What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal works

Abstract

This paper is a comparative review of four seminal works on communities of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991, Brown and Duguid 1991, Wenger 1998, Wenger, McDermott and Snyder 2002. It is argued that the ambiguities of the terms community and practice are a source of the concept's reusability allowing it to be reappropriated for different purposes, academic and practical. However it is potentially confusing that the works differ so markedly in their conceptualisations of community, learning, power and change, diversity and informality. The three earlier works are underpinned by a common epistemological view, but Lave and Wenger (1991) is often read as primarily about the socialisation of new-comers into knowledge by a form of apprenticeship, while the focus in Brown and Duguid (1991) is, in contrast, on improvising new knowledge in a interstitial group that forms in resistance to management. Wenger (1998) 1 IntroductionThe concept of communities of practice has become popular in several academic fields including organisational studies (particularly the topics of knowledge management and organisational learning) and education. Information scientists interested in knowledge and learning are also using the term (witnessed, for example, by bibliographic reviews in the it is a conceptual lens through which to examine the situated social construction of meaning. At other times it is used to refer to a virtual community or informal group sponsored by an organisation to facilitate knowledge sharing or learning. This paper does not attempt to prescribe one definition, rather it aims to clarify for the reader variations in usage and comment critically on the different conceptions.A particular cause of confusion is significant divergences between three earlier seminal works; one or all of which are cited by almost every author who uses the concept. These are: Having considered the four works, a summary section draws together the discussion foregrounding their differences and particular contributions. The conclusion points to a major distinction between direct and indirect social relations as the foundation of communities. Lave and Wenger (1991)The dominant reading of Lave and Wenger (1991) has been that it proposes a new approach to understanding learning, including that which takes place in the workplace.This approach focuses on informal and situated social interaction, rather than on a planned mechanistic process of cognitive transmission. Such interaction achieves authentic, motivated learning of what is needed to be known about the complexities of real practice. It is a central proposition that learning is more than simply acquiring knowledge, it is about an identity change. Peripheral participation, active involvement in the practice, is identified as a key process in learning. Table 1 summarises some features of this new account, set against the rejected orthodoxies (as the authors themselves construct them). Referring to a community of practice is not a way to postulate the existence of a new informal grouping...

Pedagogy of peers: Cultivating writing retreats as communities of academic writing practice

“…Communities of Practice, in their conception, interpretation and application have varied and evolved over time (Cox 2005;Li et al 2009). Emerging initially as social learning systems in contrast to classroom-based cognitivist theories (Li at al.…”

“…While this has been viewed as a 'popularisation and a simplification but also a commodification of the idea of community of practice' (Cox 2005) it does provide guidance in how to use CoPs and principles for cultivating them (Wenger, McDermott and Snyder 2002).…”

“…The pedagogical framing for the retreats in this study takes licence from the tradition of varied interpretations and applications of CoP (Cox 2005). It begins by drawing on the premise that cultivating a CoP can serve to deliver value to the university by connecting the individual writing and identity development needs of academics to the university's need for enhanced publication output.…”

Análise sobre a Produção Acadêmica Brasileira em Comunidades de Prática

“…Apesar de não estarem distantes dos processos informais e situados de aprendizagem e conhecimento discutidos por Lave e Wenger (1991), Brown e Duguid (1991) salientam que as comunidades de prática contribuem mais com os processos de inovação do que com a reprodução das práticas existentes, como focou o trabalho de Lave e Wenger (1991). Para fundamentar essa tese sobre as relações informais serem mais de inovação do que de reprodução, Brown e Duguid (1991) Tendo como foco essa diferença terminológica entre comunidades de prática e comunidade ocupacional/profissional, Cox (2005) lembra que o argumento de Brown e Duguid (1991) está baseado na rejeição das ações formalizadas no contexto de trabalho, mas de que, no texto de J. Orr, os manuais da Xerox surgem como recurso útil e formal nos processos desenvolvidos pelos funcionários de manutenção das máquinas. Cox (2005) salienta que, sendo úteis esses manuais, tanto para a mera reprodução de atividades quanto para sua evolução, os espaços para a existência das comunidades de prática, nas quais a geração de conhecimento não canônico é a regra, são limitados, o que fez com que J. Orr chamasse a comunidade estabelecida entre os funcionários de manutenção das máquinas da Xerox de comunidade ocupacional.…”

“…Assim, inicia-se examinando o surgimento e as derivações do conceito de comunidades de prática nos principais textos que abordam esse tema. Durante essa discussão teórica, o texto de Cox (2005) é constantemente retomado, pois esse autor se debruçou sobre as diferenças existentes entre os textos seminais, o que permite compreensões, no contexto deste artigo, sobre os elementos que subjazem essas obras. Logo em seguida, é apresentado um tópico sobre o percurso metodológico utilizado para analisar a evolução das publicações acadêmicas brasileiras sobre o termo comunidades de prática, onde são descritas as técnicas de bibliometria e análise contextual.…”