communities of practice: a primer for...

Communities of Practice: A Primer for Educators

Prepared by Linzee LiaBraaten

Jann Rustin Noanie Sullivan

Principal Investigator: Prepared for: Kevin Clark, Ph.D. Lori Remley Mody George Mason University WIN-WIN Strategies Foundation 4085 University Drive 1750 Tysons Boulevard, 4th Floor Fairfax, VA 22030 McLean, VA 22102 mason.gmu.edu/~kclark6 www.winwinsf.org

Definitions _________________________________________________________ 4

Theoretical Framework: Situated Cognition __________________________ 6

Learning Communities ______________________________________________ 8

Online and Face-to-face CoPs ________________________________________ 9

Elements of a Community of Practice __________________ 10 Domain ___________________________________________________________ 11

Community _______________________________________________________ 12

Practice ___________________________________________________________ 12

Dimensions: A Source of Community Coherence _________ 13 Mutual Engagement of Participants ____________________________________ 14

Joint Enterprise_____________________________________________________ 15

Shared Repertoire _________________________________________________ 16

Crossing Boundaries_________________________________ 17 Stages of Development _______________________________ 19

Potential Stage_____________________________________________________ 20

Coalescing Stage ___________________________________________________ 21

Maturing Stage ____________________________________________________ 21

Stewardship Stage _________________________________________________ 22

Transformation Stage ______________________________________________ 22

Implications and Implementations _____________________ 23 Implications _______________________________________________________ 23

Online Implementations in Education________________________________ 25

Effective CoPs: Keys to Success and Lessons Learned _____ 27 Purpose ___________________________________________________________ 27

Integration ________________________________________________________ 28

Tools ______________________________________________________________ 30

Challenges _________________________________________ 34 Conclusion _________________________________________ 36

Communities of Practice

3

Communities of Practice: A Primer for Educators

Communities of practice is a term that was introduced by Lave and Wenger in the

early 1990’s that builds on the concept of community (Barab and Duffy, 2000).

Community can refer to people who share common personal, professional, social,

economic, or political interests. Communities may also be groups of people who share

similar histories, locations, or views on a particular subject matter. Wenger asserts, that

the use of the word community has become immensely popular and “As a result, a large

number of groups are called communities, even though they display very different

characteristics” (2001, p. 2).

Similarly, the term community of practice is bantered about in ordinary

conversation. Often the term is used in different ways and in different contexts, which

confuses its meaning. Communities of practice are all around us in various forms and

under different names. They are at home, at work, in clubs, and in churches. As an

example, a band getting together to practice its repertoire of songs may be considered a

community of practice. In fact, “Most people who belong to a CoP [community of

practice] don’t think of themselves as members of a CoP” (Nickols, 2000, p.2). Yet,

again, Wenger (2001) states, “Not everything called a community is a community of

practice. A neighborhood for instance, is often called a community, but is usually not a

community of practice” (p. 2). Despite the popularity of using the term community of

practice since Lave and Wenger introduced it in the early 1990’s, a community is not a

community of practice without three crucial elements: domain, community and practice.


4

Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002) reveal that it is necessary to “look at how the

group functions and how it combines all three elements” to determine if it is truly a

community of practice. (p. 44) These elements will be comprehensively discussed.

A definition of the term Community of Practice begins the discussion. Afterward,

a look at Situated Cognition Theory provides insight to the underlying learning

framework of CoPs. Communities of learning are then discussed as a backdrop for

understanding and differentiating between types of learning communities - communities

of practice are one type of learning community. Next, a distinction is made between

online and face-to-face communities of practice before introducing the specific elements

of a community of practice and the dimensions of practice. The concept of ‘crossing

boundaries’ is explained, as are the stages in the development of a CoP. An explanation

of community of practice implications and implementations provides insight into the use

of CoPs to harness social capital. Recommendations about essential components and the

challenges of building, maintaining, and sustaining effective communities of practice

leads toward a discussion of the challenges in building communities of practice and the

conclusion.

Definitions

To understand the term community of practice, it must be defined. The first step is

to break the term into two pieces defining each piece separately. Afterward, the two

pieces will be brought together and presented as a specific concept.


5

Community refers to the people. In a community of practice, the community is the

members of the practice. They are people who voluntarily come together to share ideas,

foster interactions, and develop relationships with one another.

The community creates the social fabric of learning…it encourages a willingness

to share ideas, expose one’s ignorance, ask difficult questions, and listen

carefully…it is a matter of belonging as well as an intellectual process, involving

the heart as well as the head (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 28).

Essential to the term community of practice is the definition of what is meant by

the word practice. Practice is the habitual doing or carrying out an ordinary or customary

action. Wenger et al. (2002) define the term practice as “…a set of common approaches

and shared standard that create a basis for action, communication, problem solving,

performance, and accountability” (p. 38). Practice, used in the sense of communities of

practice is defined as the “source of coherence of a community” as represented by three

characteristics: joint enterprise, mutual engagement, and shared repertoire (Wenger,

1998, p. 72).

First, joint enterprise tells us what the practice is about. The joint enterprise is

understood and continually renegotiated by the members of the practice. Next, what binds

members together into a social entity is mutual engagement; that is, how the practice

functions. Finally, the capability of the practice is the shared repertoire, that is, what the

practice has produced over time, such as, routines, artifacts, and styles (Wenger, 1998).

The three characteristics, joint enterprise, mutual engagement, and shared repertoire, will

be revisited.


6

Domain is the final piece of the puzzle. Domain is what creates the common

ground among members by affirming the purpose and value of the practice (Wenger,

1998). The domain is typically a set of issues or a topic of focus about which people care.

“The domain creates common ground and a sense of common identity”…it is the

common ground that “inspires members to contribute and participate…and gives

meaning to their actions” (Wenger et al., 2002, pp. 27-28).

Theoretical Framework: Situated Cognition

The traditional view of how humans learn is that cognition resides in their heads.

However, a new view has emerged called situated cognition. Generally speaking, situated

cognition refers to a theory of knowledge acquisition that proposes the integration of

knowing and doing. Where traditional education separates knowledge from the authentic

contexts in which it is used, situated cognition views activities of people and their

environments as parts of a “mutually constructed whole” (Bredo, 1994, p.23). This is the

underlying theoretical framework that explains how we learn through communities of

practice.

Situated cognition proposes that, rather than cognition being an isolated event that

takes place in one’s head, it is context-dependent and moves beyond the boundaries of a

single mind to include not only the learner, but their environment, artifacts, social

interactions and culture. This view has emerged from constructivist beliefs that “learning

is a result of experience and it is a function of the activity, context, and culture in which it

occurs” (Brown, Collins and Duguid, 1989, p. 32). The learning that takes place in

communities of practice presents a notable contrast to that which takes place in


7

traditional classroom settings, where knowledge is presented in an abstract and de-

contextualized form. In communities of practice, knowledge is conceived as lived

practices and learning occurs through legitimate peripheral participation, a term that

Lave and Wenger (1998) use to describe the concept of learning through participation

and identity transformation.

In an effort to relate how situated cognition moves away from the idea that

concepts are abstract and self-contained entities, Brown et al. (1989) compare conceptual

knowledge to a set of tools. Knowledge and tools share several key features. First, both

are only fully understood when they are put to use; simply knowing of them is not

sufficient. Second, using them involves a change in the user’s understanding, and

requires that they adopt the ideas and beliefs of the culture in which the tools are used. If

a learner obtains a tool but doesn’t know how to use it, the knowledge is inert. On the

other hand, if a learner actively uses the tool they will come to know a deeper, implicit

understanding of the tool, and likewise the environment in which the tool is used (Brown

et al, 1989). Learning how to use a tool takes more than following a set of rules, since the

same tool is often used differently in different contexts. For example, a watercolor artist

uses a paintbrush in a very different way than a housepainter. Thus, tools, and their use,

are highly context-dependent and, in order to use them properly, one must have an

understanding of the context in which they are used. “Activity, concept and culture are

interdependent. No one can be totally understood without the other two. And learning

must involve all three” (Brown et al., 1989, p. 35).

Situated cognition allows the learners to move beyond the mere acquisition of

tools, affording them a sense of when and how they are to be used. The main idea around


8

which the aforementioned ideas coalesce is that learning resides in the interaction that

takes place between the learner and the environment. Thus, knowledge is gained through

this interaction. This theory shifts the focus from the individual to the socio-cultural

setting and the activities of the people within that setting (Driscoll, 2000).

Learning Communities

Communities of practice are a type of learning community. Riel and Polin (2004)

discuss “three distinct but overlapping forms of learning within communities” based on

studies by social and cognitive scientists (p. 7). Riel et al. define the three types of

learning communities that are distinguished by their structure and their goals as task-

based, knowledge-based, and practice-based.

Task-based learning communities have membership that is well defined and their

members are known to one another. Generally the group identity is temporary and

membership may or may not be voluntary. Its task structure is well specified. When the

task is done, finished, completed, the community disbands.

In a knowledge-based learning community the members may or may not know

each other personally and membership is based on the expertise and credentials. There is

generally a long-term commitment to construct and reconstruct knowledge. Knowledge

accumulates for current and future use.

A practice-based learning community is defined by a membership’s evolving

level of expertise, and by the division of labor in getting the work of the community

done. Members of this community are primarily engaged in sharing access and expertise

through participative structures, such as, mentoring. The community evolves the practices


9

of the community through discourse, tools and artifacts. Practice-based learning

community is another term for community of practice.

Task-based communities of learning, knowledge-based communities of learning,

and practice-based communities of learning are terms that attempt to characterize forms

of social and cultural learning. While there is some overlap, the terms should not be used

interchangeably because they each have their own focus, or emphasis, regarding aspects

of collaborative work and group structure.

Online and Face-to-face CoPs

According to Kim (2000), face-to-face and online communities are very similar in

several ways. In her book, Building Community on the Web she describes that the two

…involve developing a web of relationships among people who have something

meaningful in common, such as a beloved hobby, a fan club, a life-altering

illness, a political cause, a religious conviction, a professional relationship, or

even simply a neighborhood or town. So in one sense, an online community is

simply a community that happens to exist online, rather than in the physical world

(p. 1).

Communities of practice can be located in a face-to-face environment or online.

Face-to-face communities of practice lend themselves to environments where members

are readily able to meet in person, such as, within a business location. Online

communities of practice, on the other hand, infrequently meet face-to-face, if at all.

Online communities offer several advantages. The Internet makes it possible for

people who are not co-located to collaborate as if they were in the same room. It also


10

carries the potential to bring people together from all over the globe in a virtual space and

alleviates many of the constraints set forth by time.

Seven features of face-to-face learning communities, referenced by Schwier

(2001), underscore the idea that “communities are complex.” The 7 features are:

• Historicity – a shared history and culture,

• Identity – a recognized focus,

• Mutuality – interdependence and mutuality,

• Plurality – vitality drawn from intermediate associations,

• Autonomy – free and meaningful discourse; not based on power,

• Participation – a self-selected level of social participation, and

• Integration – supportive norms, beliefs, and practices.

Online learning communities not only have these seven features present but must

also add three others. All of the features interact in a multi-dimensional fashion. The

complete list of ten features of online learning communities includes:

• Orientation to the Future – created movement in the context of the future,

• Technology – as facilitator of community and conduit for discourse, and

• Learning – a purposeful central element undertaken by all members.

Elements of a Community of Practice Communities of Practice are groups of people who share information, insight,

experience, and tools about an area of common interest (Wenger, 1998). CoPs address

everyday problems, new developments and emerging trends, while focused on deriving


11

the best practices. Participants “interact, learn together, build relationships, and in the

process develop a sense of belonging and mutual commitment” (Wenger, et al., 2002, p.

34). Wenger defines the three constitutive elements to a community of practice as

domain, community and practice.

Domain

In a community of practice, people come together to discuss topics or issues of

importance to them. The context of those topics and their related issues constitutes the

domain of the community and its participants. The domain provides legitimacy to a

member’s passion about a topic or body of knowledge. The domain evokes a sense of

accountability to the development of a practice around that body of knowledge.

Determined by the membership, the domain is the bastion of emergent and evolving open

questions. Discussions in the domain can be as simple as sharing information on a

common problem or as rich as kindling communication about leading-edge trends and

best practices. When participants are able to discuss topics of “personal meaning and

strategic relevance” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 32) in a trusting collaborative environment,

the domain generates energy and participation among the members. Por (2003) shares

that the main sources of value creation are shared knowledge and collective intelligence

and it is this value creation that has propelled CoPs toward radical innovation. Wenger et

al. (2002) stress three criteria to help define the scope of the domain:

(1) Focus on what is important;

(2) Focus on aspects of the domain about which members are passionate; and


12

(3) Define the scope wide enough to foster new participation and generate new

ideas. (p. 75)

Community

The community element of the CoP model includes the “people, their

relationships and their trajectories toward the development of knowledge and competence

at an individual and collective level” (Arnold and Smith, 2003, p. 6). Community as an

element recognizes that “learning is a matter of belonging as well as an intellectual

process” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 29). It is the community that encourages a willingness

to participate and meet regularly, whether informally or formally. Community offers the

activities to generate energy and develop trust. Deeply embedded in the concept of

community is the concept of reciprocity in community participation beginning with the

roles of observer – legitimate peripheral participation – and leading to expert status if

desired.

Practice

The third structural element of a community of practice is practice. Practice refers

to concepts, symbols, and analytic methods employed by the participants. Practice

“denotes a set of socially defined ways of doing things in a specific domain: a set of

common approaches and shared standards that create a basis for action, communication,

problem solving, performance, and accountability” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 38). Practice

embodies the past, the present, and the anticipated future. Arnold and Smith (2003)

further define that “Practice entails the learning that happens in a community, changing


13

and transforming member's identity and at the same time being transformed and changed

as members manifest their identity within the community” (p. 6). In building a

knowledge repository, both internally and externally, practice is visible through ways

knowledge is developed and shared, i.e., published articles, books, anecdotes, less

tangible shared understandings which communicate insights that may be transferred to

new contexts. So again, this structural element incorporates both the explicit and tacit

understandings and products that emerge and evolve in a participative community

environment and deeply intertwines the “social and negotiated character of both in

context” (Wenger, 1998, p. 47).

Dimensions: A Source of Community Coherence

Barab, MaKinster, and Scheckler (2004) compare community of practice to “…a

living organism, they are self-organizing, and cannot be designed prima facae. They

grow, evolve, and change dynamically, transcending any particular member and outliving

any particular task” (pp. 2-3). Inherent in Wenger’s definition of a community of practice

is the interrelationship among the structural elements of domain, community, and practice

as they relate to dimensions of the relationships among mutual engagement, joint

enterprise, and shared repertoire. Table 1 below delineates the components and

characteristics of those dimensions, which are sources of community coherence.


14

Table 1. Dimensions of the Relationship of Community and Practice

Mutual Engagement Joint Enterprise Shared Repertoire

-Engaged diversity

-Doing things together

-Relationships

-Social complexity

-Community maintenance

-Negotiated enterprise

-Mutual accountability

-Interpretations

-Rhythms

-Local response

-Styles

-Artifacts

-Stories

-Tools

-Historical Events

-Discourses

-Concepts

(Wenger, 1998, p. 73)

Mutual Engagement of Participants

Community coherence derives from the participation and membership that defines

“community” in CoP and the engagement in actions that defines “practice”. Being

included in what matters is a requirement for being engaged in a CoP. Some members

may have different status levels, but there is a common bond within the domain. In doing

things together, identities become interlocked and articulated through mutual engagement

that is dependent on the mutual contributions and knowledge of others. Mutual

engagement of participants is dependent upon diversity of thought and backgrounds. This

gives rise to mutual relationships that can have ups and downs. While these tensions can


15

be mitigated by establishing norms of interaction, conflict and disagreement can give rise

to productive outcomes, such as deeper learning or radical innovation.

Joint Enterprise

A second source of community coherence is joint enterprise. It is the result of a

collective process of negotiation that reflects the complexity of mutual engagement. It is

defined by the participants in response to their situation and in spite of influences and

forces beyond their control - it is the inventive resourcefulness that makes a CoP evolve a

communal response (Wenger, 1998).

Joint enterprise has at its basis the concept of mutual accountability among

participants that reinforces practice in the community.

These relations of accountability include what matters and what doesn’t, what is

important and why it is important, what to do and not to do, what to pay attention

to and what to ignore, what to talk about and what to leave unsaid, what to justify

and what to take for granted, what to display and what to withhold, when actions

and artifacts are good enough and when they need improvement or refinement

(Wenger, 1998, p. 81).

Some of these aspects of accountability become reified, such as rules, standards, goals,

policies, that is to say, these aspects, which are abstract, are transformed in meaning to a

concrete representation or behavior practice.

Joint enterprise is predicated on a rhythm that is at once interpretable,

participative, and sharable. Communities of Practice develop in the context of historical,

social, cultural, and institutional entities with specific resources and constraints.


16

Conditions of the CoP can be explicitly or implicitly articulated, yet the participants’

responses to those resources and constraints, that is to say, how the participants negotiate

meaning and participation are what make it their enterprise (Wenger, 1998, p.79).

Shared Repertoire

The third dimension of the relationship between community and practice is called

shared repertoire. Shared repertoire refers to the history of the community and its

participants. It is found in their communication style, stories, artifacts, events, symbols,

and routines as they have evolved over time. Through a process of negotiated meaning,

practices evolve as shared histories of learning. Yet, that history does not constrain the

practice and meaning is not static within a community. The process of negotiating

meaning is a generative, active process that is dynamic and historical, as well as

contextual and unique to a community (Wenger, 1998). Negotiation of meaning requires

a process of participation with continuous interaction of gradual achievement and of give-

and-take. It also involves a process known as reification, characterized by the interaction

of the participants in the joint enterprise with the “tools of their trade”. The interaction of

these two processes, participation and reification, creates the negotiated meaning and

shared history.

Participation and reification fit around each to create meaning within a

community. Participation suggests action and connection. It refers to the social

experience within a community and the active involvement in joint enterprises. “It

[participation] is a complex process that combines doing, talking, thinking, feeling, and

belonging” (Wenger, 1998, p. 57). Reification, on the other hand, is the embodiment of


17

abstract concepts, generated documents, processes adopted or adapted by the participants.

Reification also embodies tools and behaviors with which the participants interact.

Participation and reification become more than a mere distinction between people and

things. Rather, the interplay between the social process and the tools and history of the

community shape the learning experience of a community.

Newcomers go through a process called legitimate peripheral participation to

become full members in a CoP. For this transformative process to occur, the practice has

to be open. In other words, the practice must provide access to all 3 dimensions of

practice: mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire. As new participants

enter there can be different “perspectives that are brought to bear on the history of the

practice. Working out these perspectives involves dynamics of continuity and

discontinuity that propels the practice forward” (Wenger, 1998, p. 101). For this reason,

participation and reification are dynamic and multidimensional.


18

Crossing Boundaries

Fundamental aspects of community building – “the social and cultural dynamics,

the power of a shared purpose, and the roles, rituals and events that bind people together

into a group” (Kim, 2002, Introduction Section) make CoPs dynamic and

multidimensional. Participation can cross boundaries and when that happens, some of the

reified artifacts and processes move also. Many CoPs are distributed communities that

cross multiple boundaries, including: geographic, time zones, organizations, and

perspectives (local, national, global). As a CoP becomes more focused and coherent,

boundaries often emerge which can impede new membership. Yet, it is often new

membership and cross-affiliations, bringing new perspectives, which enable growth and

innovation.

Wenger (1998) refers to modes of belonging as engagement, imagination and

alignment. Schwier (2001) calls these catalysts engagement, interaction and alignment

© H. Sullivan


19

when describing an online learning environment that constitutes a community of practice

under Wenger’s terms. Regardless of the name we give to these catalysts of belonging,

Schwier correctly depicts communication at the heart of any community. Communication

fosters trust, which, in turn, sustains participation in the community of practice. As

members expand their affiliations with other communities, trust must again be built in

order to move from legitimate peripheral participation to core expert status. Por (2003)

goes further in stating that crossing boundaries, wherein different disciplines, business

units, and organizational functions are brought to bear on the community, actually leads

to radical innovation. Allowing differing perspectives causes membership to question

how, what and why. This questioning, in turn, impacts the shift in participants’ mental

models, a generative condition of radical innovation.

Stages of Development

The life cycle of a community of practice involves five stages of development.

The stages of development include: Potential, Coalescing, Maturing, Stewardship, and

Transformation. The jagged line in the diagram below represents the level of energy and

visibility that the community typically generates over time. These stages, depicted by

Wenger et al. (2002), can be evaluated according to the three structural elements of a

CoP: domain, community and practice.


20

Potential Stage

CoPs continually evolve, but typically they start as loose networks that hold the

potential of becoming more connected and thus more important to the organization.

Wenger et al. (2002) share that during the Potential Stage community must address the

domain issue of its focus and make sure that the topic scope is broad enough to bring in

new people and new ideas. Participants must find others who share that interest and

convince them of the value of sharing their knowledge with others. This community

building issue is important for creating credibility. Finally, during the potential stage, it is

essential to identify the common knowledge needs for the practice. This is a critical role

for the community coordinator.

Time

Level of Energy & Visibility

Developmental Tensions

Discover/ Imagine

Incubator/Deliver Immediate Value

Focus/Expand Ownership/ Openness

Let Go/ Live On

Potential

Coalescing

Maturing

Stewardship

Transformation

(Wenger, et al., 2002, p. 69)

Stages of Community Development


21

Coalescing Stage

Generating energy in the community is imperative so that members build

connections and coalesce into a community. During the Coalescing Stage, the domain

issue becomes one of generating energy about the topic(s) and the mutual value of

sharing both tacit and explicit knowledge in that domain. In order for this to occur the

community works toward developing relationships and trust in order for discourse to take

place. When, what and how that knowledge is shared then becomes the focal point of the

practice issue for the community.

In addition to creating a “space” for the community, Wenger et al. (2002) specify

that the coalescing stage typically has a plan with the following activities to anchor the

community, such as a kickoff or events. Additionally, it is suggested that to build

connections in the core group that a community coordinator be legitimized. As mentioned

earlier, generating energy about the community means that efforts have to be made to

bring in membership, find a common topic or project to solidify the values of sharing and

trust; encourage insights and practices worth sharing; identify opportunities to provide

value to the total organization; and provide access to experts.

Maturing Stage

Once formed, the community membership and knowledge base grow or mature

through sharing. When mature, communities go through cycles of high and low activity.

During the Maturing Stage, Wenger et al. (2002) counsel that the community’s

relationship among other domains and the total organization must be defined. Managing

the boundary of the community becomes a community issue to insure that it is not


22

distracted from its core purpose. As the sense-of-self increases, the practice shifts from

one of simple sharing of ideas and insights to actually organizing and managing the

knowledge. This is the opportune time for innovation to arise in the practice.

Stewardship Stage

During the Stewardship Stage, communities face the main issue of sustaining

momentum through the natural shifts in its practice, members, technology, and

relationship to the organization. This stage’s domain issue is one of relevance and voice

in strategic direction, according to Wenger et al. (2002). Furthermore, the community

must be vigilant in keeping the “tone and intellectual focus of the community lively and

engaging” by introducing new topics, controversial speakers, joint meetings, or vendor

and supplier sessions on new technologies (p. 104). Finally, active recruitment,

development of new leadership, mentoring, and crossing boundaries will insure the

practice maintains its cutting edge. As the CoP grows, the activities needed to develop it

also change.

Transformation Stage

Transformation occurs when a community comes to a natural or unnatural end

because of “changing markets, organizational structures, and/or technology renders the

domain irrelevant…The issues that spawned the community may be resolved” (Wenger

et al., 2002, p. 109). The community may find greater value in merging with another CoP

or splitting. Closed boundaries, loss of momentum, or becoming a social clique can also

cause a community to dissolve. Deciding whether the community is truly dying or is


23

simply in need of refocusing is a judgment call that should be addressed by the core

membership and coordinator.

Implications and Implementations

Implications

As mentioned earlier, communities of practice can be geographically located, or

face-to-face, or they may be virtually located, or online. Face-to-face communities of

practice enable members to easily and synchronously meet at one geographic location,

such as in a boardroom or restaurant. Online communities of practice, however, rely more

on meeting via the Internet and thus enable synchronous or asynchronous discussion

between members who may or may not be co-located. Whether situated in face-to-face

environments or online, communities of practice have the potential to bring great

advantages to all types of organizations, including educational and corporate.

As organizations become larger and more complex, Lesser and Storck (2001)

argue that support for communities of practice, or “groups whose members regularly

engage in sharing and learning, based on common interests”, is increasingly important as

these communities have great potential for improving organizational performance (p.

831). This is believed to be true because communities of practice foster the generation of

social capital. Social capital is defined as the “sum of the actual and potential resources

embedded within, available through and derived from the network of relationships

possessed by an individual or social unit” (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998, p.245).

It is thought that the social capital generated by communities of practice leads to

behavioral changes that in turn generate increased knowledge sharing and collaboration,


24

which then add value to an organization by positively influencing business performance

(Lesser et al., 2001). Nahapiet et al. (1998) go on to explain the concept of social capital

as having three primary dimensions: structural, relational, and cognitive. Generally

speaking, the structural dimension refers to the connections and informal networks

among practitioners who may or may not be co-located. Next, the relational dimension

refers to the sense of trust, mutual obligation, expectation and identity established

through the relationships. Last, the cognitive dimension addresses the shared interests,

general understandings, common language and context shared by community members.

Communities of Practice serve as a vehicle for building social capital in three ways. First,

they offer the opportunity for people with similar interests to network and collaborate.

Second, they not only allow for, but, encourage the interpersonal relations essential to

trust building. Third, because communities are inherently set up around a common

interest or view, they enable their members to maintain and sustain the shared

terminology, conventions, and artifacts exclusive to their community (Lesser and Prusak,

1999).

The development and maintenance of communities of practice, whether online or

face-to-face can serve as an instrumental tool for educators, as they foster social capital

as well as enable the exchange of explicit and tacit knowledge. As mentioned in the

previous section, however, online communities of practice have three distinctive features.

First, they are orientated toward the future. Second, the technology that supports them

also facilitates a sense of community by enabling members to quickly and easily

communicate and share at their convenience. Third, learning is the purposeful central

element undertaken by all members. With progress, collaboration, and knowledge as such


25

key focal points, an online community of practice offers a unique means to an end for

educators of all educators who desire to enhance teaching and learning.

Online Implementations in Education

Building a successful online community begins with defining a purpose and

vision. A purpose should be clear and targeted toward a certain audience. To identify the

community purpose, clarify the needs and goals of the members then design the

community to fulfill those needs and goals. Once this has been accomplished, there are

additional recommended components for an online community of practice. One of these

components is a home page where the domain, vision and purpose are easily reflected.

An example of this in practice can be seen at Johns Hopkins Electronic Learning

Communities home page. Displayed on this page is all the information a viewer needs to

develop a clear understanding of what this learning community is all about as well as the

community’s goals.

A second essential component is a conversation space for both synchronous and

asynchronous collaboration. This can be seen at the Tapped In Community of Practice.

Members of this community can easily choose to chat synchronously or post their ideas

on a discussion board. The chat feature allows people to communicate “real time” and is

ideal in time-sensitive situations, while a threaded discussion gives people time to

thoughtfully reflect on other’s thoughts and ideas before responding, thus encouraging a

deeper level of collaboration. Both of these communication tools address a third

important component of successful CoPs, and that is a mechanism for members to ask

each other questions as well as provide each other with answers.


26

A fourth important feature involves a membership directory that includes some

basic information about the member profiles and their areas of expertise in the domain.

An example of this can be seen again at Johns Hopkins ELC home page. Here, users can

easily access a membership list as well as click on any member name in the list to view

their “profile”, or personal information pertaining to that particular member. A fifth

important component to include is a document repository to serve as a knowledge base

for a community of practice. Along with this feature, there should be a search mechanism

that allows members to retrieve what they need from the knowledge base. An example of

both of these things can be seen at The Math Forum Community of Practice. Easily

accessible from the home page, the “Math Library” serves as the site’s knowledge base,

while the “Quick Reference” and “Search Our Site” options allow participants to access

anything that they are looking for in the site as well as see exactly what is available.

Community management tools, for the site administrator and perhaps for the

participants in the community as well, are essential. These might include tools that allow

the administrator or participants the ability to see who is participating actively, how much

site usage there is overall, which documents need updating, and so forth. Perhaps one of

the most important tools to include in a community of practice is a one that allows

members to create subgroups within the larger community. This can be seen at Tapped In

where members can customize virtual buildings with public, group, and personal rooms

as well as create and manage groups. Among other things, allowing members to create

these interest groups, so to speak, further encourages the sharing of both explicit and tacit

knowledge between them and offers a certain degree of ownership in the community. It is

critical that members feel they have a hand in the maintenance, development, and


27

advancement of the community so they continue to play a role in it, whether they are an

active core member, or one engaging more from the periphery. After all, it is the

members who populate the chat rooms, the discussion boards, and the resources for the

community. Essentially, the members are the community.

In addition to the aforementioned components, features, and tools, a technological

platform for communities of practice should ideally be easy to learn and use, as

participation in communities of practice is something the members do in addition to their

regular occupations. The communities should be easily integrated with software familiar

to the members of the community so participation requires as few extra steps as possible.

Effective CoPs: Keys to Success and Lessons Learned

Communities of Practice are complex and their associated elements multi-dimensionally

interact. Lessons learned by some organizations have been shared, pointing out factors

and characteristics in building the community that lead to success.

Purpose

Of primary importance, the community must be focused on a topic or purposes

important to the participants. Based on Siemens experience, LeMoult (2002) instructs

that determining the aim of the community can be generative. A decided aim reaps

benefits such as: solutions for daily problems, best practices, focused collaboration of

experts, faster learning, increased knowledge level, new knowledge development, and

cross boundary coordination (synergy). The World Bank Institute (WBI) Development


28

Forum also includes communities of practice outside of the time-bound events and other

learning activities organized by the organization. The self-organizing CoPs, with

worldwide membership, offer a mechanism for participants to learn from each other and

find solutions to problems on a “just-in-time” basis. They caution that the community (1)

should have a clear and focused purpose and (2) different purposes dictate different

designs and technologies when the CoP is located online. In this way, Internet noise can

be minimized in the community.

LeMoult shares that success of the CoP is dependent on compelling needs for

reasons to include: collaborative space for online teams; the need for expert input; and the

need to keep knowledge experience alive. Furthermore, LeMoult suggests that

benchmarking be employed to determine if another community with a similar compelling

need in the same domain exists and whether your community may join as a subgroup.

Schwier (2001) points out that while the purpose of the community may be built around

central themes, the “organizing principles are not externally imposed. Participants

construct purposes, intentions and the protocol for interaction” (p. 15).

Integration

The community dynamics are fostered through “supportive norms, beliefs and

practices” (Schwier, 2001, p. 15). Those dynamics include social participation that is

visible, autonomy to participate meaningfully and freely, and plurality, which draws

vitality into the community through diversity. In order to achieve concrete results, the

WBI suggests “recruiting the active participation of a critical mass of the “right people”

is crucial. However, the “right people” need to be defined inclusively” (WBI, 2004,

Section 7). Por (2003) counsels that productive trustful relationships increase


29

collaborative learning, which, in turn, leads to increased leveraging power of the CoP for

innovation. He suggests that a CoP should have a facilitator (WBI and Siemens call this

role the moderator) and cross-boundary membership. Por identifies the facilitator role as

an enabler of innovation wherein productive conversation and knowledge emerge. The

WBI’s experiences have shown that the vital role of the moderator

serves not only as “gatekeeper”, filtering out irrelevant or offensive messages;

he/she also sets the tone of the discussion, keeps the discussion focused and

moving forward; “animates” the discussion when it is moving slowly; contributes

useful information; helps/encourages members to contribute information on their

experience; prepares summaries; and in general serves all the functions of a good

“chair” in a working group. (WBI, 2004, Section 3)

The burden for the community coalescing does not, however, rest on a single facilitator

or moderator for the community. Multiple roles within the community lead to the

integration of the participants in the community context. McDermott (2000) identifies

four factors to success:

1. Get key thought leaders involved.

2. Build personal relationships among community members.

3. Develop an active passionate core group.

4. Create forums for thinking together and systems for sharing information.

Shell’s Turbodudes, per McDermott, is one of the most successful communities of

practice: “The Turbodudes stay together through five key components: a coordinator,


30

mentors, a weekly meeting, presentations by outside vendors, and a website that stores

topics discussed at previous meetings” (2000, Section: Communities of practice link

people in many ways). Members, including a core group of high-contributors, meet

informally once a week for an hour before work to share questions, problems and

arranged presentations. There is a note taker and a coordinator. Notes are posted within

twenty-four hours and the coordinator facilitates the meeting and networks among

participants in-between meetings to connect members with similar interests and to extract

new topic areas. Finally, the group offers a mentorship program to keep abreast of

leading edge topics and to steward new members.

LeMoult (2002) similarly suggests that one role in a CoP should be designated to

feed the community topics. She suggests content provider organization affiliations with

content that is direct and has a fast benefit.

Tools

“Tools are just tools” (WBI, 2004, Section 4). Schlager and Fusco (2004) in

discussing activity theory as it relates to building communities of practice, state that

Activities are mediated by the tools (technical and conceptual) and other artifacts,

which are available to the subjects. Activities take place in the context of, and are

influenced by, a surrounding community. The community exerts influence on the

activity through the mediation of established rules (i.e., values, norms of

behavior, dispositions toward inquiry, trust, and commitment), tools that have


31

been institutionalized in the community and division of labor (the allocation of

roles and responsibilities) (p. 9).

Preece (2002) poses two challenges for technology in the online environment:

accessibility of developing/emerging technologies; and ensuring that the tool supports

effective social interaction.

Achieving the goal of universally usable online communities and community

networks poses two challenges. The first is that we must focus on developing

technologies that are accessible to a wide range of users on a variety of devices. The

second is to ensure that the software also supports sociability, that is, effective social

interaction online.

While there has been a proliferation of on-line tools for such mediation in a

community of practice, the WBI urges resisting the temptation to incorporate them

without identifying the purposes and audience for which they are intended. While,

clearly, technology facilitates development of community, it can also inhibit it through

unintended exclusion of some members (Schwier, 2001). Rightly so, Schwier does point

out that tools enable participants to engage one another in an online environment and act

as the catalyst to bind the community.

The WBI suggests that fully-searchable archives of discussion summaries,

messages, and related resources, organized by theme is a “vital tool for assuring not only

that the learning that takes place in the group is effectively captured, but also that those

who could not participate in the ongoing discussion can have easy access to this learning”


32

(2004, Section: 5). Por’s work with many CoPs supports this position and points to

fundamental benefit, “Stewarding the knowledge bases, taxonomies and knowledge maps

of their practice will increase the ability to see possibilities for the cross-impact of ideas.”

This knowledge melding, then, leads to radical innovation.

McDermott (2000) sums up the technical challenge stating, “Make it easy to

contribute and access the community’s knowledge and practices” (Technical Challenge

Section). He suggests that the software be considered in the context of participant

familiarity and facility. “Ease of use is more about how the software integrates with

people’s daily work, the knowledge they need to share, the way they think about their

community’s domain and how they move about in it, than with specific features of the

software itself” (Ease of Use Has Little to Do with Software Functionality Section). In

agreement, LeMoult (2002) suggests the “kiss” structure and tools, keep it fresh, and let it

grow before structuring.

Cothrell (2000) does show how technology tools can be employed to track the

success of an on-line community. Metrics analysis compares member activity to visitor

activity at different data points to help answer what additional or incremental value is

generated and to determine visitor/lurker conversion. In fact, Cothrell suggests that the

inability to measure return on investment (ROI) results from poorly defined objectives.

As presented by Cothrell, a summary of the metrics and online tools from which the data

may be derived, can be seen in Table 2.


33

Table 2. Metrics and Tools

ROI Metrics Tools Employed for Analysis

• Unique visitors, page views, session

time, check through percentage,

registered members

• Postings per day/week/month in

member to member interaction

• Read to post ratio in member to member

interaction

• Discussion Forums

• Technical Q & A

• Chat Applications

• Page additions in member generated

content programs

• Page revisions in member generated

content programs

• Member Profiles

• Home Pages

• Prod. Reviews

• Peak number of concurrent users in live

events

• Total number of concurrent users in live

events

• Guest Events

• Expert Seminars

• Virtual Meetings/ Trade shows

• Audience penetration (if the total size of

the target population is known)

• Repeat visits

• Frequent visitors

Outreach:

• Newsletters

• Volunteers/leaders program

• Programs

• Polls/surveys


34

Challenges

One must recognize “communities of practice are not havens of peace or

unbounded goodwill. They reflect all the strengths, weaknesses, and complex

interrelationships of their human members” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 144). For example,

when relationships become so strong that they dominate all other concerns, cliques form.

Cliques get in the way of creating a sense of community. “Cliquish communities…tend to

stagnate…and constrain individual growth or creativity” (p. 145). However, “the strategic

capabilities they develop are worth the effort” (p. 159).

Communities of practice themselves can, under some circumstances, be obstacles

to learning. There may also be issues in formalizing a community of practice as Schwier

(2001) contends “They [communities of practice] are organic, and…as such,

communities cannot be created; rather they emerge when conditions nurture them” (p. 5-

6).

On the human side, excessive enthusiasm can sometimes lead to feelings of

exclusive ownership of the domain, which, in turn, can lead to narcissism, factionalism,

or disenfranchisement. (Wenger et al., 2002, pp. 141-143) Communities present 4 key

challenges in building successful community: a management challenge, a community

challenge, a personal challenge and a technical challenge (McDermott, 2000).

The management challenge is to communicate the value of sharing knowledge.

The critical success factors in meeting the management challenge involve rallying the

practice around topics that are important to the members of the community. Doing so will

engender personal passion about and a subject that is dear to members (McDermott,

2000).


35

A well-managed community also needs a well-respected member of the

community to act as a coordinator whose primary role is to link people together.

Coordinators keep people informed about the activities of members in the community and

create opportunities for members to share ideas and meet one another. From a corporate

business perspective, supporting the community entails management encouraging and

creating opportunities/time for members to participate in the community of practice.

Finally, also from a corporate business perspective, the last management challenge is to

assure the community is in synch with the existing organization’s culture.

The Community challenge involves keeping the life of the community vibrant and

forward thinking so that it remains on the cutting edge of its field and creates value for its

members. (McDermott, 2000) As such, it is important to attract respected leaders in the

field, which will help legitimize the community. Another benefit may be that respected

thinkers may act as a conduit to draw new members into the community.

The energy of thinkers in the community creates opportunities for forums of idea

and information sharing, and for opportunities to develop personal relationships within

the community. Forums and shared relationships deliver a sense of common history to

members and are potential unifying factors. The last key of the community challenge is to

develop a core group of active members who will be passionate about the domain.

The personal challenge is for each member to develop enough trust within the

community to be willing to make yourself vulnerable enough to risk talking about your

problems in public. (McDermott, 2000) As McDermott notes, “the most valuable and

vibrant community events focus on solving problems.” It takes time to develop a strong

community connection and trust.


36

The technical challenges associated with a successful community of practice are

the social, cultural, and organizational issues, which are discussed above (McDermott,

2000). Technological features, experience has shown, are secondary (Wenger, 2001.) In

the 21st century, however, an increasing number of communities are online and/or

geographically disbursed. It is therefore, important to understand how technology can

hinder or help communities.

Technology can assist an online or terrestrial community by affording

collaboration and the sharing of information. The challenge is in how to design a

community using technology that will make it easy for members to participate. In other

words, technology can affect time and space, participation, value creation, connections,

identity, and community development/membership (Wenger, 2001). Understanding its

role has become increasingly important.

“Technology cannot replace one’s network of connections in a field, but it can

provide some facilities” (Wenger, 2001). Technology should be intuitive to use and

should be flexible enough to allow members to communicate with each other, contribute

information, and use information that resides in the system.

Conclusion In summary, a CoP is a group of people who share information, insight, experience, and

tools about an area of common interest (Wenger, 1998). They address everyday

problems, new developments and emerging trends, while focused on deriving the best

practices. Generally speaking, the concept of a CoP attempts to characterize the social

and cultural learning that is derived from legitimate peripheral participation. Essential to


37

a CoP is the interrelationship among the structural elements, domain, community and

practice, as they relate to dimensions of the relationships among mutual engagement,

joint enterprise, and shared repertoire. Regardless of whether or not a CoP exists

physically or online, it offers a way to enhance teaching and learning through the

facilitation of progress, collaboration, and knowledge. Thus, Communities of Practice

provide educators with a powerful tool for promoting and facilitating the sharing,

development, and advancement of knowledge. They also play an instrumental role in the

generation of social capital, which in turn leads to improved performance. Finally, while

CoPs present challenges that must be addressed and managed if the CoP is to be

successful, the advantages can be well worth the effort.


38

References

Arnold, P. & Smith, J. D. (2003). Adding connectivity and losing context with ICT:

Contrasting learning situations from a community of practice perspective. In

Marleen Huysman, Etienne Wenger and Volker Wulf, Communities and

Technologies; Proceedings of the First International Conference on Communities

and Technologies; C&T 2003. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Document provided in email February 27, 2004 by Smith.

Barab, S.A. and Duffy, T.M., (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In

D. H. Jonassen, and S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning

environments (pp. 25-55)., Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Barab, S. A., MaKinster, J. G., Moore, J. A., Cunningham, D. J. (2001). Designing and

building an on-line community: The struggle to support sociability in the inquiry

learning forum. ETR&D, v. 49, no. 4, pp. 71-96.

Bredo, E. (1994). Reconstructing educational psychology: Situated cognition and

deweyian pragmatism. Educational Psychologist, 29, (1), 23-35.

Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989, Jan/Feb). Situated cognition and the culture

of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, (1), 32-42.

Cothrel, J. P. (2000) Measuring the success of an online community. Strategies &

Leadership, v. 20, no. 2, pp 17-21. MCB University Press.

Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Needham Heights,

MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Kim, A.J. (2000). Community Building on the Web. Retrieved March 4, 2004, from

http://www.naima.com/community/intro/index.html.


39

LeMoult, D. (2002). How to make a community of practice fly. Siemens ICN:

Knowledge Board.

Lesser, E., Prusak, L. (1999). Communities of practice, social capital, & organizational

knowledge. Information Systems Review 1, (1), 3–9.

Lesser, E., Storck, J. (2001). Communities of practice and organizational performance.

IBM Systems Journal, 40, (4), 831-841.

McDermott, R. (2000). Knowing in community: 10 critical success factors in building

communities of practice. IHRIM Journal, March p. 19-26. Retrieved February 29,

2004, from http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/knowing.shtml

Nahapiet, J., and Ghoshal, S. (1998, April). Social capital, intellectual capital and the

organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, (2), 242-266.

Nickols, F. (2000) Community of practice, what it’s like inside. Retrieved January 29,

2004, from http://www.kmadvantage.com/cop_articles.htm

Por, G. (2003). Radical innovation with communities of practice. Retrieved February 27,

2003, from http://www.community-intelligence.com/resources.htm

Preece, J. (Ed.) (2002). Supporting Community and Building Social Capital. Special

edition of Communications of the ACM, 45, 4. pp. 37- 39. Retrieved February 29,

2004, from

http://www.ifsm.umbc.edu/~preece/paper/10%20Introduction%20%20CACM%2

0Special%20addition.pdf

Riel, M. and Polin, L. (in press). Learning communities: Common ground and critical

differences in designing technical environments. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling & J.


40

Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning.

Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Schwier, R.A. (2001) Catalysts, Emphases & Elements of Virtual Learning

Environments: Implications for research and Practice. The Quarterly Review of

Distance Education, vol. 2(1), pp. 5-18.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. (2001). Supporting communities of practice, a survey of community-oriented

technologies. Retrieved November 5, 2003, from

http://chd.gse.gmu.edu/immersion/immsite/student/Docs/techcops.doc.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., and Snyder W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice:

A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School

Publishing.

Development E-Discusions and Communities, The World Bank Institute. Retrieved

February 29, 2004, from http://www.worldbank.org/devforum

Math Forum, (1994). Retrieved March 27, 2004, from http://www.mathforum.org/

Tapped In, (1994). Retrieved March 27, 2004, from

http://ti2.sri.com/tappedin/web/about.jsp

Johns Hopkins ELC, (1994). Retrieved March 27, 2004, from

http://cte.jhu.edu/elcweb/members.htm

communities of practice: a primer for...

Documents