77
78
To better understand the concept of communities of practice, it is befitting to have a solid understanding of social learning theory. Social learning theory emerged as a contribution to the work of Bandura in the late 70s. Bandura, (1977) emphasized the importance of observing, behaviours, attitudes and emotional reactions of others. He believed that most human behavior is learned through observing while others are doing. As people observe, they in turn acquire information which helps them change their behaviours and at later stages, this information serves as a guide for action. He acknowledged the important role that social interaction plays in the development of cognition (Bandura, 1977).
Key concepts in communities of practice theory
In bringing forward the ideas of social learning theory, Wenger begins with the four main premises. These are:
1. that we are all social beings – a central aspect of learning;
2. that knowledge is a matter of competence with respect to valued enterprises;
3. that knowing is a matter of participating in the pursuit of such enterprises, that it, active engagement; and
4. that meaning – our ability to experience the world and our engagement with it as meaningful – is ultimately what learning is to produce (Wenger, 1998, p. 4).
Wenger brings forward that learning is part of a more encompassing process which positions individuals as active participants in the practices of social communities. In addition Wenger presents components of social participations which characterize learning. These are:
Meaning: a way of talking about our changing ability – individually and collectively.
Practice: a way of talking about the shared historical and social resources, frameworks and perspectives that can sustain mutual engagement in action.
Community: a way of talking about the social configurations in which our enterprises are identified as worth pursuing and our participation is recognizable as competence.
Identity: a way of talking about how learning changes who were are and creates person’s histories of becoming in the context of communities (Wenger, 1998, p. 5).
79
All the four elements mentioned above are interchangeable with their relationship to learning, as depicted in the diagram below:
Figure 3.1 Components of social theory of learning
Source: Wenger, (1998, p. 5).
According to Wenger, (1998, pp. 73-85), communities of practice theory delineates itself along the three dimensions that are related to the practice. These are mutual engagement, joint enterprise and shared repertoire.
Mutual engagement entails interaction with each other, establishing norms and relationships.
Joint enterprise refers to the situation where members are bound together by an understanding of a sense of practice and shared repertoire relates to a situation where members produce overtime, sharing of resources such as common language, routine artifacts or stories.
Below are some commons features of a community of practice:
Sustained mutual relationships – harmonious and conflictive
Shared ways of engaging in doing together
Rapid flow of information and propagation of innovation
LEARNING
Community
Identity Meaning
Practice
Learning as belonging
Learning as becoming
Learning as experience Learning
as doing
80
Absence of introductory preambles, as if conversation and interactions were merely the continuation of an on-going process
Very quick set up of a problem to be discussed
Substantial overlap in participants descriptions of who belongs
Knowing what others know, what they can do and how they can contribute to an enterprise
Mutually defining identities
The ability to assess the appropriateness of actions and products
Specific tools, representations and other artifacts
Local lore, shared stories, inside jokes, knowing laughter
Jargon and shortcuts to communication as well as the case of producing new ones.
Certain styles recognized as displaying membership
A shared discourse reflecting a certain perspective.
Adapted from Wenger as cited in Roberts, (2006)
Communities of practice bear some characteristics which vary from practice to practice. There are those that have names, some are formal, others are fluid and informal but in all of these characteristics what stays common, is the fact that members are brought together by joining in common activities and by what they have learned through their mutual engagement (Lave &
Wenger, 1991; and Wenger, 1998).
Alongside this theory, is another important idea, which relates to the notion of communities of practice and social learning theory. This is what Lave and Wenger, (1991) refer to as “legitimate peripheral participation” which denotes
…a particular mode of engagement where a learner participates in the actual practice of an expert, but to a limited degree (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p 14).
This is a type of situated learning and a process that reiterates the focus that learning is fundamentally social rather than psychological. This assumption is substantiated by Lave and
81
Wenger’s observation of different apprenticeships (midwives, tailors, naval quartermasters, meat cutters and non-drinking alcoholics) as they moved from the periphery towards the centre of the practice, as they became more competent.
Nature of participation in communities of practice
Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002) provides a comprehensive description of different levels of participation within the communities of practice. They identified three levels of participation – the first one as a small core group of people who actively participate in discussions, debates, and public community forums. This group often takes on community projects, identify topics for the community to address, and as the community matures, this core group takes a leadership role within the community. The second level is the active group. Members at this level attend meetings regularly, and participate occasionally in forums. This group too, is usually small in number. The last level or portion of community members are the peripheral group. This group rarely participates. Instead they keep to the sidelines, watching the interaction of the core and active members. Their justification for peripheral participation includes the fact that members may feel that their observations are not appropriate for the whole group or that their contributions do not carry any authority. Members at this level may also lack time to contribute more actively.
Critique of the Communities of Practice Theory
Communities of practice theory has received a number of critiques from some scholars. The critiques that I intend to focus on relate to power relations, trust, predispositions, size and spatial reach, and fast versus slow communities downside, as put forward by Fox, (2000); Chua, (2002);
and Roberts, (2006). In addition to these scholars I have viewed the writings by Probst and Borzillo, (2008, p. 343) about the main reasons for failure of communities of practice as an addition to the limitations of the theory. These are a) lack of core group, b) low level of one-to- one interaction between members, c) rigidity of competencies d) lack of identification with the
82
community of practice, as well as e) practice intangibility as some of the factors that negate effective operationalization of the theory. I deal with these factors broadly in the sections below.
Power relations
Fox, (2000) posits that while communities of practice theory does place emphasis on a group of people all involved in a shared practice, there is an element of power conflict that the theory has not addressed. He gives the example of masters (old timers), young masters and apprentices (new comers) and he links that with the practice of quartermasters within the US Navy (Fox, 2000, pp.
853-855).
Trust
Roberts, (2006) sees trust as a major contributor in making communities of practice work in any organization. The presence of a relationship of trust between individuals indicates an ability to share a high degree of mutual understanding which in turn contributes to successful transfer of tacit knowledge. The theory seemingly overlooks the element of trust, given its pivotal role in maintaining healthy relationships, within organizations.
Size and spatial reach
Fox, (2000) sees these as inhibiting factors in the effectiveness of learning within organizations.
Communities of practice as presented by Wenger et al., (2002) are considered for large multi- national organizations with large memberships. At the same time, there are those with small groups of people working in close proximity. Roberts, (2006) view of the size of the practice is that it may not always be possible to apply similar principles to the two different communities, which will have different sizes and spatial reaches.
Fast versus slow communities
Fox (2000) talks about the vast changing business environment that carries the characteristic of complexity and intensification of competition. He also talks of a growing demand for continuous improvement of business performance. These factors, he stresses, demand that businesses need
83
to transform their competitive landscape. He then suggests that communities within business organizations will face difficulties forming, when the pace of change is accelerating. He sees this factor as a great inhibitor towards making the communities of practice effective and cautions that in the era of fast capitalism there is every likelihood that groups emerge and dissolve rapidly.
Narrating on why communities of practice may fail, Probst and Borzillo, (2008) identified in their study of 57 companies who used the practice, the following factors, which I have used as part of the critique of communities of practice. These are:
a) Lack of core group: This is actively engaged in activities such as regular meetings, the inflow of fresh ideas and the support that is provided to other members for problem solving.
b) Low level of one-to-one interaction between members: Members often run into the habit of not conducting one-on-one facial, telephone or email, discussions regarding practices that they use in their respective units.
c) Rigidity of competence: Members develop over time trust of their competence to the total exclusion of views of others, thus demonstrating less willingness to integrate practices originating from other practice members.
d) Lack of identity with community of practice: Another challenge with communities of practice, is that members do not view their participation in their practice as meaningful for their daily work, thus they do not perceive other members as peers who can assist them with useful knowledge and practices
e) Practice intangibility: This applies to a situation where members fail to engage with one another in a way that allows them to illustrate the practice to make it concrete enough for other members to understand and visualize its functions (Probst & Borzillo, 2008, p 343).
84 Using Communities of Practice as a lens for this study
Communities of practice is the linchpin for this study. The element of learning from each other, the level of participation of the participants from being at the periphery to becoming full members of the practice, as well as mutual engagement is what bears reference to what the study seeks to explore regarding coping strategies for dealing with an HIV positive condition.
Linkages between the three theories
Feminism is about liberating the oppressed women, creating a conducive environment for women to show case their potential within the political, economic and social spheres.
Transformative learning is about learning for change, transforming the taken-for-granted habits of mind and engaging into critical reflection – to question the integrity of deeply held assumptions and beliefs based on prior experience. It facilitates dialogue with oneself and other people in seeking to provide the most accurate and complete information, ensuring freedom from coercion and distorting self-deception; encouraging an openness to alternative points of view, developing an ability to weigh evidence and assess arguments objectively. Similarly communities of practice, is about learning, participating, engagement, identity and meaning- making in discourse analysis and knowledge sharing and becoming an expert within a particular knowledge network, thus moving from being a novice to becoming an expert. The apex of the linkage is learning and becoming a new person as a result of being exposed to knowledge. These linkages are illustrated in the diagram below:
85
Figure 3.2 Linkages between feminism, transformative learning and communities of practice.