There was a great deal of discussion about the definition of CoPs. I did my best to get it all here in an organized fashion, but I also included some of it under categories such as characteristics, thought or aspects, or size of CoPs. Since there was so much, I also put it on three separate pages.

Chris

Can you describe any experiences you have had in a community of practice (CoP)?

Christine Bauer-Ramazani

Is this really only week 2? Already my head feels crammed to bursting with all the newly acquired knowledge (and newly acquainted friends). Anyway, I wanted to kick off my participating for week 2 by offering some comments on Chris' (and Christopher's) description of CoPs and my own experiences with a couple of them.

First of all, I found myself worried by the dichotomy implicit in the terms novice/newbie vs. expert. Surely one person's expert is another person's novice. Which only serves to highlight that the labels "novice" and "expert" (like native and nonnative) only have meaning in reference to each other (as in other "standard relational pairs" such as "teacher/student" and "parent/child"). Any given individual can be described by an almost limitless set of "membership categorization devices" (Sacks, 1992), for example, I might at any given moment be (or in CA terms "do being") a male, a teacher, a student, a son, a father, a brother, an uncle, a son-in-law, a husband, a foreigner, a expat, a gaijin, a Californian, an American, a left-hander, a photographer, a Nikon owner, a member of WIA, a red-head, a staff member at Shikoku Gakuin, as resident of Kagawa. etc. etc. etc. Which of these multiple identities becomes interactionally salient at any given moment during an interaction is a matter of local negotiation. So the question becomes: What are the practices through which members of a community "doing being" this or that identity. For example, how does one DO BEING an expert vs. DOING BEING a novice?

Schegloff (1992109-110) states:

"The point is not that persons are somehow not male or female, upper or lower class, with or without power, professors and/or students. They may be, on some occasion, demonstrably members of one or another of those categories. Nor is the issue that those aspects of the society do not matter, or did not matter on that occasion. We may share a lively sense that indeed they do matter, and that they mattered on that occasion, and mattered for just that aspect of some interaction on which we are focusing. There is still the problem of showing from the details of the talk or other conduct in the materials that we are analyzing that those aspects of the scene are what the parties are oriented to. For that is to show how the parties are embodying for one another the relevancies of the interaction and are thereby producing the social structure."

--Don Carroll

Dr. Cat
Prof. John H. Steele, Ph.D.

Referring to Don's message about CoPs, I would like to mention that there isn't a dichotomy between novice/experts, boundary members/core members, lurkers/vocal members - rather, there should be a continuum.

Also, when people work together in practice, these labels become moot while concentrating on learning and advancing knowledge.

Also, "expertise" isn't so much being the one who "imparts" knowledge to empty bottles waiting to be filled (behaviorism), but knowing who to turn to when you need some expertise, for example, Vance on graphics and video, Gar seems to know a lot about the server/CGI world, Dafne with ESP, Sus as a CoP partner in crime, BJ on the inner workings of Tapped In, Michael on intercultural issues (and Oils songs :-), Tere on academic writing ....etc. (sorry to anyone I left out)....and all of the newcomers have some expertise we can use, too.

Chris Johnson

-- ChristineBR refers to discussion lists as CoPs: at the start I didn't share the same idea, that is, I didn't consider a discussion list a CoP, because it lacks the doing, the hands-on practice, the testing and experimenting 'together', the 'shared practice', all of which are, I feel, a basic ingredients of CoPs;

-- in a discussion list there are common/shared topics, but each member tells about his/her individual problems, experiences, bits of practical knowledge, etc., related to those topics, each one helps others out, but nothing is 'done' or experienced hands-on at the collective level; -- however, from the readings (listed separately under Readings), I have come to understand that CoPs can be based merely on discussions, exchanges of ideas on different techniques or strategies to go about something, for example, etc., etc;

So my questions for now are:
-- is the hands-on 'doing', the 'practicing' together, a basic component of a CoP or not?
-- if so, can a discussion list such as TESLCA, for example, be considered a CoP (and why, exactly?)

The expression 'Community of Practice' has two basic components - community and practice - and I see this second component as a shared practice, a 'practicing together' as a collective entity (such as when we are trying out new chat platforms and testing if they work with Windows and Macs, or with just one of them, or how the audio and video work, etc.). But maybe I shoudn't see it at that level.

My idea of a CoP is a group of people with common goals who learn by doing, by collaborating, by negotiating, by exploring and experimenting together, by practicing individually and collectively (though more at the group level), by sharing experiences, ideas, stories, resources and knowledge, by constructing practical applications of the shared know-how in order to solve a common problem, develop professionally, whatever!

I would love your insight on this!

And to finish off for now (I need to get certain fundamental ideas from these readings on a piece of paper and reflect some more!), let me give you another interesting url thatRita and I came across it at TI2 the other day in the CoP group.

CPsquare: http://www.cpsquare.com/
They've even had a meeting in Setubal, very close to where the APPI Conference will take place. What do you know!

Thanks for getting down here. You've resisted quite a lot! ;-)

I've read over the definition from Christine as well as the bibliography from Chris Johnson. As you may know, I'm a newbie here so I have no expert advice on the topic nor do I have any anectdotal experience of CoP to share.

There are however a couple of points I would appreciate having clarified by some of you who are better versed in the subject. Here they are:

1) is the term that refers to process by which a community comes to define "the truth" constructivist or constructionist? Or is it something else entirely?

2) From the first or second entry in Chris' bibliography I'm curious to know what the the terms double and single loop learning mean in the following passage:

"Double-loop learning is possible in participative organizations, whereas only single-loop learning can be achieved in traditional organizations"

Thank you in advance for any light you can shed. And Chris thank you for that bibliography, it was fascinating to read the summaries and the notes for that interesting reading list.

As I head back to the boundary I send hearty wishes to all.

With your permission I'd like to push your questions off to Week 4 (Feb. 10 - Feb. 16), where we will be getting into CoP theory as well as where CoP theory comes from. Just quickly, here a few "pre-answers" that will (hopefully) whet your CoP theory appetite. :-)

>1) is the term that refers to process by which a community comes to >define "the truth" constructivist or constructionist? Or is it >something else entirely?

If you mean by "defining the truth" the concept of "negotiated meaning" or "negotiated/community understanding", then the term is "constructivism" or "constructivist".

>2) From the first or second entry in Chris' bibliography I'm curious
>to know what the the terms double and single loop learning mean in the
>following passage:
>
>"Double-loop learning is possible in participative organizations,
>whereas only single-loop learning can be achieved in traditional
>organizations"

More in Week 4 :-)

Chris Johnson

Christopher and Don (and others), can you shed some light on this?

Christine Bauer-Ramazani

According to one of the readings I pointed out a while ago - the article on the 'Seven Principles' -, CoPs can also be f2f groups. There are two examples right at the beginning. In fact, I'm under the impression that the concept of CoP first started out with traditional f2f groups. But, once again, Chris Johnson, the CoP expert, can fill us in on this.

Take a look at 'Themes and ideas: Communities of practice' by E. Wenger at http://www.ewenger.com/ewthemes.html and you'll find several other examples.

'Supporting CoPs' by E. Wenger at http://www.ewenger.com/tech/executive_summary.htm may shed some more light on whether discussion lists are CoPs (see answer #1). Answer #3 sheds light on your initial question about whether "CoPs include social, face-to-face groups or is the definition restricted to online groups".

HTH, Teresa

One way to approach a description of what IS a CoP might be to try to exclude what IS NOT. Case in point, my wife regularly watches a daily Spanish TV show called Saber Vivir ("Know how to Live"). This program, widely broadcast throughout Latin America, has a panel of "experts" who offer medical advice on healthy living to the viewing audience (represented by an in-studio audience). What lends this show at least some of the qualities of a CoP is the fact that a major element in each day's discussions are based on calls from viewers - in this respect, this is like a radio call-in show. In addition to calling in, viewers with medical questions can also send email and these emails are then addressed on air. Viewers can also subscribe to a magazine called Saber Vivir.

Now, on what basis might a show like this one be considered a CoP? Well, first, it might be argued that the viewers are often quite dedicated to the show. This is reflected both in the comments they make during calls and in email - and my wife certainly watches the show religiously. Second, there is at least an element of interactivity both between the experts on the show and between the panel members and the callers. Third, the host of the show (the "moderator"?) makes a definite effort to form bonds with the callers, for example, by addressing them by first name, asking about personal situations, etc.

Anyway, I'll stop here. I'd love to hear your opinions as to why or why not you would accept Saber Vivir as an example of a CoP.

Saludos,

Don

Intriguing question;

>One question that might be asked is this: How is a "lurker" any
>different than a regular viewer of a TV program like this one? I can
>tell you from personal experience, that "home viewers" are often
>affected by what they see and hear on the show and may even make
>changes to their daily habits. While they might never be motivated
>to actively participate (by calling or emailing the show), the
>thousands of viewers are nevertheless participants in some sense or
>another. Remember also that it has been claimed that 80% of most
>CoP's consist of boundary members. Can we exclude a TV show like
>this one from the set of CoP's simply because the percentage of
>"non-active" members rises to well above 95%. I'd be pretty
>certain that some e-lists, like SLART-L, have a similar ratio of
>active to non-active members.

I will stop here...
arif altun

Indeed My own experience recently of a 350 strong list on which only about 40 present themselves, is that the consequences of <showing> on that list are very considerable in everyday working life, a microcosm of Television (especially monopoly TV in the UK in the 50s and 60s). [Furthermore one has to be almost as careful of saying what one does say on such lists. They are public and the standards of public life apply.] This raises the interesting question of Private Languages developing within the COP, and I am not refering just to jargon words. Ok The Master/Mistress/exponent of the language is the one with the deepest knowledge of the nuance of the COP expressions; the private language of Linguists! Although Public life standards apply, private language may frequently be used within the list/COP to convey entirely different notions from the ones publicly preceived.

Cheerio Gar

I think there is a key book for the study of communities, which a consider very important and which I haven't seen included yet in any of the blibliography suggested, but I imagine all of you already know:
http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/ That is his books on communities, but appart from that he has more useful things to offer in his page: http://www.rheingold.com which I recommend everybody.

María Jordano de la Torre

CoPs have nothing to do with technology. They have existed since time began.Vance's reference to hunting groups is a perfect example -- sharing knowledge (talking, but also hunting together) to get meat on the table. Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002) refer to online CoPs as distributed CoPs. Jenny Preece refers to distributed CoPs as a type of virtual community. There are other types as well (e.g., social networks, gaming organizations, and virtual teams).

There is some question about how CoPs can work in a distributed/CMC environment. There are studies currently addressing that question (e.g., my dissertation). Social groups and professional networks are not CoPs per se. You need both the community and the practice. If you just get together and talk about something, that's not a CoP. Sure, you talk (a lot) in a CoP, but the members also need to do things together ("engage in practice").

I hope this clarifies it somewhat. More in Week 4,

Chris Johnson

Aiden Yeh