Statement of Problem

Scholars often distinguish practical/procedural knowledge from theoretical/declarative knowledge. Polanyi (1966) argued that theoretical knowledge can be derived from reflection and abstraction, from experience. He indicated that all knowledge is either tacit or rooted in tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is not easily codified for reuse or sharing. Reber (1993) has argued that the acquisition of tacit knowledge “takes place largely in the absence of explicit knowledge about what was acquired.” It depends largely on frequent interaction and observation, similar to what takes place between an apprentice and a master. Polanyi (1966) claimed that tacit

knowledge is not private but social. He placed strong emphasis on dialogue within an

individual’s experience of reality.

However, Bourdieu (1977) argued that an objective analysis of practical apprehension of the familiar world is beset by limitations. He suggested that researchers escape from the dichotomy of knowledge and prepare to “inquire into the mode of production and functioning of practical mastery.” He proposed a sort of knowledge that “conserves and transcends objectivist knowledge by integrating the truth of practical experience and of the practical mode of knowledge which this learned knowledge has to be constructed against the truth of all learned knowledge.”

He argued that researchers shall “subordinate all operations of scientific practice to a theory of practice and of practical knowledge.” Bourdieu’s theory of practice laid the foundation for studies on work practice and experience in organizations. Successive scholars argued that knowledge sharing in relation to work was a process of situated learning and could be viewed as a social practice associated with designated

legitimate peripheral participation (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Lave & Wenger, 1991).

They proposed a concept of community of practice (CoP) to refer to the privilege site of workers wherein there is a tight and effective loop of insight, problem identification, learning, and knowledge production (Brown and Duguid 1991; Lave & Wenger 1991).

The CoP is recognized as an efficient and effective social configuration for facilitating knowledge sharing among professions (Brown & Duguid 2001; Wenger 2002). It allows workers to pursue competencies and communal practices (Barley 1996; Wenger 1998). It also mediates individuals and social structures, thus allowing communication between unacquainted practitioners. As network technologies have been deployed, concepts of CoPs have been extended (Teigland 2003). The advantage of an online community of practice (O-CoP) lies in its facilitating inter-organizational cooperation. The O-CoP enables distant workers to share expertise and to engage, collaborate, and build relationships through networks. In contrast to a face-to-face CoP in which the members’ participation is usually regulated by an authority, an O-CoP is sustained by the participants’ spontaneous contribution. Thus, much effort has been spent on finding methods to enhance online interactions (Spitzer & Wedding, 1995; Kling & Courtright, 2003; Sherer, Shea, & Kristensen, 2003), on creating strategies for facilitating reciprocal relationships (Schlager, Fusco, & Schank, 1998;

Barab, MaKinster, & Scheckler, 2003; Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2003), and on designing frameworks for guiding O-CoP activities (Corbin, 2003).

To permit a better understanding of the properties of online social behaviors, an O-CoP had been built and moderated in the first stage of research, called ASTC (Association of School Technology Coordinators), with a view to creating an open discussion space for ICT teachers over a period of two years. The ASTC focuses on promoting school technology integration (Lin, Pan, & et. al., 2004). After having

implemented several experimental facilitation strategies, the ASTC had more than 300 participants and had become a geographically dispersed and sparsely knit O-CoP (Lin, Hsu, & Chiou, 2005).

O-CoP participation involves participants’ shifting from outsider membership to that of insider, and participants who visit repeatedly are more likely to become insiders (Wenger, 2002; Takahashi, Fujimoto, & Yamasaki, 2003; Rafaeli, Ravid &

Soroka, 2004). In the study of ASTC, the authors found that the repeat-visiting frequency distribution of online participants can be characterized by a stochastic NBD model (NBD: negative binomial distribution). Though facilitations could gather participants, ICT teachers took part in discussions on their own initiative rather than as results of relational binding (Lin, Hsu, & Chiou, 2009). The results of ASTC studies revealed that a sparsely knit O-CoP had low repeat-visiting frequency; the studies also indicated the obstacles that must be overcome for the STCs’ community to be sustainable over the long term.

1.1.1 Social Networks underlying Social Practices

Social practice emphasizes “the relational interdependency of agent and world, activity, meaning, cognition, learning, and knowing” (Reckwitz 2002). When encountering problems, workers usually rely on social networks for knowledge acquisition (Allen, 1977; Cross et al., 2001b). Social networks are demonstrably important for obtaining information, solving problems, and learning how to do work better (Cross et al., 2001a; Granovetter 1973; Levin and Cross 2004; Wenger 1998).

Computer networks that link people, organizations, and knowledge are also inherently social networks (Wellman 2001). Sharing knowledge with other workers of similar profession is akin to participating in an open CoP, which is sustained by both face-to-face contacts and computer network communications. The author argues that while site functionalities, site facilitations, and members’ attitudes and expectations

were all influential, it is mainly participants’ social network with regard to knowledge sharing that determine extensive participation in an online CoP. A successful online CoP should become part of members’ personal social network (PSN) of knowledge sharing.

Hence, knowledge sharing strategy is limited by an individual’s social network that encompasses both physical and virtual relationships. Knowledge seeking encompasses a social process of evaluating the awareness, cost, and value of helpers (Borgatti & Cross, 2003). In the open CoP, workers’ linking to prestigious colleagues may reduce their knowledge-seeking efforts. Our experience of managing ASTC also proved the role of socially prestigious participants. Prestige—indicating the degrees of connections and relationships through which others can gain access to information in a sufficiently timely fashion (Knoke & Burt, 1983)—might represent the advantage of knowledge sharing. However, while previous research on social practice merely emphasizes the central groups in participation processes, not many empirical studies focus on their underlying social networks.

Today, workers extensively develop PSNs across organizational boundaries by use of the Internet. Support for knowledge acquisition across organizational boundaries is readily available; however, the Internet can provide codified knowledge, reusable work products, and communicated media while failing to enable workers to truly share knowledge (McDermott, 1999; Cross et al., 2001b). Lack of reciprocity will lead to the termination of a relationship (van Tilburg, van Sonderen & Ormel 1991). Weak binding between online participants makes knowledge sharing unbalanced and produces a loosely coupled system (Brown & Duguid, 2001) in which knowledge sharing is similar to a gift exchange, with an emphasis on the timing of a transaction, as discussed in Bourdieu’s theory of practices (1977). Reciprocation of

knowledge, like giving a gift in return, may be delayed and different in kind, or absent altogether.

Nonetheless, some still actively contribute to knowledge, regardless of reciprocation from others—in particular, contributing knowledge to distant or unfamiliar participants. People who often contribute knowledge to community participants will take on central roles (Wenger, 2002). Central persons would attain higher social status and acquire prestige (Knoke & Burt, 1983). Researchers who seek intrinsic benefits in the virtual world have also emphasized gift-giving attitudes toward knowledge contribution, indicating that online social status is determined by what you give away, not what you control (Kollock, 1999; Raymond, 2003). That is, those participants engaging more in knowledge contributions will gain higher prestige in a loosely coupled system. Prestigious workers are assumed to have beneficial social networks. Because PSNs will affect the access of other individuals and the effectiveness of informal personalization, investigating the characteristics of PSNs of prestigious participants might serve to disclose the mode of these participants’ practical knowledge.

1.1.2 Social Resources of STCs’ Community

Social network models conceptualize social structure in terms of relational processes, making relations that define linkages among people or organizations a fundamental component (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Researchers have indicated that PSNs have features that may be used to promote self-interests (Lin, 2001), affect the outcome of job searches, and gather information (Granovetter, 1973; Marsden and Hurlbert, 1988). Social resources have been used to obtain network benefits that are accessible through social connections (Burt 1992; Granovettor, 1977).

In an educational context, researchers emphasize the practical knowledge that is

shared through informal relationships among teachers (Frank, Zhao, & Borman, 2004;

Carmichael, et. al., 2006). Scholars have argued that colleague-to-colleague networks in school are important for teachers’ professional development (Bidwell 2001; Tabert

& McLaughlin, 1994). The social processes of knowledge transferal and the social relationships of knowledge sharing have positive impacts on educational innovations (Frank, Zhao, & Borman, 2004; Patrick, et. al., 2004; Muthukumar & Hedberg, 2005).

School technology coordinators (STCs) are ICT teachers who are responsible for all ICT maintenance and are leaders of educational technology innovations. Case studies of STCs have indicated that STCs are keen to acquire exemplary practices with regard to ICT use and ICT-in-education (Evans-Andris, 1995; Lai & Pratt 2004;

Lesisko 2005; Lin, Pan & Chiou 2004) and consequently seek out economical ways of exchanging knowledge (Dexter, Anderson, & Ronnkvist, 2002). Through network technology and building a knowledge repertoire (McAndrew, et al. 2004; Carmichael and et. al. 2006), STCs can easily gain support across school boundaries. However, researches have also addressed the barriers imposed by STCs’ social-structural conditions (Evans-Andris, 1995; Marcovitz, 2000; Lai, Trewern, and Pratt, 2002; Lai, et. al 2004; Place and Lesisko, 2005) and the lack of professional development (Lai &

Pratt, 2004).

Bryderup and Kowalski (2002) have argued that support for ICT-in-education requires that the municipality perspective be followed up on. They claimed that “the schools’ responses to municipal ICT policy aims, and actions to meet these aims, concern the distribution of resources (Bryderup & Kowalski, 2002).” In Taiwan, much effort has been expended on building online communities for ICT teachers.

Thanks to their ICT competencies, STCs performed important roles on these projects.

That is, STCs of ICT-in-education exemplar schools are typically the primary coordinators to share practical knowledge and experience with other STCs. They probably have better social resources for knowledge transmission than do STCs of

other schools. While Carmichael et al. (2006) used a mapping technique to explore the personal network benefits available to other colleagues, there are still few quantitative studies that explore the network benefits embedded in teachers’

knowledge sharing.