Transcript Adams, A. (2012) - The Open University

of
Dr Anne Adams, IET, Open University
Communities of
Practice
• Lave and Wenger (1991) – Situated Learning
Learning NOT acquiring knowledge BUT social participation in SITUATION
•Wenger (1998) CoP work-based learning
situations
•Establish meaning which is negotiated
•Through community practices (participation
and realisation) turn abstract / tacit norms into
explicit understanding through.
Dimensions of Practice
• Joint enterprise
– Negotiated by participants
– Mutual accountability
– Indigenous – made their own but within organisational constraints
• Mutual engagement
– Diversity of skills, knowledge, values, etc.
– Inclusion
– Engagement social as well as work-related
• Shared repertoire
– Terms
– Environmental cues (e.g. piles of paper)
– Evolving over time
CoP:
BOUNDARIES
• Membership
defined by shared practices,
tools, terminology, markers, etc.
– Hence a CoP has an inside and an outside … but
also a boundary or periphery
– Boundaries fluid – not institutional
• CoP not closed – interacts with others
• Brokering organises interconnections between
CoPs
• Boundary objects mediate interconnections.
•Modularity
– Used by different CoPs. E.g. DL for different groups
•Abstraction
– Common core for different CoPs
•Accommodation
– Lends itself to different activities. E.g. DL, medical notes,
diagnosis, information for patients
•Standardisation
– Each CoP knows how to work with it
COP: Legitimate Peripheral
Participation
• CoPs form, develop, evolve, disperse through
learning.
• Legitimate peripheral participation:
– Legitimate: accepted by core members
– Peripheral: learning to belong and participate
• Learners become competent and they move from
‘legitimate peripheral participation’ into full
participation.
Pros and Cons for Scholarship
 Processes & Transitions situated in real world
practices & communities.
 People straddle more than one CoP
 Power only seen as pervasive forms of
discipline sustained by discourse.
 CoPs often seen as positive phenomenon yet
destructive e.g. Nazis a CoP.
COP: Legitimate Peripheral
Participation
• CoPs form, develop, evolve, disperse through
learning.
• Legitimate peripheral participation:
– Legitimate: accepted by core members
– Peripheral: learning to belong and participate
• Learners become competent and they move
from ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ into
full participation.
Preece:
Online Communities
•
•
•
•
•
Not just tools and resources for CoP
Also about social interaction
Pay attention to sociability issues
Norms & Online etiquette
Social capital
Healthcare DLs as
Boundary Objects
• Intermediaries support
boundary object trust.
• Further research uncovers
the role of boundary
creatures working with
boundary objects between
CoP.
• Are ALs boundary creatures
Suggested Reading
• Lave, J & Wenger, E (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate
Peripheral Participation, CUP.
• Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning,
Meaning and Identity, CUP.
• Adams, A., Blandford, A. & Lunt, P. (2005) Social
Empowerment and Exclusion: a case study on Digital
Libraries. Available from http://oro.open.ac.uk/6704/
• Preece, J. (2004) Etiquette and trust drive online
communities of practice. J Universal Computer Science.
• http://www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm
• http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledgegarden/cop/index.shtml