This thesis utilises McDermott and Snyder (2002) definition of communities of practice (CoP). This definition is relevant and consistently useful to this research because the authors define communities of practice as groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis. On the other hand, Lesser and Storck (2001) define these communities could meet at a physical location or could be virtually connected through various communication media such as email and internet applications.
A CoP’s group of people informally bound together by shared expertise and passion for a joint enterprise engineers engaged in deep-water drilling, for example, consultants who specialize in strategic marketing, or frontline managers in charge of check processing at a large commercial bank. Though the primary output of communities of practice is knowledge, they have been found to improve organizational performance by driving strategy, generate new lines of business, solving problems,...
High cohesiveness is an effective tool in the success and effectiveness of an organization. However, in order for ...
"Contact is Not Enough" to Build a Team. Journal Of Continuing Education In The Health Professions, 28(4), 228-234, doi: 10.1002/chp.189
John Swales (1990), author of “The Concept of Discourse Community,” basically explains his own definition of what an actual discourse community is. Swales was able to break to concept down into a list of six characteristics that a group must have in order to be considered a discourse community. The first characteristic he mentions is that “a discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common goals”. (Swales, 1990, p. 471) He provides an example of an ordinary person joining an organization with “private hopes of commercial or romantic advancement.” The second characteristic mentioned is “a discourse community has mechanism of intercommunication among its members”. (Swales, 1990, p. 471) This basically means that communities don’t always have to meet in person on a regular basis in order to be considered a discourse community. They communicate in li...
As put by Jen Waak in regarding the human need for community, “By surrounding yourself with others working toward a similar goal, you’ll get...yourself a bit further than you would have done on your own,” (Waak). By being able to see and participate in these different communities centered around different objectives, the goal becomes easier to achieve and bonds the group into something more through trying to reach it. This new unit is called a discourse community and is defined by John Swales as containing six specific characteristics: having a common goal, showing intercommunication and using lexis, having participation within the group, being defined by genres of texts, and having members with areas of expertise for the community. When looking
Van Alstyne, M. W. (2005). Create colleagues, not competitors . Harvard Business Review, 83(9), 24-28.
Wenger, E. (2000) Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems. Organization Articles. 7 (2), p225-246
Another important quality in a successful society is collaboration. Collaboration is the act of wo...
Community is like a Venn diagram. It is all about relations between a finite group of people or things. People have their own circles and, sometimes, these circles overlap one another. These interceptions are interests, common attitudes and goals that we share together. These interceptions bond us together as a community, as a Venn diagram. A good community needs good communication where people speak and listen to each other openly and honestly. It needs ti...
Mutual engagement is the fundamental element of communities of practice. It is the conglomerate of individuals who either come together or are brought together based on a common interest. These common interests are the foundations on which a community is formed, providing the necessary framework in which members can participate in meaningful practice. Central to this framework are the ways that individuals are united in becoming engaged members and participants. This unity does not equate to a homogenized group, rather it leads to a mutual relationship among members who are connected to the common interests of their community of practice. Wenger (1998) adds depth to the relationships formed through common interests by explicitly discussing the cursory elements of human interactions on which communities of practice are not constructed: social and cultural categories, a group of people engaged in conversation, or individuals located within certain geographic proximities. In the construction of a community of practice, mutual engagement underscores human interactions by further investigating the interplay of identity and participation among individuals as it creates an environment for learning.
“The community is the expert”. Generally, the people within a certain environment know and understand what needs to be done to best create a sense of belonging.
Solberg, J. (2011). Becoming learning common partners: Working toward a shared vision and practice. Journal of Organization Transformation and Social Change, 8 (3), 243-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1386/jots.8.3.243_1
Discussions of the social effects of computer-mediated communication (CMC) and virtual community often focus on whether they pull people apart or bring them together. John Perry Barlow describes his point of view on this matter in a very enlightening article, Is There a There in Cyberspace?. Barlow first describes his skepticism about virtual communities and finishes the article with a life altering tragedy. Amy Bruckman, who is responsible for the article, Finding Ones Own in Cyberspace explains the importance of discovering a virtual community that best suits your needs. I feel that virtual communities and CMCs bring people together but also pull them apart more then together.
“Informal groups have a powerful influence on the effectiveness of an organization, and can even subvert its formal groups. But, the informal group’s role is not limited to resistance. The impact of the informal group upon the larger formal group depends on the norms that the informal group sets. So the informal group can make the formal organization more effective, too.” Informal groups can either be a manager’s best friend or worst enemy. Group Development: The Formation of Informal Work Groups Informal work groups are part of any working environment; how they form, the leadership within the group and how these groups communicate, follow the same basic model. “Groups are particularly good at combining talents and providing innovate solutions to possible unfamiliar problems.” “There are five stages of group development. The first is forming,which is where the group first comes together. Everyone is usually polite. Conflict is seldom voiced directly. Individuals will be guarded in their own opinions and reserved.” The second form of developmentis “storming a chaotic vying for leadership and trailing of group operates.” The third is norming as the second stage evolves the rules of engagement for the group becomes established, and the scopes of the group’s task or responsibilities are clear and agreed. Fourth is performing,not all groups reach this point. Everyone knows each other well enough to be able to work together. And the fifth stage is adjourning; this is about the completion and disengagement of the tasks and group members. The formations of informal work groups are employed by an organization to perform specific functions. Informal groups almost always arise ...
In this setting the groups work together. Both consultants and organisational members work as co-workers.
"The Teacher's Role in Developing Interaction and Reflection in an Online Learning Community." (n.d.): n. pag. Taylor and Francis. Web. 28 Feb. 2014.