Communities of Practice: A Primer for Educators
Prepared by Linzee LiaBraaten
Jann Rustin Noanie Sullivan
Principal Investigator: Prepared for: Kevin Clark, Ph.D. Lori Remley Mody George Mason University WIN-WIN Strategies Foundation 4085 University Drive 1750 Tysons Boulevard, 4th Floor Fairfax, VA 22030 McLean, VA 22102 mason.gmu.edu/~kclark6 www.winwinsf.org
Definitions _________________________________________________________ 4
Theoretical Framework: Situated Cognition __________________________ 6
Learning Communities ______________________________________________ 8
Online and Face-to-face CoPs ________________________________________ 9
Elements of a Community of Practice __________________ 10 Domain ___________________________________________________________ 11
Community _______________________________________________________ 12
Practice ___________________________________________________________ 12
Dimensions: A Source of Community Coherence _________ 13 Mutual Engagement of Participants ____________________________________ 14
Joint Enterprise_____________________________________________________ 15
Shared Repertoire _________________________________________________ 16
Crossing Boundaries_________________________________ 17 Stages of Development _______________________________ 19
Potential Stage_____________________________________________________ 20
Coalescing Stage ___________________________________________________ 21
Maturing Stage ____________________________________________________ 21
Stewardship Stage _________________________________________________ 22
Transformation Stage ______________________________________________ 22
Implications and Implementations _____________________ 23 Implications _______________________________________________________ 23
Online Implementations in Education________________________________ 25
Effective CoPs: Keys to Success and Lessons Learned _____ 27 Purpose ___________________________________________________________ 27
Integration ________________________________________________________ 28
Tools ______________________________________________________________ 30
Challenges _________________________________________ 34 Conclusion _________________________________________ 36
Communities of Practice
3
Communities of Practice: A Primer for Educators
Communities of practice is a term that was introduced by Lave and Wenger in the
early 1990’s that builds on the concept of community (Barab and Duffy, 2000).
Community can refer to people who share common personal, professional, social,
economic, or political interests. Communities may also be groups of people who share
similar histories, locations, or views on a particular subject matter. Wenger asserts, that
the use of the word community has become immensely popular and “As a result, a large
number of groups are called communities, even though they display very different
characteristics” (2001, p. 2).
Similarly, the term community of practice is bantered about in ordinary
conversation. Often the term is used in different ways and in different contexts, which
confuses its meaning. Communities of practice are all around us in various forms and
under different names. They are at home, at work, in clubs, and in churches. As an
example, a band getting together to practice its repertoire of songs may be considered a
community of practice. In fact, “Most people who belong to a CoP [community of
practice] don’t think of themselves as members of a CoP” (Nickols, 2000, p.2). Yet,
again, Wenger (2001) states, “Not everything called a community is a community of
practice. A neighborhood for instance, is often called a community, but is usually not a
community of practice” (p. 2). Despite the popularity of using the term community of
practice since Lave and Wenger introduced it in the early 1990’s, a community is not a
community of practice without three crucial elements: domain, community and practice.
Communities of Practice
4
Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002) reveal that it is necessary to “look at how the
group functions and how it combines all three elements” to determine if it is truly a
community of practice. (p. 44) These elements will be comprehensively discussed.
A definition of the term Community of Practice begins the discussion. Afterward,
a look at Situated Cognition Theory provides insight to the underlying learning
framework of CoPs. Communities of learning are then discussed as a backdrop for
understanding and differentiating between types of learning communities - communities
of practice are one type of learning community. Next, a distinction is made between
online and face-to-face communities of practice before introducing the specific elements
of a community of practice and the dimensions of practice. The concept of ‘crossing
boundaries’ is explained, as are the stages in the development of a CoP. An explanation
of community of practice implications and implementations provides insight into the use
of CoPs to harness social capital. Recommendations about essential components and the
challenges of building, maintaining, and sustaining effective communities of practice
leads toward a discussion of the challenges in building communities of practice and the
conclusion.
Definitions
To understand the term community of practice, it must be defined. The first step is
to break the term into two pieces defining each piece separately. Afterward, the two
pieces will be brought together and presented as a specific concept.
Communities of Practice
5
Community refers to the people. In a community of practice, the community is the
members of the practice. They are people who voluntarily come together to share ideas,
foster interactions, and develop relationships with one another.
The community creates the social fabric of learning…it encourages a willingness
to share ideas, expose one’s ignorance, ask difficult questions, and listen
carefully…it is a matter of belonging as well as an intellectual process, involving
the heart as well as the head (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 28).
Essential to the term community of practice is the definition of what is meant by
the word practice. Practice is the habitual doing or carrying out an ordinary or customary
action. Wenger et al. (2002) define the term practice as “…a set of common approaches
and shared standard that create a basis for action, communication, problem solving,
performance, and accountability” (p. 38). Practice, used in the sense of communities of
practice is defined as the “source of coherence of a community” as represented by three
characteristics: joint enterprise, mutual engagement, and shared repertoire (Wenger,
1998, p. 72).
First, joint enterprise tells us what the practice is about. The joint enterprise is
understood and continually renegotiated by the members of the practice. Next, what binds
members together into a social entity is mutual engagement; that is, how the practice
functions. Finally, the capability of the practice is the shared repertoire, that is, what the
practice has produced over time, such as, routines, artifacts, and styles (Wenger, 1998).
The three characteristics, joint enterprise, mutual engagement, and shared repertoire, will
be revisited.
Communities of Practice
6
Domain is the final piece of the puzzle. Domain is what creates the common
ground among members by affirming the purpose and value of the practice (Wenger,
1998). The domain is typically a set of issues or a topic of focus about which people care.
“The domain creates common ground and a sense of common identity”…it is the
common ground that “inspires members to contribute and participate…and gives
meaning to their actions” (Wenger et al., 2002, pp. 27-28).
Theoretical Framework: Situated Cognition
The traditional view of how humans learn is that cognition resides in their heads.
However, a new view has emerged called situated cognition. Generally speaking, situated
cognition refers to a theory of knowledge acquisition that proposes the integration of
knowing and doing. Where traditional education separates knowledge from the authentic
contexts in which it is used, situated cognition views activities of people and their
environments as parts of a “mutually constructed whole” (Bredo, 1994, p.23). This is the
underlying theoretical framework that explains how we learn through communities of
practice.
Situated cognition proposes that, rather than cognition being an isolated event that
takes place in one’s head, it is context-dependent and moves beyond the boundaries of a
single mind to include not only the learner, but their environment, artifacts, social
interactions and culture. This view has emerged from constructivist beliefs that “learning
is a result of experience and it is a function of the activity, context, and culture in which it
occurs” (Brown, Collins and Duguid, 1989, p. 32). The learning that takes place in
communities of practice presents a notable contrast to that which takes place in
Communities of Practice
7
traditional classroom settings, where knowledge is presented in an abstract and de-
contextualized form. In communities of practice, knowledge is conceived as lived
practices and learning occurs through legitimate peripheral participation, a term that
Lave and Wenger (1998) use to describe the concept of learning through participation
and identity transformation.
In an effort to relate how situated cognition moves away from the idea that
concepts are abstract and self-contained entities, Brown et al. (1989) compare conceptual
knowledge to a set of tools. Knowledge and tools share several key features. First, both
are only fully understood when they are put to use; simply knowing of them is not
sufficient. Second, using them involves a change in the user’s understanding, and
requires that they adopt the ideas and beliefs of the culture in which the tools are used. If
a learner obtains a tool but doesn’t know how to use it, the knowledge is inert. On the
other hand, if a learner actively uses the tool they will come to know a deeper, implicit
understanding of the tool, and likewise the environment in which the tool is used (Brown
et al, 1989). Learning how to use a tool takes more than following a set of rules, since the
same tool is often used differently in different contexts. For example, a watercolor artist
uses a paintbrush in a very different way than a housepainter. Thus, tools, and their use,
are highly context-dependent and, in order to use them properly, one must have an
understanding of the context in which they are used. “Activity, concept and culture are
interdependent. No one can be totally understood without the other two. And learning
must involve all three” (Brown et al., 1989, p. 35).
Situated cognition allows the learners to move beyond the mere acquisition of
tools, affording them a sense of when and how they are to be used. The main idea around
Communities of Practice
8
which the aforementioned ideas coalesce is that learning resides in the interaction that
takes place between the learner and the environment. Thus, knowledge is gained through
this interaction. This theory shifts the focus from the individual to the socio-cultural
setting and the activities of the people within that setting (Driscoll, 2000).
Learning Communities
Communities of practice are a type of learning community. Riel and Polin (2004)
discuss “three distinct but overlapping forms of learning within communities” based on
studies by social and cognitive scientists (p. 7). Riel et al. define the three types of
learning communities that are distinguished by their structure and their goals as task-
based, knowledge-based, and practice-based.
Task-based learning communities have membership that is well defined and their
members are known to one another. Generally the group identity is temporary and
membership may or may not be voluntary. Its task structure is well specified. When the
task is done, finished, completed, the community disbands.
In a knowledge-based learning community the members may or may not know
each other personally and membership is based on the expertise and credentials. There is
generally a long-term commitment to construct and reconstruct knowledge. Knowledge
accumulates for current and future use.
A practice-based learning community is defined by a membership’s evolving
level of expertise, and by the division of labor in getting the work of the community
done. Members of this community are primarily engaged in sharing access and expertise
through participative structures, such as, mentoring. The community evolves the practices
Communities of Practice
9
of the community through discourse, tools and artifacts. Practice-based learning
community is another term for community of practice.
Task-based communities of learning, knowledge-based communities of learning,
and practice-based communities of learning are terms that attempt to characterize forms
of social and cultural learning. While there is some overlap, the terms should not be used
interchangeably because they each have their own focus, or emphasis, regarding aspects
of collaborative work and group structure.
Online and Face-to-face CoPs
According to Kim (2000), face-to-face and online communities are very similar in
several ways. In her book, Building Community on the Web she describes that the two
…involve developing a web of relationships among people who have something
meaningful in common, such as a beloved hobby, a fan club, a life-altering
illness, a political cause, a religious conviction, a professional relationship, or
even simply a neighborhood or town. So in one sense, an online community is
simply a community that happens to exist online, rather than in the physical world
(p. 1).
Communities of practice can be located in a face-to-face environment or online.
Face-to-face communities of practice lend themselves to environments where members
are readily able to meet in person, such as, within a business location. Online
communities of practice, on the other hand, infrequently meet face-to-face, if at all.
Online communities offer several advantages. The Internet makes it possible for
people who are not co-located to collaborate as if they were in the same room. It also
Communities of Practice
10
carries the potential to bring people together from all over the globe in a virtual space and
alleviates many of the constraints set forth by time.
Seven features of face-to-face learning communities, referenced by Schwier
(2001), underscore the idea that “communities are complex.” The 7 features are:
• Historicity – a shared history and culture,
• Identity – a recognized focus,
• Mutuality – interdependence and mutuality,
• Plurality – vitality drawn from intermediate associations,
• Autonomy – free and meaningful discourse; not based on power,
• Participation – a self-selected level of social participation, and
• Integration – supportive norms, beliefs, and practices.
Online learning communities not only have these seven features present but must
also add three others. All of the features interact in a multi-dimensional fashion. The
complete list of ten features of online learning communities includes:
• Orientation to the Future – created movement in the context of the future,
• Technology – as facilitator of community and conduit for discourse, and
• Learning – a purposeful central element undertaken by all members.
Elements of a Community of Practice Communities of Practice are groups of people who share information, insight,
experience, and tools about an area of common interest (Wenger, 1998). CoPs address
everyday problems, new developments and emerging trends, while focused on deriving
Communities of Practice
11
the best practices. Participants “interact, learn together, build relationships, and in the
process develop a sense of belonging and mutual commitment” (Wenger, et al., 2002, p.
34). Wenger defines the three constitutive elements to a community of practice as
domain, community and practice.
Domain
In a community of practice, people come together to discuss topics or issues of
importance to them. The context of those topics and their related issues constitutes the
domain of the community and its participants. The domain provides legitimacy to a
member’s passion about a topic or body of knowledge. The domain evokes a sense of
accountability to the development of a practice around that body of knowledge.
Determined by the membership, the domain is the bastion of emergent and evolving open
questions. Discussions in the domain can be as simple as sharing information on a
common problem or as rich as kindling communication about leading-edge trends and
best practices. When participants are able to discuss topics of “personal meaning and
strategic relevance” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 32) in a trusting collaborative environment,
the domain generates energy and participation among the members. Por (2003) shares
that the main sources of value creation are shared knowledge and collective intelligence
and it is this value creation that has propelled CoPs toward radical innovation. Wenger et
al. (2002) stress three criteria to help define the scope of the domain:
(1) Focus on what is important;
(2) Focus on aspects of the domain about which members are passionate; and
Communities of Practice
12
(3) Define the scope wide enough to foster new participation and generate new
ideas. (p. 75)
Community
The community element of the CoP model includes the “people, their
relationships and their trajectories toward the development of knowledge and competence
at an individual and collective level” (Arnold and Smith, 2003, p. 6). Community as an
element recognizes that “learning is a matter of belonging as well as an intellectual
process” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 29). It is the community that encourages a willingness
to participate and meet regularly, whether informally or formally. Community offers the
activities to generate energy and develop trust. Deeply embedded in the concept of
community is the concept of reciprocity in community participation beginning with the
roles of observer – legitimate peripheral participation – and leading to expert status if
desired.
Practice
The third structural element of a community of practice is practice. Practice refers
to concepts, symbols, and analytic methods employed by the participants. Practice
“denotes a set of socially defined ways of doing things in a specific domain: a set of
common approaches and shared standards that create a basis for action, communication,
problem solving, performance, and accountability” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 38). Practice
embodies the past, the present, and the anticipated future. Arnold and Smith (2003)
further define that “Practice entails the learning that happens in a community, changing
Communities of Practice
13
and transforming member's identity and at the same time being transformed and changed
as members manifest their identity within the community” (p. 6). In building a
knowledge repository, both internally and externally, practice is visible through ways
knowledge is developed and shared, i.e., published articles, books, anecdotes, less
tangible shared understandings which communicate insights that may be transferred to
new contexts. So again, this structural element incorporates both the explicit and tacit
understandings and products that emerge and evolve in a participative community
environment and deeply intertwines the “social and negotiated character of both in
context” (Wenger, 1998, p. 47).
Dimensions: A Source of Community Coherence
Barab, MaKinster, and Scheckler (2004) compare community of practice to “…a
living organism, they are self-organizing, and cannot be designed prima facae. They
grow, evolve, and change dynamically, transcending any particular member and outliving
any particular task” (pp. 2-3). Inherent in Wenger’s definition of a community of practice
is the interrelationship among the structural elements of domain, community, and practice
as they relate to dimensions of the relationships among mutual engagement, joint
enterprise, and shared repertoire. Table 1 below delineates the components and
characteristics of those dimensions, which are sources of community coherence.
Communities of Practice
14
Table 1. Dimensions of the Relationship of Community and Practice
Mutual Engagement Joint Enterprise Shared Repertoire
-Engaged diversity
-Doing things together
-Relationships
-Social complexity
-Community maintenance
-Negotiated enterprise
-Mutual accountability
-Interpretations
-Rhythms
-Local response
-Styles
-Artifacts
-Stories
-Tools
-Historical Events
-Discourses
-Concepts
(Wenger, 1998, p. 73)
Mutual Engagement of Participants
Community coherence derives from the participation and membership that defines
“community” in CoP and the engagement in actions that defines “practice”. Being
included in what matters is a requirement for being engaged in a CoP. Some members
may have different status levels, but there is a common bond within the domain. In doing
things together, identities become interlocked and articulated through mutual engagement
that is dependent on the mutual contributions and knowledge of others. Mutual
engagement of participants is dependent upon diversity of thought and backgrounds. This
gives rise to mutual relationships that can have ups and downs. While these tensions can
Communities of Practice
15
be mitigated by establishing norms of interaction, conflict and disagreement can give rise
to productive outcomes, such as deeper learning or radical innovation.
Joint Enterprise
A second source of community coherence is joint enterprise. It is the result of a
collective process of negotiation that reflects the complexity of mutual engagement. It is
defined by the participants in response to their situation and in spite of influences and
forces beyond their control - it is the inventive resourcefulness that makes a CoP evolve a
communal response (Wenger, 1998).
Joint enterprise has at its basis the concept of mutual accountability among
participants that reinforces practice in the community.
These relations of accountability include what matters and what doesn’t, what is
important and why it is important, what to do and not to do, what to pay attention
to and what to ignore, what to talk about and what to leave unsaid, what to justify
and what to take for granted, what to display and what to withhold, when actions
and artifacts are good enough and when they need improvement or refinement
(Wenger, 1998, p. 81).
Some of these aspects of accountability become reified, such as rules, standards, goals,
policies, that is to say, these aspects, which are abstract, are transformed in meaning to a
concrete representation or behavior practice.
Joint enterprise is predicated on a rhythm that is at once interpretable,
participative, and sharable. Communities of Practice develop in the context of historical,
social, cultural, and institutional entities with specific resources and constraints.
Communities of Practice
16
Conditions of the CoP can be explicitly or implicitly articulated, yet the participants’
responses to those resources and constraints, that is to say, how the participants negotiate
meaning and participation are what make it their enterprise (Wenger, 1998, p.79).
Shared Repertoire
The third dimension of the relationship between community and practice is called
shared repertoire. Shared repertoire refers to the history of the community and its
participants. It is found in their communication style, stories, artifacts, events, symbols,
and routines as they have evolved over time. Through a process of negotiated meaning,
practices evolve as shared histories of learning. Yet, that history does not constrain the
practice and meaning is not static within a community. The process of negotiating
meaning is a generative, active process that is dynamic and historical, as well as
contextual and unique to a community (Wenger, 1998). Negotiation of meaning requires
a process of participation with continuous interaction of gradual achievement and of give-
and-take. It also involves a process known as reification, characterized by the interaction
of the participants in the joint enterprise with the “tools of their trade”. The interaction of
these two processes, participation and reification, creates the negotiated meaning and
shared history.
Participation and reification fit around each to create meaning within a
community. Participation suggests action and connection. It refers to the social
experience within a community and the active involvement in joint enterprises. “It
[participation] is a complex process that combines doing, talking, thinking, feeling, and
belonging” (Wenger, 1998, p. 57). Reification, on the other hand, is the embodiment of
Communities of Practice
17
abstract concepts, generated documents, processes adopted or adapted by the participants.
Reification also embodies tools and behaviors with which the participants interact.
Participation and reification become more than a mere distinction between people and
things. Rather, the interplay between the social process and the tools and history of the
community shape the learning experience of a community.
Newcomers go through a process called legitimate peripheral participation to
become full members in a CoP. For this transformative process to occur, the practice has
to be open. In other words, the practice must provide access to all 3 dimensions of
practice: mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire. As new participants
enter there can be different “perspectives that are brought to bear on the history of the
practice. Working out these perspectives involves dynamics of continuity and
discontinuity that propels the practice forward” (Wenger, 1998, p. 101). For this reason,
participation and reification are dynamic and multidimensional.
Communities of Practice
18
Crossing Boundaries
Fundamental aspects of community building – “the social and cultural dynamics,
the power of a shared purpose, and the roles, rituals and events that bind people together
into a group” (Kim, 2002, Introduction Section) make CoPs dynamic and
multidimensional. Participation can cross boundaries and when that happens, some of the
reified artifacts and processes move also. Many CoPs are distributed communities that
cross multiple boundaries, including: geographic, time zones, organizations, and
perspectives (local, national, global). As a CoP becomes more focused and coherent,
boundaries often emerge which can impede new membership. Yet, it is often new
membership and cross-affiliations, bringing new perspectives, which enable growth and
innovation.
Wenger (1998) refers to modes of belonging as engagement, imagination and
alignment. Schwier (2001) calls these catalysts engagement, interaction and alignment
© H. Sullivan
Communities of Practice
19
when describing an online learning environment that constitutes a community of practice
under Wenger’s terms. Regardless of the name we give to these catalysts of belonging,
Schwier correctly depicts communication at the heart of any community. Communication
fosters trust, which, in turn, sustains participation in the community of practice. As
members expand their affiliations with other communities, trust must again be built in
order to move from legitimate peripheral participation to core expert status. Por (2003)
goes further in stating that crossing boundaries, wherein different disciplines, business
units, and organizational functions are brought to bear on the community, actually leads
to radical innovation. Allowing differing perspectives causes membership to question
how, what and why. This questioning, in turn, impacts the shift in participants’ mental
models, a generative condition of radical innovation.
Stages of Development
The life cycle of a community of practice involves five stages of development.
The stages of development include: Potential, Coalescing, Maturing, Stewardship, and
Transformation. The jagged line in the diagram below represents the level of energy and
visibility that the community typically generates over time. These stages, depicted by
Wenger et al. (2002), can be evaluated according to the three structural elements of a
CoP: domain, community and practice.
Communities of Practice
20
Potential Stage
CoPs continually evolve, but typically they start as loose networks that hold the
potential of becoming more connected and thus more important to the organization.
Wenger et al. (2002) share that during the Potential Stage community must address the
domain issue of its focus and make sure that the topic scope is broad enough to bring in
new people and new ideas. Participants must find others who share that interest and
convince them of the value of sharing their knowledge with others. This community
building issue is important for creating credibility. Finally, during the potential stage, it is
essential to identify the common knowledge needs for the practice. This is a critical role
for the community coordinator.
Time
Level of Energy & Visibility
Developmental Tensions
Discover/ Imagine
Incubator/Deliver Immediate Value
Focus/Expand Ownership/ Openness
Let Go/ Live On
Potential
Coalescing
Maturing
Stewardship
Transformation
(Wenger, et al., 2002, p. 69)
Stages of Community Development
Communities of Practice
21
Coalescing Stage
Generating energy in the community is imperative so that members build
connections and coalesce into a community. During the Coalescing Stage, the domain
issue becomes one of generating energy about the topic(s) and the mutual value of
sharing both tacit and explicit knowledge in that domain. In order for this to occur the
community works toward developing relationships and trust in order for discourse to take
place. When, what and how that knowledge is shared then becomes the focal point of the
practice issue for the community.
In addition to creating a “space” for the community, Wenger et al. (2002) specify
that the coalescing stage typically has a plan with the following activities to anchor the
community, such as a kickoff or events. Additionally, it is suggested that to build
connections in the core group that a community coordinator be legitimized. As mentioned
earlier, generating energy about the community means that efforts have to be made to
bring in membership, find a common topic or project to solidify the values of sharing and
trust; encourage insights and practices worth sharing; identify opportunities to provide
value to the total organization; and provide access to experts.
Maturing Stage
Once formed, the community membership and knowledge base grow or mature
through sharing. When mature, communities go through cycles of high and low activity.
During the Maturing Stage, Wenger et al. (2002) counsel that the community’s
relationship among other domains and the total organization must be defined. Managing
the boundary of the community becomes a community issue to insure that it is not
Communities of Practice
22
distracted from its core purpose. As the sense-of-self increases, the practice shifts from
one of simple sharing of ideas and insights to actually organizing and managing the
knowledge. This is the opportune time for innovation to arise in the practice.
Stewardship Stage
During the Stewardship Stage, communities face the main issue of sustaining
momentum through the natural shifts in its practice, members, technology, and
relationship to the organization. This stage’s domain issue is one of relevance and voice
in strategic direction, according to Wenger et al. (2002). Furthermore, the community
must be vigilant in keeping the “tone and intellectual focus of the community lively and
engaging” by introducing new topics, controversial speakers, joint meetings, or vendor
and supplier sessions on new technologies (p. 104). Finally, active recruitment,
development of new leadership, mentoring, and crossing boundaries will insure the
practice maintains its cutting edge. As the CoP grows, the activities needed to develop it
also change.
Transformation Stage
Transformation occurs when a community comes to a natural or unnatural end
because of “changing markets, organizational structures, and/or technology renders the
domain irrelevant…The issues that spawned the community may be resolved” (Wenger
et al., 2002, p. 109). The community may find greater value in merging with another CoP
or splitting. Closed boundaries, loss of momentum, or becoming a social clique can also
cause a community to dissolve. Deciding whether the community is truly dying or is
Communities of Practice
23
simply in need of refocusing is a judgment call that should be addressed by the core
membership and coordinator.
Implications and Implementations
Implications
As mentioned earlier, communities of practice can be geographically located, or
face-to-face, or they may be virtually located, or online. Face-to-face communities of
practice enable members to easily and synchronously meet at one geographic location,
such as in a boardroom or restaurant. Online communities of practice, however, rely more
on meeting via the Internet and thus enable synchronous or asynchronous discussion
between members who may or may not be co-located. Whether situated in face-to-face
environments or online, communities of practice have the potential to bring great
advantages to all types of organizations, including educational and corporate.
As organizations become larger and more complex, Lesser and Storck (2001)
argue that support for communities of practice, or “groups whose members regularly
engage in sharing and learning, based on common interests”, is increasingly important as
these communities have great potential for improving organizational performance (p.
831). This is believed to be true because communities of practice foster the generation of
social capital. Social capital is defined as the “sum of the actual and potential resources
embedded within, available through and derived from the network of relationships
possessed by an individual or social unit” (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998, p.245).
It is thought that the social capital generated by communities of practice leads to
behavioral changes that in turn generate increased knowledge sharing and collaboration,
Communities of Practice
24
which then add value to an organization by positively influencing business performance
(Lesser et al., 2001). Nahapiet et al. (1998) go on to explain the concept of social capital
as having three primary dimensions: structural, relational, and cognitive. Generally
speaking, the structural dimension refers to the connections and informal networks
among practitioners who may or may not be co-located. Next, the relational dimension
refers to the sense of trust, mutual obligation, expectation and identity established
through the relationships. Last, the cognitive dimension addresses the shared interests,
general understandings, common language and context shared by community members.
Communities of Practice serve as a vehicle for building social capital in three ways. First,
they offer the opportunity for people with similar interests to network and collaborate.
Second, they not only allow for, but, encourage the interpersonal relations essential to
trust building. Third, because communities are inherently set up around a common
interest or view, they enable their members to maintain and sustain the shared
terminology, conventions, and artifacts exclusive to their community (Lesser and Prusak,
1999).
The development and maintenance of communities of practice, whether online or
face-to-face can serve as an instrumental tool for educators, as they foster social capital
as well as enable the exchange of explicit and tacit knowledge. As mentioned in the
previous section, however, online communities of practice have three distinctive features.
First, they are orientated toward the future. Second, the technology that supports them
also facilitates a sense of community by enabling members to quickly and easily
communicate and share at their convenience. Third, learning is the purposeful central
element undertaken by all members. With progress, collaboration, and knowledge as such
Communities of Practice
25
key focal points, an online community of practice offers a unique means to an end for
educators of all educators who desire to enhance teaching and learning.
Online Implementations in Education
Building a successful online community begins with defining a purpose and
vision. A purpose should be clear and targeted toward a certain audience. To identify the
community purpose, clarify the needs and goals of the members then design the
community to fulfill those needs and goals. Once this has been accomplished, there are
additional recommended components for an online community of practice. One of these
components is a home page where the domain, vision and purpose are easily reflected.
An example of this in practice can be seen at Johns Hopkins Electronic Learning
Communities home page. Displayed on this page is all the information a viewer needs to
develop a clear understanding of what this learning community is all about as well as the
community’s goals.
A second essential component is a conversation space for both synchronous and
asynchronous collaboration. This can be seen at the Tapped In Community of Practice.
Members of this community can easily choose to chat synchronously or post their ideas
on a discussion board. The chat feature allows people to communicate “real time” and is
ideal in time-sensitive situations, while a threaded discussion gives people time to
thoughtfully reflect on other’s thoughts and ideas before responding, thus encouraging a
deeper level of collaboration. Both of these communication tools address a third
important component of successful CoPs, and that is a mechanism for members to ask
each other questions as well as provide each other with answers.
Communities of Practice
26
A fourth important feature involves a membership directory that includes some
basic information about the member profiles and their areas of expertise in the domain.
An example of this can be seen again at Johns Hopkins ELC home page. Here, users can
easily access a membership list as well as click on any member name in the list to view
their “profile”, or personal information pertaining to that particular member. A fifth
important component to include is a document repository to serve as a knowledge base
for a community of practice. Along with this feature, there should be a search mechanism
that allows members to retrieve what they need from the knowledge base. An example of
both of these things can be seen at The Math Forum Community of Practice. Easily
accessible from the home page, the “Math Library” serves as the site’s knowledge base,
while the “Quick Reference” and “Search Our Site” options allow participants to access
anything that they are looking for in the site as well as see exactly what is available.
Community management tools, for the site administrator and perhaps for the
participants in the community as well, are essential. These might include tools that allow
the administrator or participants the ability to see who is participating actively, how much
site usage there is overall, which documents need updating, and so forth. Perhaps one of
the most important tools to include in a community of practice is a one that allows
members to create subgroups within the larger community. This can be seen at Tapped In
where members can customize virtual buildings with public, group, and personal rooms
as well as create and manage groups. Among other things, allowing members to create
these interest groups, so to speak, further encourages the sharing of both explicit and tacit
knowledge between them and offers a certain degree of ownership in the community. It is
critical that members feel they have a hand in the maintenance, development, and
Communities of Practice
27
advancement of the community so they continue to play a role in it, whether they are an
active core member, or one engaging more from the periphery. After all, it is the
members who populate the chat rooms, the discussion boards, and the resources for the
community. Essentially, the members are the community.
In addition to the aforementioned components, features, and tools, a technological
platform for communities of practice should ideally be easy to learn and use, as
participation in communities of practice is something the members do in addition to their
regular occupations. The communities should be easily integrated with software familiar
to the members of the community so participation requires as few extra steps as possible.
Effective CoPs: Keys to Success and Lessons Learned
Communities of Practice are complex and their associated elements multi-dimensionally
interact. Lessons learned by some organizations have been shared, pointing out factors
and characteristics in building the community that lead to success.
Purpose
Of primary importance, the community must be focused on a topic or purposes
important to the participants. Based on Siemens experience, LeMoult (2002) instructs
that determining the aim of the community can be generative. A decided aim reaps
benefits such as: solutions for daily problems, best practices, focused collaboration of
experts, faster learning, increased knowledge level, new knowledge development, and
cross boundary coordination (synergy). The World Bank Institute (WBI) Development
Communities of Practice
28
Forum also includes communities of practice outside of the time-bound events and other
learning activities organized by the organization. The self-organizing CoPs, with
worldwide membership, offer a mechanism for participants to learn from each other and
find solutions to problems on a “just-in-time” basis. They caution that the community (1)
should have a clear and focused purpose and (2) different purposes dictate different
designs and technologies when the CoP is located online. In this way, Internet noise can
be minimized in the community.
LeMoult shares that success of the CoP is dependent on compelling needs for
reasons to include: collaborative space for online teams; the need for expert input; and the
need to keep knowledge experience alive. Furthermore, LeMoult suggests that
benchmarking be employed to determine if another community with a similar compelling
need in the same domain exists and whether your community may join as a subgroup.
Schwier (2001) points out that while the purpose of the community may be built around
central themes, the “organizing principles are not externally imposed. Participants
construct purposes, intentions and the protocol for interaction” (p. 15).
Integration
The community dynamics are fostered through “supportive norms, beliefs and
practices” (Schwier, 2001, p. 15). Those dynamics include social participation that is
visible, autonomy to participate meaningfully and freely, and plurality, which draws
vitality into the community through diversity. In order to achieve concrete results, the
WBI suggests “recruiting the active participation of a critical mass of the “right people”
is crucial. However, the “right people” need to be defined inclusively” (WBI, 2004,
Section 7). Por (2003) counsels that productive trustful relationships increase
Communities of Practice
29
collaborative learning, which, in turn, leads to increased leveraging power of the CoP for
innovation. He suggests that a CoP should have a facilitator (WBI and Siemens call this
role the moderator) and cross-boundary membership. Por identifies the facilitator role as
an enabler of innovation wherein productive conversation and knowledge emerge. The
WBI’s experiences have shown that the vital role of the moderator
serves not only as “gatekeeper”, filtering out irrelevant or offensive messages;
he/she also sets the tone of the discussion, keeps the discussion focused and
moving forward; “animates” the discussion when it is moving slowly; contributes
useful information; helps/encourages members to contribute information on their
experience; prepares summaries; and in general serves all the functions of a good
“chair” in a working group. (WBI, 2004, Section 3)
The burden for the community coalescing does not, however, rest on a single facilitator
or moderator for the community. Multiple roles within the community lead to the
integration of the participants in the community context. McDermott (2000) identifies
four factors to success:
1. Get key thought leaders involved.
2. Build personal relationships among community members.
3. Develop an active passionate core group.
4. Create forums for thinking together and systems for sharing information.
Shell’s Turbodudes, per McDermott, is one of the most successful communities of
practice: “The Turbodudes stay together through five key components: a coordinator,
Communities of Practice
30
mentors, a weekly meeting, presentations by outside vendors, and a website that stores
topics discussed at previous meetings” (2000, Section: Communities of practice link
people in many ways). Members, including a core group of high-contributors, meet
informally once a week for an hour before work to share questions, problems and
arranged presentations. There is a note taker and a coordinator. Notes are posted within
twenty-four hours and the coordinator facilitates the meeting and networks among
participants in-between meetings to connect members with similar interests and to extract
new topic areas. Finally, the group offers a mentorship program to keep abreast of
leading edge topics and to steward new members.
LeMoult (2002) similarly suggests that one role in a CoP should be designated to
feed the community topics. She suggests content provider organization affiliations with
content that is direct and has a fast benefit.
Tools
“Tools are just tools” (WBI, 2004, Section 4). Schlager and Fusco (2004) in
discussing activity theory as it relates to building communities of practice, state that
Activities are mediated by the tools (technical and conceptual) and other artifacts,
which are available to the subjects. Activities take place in the context of, and are
influenced by, a surrounding community. The community exerts influence on the
activity through the mediation of established rules (i.e., values, norms of
behavior, dispositions toward inquiry, trust, and commitment), tools that have
Communities of Practice
31
been institutionalized in the community and division of labor (the allocation of
roles and responsibilities) (p. 9).
Preece (2002) poses two challenges for technology in the online environment:
accessibility of developing/emerging technologies; and ensuring that the tool supports
effective social interaction.
Achieving the goal of universally usable online communities and community
networks poses two challenges. The first is that we must focus on developing
technologies that are accessible to a wide range of users on a variety of devices. The
second is to ensure that the software also supports sociability, that is, effective social
interaction online.
While there has been a proliferation of on-line tools for such mediation in a
community of practice, the WBI urges resisting the temptation to incorporate them
without identifying the purposes and audience for which they are intended. While,
clearly, technology facilitates development of community, it can also inhibit it through
unintended exclusion of some members (Schwier, 2001). Rightly so, Schwier does point
out that tools enable participants to engage one another in an online environment and act
as the catalyst to bind the community.
The WBI suggests that fully-searchable archives of discussion summaries,
messages, and related resources, organized by theme is a “vital tool for assuring not only
that the learning that takes place in the group is effectively captured, but also that those
who could not participate in the ongoing discussion can have easy access to this learning”
Communities of Practice
32
(2004, Section: 5). Por’s work with many CoPs supports this position and points to
fundamental benefit, “Stewarding the knowledge bases, taxonomies and knowledge maps
of their practice will increase the ability to see possibilities for the cross-impact of ideas.”
This knowledge melding, then, leads to radical innovation.
McDermott (2000) sums up the technical challenge stating, “Make it easy to
contribute and access the community’s knowledge and practices” (Technical Challenge
Section). He suggests that the software be considered in the context of participant
familiarity and facility. “Ease of use is more about how the software integrates with
people’s daily work, the knowledge they need to share, the way they think about their
community’s domain and how they move about in it, than with specific features of the
software itself” (Ease of Use Has Little to Do with Software Functionality Section). In
agreement, LeMoult (2002) suggests the “kiss” structure and tools, keep it fresh, and let it
grow before structuring.
Cothrell (2000) does show how technology tools can be employed to track the
success of an on-line community. Metrics analysis compares member activity to visitor
activity at different data points to help answer what additional or incremental value is
generated and to determine visitor/lurker conversion. In fact, Cothrell suggests that the
inability to measure return on investment (ROI) results from poorly defined objectives.
As presented by Cothrell, a summary of the metrics and online tools from which the data
may be derived, can be seen in Table 2.
Communities of Practice
33
Table 2. Metrics and Tools
ROI Metrics Tools Employed for Analysis
• Unique visitors, page views, session
time, check through percentage,
registered members
• Postings per day/week/month in
member to member interaction
• Read to post ratio in member to member
interaction
• Discussion Forums
• Technical Q & A
• Chat Applications
• Page additions in member generated
content programs
• Page revisions in member generated
content programs
• Member Profiles
• Home Pages
• Prod. Reviews
• Peak number of concurrent users in live
events
• Total number of concurrent users in live
events
• Guest Events
• Expert Seminars
• Virtual Meetings/ Trade shows
• Audience penetration (if the total size of
the target population is known)
• Repeat visits
• Frequent visitors
Outreach:
• Newsletters
• Volunteers/leaders program
• Programs
• Polls/surveys
Communities of Practice
34
Challenges
One must recognize “communities of practice are not havens of peace or
unbounded goodwill. They reflect all the strengths, weaknesses, and complex
interrelationships of their human members” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 144). For example,
when relationships become so strong that they dominate all other concerns, cliques form.
Cliques get in the way of creating a sense of community. “Cliquish communities…tend to
stagnate…and constrain individual growth or creativity” (p. 145). However, “the strategic
capabilities they develop are worth the effort” (p. 159).
Communities of practice themselves can, under some circumstances, be obstacles
to learning. There may also be issues in formalizing a community of practice as Schwier
(2001) contends “They [communities of practice] are organic, and…as such,
communities cannot be created; rather they emerge when conditions nurture them” (p. 5-
6).
On the human side, excessive enthusiasm can sometimes lead to feelings of
exclusive ownership of the domain, which, in turn, can lead to narcissism, factionalism,
or disenfranchisement. (Wenger et al., 2002, pp. 141-143) Communities present 4 key
challenges in building successful community: a management challenge, a community
challenge, a personal challenge and a technical challenge (McDermott, 2000).
The management challenge is to communicate the value of sharing knowledge.
The critical success factors in meeting the management challenge involve rallying the
practice around topics that are important to the members of the community. Doing so will
engender personal passion about and a subject that is dear to members (McDermott,
2000).
Communities of Practice
35
A well-managed community also needs a well-respected member of the
community to act as a coordinator whose primary role is to link people together.
Coordinators keep people informed about the activities of members in the community and
create opportunities for members to share ideas and meet one another. From a corporate
business perspective, supporting the community entails management encouraging and
creating opportunities/time for members to participate in the community of practice.
Finally, also from a corporate business perspective, the last management challenge is to
assure the community is in synch with the existing organization’s culture.
The Community challenge involves keeping the life of the community vibrant and
forward thinking so that it remains on the cutting edge of its field and creates value for its
members. (McDermott, 2000) As such, it is important to attract respected leaders in the
field, which will help legitimize the community. Another benefit may be that respected
thinkers may act as a conduit to draw new members into the community.
The energy of thinkers in the community creates opportunities for forums of idea
and information sharing, and for opportunities to develop personal relationships within
the community. Forums and shared relationships deliver a sense of common history to
members and are potential unifying factors. The last key of the community challenge is to
develop a core group of active members who will be passionate about the domain.
The personal challenge is for each member to develop enough trust within the
community to be willing to make yourself vulnerable enough to risk talking about your
problems in public. (McDermott, 2000) As McDermott notes, “the most valuable and
vibrant community events focus on solving problems.” It takes time to develop a strong
community connection and trust.
Communities of Practice
36
The technical challenges associated with a successful community of practice are
the social, cultural, and organizational issues, which are discussed above (McDermott,
2000). Technological features, experience has shown, are secondary (Wenger, 2001.) In
the 21st century, however, an increasing number of communities are online and/or
geographically disbursed. It is therefore, important to understand how technology can
hinder or help communities.
Technology can assist an online or terrestrial community by affording
collaboration and the sharing of information. The challenge is in how to design a
community using technology that will make it easy for members to participate. In other
words, technology can affect time and space, participation, value creation, connections,
identity, and community development/membership (Wenger, 2001). Understanding its
role has become increasingly important.
“Technology cannot replace one’s network of connections in a field, but it can
provide some facilities” (Wenger, 2001). Technology should be intuitive to use and
should be flexible enough to allow members to communicate with each other, contribute
information, and use information that resides in the system.
Conclusion In summary, a CoP is a group of people who share information, insight, experience, and
tools about an area of common interest (Wenger, 1998). They address everyday
problems, new developments and emerging trends, while focused on deriving the best
practices. Generally speaking, the concept of a CoP attempts to characterize the social
and cultural learning that is derived from legitimate peripheral participation. Essential to
Communities of Practice
37
a CoP is the interrelationship among the structural elements, domain, community and
practice, as they relate to dimensions of the relationships among mutual engagement,
joint enterprise, and shared repertoire. Regardless of whether or not a CoP exists
physically or online, it offers a way to enhance teaching and learning through the
facilitation of progress, collaboration, and knowledge. Thus, Communities of Practice
provide educators with a powerful tool for promoting and facilitating the sharing,
development, and advancement of knowledge. They also play an instrumental role in the
generation of social capital, which in turn leads to improved performance. Finally, while
CoPs present challenges that must be addressed and managed if the CoP is to be
successful, the advantages can be well worth the effort.
Communities of Practice
38
References
Arnold, P. & Smith, J. D. (2003). Adding connectivity and losing context with ICT:
Contrasting learning situations from a community of practice perspective. In
Marleen Huysman, Etienne Wenger and Volker Wulf, Communities and
Technologies; Proceedings of the First International Conference on Communities
and Technologies; C&T 2003. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Document provided in email February 27, 2004 by Smith.
Barab, S.A. and Duffy, T.M., (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In
D. H. Jonassen, and S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning
environments (pp. 25-55)., Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Barab, S. A., MaKinster, J. G., Moore, J. A., Cunningham, D. J. (2001). Designing and
building an on-line community: The struggle to support sociability in the inquiry
learning forum. ETR&D, v. 49, no. 4, pp. 71-96.
Bredo, E. (1994). Reconstructing educational psychology: Situated cognition and
deweyian pragmatism. Educational Psychologist, 29, (1), 23-35.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989, Jan/Feb). Situated cognition and the culture
of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, (1), 32-42.
Cothrel, J. P. (2000) Measuring the success of an online community. Strategies &
Leadership, v. 20, no. 2, pp 17-21. MCB University Press.
Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kim, A.J. (2000). Community Building on the Web. Retrieved March 4, 2004, from
http://www.naima.com/community/intro/index.html.
Communities of Practice
39
LeMoult, D. (2002). How to make a community of practice fly. Siemens ICN:
Knowledge Board.
Lesser, E., Prusak, L. (1999). Communities of practice, social capital, & organizational
knowledge. Information Systems Review 1, (1), 3–9.
Lesser, E., Storck, J. (2001). Communities of practice and organizational performance.
IBM Systems Journal, 40, (4), 831-841.
McDermott, R. (2000). Knowing in community: 10 critical success factors in building
communities of practice. IHRIM Journal, March p. 19-26. Retrieved February 29,
2004, from http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/knowing.shtml
Nahapiet, J., and Ghoshal, S. (1998, April). Social capital, intellectual capital and the
organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, (2), 242-266.
Nickols, F. (2000) Community of practice, what it’s like inside. Retrieved January 29,
2004, from http://www.kmadvantage.com/cop_articles.htm
Por, G. (2003). Radical innovation with communities of practice. Retrieved February 27,
2003, from http://www.community-intelligence.com/resources.htm
Preece, J. (Ed.) (2002). Supporting Community and Building Social Capital. Special
edition of Communications of the ACM, 45, 4. pp. 37- 39. Retrieved February 29,
2004, from
http://www.ifsm.umbc.edu/~preece/paper/10%20Introduction%20%20CACM%2
0Special%20addition.pdf
Riel, M. and Polin, L. (in press). Learning communities: Common ground and critical
differences in designing technical environments. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling & J.
Communities of Practice
40
Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Schwier, R.A. (2001) Catalysts, Emphases & Elements of Virtual Learning
Environments: Implications for research and Practice. The Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, vol. 2(1), pp. 5-18.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (2001). Supporting communities of practice, a survey of community-oriented
technologies. Retrieved November 5, 2003, from
http://chd.gse.gmu.edu/immersion/immsite/student/Docs/techcops.doc.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., and Snyder W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice:
A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Publishing.
Development E-Discusions and Communities, The World Bank Institute. Retrieved
February 29, 2004, from http://www.worldbank.org/devforum
Math Forum, (1994). Retrieved March 27, 2004, from http://www.mathforum.org/
Tapped In, (1994). Retrieved March 27, 2004, from
http://ti2.sri.com/tappedin/web/about.jsp
Johns Hopkins ELC, (1994). Retrieved March 27, 2004, from
http://cte.jhu.edu/elcweb/members.htm