinguished between four classes of learning (The titles of the learning classes and the examples are those of the author ): 0. Sensing. There is a stimulus that causes only one response. The learners will change nothing in their behaviour. For example, we feel cold, but we do not do anything about it. Because the stimulus does not cause a change, this is called zero learning. 1. Realizing. We receive a stimulus, and we choose a response from a set of alternatives. For example, we feel cold, and we put on a jacket or we go inside. 2. Adapting. We receive a stimulus, and we incorporate the context before we react. We are aware of repetitions, and we consider how to learn from repeated experiences. For example, we feel cold every winter so we install fireplaces in the house. 3. Changing. We receive a stimulus, and we change the context as a part of our reaction. The double bind is a prerequisite for learning of the class three type. For example, we feel cold every winter, so we put on a jacket, and we warm up our house. Still, we are bothered by the cold, so we decide to move long-distance to a new and warmer environment (Bateson, 1972). Organizational learning may be seen as ‘the capability of a company as a whole to create new knowledge, disseminate it throughout the organization, and embody it in products, services and systems’ (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995, 3). They highlight the importance of understanding how organizations create new knowledge through knowledge conversations (ibid, 61) and claim that individual knowledge is an important part of the organizational knowledge creation as tacit knowledge is embedded in the mind of the individual (ibid, 72). They describe the process of knowledge creation as a spiral, starting in the individual who transforms the tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge (and vice versa) during meaningful dialogues with colleagues, which may lead to new ways of doing things. When shared with other parts of the organization the knowledge improves and spread to more groups, the whole organization and in the end to customers as well (ibid, 71).Etienne Wenger’s (1999) perceives learning as a process of social participation within the context of work. Wenger describes informal network of peers, and calls such a network a community of practice if the members live up to three important learning behaviours: mutual engagement, a joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire. Mutual engagement means that the participants build relationships by socializing so that they feel like a group. They are interested in others’ points of view, conduct co-coaching and peer reviews, ask for second opinions on a regular basis, and they accept disagreements (Wenger, 1999). A joint enterprise encompasses a high degree of alignment. The participants share values; not necessarily from the very beginning, but they negotiate until they agree. They build mutual accountability and define what they want to achieve, such as improved business results, improved processes, or new inventions (Wenger, 1999). To create something new, they develop a common understanding by participating in conversations, share emotions, and build social relations. They give form to their experience by producing abstractions, tool, symbols, stories, terms, and concepts (Wenger, 1999). A shared repertoire includes a shared language in the group, like certain jargon or metaphors. The participants share ―good‖ and ―bad‖ stories as well as ―good‖ and ―bad‖ behaviours. They use the same artefacts, such as technology and working tools, and they tend to look alike by following a similar dress code. They live up to the same concepts and traditions. These are all strong signals to the organization that this group is special and wants to be perceived as a special team: a community of practice (Wenger, 1999). Yrje Engeström (1996) provides a model for learning in the context of work called the activity system, which is partly based on Vygotsky’s work and partly including Gregory Bateson’s view on learning. Engeström describes “expansive learning” as a spiral that takes its departure in the “current way of working”, which over time turns out to include contradictions that need to be handled. By solving the issues, people create new models of work or new tools that need to be implemented in the organization, which leads to new ways of working – and over time the spiral continues. An important aspect in this model is the tension between the long perspective of history and the short perspective of goal-achievements (Engeström 2011).Nonaka and Takeuchi, Wenger and Engeström highlights the importance of learning in the context of work and describe different theoretical models for enabling knowledge sharing and learning in the context of work. But neither of them provides an educational design for how to do it in practice in organisations.The research question is: How may an educational design for expanding individual knowledge to organizational learning look like?3. Theoretical foundation and key conceptsNonaka and Takeuchi talk about dialogues that enable team members to create knowledge and innovate through dialogue and discussion (Nonaka 1995). Krogh et al. (2000) claim that conversation is the foundation of knowledge creation; whereas Wegerif points out how important dialogue is for enabling reflection and learning (Wegerif 2007). They agree that dialogues may lead to mutual change of ideas, viewpoints and beliefs. From their point of view dialogues are the basis of knowledge creation within organisations. But none of them describe the dialogue.Engeström(1996) and Nonaka & Takeuchi(1995) describes the development from individual learning to organisational learning as a spiral. But they do not describe what starts the spiral or what it takes to make the spiral work in practice.Wegerif (2007) and von Krogh(2000) points out the importance of establishing a caring atmosphere between the participants in a rich dialogue. Otherwise they may lack the courage of not knowing and the willingness to embrace discrepancies. Wegerif and von Krogh suggest a facilitator to establish and maintain a caring atmosphere, but they do not explain the challenges of this role or how to overcome these challenges.Hodley (2010) describes that the technology structures the collaborative learning in CSCL (Computer Supported Collaborative Learning) in the educational environment. He suggests that researchers look into the relationships between learners, tools and their context; which I will explore during this dissertation.4. Research design (including unit of analysis, and empirical setting)The method of the research must bridge theoretical research and the real-life learning process. In addition the method has to imply a) me as the researcher and b) me as an active participant in the research object. The research area is Educational Research with the theory-driven design of learning environments. (Design-Based Research Collective 2003: 8). Design Based Research (DBR) combines theory and practice. Research and development is an iterative process where the research is driven by the test and vice versa. DBR takes place in the authentic learning environment without a strong distinction between the researcher and the participants of the learning processes, and the participants are invited to influence the educational design. It is important to include as many variables of the educational design as possible (Collins 2004: 20). DBR is developed for in-class training, but in this research it is used for learning in the context of work, namely Proactive Reviews that are certainly not anything like classroom training. I would like to discuss considerations in this regard. The research includes a number of iterations. The analysis takes its departure in a revised format of Collins suggestion (2004).1.Problem identification2.Theoretical considerations3.Educational design4.Methodological considerations5.Analysing the educational designa.Variables in DBR 6.Reporting7.Final conclusionsMy mixed role as researcher and manager of the implementation of the educational design raise questions about transparency, reliability and bias. Transparency enables the reader to understand why the researcher chose the methodologies in use (Justesen and Mik-Meyer, 2012). The point is not for another researcher to replicate the data gathering, the point is to enable the reader to assess the research design, the prerequisites and the results (Brinkmann and Tanggaard, 2010). Reliability provides clear objective and intentions of the researcher and the researched people (Petersen et al., 2012). Reliability is specifically important in the interview situation, where the researcher unconsciously could ask leading questions and by doing so create a certain result (Kvale, 2002). Bias is the “tendency to confirm the researcher’s pre-convinced notions, so the study therefore becomes of doubtful scientific value” (Flyvbjerg, 2006, 234). Even the bias may be strong, the engagement of the researcher – placed within the context being studied – leads to the best understanding of what is going on (Flyvbjerg, 2006).In order to achieve the requirements for “good or excellent research”, the study includes mixed methods (Moran-Ellis 2006) mirroring three perspectives (Schraube, 2010). The first person’s perspective data comes from direct unsolicited feedback from end users, in this case diaries from participants in the pilot. Second person’s perspective unfolds the inner life of the researched people through interaction with the researcher, here in interviews with managers who initiated Proactive Reviews, facilitators who conducted PRs and participants in PRs. The interviews consist of over a period of seven years. Third person’s perspective holds a distance between those researched and the researcher’s observations of the field unchanged by interaction. This study includes observation of a number of Proactive Reviews from different lines of business and different geographical regions and countries. The gathering of data includes ethical considerations consisting of informed consent from the researched people, confidentiality, anonymity and considerations regarding the formal power distance between the researcher and the researched people (Justesen and Mik-Meyer, 2010).Aspects of my thesis include connectivity and electronically mediated Proactive Reviews, which requires considerations on methods for on-line research.5. Preliminary findings, if any•Proposal for an educational design for dialogues leading to knowledge sharing and creation called Proactive Reviews.•Preliminary proposals for code of conduct for Proactive Reviews. •Proposal for a process to expand the individual knowledge and group knowledge to organizational learning including several circuits of knowledge.•Proposal for running Proactive Reviews on-line6. Discussion and expected contributionsThere is a reticence in many organizations to even legitimize conversation; and it seems like dialogue is a much more intense and demanding process that requires continuous and conscious attention. Whilst many authors (Engeström, 2011;Scott et al., 2013 von Krogh 2012; Wegerif 2007, ) advocate dialogue as an important part of learning in the context of work, there is little examination of why it is hard to establish ideal conditions for productive dialogue in organizational settings, which contain inherent constraints and obstacles that may inhibit and even stop the spread of learning within and across groups in the organization. This research will explore how to initiate and maintain rich dialogues in organizations in order to learn from experience by identifying potential obstacles and enablers for these dialogues.Expected contributions•Look at knowledge sharing and creation and organizational learning from a learning perspective•Provide an educational design for learning in the context of work i.e. Proactive Review•Provide a process to expand individual knowledge to organizational learning i.e. The Learning Spiral•Provide more insights in the term “dialogue” when used for learning in the context of work•Identify organisational requirements for initiating and maintaining rich dialogues in Proactive Reviews for the organisation to learn from experience7. Current challenges in your research projectHow to explicitly incorporate philosophy of science in the project and the report, and ensure the included theories, methodology and data-analysis are aligned with the philosophy of science.Design Based Research is developed for in-class research. I use it in quite another context, and I change the format from a number of variables to fewer variables. I consider this needs some explanation – I need help for an academic argumentation.I am not entirely sure about the philosophic science foundation of DBR. I tend to place it in pragmatism. As it is important that the philosophy of science, the theories applied and the methodology is aligned, this is a very important issue for the quality of the research and I need a proper discussion about it.Until now I have based my data gathering on on-line Proactive Review on traditional data like observation and interviews. What I would like to know more about is how to research in cyberspace (besides reading logs). I would love to have new literature in this field (Netnography).Netnography. If your thesis will consist of a kappa and a collection of articles; please provide an overview of the status of your papers in the table below.Papers The reporting from this research covers some of the iterations of the development of Proactive Reviews.First Iteration: From AAR to PR Second Iteration: Hoe PR may be used as a design for Lessons Learned Third Iteration: The role of the Facilitator Fourth Iteration: Dialogue as the foundation for learning in the context of workFifth Iteration: On-line Proactive ReviewTitleJour./conf.FutureHow to expand individual knowledge to organizational learningConference presentation atOrganization, Knowledge, Culture and Change, Vancouver 2013Article in the International Journal of Knowledge ManagementTo be published in 2014Proactive Review as a process of Lessons LearnedChapter in an anthology, published by IGI, CanadaTo be published in 2014The Facilitator of Proactive ReviewsErhvervspsykologiPublished in 2013Dialogue as the foundation for learning in the context of workJournal of Knowledge ManagementUnder constructionOn-line Proactive ReviewsOLKCPaper presentation 2014What do you hope to gain out of attending the doctoral consortium?•To give rich feedback and to learn from other doctoral dissertations, specifically what is important to include in an article based dissertation. Of course Theories, Methodology, Data-gathering, Analysis and Conclusions – but where to fill in my reflection on important choices (of theories, methodology, data) and my doubts about the conclusions.•How can I use new literature in the theory section, when the research started in 2005? The new literature was not available at that time.•To know what is regarded high quality for a kappa and for articles in a PhD dissertation.•To further elaborate the ideas of developing a structured method of learning from experience in the context of work. ReferencesAbbariki, M., (2013), Knowledge Sharing and Work Identity: AQualitative Perspective, Knowledge Management an International Journal, Vol12, Issue 2, pp 45- 60Barab, S. and Squire, K. (2009), ‘Design-based research: putting a stake in the ground’, Journal of Learning Sciences, vol. 13 no.1, pp. 1–14.Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York, NY: Chandler Publishing Co.Bohm, D. (1996), On Dialogue, Routledge, London, UK.Brinkmann, Svend and Tanggaard, Lene (2010), Kvalitative Metoder, en grundbog, Hans Reitzels ForlagCollins, A., Joseph, D. and Bielaczyc, K. (2004), ‘Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues’, The Journal of Learning Sciences, vol. 13 no. 1, pp. 15–42.Dede, C. (2004), ‘If design-based research is the answer, what is the question? A commentary on Collins, Joseph, and Bielaczyc; diSessa and Cobb; and Fishman, Marx, Blumenthal, Krajcik, and Soloway in the JLS special issue on design-based research’, Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 13 no. 1, pp. 105–114.Design-Based Research Collective (2003), Design-Based Research: An emerging paradigm for educational Inquiry, Educational Researcher, Vol 32, No.1, pp5-8, January 2003Engeström, Y. (1996). ‘Developmental work research as educational research’ Nordisk Pedagogik, vol 16, no 3 pp 131 - 143Engeström, Y. (2011), ‘From design experiments to formative interventions’, Theory & Psychology, vol. 21 no. 5, pp. 598–628.Flyvbjerg, Bent (2006), Five Misunderstandings about case-study research, Qualitative Inquiry,Volume 12, No 2, Sage Publications Hoadley, C. (2010), ‘Roles, design, and the nature of CSCL’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 26, pp. 551–555.Justesen, Lise, Mik-Meyer, Nanna (2010) Kvalitative Metoder I organisations- og ledelsesstudier, Hans Reizels ForlagKolbaek, D. (2012), Proactive Review, BoD, Copenhagen, DK.Kvale, Steinar (2002): InterView. En introduktion til det kvalitative forskningsinterview, Hans Reizels ForlagMcKenzie, J. and Winkelen, C., (2004) Understanding the Knowledgeable Organization: Nurturing Knowledge Competence, Thomson Learning, London, UK Mora-Elis et al. (2006, ‘Triangulation and intergration: Processes, claims and implications’, Qualitative Research February 2006, vol 6 no.1 45-59Nicolini, D., Silvia Gherardi, S., Yanow, D.,(2003), Introduction: Toward a Practice-Based View of Knowing and Learning in Organizations. M.E. Sharpe Inc, New YorkNonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company, Oxford University Press, New York, USA. ORLIKOWSKI, V.J.(2002), Knowing in Practice: Enacting a collectivecapability in distributed organizing, ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, INFORMSVol. 13, No. 3, May–June 2002, pp. 249–273Pedersen, M., Klitmøller, J. and Nielsen, K. (eds) (2012), Deltagerobservation, Hans Reitzels Forlag, Copenhagen, Denmark.Qvortrup L. (2000) Det Hyperkomplekse Samfund, Gyldendal, Copenhagen, Denmark.Schraube, E. (2010), ‘Første-persons perspektivet i psykologisk teori og forskningspraksis’, Nordiske Udkast, vol. 38 no. 1/2, pp. 93–104.Scott C. Allen J. A. Bonilla D. L. Baran B. E. and Murphy D. (2013) "Ambiguity and Freedom of Dissent in Post-Incident Discussion", Journal of Business Communication, Vol 50, No 4, pp 383-402.Stahl, G., Koschmann, T. and Suthers, D. (2006), ‘Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective’ in Sawyer, R.K. (ed), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 409–426. Available at http://GerryStahl.net/cscl/CSCL_English.pdf.Tracy, S.J. (2010), ‘Eight ‘big tent’ criteria for excellent qualitative research’, Qualitative , vol. 16 no. 10, pp. 837–851.Vera, D. and Crossan, M. (2000), Organizational Learning, Knowledge Management, and Intellectual Capital: An Integrative Conceptual Model, Ontario, University of Western Ontario, Richard Ivey School of Business, USA.Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K. and Nonaka, I. (2000), Enabling Knowledge Creation, Oxford University Press, USA.Von Krogh G. (2012) "How does social software change knowledge management? Toward a Strategic Research Agenda", Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol 21, No 154-164, pp.Vygotsky, L. (1978), Mind in society: The development of higher psycological processes. Cambridge, MA: Havard University PressWegerif, R. (2007), Dialogic Education and Technology. Expanding the Space of Learning. New York, Springer.Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice; Learning, Meaning and Identity.Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, Cambridge University Press

M3 - Conference abstract for conference

ER -

Kolbæk D. ONLINE PROACTIVE REVIEWS: Doctoral Paper at OLKC. 2014. Abstract from OLKC, Oslo, Norway.