Dr Anne Adams, IET, Open University

of

• Lave and Wenger (1991) – Situated Learning

•Wenger (1998) CoP work-based learning situations•Establish meaning which is negotiated•Through community practices (participation and realisation) turn abstract / tacit norms into explicit understanding through.

Communities of Communities of PracticePractice

Learning NOT acquiring knowledge BUT social participation in SITUATION

Dimensions of PracticeDimensions of Practice• Joint enterprise

– Negotiated by participants– Mutual accountability– Indigenous – made their own but within organisational constraints

• Mutual engagement– Diversity of skills, knowledge, values, etc.– Inclusion– Engagement social as well as work-related

• Shared repertoire– Terms– Environmental cues (e.g. piles of paper)– Evolving over time

CoP: BOUNDARIES• Membership defined by shared practices,

tools, terminology, markers, etc.– Hence a CoP has an inside and an outside … but

also a boundary or periphery– Boundaries fluid – not institutional

• CoP not closed – interacts with others• Brokering organises interconnections between CoPs• Boundary objects mediate interconnections.

•Modularity– Used by different CoPs. E.g. DL for different groups

•Abstraction– Common core for different CoPs

•Accommodation– Lends itself to different activities. E.g. DL, medical notes,

diagnosis, information for patients

•Standardisation– Each CoP knows how to work with it

COP: Legitimate Peripheral COP: Legitimate Peripheral ParticipationParticipation

• CoPs form, develop, evolve, disperse through learning.

• Legitimate peripheral participation:– Legitimate: accepted by core members– Peripheral: learning to belong and participate

• Learners become competent and they move from ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ into full participation.

Pros and Cons for ScholarshipPros and Cons for Scholarship

Processes & Transitions situated in real world practices & communities.

People straddle more than one CoP

Power only seen as pervasive forms of discipline sustained by discourse.

CoPs often seen as positive phenomenon yet destructive e.g. Nazis a CoP.

COP: Legitimate Peripheral COP: Legitimate Peripheral ParticipationParticipation

• CoPs form, develop, evolve, disperse through learning.

• Legitimate peripheral participation:– Legitimate: accepted by core members– Peripheral: learning to belong and participate

• Learners become competent and they move from ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ into full participation.

Preece: Online Communities

• Not just tools and resources for CoP• Also about social interaction • Pay attention to sociability issues• Norms & Online etiquette • Social capital

Healthcare DLs asBoundary Objects

• Intermediaries support boundary object trust.

• Further research uncovers the role of boundary creatures working with boundary objects between CoP.

• Are ALs boundary creatures

Suggested ReadingSuggested Reading• Lave, J & Wenger, E (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate

Peripheral Participation, CUP.• Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning,

Meaning and Identity, CUP. • Adams, A., Blandford, A. & Lunt, P. (2005) Social

Empowerment and Exclusion: a case study on Digital Libraries. Available from http://oro.open.ac.uk/6704/

• Preece, J. (2004) Etiquette and trust drive online communities of practice. J Universal Computer Science.

• http://www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm• http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/

index.shtml