The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Knowledge Communities and Knowledge Collectivities: A Typology of Knowledge Work in Groups*
Open accessAbstract
abstract The notion of a ‘community‐of‐practice’ (CmP) has become a highly influential way of conceptualizing how decentralized sub‐units or groups within firms or organizations operate. CmPs refer to ‘tightly knit’ groups that have been practising together long enough to develop into a cohesive community with relationships of mutuality and shared understandings. The CmP notion, however, does not fit squarely with how temporary organizations or project organizations operate. Typically these kinds of groups consist of diversely skilled individuals, most of whom have not met before, who have to solve a problem or carry out a pre‐specified task within tightly set limits as to time and costs. As a result they tend to become less well‐developed groups, operating on a minimal basis of shared knowledge and understandings. Such a group, I suggest, constitutes a ‘collectivity‐of‐practice’ (ClP). Mirroring the above distinctions, two ideal‐type notions of epistemology are developed. The one inspired from the CmP literature is discussed in a ‘knowledge community’ terminology, whereas the one associated with ClPs is conceived of as a ‘knowledge collectivity’. Finally, I outline some new options for organizational analysis made possible by recognizing these as two different and complementary notions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815355 · Cited by 35,324
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x018001032 · Cited by 13,645
Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250131009 · Cited by 6,477
Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems
Wenger, E. (2000) · Organization · doi:10.1177/135050840072002 · Cited by 4,274
Swift Trust and Temporary Groups
Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996) · Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research · doi:10.4135/9781452243610.n9 · Cited by 1,982
Cited by
Practice as the Site of Knowing: Insights from the Field of Telemedicine
Nicolini, D. (2011) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0556 · Cited by 451
Hot Off the Wiki: Structures and Dynamics of Wikipedia’s Coverage of Breaking News Events
Keegan, B., Gergle, D., & Contractor, N. (2013) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764212469367 · Cited by 120
Groupthink in temporary organizations
Hällgren, M. (2010) · International Journal of Managing Projects in Business · doi:10.1108/17538371011014044 · Cited by 47
(2012) · Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology · doi:10.1177/1756283x10363751 · Cited by 36
Metadata
- Authors
- Lindkvist, L.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Studies
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-08-12
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1189-1210
- ISSN
- 0022-2380 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-6486
- OpenAlex
- W2010239669
- Cited by
- 496
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 51.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Knowledge Communities and Knowledge Collectivities: A Typology of Knowledge Work in Groups*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00538.x
- The paper
- Lindkvist, L. (2005). Knowledge Communities and Knowledge Collectivities: A Typology of Knowledge Work in Groups*. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00538.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.