Situated learning theory offers a radical critique of cognitivist theories of learning, emphasizing the relational aspects of learning within communities of practice in contrast to the individualist assumptions of conventional theories. However, although many researchers have embraced the theoretical strength of situated learning theory, conceptual issues remain undeveloped in the literature. Roberts, for example, argues in this issue that the notion of 'communities of practice' -a core concept in situated learning theory -is itself problematic. To complement her discussion, this paper explores the communities of practice concept from several perspectives. Firstly, we consider the perspective of the individual learner, and examine the processes which constitute 'situated learning'. Secondly, we consider the broader socio-cultural context in which communities of practice are embedded. We argue that the cultural richness of this broader context generates a fluidity and heterogeneity within and beyond communities. Finally, we argue that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish conceptually between the terms 'participation' and 'practice' because of occasional duplication of meaning. We propose, instead, a refinement of the definition to allow for greater conceptual clarity.

The management consultancy industry is attracting more and more attention. The critical literature in particular has questioned how a non-codi®ed body of knowledge like`consultancy' could become so apparently in¯uential. The answering emphasis has been on the symbolic nature of consultant strategies and consultancy as a powerful system of persuasion. However, an emerging structural perspective has developed a rather dierent view, focusing on the limits of the industry discourse, and the constraints of a consultancy role de®ned largely by external forces. While it is useful to contrast the two perspectives ± strategic and structural ± they can also be viewed as complementary, and indeed a number of writers have been well aware both of the importance of consultant strategies and the context of consultancy work. In particular, they have explored the interaction between consultant and client, and called attention to factors like the countervailing power of client organizations and the uncertainty of the management task.

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

This paper explores a narrative perspective on ‘success’ and ‘failure’ in computer systems development. Organizational narratives can be seen as sense‐making devices and as having a purposive aspect in the ways in which they evolve and change and influence behaviour. Narratives like success and failure in particular can be seen as persuasive rhetorics used in legitimizing particular courses of action. The narrative approach challenges more accepted notions, particularly rationalist views that see computer success/failure as outcomes brought about by simple causation. It also reveals the limitations of process models of IT success/failure, though these stress a more complex form of decision making around IT. In the paper, these issues are explored in contrasting projects in financial services firms. In two case studies, computer success and failure emerge not as discrete conditions, but as interacting themes employed by organizational members in response to the circumstances they confront. The corporate capacity to build success out of failure, and to distance the new from the old, discriminated between successful and unsuccessful projects.

The measurement and reporting of intellectual capital has recently attracted a growing interest from accounting researchers, promoting a lively and far-reaching debate. Two related issues have informed this debate. It is possible to identify these issues as exemplifying financial reporting and management accounting perspectives on the emergence of intellectual capital. Provides a commentary on the progress of the debate to date, while also attempting to contextualise some of the issues it entails in both earlier and wider debates. In an effort to progress the project of accounting for intellectual capital, suggests the adoption of a critical accounting perspective. This would entail exploring the possibilities of intellectual capital providing its own accounts, rather than remaining imprisoned within accounts devised by others