CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
3.5 Limitations of the Communities of Practice theory
82
83 themselves reflects the power they have. This also finds expression through the discourses that are used to achieve the intended objectives by the perpetrator.
These people use their power or position to get things done according to how they want them done. This is because the topic would have been suggested by them.
Cliques are also created through CoPs: “Certainly, Wenger has acknowledged that Communities of Practice can become cliques and that strong ties of membership can create barriers to outsiders” (Bentley et al., 2010, p. 4). In view of all this, Roberts (2000) notes the importance of the role power has in shaping social interactions and perceptions and this has a negative impact on trust levels among those responsible for knowledge transfer.
The second critique, according to Bentley et al. (2010), is that there is a lack of clarity of the CoP concept, as it was initially a theory of learning and identity and has since developed to be a used to manage knowledge workers by the workplace management, and Bentley et al. (2010) forward two reasons for this; firstly the composition of the CoPs is human beings and, therefore, there are possibilities that a review of their existence (as they are) should be considered so that they are reviewed on a regular basis. The second point that Bentley raises is the impression created that they populate all domains of social learning experience. Li et al. (2010) posit that the CoPs are used as if they are knowledge management tools, when they can be used by the learning organisations as a strategy for organisational development. The CoPs that Li et al. are referring to could be those that are initiated by the employer and not the participants themselves. Such initiatives are bound to be used for what is working for the employer, all in the name of promoting learning organisations. The Life Sciences cluster would reveal what it is used for. The learning theories discussed in this chapter and the professional development discourses discussed in the literature review will assist in determining whether the cluster is used as a knowledge management tool or a professional learning tool. The fact that the clusters are a departmental concept would make it interesting to establish how they are used.
Beyond these two critiques from Bentley et al. (2010), Fuller et al. (2008) also note various limitations to Wenger’s approach, which include the fact that Wenger is
84 undermining the impact of teaching and learning and giving the impression that social learning is more beneficial. To Wenger, social learning is more effective as everybody gets an opportunity to teach and learn.
Teaching plays a significant role in the acquisition of knowledge and skills by the beneficiaries. Learning is not entirely dependent on the social context. The social context is made up of individuals who are experts in various fields because they learnt through the acquisition metaphor. The continuity and reproduction taking place in the participation metaphor must be understood to be informed by the individual’s expertise.
Hager (cited in Hughes, Jewson & Urwin, 2007) identifies three limitations on the concept of participation, namely, that the concept overlooks the importance of construction and the fact that learning, self and the world are mutually constituted and reconstituted; secondly their perspective of participation is more focused on continuity “ rather than discontinuity and transformation”. Finally, Hager argues that the participation approval does not apply universally. The three points raised place emphasis on the fact that for participation to fully address learning it must consider contextual issues: transforming after learning has happened and the context determines what is and is not applicable.
Roberts (2006) looks at the concepts from a practical rather than a theoretical point of view. For their maintenance, the CoPs require efficient resources that are good for organisational development. If there are limited resources, especially in small companies, that may hinder the creation and the shaping of knowledge (Roberts, 2006). Lave and Wenger are not clear on the exact number of people that are supposed to constitute a CoP or what would be an acceptable size of a CoP.
Similarly, they do not prescribe the location of the CoP in the organogram of the organisation. The fact that Wenger is silent on the specific location of the learning and the number of participants posed a challenge for me, because before I conducted the study I thought that the learning (and therefore the CoP or cluster) was at the circuit level. When I engaged with the respondents and observed the workshops, I realised that learning was happening at the district and provincial level.
85 At the district level, the numbers range from 20 to 60, depending on the attendance on that particular day and at the provincial level there were up to 200 participants.
Challenging as it was, I was able to use both the district and the provincial communities to apply the learning dimensions.
Wenger’s failure to come up with a concrete definition of a CoP can be viewed as a strength by teachers according to Maistry (2005, p. 111). He further argues that teachers “could arguably belong to many Communities of Practice, namely, their own school community, their specialist departmental communities or sports communities” (ibid, p. 111). This approach of community hopping may only work well if what is learned or the activities taking place in the CoPs complement what is happening in other CoPs.
The other critique is that “the model does not pay attention to wider social inequalities within which the participants in a CoP are embedded. As such, it does not offer insights into understanding inequalities and disadvantages that may be peculiar to individuals within a community” (Maistry, 2005, p. 107). This is especially peculiar to South Africa as it is a patriarchal society. Women may be dominated by men in these communities where there are no clear operational rules. Some participants, due to their social and economic status, may feel that they are not adding any value to their structure and, as a result, not actively participate in discussions. Wenger’s model assumes that everybody understands that their development is their primary responsibility and, therefore, the establishment of the CoP is supposed to be initiated by those who want to participate in professional learning initiatives.
In the South African context, for instance, it may be difficult for the CoP to be fully operational, because many teachers are of the opinion that the Department of Education has to take responsibility for their development. They are guided by what has been conceptualised by the officials at National office. At national level, National Office staff work with provincial subject heads and subject advisors. The model should have guidelines on how to establish or what to consider when establishing the communities and not only focus on the benefits.
86