Introduction and annotation
The essay presents a critique of an article. The article to be criticized is “Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation” by Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P. published in 1991. The authors make use of the method of secondary data collection to explore the subject and make readers understand that learning, working and innovation are interrelated and not conflicting. It is rational to mention the secondary sources that should be analyzed. The secondary sources under analysis include books and journal articles written by other researchers. It is important to notice that secondary data collection presupposes using already existing information. To accomplish their goals, the authors of the article analyze the differences between how organizations formally describe work, both in training and manuals, as well as consider actual work performed. In addition, the issues related to learning, which are provided in the theory suggested by Lave and Wenger, are also taken into consideration.
The study provides that understanding various cultures will help organizations successfully ensure that the three concepts, namely working, learning and innovation, are not in conflict. To encourage working, learning, and innovation, organizations should close the gap between espoused and actual practices (Brown & Duguid, 1991). However, the study leaves room for further research to be carried out regarding the benefits and problems associated with organizations linking the three concepts. This can be found in the last section of the article where authors clearly state the limited scope of their work and deem that the benefits, as well as problems associated with the three major concepts, are analyzed in depth. Regarding the literature review section, the authors managed to use relevant and up-to-date sources. This provided them with the opportunity to help the reader to tie together the three concepts that are under consideration in this paper.
Concerning the perspective in which the research was carried out, I believe that it was in light of events that occurred during the 1990s, as well as late 1980s, when organizations faced the challenge of adopting change, providing customers with high-quality products and services, and, at the same time, ensuring that workers acquire new skills necessary for them to be able to keep abreast with technological advancement and changes in the business environment. Finally, in my opinion, the research has great significance and can be applied to the current situation in the management of human resources to attain a competitive edge. However, there will be a need to make some slight adjustments so that the current situations are factored in since the study was done over 21 years ago (Brown & Duguid, 1991). For instance, taking into consideration the fact that there have been drastic changes in terms of technological advancement, it is necessary to educate some employees who are not technologically adept.
Structure of the paper
It is necessary to mention that a good study should be structured in a manner that relevant sections or chapters are accessed easily. In my opinion, the authors failed to structure their paper so that that it would be easier for the reader to point out quickly the methodology or results in sections, for example. In my own opinion, such kind of work is boring and, even though it might have very vital information with regards to organization fostering learning, innovation and working, the same might go unread. However, the authors managed to introduce some sections, such as introduction, conclusion, and recommendation, for example, as well as other sub-topics in which they discussed issues relevant to the subject. Additionally, it is worth noting that vital sections, such as the aim of the study and guiding research questions, are not marked out in the paper. This might confuse the reader.
Methodology
Although the authors did not have the section titled methodology, one will be able to find out that they made use of secondary sources, such as books, journals, and other published materials to come up with the study while going through the entire work. Interestingly, the justification for such an approach was not provided. The approach is characterized by biased data collection, as well as outdated data. Additionally, the sampling criteria for the literature used were not elaborated. However, it seems to me that the authors selected books related to the topic of research.
In light of the approach taken by the authors, I hold the view that they were aware of their research approach regarding what was happening in their world since there were no better ways to be used to compare the conclusion of another study to compatible investigations of learning of innovation so that they can argue the suggestion that description of any job covers the three major concepts under investigation (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).
Results and findings
In my opinion, I suggest that the authors managed to link their findings with their aims and objectives. They discussed in-depth the three concepts namely learning, working, and innovation in a manner that these issues are not only linked to one another but also linked to organizational performance. Additionally, in the discussion of the findings, they not only used theories but expounded on them giving the reader more insight into the issues that have been investigated.
Practical implications and originality
With regards to the practical implication of the study, I believe that findings and discussions of the same apply to the current business world where organizations are seeking to gain competitive edges so that their future survey is guaranteed. Bearing in mind that human resource is the greatest asset an organization has, striking a clever balance regarding working, innovation and learning are very significant. I believe that this work is very important for today’s world of business since it has strategies that can be adopted by organizations to ensure that learning, working, and innovation are in harmony. This will play a crucial role in making an organization attain its goals and objectives successfully.
When considering the issue of originality, I tend to believe that this piece of work exhibits a very little level of originality. This is because the authors did not come up with anything new based on the theories they tried to draw ideas from (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).
My gain
The opportunity to go through this work to critique was very important in terms of structuring my work. It is necessary to provide an outline of my work so that the readers have an easier time trying to locate areas of interest. Additionally, just like any other study, I have learned that it is very important to leave room for further studies to be carried out. I have also learned that coming up with an article or study exhibiting a higher level of originality is an important aspect of academics, and, for that matter, the topic to be chosen should be well thought out.
Limitations of the study
Although the topic was relevant in terms of practical implications, the methodology used raises questions of generalization, as well as validity and reliability of the data. The important sections of the study, such as methodology and purpose, among other sections are not brought out clearly. In my view, the failure to collect primary data through such tools as interviews, questionnaires, and observation, makes one hold the view that the information generated might not reflect the happening in any organization as a result of time-lapse.
Several issues have been brought out from the critique of the article. The manner with which the study was carried out, practical implications, and what I have learned from the exercise are among them.
References
- Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P. 1991, Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation. Organizational Science, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 40-57.
- Denzin, K. & Lincoln, Y. 2005., The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.