Communities of practice Communities of practice group presentationgroup presentation

77thth of February 2011 of February 2011

James GilesRoman Kislov

Irene KleanthousThea van Lankveld

Zareen ZaidiEtienne Wenger

Outline of the Outline of the presentationpresentation

Antecedents Early stages Middle stagesApplicationsCritiquesNew

developments

Antecedents - Giddens Antecedents - Giddens Structuration Theory

◦ Agency and structure cannot be analysed separately

◦ Structures both constrain and enable action◦ Structures are (re)produced by agency

Identity◦ Identity/structure inter-related &

inseparable◦ Identity = trajectory of the self – reflexive

and social

Antecedents - Bourdieu Antecedents - Bourdieu

Habitus (dispositions)Capital (economic, social, cultural,

symbolic) Field Practice

(Habitus x Capital) + Field = Practice

Antecedents - Bourdieu Antecedents - Bourdieu

Comparison with CoPHabitus ~ IdentityField and capital are not mentioned in

CoPPractice is different in both theoriesSocial class ~ CommunityNegotiationLegitimacyPower

The History of the TheoryThe History of the TheoryEarly stage –

◦Situated Learning, 1991

Middle stage – ◦Communities of Practice,1998◦Cultivating Communities of Practice,

2002

Early stageEarly stage: legitimate peripheral : legitimate peripheral participationparticipation CoP ‘structural’ characteristics:

◦ Emergent/organic; uniprofessional◦ Participation: peripheral (novices); full

(experts)◦ CoP reproduction cycle: continuity and

displacement

Early notions of identity◦ socio-cultural community – not

external/internal◦ Development through participation – A.A.

Middle stage – Middle stage – community/practicecommunity/practice CoP ‘structural’ characteristics:

◦ Community: mutual engagement, negotiated enterprise and shared repertoire;

◦ Boundary: boundary objects, boundary spanners and boundary interactions

◦ Locality: constellations of practices; local and global Cultivating CoPs:

◦ Multiplicity of forms◦ Domain; community; practice◦ 7 principles for cultivating CoPs◦ Participation: core group; activists; peripheral;

outsiders◦ CoP development: potential, coalescing, maturing,

stewardship; transformation◦ Community disorders: e.g. imperialism, clique

formation, documentism

Middle stage - identityMiddle stage - identityExperienced through participation &

reification

Development as a process – trajectory with temporal & social dimensions

Participation and non-participation

Modes of belonging/identification: engagement, imagination, and alignment

Identity and power: identification (which meanings matter) and negotiability

ApplicationsApplicationsEducation

◦ Professional development of teachers in Higher Education

◦ Students’ identity in mathematics education

Healthcare◦ CoPs as a theoretical lens◦ CoPs as an implementation tool

Research◦ Defining units of analysis

A community of practice approach to the professional development of teachers in

Higher Education in Costa Rica

Learning about teaching and ICT-tools

Co-located meetings, online interaction, online collaboration, groupwork

Education – professional development

1. Identity within the community

“Why does David have the time to participate in all the activities and I do not? When I compare my possible contribution with David’s contribution, I felt that I did not have the same level… so I gave up my intention to write something” (Elisa)

Education – professional development

1. Identity within the community

2. New identity as innovative teacher or pioneer

“The fact that our colleagues observed us planning lessons in a different way and saw that my students, their students as well, were always awaiting what was new… had promoted curiosity and allowed them to think about the need to grow and produce new forms of learning in means such as the community. I think now that we must all assume the leadership…” (Sylvia)

Education – professional development

Solomon, Y. (2007). Not belonging? What makes a Solomon, Y. (2007). Not belonging? What makes a functional learner identity in the undergraduate functional learner identity in the undergraduate mathematics community of practice? mathematics community of practice? Studies in Studies in Higher EducationHigher Education, 32:1, 79-96. , 32:1, 79-96.

Sample: a small group of 12 first year undergraduate mathematics students

Comparison of three modes of belonging1:- Alignment- Imagination- Engagement

1 Note: In recent writings Wenger (2010) calls these three ‘modes of identification’ instead of ‘modes of belonging’.

Education – learner identity

Charlie: All the things we look at we’re told how to prove it, but then we are told we didn’t need to know how to prove it …so I just thought ‘forget that’. Following rules – negative alignment

Larry: It’s weird because even though I didn’t really understand it – it took me a while to get to understand certain things – I did sort of feel to myself “I think I am going to like this”. Imagination: positioning oneself within the practice

Sarah: Sometimes I am working and I think “Oh maybe this could work”, and I get all excited and it usually doesn’t work but still I am thinking about it… Sometimes, I might see, like, a connection between some things and I will think “Oh maybe this would work and then maybe I would be able to prove that, and this and the other”.Engagement: ‘appropriate the meanings of a community and develop an identity of participation’

Education – learner identity

Students’ identity in the CoP of mathematics Not belonging – they feel marginalisedStudents rarely felt like legitimate peripheral

participants in the CoP of mathematics Conflicting communities of practice –

multimembershipStudents who describe identities of alignment do

not participate in the community of mathematicsSuccessful students in mathematics are not learners

with an inbound trajectory towards engagement

Joe: “You never really feel like a mathematician because you don’t understand how it works”.

Education – learner identity

Applications - HealthcareApplications - HealthcareStrand 1 – CoP as a theoretical lens to

analyse the organisational landscape of healthcare◦ Uniprofessional communities with strong

boundaries◦ Stickiness of knowledge at the boundaries◦ CoPs as a prerequisite for successful

collaboration

Strand 2 – CoP as an implementation tool to promote evidence-based medicine and knowledge transfer◦ Multidisciplinarity◦ Effective but methodology is not always adequate◦ Internal processes depend on power, status, etc

Application - Research Application - Research FrameworkFramework

Forms of participation as signature behaviors

Understanding relationship between forms of participation <> learning in practice

Critiques - EducationCritiques - EducationSfard’s critique on operationalisation of

identity for using it in educational research

Sfard (2007) suggests instead of asking the question what identity is, asking what is the activity of identification.

Although, one may claim that “reducing” identity to narratives undermines its potential as a sense-making tool because we also need to investigate engagement in practice.

Critiques – HealthcareCritiques – Healthcare Critique from healthcare and management studies:

◦ The concept is difficult to operationalise◦ Differences between CoPs and other groupings are

vague and contradictory◦ Even if CoP cultivation is possible, their

manageability is questionable◦ Insufficient attention to power, trust and wider

organisational context◦ ‘Compartmentalistic’ attitude to identity formation◦ Lack of empirical basis in later works◦ Diversity of instrumental applications loss of

meaning

Critiques - TheoryCritiques - TheoryBilett in Communities of practice:

critical perspectives◦ Focus on CoP: are we losing the subject?

Discourse critiques◦ Overlooks power relationships implicit in

discourse

History of the Theory: History of the Theory: New New

developmentsdevelopmentsPlug and play◦ All that is required for other theories to become consistent

with CoP is that they run their claims through the lived experience of participation in practice (Wenger, 2010).

Landscape of practices:◦ Characteristics: political, flat, diverse, represented

in moments of service◦ Governance: stewardship and emergence◦ Newly cultivated CoPs as learning partnerships

Learning trajectories◦ Trajectory as component of identity◦ Inter-relation between self and landscape

History of the Theory:History of the Theory:New New

developmentsdevelopmentsAccountability

◦ Accountability: “What does it take to be a good professional?” is socially negotiated in and by the community.

◦ People have to resolve the question of where to be accountable. This is a question of the modulation of identification among multiple sources of accountability.

Learning capability◦ Ultimate product of a social theory of learning

Any questions?Any questions?