Transcript Partnerships and communities of practice: a social

Partnerships and
communities of practice: a
social learning perspective
on community safety
SCCJR Seminar Series
Glasgow 21 October 2009
Alistair Henry (University of Edinburgh)
Overview of presentation

Wenger’s ‘communities of practice’

From apprenticeship to ‘communities of practice’
Dimensions of ‘communities of practice’ (domain, community,
practice)
Familiarity of ‘communities of practice’ (even reflexive actors
stand on the shoulders of giants; ubiquitous, organic and part of
our ‘becoming’)



Communities of practice in organisations (the
designed and the emergent, identification and negotiability;
interstitial CoP; brokering and boundaries)

Communities of practice in CS partnerships (a
shared interest; a valued enterprise; a capacity to do things; the
right community; sustainability and memory)
Wenger’s ‘communities of practice’




From apprenticeship to ‘communities of practice’
Wenger’s theory evolved from an attempt to ‘rescue’ the
idea of apprenticeship (Lave and Wenger, 1991)
Different social and cultural forms of apprenticeship
(Yucatec Mayan midwives, Liberian Tailors, naval
quartermasters, supermarket butchers, non-drinking
alcoholics)
Lessons to be drawn: learning occurred through everyday
collective practices, opportunities for learning opened
up by legitimate membership, learning was about
‘changing identities’
“(A) theory of social practice emphasizes the
relational interdependency of agent and world,
activity, meaning, cognition, learning and
knowing. It emphasizes the inherently socially
negotiated character of meaning and the
interested, concerned character of the thought
and action of persons-in-activity. This view also
claims that learning, thinking and knowing are
relations among people in activity in, with, and
arising from the socially and culturally structured
world.” (Lave and Wenger, 1991: 50-51)
“A community of practice is a set of relations
among persons, activity, and world over time and
in relation with other tangential and overlapping
communities of practice. A community of
practice is an intrinsic condition for the
existence of knowledge, not least because it
provides the interpretive support necessary for
making sense of its heritage. Thus, participation
in the cultural practice in which any knowledge
exists is an epistemological principle of
learning.” (Lave and Wenger, 1991: 98)

Dimensions of ‘communities of practice’
Three overlapping and inter-related dimensions of CoP
 ‘Domain’ – the shared project or interest that gives a
community its purpose and its focus – marks out what
is valued by the community and what ‘counts’ as
relevant to it.
 ‘Community’ – those engaged in common pursuit of
the domain – the ‘social fabric’ of learning
 ‘Practice’ – a set of ‘frameworks, ideas, tools,
information, styles, language, stories’ – the knowledge
and competencies of members, as well as what they do
See: Wenger et al. (2002) Cultivating Communities of Practice.
Harvard Business School Press.







Familiarity of ‘communities of practice’
Even reflexive actors ‘stand on the shoulders of giants’
– creativity of actors within structural constraints
(explicit influence of Giddens, Bandura, Becker, Fish,
Goodman, Kuhn etc. on Wenger’s CoP)
CoP are inevitable and everywhere
We are all members of a ‘constellation’ of CoP
We are more immersed in some CoP than others
Membership of CoP changes over time
CoP provide the ‘interpretive support’ for social
interactions
CoP arise informally (but can also exist in formal
contexts)
Communities of practice in
organisations

Designed and emergent structures

Designed structures of organisations (physical buildings,
departmental structures, job descriptions and
hierarchies, strategic documents and business plans)
Emergent structures evolve within CoP in response to
institutional designs of the organisation
Possible for emergent structures to be closely
orientated around designed structures but they would
not be identical



Interstitial communities of practice

Unintended CoP that emerge in response to design
problems – or where emergent practices fall out of
alignment with institutional designs

Identification and negotiability

Identification – investment of self in particular roles and
identities (valued roles create identification)
Negotiability – degree of capacity one has to mould what
it is to be the bearer of a given identity


Boundaries and brokering

As CoP develop they develop shared meanings,
symbols, practices for those enmeshed within them they ‘deepen’ – creating boundaries between those who
have a sense of this history of practice and those who
do not
Brokering – crucial role through which CoP in
organisations are joined up – brokers tend to be
peripheral members of many different CoP in the
organisation

See: Wenger (1998) Communities of Practice.
Cambridge University Press.
Communities of practice in
community safety partnerships





Recommendations to promote the development of
community safety and productive communities of
practice under its auspices.
Five interlinked themes emerged:
A shared interest
A valued enterprise
A capacity to do things
The right community
Sustainability and memory

A shared interest

Communities of practice evolve around shared interests
(domains) that people have in common
‘Community safety’ is open-textured and ambiguous –
positive in that it gets members around the table (“we
all have an interest in that”) – negative in that it does
not imply a clear set of practices.
Specific initiatives (ASB, wardens’ schemes, business
crime initiatives) may provide clearer domains that
support different CoP within Community Safety
Partnerships
Brokering role of the Designated Officers






A valued enterprise
Commitment to (and identification with) an
activity is likely to be limited if it is not
recognised as a valued activity (although there
are different audiences who might value it)
Valued enterprise to partner agencies – promotion
prospects and marginalisation; symbolic and real
commitment through seniority of secondments;
consistency of secondments
Auditing and performance regimes – gives recognition
to an activity – but creates a danger of
interstitial CoP around auditing process

A capacity to do things
Partnerships as “talking shops”? – a lack of
capacity to have an effect on the world
(negotiability) likely to be corrosive of members’
interest in the shared project (domain)

Funding of community safety – annual to three year
funding cycles – an uncertain future?
Running agendas through community safety – gives CS
specific domains of practice but there was resistance to
some of the ‘narrower’ agendas
Getting parent agencies to act – seniority, status and
‘having the ear’ of the necessary people



The right community

Democracy and community safety – the problem of “community
consultation”; elected representatives, Community Councils and
the development of evidence-based priorities
Trust amongst members – shared commitment to the partnership
and its value – formal protocols, recognition of occupational
differences, and mutuality.


Sustainability and memory

Mentoring of new members
Co-location of Designated Officers – symbolic messages about
value, status and shared domain
Occupational identities around ‘community safety’ – “radical
cadres of transformative power” (Hughes, 2002)


Key references



Lave and Wenger (1991), Situated Learning:
Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wenger (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning,
Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002),
Cultivating Communities of Practice. Harvard
Business School Press.