doi 10.1515/ijnes-2013-0020
International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship 2014; 11(1): 11–18
Research Article J. A. E. Krahe*, Cathy Lalley and Nan M. Solomons
Beyond Survival: Fostering Growth and Innovation in Doctoral Study – A Concept Analysis of the Ba Space Abstract Purpose: This concept analysis examines the Ba space in the context of interdisciplinary doctoral study in nursing and healthcare innovation in a minimal residency program. The authors identified Ba in their small, highly diverse, self-selected doctoral study group and believe Ba is an educational innovation that will prove useful to nursing and healthcare educators. Background: Ba originates from Japanese philosophy and is foundational to the birth and sustainment of environments fostering knowledge creation. Ba manifests in complex environments where participants are emotionally invested and relies on the tacit knowledge of each participant, allowing for synthesis of rationality and intuition. Method: Walker and Avant’s concept analysis methodology will explore Ba’s centrality to interdisciplinary education. Ba’s utility and application in fostering innovation in doctoral study will be illustrated. Significance: Ba is a true educational innovation, enriching learning environments promoting interdisciplinary collaboration. Ba permits each member a voice and fosters a safe environment where relationships are created and sustained. Keywords: doctoral study, interdisciplinarity, complexity science, knowledge generation, collaboration, learning communities *Corresponding author: J. A. E. Krahe, College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University, 500 North Third Street, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA, E-mail: [email protected] Cathy Lalley: E-mail: [email protected], Nan M. Solomons: E-mail: [email protected], College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University, 500 North Third Street, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA
Introduction When our first interaction with Ba began, we were doctoral students studying innovation and leadership in a
minimal residency program at an interdisciplinary college of nursing and health innovation. Our work in the doctoral program was heavily influenced by complexity science. “Complexity science examines systems comprised of multiple and diverse interacting agents” (individuals) and seeks to uncover “the principles and dynamics that affect how such systems evolve and maintain order” (Lindberg, Nash, & Lindberg, 2008, p. 32). We viewed innovation as situated within these complex systems of interacting individuals and environments. We determined, in the course of our education and experience in the doctoral program, that these dynamic interrelationships allowed for the creation of new knowledge as individuals self-organize, network with one another, and cross-boundaries. We understood this self-organization as the natural “default” behavior of individuals, and noted, like Coleman (1999), that it often resulted in an interconnectedness of individuals and the creation of new knowledge then translated to innovation or innovative products/systems. During the course of our doctoral study, it became apparent to us that the concepts of interaction, dynamism, and knowledge creation as defined by complexity science also applied to our own learning relationships within our interdisciplinary doctoral program. We identified in our learning relationships what we thought could be a true educational innovation: a way to operationalize complexity science, i.e., its fundamental tenets of dynamic and diverse individuals and systems interacting and responding to one another to create new knowledge and innovation. We identified this educational innovation as what the Japanese philosopher Nishida referred to as the Ba space (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). We felt that our experience of this Ba space was best qualified and quantified via a process of concept analysis. What follows is our exploration of the Ba space via concept analysis. This concept analysis of the Ba space is guided by the framework of Walker and Avant (2010), who approach the task of concept analysis in a “more
Brought to you by | University of Arizona Authenticated Download Date | 5/27/15 11:43 PM
12
J. A. E. Krahe et al.: Concept Analysis of the Ba Space
pragmatic and procedural” way rather than “philosophic and conceptual” (Butcher, 2006, p. 174). Because is our intent that others use our work here as a pathway to their own Ba space, for the purposes of this content analysis and the context in which it is situated, a pragmatic approach is most effective. The perspective of Walker and Avant (2010), then, is best suited to guide the discussion. Complexity science provides the theoretical underpinnings for the concept analysis. The purpose of this concept analysis is to explore what we identified as a novel type of collaboration that took into account our diverse personal knowledge, professional experiences, and traditions to create new knowledge. We present this concept analysis to demonstrate how the power of the Ba space can be harnessed by nursing and health professions educators seeking to build environments that result in rich interconnectedness and thus lead to innovative thinking and new solutions in healthcare. We begin by describing the Ba space and then explore the elements of a concept analysis, using Walker and Avant’s (2010) approach, within the context of the Ba space: uses of Ba discovered, defining attributes of Ba, example cases, antecedents and consequences of Ba, and empirical referents. We conclude with a brief discussion of our positive experience of the Ba space and an assertion of its value in both nursing and interdisciplinary healthcare teams.
Concept analysis: Ba space Ba was introduced by the Japanese philosopher Nishida and was further expounded upon by Shimizu (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). Ba can be understood as “a shared space for emerging relationships” (Nonaka & Konno, 1998, p. 40), and in that shared space is where knowledge is created (Nonaka, Von Krogh, & Voelpel, 2006). Ba is, then, a kind of “platform” for knowledge creation (Nonaka & Konno, 1998, p. 40) and the Ba space can be physical, mental, virtual, or any combination of the three (Nonaka et al., 2006). The Ba space allows for “recognition of the self in all” (Nonaka & Konno, 1998, p. 40), and thus, “to participate in Ba means to become engaged in knowledge creation, to dialogue, to adapt and share practices, and simultaneously transcend one’s own limited perspective or boundaries” (Nonaka et al., 2006, p. 1185). It is through individual experiences and reflection on others’ experience that knowledge is created within a Ba space. Within the Ba space, the creation of new knowledge begins with the transformation of existing knowledge from the solely individual tacit knowledge of each member to a shared group knowledge that becomes explicit to all
members of the group. This explicit knowledge possessed by the group is then internalized within the group and becomes the group’s tacit knowledge (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). The process within the Ba space happens this way: each individual’s tacit knowledge consists of his or her worldview, cultural, and personal knowledge. As individuals enter into the Ba space, the space enables them to share their uniquely personal knowledge with the group. This sharing transforms the individual’s tacit knowledge to explicit group knowledge – shared, accessible and known to all individuals in the group, who are then able to draw on that knowledge. In drawing on each other’s knowledge, the individuals within the group then internalize it, making it personal and unique again to each member of the group. This transforms what was the group’s explicit and then tacit knowledge to a new form of tacit knowledge within each individual. The process within the Ba space, knowledge creation and individual internalization of shared group knowledge results in a transcendence or connection between individuals. This transcendence enables the resulting individual tacit knowledge to then be available to the group, and the cycle begins anew. “By interacting and sharing tacit and explicit knowledge with others, the individual enhances the capacity to define a situation or problem, and apply his or her knowledge so as to act and specifically solve the problem” (Nonaka et al., 2006, p. 1182). The static “being” inherent in tacit knowledge not yet shared with the group is the precursor to the state of a dynamic and constant “becoming,” when individuals within a Ba space are “plugged in” to one another, sharing and internalizing group knowledge. Scholars of the Ba space contend that knowledge is intangible, boundary-less and dynamic and that it has no value unless used at a specific time in a specific place (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). Knowledge is embodied, particular, history-dependent, and oriented toward problem definitions (Nonaka et al., 2006). In the Ba space, knowledge is at its full potential when shared with others, and thus the Ba space is a perfect environment to share lived experiences, professional perspectives, traditions of diverse education, and personalities. In the journey from “being” to “becoming,” innovation and learning are generated in the Ba space. Helpful to understanding the Ba space is this haiku provided by Shimizu (1995): “Old pond … a frog leaps in … water’s sound” (p. 76). The old pond represents the Ba space. The frog jumping into the water is symbolic of individuals’ actions within the Ba space, acting upon it and in it. The water’s sound that results from the splash of the frog is a new sound, having changed the Ba space as well as the frog (he gets wet). In this sense, the frog represents the individuals within the Ba space, and the
Brought to you by | University of Arizona Authenticated Download Date | 5/27/15 11:43 PM
J. A. E. Krahe et al.: Concept Analysis of the Ba Space
splash in the water is a new creation, a new sound understood metaphorically as knowledge being created and “heard” by all those involved in the Ba space.
Uses of Ba discovered Walker and Avant (2010) suggest beginning a concept analysis with how the concept is used or how it manifests. In exploring the concept of Ba, we discovered that Ba has been identified in processes of engineering and product development in Japanese management literature (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). Toshiba and Maekawa Seiskusho were two businesses cited by Nonaka and Konno (1998) as examples. Toshiba reorganized its structure to become more agile, transferring core technologies (knowledge) to new businesses, and reintroduced innovation, challenge, and speed into its management structure. The knowledge of all the divisions is combined in a flexible way, transcending the divided resources of the traditional hierarchical business system. Knowledge assets come together and are crystallized within new products and businesses through processes of knowledge creation and application which represent a kind of living, breathing “ecology” (Nonaka & Konno, 1998, p. 53). Ba, according to Nonaka and Konno (1998) is a stage within this ecological process. Maekawa Seiskusho, a leader in industrial freezer manufacturing, uses its organizational structure as a platform for knowledge creation. At Maekawa Seiskusho, the term Ba refers to the environment wherein the group is able to grow and innovate. Particularly important to Maekawa Seiskusho is team members’ understanding of their place within the larger organization. “This understanding of self within the totality of the Ba constitutes the foundation of Maekawa Seisakusho’s culture” (Nonaka & Konno, 1998, p. 52).
Defining attributes Next in the process of concept analysis is the articulation of a concept’s defining attributes – what makes the concept what it is (Walker & Avant, 2010). There are several unique defining attributes of the Ba space. The Ba space occurs naturally; it is not prescribed (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). The relationships within the Ba space are fluid, permeable, and iterative. There are four Ba characteristics according to Nonaka and Konno (1998) that are particularly suited for the creation of knowledge and the conversion of knowledge from tacit to explicit: originating Ba (meeting face-to-face, sharing emotions, feeling, experiencing together, and sharing mental models), interacting Ba
13
(supporting knowledge creation through dialogue, probing mental models, and individual skills), cyber Ba (interacting in the virtual world), and exercising Ba (supporting individual members’ internalization of shared explicit knowledge). Using the combination of explicit new knowledge and existing tacit knowledge, groups are able to facilitate the creation of explicit knowledge throughout the organization (Nonaka et al., 2006) and to form relationships with one another. Relationships within the Ba space are nested: smaller Ba spaces are viewed collectively as part of what is referred to as the Ba-sho, the bigger or broader Ba (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). If the Ba space for the individual is the team, the Ba space for each team would be the larger organization/system, or Ba-sho.
Cases Walker and Avant (2010) suggest that a concept analysis examines four types of cases that serve to situate and explain the concept being analyzed: the example case, the related case, the contrary case, and the invented case.
Ba space as example case Our Ba space serves as the example case for this concept analysis of Ba. It began as a study group composed solely of us, the three authors of this article. The Ba space was born of a discovery by one of us that study groups could facilitate greater success within doctoral study. As we are part of an interdisciplinary doctoral program, our backgrounds are very distinct from one another. One of us is a former software implementation engineer with a degree in theatre and health policy, studying nurses’ social networks; the second is a labor and delivery nurse, with experience as leader of a postpartum/newborn/antenatal unit and a software system administrator, studying complex responsive processes in the context of healthcare workarounds; and the third is a systems scholar, working cross-disciplinarily, within the fields of anthropology, international relations, and complexity science, studying patient navigation of multiple healthcare systems. Our first step in our first semester of working together was to create a team charter that clearly illustrated the expectations and responsibilities of each member including a description of the consequences of not fulfilling one’s duties, which included expulsion from the study group. Using the team charter, we voluntarily each took responsibility for one-third of the readings for each class we were taking together, and based our decisions regarding which
Brought to you by | University of Arizona Authenticated Download Date | 5/27/15 11:43 PM
14
J. A. E. Krahe et al.: Concept Analysis of the Ba Space
third on interest or expertise. Summary notes were shared among us and the format of the notes depended upon our own unique style – be it outline, narrative, or concept map, depending on the subject and the proclivity of the member responsible. Weekly discussions over Skype were scheduled prior to each class meeting. As the semester progressed, a greater amount of our individual experience and knowledge became part of the weekly discussion without conscious solicitation; interpersonal relationships were forming. Via our interpersonal relationships with one another and our intra-personal internal self-reflection processes (Reusch & Bateson, 2008), we cultivated an environment where we were free and felt safe to discuss our unique worldviews. Through our discussions with one another we were exposed to diverse perspectives of the philosophy of science, the advances of technology tools in business and finance that have application in healthcare, and what is occurring in hospitals where nurses are working at the point-of-care. Our initial in-group course reading assignments blossomed into to an exchange of broader scholarly material. Because we each knew the others’ foci so well, as we came across topics we knew members of our group would find of interest or beneficial to their studies, we would send our discoveries along to one another. This behavior laid the foundation for the Ba space.
At the time, we did not realize the degree to which each member’s own unique tacit knowledge, background, and worldview benefitted both the functioning of our small group and the larger cohort. Only when professors and fellow students began remarking at our astute perception of varied points of view did we begin to realize what was happening and to identify what we had created as a Ba space. We also found confidence in academic risk-taking behaviors, knowing we had support in the Ba space, and often ran such ideas past the group prior to taking any action. We felt the courage to present at both conferences and in our own respective organizations and to put forth many well-founded and provocative arguments in our classes and team meetings. As we began to write this paper, seeking to demonstrate the importance of the Ba space to our own doctoral education and Ba’s usefulness to others, we searched the ERIC database for key words “Ba” or “collaboration” in the post-secondary education literature and found nothing. Yet, a search within the same database for “study groups and doctoral studies” yielded 2601 hits. Although the articles on study groups did address the inter- and intra-personal transcendence that we identified occurring within the Ba space, the nuance and scope of Ba were missing. We have included an illustration (Figure 1) of
Related: community of practice Borderline: study group Knowledge creation is driven by incentive
Task specific
Leader
Emotional connection
Permeable boundary Self-organizing
Common goal Diverse backgrounds Knowledge creation No incentive to create knowledge Occurs naturally
Adapt to practice Shared space
Ba space
Figure 1 Literature-based ways in which groups come together in relation to Ba
Brought to you by | University of Arizona Authenticated Download Date | 5/27/15 11:43 PM
J. A. E. Krahe et al.: Concept Analysis of the Ba Space
what we discovered in the literature: a Venn diagram that demonstrates the different ways groups come together and where these fit in relation to Ba. With the Ba space described above as our model case, in the next sections we explore these different ways groups come together as example cases.
Community of practice as a related case Although a cursory look at communities of practice would have us believing they are structured similarly to Ba, the two are in fact quite different. Of interest to further exploration of Ba’s-related cases could be learning communities. Roth and Lee (2006) contend that learning communities were born of communities of practice and operationalized within the classroom. Also being explored are faculty learning communities, as if the scholarship has come full circle (Cox & Richlin, 2004). Seminal literature from the last two decades illuminates the discussion. Historically, communities of practice were comprised of metal workers, potters, masons, and other craftsmen coming together to worship the same deities as well as train apprentices and spread innovation (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). Communities of practice no longer contain the religious roots identified by Wenger and Synder (2000) and are instead currently described as informal, self-organizing, and self-selecting, able to set their own agenda, and establish their own leadership (Becerra-Fernandez & Sabherwal, 2010). Although new knowledge is created in communities of practice (Brown & Duguid, 1991), and individuals join these communities of practice because they know they have something to learn and contribute (Stewart, 1997), the new knowledge creation within a Ba space is different from ordinary interactions associated with communities of practice. The purpose of a community of practice is predicated on incentives for members to construct, articulate, and share new knowledge for the purposes of innovative products and services and is possibly motivated by the urgency to develop new offerings before competitors do (Coleman, 1999; Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1997; Quinn, Baruch, & Zien, 1997). There are those who may contend that the sole purpose of companies built upon Ba-like Toshiba and Maekawa Seiskusho is to make a profit. However, Nonaka (1994) would offer that there is a “transcendent” (p. 4) quality to the companies’ culture that is supplied by Ba. Here, a central part of members’ existence within the culture is to honor the Ba space and those who reside within it without the binding of a traditional hierarchy. Realistically, profit is important, but
15
also is the process by which collaboration and connection between members occur, the building and maintaining of the Ba space. In a Ba space, knowledge creation is the sole purpose, and there is a transcendent character to it. Nonaka demonstrates this when he writes that the coexperience of tacit knowledge enables individuals within the Ba space to “transcend the ordinary ‘I-thou’ distinction” (1994, p. 4). In this sense, the representation of the Ba space is reminiscent of the historical communities of practice, possessing a transcendent component where members engage in close relationships with others, gaining tacit knowledge from all involved, and partaking in it as explicit knowledge when shared with the group. The manifestation of the Ba space as presented in the model case of this paper was one of self-organization, long-distance regularly occurring communication, and discussion of assignments and projects that we shared within the course of our program. This is similar to a community of practice. Indeed, Lave and Wenger (1991), as understood by Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal (2010), describe a community of practice as “an organic and self-organized group of individuals who are dispersed geographically or organizationally but communicate regularly to discuss issues of mutual interest” (p. 45). On a broader scale, a community of practice is a set of relationships among persons, activities, and world over time in relationship to other tangential and partially overlapping communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). This is similar to the phenomenon of the Ba-sho, the larger web in which the Ba space is situated. It is dissimilar in that communities of practice are not completely overlapping and do not nest completely inside one another as the Ba spaces do within the Ba-sho. Communities of practice are similar to Ba in that both are characterized by members’ ability to share their experiences and knowledge in a free-flowing, creative way that fosters new approaches to problems (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). Yet, communities of practice are different from the Ba space in their lack of self-transcendence and formation being driven by incentive rather than knowledge creation alone.
Study group as a related case Like a community of practice, a study group could be considered a related case, also one whose characteristics do not match up entirely with a Ba space. The characteristics of a study group are generally agreed upon to include: small number of participants, regular meetings to discuss a specific pre-determined field or shared fields
Brought to you by | University of Arizona Authenticated Download Date | 5/27/15 11:43 PM
16
J. A. E. Krahe et al.: Concept Analysis of the Ba Space
of study, and later reporting or sharing of findings with the group (Bartle & Brodwen, 2006; Lizzio & Wilson, 2005; Sanacore, 1993; Shaw, 2011). Some study groups are lead by an individual such as a faculty member (Bartle & Brodwen, 2006). They can be made up of students, faculty, or professionals and can be found in high school, college settings, within companies, and professional advancement organizations. Study groups are formed around common goals or interests. Among student study groups, the tasks are defined by the faculty or management; however, the process for accomplishing the task is defined by members of the study group (Lizzio & Wilson, 2005). Common themes in the study group literature include sharing information, trust, psychological support to try new ideas, emotional connectedness among members, and accountability to others (Bartle & Brodwen, 2006; Sanacore, 1993; Shaw, 2011). There are no criteria for transcendence, self-organization, with a focus on knowledge creation. Within study groups, the focus/purpose is to share information rather than create new knowledge. The environment provides social support to its members rather than the transcendence that occurs in the Ba space.
Contrary cases There are several examples of groups that are contrary to the Ba space. Groups organized by a manager or professor, groups that are formed around task completion, and groups that protect the knowledge they have created are contrary to the Ba space. When a manager or professor creates a group, the membership is selected by that individual, and outcomes are defined. Members are selected by the manager or profession based on their ability to contribute to the team’s goals and the team is disbanded once the project has been finished (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). There is no self-organization, focus on knowledge creation, or need to nurture the relationships within such context; thus, the Ba space is not found in these teams. The transcendence of the physical universe in knowledge creation that is a journey from “being to becoming” is not frequently cultivated within workgroups or project teams; task completion is the goal and long-term relationships are not developed (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). Diversity of perspectives is a key feature in the process of creating a Ba space (Nonaka & Konno, 1998) and when groups are organized around efficiency, diversity is often avoided. Also contrary to the Ba space is the protection of knowledge an individual or group has created. When people are hesitant or resistant to sharing their
knowledge, barriers are created within the interpersonal relationships and the Ba space does not exist. The Ba space has free flow of ideas, information, and knowledge for the good of the group to build upon the information and observations to create further knowledge. Groups contrary to the Ba space are organized by an outsider, lack diversity, are task oriented, and protect knowledge or experiences.
Honeybees as an invented case According to Walker and Avant (2010), invented cases contain ideas outside our own experience and often read-like science fiction. An invented case of Ba could be represented by the lifestyle of honeybees. A bee cannot exist without other bees. A bee’s tacit knowledge could be its innate understanding of flight patterns, pollination, and swarm behavior. That tacit knowledge is useless unless there are other bees around to share it with (a bee can’t swarm by itself) and availing itself of other bees’ tacit knowledge is central to survival as well. As with a Ba space, a swarm is considered by ecologists to be a super-organism unto itself, a phenomenon that could not exist if individual members were not participating and “plugged in,” deeply connected to one another. Swarm bees can choose quickly and efficiently the best nesting site from several options without a leader directing intelligent choices. They exist and advance, as with a Ba space, by sharing their tacit knowledge and accessing others,’ resulting in creation of a sort of collective intelligence. As with individuals within a Ba space, swarms of bees engage in intelligent acts because individual agents in the collective are interacting within a complex and dynamic network, transcending boundaries, and connecting to one another (Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2008). These interactions result in the birth and sustaining of collective knowledge that in order to survive each bee must participate in and access.
Antecedents and consequences Antecedents to the Ba space include the context and structure for knowledge creation. An antecedent to a Ba space is socialization; it takes more than one person to move tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge. In the Ba space, members desire to participate in a group. The context for Ba is people coming together for a common deliverable where the environment is cultivated to support the free exchange of ideas. Knowledge is never free
Brought to you by | University of Arizona Authenticated Download Date | 5/27/15 11:43 PM
J. A. E. Krahe et al.: Concept Analysis of the Ba Space
from human values and ideas (Nonaka et al., 2006). One must have the ability to articulate tacit knowledge to participate in the Ba space. Consequences of Ba include innovation, creativity, and peer support. Regarding innovation, knowledge creation can be understood as a continuous process where members overcome individual boundaries and constraints imposed by information and past learning. Innovation occurs in members’ acquiring of a new context, a new view of the world and generating new knowledge (Nonaka et al., 2006). Regarding creativity, by interacting and sharing tacit and explicit knowledge with others, the individual enhances the capacity to define a situation or problem. In the application of this tacit and explicit knowledge, there arises an ability to act and specifically solve the problem (Nonaka et al., 2006) in a creative way. Regarding peer support, within the Ba space members are free to be themselves. Their authenticity of beliefs, values, behaviors, and experiences add value to the space. The Ba space is not only useful in supporting the academic aspects of doctoral study, it is also a safe place to nurture the emergence of a diversity of ideas, encouraging knowledge creation through risk taking and crossing boundaries.
Empirical referents The presence of the Ba space can be measured by creativity, innovation, and a commitment by members to the space. When a diverse group of individuals come together with a mutual goal of knowledge creation, Ba permits the move beyond one’s own limits, allowing for a synthesis of rationality and intuition that produces creativity. Creating an environment that allows one to bring any new, problem-solving idea into use for the larger group or organization is tied to innovation, or novelty (Kanter, 1983). Individuals who share the Ba space hold a commitment to the space and maintain the interpersonal and intrapersonal relationships required.
17
Conclusion We have found value in identifying and entering our Ba space. As emerging scholars deeply rooted in complexity science and its ability to illuminate the dynamic and adaptive behaviors of systems and individuals, discovering our Ba space was an important find indeed. We now are able to identify and engage in myriad opportunities for knowledge creation via our Ba space. For example, we are currently engaged in such far-reaching projects as developing an interprofessional academic curriculum and researching transitions of care in hospital systems. Knowledge is socially constructed through interactions; it affects and is influenced by social practices (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995). It is through interaction and interpersonal relationships like those within the Ba space that innovation emerges (Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2008). Current research and policy require collaboration. Yet the state of the science in healthcare does not label collaboration as Ba, nor does it require of collaboration the deep interpersonal relationships possible within Ba. Nurse educators and other healthcare leaders are tasked with what complexity science describes: creating environments that are able to foster rich relationships between individuals and encourage innovation. The Ba space is foundational to helping nurse educators and others to accomplish this. Our Ba space has enabled us to find academic success and to develop strong interpersonal relationships within our interdisciplinary, minimal-residency doctoral program. We recommend that those participating in knowledge creation and knowledge sharing, both academic and professional, identify and enter their own Ba space. Not only an important educational innovation for doctoral study, identification of and entry into the Ba space could be a strategy for growth and one that has the capacity to deepen relationships at all levels of nursing education and practice, as well as within multidisciplinary healthcare teams. The possibilities are endless.
References Bartle, L., & Brodwen, M. G. (2006). The comprehensive examination: Study groups and their effectiveness – A message to counselor education faculty and graduate students. Educational Researcher, 127(1), 69–72. Becerra-Fernandez, I., & Sabherwal, R. (2010). Knowledge management: Systems and processes. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Boland, R. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science, 6(4), 350–372. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2, 40–57.
Brought to you by | University of Arizona Authenticated Download Date | 5/27/15 11:43 PM
18
J. A. E. Krahe et al.: Concept Analysis of the Ba Space
Butcher, H. K. (2006). Book review: Strategies for theory construction in nursing (4th ed.) by Lorraine Walker & Kay Avant. Nursing Science Quarterly, 19(2), 174–180. Coleman, H. J. (1999). What enables self-organizing behavior in businesses? Emergence, 1(1), 5–33. Cox, M. D., & Richlin, L. (2004). Building faculty learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning (number 97). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1997). The individualized corporation. New York, NY: Harper Business. Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Lindberg, C., Nash, S., & Lindberg, C. (2008). On the edge: Nursing in the age of complexity. Medford, NJ: Plexus Publishing. Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2005). Self-managed learning groups in higher education: Students’ perceptions of process and outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 373–390. doi:10.1348/000709905x25355 Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37. Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of Ba: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40–54. Nonaka, I., Von Krogh, G., & Voelpel, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge creation theory: Evolutionary paths and future advances. Organizational Studies, 27(8), 1179–1208.
Quinn, J. B., Baruch, J. J., & Zien, K. A. (1997). Innovation explosion: Using intellect and software to revolutionize growth strategies. New York, NY: Free Press. Reusch, J. & Bateson, G. (2008). Communication: The social matrix of psychology. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2006). Contradictions in theorizing and implementing communities in education. Educational Research Review, 1(1), 27–40. Sanacore, J. (1993). Using study groups to create a professional community. Journal of Reading, 31(1), 62–66. Shaw, D. M. (2011). Promoting professional student learning through study groups: A case study. College Teaching, 59(2), 85–92. doi:10.1080/87567555.2010.550956 Shimizu, H. (1995). Ba principle: New logic for the real-time emergence of information. Holonics, 5(1), 85–92. Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday. Uhl-Bien, M., & Marion, R. (2008). Introduction: Complexity leadership: A framework for leadership in the twenty-first century. In M. Uhl-Bien & R. Marion (Eds.), Complexity leadership (pp. xi–xxiv). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Walker, L. O., & Avant, K. C. (2010). Strategies for theory construction in nursing (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000, January-February). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 139–145.
Brought to you by | University of Arizona Authenticated Download Date | 5/27/15 11:43 PM
International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship 2014; 11(1): 11–18
Research Article J. A. E. Krahe*, Cathy Lalley and Nan M. Solomons
Beyond Survival: Fostering Growth and Innovation in Doctoral Study – A Concept Analysis of the Ba Space Abstract Purpose: This concept analysis examines the Ba space in the context of interdisciplinary doctoral study in nursing and healthcare innovation in a minimal residency program. The authors identified Ba in their small, highly diverse, self-selected doctoral study group and believe Ba is an educational innovation that will prove useful to nursing and healthcare educators. Background: Ba originates from Japanese philosophy and is foundational to the birth and sustainment of environments fostering knowledge creation. Ba manifests in complex environments where participants are emotionally invested and relies on the tacit knowledge of each participant, allowing for synthesis of rationality and intuition. Method: Walker and Avant’s concept analysis methodology will explore Ba’s centrality to interdisciplinary education. Ba’s utility and application in fostering innovation in doctoral study will be illustrated. Significance: Ba is a true educational innovation, enriching learning environments promoting interdisciplinary collaboration. Ba permits each member a voice and fosters a safe environment where relationships are created and sustained. Keywords: doctoral study, interdisciplinarity, complexity science, knowledge generation, collaboration, learning communities *Corresponding author: J. A. E. Krahe, College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University, 500 North Third Street, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA, E-mail: [email protected] Cathy Lalley: E-mail: [email protected], Nan M. Solomons: E-mail: [email protected], College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University, 500 North Third Street, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA
Introduction When our first interaction with Ba began, we were doctoral students studying innovation and leadership in a
minimal residency program at an interdisciplinary college of nursing and health innovation. Our work in the doctoral program was heavily influenced by complexity science. “Complexity science examines systems comprised of multiple and diverse interacting agents” (individuals) and seeks to uncover “the principles and dynamics that affect how such systems evolve and maintain order” (Lindberg, Nash, & Lindberg, 2008, p. 32). We viewed innovation as situated within these complex systems of interacting individuals and environments. We determined, in the course of our education and experience in the doctoral program, that these dynamic interrelationships allowed for the creation of new knowledge as individuals self-organize, network with one another, and cross-boundaries. We understood this self-organization as the natural “default” behavior of individuals, and noted, like Coleman (1999), that it often resulted in an interconnectedness of individuals and the creation of new knowledge then translated to innovation or innovative products/systems. During the course of our doctoral study, it became apparent to us that the concepts of interaction, dynamism, and knowledge creation as defined by complexity science also applied to our own learning relationships within our interdisciplinary doctoral program. We identified in our learning relationships what we thought could be a true educational innovation: a way to operationalize complexity science, i.e., its fundamental tenets of dynamic and diverse individuals and systems interacting and responding to one another to create new knowledge and innovation. We identified this educational innovation as what the Japanese philosopher Nishida referred to as the Ba space (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). We felt that our experience of this Ba space was best qualified and quantified via a process of concept analysis. What follows is our exploration of the Ba space via concept analysis. This concept analysis of the Ba space is guided by the framework of Walker and Avant (2010), who approach the task of concept analysis in a “more
Brought to you by | University of Arizona Authenticated Download Date | 5/27/15 11:43 PM
12
J. A. E. Krahe et al.: Concept Analysis of the Ba Space
pragmatic and procedural” way rather than “philosophic and conceptual” (Butcher, 2006, p. 174). Because is our intent that others use our work here as a pathway to their own Ba space, for the purposes of this content analysis and the context in which it is situated, a pragmatic approach is most effective. The perspective of Walker and Avant (2010), then, is best suited to guide the discussion. Complexity science provides the theoretical underpinnings for the concept analysis. The purpose of this concept analysis is to explore what we identified as a novel type of collaboration that took into account our diverse personal knowledge, professional experiences, and traditions to create new knowledge. We present this concept analysis to demonstrate how the power of the Ba space can be harnessed by nursing and health professions educators seeking to build environments that result in rich interconnectedness and thus lead to innovative thinking and new solutions in healthcare. We begin by describing the Ba space and then explore the elements of a concept analysis, using Walker and Avant’s (2010) approach, within the context of the Ba space: uses of Ba discovered, defining attributes of Ba, example cases, antecedents and consequences of Ba, and empirical referents. We conclude with a brief discussion of our positive experience of the Ba space and an assertion of its value in both nursing and interdisciplinary healthcare teams.
Concept analysis: Ba space Ba was introduced by the Japanese philosopher Nishida and was further expounded upon by Shimizu (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). Ba can be understood as “a shared space for emerging relationships” (Nonaka & Konno, 1998, p. 40), and in that shared space is where knowledge is created (Nonaka, Von Krogh, & Voelpel, 2006). Ba is, then, a kind of “platform” for knowledge creation (Nonaka & Konno, 1998, p. 40) and the Ba space can be physical, mental, virtual, or any combination of the three (Nonaka et al., 2006). The Ba space allows for “recognition of the self in all” (Nonaka & Konno, 1998, p. 40), and thus, “to participate in Ba means to become engaged in knowledge creation, to dialogue, to adapt and share practices, and simultaneously transcend one’s own limited perspective or boundaries” (Nonaka et al., 2006, p. 1185). It is through individual experiences and reflection on others’ experience that knowledge is created within a Ba space. Within the Ba space, the creation of new knowledge begins with the transformation of existing knowledge from the solely individual tacit knowledge of each member to a shared group knowledge that becomes explicit to all
members of the group. This explicit knowledge possessed by the group is then internalized within the group and becomes the group’s tacit knowledge (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). The process within the Ba space happens this way: each individual’s tacit knowledge consists of his or her worldview, cultural, and personal knowledge. As individuals enter into the Ba space, the space enables them to share their uniquely personal knowledge with the group. This sharing transforms the individual’s tacit knowledge to explicit group knowledge – shared, accessible and known to all individuals in the group, who are then able to draw on that knowledge. In drawing on each other’s knowledge, the individuals within the group then internalize it, making it personal and unique again to each member of the group. This transforms what was the group’s explicit and then tacit knowledge to a new form of tacit knowledge within each individual. The process within the Ba space, knowledge creation and individual internalization of shared group knowledge results in a transcendence or connection between individuals. This transcendence enables the resulting individual tacit knowledge to then be available to the group, and the cycle begins anew. “By interacting and sharing tacit and explicit knowledge with others, the individual enhances the capacity to define a situation or problem, and apply his or her knowledge so as to act and specifically solve the problem” (Nonaka et al., 2006, p. 1182). The static “being” inherent in tacit knowledge not yet shared with the group is the precursor to the state of a dynamic and constant “becoming,” when individuals within a Ba space are “plugged in” to one another, sharing and internalizing group knowledge. Scholars of the Ba space contend that knowledge is intangible, boundary-less and dynamic and that it has no value unless used at a specific time in a specific place (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). Knowledge is embodied, particular, history-dependent, and oriented toward problem definitions (Nonaka et al., 2006). In the Ba space, knowledge is at its full potential when shared with others, and thus the Ba space is a perfect environment to share lived experiences, professional perspectives, traditions of diverse education, and personalities. In the journey from “being” to “becoming,” innovation and learning are generated in the Ba space. Helpful to understanding the Ba space is this haiku provided by Shimizu (1995): “Old pond … a frog leaps in … water’s sound” (p. 76). The old pond represents the Ba space. The frog jumping into the water is symbolic of individuals’ actions within the Ba space, acting upon it and in it. The water’s sound that results from the splash of the frog is a new sound, having changed the Ba space as well as the frog (he gets wet). In this sense, the frog represents the individuals within the Ba space, and the
Brought to you by | University of Arizona Authenticated Download Date | 5/27/15 11:43 PM
J. A. E. Krahe et al.: Concept Analysis of the Ba Space
splash in the water is a new creation, a new sound understood metaphorically as knowledge being created and “heard” by all those involved in the Ba space.
Uses of Ba discovered Walker and Avant (2010) suggest beginning a concept analysis with how the concept is used or how it manifests. In exploring the concept of Ba, we discovered that Ba has been identified in processes of engineering and product development in Japanese management literature (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). Toshiba and Maekawa Seiskusho were two businesses cited by Nonaka and Konno (1998) as examples. Toshiba reorganized its structure to become more agile, transferring core technologies (knowledge) to new businesses, and reintroduced innovation, challenge, and speed into its management structure. The knowledge of all the divisions is combined in a flexible way, transcending the divided resources of the traditional hierarchical business system. Knowledge assets come together and are crystallized within new products and businesses through processes of knowledge creation and application which represent a kind of living, breathing “ecology” (Nonaka & Konno, 1998, p. 53). Ba, according to Nonaka and Konno (1998) is a stage within this ecological process. Maekawa Seiskusho, a leader in industrial freezer manufacturing, uses its organizational structure as a platform for knowledge creation. At Maekawa Seiskusho, the term Ba refers to the environment wherein the group is able to grow and innovate. Particularly important to Maekawa Seiskusho is team members’ understanding of their place within the larger organization. “This understanding of self within the totality of the Ba constitutes the foundation of Maekawa Seisakusho’s culture” (Nonaka & Konno, 1998, p. 52).
Defining attributes Next in the process of concept analysis is the articulation of a concept’s defining attributes – what makes the concept what it is (Walker & Avant, 2010). There are several unique defining attributes of the Ba space. The Ba space occurs naturally; it is not prescribed (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). The relationships within the Ba space are fluid, permeable, and iterative. There are four Ba characteristics according to Nonaka and Konno (1998) that are particularly suited for the creation of knowledge and the conversion of knowledge from tacit to explicit: originating Ba (meeting face-to-face, sharing emotions, feeling, experiencing together, and sharing mental models), interacting Ba
13
(supporting knowledge creation through dialogue, probing mental models, and individual skills), cyber Ba (interacting in the virtual world), and exercising Ba (supporting individual members’ internalization of shared explicit knowledge). Using the combination of explicit new knowledge and existing tacit knowledge, groups are able to facilitate the creation of explicit knowledge throughout the organization (Nonaka et al., 2006) and to form relationships with one another. Relationships within the Ba space are nested: smaller Ba spaces are viewed collectively as part of what is referred to as the Ba-sho, the bigger or broader Ba (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). If the Ba space for the individual is the team, the Ba space for each team would be the larger organization/system, or Ba-sho.
Cases Walker and Avant (2010) suggest that a concept analysis examines four types of cases that serve to situate and explain the concept being analyzed: the example case, the related case, the contrary case, and the invented case.
Ba space as example case Our Ba space serves as the example case for this concept analysis of Ba. It began as a study group composed solely of us, the three authors of this article. The Ba space was born of a discovery by one of us that study groups could facilitate greater success within doctoral study. As we are part of an interdisciplinary doctoral program, our backgrounds are very distinct from one another. One of us is a former software implementation engineer with a degree in theatre and health policy, studying nurses’ social networks; the second is a labor and delivery nurse, with experience as leader of a postpartum/newborn/antenatal unit and a software system administrator, studying complex responsive processes in the context of healthcare workarounds; and the third is a systems scholar, working cross-disciplinarily, within the fields of anthropology, international relations, and complexity science, studying patient navigation of multiple healthcare systems. Our first step in our first semester of working together was to create a team charter that clearly illustrated the expectations and responsibilities of each member including a description of the consequences of not fulfilling one’s duties, which included expulsion from the study group. Using the team charter, we voluntarily each took responsibility for one-third of the readings for each class we were taking together, and based our decisions regarding which
Brought to you by | University of Arizona Authenticated Download Date | 5/27/15 11:43 PM
14
J. A. E. Krahe et al.: Concept Analysis of the Ba Space
third on interest or expertise. Summary notes were shared among us and the format of the notes depended upon our own unique style – be it outline, narrative, or concept map, depending on the subject and the proclivity of the member responsible. Weekly discussions over Skype were scheduled prior to each class meeting. As the semester progressed, a greater amount of our individual experience and knowledge became part of the weekly discussion without conscious solicitation; interpersonal relationships were forming. Via our interpersonal relationships with one another and our intra-personal internal self-reflection processes (Reusch & Bateson, 2008), we cultivated an environment where we were free and felt safe to discuss our unique worldviews. Through our discussions with one another we were exposed to diverse perspectives of the philosophy of science, the advances of technology tools in business and finance that have application in healthcare, and what is occurring in hospitals where nurses are working at the point-of-care. Our initial in-group course reading assignments blossomed into to an exchange of broader scholarly material. Because we each knew the others’ foci so well, as we came across topics we knew members of our group would find of interest or beneficial to their studies, we would send our discoveries along to one another. This behavior laid the foundation for the Ba space.
At the time, we did not realize the degree to which each member’s own unique tacit knowledge, background, and worldview benefitted both the functioning of our small group and the larger cohort. Only when professors and fellow students began remarking at our astute perception of varied points of view did we begin to realize what was happening and to identify what we had created as a Ba space. We also found confidence in academic risk-taking behaviors, knowing we had support in the Ba space, and often ran such ideas past the group prior to taking any action. We felt the courage to present at both conferences and in our own respective organizations and to put forth many well-founded and provocative arguments in our classes and team meetings. As we began to write this paper, seeking to demonstrate the importance of the Ba space to our own doctoral education and Ba’s usefulness to others, we searched the ERIC database for key words “Ba” or “collaboration” in the post-secondary education literature and found nothing. Yet, a search within the same database for “study groups and doctoral studies” yielded 2601 hits. Although the articles on study groups did address the inter- and intra-personal transcendence that we identified occurring within the Ba space, the nuance and scope of Ba were missing. We have included an illustration (Figure 1) of
Related: community of practice Borderline: study group Knowledge creation is driven by incentive
Task specific
Leader
Emotional connection
Permeable boundary Self-organizing
Common goal Diverse backgrounds Knowledge creation No incentive to create knowledge Occurs naturally
Adapt to practice Shared space
Ba space
Figure 1 Literature-based ways in which groups come together in relation to Ba
Brought to you by | University of Arizona Authenticated Download Date | 5/27/15 11:43 PM
J. A. E. Krahe et al.: Concept Analysis of the Ba Space
what we discovered in the literature: a Venn diagram that demonstrates the different ways groups come together and where these fit in relation to Ba. With the Ba space described above as our model case, in the next sections we explore these different ways groups come together as example cases.
Community of practice as a related case Although a cursory look at communities of practice would have us believing they are structured similarly to Ba, the two are in fact quite different. Of interest to further exploration of Ba’s-related cases could be learning communities. Roth and Lee (2006) contend that learning communities were born of communities of practice and operationalized within the classroom. Also being explored are faculty learning communities, as if the scholarship has come full circle (Cox & Richlin, 2004). Seminal literature from the last two decades illuminates the discussion. Historically, communities of practice were comprised of metal workers, potters, masons, and other craftsmen coming together to worship the same deities as well as train apprentices and spread innovation (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). Communities of practice no longer contain the religious roots identified by Wenger and Synder (2000) and are instead currently described as informal, self-organizing, and self-selecting, able to set their own agenda, and establish their own leadership (Becerra-Fernandez & Sabherwal, 2010). Although new knowledge is created in communities of practice (Brown & Duguid, 1991), and individuals join these communities of practice because they know they have something to learn and contribute (Stewart, 1997), the new knowledge creation within a Ba space is different from ordinary interactions associated with communities of practice. The purpose of a community of practice is predicated on incentives for members to construct, articulate, and share new knowledge for the purposes of innovative products and services and is possibly motivated by the urgency to develop new offerings before competitors do (Coleman, 1999; Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1997; Quinn, Baruch, & Zien, 1997). There are those who may contend that the sole purpose of companies built upon Ba-like Toshiba and Maekawa Seiskusho is to make a profit. However, Nonaka (1994) would offer that there is a “transcendent” (p. 4) quality to the companies’ culture that is supplied by Ba. Here, a central part of members’ existence within the culture is to honor the Ba space and those who reside within it without the binding of a traditional hierarchy. Realistically, profit is important, but
15
also is the process by which collaboration and connection between members occur, the building and maintaining of the Ba space. In a Ba space, knowledge creation is the sole purpose, and there is a transcendent character to it. Nonaka demonstrates this when he writes that the coexperience of tacit knowledge enables individuals within the Ba space to “transcend the ordinary ‘I-thou’ distinction” (1994, p. 4). In this sense, the representation of the Ba space is reminiscent of the historical communities of practice, possessing a transcendent component where members engage in close relationships with others, gaining tacit knowledge from all involved, and partaking in it as explicit knowledge when shared with the group. The manifestation of the Ba space as presented in the model case of this paper was one of self-organization, long-distance regularly occurring communication, and discussion of assignments and projects that we shared within the course of our program. This is similar to a community of practice. Indeed, Lave and Wenger (1991), as understood by Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal (2010), describe a community of practice as “an organic and self-organized group of individuals who are dispersed geographically or organizationally but communicate regularly to discuss issues of mutual interest” (p. 45). On a broader scale, a community of practice is a set of relationships among persons, activities, and world over time in relationship to other tangential and partially overlapping communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). This is similar to the phenomenon of the Ba-sho, the larger web in which the Ba space is situated. It is dissimilar in that communities of practice are not completely overlapping and do not nest completely inside one another as the Ba spaces do within the Ba-sho. Communities of practice are similar to Ba in that both are characterized by members’ ability to share their experiences and knowledge in a free-flowing, creative way that fosters new approaches to problems (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). Yet, communities of practice are different from the Ba space in their lack of self-transcendence and formation being driven by incentive rather than knowledge creation alone.
Study group as a related case Like a community of practice, a study group could be considered a related case, also one whose characteristics do not match up entirely with a Ba space. The characteristics of a study group are generally agreed upon to include: small number of participants, regular meetings to discuss a specific pre-determined field or shared fields
Brought to you by | University of Arizona Authenticated Download Date | 5/27/15 11:43 PM
16
J. A. E. Krahe et al.: Concept Analysis of the Ba Space
of study, and later reporting or sharing of findings with the group (Bartle & Brodwen, 2006; Lizzio & Wilson, 2005; Sanacore, 1993; Shaw, 2011). Some study groups are lead by an individual such as a faculty member (Bartle & Brodwen, 2006). They can be made up of students, faculty, or professionals and can be found in high school, college settings, within companies, and professional advancement organizations. Study groups are formed around common goals or interests. Among student study groups, the tasks are defined by the faculty or management; however, the process for accomplishing the task is defined by members of the study group (Lizzio & Wilson, 2005). Common themes in the study group literature include sharing information, trust, psychological support to try new ideas, emotional connectedness among members, and accountability to others (Bartle & Brodwen, 2006; Sanacore, 1993; Shaw, 2011). There are no criteria for transcendence, self-organization, with a focus on knowledge creation. Within study groups, the focus/purpose is to share information rather than create new knowledge. The environment provides social support to its members rather than the transcendence that occurs in the Ba space.
Contrary cases There are several examples of groups that are contrary to the Ba space. Groups organized by a manager or professor, groups that are formed around task completion, and groups that protect the knowledge they have created are contrary to the Ba space. When a manager or professor creates a group, the membership is selected by that individual, and outcomes are defined. Members are selected by the manager or profession based on their ability to contribute to the team’s goals and the team is disbanded once the project has been finished (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). There is no self-organization, focus on knowledge creation, or need to nurture the relationships within such context; thus, the Ba space is not found in these teams. The transcendence of the physical universe in knowledge creation that is a journey from “being to becoming” is not frequently cultivated within workgroups or project teams; task completion is the goal and long-term relationships are not developed (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). Diversity of perspectives is a key feature in the process of creating a Ba space (Nonaka & Konno, 1998) and when groups are organized around efficiency, diversity is often avoided. Also contrary to the Ba space is the protection of knowledge an individual or group has created. When people are hesitant or resistant to sharing their
knowledge, barriers are created within the interpersonal relationships and the Ba space does not exist. The Ba space has free flow of ideas, information, and knowledge for the good of the group to build upon the information and observations to create further knowledge. Groups contrary to the Ba space are organized by an outsider, lack diversity, are task oriented, and protect knowledge or experiences.
Honeybees as an invented case According to Walker and Avant (2010), invented cases contain ideas outside our own experience and often read-like science fiction. An invented case of Ba could be represented by the lifestyle of honeybees. A bee cannot exist without other bees. A bee’s tacit knowledge could be its innate understanding of flight patterns, pollination, and swarm behavior. That tacit knowledge is useless unless there are other bees around to share it with (a bee can’t swarm by itself) and availing itself of other bees’ tacit knowledge is central to survival as well. As with a Ba space, a swarm is considered by ecologists to be a super-organism unto itself, a phenomenon that could not exist if individual members were not participating and “plugged in,” deeply connected to one another. Swarm bees can choose quickly and efficiently the best nesting site from several options without a leader directing intelligent choices. They exist and advance, as with a Ba space, by sharing their tacit knowledge and accessing others,’ resulting in creation of a sort of collective intelligence. As with individuals within a Ba space, swarms of bees engage in intelligent acts because individual agents in the collective are interacting within a complex and dynamic network, transcending boundaries, and connecting to one another (Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2008). These interactions result in the birth and sustaining of collective knowledge that in order to survive each bee must participate in and access.
Antecedents and consequences Antecedents to the Ba space include the context and structure for knowledge creation. An antecedent to a Ba space is socialization; it takes more than one person to move tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge. In the Ba space, members desire to participate in a group. The context for Ba is people coming together for a common deliverable where the environment is cultivated to support the free exchange of ideas. Knowledge is never free
Brought to you by | University of Arizona Authenticated Download Date | 5/27/15 11:43 PM
J. A. E. Krahe et al.: Concept Analysis of the Ba Space
from human values and ideas (Nonaka et al., 2006). One must have the ability to articulate tacit knowledge to participate in the Ba space. Consequences of Ba include innovation, creativity, and peer support. Regarding innovation, knowledge creation can be understood as a continuous process where members overcome individual boundaries and constraints imposed by information and past learning. Innovation occurs in members’ acquiring of a new context, a new view of the world and generating new knowledge (Nonaka et al., 2006). Regarding creativity, by interacting and sharing tacit and explicit knowledge with others, the individual enhances the capacity to define a situation or problem. In the application of this tacit and explicit knowledge, there arises an ability to act and specifically solve the problem (Nonaka et al., 2006) in a creative way. Regarding peer support, within the Ba space members are free to be themselves. Their authenticity of beliefs, values, behaviors, and experiences add value to the space. The Ba space is not only useful in supporting the academic aspects of doctoral study, it is also a safe place to nurture the emergence of a diversity of ideas, encouraging knowledge creation through risk taking and crossing boundaries.
Empirical referents The presence of the Ba space can be measured by creativity, innovation, and a commitment by members to the space. When a diverse group of individuals come together with a mutual goal of knowledge creation, Ba permits the move beyond one’s own limits, allowing for a synthesis of rationality and intuition that produces creativity. Creating an environment that allows one to bring any new, problem-solving idea into use for the larger group or organization is tied to innovation, or novelty (Kanter, 1983). Individuals who share the Ba space hold a commitment to the space and maintain the interpersonal and intrapersonal relationships required.
17
Conclusion We have found value in identifying and entering our Ba space. As emerging scholars deeply rooted in complexity science and its ability to illuminate the dynamic and adaptive behaviors of systems and individuals, discovering our Ba space was an important find indeed. We now are able to identify and engage in myriad opportunities for knowledge creation via our Ba space. For example, we are currently engaged in such far-reaching projects as developing an interprofessional academic curriculum and researching transitions of care in hospital systems. Knowledge is socially constructed through interactions; it affects and is influenced by social practices (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995). It is through interaction and interpersonal relationships like those within the Ba space that innovation emerges (Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2008). Current research and policy require collaboration. Yet the state of the science in healthcare does not label collaboration as Ba, nor does it require of collaboration the deep interpersonal relationships possible within Ba. Nurse educators and other healthcare leaders are tasked with what complexity science describes: creating environments that are able to foster rich relationships between individuals and encourage innovation. The Ba space is foundational to helping nurse educators and others to accomplish this. Our Ba space has enabled us to find academic success and to develop strong interpersonal relationships within our interdisciplinary, minimal-residency doctoral program. We recommend that those participating in knowledge creation and knowledge sharing, both academic and professional, identify and enter their own Ba space. Not only an important educational innovation for doctoral study, identification of and entry into the Ba space could be a strategy for growth and one that has the capacity to deepen relationships at all levels of nursing education and practice, as well as within multidisciplinary healthcare teams. The possibilities are endless.
References Bartle, L., & Brodwen, M. G. (2006). The comprehensive examination: Study groups and their effectiveness – A message to counselor education faculty and graduate students. Educational Researcher, 127(1), 69–72. Becerra-Fernandez, I., & Sabherwal, R. (2010). Knowledge management: Systems and processes. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Boland, R. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science, 6(4), 350–372. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2, 40–57.
Brought to you by | University of Arizona Authenticated Download Date | 5/27/15 11:43 PM
18
J. A. E. Krahe et al.: Concept Analysis of the Ba Space
Butcher, H. K. (2006). Book review: Strategies for theory construction in nursing (4th ed.) by Lorraine Walker & Kay Avant. Nursing Science Quarterly, 19(2), 174–180. Coleman, H. J. (1999). What enables self-organizing behavior in businesses? Emergence, 1(1), 5–33. Cox, M. D., & Richlin, L. (2004). Building faculty learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning (number 97). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1997). The individualized corporation. New York, NY: Harper Business. Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Lindberg, C., Nash, S., & Lindberg, C. (2008). On the edge: Nursing in the age of complexity. Medford, NJ: Plexus Publishing. Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2005). Self-managed learning groups in higher education: Students’ perceptions of process and outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 373–390. doi:10.1348/000709905x25355 Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37. Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of Ba: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40–54. Nonaka, I., Von Krogh, G., & Voelpel, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge creation theory: Evolutionary paths and future advances. Organizational Studies, 27(8), 1179–1208.
Quinn, J. B., Baruch, J. J., & Zien, K. A. (1997). Innovation explosion: Using intellect and software to revolutionize growth strategies. New York, NY: Free Press. Reusch, J. & Bateson, G. (2008). Communication: The social matrix of psychology. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2006). Contradictions in theorizing and implementing communities in education. Educational Research Review, 1(1), 27–40. Sanacore, J. (1993). Using study groups to create a professional community. Journal of Reading, 31(1), 62–66. Shaw, D. M. (2011). Promoting professional student learning through study groups: A case study. College Teaching, 59(2), 85–92. doi:10.1080/87567555.2010.550956 Shimizu, H. (1995). Ba principle: New logic for the real-time emergence of information. Holonics, 5(1), 85–92. Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday. Uhl-Bien, M., & Marion, R. (2008). Introduction: Complexity leadership: A framework for leadership in the twenty-first century. In M. Uhl-Bien & R. Marion (Eds.), Complexity leadership (pp. xi–xxiv). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Walker, L. O., & Avant, K. C. (2010). Strategies for theory construction in nursing (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000, January-February). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 139–145.
Brought to you by | University of Arizona Authenticated Download Date | 5/27/15 11:43 PM
