Community of Practice

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A community of practice (abbreviation CoP ) is a practice- related community of people who face similar tasks and want to learn from each other. It does not have the same meaning as the term study group .

In the interest of finding solutions, a CoP acts largely self-organized .

History of the term

The catchphrase Community of Practice was coined in 1991 by Jean Lave and Étienne Wenger . They put learning in the context of social relationships . They showed that for the acquisition of knowledge - in addition to structures or models - participation in a community in which the knowledge is constructed is particularly crucial.

Wenger differentiates the Community of Practice from other forms of social cooperation (such as networking ).

In 1998 Etienne Wenger expanded the concept for organizational development and thus determined a new focus of development. This book is not primarily intended as a practical reference work for organizational development. Rather, Wenger carried out the theoretical foundation of the concept and presented general principles of understanding of the concept. But communities of practice can also be found outside of organizations , especially as internet-supported working groups . The community of practice is seen today in close connection with online communities and knowledge management and represents an important opportunity for the formation of social capital . The authors view the concept of knowledge management critically. You (see Annotated Bibliography ) contrasted this with the basic concept of 'cultivating' communities and specifically worked out the importance of the 'brokering' and 'community management function'. According to Lave and Wenger - and other authors - knowledge management is not possible. Just like the formation of communities of practice, knowledge cannot (alone) be implemented through a top-down arrangement or through systematic 'set-up processes'. Terms of 'gardening' and 'nurturing' are preferred by the authors.

Characteristics

Wenger has defined a list of criteria that limit his idea of ​​communities of practice and with which such a community of practice can be 'identified': The members take part in a joint undertaking ('Enterprise'), they jointly build a pool of tools ('Shared Repertoire of tools'), they 'negotiate' standards e.g. B. about the use of language, about procedures, about the external representation of the members, about learning as the development of identity (as opposed to and in addition to factual knowledge or the concept of ability) and they take part in a common practice. In this practice, tasks for the further development of the group are taken on, but also every individual who has joined this community for a specific reason (e.g. exchange about repair tricks for copier machines that cannot be found in manuals, exchange about Network of relationships etc.).

sharing historical roots
(common historical roots)
having related enterprises
(interdependent projects)
serving a cause or belonging to an institution
(pursuing a common goal or belonging to an institution)
facing similar conditions
(to be exposed to the same circumstances)
having members in common
(joint members)
sharing artifacts
(Exchange artifacts with each other)
having geographical relations of proximity or interaction
(Proximity of geographic conditions or through interaction)
having overlapping styles or discourses
(overlapping styles and for sharing experiences)
competing for the same resources.
(Competition for the same resources) (1998: 127)
Sustained mutual relationships - harmonious or conflictual
(sustainable mutual relationships - harmonious or conflicting)
absence of introductory preambles, as if conversations and interactions were merely the continuation of an ongoing process
(No introductory preambles. The community is formed from the flow of activities)
very quick setup of a problem to be discussed
(get together extremely quickly and take action to clarify a problem)
knowing what others know, what they can do, and how they can contribute to an enterprise
(Know what others know, what they can do and how they can contribute to the common endeavor)
specific tools, representations, and other artefacts
(specific tools, representations and other artifacts)
Local lore, shared stories, inside jokes, knowing laughter, jargon and shortcuts to communication as well as the ease of producing new ones.
(Stories shared and spun together with others, insider jokes, knowing laughter, jargon and abbreviations that accelerate communication, as well as the ease of developing new ones) (1998: 125)

structure

A community of practice usually has a structure in which people are not given a specific role by definition , but rather acquire a role based on their work and the acceptance or rejection of other members. In this case, 'definition' means: a specification by managers, organization diagrams or other 'formal specifications'. The term role, which has a long tradition especially in German-speaking countries, is not used by the authors who publicized the concept of situated learning. You speak of an 'identity' that develops and of the distribution of tasks that are negotiated among each other. Active and less active members , moderators and experts develop on the basis of the communication processes . These moderators should not be imagined as rigidly assigned positions within the network of communities of practice. These are also situationally negotiated functions and tasks within the community. Sub-groups can also be formed or external people can be included as guests.

Phases

Five phases characterize the development of a community of practice.

  1. The first phase (potential / potential) is characterized by one or more people who take on a certain topic.
  2. The second phase (coalescing / unification) is characterized by the formation of a basic structure in which goals , tasks and communication channels are outlined.
  3. The actual work of the community begins in the third phase (maturing) : knowledge building and exchange. With increasing activity, i. d. Usually also the number of members. Goals, tasks and communication channels are continuously evaluated and adapted to the needs of the members by the members themselves.
  4. The fourth phase (stewardship / responsibility) can be described when a level that is acceptable for the majority of the members has been reached and no need for further activities is seen. In this case, the number of information entered decreases compared to that of the information extracted.
  5. In the fifth and final phase (transformation / conversion) the community increasingly loses its weight as a central information hub because other sources are used or the topic itself has lost importance.

These phases can, but do not have to be passed through. Wenger, Snyder and McDermott generalized the phase sequence from different cases in order to create a 'framework' for the respective support needs for the flourishing of the community.

Maintenance of CoPs

In contrast to knowledge management , Wenger, Snyder and McDermott have worked out the concept of maintaining communities of practice. It is intended to counter the phase-typical problems of a community of practice.

Design for evolution
Constant change is necessary: ​​adaptation to new members, introduction of new members, change in resource situations, change in discourse traditions , change in problem situations for members, changes in the structure of the COP.
Open a dialogue between inside and outside perspectives
The exchange with the environment and the active negotiation of meaning in the 'arena' of the community of practice are the main driving forces why people form COPs.
Invite different levels of participation
No COP is supported by core activists alone. For example, young people must be built up for positions within the COP. The inclusion of other 'zones' in the COP also contributes to the plurality of perspectives on a specific problem.
Develop both public and private community spaces
Even if the COP itself is often located in the 'Organizational Underlife', there are also areas in which sub-groups meet, in which topics outside the actual agenda are discussed, in which personal problems and differences can also be addressed without prior to enter the 'plenary' of the COP. Tensions remain u. May exist when such problems cannot be discussed off the 'official stage'. Often, such secondary scenes also form the birthplace for subsequent topics of a COP, which then maintains them, even if in a perhaps changed constellation.
Focus on value
Ensuring quality is also important for COPs. This applies to both the maintenance of the COPs on a meta-level and the contributions to the 'Situated Negotiation of Meaning'.
Combine familiarity and excitement
COPs also thrive on supporting structures made up of more routine practices and a breath of fresh air.
Create a rhythm for the community
The pulse of various activities also contributes to the continuation and a good 'working atmosphere' within the COP.

See also

literature

Individual evidence

  1. ^ J. Lave, E. Wenger: Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1991.
  2. ^ E. Wenger: Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press , 1998
  3. ^ A b E. Wenger, R. McDermott, WM Snyder: Cultivating Communities of Practice. HBS press, 2002.

Web links

English pages, general: