Their ‘apprenticeship’ examples are from different traditions and cultures and take different forms – formal arrangements, informal arrangements, and a community where membership was purely voluntary, but in all of them what is common is the importance of the access which newcomers have to old-timers who are long standing members of the community and from whom newcomers will learn. Their five examples were Yucatec midwives, Vai and Gola tailors, quartermasters, butchers and non-drinking alcoholics.
All of Lave and Wenger’s (1991) examples show this difference between newcomer and old-timer and the process of moving from one way of being to another. The members achieve this shift in state by learning the practice of the community. They do this by participating in the practice of the community, gradually moving from peripheral to full participation. This process is what Lave and Wenger (1991) term Legitimate Peripheral Participation (LPP).
In CoPs, newcomers learn from old-timers by being allowed to participate in certain tasks relating to the practice of the community and gradually move from peripheral to full participation in the community. For example, the daughter of the Yucatec midwife may start simply by knowing what the life of a midwife involves, such as having to go out at all hours, the kinds of herbs that need to be collected. The midwife may then start taking her daughter with her on visits. The daughter will hear stories of cases. She may then proceed to running errands and taking messages. Eventually, she may assist at a birth, or give a massage. As time goes on, if she has decided to pursue this line of work, she will gradually take over more and more of the work load.
Lave and Wenger (1991) saw a Community of Practice as "an intrinsic condition for the existence of knowledge" (p98). They saw the learning that took place in such communities not as narrow situated learning where instances of practice are simply replicated but "learning as Legitimate Peripheral Participation" (p34). LPP is not merely learning situated in practice but learning as an integral part of practice: learning as "generative social practice in the lived in world" (p35).
Although Lave and Wenger (1991) stress the composite character of LPP, it is useful as an analytical convenience to consider the three components and their relationships separately.
Legitimation is the dimension of CoPs that is concerned with power and authority relations in the group. In the studies (non-drinking alcoholics, Vai and Gola tailors, quartermasters, butchers and Yucatec midwives), legitimation does not necessarily have to be formal. For example for quartermasters, tailors and butchers there is a degree of formal legitimacy that comes from hierarchy and rank but for the midwives and alcoholics legitimacy is more informal. For example, the alcoholics gain legitimacy, as the stories they tell of their experiences become more mature and closer to those of an old-timer. The legitimation bestowed by a story was also noted by Orr (1997) who described the stories as artefacts for sharing experience.
Peripherality is not a physical concept as in core and periphery nor a simple measure of the amount of knowledge that has been acquired. Lave and Wenger (1991) use the terms peripheral and full participation to denote the degree of engagement with, and participation in the community but note that peripherality
For Lave and Wenger (1991) it is participation which provides the key to understanding CoPs. CoPs do not necessarily imply co-presence, a well-defined or identifiable group, or socially visible boundaries. However, CoPs do imply participation in an activity about which all participants have a common understanding of what it is and what it means for their lives and community. The community and the degree of participation in it are in some senses inseparable from the practice.
Seely Brown and Duguid (1996) have noticed similar aspects when exploring the role of CoPs in learning. Their examples of learning how to become a physicist or a footballer do not only entail learning formulae and plays. The newcomer must
Common Ground alone, however, is only one constituent of a CoP - in extending the concept, different characteristics have been identified and many definitions have been suggested (Manville and Foote 1996 ). Manville and Foote (1996) place their version of CoPs firmly in the organisational context and emphasise the informality which may be found in CoPs. The CoP does not have to be an official grouping. Membership may be totally voluntary. They also allude to the tackling of common problems and refer to the knowledge which can be created within the group through the tackling of those problems. Conceição, Gibson and Shariq (1997) also restricted their version of a CoP to an organisational context, referring to the knowledge which is to be found in a CoP and observing that CoPs can be cross-functional, in that they are not restricted to specific business functions. They cross the borders between the different parts of the organisation.
Seely Brown and Duguid (1991, 1998) took the notion of CoPs and applied
them to a study of technical photocopy technical repairers undertaken by
Orr (1990). They describe the copier repairers as a CoP and relate
how narration, in the form of war stories (as described in Section 2.4.1)
was used to help solve problems and create new knowledge. The story
might be told at a later stage and become part of the community’s stock
of knowledge. Lave and Wenger (1991) explain the importance of stories
by relating it to knowledge being situated in the context of a community:
In Orr’s (1990) example the story is heard being re-told in the lunch room and Seely Brown and Solomon Gray relate how technical repairers gather round the coffee pot to swap stories. They point out that whereas many people might regard this as ‘dead’ time, the repairers were in fact carrying out valuable work – as field service is a social activity, they were swapping and producing insights as to how better to repair the machines. Davenport and Prusak (1998) widen this to ad hoc conversation in general, showing that informal ad hoc communication is an essential part of interaction within a community, during which valuable work gets done:
The extension of the concept of a CoP has led to some inappropriate usage of the term for example Lindstaedt (1996) who referred to them as project teams and interest groups, and Sandusky (1997) who equated them to business functional units. It is wrong to define CoPs in these terms for project teams, interest groups and business function units are formally constituted groups. CoPs per se are not formally created. It may be the case that a formally constituted group, such as a project team, develops into a CoP by virtue of the relationships between its members, but this only shows that such a group can develop into a CoP, not that all such groups are CoPs.
Common Ground
Clark (1996) classified and defined cultural communities by the use
of Common Ground - the knowledge, beliefs and suppositions shared by members
of the community. This provides us with two tiers of CoP – at a higher
level, for example the community of dentists, who share a common language,
background and experiences. At a lower level there is the smaller
CoP. In the case of the dentists it may be a group of dentists who work
in a particular practice and who have evolved into a CoP – they may have
newcomers, practice specific jargon, nicknames, they may have developed
strong working relationships and have a common goal for the practice towards
which they are working. They will also have practice specific Common
Ground, for example relating to particular incidents or tricky operations
within the practice.
The members of the CoP have some sort of shared or background knowledge. This is generally, but not necessarily, related to the common interest of the group. Nardi and Miller (1991) term this the ‘domain knowledge’. Of more interest here is the soft knowledge which forms part of the Common Ground.
Common Purpose/Motivation
The members of the group will feel that they have a common purpose
which will give the group an internal impetus. The motivation of
the members of a CoP is also a key element of what makes it a CoP.
There is an internal motivation which provides the group with its impetus.
Even when the group is formally constituted, part of what makes the group
a CoP will be the internal motivation which drives the group rather than
any external pressures. The CoP members are self-motivated in what they
do within the CoP.
Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Lave and Wenger 1991, Lave 1991)
LPP is the process by which a newcomer to the group gradually becomes
an established member of the CoP. In Lave and Wenger’s (1991) examples
this was based on a form of apprenticeship. Even in CoPs where a
newcomer already has a degree of domain knowledge there will be group and
organisational specific aspects which the newcomer has to learn as (s)he
works him/herself into the group. This might be, for example, the
particular practices of the group and organisation, ‘the way things are
done here’, or relevant people to contact.
Fluidity/Regeneration
The fluidity of the CoP refers to the arrival of newcomers and the
eventual departure of old-timers. Newcomers arrive, learn the language,
domain knowledge and practices of the group, go through the process of
LPP and themselves become acknowledged old-timers. This is how the
CoP regenerates itself and ensures its stock of knowledge is not lost.
Evolution
A CoP will go through some sort of evolution. It may be simply
that the CoP owes its very existence to evolution in that it developed
through a group of people having a common interest. On the other
hand, the group may originally have been formally created but has developed
or evolved into a CoP as a result of the relationships, inner momentum
and feeling of community which have developed into an identity of its own
over time.
Relationships
The relationships are a key part of what makes a CoP. It is possible
for a team to become a CoP as informal relationships begin to develop and
the source of legitimation changes in emphasis. The relationships which
develop are central to developing the sense of trust and identity, that
defines the community.
Community/Identity
The internal motivation and the development of relationships contribute
to a feeling of community and identity. The members feel they belong
to the community. They may even go as far as giving the group a name.
Narration
Narration takes the form of story telling and is seen by some commentators
as a key means by which CoP members share knowledge (Orr 1990, Goldstein
1993, Sachs 1995). This was shown as a central part of the transition
from newcomer to old-timer in Lave and Wenger’s (1991) community
of non-drinking alcoholics. Orr (1997) also showed that the qualities
of the stories bestowed members of his copier repair engineers with a form
of legitimation and confirmed their status in and membership of the community.
Dynamism/Creation of New Knowledge
The dynamism aspect relates to the social distribution of the knowledge
in the group. Over a period of time, as the group’s work progresses,
the members will learn different things at different paces. There
will be members of the group who have specialised knowledge in certain
aspects, that is, they are ‘gurus’ (Star 1995). Other members will
be able to consult them for help, but as time passes, the social distribution
of the knowledge will shift – it is dynamic, not static. This dynamic process
can also create new knowledge as demonstrated by Orr’s (1990, 1997)
photocopier technicians. In swapping stories and bouncing ideas off
each other the two technicians finally arrived at a solution which was
then added to the community’s stock of knowledge.
Informal
It is often the case in a CoP that there is no hierarchy and
the group has no specific deliverable. The group is run on informal
lines. This has close links with the legitimation aspect (in LPP).
In such an informal group the legitimation is bestowed by the informal
relationships and not by an externally imposed rank. In the case
of an officially created group which has evolved into a CoP the official
hierarchy of the original group will still be present and functioning,
and such a group may still have deliverables. This factor may then
be less essential than some of the other aspects. It is particularly
interesting, however, when the informal legitimation and externally imposed
rankings clash, as in the chief Petty Officers of Hutchins (1995a) having
to ‘break in’ the new officers.
Unofficial
In many cases a CoP is not formally created by an organisation.
The example of the technicians in Orr (1990) is a good example – the company
was unaware of the technicians’ ways of working and collaborating.
It can also often be found that membership of a CoP is voluntary, possibly
because the CoP is unofficial. This does not, however, preclude
voluntary membership of an official group or team.
Similar Jobs
This characteristic is where a CoP is situated in an organisational
context and refers to the identification of CoPs. In many cases a
CoP may form around a particular job, the job is the practice – as in the
example of photocopier repairers provided by Orr (1990), or, on a wider
level, the ophthalmologists suggested by Clark (1996). The fact that
CoPs may form around similar roles or jobs in an organisation provides
a starting point when looking for potential CoPs, particularly in a distributed
environment where they might not be so obvious. There will be individuals
doing similar jobs and closer contact would be beneficial. (Stewart 1996
).
In a Community of Practice it is important to emphasise the social aspects which feature heavily. Several of the characteristics described above point to the importance of the social features. A CoP cannot be created, merely facilitated, for without the internal motivation and the relationships which the members develop a group will fail to evolve into a CoP. This is demonstrated particularly well by the Legitimation aspect where the legitimation of a member in the community comes not from some formal and externally imposed hierarchy but by his/her gaining the acceptance of the other members.
The relationships developed between the members are also important, for the socially constructed softer aspects of knowledge are to be found there. This raises the question of what impact this will have on the knowledge loss problems posed by outsourcing and downsizing. CoPs cope with the loss of members by a process of regeneration – as old-timers leave they are replaced by newcomers moving to full participation. However, if the whole community were to be lost in a program of staff reduction, knowledge would be lost which could not be captured and stored for the use of the organisation.
O’Dell and Jackson Grayson (1998) see this from an ICT point of view and report on how Chevron have tried to nurture and support CoPs when they have appeared. Support and facilitation does not, however, have to be technological. Stewart recognised the value of IT but also of simpler support:
For Wenger (1998) participation is more than engaging in some activities with certain other people. Learning is social participation, that is, it is a fuller process whereby people are active participants in the practice of a community and through which they can develop identities in relation to those communities. Wenger’s (1998) description of participation is an excellent example of how CoP members could develop softer aspects of their knowledge. For him, participation describes
Participation and Reification are inextricably linked. Having concentrated on the participation aspect of LPP Wenger (1998) emphasises that it remains undefined without the other constituent process which makes up the negotiation of meaning: reification. This is taken to mean giving concrete form to something which is abstract. He uses the concept of reification
Wenger emphasises that these two constituent processes are separable analytically but are a duality. One cannot replace the other. Participation is undefined without reification and vice versa. They are not a dichotomy, they are a complementary pair in that they differ in how they affect the negotiation of meaning: in participation mutuality is essential as members of a community recognise themselves in each other. In reification, however, our meanings are projected on to the world and attain an independent existence.
Another key point in the Participation-Reification duality is the proportion of each of the constituent processes. They need to be in a correct proportion so that one will balance the shortcomings of the other. The correct balance is necessary to achieve co-ordinated practice through Common Ground. Wenger (1998) points out that
The role of the artefact as connecting different communities provides interesting possibilities. Wenger refers to this role of the artefact as a ‘reificative connection:
As well as practice as meaning supported by reification and participation, Wenger (1998) also explores practice as the property of a community, pointing out that it has three dimensions: mutual engagement, joint enterprise and shared repertoire.
Mutual Engagement:
Mutuality is a key aspect of engagement. Wenger explains that
practice exists because people engage in actions, the meanings of which
they have to negotiate with each other. Therefore, he states that
practice is not to be found in books or tools (although it may involve
many kinds of artefacts). Practice is to be found in a community
“and the relations of mutual engagement by which they can do whatever they
do” (p73).
Joint Enterprise:
Joint enterprise is key to keeping a community together. It is
not simply a stated goal, rather, relations of mutual accountability are
created between and among the members of the community and this becomes
part of the practice. The joint enterprise is also defined by the
members of the community as they are in the process of pursuing it.
Shared Repertoire:
Over time a CoP will create resources for negotiating meaning as the
participants pursue the joint enterprise. These resources can include
procedures, routines, tools, stories, concepts, artefacts which the community
has produced and which have now become a part of the practice.
These areas provide further support to the soft/hard duality.
The harder aspects are clearly visible in the shared repertoire and
the softer aspects of knowledge are necessary for the success of the joint
enterprise and mutual engagement.
Identity is partly defined in terms of the relations which develop in a community. Engaging in the practice of a community develops relations which constitute a form of legitimation – it defines a member’s place in the community, It defines, among other things, who has specific expertise, who is central, who is peripheral. For Wenger (1998) identity is defined socially in practice because it is a result of participation in communities. However, participation and reification are a duality and a balance of both is needed: