The Contribution of a Community Event to Expert Work: An Activity Theoretical Perspective

Becoming an expert in any knowledge domain takes time and a great deal of learning, both theoretical and experiential.  The individual’s knowledge is often supplemented through knowledge exchanges with other experts.  Such exchanges are facilitated by events such as conferences or meetings. For two years we have been investigating the high profile work of scientists who work in the accredited anti-doping laboratories that are located in various countries around the world. These scientists work to curb doping in sport by conducting urinary analyses which detect athletes’ use of performance enhancing substances. These international experts, in the field of anti-doping science, work in a complex socio-technical context comprising both scientific and general anti-doping practitioners such as the staff of anti-doping agencies, sporting federations, sports physicians, coaches, athletes and the media. In order to maintain the high level of expertise necessary for this work, anti-doping scientists continuously search for and integrate new knowledge into everyday laboratory practice. To facilitate this process anti-doping scientists have developed working relationships and networks with other scientists working in the area. A major enabler of this process is the annual Manfred Donike Workshop on Dope Analysis. This paper describes the contribution of this event to the work of these expert scientists from an Activity Theory perspective

Making Sense of IS with the Cynefin Framework

This paper examines aspects of the field of Information Systems (IS) concerned with its diversity and with the rapid changes within the discipline that have been incurred by the continued evolution of the IS artefact. This examination is done in order to establish the suitability of the Cynefin framework, developed for knowledge management, as a suitable tool for sense-making in IS. A description and assessment of the Cynefin framework is provided with its varied applications in both organisational practice and research. The paper then applies the framework to make sense of some historical trends and contemporary issues of IS emphasising their diversity and changing nature. We conclude with speculation on how this approach may help guide future sense-making in IS research

Teaching first year students to communicate their reasoning

It is important for university students to be able to think critically and reason. It is equally important that they be able to express their reasoning verbally or through the written word. This is particularly difficult for many of the international students, for whom English is a second language. This paper gives an overview of methods used in an Information Systems course at ACU National, whereby these skills were taught to the students. Some of the experiences of the students are then discussed and conclusions as to the effectiveness of the methods are drawn

Blending Complexity and Activity Frameworks for a Broader and Deeper Understanding of IS

A new age of significance and opportunity for Information Systems (IS) is upon us driven by current developments in the use of digital artifacts. In this paper we endeavor to make sense of contemporary IS, as well as possible future directions of IS, by bringing together the notions of complexity and activity within two theoretical frameworks, namely the Cynefin framework and contemporary uses of Activity Theory. We describe activity as a holistic unit of analysis within the Complicated and Complex Domains of the Cynefin framework. This will enable us to make sense of tool-mediated IS activities in those Domains. Our proposed research philosophy blends these frameworks to support new thinking about IS that impacts on our choices of research methods, the way we apply them and the way we modify them as the world we study evolves into an uncertain future context

Expanding expertise : the role of a community in learning what is and what is not yet there

It takes time for both individuals and a field of endeavour to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills. In this chapter, we consider how such expertise develops, is maintained and expands. In the previous chapter, \u27Making sense of complex dynamic spaces: The wicked problem of doping control in sport\u27, we presented an overview of global efforts to address the persistent problem of the use of performance enhancing substances and techniques in sport. In this chapter, we focus on the work of anti-doping scientists. We use the Communities of Practice framework presented in the first Section this book to gain deeper insights into this process than we would otherwise

Communities of practice: doing it together

Humans beings learn from a great deal from and with one another. Recognising this, Lave and Wenger (1991) describe a community of practice as a community whose members engage in and shape a particular shared practice over time. They regard learning as situated, having a location in space and time as well as a social setting, giving community members the role of engaging in, \u27the generative process of producing their own future\u27 (p. 58-9). Noting the relevance of the concept to the world of work and to learning in the workplace, Wenger (1998) developed and extended his earlier work with Jean Lave into a social theory of learning based on communities of practice

Making sense of complex dynamic spaces: the wicked problem of doping control in sport

Some of the problems shared by the world\u27s citizens are \u27wicked\u27! \u27Wicked problems\u27 are persistent with incompletely-known and contradictory elements that are interconnected and constantly changing (Rittel & Webber 1973). Contemporary \u27wicked problems\u27 that reside in the dynamic context of the global environment include climate change, economic and political refugees, epidemics, drug trafficking and disasters of immense proportions, some natural and others brought on by human activities

Activity Theory: who is doing what, why and how

In simple terms, Activity Theory is all about \u27who is doing what, why and how\u27. However, things are rarely that simple. Sometimes referred to as the Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), Activity Theory is grounded in the work of the Russian psychologist Vygotsky and his students, in particular, Leontiev, in the 1920s. Activity Theory provides a lens with which to tease out and to better understand human activity

The Cynefin framework: putting complexity into perspective

Cynefin (pronounced cun-ev-in) \u27is a Welsh word with no direct equivalent in English. As a noun it is translated as habitat, as an adjective acquainted or familiar. More poetically, it describes that relationship: the place of your birth and of your upbringing, the environment in which you live and to which you are naturally acclimatised.\u27 Cognitive Edge 2006)

Inter-activity: an Activity Theory model for socio-technical work spaces

The issues that face human society are often addressed in a sociotechnical context that utilizes both social and technical tools. Such socio-technical milieux do not just happen but evolve over time. The ongoing emergence of more and more complex socio-technical contexts presents challenges to those involved as well as for sociocultural researchers. Vygotsky\u27s (1978) Cultural Historical Activity Theory has been expanded upon by a number of researchers including Engestrom (1999) in order to develop understandings of work-based activity systems with a view to the identification of tensions within and to further development of those activity systems. Other researchers (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002) have looked at work situations as Communities of Practice where people share a particular practice and together refine the practice and further develop their expertise. More recently, Kurtz and Snowden (2003) have explored the application of Complexity Theory to organizations. These three frameworks provide a means to improve our understanding of the nature and evolution of socio-technical systems that involve the work of expert scientists and general practitioners who are working towards a common goal. This chapter presents social research that has led to a visualization of the evolving work of the changing complex anti-doping community. Its purpose is to increase the awareness of anti-doping scientists of the activity in which they are engaged, and to encourage consideration of how they can best mobilize knowledge that will advance the anti-doping outcomes