Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This program of research examines the perceptions of the flows of learning in a Canadian granting council during its renewal initiative. This case study will answer the following research questions: How do employees of a granting council perceive the flow of learning during the organization's transformation into a knowledge council? More specifically, how do they perceive the feed-forward flow between the individual and the group, and the feedback flow between the organization and the individual? Based on Crossan, Lane and White's (1999) 41 Framework and on the organizational learning, organizational change and social construction literatures, this qualitative study sheds light on two problematic relationships that may lead to tension at the junctures of the flows between the individual and the group, and the organization and the individual. Face-to-face, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 participants, and data was analyzed using Miles and Huberman's (1994) methods for interpretation. The data revealed that those who are heavily involved in the renewal conceptualization retain the learning that occurs during organizational changes. It also suggests that some factors consolidated under the constructs of capabilities/capacities, skills, roles and infrastructure, could be considered as indicators of the flows of learning. The findings confirm that middle management has a fundamental role in amplifying knowledge and in engaging and integrating employees. Preliminary results also show that routines are mostly at the individual and group levels, and that along with hierarchy, do not obstruct the flow of learning as much as is commonly believed. This research contributes to theory by studying the learning component during a renewal exercise, by building on the 41 Framework, by providing empirical data, and by extending research on organizational learning in federal granting agencies. Its implications for practice are that the mechanisms to spread organizational learning need to be taught, and that organizations could be considered as neutral rather than benevolent organisms where power is not malevolent, but residing in a set of relationships that employees have to navigate. The fields of education and management may benefit from the narratives that this research provides regarding the learning needs of knowledge workers. Keywords: Feed-forward and feedback flows of learning; tension; granting councils; organizational learning; organizational change.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».