Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Labours of division

Electronic data

  • Labours of Division Mgt Learning

    Accepted author manuscript, 396 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Labours of division: Legitimacy, membership and the performance of business knowledge

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Labours of division: Legitimacy, membership and the performance of business knowledge. / Knox, Hannah; O'Doherty, Damian; Vurdubakis, Theodore et al.
In: Management Learning, Vol. 55, No. 5, 30.11.2024, p. 790-810.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Knox, H, O'Doherty, D, Vurdubakis, T & Westrup, C 2024, 'Labours of division: Legitimacy, membership and the performance of business knowledge', Management Learning, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 790-810. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505076231194831

APA

Vancouver

Knox H, O'Doherty D, Vurdubakis T, Westrup C. Labours of division: Legitimacy, membership and the performance of business knowledge. Management Learning. 2024 Nov 30;55(5):790-810. Epub 2023 Oct 3. doi: 10.1177/13505076231194831

Author

Knox, Hannah ; O'Doherty, Damian ; Vurdubakis, Theodore et al. / Labours of division : Legitimacy, membership and the performance of business knowledge. In: Management Learning. 2024 ; Vol. 55, No. 5. pp. 790-810.

Bibtex

@article{029d657d9fce410fb116b66293562bb9,
title = "Labours of division: Legitimacy, membership and the performance of business knowledge",
abstract = "The idea(l) of {\textquoteleft}legitimate peripheral participation{\textquoteright} remains at the heart of debates over the nature and potential of communities of practice. Yet the question of how the legitimacy or otherwise of participation is actually established is seldom addressed. In this article, we focus on {\textquoteleft}legitimacy{\textquoteright} as figure instead of ground. We attend to the {\textquoteleft}displays of competence{\textquoteright}, and their associated {\textquoteleft}labours of division{\textquoteright}, by means of which {\textquoteleft}practitioners{\textquoteright} claim recognition and are made recognisable to each other as members, or non-members, of an {\textquoteleft}us{\textquoteright}. We seek to understand how members come to recognise particular {\textquoteleft}doings{\textquoteright} and forms of knowledge as belonging (or not belonging) to a particular practice. How is the common {\textquoteleft}domain{\textquoteright} (communis) of practice settled (or un-settled) in the course of specific performances of membership? Empirically, the article draws upon a 2-year investigation of how community of practice boundaries and participation were negotiated in {\textquoteleft}UltraGlass Plc{\textquoteright}, a multinational manufacturing company, and specifically of the failure of {\textquoteleft}community{\textquoteright} to cohere around practices.",
keywords = "Business process, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Knowledge, legitimacy, membership, technology",
author = "Hannah Knox and Damian O'Doherty and Theodore Vurdubakis and Chris Westrup",
year = "2024",
month = nov,
day = "30",
doi = "10.1177/13505076231194831",
language = "English",
volume = "55",
pages = "790--810",
journal = "Management Learning",
issn = "1350-5076",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Labours of division

T2 - Legitimacy, membership and the performance of business knowledge

AU - Knox, Hannah

AU - O'Doherty, Damian

AU - Vurdubakis, Theodore

AU - Westrup, Chris

PY - 2024/11/30

Y1 - 2024/11/30

N2 - The idea(l) of ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ remains at the heart of debates over the nature and potential of communities of practice. Yet the question of how the legitimacy or otherwise of participation is actually established is seldom addressed. In this article, we focus on ‘legitimacy’ as figure instead of ground. We attend to the ‘displays of competence’, and their associated ‘labours of division’, by means of which ‘practitioners’ claim recognition and are made recognisable to each other as members, or non-members, of an ‘us’. We seek to understand how members come to recognise particular ‘doings’ and forms of knowledge as belonging (or not belonging) to a particular practice. How is the common ‘domain’ (communis) of practice settled (or un-settled) in the course of specific performances of membership? Empirically, the article draws upon a 2-year investigation of how community of practice boundaries and participation were negotiated in ‘UltraGlass Plc’, a multinational manufacturing company, and specifically of the failure of ‘community’ to cohere around practices.

AB - The idea(l) of ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ remains at the heart of debates over the nature and potential of communities of practice. Yet the question of how the legitimacy or otherwise of participation is actually established is seldom addressed. In this article, we focus on ‘legitimacy’ as figure instead of ground. We attend to the ‘displays of competence’, and their associated ‘labours of division’, by means of which ‘practitioners’ claim recognition and are made recognisable to each other as members, or non-members, of an ‘us’. We seek to understand how members come to recognise particular ‘doings’ and forms of knowledge as belonging (or not belonging) to a particular practice. How is the common ‘domain’ (communis) of practice settled (or un-settled) in the course of specific performances of membership? Empirically, the article draws upon a 2-year investigation of how community of practice boundaries and participation were negotiated in ‘UltraGlass Plc’, a multinational manufacturing company, and specifically of the failure of ‘community’ to cohere around practices.

KW - Business process

KW - Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)

KW - Knowledge

KW - legitimacy

KW - membership

KW - technology

U2 - 10.1177/13505076231194831

DO - 10.1177/13505076231194831

M3 - Journal article

VL - 55

SP - 790

EP - 810

JO - Management Learning

JF - Management Learning

SN - 1350-5076

IS - 5

ER -