Communities of Practice is one of the most used concepts in educational research these days. Wenger (1998) has provided a theoretical basis for the concept, although his definition is quite fluid and difficult to grasp (Johnson, 2001). Preece (2000) has developed an operationalisation of the concept, centred around concepts of usability and sociability. These relate to the duality, developed by Wenger, between design and emergence.
Jones and Preece (2006) distinguish between Communities of Interest (COI) and Communities of Practice (COP). The latter, described by Wenger (1998), are reserved for communities in professional contexts. COI refer to the more organic, loosely structured communities that centre around people’s interests. Garrison has coined the term Community of Inquiry, focusing on groups in educational settings. There seems to be a rich amount of literature on these Communities of Inquiry.
Preece (2000) uses a sociability and usability framework to analyse the success of COI and COP. Usability is related to user-friendliness and consists of guidelines for the design of online spaces. Criteria for sociability centre around the 3 P’s of people, purpose and policies.
- requires ‘nurturing’ in young communities
- ‘lurkers’ routinely comprise at least 50% of participants
- Empathy and trust
- empathy: ability to understand others and react compassionately
- trust: expectations of positive interactions
- Clear leadership and commitment
- Supported by research from Wenger et al. (2011): “what makes a difference is not the quantity of users, but the passion and commitment with which a subset of users provide leadership, example and high quality content”
- Common ground
- corresponds with ‘mutual understanding’ (Wenger, 1998) , sense of unity, a common vision & values
- clarity of common purpose for participants (* I’m not convinced all participants need to have a common purpose)
- related to motivation
- Incentives for collaboration (vs. competition)
- can be realized through formal rules or through self-governance/ cultural norms
- related to amount of social pressure and presence of leadership
- Social presence
- described as sense people have online of others being present
- can be generated by short response time, not necessarily by many postings
- is strongly positively related with etiquette
- COI/COP need time to form and grow, in order to develop, in Wenger’s (1998) terms, ‘mutual understanding’, ‘common language’ and ‘reified artefacts’
Comparing these criteria with Stephen Downes’ description of characteristics of successful networks, highlights some of the differences between communities and networks:
- degree to which a network and its members can act independently
- not a criterion for a community, rather are coherence and a sense of belonging to group (identification)
- degree to which various backgrounds and opinions are represented in the network
- communities require a mutual understanding and shared repertoire.
- degree to which the community is open to new members
- * although not mentioned, I believe this was a major weakness of the COP of physics teachers in the Jones and Preece (2006) study.
Preece, J. (2000) Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability, John Wiley & Sons.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge University Press.