Birds of a Feather? - Do Participants’ Hierarchical Positions activate Homophily within Communities of Learning?

1,066 views

Published on

Communities of Learning (CoL) are promoted to foster interpersonal knowledge transfer among participants of organizational training initiatives. Moreover, previous studies have posited that homophily can significantly affect the communication processes among participants that exhibit differing background characteristics. However, past research has largely neglected a particular background characteristic, namely hierarchical positions, which have been suggested to constitute a major obstacle for collaborative learning processes. By providing empirical evidence from 25 CoL of a global organization, where participants from different parts of an organization’s hierarchical ladder collaboratively enhanced their knowledge and skills, the current study addresses this shortcoming and investigates whether and to what extent the applicable CoL have been subject to homophily. Based on an underlying social network analysis, our results show no signs of homophily. Instead, we rather find an “externalness”, whereby participants particularly turned to colleagues from outside their own hierarchical position. By incorporating these findings into the design and implementation, organizers of future CoL can device learning activities and facilitation strategies that can further enhance participants’ learning experience and outcomes.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,066
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
601
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Individuals who  are highly central tend  also  to  interact with  others  who  are highly central,  making it difficult  to  determine  whether  their perceptions  are due  to  an  advantageous  location in the  informal hierarchy or, instead,  to  specific  social  influences  from their highly central network  contacts.    People  on-the  periphery of  a social  network  (e.g.,  actors  X, Y, and Z), however,  are far removed  from the  social  or normative influence  of the  core  of  the  network.  They  may  have  similar views  that  reflect  their low  power  and integration, or they  may  instead  hold vastly  divergent  opinions  that can only be  explained  as  a function  of  social  interaction within their local subcultures.
  • Status instead of value homophily
  • The E-I Index was calculated by taking the number of ties of a group member to outsiders, subtracting the number of ties to other group members, and divided these by the total number of ties. The resulting index ranges from -1 (all ties are internal to the groups) to +1 (all ties are external to the group)
  • The E-I Index was calculated by taking the number of ties of a group member to outsiders, subtracting the number of ties to other group members, and divided these by the total number of ties. The resulting index ranges from -1 (all ties are internal to the groups) to +1 (all ties are external to the group)
  • The E-I Index was calculated by taking the number of ties of a group member to outsiders, subtracting the number of ties to other group members, and divided these by the total number of ties. The resulting index ranges from -1 (all ties are internal to the groups) to +1 (all ties are external to the group)
  • The E-I Index was calculated by taking the number of ties of a group member to outsiders, subtracting the number of ties to other group members, and divided these by the total number of ties. The resulting index ranges from -1 (all ties are internal to the groups) to +1 (all ties are external to the group)
  • Birds of a Feather? - Do Participants’ Hierarchical Positions activate Homophily within Communities of Learning?

    1. 1. Birds of a Feather? Do Participants’ Hierarchical Positions activate Homophily within Communities of Learning? Dr. Martin Rehm, Prof. Wim Gijselaers, Prof. Mien Segers 15th Biennial EARLI Conference München, 27 August 2013
    2. 2. Training in Organizations
    3. 3. Community of Learning groups of diverse people “engaging in collaborative learning and reflective practice involved in transformative learning” (Paloff and Pratt, 2003, p. 17)
    4. 4. “Birds of a Feather” (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001)
    5. 5. Homophily • “the principle that a contact between similar people occurs at a higher rate than among dissimilar people.” (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001, p. 416) • homophily can stem from individuals’ membership to a certain organizational unit (e.g. Borgatti & Foster, 2003)  Status Homophily (Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954)
    6. 6. Pro(s) • improve the coordination process (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992) • limit the potential occurrence of conflicts (Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999) Con(s) • prevent organizations from effectively stimulating an interpersonal knowledge transfer among employees from diverse backgrounds (Akkerman, Admiraal, Simons, & Niessen, 2006)
    7. 7. Hierarchical Positions
    8. 8. • information flows in learning networks are often constrained by formal structures (e.g. Cross, Laseter, Parker, & Velasquez, 2006) • occupying high-level positions within an organization provides individuals with an intrinsic attraction to lower level management (Casciaro, 1998) • individuals might prefer to seek help from socially proximate others to reduce the risk of appearing incompetent (Bamberger, 2009)
    9. 9. Participants’ Hierarchical Positions activate Homophily within Communities of Learning
    10. 10. Setting • online training program of a large international organization • 14 weeks of online learning • 25 CoL – 249 participants  ~ 10 participants per CoL – Hierarchical Positions: 82 “Low”, 93 “Middle”, 74 “High” • asynchronous discussions forums: – Café-Talk – Content-Related (real-life tasks)
    11. 11. Instruments Social Network Analysis • External – Internal Index  ranges from -1 (all ties are internal) to +1 (all ties are external) Read Networks & Reply Networks (Daradoumis, Martínez-Monés, & Xhafa, 2004)
    12. 12. E-I Read
    13. 13. E-I Reply
    14. 14. Discussion • No Homophily (rather “externalness”)  CoL can foster transactive knowledge transfer • Read Networks (Passive Learning) – equally distributed • Reply Networks (Active Learning) – high degree of fluctuation
    15. 15. • scaffolding activities that structure the learning and interaction processes of participants (e.g. Beers, Boshuizen, Kirschner, & Gijselaers, 2005; Weinberger & Fischer, 2006) • asking facilitators to possibly: – “smoothen out” observed fluctuations – decrease “selective reading process” – actively engage all participants Recommendations
    16. 16. rehm@merit.unu.edu

    ×