community of practice

Why Values in Action (ViAA) has chosen the Community of Practice as its Culturally Valued Analogue (CVA)
How might ViAA best understand and position itself?
We need a model that is relevant and potent. For have therefore chosen the Community of Practice model.
Comfort with this choice materialised during 2010 and 2011. In an effort to build our learning community, we are exploring how we might best describe our identity. We are increasingly operating in the manner of a Community of Practice. We are drawn to Etienne Wenger’s definition of communities of practice as groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).
We see how the identity of a community of practice can more deliberately assist our reformation. For the vast majority of people learning about SRV, there has been no peer support for individuals in whatever role they are in. In contrast, in a community of practice, it is not only the way in which content is taught that is important, but also the peer supports that exist for people in their efforts to apply what they have learnt.
In other words we want to ensure people know of the networks they are part of or might choose to engage with. We want them to develop a sense of the SRV community across the world. For an in-depth look at Values in Action’s journey towards relevance, please see Shevellar, Sherwin and Mackay, ‘A re-imagined identity: Building a movement in Brisbane for the practice of social role valorization’.
How might ViAA best understand and position itself?
We need a model that is relevant and potent. For have therefore chosen the Community of Practice model.
Comfort with this choice materialised during 2010 and 2011. In an effort to build our learning community, we are exploring how we might best describe our identity. We are increasingly operating in the manner of a Community of Practice. We are drawn to Etienne Wenger’s definition of communities of practice as groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).
We see how the identity of a community of practice can more deliberately assist our reformation. For the vast majority of people learning about SRV, there has been no peer support for individuals in whatever role they are in. In contrast, in a community of practice, it is not only the way in which content is taught that is important, but also the peer supports that exist for people in their efforts to apply what they have learnt.
In other words we want to ensure people know of the networks they are part of or might choose to engage with. We want them to develop a sense of the SRV community across the world. For an in-depth look at Values in Action’s journey towards relevance, please see Shevellar, Sherwin and Mackay, ‘A re-imagined identity: Building a movement in Brisbane for the practice of social role valorization’.
What is a Community of Practice?
Etienne Wenger summarizes Communities of Practice (CoP) as ‘groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly’. This learning that takes place is not necessarily intentional. Three components are required in order to be a Community of Practice, (1) the domain, (2) the community, and (3) the practice.
The term was first used in 1991 by theorists Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger who discussed the notion of legitimate peripheral participation. In 1998, the theorist Etienne Wenger extended the concept and applied it to other domains, such as organizations.
With the flourishing of online communities on the Internet, as well as the increasing need for improved knowledge management, there has been much more interest as of late in communities of practice. People see them as ways of promoting innovation, developing social capital, facilitating and spreading knowledge within a group, spreading existing tacit knowledge, etc.
Communities of Practice can be defined, in part, as a process of social learning that occurs when people who have a common interest in a subject or area collaborate over an extended period of time, sharing ideas and strategies, determine solutions, and build innovations. Wenger gives a simple definition, ‘Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly’. Note that this allows for, but does not require intentionality. Learning can be, and often is, an incidental outcome that accompanies these social processes.
One needs to distinguish between what is a Community of Practice and what it is not. There are three required components of Communities of Practice.
There needs to be a domain. A Community of Practice has an identity defined by a shared domain of interest (e.g. radiologists, Star Trek fans, middle school history teachers, Seahawks football fans, etc.); it’s not just a network of people or club of friends. Membership implies a commitment to the domain.
There needs to be a community. A necessary component is that members of a specific domain interact and engage in shared activities, help each other, and share information with each other. They build relationships that enable them to learn from each other. In this way, merely sharing the same job does not necessitate a Community of Practice. A static website on hunting in itself is not a community of practice. There needs to be people who interact and learn together in order for a Community of Practice to be formed. Note that members do not necessarily work together daily, however. Wenger points to the example of Impressionist painters who sometimes met in cafes to discuss their painting styles. He indicates that even though these men normally painted alone, these kinds of interactions were essential to making them a Community of Practice.
There needs to be a practice. A Community of Practice is not just people who have an interest in something (e.g. sports or agriculture practices). The third requirement for a Community of Practice is that the members are practitioners. They develop a shared repertoire of resources that can include stories, helpful tools, experiences, stories, ways of handling typical problems, etc. This kind of interaction needs to be developed over time. A conversation with a random stranger who happens to be an expert on a subject matter that interests you does not in itself make a Community of Practice. Informal conversations held by people of the same profession (e.g. office assistants or graduate students) help people share and develop a set of cases and stories that can become a shared repertoire for their practice, whether they realize it or not.
Communities develop their practice through a variety of methods, including problem solving, requests for information, seeking the experiences of others, reusing assets, coordination and synergy, discussing developments, visiting other members, mapping knowledge and identifying gaps.
For Etienne Wenger, learning is central to human identity. A primary focus is learning as social participation – that is, an individual as an active participant in the practices of social communities, and in the construction of his or her identity through these communities. People continuously create their shared identity through engaging in and contributing to the practices of their communities. The motivation to become a more central participant in a community of practice can provide a powerful incentive for learning. Students will have a desire to develop skills (e.g. literacy skills) if the people they admire have the same skills. That is, they want to join the ‘literacy club’ and will work towards becoming a member.
The concept of community of practice is influencing theory and practice in many domains. From humble beginnings in apprenticeship studies, the concept was grabbed by businesses interested in knowledge management and has progressively found its way into other sectors including education, associations and the community sector. It has now become the foundation of a perspective on knowing and learning that informs efforts to create learning systems in various sectors and at various levels of scale, from local communities, to single organizations, partnerships, cities, regions, and the entire world.
For more information, see:
Etienne Wenger’s introduction to Communities of Practice.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity: Cambridge University Press.
Etienne Wenger summarizes Communities of Practice (CoP) as ‘groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly’. This learning that takes place is not necessarily intentional. Three components are required in order to be a Community of Practice, (1) the domain, (2) the community, and (3) the practice.
The term was first used in 1991 by theorists Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger who discussed the notion of legitimate peripheral participation. In 1998, the theorist Etienne Wenger extended the concept and applied it to other domains, such as organizations.
With the flourishing of online communities on the Internet, as well as the increasing need for improved knowledge management, there has been much more interest as of late in communities of practice. People see them as ways of promoting innovation, developing social capital, facilitating and spreading knowledge within a group, spreading existing tacit knowledge, etc.
Communities of Practice can be defined, in part, as a process of social learning that occurs when people who have a common interest in a subject or area collaborate over an extended period of time, sharing ideas and strategies, determine solutions, and build innovations. Wenger gives a simple definition, ‘Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly’. Note that this allows for, but does not require intentionality. Learning can be, and often is, an incidental outcome that accompanies these social processes.
One needs to distinguish between what is a Community of Practice and what it is not. There are three required components of Communities of Practice.
There needs to be a domain. A Community of Practice has an identity defined by a shared domain of interest (e.g. radiologists, Star Trek fans, middle school history teachers, Seahawks football fans, etc.); it’s not just a network of people or club of friends. Membership implies a commitment to the domain.
There needs to be a community. A necessary component is that members of a specific domain interact and engage in shared activities, help each other, and share information with each other. They build relationships that enable them to learn from each other. In this way, merely sharing the same job does not necessitate a Community of Practice. A static website on hunting in itself is not a community of practice. There needs to be people who interact and learn together in order for a Community of Practice to be formed. Note that members do not necessarily work together daily, however. Wenger points to the example of Impressionist painters who sometimes met in cafes to discuss their painting styles. He indicates that even though these men normally painted alone, these kinds of interactions were essential to making them a Community of Practice.
There needs to be a practice. A Community of Practice is not just people who have an interest in something (e.g. sports or agriculture practices). The third requirement for a Community of Practice is that the members are practitioners. They develop a shared repertoire of resources that can include stories, helpful tools, experiences, stories, ways of handling typical problems, etc. This kind of interaction needs to be developed over time. A conversation with a random stranger who happens to be an expert on a subject matter that interests you does not in itself make a Community of Practice. Informal conversations held by people of the same profession (e.g. office assistants or graduate students) help people share and develop a set of cases and stories that can become a shared repertoire for their practice, whether they realize it or not.
Communities develop their practice through a variety of methods, including problem solving, requests for information, seeking the experiences of others, reusing assets, coordination and synergy, discussing developments, visiting other members, mapping knowledge and identifying gaps.
For Etienne Wenger, learning is central to human identity. A primary focus is learning as social participation – that is, an individual as an active participant in the practices of social communities, and in the construction of his or her identity through these communities. People continuously create their shared identity through engaging in and contributing to the practices of their communities. The motivation to become a more central participant in a community of practice can provide a powerful incentive for learning. Students will have a desire to develop skills (e.g. literacy skills) if the people they admire have the same skills. That is, they want to join the ‘literacy club’ and will work towards becoming a member.
The concept of community of practice is influencing theory and practice in many domains. From humble beginnings in apprenticeship studies, the concept was grabbed by businesses interested in knowledge management and has progressively found its way into other sectors including education, associations and the community sector. It has now become the foundation of a perspective on knowing and learning that informs efforts to create learning systems in various sectors and at various levels of scale, from local communities, to single organizations, partnerships, cities, regions, and the entire world.
For more information, see:
Etienne Wenger’s introduction to Communities of Practice.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity: Cambridge University Press.