Location of Repository

Learning as a Social Process of Social Interaction in the Knowledge-Based Small Firm

By David Higgins

Abstract

The influence of globalisation, dynamic environments, the use and expansion of information systems and technology, has placed a huge influence on how the knowledge-based small firm uses and develops knowledge, (Leonard-Barton, 1995; Brown and Duguid, 1998). Such a focus on firm knowledge and knowing is particularly appropriate in the consideration of the demands which have been placed on the knowledge-based small firm to be innovative and creative, especially in competitive environments where the development and delivery of new services and products is of huge importance and represents an ongoing firm challenge. Dealing effectively with such challenges requires a focus away from the firm’s knowledge base, which currently occupies much of the traditional discussion on organisational knowledge, and towards a focus which draws attention to organisational knowing as an emerging process from the continuous and situated practices of firm agents as they interact and engage with each other and the dynamic environments in which they function. By viewing organisational knowing as a process in which agents are understood to act knowingly as an element of their routines and day to day activities. A firm agent is viewed to be purposeful and spontaneous, continually and routinely reviewing the flow of their actions and of others, coupled to the social contexts in which their own activities are intertwined. As Giddens notes “such activities suggest an immense knowledge ability involved in the conduct of everyday life”, (Giddens and Pierson, 1998, p.90).\ud \ud \ud The knowledge-based small firm constitutes a common interpretative of visions, values and experiences in the form of processes and routines which help to ensure how agents learn. However what an agent learns when sharing a common experience is not the same nor identical, and initial differences multiply over time. This gives way to the understanding that the process of knowledge creation and learning is supported by the development of distinct bodies of diverse firm knowledge. Knowledge in the small firms becomes distributed as an unavoidable consequence of the way by which it is produced; in which agents have varying perceptive, experiences, divergent insights and attitudes. As a result, the firm agents develop a variety of solutions as an intricate part of the ongoing process of learning by doing.\ud \ud \ud The growth of the social network discipline has been aided by various developments in the business world such as technology, and globalisation. Whereas the structure of the traditional industrial sectors is represented to a large extent, by a resourced-based view and materiality – through products, machinery, processing systems, in the modern knowledge-based economy, in which we live, even if bureaucratic models of organisations still exist, the different ways of organising emerging are more fluid and dynamic than traditional structures. Networks have been viewed as a mechanism by which these two groups can develop and sustain relationships. These networks are viewed principally in functional terms as the channels through which knowledge is developed, placing huge emphasis on the practical value of the network itself. As a consequence there is very little data gathered in relation to the agents and relationships which are developed within the network and a lack of focus on its dynamics. \ud \ud \ud The paper will put forward the perspective that in order for the small firm to become a distributed evolving knowledge system, the promotion of social interactions amongst its components and agents is required. Whereas individual agents in the firm can individually create knowledge, the greater challenge is to promote social interaction amongst these agents which not only facilitates learning but also the creation of explicit and tacit knowledge, (Hansen and Haas 2001). The paper argues that creation of knowledge in the small knowledge-based firm is better accomplished through the interaction amongst individual agents with diverse knowledge sets rather than agents with similar knowledge domains. Thus the possibility of exchanging knowledge and through processes of reflection on existing firm knowledge in order to create new understanding is greater when agents involved have diverse understanding which is questioned. This perspective requires multidirectional interaction amongst agents of knowledge diversity, and high levels of connectivity and interdependence, enabling agents to become both sources and recipients of knowledge

Topics: HD
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.hud.ac.uk:7818

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (1989/91), Spontaneous ('grown') order and organized ('made') order,
  2. (1999). A Qualitative Study Development, paper presented at
  3. (2001). A Sociological Theory of Communication: The SelfOrganization of the Knowledge-Based Society.
  4. (1999). A Sociology of Attachment: Music, Amateurs, drug users. In: doi
  5. (2003). Accessing Local Knowledge: Policy Analysis and Communities of Meaning’. doi
  6. (1998). Alliances and networks", doi
  7. (1990). An Alternative Theory of Management Education. doi
  8. (1983). Applied network analysis: A methodological introduction Sage , Beverly Hills Castells, M The Internet Galaxy: reflections on the Internet, business and society.
  9. (1999). Bridging Epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. doi
  10. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems.” doi
  11. (1998). Communities of Practice. doi
  12. (2001). Competing for attention in knowledge markets: Electronic document dissemination in a management consulting company', doi
  13. (2000). Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis. Sage, doi
  14. (1987). Enterprise Culture: Its Meaning & Implications for Education & Training, doi
  15. (1984). Experiential Learning, doi
  16. (1992). Face-to-Face: Making Network Organizations Work.
  17. (1996). How Does a Policy Mean? Interpreting Policy and Organizational Actions.
  18. (1999). In Real Life’s Shadow, Virtual Life Can
  19. (1996). Inter-organizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks learning in biotechnology. doi
  20. (1998). Introduction to Action Research. Sage, doi
  21. (2001). Knowledge and Organization.
  22. (1993). Knowledge utilization: The role of new communications technologies. doi
  23. (1995). Management of knowledge-intensive companies. doi
  24. (1992). Modernity and self-identity Polity Press doi
  25. (2001). Narrative Methods for Organisational and Communication Research,
  26. (2001). Networks of innovators: A synthesis of research issues.
  27. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of practice. doi
  28. (1998). Organizing Processes in doi
  29. (1962). Personal Knowledge. University of Chicago Press, doi
  30. (1996). Reflexivity and group effectiveness: a conceptual integration.” In: Handbook of work group psychology,
  31. (2000). Seeing Organizational Learning: doi
  32. (1998). Situated Learning, Local Knowledge, and Action: Social Approaches to the Study of Knowing
  33. (1991). Situated Learning. doi
  34. (2000). Social Network Analysis: doi
  35. (1992). Supermarkets and Culture Clash: The Epistemological Role of Metaphors in Administrative Practice’, doi
  36. (1996). Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job. doi
  37. (1993). The Communication of Policy Meanings: Implementation as Interpretation and Text’, doi
  38. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of a Theory of Structuration, doi
  39. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach. doi
  40. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge system: a constructionist approach.” doi
  41. (1996). The Firm as a Distributed Knowledge System’, doi
  42. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Create the Dynamics of Innovation. doi
  43. (1974). The Limits of Organization. doi
  44. (2003). The new knowledge management: Complexity, learning and sustainable innovation doi
  45. (1996). The rise of the network society doi
  46. (1959). The Social Background and Connections of ‘Top Decision-Makers’. The Bank Rate Tribunal: A Symposium, doi
  47. (2000). tricksters and cartographers. Hardwood academic Publishers: doi
  48. (1995). Wellsprings of Knowledge. doi
  49. (2001). What is organizational knowledge?', doi
  50. (2001). What is organizational knowledge?” doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.