Following the evolution of distributed Communities of Practice

Abstract

Symbiotic computing leads to a proliferation of computing devices that in turn allow linking people, favouring the development of Communities of Practice (CoPs). The notion of Communities of Practice is newer than the social organization it describes, but the emergence of technologies based on the Internet like emails, forums, blogs, wikis, conference calls, video-conference facilitated the creation of a new kind of CoP: the distributed CoP. Distributed CoPs are CoPs whose members being dispersed geographically have to rely strongly on technological means to interact. Distributed CoPs face new issues due to the distance among members, the size of the community and the cultural differences. In this context, coordinating distributed CoPs is even more challenging than coordinating their collocated counterparts.Things that happen rather spontaneously in a collocated community must be instigated in a distributed one, overloading the coordination of distributed CoPs. The increasing role of the coordination should be supported by an adequate set of coordination tools. In this paper we present a tool that aims at supporting the coordination of distributed CoPs. This tool lets the coordination follow the evolution of the community. It analyzes the exchanges among members and shows this information in a graphical format in order to help the coordination to follow the evolution of the participation and the domain of the community.

The LDHEN hive mind: Learning Development in UK higher education as a professional culture

“…The LDHEN functions as a distributed community of practice. Based on Lave and Wenger's (1991) Communities of Practice theory, the notion of distributed communities of practice (DCoP) takes account of the dispersed nature of many professional communities which are sustained through computer technology (Sato et al, 2008). DCoP differ from virtual learning communities in that they are less formal, voluntary, self-starting, needsdriven and tend to have a stronger sense of identity (Schwier and Daniel, 2008).…”