Creation of a virtual community of practice for csr researchers


Published on

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-researchers

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Creation of a virtual community of practice for csr researchers

  1. 1. CREATION OF A VIRTUAL COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE FOR CSR RESEARCHERS WELCOME Master thesis presentation Kevin Rijke Arjen Kleinherenbrink Tutors Dr. J.J. Jonker Dr. W.P.M. Martens
  2. 2. <ul><li>Part I </li></ul><ul><li>CSR Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Early phases of the research </li></ul><ul><li>Literature studies </li></ul><ul><li>Part II </li></ul><ul><li>Methodology </li></ul><ul><li>Execution </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusions and recommendations </li></ul>
  3. 3. <ul><li>Going beyond financial profit </li></ul>Considering people, the environment and society as a whole ‘ Balancing profit and principles’
  4. 4. <ul><li>What is the current status of CSR research? </li></ul>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
  5. 6. <ul><li>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 </li></ul>
  6. 7. 1 Conceptual ambiguity Corporate governance? Ethics? Sustainable development? Corporate citizenship? Corporate reputation?
  7. 8. 2 Endless categories Ecological Legal Ethical Philosophical Philantropical Spiritual Reputation Political Humanistic
  8. 9. 3 Do ‘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’
  9. 10. Conclusion: CSR is ‘fuzzy’, ‘ondefinieerbaar’, ‘fragmented’, unco-ordinated and divided.
  10. 11. CSR literature study: 1926 - 2007 <ul><li>Conclusion: </li></ul><ul><li>Constant growth of perspectives and concepts </li></ul><ul><li>Increasing fragmentation </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of elaboration and testing of concepts </li></ul>
  11. 12. Friedman – Individuals must take responsibility Barnard, Bowen - Organisations must take responsibility Galbraith – Government and organisations are responsible 1950-1970
  12. 13. <ul><li>CSR characterised by: </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of coördination </li></ul><ul><li>Fragmentation </li></ul><ul><li>Inefficiencies </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of identity </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of focus </li></ul><ul><li>This results in two problems : </li></ul><ul><li>MVO does not contribute as much practically applicable knowledge as it should </li></ul><ul><li>Concepts are not elaborated upon or tested empirically, negatively influencing research quality </li></ul>
  13. 14. <ul><li>A community of practice is an adequate means of realising the needed development in CSR. </li></ul>
  14. 15. <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>CSR is a movement– semi-coherent, normative motives, conflicting perspectives. </li></ul><ul><li>As a movement, CSR experiences the aforementioned problems. </li></ul>
  15. 16. <ul><li>Diani & Bison (2004): </li></ul><ul><li>Individuals group themselves as: </li></ul><ul><li>Movement </li></ul><ul><li>Coalition </li></ul><ul><li>Organisation </li></ul>
  17. 18. <ul><li>Desired future location: CSR as a community? </li></ul><ul><li>Waddock (2004), Marberg (2007) and Jonker (2005) suggest so. </li></ul><ul><li>Een community to facilitate diverse content, without discourse becoming too diverse for interaction </li></ul>
  18. 19. <ul><li>Groups sharing certain values, maintaining social relations and frequently interacting with each other. </li></ul><ul><li>A geographic component is not a prerequisite for the existence of a community. </li></ul>
  19. 20. <ul><li>A CSR community is rational (Blokland, 2000): relations are purposeful, with specific goals, engaged by conscious actors. </li></ul><ul><li>A ‘community of practice’ is the community type best suited for CSR (Gläser, 2001): </li></ul><ul><li>Common activities </li></ul><ul><li>Embedded in institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitates developments in both theory and practice </li></ul>
  20. 21. <ul><li>CSR benefits from developments in theory and practice </li></ul><ul><li>A community of practice can facilitate such developments </li></ul>
  21. 22. <ul><li>How can a ‘community of practice’ (CoP) for CSR researchers be created? </li></ul><ul><li>This research aims to find whether and to what extent a CoP for CSR researchers can be created, </li></ul><ul><li>in order to contribute to knowledge and practice development around CSR and to offer her practitioners a professional network to do so. </li></ul>
  22. 23. <ul><li>Communities of practice ‐ an aggregate of people who come together around mutual engagement in </li></ul><ul><li>an endeavor. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul>
  23. 24. <ul><li>Characteristics: </li></ul><ul><li>Joint enterprise </li></ul><ul><li>Mutual engagement </li></ul><ul><li>Shared Repertoire </li></ul>
  24. 25. <ul><li>For CSR, the best type of COP is a Virtual Community of Practice (VCoP) </li></ul><ul><li>A virtual network to eliminate time and space that separate researchers. </li></ul>
  25. 26. <ul><li>Group of individuals that uses a virtual infrastructure for a specific knowledge domain, emphasizing the creation and exchange of knowlege. </li></ul>Stimulates sharing knowledge Eliminates time and space Takes advantage of ‘weak ties’ Swift exchange of information
  26. 27. <ul><li>These characteristics are thought to eliminate or at least lessen: </li></ul><ul><li>The lack of practically applicable knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>The lack of concept elaboration and testing </li></ul>
  27. 28. <ul><li>Rules-of-thumb in design </li></ul><ul><li>Contextual enquiry </li></ul><ul><li>User-based design </li></ul><ul><li>Participatory design </li></ul><ul><li>Direct manipulation </li></ul><ul><li>Focused content </li></ul><ul><li>Social protocols </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional memory </li></ul><ul><li>A VCoP can only be facilitated, never fully created. </li></ul>
  28. 29. <ul><li>This research deviates from academic standards: </li></ul><ul><li>No division between researchers and research object </li></ul><ul><li>No chronological division between theory and practice </li></ul>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).
  29. 30. <ul><li>Why action research? </li></ul><ul><li>Practical problem </li></ul><ul><li>Developing a CoP parallel to literature studies </li></ul><ul><li>Need to facilitate knowledge processes </li></ul><ul><li>Aiming to realise a radical transformation </li></ul>
  30. 31. <ul><li>All action research is an intervention(Schein, 1995) </li></ul>A VCoP for CSR is a Large Scale Intervention: <ul><li>Platform for communication and interaction </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasizing knowledge sharing </li></ul><ul><li>No agenda or predetermined content </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Whole scale change’: open to all actors </li></ul>
  31. 32. <ul><li>Offering students of CSR a central platform for: </li></ul><ul><li>Sharing and creating knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>Interaction </li></ul><ul><li>Co-operation </li></ul><ul><li>Reaching out to companies, governments, etc. </li></ul>
  32. 34. <ul><li>Sharing and creating knowledge </li></ul>
  33. 35. <ul><li>Interaction </li></ul>
  34. 36. <ul><li>Co-operation </li></ul>
  35. 37. <ul><li>Reaching out </li></ul>
  36. 40. <ul><li>Circa 250.000 visitors after six months. </li></ul><ul><li>1000 library items after six months. </li></ul><ul><li>Worldwide standard for CSR students. </li></ul><ul><li>Further development of job offerings and resumes. </li></ul><ul><li>CSR Center Business Challenge. </li></ul>
  37. 41. <ul><li>CSR needs development in theory and practice. </li></ul><ul><li>A VCoP can facilitate this development. </li></ul><ul><li>This should result in more applicable practical knowledge and elaboration / testing of concepts. </li></ul><ul><li>Literature study confirms CSR Center adheres to VCoP design specifications. </li></ul>
  38. 42. <ul><li>Recommeded research: </li></ul><ul><li>Empirical research into how VCoPs come into existence </li></ul><ul><li>If a VCoP is realised, how does this affect the 5 CSR characteristics? </li></ul><ul><li>And how does it affect the to identified problems of CSR? </li></ul>
  39. 43. <ul><li>Questions? </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>