10.1177/1080569904265421 ARTICLEBUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2004Janson et al. / A PH.D. COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE

THE ODYSSEY OF PH.D. STUDENTSBECOMING A COMMUNITYOF PRACTICEAnnick Janson

Laurie Howard

Michèle Schoenberger-OrgadUniversity of Waikato

Wenger’s theory of communities of practice (CoPs) helps explain how a group of Ph.D. students in theDepartment of Management Communication at the University of Waikato in New Zealand met aneed for emotional and academic support and reduced isolation as they developed regular opportuni-ties for face-to-face and virtual discussions on theory and technical and emotive issues. An analysisof this process makes three contributions to communities of practice scholarship: It documents “cata-lyzing” circumstances for CoP creation, places the Ph.D. quest in the context of existing CoP theory,and identifies a critical point that precedes CoP formation in the existing CoP model. Highlightingthe shared experience of postgraduate students opens up opportunities for CoP formation that canhelp students emerge from isolation into a supportive peer community.

Keywords: community of practice; postgraduate studies; Ph.D. students; community

OUR QUEST FOR KNOWLEDGE begins like we begin most jour-neys—with a sense of excitement and with great spirit. Only after weencounter obstacles along the way do we reflect on the fact that westarted this journey with an incomplete map and wonder whether wewill be able to reach our destination.

This article explores the stages of the postgraduate journey, drawingon our own experiences of looking for and finding emotional and aca-demic support as we worked on our doctoral research in managementcommunication. It begins with a discussion of the Ph.D. experience ingeneral and then describes how a group of eight students cametogether to counter the obstacles in the Ph.D. process, ultimately form-ing a scholarly community of practice (CoP) (Brown & Duguid, 1991).Participation in the group helped craft shared understanding as a basis

168

Authors’ Note: The authors would like to thank Ted Zorn, Alison Henderson, GillianO’Neill, Margaret Richardson, and Mary Simpson for their advice and contributions tothis article. The first two authors are joint lead authors.

Business Communication Quarterly, Volume 67, Number 2, June 2004 168-181DOI: 10.1177/1080569904265421© 2004 by the Association for Business Communication

for future productive actions in the course of our Ph.D.s and providedeach member with a richer experience on the Ph.D. journey.

In some ways, our experience followed Wenger’s (1999) CoP model(see Figure 1). For instance, we recognized potential (a definingmoment in which we discovered our shared experience and wanted togather to talk about it); we coalesced (we engaged in joint learning,found initial meetings to be rewarding, decided to carry on meeting,and designed a community that met our needs); and to some extent,we matured (we decided how and what we wished to accomplish, i.e., setlearning goals with timetables to achieve these) and experienced stew-ardship (our department recognized us as a legitimate voice for theirPh.D. students and we welcomed new members).

But in some ways, our experience differed from Wenger’s (1999)model. For example, the formation of our group did not seem as linearas Wenger’s model suggests (though the stages did seem to encompassour experience). We also think a prepotential stage, which we refer toas the critical point, is a necessary addition to the model in the university/postgraduate context.

Given the advantages of the community of practice model in help-ing research students overcome obstacles on the Ph.D. journey, thefinal section of this article offers recommendations for developing andnurturing CoPs and providing environments conducive to them in theuniversity/postgraduate context.

Janson et al. / A PH.D. COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE 169

Transforming

Stewardship

Maturing

Coalescing

Potential

Loose network of people with similar issues and needs

Members come together and launch a community

The community takes charge of its practice and grows

The community is established and goes through cycles of activities

The community has outlived its usefulness and people move on

Discover common ground and prepare for a community

Find value in engaging in learning activities and design a community

Set standards, define a learning agenda, and deal with growth

Sustain energy, renew interest, educate novices, find a voice and gain influence Let go, define

a legacy, and keep in touch

Stages of development

Typical activities

Figure 1. Typical States in the Development of a Community ofPractice

SOURCE: Wenger (1999). Reproduced with permission.

METHOD

This article is based on reflective pieces the eight members of our Ph.D.group prepared. Our experience was unique to our school and uncom-mon in the wider New Zealand university community. We thus felt it wasimportant to document the process so that we could share our leaningwith others. Also, because our experience was unlike anything we hadundertaken before, we felt the need to explore our individual needsand expectations so that the group could better meet these needs andour experiences would be available and useful to each other.

To guide these reflections, we each individually answered four open-ended questions: (a) Why did I join this group? (b) What do I wantfrom it? (c) How does it address my needs? and (d) What do I hope forits future? The responses ranged from 15 lines to three single-spacedpages, most being two pages. In preparing this article, we readand reread the responses, looking for common themes and sharedfeelings/expressions about Ph.D. study and about being part of thegroup, as well as highlighting differences in our experience andexpectations.

THE JOURNEY BEGINS

And this gray spirit yearning in desire,To follow knowledge like a sinking star,Beyond the utmost bound of human thought.(Tennyson, Ulysses, lines 30-32)

We are driven by varying goals to take the Ph.D. journey. Some of usseek to answer one burning question, some seek knowledge for itsown sake, and others see the Ph.D. as a test to be taken to gain accessinto the academic club. Whatever our motivation, like Odysseus, weall feel some sense of excitement, ranging from interest to inspira-tion and passion. As we begin the journey, we may feel excited aboutthe infinite possibilities and may undergo strong experiences ofdeep involvement and challenge, sometimes leading to situationssimilar to the peak experiences described by Csikszentmihalyi(1990) as “flow” or “optimal experiences.”

Peppered among these feelings of excitement and anticipation,however, is uncertainty or perhaps fear. At the beginning, these nega-tive feelings are in the background—they are subtle, short lived

170 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2004

(whether frequent or infrequent), and manageable. If they were other-wise, we would not have chosen to begin this journey.

Our written reflections and informal conversations with other Ph.D.students (in our department and at other universities) attest to oftencontradictory feelings at the beginning. We were grateful for theopportunity to study and excited about the infinite possibilities, butoverwhelmed and fearful: “I felt elated— it was my dreams come true,just as I had expected, with a few sleepless nights” (AJ) and “I was ridinghigh [and] thrilled. . . . I was also more than a little overwhelmed. . . . Itwas scary starting a Ph.D.—a bit of a leap of faith really!” (AH).

These feelings of being fearful or overwhelmed led us to sometimesdoubt our decision to undertake a Ph.D. and led some of us to questionwhether we have the ability or the necessary stamina to complete aPh.D. Students spoke of “losing faith” (LH) in oneself, feeling “stressedor overwhelmed” (AH), and being afraid of exposing oneself to criti-cism or making mistakes (e.g., MO stated, “There is the scary bit . . . thatonce we write our own material, it is a self-revealing experience, and weare completely open to outside criticism.”).

THE STORM GATHERS: CRISES DEVELOP

Although at the start of our journey our emotions fluctuated betweenfeelings of excitement and feelings of doubt (about our choice oftopic, our decision to study, our ability to complete our projects, andthe like) and isolation, our experience was largely a positive one. How-ever, at some point, the balance of positive and negative feelings beganto shift. Perhaps we began the journey with unrealistic expectationsthat our route would be direct (or reasonably so). Like Odysseus, whoexpected to travel to Troy, achieve his goal, and then return home to hiskingdom, we expected to complete our Ph.D. in 3 years (4 if we arepart-time) with only a few ups and downs along the way. We did notexpect the chaos of feelings that most of us actually began toexperience.

Although present in a minor way at the start of our journey, negativefeelings intensified, coming in waves that increasingly battered ourself-esteem. We began to feel isolated in what seemed to be an unend-ing emotional storm. For example,

Writing a thesis can be a lonely experience. While I need time (lots oftime) to think and write in solitude, I also need time to talk with othersabout what I am doing. There are few people in my circle of

Janson et al. / A PH.D. COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE 171

acquaintances who are sympathetic to and marginally interested in mytopic or who can relate to the emotional turmoil that I feel . . . findingsomeone to talk to is not always easy. (LH)

Our experience as Ph.D. students in communication is mirroredin the results of the New Zealand University Academic Audits(2000a, 2000b), which report widespread feelings of isolationamong New Zealand’s postgraduate students. Unlike practices inthe United States, Ph.D. students in New Zealand and Australia arenot part of a formal cohort of students. They do not attend classes aspart of their degree. Students thus reported that they felt unsup-ported and lacked opportunities to meet and exchange with otherpostgraduate students:

Many . . . students met by the Panel have very little sense of being partof a community. Some students feel isolated and have little opportu-nity to interact with their peers, especially with students studying inother departments or schools. . . . Feelings of isolation are worse forthose students who do not have a study space on campus [and whothus] tend to work largely from home. (2000b, p. 29)

and

Postgraduate study can be a lonely experience for many students. . . .For some students, their informal meeting with the Audit Panel overlunch was the first occasion they had had to meet other postgraduates.(2000a, p. 23)

The difficulties students can experience in the Ph.D. process,including their feelings of isolation and adversity, are documented innumerous texts (e.g., Lewins, 1993; Sternberg, 1981). Sternberg(1981), for example, refers to the “almost larger-than-life trials, forti-tude, despair, courage, and even heroics experienced in writing a doc-toral dissertation” (p. 2). He states, “people have their lives disruptedand even sometimes permanently scarred by a dissertation-writingexperience” (p. 1).

THE EYE OF THE STORM:FROM ISOLATION TO COMMUNITY

One equal temper of heroic hearts,Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will

172 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2004

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield(Tennyson, Ulysses, lines 68-70)

Faced with these difficulties, students may simply withdraw from theprogram or suffer silently. We have spoken informally to many Ph.D.students in our own department and at other universities whodescribe such experiences. It seems that, frequently, students areunaware of the common plight of others; they may assume (as wasindeed our case) that they are the only ones so strongly affected.Through shared understanding, students can more positively over-come these difficulties. This is the approach we took.

In early 2000, encouraged by two supervisors, three of us beganmeeting monthly to discuss the process of doing our work (as opposedto the specifics of our research). In time, those meetings ceased asteaching and other duties increasingly occupied our time, but infor-mal hallway talk continued, meeting our need for support and con-firming that we were not alone in our experience. Then in 2001,encouraged by her supervisor, another Ph.D. student began to searchout other students. The initial gathering had 3 students; no others wereinvited, but at that meeting it was decided that all Ph.D. students couldbenefit from such interaction. Thus, an invitation was sent to the 16Ph.D. students in the department. Most expressed an interest, but only9 attended the initial meetings, and we subsequently lost another tofull-time employment.

Although early conversations focused on our work processes (writ-ing proposals, writing a literature review, doing research), we quicklydeveloped an awareness of our shared emotional experience. Wereplaced earlier (individual) assumptions of self-doubt with construc-tive (group) actions that helped us overcome obstacles. By sharing ourexperiences and fostering strong, positive, and supportive feelings, thegroup gave each of us “strength” to manage the negative and movetoward the positive. Coming to this awareness was a defining momentthat provided powerful protection and avoided the critical point atwhich negatives overwhelm positives:

Today, when I meet other group members individually, we can con-nect directly into this place of mutual help and problem-solvetogether. We can identify obstacles faster than before and move intothinking mode on how to disentangle them more quickly—this is insharp contrast to previous episodes when we simply blamed ourselvesfor a problem or let ourselves slow down because of difficulties. (AJ)

Janson et al. / A PH.D. COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE 173

Our decision to create a forum for sharing experiences had theadded value of combating our perceived isolation. We realized that ifwe all feel alone, then we have something in common and are thus not,in fact, alone. Statements like “by being part of the group I felt less iso-lated” (MR), “there is some feeling of strength and solidarity in know-ing that we can face hurdles together” (AH), and “I gain strength fromthese interactions. I gain a sense of belonging” (LH) are indicative ofthe unity we felt. Furthermore, opportunities for face-to-face and vir-tual discussions—on theory (e.g., rhetorical criticism), technical issues(e.g., use of software), emotive issues (e.g., stress), and progress andproblem solving in thesis writing and research—strengthened thesepositive connections (see Table 1 for a summary of some of theseactivities).

FROM COMMUNITY TO COP

A useful model for describing the formation of our group is found inthe community of practice literature. When we set out to find support-ive others, we did not aim to create a CoP specifically. Rather, itoccurred organically.

Early descriptions of communities of practice (Lave & Wenger,1991) depict them as “a set of relations among persons, activity andworld, over time and in relation with other tangential and overlappingCommunities of Practice” (p. 98). The discovery of common groundand learning as a social system is further documented in Wenger(1999) and McDermott (2001). Wenger’s model of CoP developmentincludes five stages: potential, coalescing, maturing, stewardship, andtransforming (see Figure 1).

Although the developmental model of a CoP resembles the genericone of groups (Yalom, 1970), its one main distinguishing characteristicis that a CoP draws its vigor internally from the determination of itsgroup members. By definition, CoPs self-form and self-direct (as ourgroup did), as opposed to other groups, which have external regula-tion and governing mechanisms. Managers’ attempts to create andcontrol teams and workgroups in organizations have met with onlymixed success. Conversely, CoP theoreticians (Wenger, 1999; Wenger& Snyder, 2000) have noted that “bottom-led” initiatives have had farbetter results in terms of knowledge sharing and generating than “top-led” ones. For this reason, managers worldwide have investigated CoPsin an attempt to harness their power (Brown, 2000). The possible

174 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2004

benefits of CoP development in the university context have beendemonstrated through our group’s experience.

Janson et al. / A PH.D. COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE 175

Table 1. Summary of Early Community Building Activities

Activity Brief Description Purpose

Short practicalseminars

Sessions offered (to date) includedlearning to use EndNote, discuss-ing how to publish in journals, andlearning to format largedocuments

To fill in self-identified gaps inour knowledge

Mini–summerschool

2-day seminar with visiting scholarscovering topics outside of thespecialization of the department’spermanent faculty

To revisit classroom experience;to engage in high-leveldiscussion of theory; to build acommunity; to reach out toother students and faculty(faculty were asked to comewith their “student hats” on)

Conferencepapers

Conference presentation at theAustralia and New ZealandCommunication AssociationConference that involved sixmembers of the group

To encourage interaction; toprovide us with a commongoal; to reflect on thecommunity we had created;to share our experience

Conference presentation at theUniversity of Waikato StudentConference

To share our experience withother students

“Class forum”onlinecommunity

A virtual discussion space thatincludes discussion roomsaccessible to an individual studentand his or her supervisors and“safe” places (not accessible tosupervisors), such as a directlibrarian link/Q&A where we canfeel safe asking any question andthe “Philosophy Café,” which isthe main page for student-to-student virtual interaction.

To supplement face-to-face com-munication; to provide an ever-present community presence;to record our knowledge (forfuture use); to manage day-to-day administrative tasks (e.g.,plan our next meeting); to talkabout problems we face orhave faced (e.g., interpretingthe university’s ethical guide-lines); to keep in touch whenwe are in the field (e.g., whenfive of us presented at a confer-ence offshore, we kept contactwith those at home and evenreceived last-minute presenta-tion slides from them); to pro-vide an alternative supervisionpresence (useful if the studentor supervisor is off campus)

As we evolved into a community of practice, we experienced thestages described by Wenger (1999). To his model we add a preliminary“go no-go” stage. We propose that sometimes individuals do not get tothe first stage because they have reached a critical point where, in theirisolation, they fail to recognize common ground with suitable groupmembers and thus miss the opportunity to form a potentially beneficialcommunity of peers. Given the independent nature of Ph.D. study(particularly in New Zealand–like systems where no course work isundertaken), such oversights are, perhaps, more likely. Overcomingthis obstacle is a critical task, and failing to overcome it can have graveconsequences, one of which is postgraduate failure to complete. In achanging tertiary funding environment that links funding with post-graduate completion and research performance, these dangers willbecome even more relevant to New Zealand universities and otheruniversities worldwide where such pressures are felt.

Emerging out of this preliminary stage—a stage we would like toresearch in greater depth in a future study—we entered the potentialstage, where individuals gather and compare commonalities, issues,and needs. Commonalities, now phrased in positive, empoweringterms, lay the basis for the community’s identity and for communitysupport. McDermott (2000) noted that CoPs often emerge out of net-works of work colleagues as a natural extension of their prior acquain-tance. This familiarity helps increase trust and rapport at this earlystage. In essence, such CoPs build on a “natural” sense of commonalityand yearning for community and support.

CoPs also emerge around new technologies or, as in our case, newevents in the lives of their members, thus reinforcing the need for newlearning in the second, coalescing stage, where members typicallyengage together in learning activities (McDermott, 2000). Indeed, ifasked to place our group within Wenger’s (1999) model, we expect thatour community is now at the top of coalescing, although our group’sdevelopment was not as linear as Wenger’s model suggests. We are, infact, bridging the coalescing, maturing, and stewardship stages. Forexample, our learning agenda and list of group activities (Table 1)show that we are maturing. We have engaged in a number of commontasks, including writing this article. In addition, we have developed andtested an interactive Web-based environment that serves as a repositoryof administrative information and academic resources and thatencourages member participation in virtual interactions to supple-ment face-to-face conversations (Lave & Wenger, 1991):

176 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2004

[It] fulfils some of our needs for support as it allows for sustained con-versations in the background of all our other activities. Because it issaved on Web pages, it acts as a memory repository to host some of ourlearning. (AJ)

This Web-based tool also adds depth to our CoP experience andensures continuity of experience for absent and new members:

It is really important to keep files and documents and information inplaces where other students can find them. It is great that our experi-ences are recorded for others to read and learn from when startingtheir Ph.D.s in our Department. (AH)

By opening this virtual environment to a new member of our com-munity, we have demonstrated our stewardship—our repository ofresources and previous online exchanges serve to orient such mem-bers to our community.

Kimble, Hildreth, and Wright (2001) emphasized the ability of vir-tual CoPs to manage not only “explicit knowledge” (i.e., knowledgethat is easily codifiable and storable in knowledge repositories acting asorganizational memory) but also “tacit knowledge” (i.e., knowledgethat is rooted in experience and hence not easily accessible), whichgives us confidence in our actions (Nonaka, 1994; Polanyi, 1996/1997). This distinction is particularly important in such communities:Whereas explicit knowledge can be acquired through many sourcesand mechanisms, humans need other humans to surface and share tacitknowledge. The intellectual, geographic, and perceptual isolation ofpostgraduate students often works against such sharing, but technol-ogy can overcome some of these barriers. In addition, such sharingcontributes to the social construction of knowledge, increasingly rec-ognized as a significant form of knowledge creation. With this empha-sis on social learning, CoPs are an appropriate aim in an academicenvironment.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on our reflective research, we offer two sets of recommendationsmostly focused on the early stages of CoP development and the earlyidentification of critical points to help students at risk. To our fellowstudents, we recommend ways to take ownership of the process; to their

Janson et al. / A PH.D. COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE 177

universities, we recommend that they facilitate student-led initiativesand perhaps suggest such initiatives whenever isolation is observed.

Postgraduate Students

Students need to identify the point at which normal feelings of isola-tion in independent, postgraduate work become abnormal and coun-terproductive and then move beyond that critical point. To do so, theyshould engage in conversations with other students and with supervi-sors to discover their shared experience. We all share the same or simi-lar processes (writing a proposal, applying for ethics approval, tacklinga mountain of reading, writing a literature review, planning and writinga thesis). If we talk further, we may find that we have experienced simi-lar (mixed) feelings about the challenge we have undertaken.Through talk, we may find support. In those conversations,

Seek consciousness, not just knowledge. Become conscious of yourown and others’ movement toward the negative. Watch for unusuallyhigh levels of stress, poor coping, self-criticism, or feelings ofdespair. Develop strategies for students to mentor one another andto identify and address obstacles that obstruct progress.

Let it flow. Reconnect with the feelings of flow experienced at thestart of a project. Flow derives from the content and process of work.It is a source of renewable energy and inspiration that can be instru-mental in overcoming barriers. Csikszentmilhalyi (1990) identifiedimmediate feedback, achievable challenges, and clear goals as flow-enhancing factors. Thus, we can encourage flow by breaking ourtasks into identifiable milestones and periodically reporting to ourcommunity of practice.

Maintain your balance. Keep a clear perspective on the reason forthe journey and be mindful of the commitment and resources a post-graduate degree requires. You may at certain milestones sacrificesome personal or family time, but you do not necessarily have to tieyourself to the mast. Peers can often help to bring a sense of balanceas they can identify extreme behavior and can mirror to each otherwhat they are feeling.

Form a club. Form a community of peers who share similar experi-ences and knowledge to provide often needed emotional and pro-fessional support. Develop a community that best suits your needs:

178 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2004

large or small, focused around specific topics or themes, geographi-cally close or virtual. Just as Odysseus traveled with different crews(some graduated, others were eaten by a Cyclops), do not expectthat the same people will be there at all times or will play the sameroles throughout your journey—communities are dynamic entitiesand evolve with time and with the needs of their participants(Wenger, 1999).

Academe

Although the regulatory role of the mythical gods is most obvious (i.e.,the emphasis on rules and regulations in university handbooks and cal-endars that set the limits of our research), the traveling hero, Odysseus,was also greatly helped by other residents of Olympus. Likewise, super-visors can help by pointing out potential (e.g., useful elements such asprocess similarities, expectations, and shared feelings) to postgraduatestudents who may be blind to these shared experiences. Supervisorscan reveal the “loose network” (Wenger, 1999) that exists for studentsbut that may lay hidden. We acknowledge our own supervisors forpointing out to us the positive power of a group of peers and encourag-ing us to seize the “potential” opportunity. Whereas both the New Zea-land and U.S. Ph.D. systems are potentially isolating for students—thatis, dissertations are ultimately completed independently—the studentinteraction inherent in course work (as in the U.S. system) perhapsmakes this network more visible and leads students more naturally tothe formation of CoPs. Supervisors in the U.S. system could begin toencourage these links early on in Ph.D. programs so that when coursework ends, students are aware of the benefits of maintaining thesenetworks.

The relevance of communities of practice is that they are built byand for their members to suit their own needs. Communities canattend to experiences of process and feeling as well as issues of content.Students, however, have a particular role in this—it is up to them totake control of their future and shape their postgraduate experience.Universities, on the other hand, will need to fulfill their obligations torespond to specific requests from postgraduates and to step in whenasked to offer appropriate resources (such as time from teaching,space to meet, computers and computer support for graduate onlineinitiatives and Web forums, and faculty guidance and availability forstudent-led seminars). Universities and supervisors, nevertheless, can-not be expected to provide isolated students with all encompassingsolutions or be the deus ex machina (or the primary engine) to drive

Janson et al. / A PH.D. COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE 179

students’ consciousness-raising process and community formation.Rather, the responsibility for becoming aware and developing acommunity of practice rests with students in their lifelong quest forknowledge.

. . . Come, my friends’Tis not too late to seek a newer world.Push off, and sitting well in order smiteThe sounding furrows; for my purpose holdsTo sail beyond the sunset, and the bathsOf all the western stars, until I die.(Tennyson, Ulysses, lines 56-61)

REFERENCES

Brown, J. S. (2000). Seeing differently: Insights on innovation. Boston: Harvard UniversityPress.

Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of practice.Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperPerennial.

Kimble, C., Hildreth, P., & Wright, P. (2001). Communities of practice: Going virtual. InY. Malhotra (Ed.), Knowledge management and business model innovation (pp. 220-234).Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cam-bridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Lewins, F. W. (1993). Writing a thesis: A guide to its nature and organisation. Canberra, Aus-tralia: ANUTECH.

McDermott, R. (2000, November/December). Community development as a naturalstep: Five stages of community development. KM Review, 3(5), 16-19.

McDermott, R. (2001). Designing communities of practice: Reflecting on what we’velearned. Proceedings of Communities of Practice 2001. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Inter-national Research.

New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Committee. (2000a). Academic audit report:University of Canterbury. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Committee. (2000b). Academic audit report:University of Waikato. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. OrganizationScience, 5(1), 14-37.

Polanyi, M. (1997). The tacit dimension. In L. Prusak (Ed.), Knowledge in organizations(pp. 135-146). Newton, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. (Original work published1966)

Sternberg, D. (1981). How to complete and survive a doctoral dissertation. New York: St.Martin’s.

Wenger, E. C. (1999). Communities of practice: Stewarding knowledge. Unpublishedmanuscript.

180 BUSINESS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / June 2004

Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, E. C. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational fron-tier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139-145.

Yalom, I. D. (1970). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.

Address correspondence to Annick Janson, Department of Management Communication,Waikato Management School, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, NewZealand; e-mail: annick@waikato.ac.nz.

Janson et al. / A PH.D. COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE 181