creation of a virtual community of practice for csr researchers
DESCRIPTION
Presentation of the masterthesis of Kevin Rijke and ARjen Kleinherenbrink: Een goed begin is het halve werk, creation-of-a-virtual-community-of-practice-for-csr-researchersTRANSCRIPT
CREATION OF A VIRTUAL COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE FOR CSR RESEARCHERS
WELCOME
Master thesis presentationKevin RijkeArjen Kleinherenbrink
TutorsDr. J.J. JonkerDr. W.P.M. Martens
Part I
CSR Introduction Early phases of the research Literature studies
Part II
Methodology Execution Conclusions and recommendations
Going beyond financial profit
Considering people, the environment and society as a whole
‘Balancing profit and principles’
What is the current status of CSR research?
Can we improve upon this situation?CSR needs further development in both theory and practice
Questions
Assumptions
A community of practice is an adequate means of realising this development
Burchell & Cook, 2006; Waddock, 2004; Caroll, 1999; Marberg, 2007; Jonker & Marberg, 2007; Betz, 2006; Roome et al., 2006; Pinkston & Carroll, 1996; Garriga & Melé, 2004; Tencati et al., 2004; Graafland & Eiiffinger, 2004; Quazi & O’Brien, 2000; Jonker & Marberg 2007, 7; Nahapiet, 1998; Goshal, 1998; Cannon, 1994; Caroll, 1993; Solomon, 1997; Blair, 1998; Donaldson & Preston 1995
1Conceptual ambiguity
Corporate governance?
Ethics?
Sustainable development?
Corporate citizenship?
Corporate reputation?
2Endless categories
EcologicalLegalEthicalPhilosophicalPhilantropicalSpiritualReputationPoliticalHumanistic
3Do ‘x’
‘take a visible role in society’
‘focus on public prosperity’
‘work with employees and their families’
‘integrate social and environmental concerns’
‘interact with stakeholders on voluntary basis’
Conclusion:
CSR is ‘fuzzy’, ‘ondefinieerbaar’, ‘fragmented’, unco-ordinated and divided.
CSR literature study: 1926 - 2007
Conclusion:
Constant growth of perspectives and concepts
Increasing fragmentation
Lack of elaboration and testing of concepts
Friedman – Individuals must take responsibility
Barnard, Bowen - Organisations must take responsibility
Galbraith – Government and organisations are responsible
1950-1970
CSR characterised by:
Lack of coördination
Fragmentation
Inefficiencies
Lack of identity
Lack of focus
This results in two problems:
MVO does not contribute as much practically
applicable knowledge as it should
Concepts are not elaborated upon or tested
empirically, negatively influencing research
quality
A community of practice is an adequate means of realising the needed development in CSR.
McGovern (2005) – Individuals acting collectively with some degree of organization and continuity, partially outside the normal political processes and institutions, to bring about social change.
CSR is a movement– semi-coherent, normative motives, conflicting perspectives.
As a movement, CSR experiences the aforementioned problems.
Diani & Bison (2004):
Individuals group themselves as:
Movement
Coalition
Organisation
DISCOURSEDiverse Shared
MOVEMENT
COALITION
ORGANISATION
CSR
Desired future location: CSR as a community?
Waddock (2004), Marberg (2007) and Jonker
(2005) suggest so.
Een community to facilitate diverse content,
without discourse becoming too diverse for
interaction
Groups sharing certain values, maintaining social relations and frequently interacting with each other.
A geographic component is not a prerequisite for the existence of a community.
A CSR community is rational (Blokland, 2000): relations are purposeful, with specific goals, engaged by conscious actors.
A ‘community of practice’ is the community type best suited for CSR (Gläser, 2001):
Common activities
Embedded in institutions
Facilitates developments in both theory and
practice
CSR benefits from developments in theory and practice
A community of practice can facilitate such developments
How can a ‘community of practice’ (CoP) for CSR researchers be created?
This research aims to find whether and to what extent a CoP for CSR researchers can be created,
in order to contribute to knowledge and practice development around CSR and to offer her practitioners a professional network to do so.
Communities of practice ‐ an aggregate of people who come together around mutual engagement in
an endeavor.
Practices emerge in the course of this mutual endeavor. As a social construct, a CoP is different from the traditional community, primarily because it is defined simultaneously by its membership and by the practice in which that membership engages.
Characteristics:
Joint enterprise
Mutual engagement
Shared Repertoire
For CSR, the best type of COP is a Virtual Community of Practice (VCoP)
A virtual network to eliminate time and space that separate researchers.
Group of individuals that uses a virtual infrastructure for a specific knowledge domain, emphasizing the creation and exchange of knowlege.
Stimulates sharing knowledge
Eliminates time and space
Takes advantage of ‘weak ties’
Swift exchange of information
These characteristics are thought to eliminate or at least lessen:
The lack of practically applicable knowledge
The lack of concept elaboration and testing
Rules-of-thumb in design Contextual enquiry User-based design Participatory design Direct manipulation Focused content Social protocols Institutional memory
A VCoP can only be facilitated, never fully created.
This research deviates from academic standards:
2.No division between researchers and research object
1. No chronological division between theory and practice
This means we are performing action research
Action research is a research methodology(Peters & Robinson, 1984: 54) in which action and research happen simultaneously(Altrichter et al., 2002).
This creates overlap between researcher and the research object, the ‘field’ and the ‘laboratory’ (Whyte et al., 1989; Altrichter et al., 2002).
Why action research?
Practical problem
Developing a CoP parallel to literature studies
Need to facilitate knowledge processes
Aiming to realise a radical transformation
All action research is an intervention(Schein, 1995)
A VCoP for CSR is a Large Scale Intervention:
Platform for communication and interaction
Emphasizing knowledge sharing
No agenda or predetermined content
‘Whole scale change’: open to all actors
Offering students of CSR a central platform for:
Sharing and creating knowledge
Interaction
Co-operation
Reaching out to companies, governments,
etc.
Sharing and creating knowledge
Interaction
Co-operation
Reaching out
Circa 250.000 visitors after six months.
1000 library items after six months.
Worldwide standard for CSR students.
Further development of job offerings and
resumes.
CSR Center Business Challenge.
CSR needs development in theory and
practice.
A VCoP can facilitate this development.
This should result in more applicable
practical knowledge and elaboration / testing
of concepts.
Literature study confirms CSR Center
adheres to VCoP design specifications.
Recommeded research:
Empirical research into how VCoPs come into existence
If a VCoP is realised, how does this affect the 5 CSR characteristics?
And how does it affect the to identified problems of CSR?
Questions?