Communities of practice - Essay Example

Communities of Practice Abstract Knowledge cannot be detached from the communities that build it, utilize it, and transform it. In all knowledge work types, including where technology is very useful, people require experimentation, conversation as well as shared experiences with other people with whom they have something in common. Particularly as people advance past routine processes into challenges that are more complex, they rely greatly on their community of practice as their principal resource of knowledge. In recent years, the idea that learning entails an intensifying process of involvement in a community of practice has gained considerable ground. Communities of practice have as well become a key focus within organizational development and when thinking about working with groups, they have substantial value (Smith, 2009, para1). Introduction Communities of practice are groups of individuals who share asset of problems, or concern, or a passion regarding a topic, and who enrich their expertise and knowledge in this area through continuous interactions (Wenger, McDermott and Snyder, 2002, p4). Allee (2000) quotes John Seely Brown, Vice President and Chief Scientist at Parc Xerox who describes communities of practice as ‘peers in executing real work, with a common sense of purpose in addition to a real desire to know what each other knows holding them together.’ He explains that what sets communities or practice apart from teams is the fact that knowledge defines communities unlike the latter, which is defined by task. He further explains that a community’s life cycle is not determined by project deadlines, but by the value it creates for its members (Allee, 2000, p5). Communities of practice are voluntary and therefore their ability to engender enough excitement, relevance, as well as value, which attract and engage participants, make these communities of practice successful over time (Wenger, McDermott and Snyder, 2002, p1). Different scholars have different meanings for the phrase communities of practice. Communities of Practice can be defined, partly, as a social learning process that takes place when individuals with a common interest in an area or a subject team up over an extended period, sharing strategies and ideas, determine solutions, and fabricate innovations (Learning-theories.com, para3, 2010). Wenger and his co-authors (2002) define it as groups of people who share a passion, a concern or a set of problems concerning a topic/something they do, and who through interacting on an ongoing basis, broaden their expertise and knowledge in this area (p4). Learning-theories.com, (2010) documents the fact that this permits for, but does not require intentionality. Learning can be, and often is, an incidental outcome, which goes with these social processes. In the modern society, the concept of community of practice is being applied in business, professional associations, organizational design, education, government, civic life and development projects (Wenger, p3, 2006). Communities of practice are not new. Wenger and his co-authors (2002) explains that back when men lived in caves and assembled at the fireplace to discuss which roots were edible, the shape of arrowheads or preying strategies, communities of practice were their first knowledge-based social structures. In ancient Rome, masons, potters, metalworkers and other craftsmen’s ‘corporations’ had both a business function (spreading innovations and training apprentices) and a social aspect (members celebrated holidays communally and worshipped common gods). Throughout Europe, guilds fulfilled similar roles for artisans in the Middle Ages although they lost their control during the Industrial Revolution. However, in every aspect of human life, communities of practice are still thriving to date. All industries and organizations, whether recognized formally or not, have a history of practice-based communities of their own. Every individual belongs to several communities of practice, for example, at home, at school, at work, in one’s hobbies, among others. Some of these communities of practice have a name while others do not. Some are recognizable while others remain mainly invisible. Wenger and his co-authors (2002) further explain that while we are occasional participants of some of these communities of practice, we are core members in others. Irrespective of the form our involvement takes, the experience of belonging to a community of practice is not new to most people (p4&5). Although communities of practice have been so pervasive for such a long time, organizations started focusing on them just recently. It is therefore not communities of practice that are new, but the need for organizations to become more systematic and intentional about the ‘management’ of knowledge, and consequently to give a new, central role to these age-old structures in the business. Knowledge has turned out to be the key to success. It is now a very valuable resource to be left to chance and organizations should have a precise understanding of what knowledge is likely to give them a competitive advantage. Subsequently, they should keep this knowledge on the cutting edge, set it out, leverage it in operations and extend it across the business. A practical method of managing knowledge systematically as an asset just like other critical assets is through the cultivation of communities of practice in strategic areas (Wenger, p6, 2002). The origin and primary use of the concept Communities of practice has been in learning theory. However, social scientists have used its versions for various analytical purposes. Wenger and Lave (1991), cognitive anthropologists, define a community of practice (CoP) as, a group of people who share a profession, an interest and/or a craft. People can create the group specifically with the aim of gaining knowledge related to their field or it can develop naturally owing to the common interest in a particular area or domain by the members. Lave & Wenger (1991) explain that the process of sharing experiences as well as information with the group enables the members to learn from one another and get an opportunity of developing themselves both professionally and personally. a community of practice can exist in real life, for example, on a factory floor, in a field setting, in a lunchroom at work or elsewhere in the environment; or online, for instance within newsgroups and discussion boards. As earlier noted, although Wenger and Lave coined the term in the year 1991, this type of learning practice has been in existence for as long as people have been sharing and learning their experiences through storytelling (Wikipedia.com, 2010). According to Lave and Wenger (1991), knowledge acquisition is a social process where people can take part in communal learning at different levels dependent on their seniority or authority level in the group. That is, whether one is a newcomer or has been a member for a long period. The process by which a new member moves from peripheral to full involvement in the community as he/she learns from others is fundamental to Lave and Wenger’s notion of a community of practice as a means of gaining knowledge; a process that they referred to as Legitimate Peripheral Participation (LPP). They published ‘Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation' (Lave & Wenger 1991). Since that time, the notion of a community of practice has now been expanded to include a far broader range of different groups ranging from project teams to functional departments. Several attempts have also been made to redefine communities of practice such that they are relevant commercial organizations’ needs and some management consultancies’ attempts to formalize methods of creating them (Kimble, para2, 2010). Since the publication of ‘Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation’ in the year 1991, communities of practice have attracted much attention, primarily as a learning theory and later as part of knowledge management field. To comprehend the way learning takes place outside the classroom while at the Institute for Research on Learning studying apprenticeship as a learning model, Lave and Wenger (1991) carried out a study on how novices or newcomers to informal groups turn out to be established members of those groups. It was during this time that they coined the term. At first, they used the term communities of practice to give a description of learning through practice and participation, which they referred to as situated learning. Wenger (2006) asserts that although people usually think of apprenticeship as a student-master relationship, apprenticeship studies reveal a more complex social relationships’ set through which learning occurs generally with apprentices that are more advanced and journeymen. Lave and Wenger coined the term referring to the community that acts as the apprentice’s living curriculum. Having articulated the community, Wenger (2006) asserts that they began seeing these communities all over, even when formal apprenticeship system did not exist (p3). Lave & Wenger (1991) believed that the structure of the community was created over time via legitimate peripheral participation process. Together, legitimation as well as participation defines the characteristic ways in which one belongs to a community. Peripherality and participation on the other hand are concerned with identity and location in the social world (p29). The study by Lave and Wenger (1991) looked at the way in which apprenticeships assist individuals learn. The discovery that they made was that on joining an established community or group, newcomers at first spend some time observing and possibly executing simple tasks in basic roles as they discover how the group works and how they can partake. For instance, before actually performing any electrical task, an apprentice electrician would watch and learn; initially undertaking small simple jobs and finally more complicated jobs. This process of socialization, according to Lave and Wenger, is legitimate peripheral participation. The term "community of practice" is that group that Lave and Wenger (1991) referred to, who share a common interest as well as a desire to learn from along with contribute to the community with their diverse experiences. As earlier mentioned, originally, Lave and Wenger’s (1991) description of a Community of Practice was ‘a set of relations among people, activity and world over time and in relation with other overlapping and tangential Communities of Practice’. (Kimble, para3, 2010).In Wenger (1998), Wenger’s later work that revisited his earlier work in the light of communities of practice, he, moving into the domain of business environment, discarded the legitimate peripheral participation idea considering the practice of a community of practice to be much above the daily practice of a community. Instead, he used the concept of an inherent tension in a duality. He described communities of practice in terms of the interaction of four essential dualities - local versus global, designed versus emergent, participation versus reification and identification versus negotiability. However, although Wenger (1998) described a community of practice in terms of the four dualities, the focus of most interest has been the participation versus reification duality. This is due to the perceived connection to Knowledge Management (Kimble, para3, 2010). Wenger (1998) described a community of practice’s structure as consisting of three interrelated terms namely mutual engagement, joint enterprise and shared repertoire. To start with, members build collaborative relationships and establish norms through participation in the community. Wenger (1998) referred to this as mutual engagement. These relationships act as the ties that unite the community’s members as a social entity. Secondly, members create a common understanding of what binds them together through their interactions. Wenger (1998) referred to this as the joint enterprise. Members (re)negotiate the joint enterprise and sometimes, it is known as the domain of the community. Thirdly, the community, as part of its practice, generates a set of communal resources, which is known as their shared repertoire, which they use as they pursue their joint enterprise and they can include both symbolic and literal meanings (p72–73). In his present work, Wenger believes that learning is essential to human identity. In his more recent work, (Wenger et. al 2004), his primary focus is on learning as social participation – the individual as an active contributor in the of social communities’ practices, and in his or her identity’s construction through these communities. A community of practice is therefore, in this viewpoint, a group of people taking part in communal activity, and experiencing or creating their shared identity continuously through contributing to and engaging in their communities’ practices. He yet again redefines a community of practice’s structural characteristics into three. The first one is the domain of knowledge. Here, Wenger and his co- authors (2004) explain that individuals organize around knowledge domain that gives a sense of joint enterprise to members and draw them together. A domain of knowledge creates common ground, guides members’ learning, inspires members’ participation and provides meaning to their actions. In other words, it provides the community with the general area of interest. Members identify with the domain of knowledge as well as a joint activity that surface from common understanding of their situation. It is important to note that a community of practice is not just a network of connections between people or a club of friends. Membership implies a dedication to the domain, and consequently a shared competence, which differentiate members from other individuals. Two people could belong to the same network and do not know it at all. Furthermore, the domain is not necessarily something that other people outside the community identify as ‘expertise’ (Wenger, p1, 2006). Secondly is the notion of community. Wenger and his co- authors (2004) assert that through relationships of mutual engagement binding them together into a social entity, individuals function as a community. There is regular interaction of the members and they involve themselves in discussions and joint activities as they pursue their interest in their domain, which build relationship and trust. The notion of community creates the social fabric for the afore-mentioned learning. A strong community encourages a willingness to share ideas and learn from each other, help each other, in addition to the promotion of interactions. Wenger (2006) points out that unless members learn and interact together, having the same title or job does not make for a community of practice. For example, although high school American students may have much in common, they do not form a community of practice if they do not interact and learn together. Nevertheless, a community of practice’s members do not necessarily work together daily. For example, the Impressionists used to meet in studios and cafes to discuss the painting style they were jointly inventing. Although they often painted alone, these interactions were crucial in making them a community of practice (p1). The third characteristic is practice. Wenger and his co- authors (2004) explain that practice is the specific focal point around which the community builds up, shares, and maintains its heart of knowledge (p27-29). The development of a shared repertoire as well as resources including artifacts, documents, tools, vocabulary, routines, symbols, among others that embody the community’s accumulated knowledge enables a community to build capability in its practice. The shared repertoire provides a future-learning foundation. According to Wenger (2006), a community of practice is not just a community of interest, for example, people who like certain movie types. He asserts that communities of practice’s members are practitioners. As Mitchell and Young (2003) explain, Communities of Practice have several benefits, which are normally three kinds namely the benefits for individual practitioners, the benefits for individual organizations/businesses and the benefits for the community itself. They are powerful vehicles for sharing knowledge as well as realizing business results. The benefits that individual practitioners realize from Communities of Practice include the following: Communities of Practice foster a sense of identity that is learning-focused by providing practitioners with access to new knowledge (Barton and Tusting, 2005, p61). Engaging in a virtual community of practice enhances the learning environment since the learning that develops from these communities is collaborative, in which the collaborative community knowledge is greater compared to any individual knowledge (Johnson, 2001, 34). Communities of practice also promote trust as well as a sense of common purpose in the individual, with other internal colleagues along with the company; enable employees to manage change and in overall add value to professional lives – social capital. Individual participants acquire social capital through informal connections that they make in their community of practice, as well as in the formal process of learning from others, sharing their expertise and participating in the group (Keppell, 2007, p219). Additionally, Communities of Practice helps individuals in doing their jobs by allowing them to develop individual competencies and skills, and by providing challenges along with opportunities to contribute (Allee, 2000, p8). Organizations/businesses as well benefit from Communities of Practice in several ways including the informal dissemination of invaluable information; fostering of innovation and improvements in productivity as well as the reinforcement of strategic direction (Mitchell and Young, 2003, p3). They also help businesses/organizations in driving strategies; foster quick problem solving both locally as well as organization wide; and establish core knowledge competencies and capabilities. This is in addition to aiding in developing, recruiting as well as retaining talent; faster diffusion of practices for operational excellence; cross-fertilization of ideas and increasing of innovation opportunities (Bettoni et al. 2002, p6). Communities of Practice also offer numerous benefits to the community, which as Allee (2000) explains, include aiding in the establishment of a common language, models and methods around specific competencies; embedding of knowledge plus expertise in a larger population and increasing of access to expertise across the organization/business. Moreover, they aid in retaining knowledge once employees leave the organization and offer a means of sharing influence and power with the organization’s formal parts. In their study of the year 2000, Wenger and Snyder explain that the economy of the present time runs on knowledge, and majority of companies work unremittingly to capitalize on that fact. They use product- or customer-focused business units, cross-functional teams, as well as work groups among other organizational forms in the capturing and spreading of knowledge and ideas. In most cases, no one would argue for the demise of these ways of organizing owing to their efficiency. Nevertheless, they further explain that a new organizational form that promises to complement the already existing structures and thoroughly galvanize learning, knowledge, sharing and change is emerging – this organizational form denotes Community of Practice. In this study, they define Community of Practice as groups of individuals informally joined together by shared expertise along with passion for a joint enterprise. They give the following modern examples in their explanation for this definition: engineers engaged in drilling deep water, forefront managers in control of check processing at a large commercial bank, or consultants who major in strategic marketing. Some Communities of Practice hold meetings regularly, for example for lunch on a particular day, while others have their connections primarily via e-mail networks. A community of practice may have an overt agenda on a given week, or may not, and even if it does, there are chances of failing to follow the agenda closely. Inevitably, though, participants in Communities of Practice share their knowledge and experiences in creative ways that flow freely, fostering new approaches to problems (Wenger and Snyder, 2000, 139). Although Communities of Practice might sound like a soft management trend owing to the nature of its primary output (knowledge) being intangible, they proved to be efficient in the period of five years starting 1995. During this period, they improved organizational performance at companies as diverse as a major car manufacturer, an international bank, and an agency of the US government. This offers evidence that Communities of Practice can generate new lines of business, drive strategy, solve problems, develop people's professional skills, and foster the spread of best practices in addition to aiding companies in recruiting and retaining talent (Gannon-Leary, 2007, p1). Despite their efficiency, Communities of Practice are less prevalent owing to three reasons as Wenger and Snyder (2000) point out: one of the reasons is that although Communities of Practice have been in existence for a long time/for centuries, in effect, the term has entered the business vernacular just recently. The other reason is that only a few forward-thinking companies have bothered to ‘install’ or nurture them. The fact that establishing and maintaining Communities of Practice or even integrating them with the rest of the company or an organization is not particularly easy marks the third reason behind the non-prevalence of Communities of Practice. Although the spontaneous, informal and organic nature of Communities of Practice make them resistant to interference and supervision, a number of companies have prevailed over the managerial paradox inherent in Communities of Practice and have nurtured them effectively. Generally, evaluations on the performance of Communities of Practice before the year 2000 clearly reveal that organizational/business managers cannot mandate Communities of Practice; and those managers who succeed do this instead: they assemble the right people together, avail an infrastructure in which Communities of Practice can thrive, and measure the value of the communities in nontraditional ways. Although these tasks of cultivation are not easy, the harvest that they bring forth makes them well worth the effort (Wenger, 2007). Today’s communities of practice vary with the ancient times and the middle ages’ ones majorly in one important respect: they usually exist within large organizations instead of comprising primarily of people working on their own. Just as the circumstances that give rise to them, communities of practice are diverse. For instance, workers with functional expertise may establish communities of practice as a means of retaining connections with their peers following a company’s reorganization into a team-based structure. In other instances, individuals may form communities of practice in response to changes coming either from within the organization such as new company strategies, or from outside such as the rise of commerce. Communities of practice can exist fully within an organization or a business unit, or can extend across divisional frontiers, and can even prosper with members from a different company. A community can comprise of ten tens or hundreds of individuals, although characteristically, it has a nucleus of members whose fervor for the topic strengthens the community, and who provide social as well as intellectual leadership. Additionally, subject matter or geographical regions subdivide large communities with an aim of encouraging active participation of individual members (Wenger and Snyder, 2000, 141). Communities of practice vary with other organization forms in numerous ways including being swift in solving problems, transfers best practices, develops professional skills and aid companies in recruitment and retention of talents among others (Keppell, 2007, p219). Unlike groups, which are formed by managers for the purposes of completing specific projects after which they disband, communities of practice are informal, that is they are responsible for their own organization – they set their own agendas in addition to establishing their own leadership. Again, membership is self-selected – the decision to join a community of practice solely rests on an individual person. Moreover, when members of an existing community invite a person to join, they as well operate on a gut sense of the suitability of the prospective member for the group. Wenger and Snyder (2000) give a paradox of management of communities of practice where they explain that although communities of practice are essentially self-organizing and informal, they benefit from cultivation. For the progress and sustenance of communities, managers should identify communities of practice that exhibit the potential to enhance strategic capabilities of the company; avail the infrastructure to support and enable such communities to apply their expertise efficiently; and assess the value of communities of practice of the company. Conclusion The importance of communities of practice to individual participants, an organization or a business and the community at large cannot be overstated. Apparently, when thinking about working with groups, communities of practice has had considerable value – it has influenced theory and practice in many domains. From humble beginnings in Lave and Wenger’s (1991) apprenticeship studies, businesses interested in knowledge management grabbed the concept and it has progressively found its way into other sectors. It has now become the foundation of a perspective on learning and knowing, which informs efforts on the need of the creation of learning systems in various sectors as well as at various levels of scale, starting with local communities to sole organizations, partnerships, cities and the entire planet. I concur with Wenger and Lave that communities of practice are everywhere and that people are generally involved in several of them – at home, school, work, or in people’s leisure and civic interests. References Allee, V 2000, ‘Knowledge Networks and Communities of Practice’, viewed 10 October, 2010, . Barton, D & Tusting, K 2005, ‘Beyond communities of practice: language, power and social context: Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives’, New York: Cambridge University Press. Bettoni, MC et al. 2002, ‘Communities of Practice: Meanings, Benefits and Methodology’, viewed 11 October, 2010, . Gannon-Leary, P 2007, ‘Communities of Practice and virtual learning communities: benefits, barriers and success factors’, Elsa Fontainha, ISEG vol. 1, no. 5, p. 2. Johnson, CM 2001, ‘A survey of current research on online communities of practice’, The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 45-60. Keppell, MJ 2007, ‘Instructional design: case studies in communities of practice’, Calgary, AB: Idea Group Inc (IGI). Kimble, C 2010, ‘Communities of Practice: The social dimension to the virtual world?’ viewed 9 October, 2010, . Lave & Wenger 1991, ‘Communities of Practice’, viewed 10 October, 2010, . Learning-theories.com, 2010, ‘Communities of Practice (Lave and Wenger)’, viewed 10 October, 2010, . Mitchell, J & Young, S 2003, ‘Communities of Practice and the National Training Framework’, viewed 10 October, 2010, . Wenger, E 2006, ‘Communities of practice: a brief introduction’, viewed 11 October, 2010, . Wenger, E 2007, ‘Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity’, New York: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E, McDermott, R. & Snyder, WM 2002, ‘Cultivating Communities of Practice’, Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Wenger, EC & Snyder, WM 2000, ‘Communities of practice: The organizational frontier’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 78, no. 1, pp.139-145. Wenger, EC 1998, ‘Communities of practice: learning a social system’, viewed 10 October, 2010, . Wikipedia.com, 2010, ‘Community of Practice’, viewed 9 October, 2010, . Read More