THE CENTRE FOR LABOUR MARKET STUDIES

DOCTORATE IN SOCIAL SCIENCE

MODULE 2 – OPTION 2A

FROM: CHRISTOS MANTAS

1

Topic title:

To what extent is Lave and Wenger’s concept of communities

of practice still helpful to our understanding of workplace

learning in contemporary industrial society?

2

Table of Contents

Introduction..............................................3Communities of Practice...................................4Discussion on Communities of Practice and workplace learningin contemporary industrial society........................9Conclusions..............................................18References...............................................20Appendix A – Communities studied from Lesser and Storck, 2001.....................................................24

3

Introduction

This assignment deals with Lave and Wenger’s concept of

communities of practice. Communities of Practice, often well

known as CoP, have attracted the interest of many authors

during the past 15 years. The assignment will discuss to

what extent the concept of Communities of Practice can help

us to understand workplace learning today. Having in mind

that society changes in rapid ways, we will examine whether

the concept of Communities of Practice is applicable today.

When Lave and Wenger (1991) wrote their book relied on

examples such as tailoring and midwifery. However, in an era

where knowledge worker is what firms try to develop, we have

to question ourselves for whether is it the concept of

communities of practice the ideal mean for knowledge

transfer and development of competencies? Furthermore, we

can ask if the concept of communities of practice relates

with organizational performance. Some authors claim that

4

communities of practice are outdated and not so relevant

with modern workplace, however there will be other voices

claiming the opposite. Hence, this assignment will examine

those questions and will try to investigate how Communities

of Practice can fit to contemporary world of work using

example from modern workplaces.

The assignment will make a brief introduction to the concept

of communities of practice, by giving some basic definition

and describing the concept of CoP and then it will examine

the role of CoP in contemporary world of workplace learning,

using several examples, and then it will draw the

conclusions of the assignment.

Communities of Practice

Today’s organisations are based on a variety of assets. Till

few years ago the most important assets for any organisation

were its machinery and assets that has to do with production

process. However, during the last two decades the importance

of human capital has brought in the surface several concepts

5

related with it such as personnel development, knowledge

management and workplace learning.

Nonaka (1991) writes that in today’s economy there are so

many uncertainties that make knowledge the only ingredient

towards sustainable competitive advantage. A knowledge based

organisation needs to create the conditions needed to have a

creative and successful workplace learning. Through

workplace learning, a firm will manage to create successful

knowledge workers and CoP may play an important role in

this.

Though that many people think that CoP is a modern concept

of workplace learning, it seems that CoP as a social

phenomenon exists for over two thousand years. Examples of

CoP can be found on ancient Greek craftsmen and medieval

guilds of Europe (Bond, 2004). Wenger and Snyder (2000:140)

write that “CoP were common as far back as ancient times. In classical

Greece “corporations” of metalworkers, potters, masons and other craftsmen

had both a social purpose and a business function (members trained apprentices

6

and spread innovations)”. Today CoP are a bit different, they

exist within large organisations and since the early 90’s

have attracted the interest of the academia and of

practitioners. Before Lave and Wenger in 1991, there had

been some early works related on CoP. For example,

Bourdieu’s (1977) concept of habitus was an early example,

while the concept of the communities that share some common

norms of behaviours was developed from Bellah et al (1985).

In order to define CoP, we can say that the concept of

communities of practice, often well known as CoP, refers to

a “set of relations among persons, activity, and world, over time and in relation

to with other tangential and overlapping communities of practice. A community

of practice is an intrinsic condition for the co-existence of knowledge, not least

because it provides the interpretive support necessary for making sense of its

heritage” (Lave and Wenger, 1991:98). The term was

introduced in 1991 from Lave and Wenger and since then it

has been analysed from many authors. Fuller et al (2005:4)

Lave and Wenger were inspired “with the asocial character of

conventional learning theory and its inability to account

7

for how people learn new activities, knowledge and skills

without engagement in formal educational and training

processes”.

The central idea that Lave and Wenger (1991) used in their

book was the notion of legitimate peripheral participation

which was the description of how experienced workers, the

‘old timers’, were passing their skills and knowledge to

newcomers-apprentices and the introduction of the

apprentices to the culture (‘heritage’) of the community in

order to transform the newcomer to an expert (University of

Leicester, 2004; Lave and Wenger, 1991). Viskovic

(2006:326) explains CoP as “the learning of members of a community is

situated – they all learn by being part of a social context of real practice. They

used the concept of legitimate peripheral practice to refer to the process by

which newcomers become part of a community of practice and old-timers

continue to learn, and linked this to the idea of apprenticeship”. So, the

newcomer is making a journey and from an isolated

individual, he becomes an ‘old timer’. Lave and Wenger

(1991) focused into how this transformation occurs, with the

8

transformation of content from old timers to newcomers. It

is about learning as a living experience and this is

probably the most exciting part for a newcomer. Kavafy

(2004), a Greek poet, wrote that “As you set out on the way to Ithaca

hope that the road is a long one, filled with adventures, filled with

understanding”. In the context of continuous learning and of

communities of practice we have a “long journey” in which

the apprentice becomes involved in a long process of

workplace learning where through ‘adventures, filled with

understanding’ the individual will become an ‘old timer’,

though the longer is the journey the better for the

individual since he or she will acquire as much knowledge

and skills from the old timers as she or he can.

Communities of practice, according to Wenger and Snynder

(2000), can be a group of individuals who are bound together

in an informal way; they are an informal entity within an

organization. They may share their passion and expertise for

a joint enterprise or project in a regular basis, such as

9

Wednesday’s launch or though e-mails or even through

Internet forums and instant messaging (Ardchvili et al,

2003). However, authors like Bond (2004) believe that CoP

have some level of formality within the framework of an

organization. From a critical point of view we can claim

that like in the ancient times they were formal CoP like

craftsmen, today there is a form of formality like on

Chambers but also within the firms since firms like IBM

(Gongla and Rizzuto, 2001) and Google (Google’s site for

communities of practice) are promoting the creation of

communities within the workplace but also with virtual

communities.

The following table will be used on order to understand the

distinction between CoP and other forms of organization.

What’s the

purpose?

Who

belongs?

What holds

it

together?

How long

does it

last?

Community To develop Members Passion, As long as

10

of

practice

members’

capabiliti

es; to

build and

exchange

knowledge

who select

themselves

commitment

, and

identifica

tion with

the

group’s

expertise

there is

interest

in

maintainin

g the

group

Formal

work group

To deliver

a product

or service

Everyone

who

reports to

the

group’s

manager

Job

requiremen

t and

common

goals

Until the

next

reorganiza

tion

Project

Team

To

accomplish

a

specified

task

Employees

assigned

by senior

management

The

project’s

milestones

and goals

Until the

project

has been

completed

Informal

group

To collect

and pass

Friends

and

Mutual

needs

As long as

people

11

on

business

informatio

n

business

acquaintan

ces

have a

reason to

connect

Table 1 : A snapshot comparison between forms of

organization

Source:Wenger and Snyder, 2000:142

Communities surely differ from teams. Teams have to meet

some specific goals and they are made from managers who

assign their subordinates to accomplish a specified task.

The team will disband once the project finishes. In

addition, formal and informal groups have some specific

tasks linked with the organizational targets, such as to

deliver a product or collect business information. CoP have

their own agenda and they have their own leadership without

any interference from upper management, while membership is

self-selected. Members of a CoP share not only knowledge

12

and skills, but also they share passion and commitment for

what they are doing.

There is a fundamental difference between CoP and other

forms of organization. CoP does not aim on meeting some

organizational goals unlike other forms of organization, but

rather to increase the abilities and knowledge through

legitimate peripheral participation that will help the

organization to meet its strategic goals, however the

primary goal is to increase the members’ knowledge and

skils. In addition, the place where the process of learning

will occur is not as well defined as other forms. For

example, informal and formal groups along with project teams

shall take place within the narrow framework of the

organization. In the case of CoP, it may occur within the

premises of an organization, but it may also occur during a

dinner or in a Sunday’s excursion. Finally, CoP have no

deadlines. While on project teams and formal groups there is

a deadline. If we consider that “learning is an ongoing part

of our daily lives in which we are all actively involved”

13

(Ashton, 2004:43) CoP is a practice that focus on continuous

learning outside the formal classroom learning situation.

Discussion on Communities of Practice and

workplace learning in contemporary industrial

society

After we have defined the concept of CoP and how it differs

from other forms of learning and organization forms, a

discussion will follow on how CoP is associated with

learning in contemporary industrial society. This part will

also analyse weaknesses and limitations of CoP and several

examples in order to understand to what extent is Lave and

Wenger’s concept of communities of practice still helpful on

workplace learning.

14

The work of Lave and Wenger in 1991 had many enthusiastic

supporters but with time it had also some skepticism. Some

now are questioning the utility of CoP, since there are

several limitations to this work starting from the

methodology. Authors like Mutch (2003), Fuller and Unwin

(2003), Asthon (2004), Fuller et al (2005) and many others

have indicated that from the methodology we understand that

Lave and Wenger focused their study on specific groups of

workers, such as Vai and Gola tailors which were the initial

inspiration for Lave and Wenger (Fuller and Unwin, 2003). If

we consider the rapid changes on business environment and

the emerge of the knowledge worker, studying on groups of

tailors and midwifery looks to be vogue for today’s

industrial workplace or at least for highly competitive

industries like I.T. and many others. Furthermore, authors

like Fuller and Unwin (2003) emphasize that if we have to

examine the context of apprenticeship learning and CoP in

companies we will have to consider the internal and external

environment and policies in which the apprenticeship took

place. The internal environment and the culture of the

15

employees may hide some barriers not only for the creation

but also for the smooth operation of a CoP within an

organization. Research from DeLong and Fehey (2000) and

Cross et al (2001) have shown that often employees or the

organizational climate do not encourage the creation of

informal groups and of CoP. However, De Long and Fehey

(2000) have revealed that an employee has more chances to

reveal knowledge within a CoP rather than formal teams, but

still the environment plays important role and not only the

individual’s experience (Ashton, 2004). Hence, there is a

need a further investigation not only on the individual’s

experience but also on the surrounding environment.

Fuller et al (2005) have identified four main limitations.

The first, based on the research that Fuller et al (2005)

did, is that even though an individual has achieved full

membership and has became an ‘old-timer’ many continue the

learning process in order to acquire more knowledge and

skills. Secondly, Lave and Wenger (1991) “are overly dismissive of

the role ‘teaching’ plays in the workplace learning process and of learning in off-

16

the-job settings.” Research has shown that employees are involved

in ‘teaching’ a wide range of knowledge and skills. In

addition, Lave and Wenger do not mention anything about

formal education. A third limitation is that Lave and Wenger

(1991) focus on what the learner gets from the CoP but they

do not focus on what the employee will bring to the

community. Fuller et al (2005) mentioned the example with

Sam, a teacher who was a newcomer and brought into his new

department a strong identity as a history teacher. We shall

consider that a apprentice may bring his or her knowledge,

skills and experience in often it is the apprentice that

‘teachers’ the ‘old timers’. Therefore, a newcomer shall not

be considered as a ‘tabula rasa’, like Lave and Wenger are

implying. Finally, the fourth limitation, is that Lave and

Wenger did not fully explore issues of conflict and unequal

power relations within a CoP. Those four limitations, given

from Fullet et al (2005), have been made not to reduce the

value of CoP but to find ways to improve the existing theory

and to fill-in some gaps that exist in theory. A

practitioner who is involved in a CoP must consider the

17

following limitations. For example it will be wrong to

consider apprentices as ‘tabula rasa’. There may be case

where the newcomer will not be a new employee but an

experienced manager who have just arrived in a company. The

new manager may have more to contribute to the CoP than the

‘old timers’.

Many authors like Dixon (2000) and Ardichvilli et al (2003)

are connecting CoP with share of knowledge and with

knowledge management. However Von Krongh et al (2000) seem

not to agree. They state that a CoP is about learning and

not creating knowledge, while the context of a CoP is not

easy to change. Thus they believe that CoP is not an

important concept of modern industrial firms, especially

those who rely on knowledge. Von Krongh et al (2000) believe

that today’s firm have to look after on the creation of a

learning organization but the most important is to create

new knowledge and this can not occur with CoP. Another view

is given from Hildreth and Kimble (2004) who state that CoP

exist within companies but CoP are self-directed and self-

18

motivated entities, therefore they are driven from the share

interests of their members which is not always the same ones

with the organizational interests. This argument can be

supported from individuals who are skeptic with the value of

CoP since it may have a social value or to satisfy its

members in a personal level but it does not guarantee that

it may bring value for the organization.

The supporters of CoP have tried to give answers on the

limitations and on criticism made for CoP. An interesting

analysis on this issue has been made also from Andrew Cox

who analysed the progress of CoP through the first work of

Lave and Wenger (1991), then of Wenger in 1998 and Wenger et

al (2002). In 1991 Lave and Wenger analysed CoP as a social

phenomenon and about socialization into a practice by

peripheral participation. Nevertheless, they realized that

the first book may had several limiations and in 1998 and

2002 they tried to link CoP with management and real cases

in order to convince the academia and practitioners that CoP

was not just a social experiment in a number of craftsmen

19

and tailors but it was a modern concept that could be

implemented in modern industrial workplace.

In order to support their views and to defend the value of

CoP there had to be some cases where it has been successful

implemented into contemporary industrial workplace. Brown

and Duguid (1991) were some of the first authors that

supported CoP in practice using examples from Xerox and IBM.

An answer on criticism but also on whether CoP is relevant

to today’s workplace. As a matter of fact, in 1991 did not

rely on modern firms but on examples taken from “tradition”

jobs that some of them are under extinction. There was a

need to prove that CoP could also work on modern firms and

on highly competitive industries like the information

technology industry. Wenger and Snyder (2000) are linking

Communities of Practice with organizational performance.

They state that “Because its primary ‘input’ – knowledge – is intangible, the

community of practice might sound like another ‘soft’ management fad’. But that

is not the case. During the past five years, we have seen communities of practice

improve organizational performance at companies as diverse as an international

20

bank, a major car manufacturer and a U.S. government agency” (Wenger and

Snyder, 2000:140). The answer to criticism is given from a

number of cases given in a sidebar with the title

“communities in action”. Just to name few cases, the first

is World Bank knowledge management’s strategy. CoP existed

for many years in the World Bank The bank decided to fund

the creation of communities of practice within the bank,

which contributed to the bank’s strategic direction. Another

example is with IBM that has created communities of practice

that have their own conferences, on-line forums and

development networks. Wenger and Snyder (2000) in their

article try to prove that CoP is not a social phenomenon

that does not have a direct link with organizational

performance but they try to present CoP is a source of

competitive advantage for firms. As a matter of fact,

authors like Lesser and Storck (2001) , Ardicvhili (2003) do

study and confirm the relationship between CoP and

organizational performance.

21

Attention has been given from many authors to the case of

IBM. A comprehensive analysis has been made from Gongla and

Rizzuto (2001). They studied the creation of CoP for IBM

Global Services. After an observation that lasted for five

years, the authors developed a five stages evolution model

and analysed the case of IBM based on this model, which is

described in Figure 1.

Potentia

l stage

Building

stage

Engaged

stage

Active

stage

Adaptive

stage

Fundamen

tal

function

s

Connecti

on

Memory

and

context

creation

Access

and

learning

Collabora

tion

Innovati

on and

generati

on

Figure 1: Fundamental functions for the stages of evolution

Source: Gongla and Rizzuto, 2001:846.

Based on this model Gongla and Rizzuto (2001) draw several

conclusions such as that each community has different

22

personality, strengths and challenges. In addition,

communities that are in the early stages, like the building

stage, can start producing value for a company. However, the

firm’s attitude towards those communities will play the most

crucial role. If the communities are supported from the

company, then they will have more chances to contribute to

the company’s success and produce knowledge and innovation.

IBM has provided funds, technologies but also created the

necessary culture that promotes CoP practices in order to

have effective CoP. Lesser and Storck (2001) add three

conditions necessary to have a successful CoP, which are (a)

a number of connections that individuals have to others, (b)

a sense of trust among participants and (c) members must

have a common interest. Thus we have identified some

assistance that must be given from a firm but also some

conditions that the members of the community must meet in

order to have a successful CoP within a company.

Lesser and Storck (2001) produced their conclusions from a

research based in seven companies (appendix a shows the results).

23

From the results given from Lesser and Storck (2001) we can

notice that CoP are implemented in different firms, from a

manufacturing company up to a telecom company. The result of

the survey confirms what has been written on previous

paragraphs; that CoP practices differ from company to

company. Indeed, for each company we noticed different

objectives, different activities and a different outcome.

The results are confronting what was said from Hildreth and

Kimble (2004) and Von Krongh et al (2000); that CoP have

their own agenda and that their goals are different from

organizational strategic goals. Without saying that Hildreth

and Kimble (2004) and Von Krongh et al (2000) are wrong or

not, we have spotted some examples that the goals of a CoP

reflects some organizational goals. From Lesser and Storck

(2001) we see that CoP objectives can be to ‘share and

innovate new solutions to satisfy customer needs’ or

‘transfer experience and techniques across industry groups’.

Those objectives are assumed that they were meeting some of

the strategic goals of their organisations and they are not

some random made communities that serve only the individual

24

interests of their members. Furthermore, Lesser and Storck

(2001) have studied the activities and key value outcomes of

CoP practices.

At this point, someone may claim that CoP can be implemented

only from larger firms or from traditional professions, but

it can also be used from smaller firms. Pavlin (2006) gives

the example of a small research centre and makes comparisons

with larger organisations. The outcome of Pavlin’s research

is that CoP can exist on smaller firms , like a small

research centre, though there are some differences with

larger firms. CoP in small firms rely mostly on face-to-face

exchanges since on small firms each member of the community

knows well the other members and they meet within the

premises of the firm. On the other hand, a CoP of a

multinational would include long-distance communication

through forums and instant messaging and would not rely so

much on personal conduct. In addition, a small firm has

limited financial resources, so the participants would not

expect to have the support that CoP have on larger firms.

25

Finally, always according to Pavlin, the outcome of CoP in a

small firm relies on the quality of the participants. As a

matter of fact, in a small firm someone would expect to have

a pretty informal CoP since the members of the community

know well each other and they spend time together within the

firm. On the other hand, the fact that we deal with a

limited company may prohibit the creation of CoP, since

often on small firms their internal environment and culture

does not promote the creation of CoP.

Though the previous examples have focused on firms of the

private sector, CoP can be used from public organisations.

Authors like Hart and Wolff (2006), Viskovic (2006) and

Hodkinson and Hodkinson (2004) are examining CoP in

education. Each author analyses CoP from a different

perspective. Hodkinson and Hodksinon (2004) claim that

recent changes on the UK have made teaching and teacher

learning more dynamic while the introduction of performance

schemes and other government initiatives have changed

learning, making CoP a useful practice for teachers.

26

Viskovic (2006) claims that the more supportive is a school

to its teacher’s informal workplace learning – including CoP

– the better the teacher will develop. Though it seems that

education institutes prefer to invest into formal ways of

learning, Viskovic (2006) suggests that the focus shall

shift from central generic activities into collaborative

learning through “Communities of Teaching Practice”. Hart

and Wolff (2006) are giving an interesting approach by

examining how universities are engaged into building

communities of practice with organisations from local

communities. This helps the organisations to develop their

staff, while the lecturers, students and research staff gain

benefits, while there can be a mutual exchange of

experiences and knowledge and of course students and new

employees are introduced into those communities of practice

in order to participate and gain knowledge and skills. It

seems that education can be gain many benefits from the

creation of communities of practice.

27

Besides the sectors that we analysed on the previous

paragraphs, like I.T., small research centres and education,

there are other sectors where Communities of Practice can

contribute. Abma (2007) gives the example of Dutch

psychiatry, Ostermann (2003) examine communities of

practice made from policewomen in Brazil, while

Assimakopoulos and Yin (2006) on their survey have found

that Chinese software engineers are acquiring knowledge from

participating on Communities of Practice, through on-line

forums. All of the above authors are giving examples on how

Communities of Practice have contributed for different

sectors.

Despite the examples taken from various industries in order

to show that Communities of Practice are still helpful on

contemporary industrial society, an example of how useful

they are is the creation of virtual Communities of Practice

and their usefulness on developing skills and knowledge for

their members (Bryant et al. 2005; Ardchvili et al, 2003;

Gongla and Rizzuto, 2001.) As a matter of fact we can say

28

that the rapid expansion of the Internet but also of various

on-line applications like forums, instant messaging and

video conferences have created a new wave of Communities of

Practice. Members of a community of practice can participate

through on-line sessions and internet forums. Technology has

contributed into the expansion of communities of practice.

Gongla and Rizzuto (2001) claim that over 20,000 IBM’s

employees and partners were participating in some form of

Community of Practice activity. This is a proof that

Communities of Practice are more important than ever.

Conclusions

Communities of practices seem to have an important role into

today’s knowledge economies. Pillay et al (2003:95) state

that “the commercial world, immersed in massive global

economic, technological, and social change, now highly

values knowledge and the process of acquiring it.”.

Communities of practice started from examples of

‘traditional’ industries such as tailors that do not have

29

much relation with today’s knowledge economy - without

underestimating the value of tailors on local economies on

many countries – and this was a point where some authors

made criticism. On most of the cases criticism was on the

ground that the methodology used from industries and

professions that are not associated with today’s economy of

knowledge.

During the assignment several examples from industries such

as I.T. and education were given and discussed that give

solid evidence that CoP apply on contemporary industrial

society. Furthermore, it seems that modern technology and

its functions like internet discussion groups and forums

have revived the concept of CoP and created the concept of

virtual communities of practice.

To conclude, today’s economy of knowledge relies on informal

workplace learning. The concept of communities of practice

can be the ideal workplace method of learning for newcomers,

especially on job positions that require high

30

specialization. Organisations need to create flexible

structures and support Communities of Practice in order to

maximize the potentials of their human capital.

31

References

Abma,T. (2007) “Situated Learning in Communities of

Practice: Evaluation of Coercion in Psychiatry as a Case”,

Evolution, Vol.13, No.1, pp.32-47.

Ardchvili,A., Vaughn,P. and Wentling,T. (2003) “Motivation

and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing

communities of practice”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.7,

No.1, pp. 64-77.

Ashton,D. (2004) “The impact of organizational structure and

practices on learning in the workplace” International Journal of

Training and Development, Vol8., No1, pp.43-53.

Assimakopoulos,D. and Yan,J. (2006) “Sources of knowledge

acquisition for Chinese software engineers” R&D Management,

Vol.36, No.1, pp.97-106.

Bellah,R., Madsen,R.,Sullivan,W., Swindler,A,.and Tipton,S.

(1985) “Habits of the heart: individualism and commitment in American Life”,

Berkeley: University of California Press.

32

Bond,P. (2004) “Communities of Practice and Complexity:

Conversation and Culture”, AMED’s Organisations and People Journal,

Vol.11, No.2 retrieved from

http://www.leader-values.com/Content/detail.asp?

ContentDetailID=984 [21-05-07]

Bourdieu, P. (1977) “Outline of a Theory of Practice”, Cambridge

University Press.

Brown,J. and Duguid,P. (1991) “Organisational learning and

communities of practice: toward a unified view of working”,

Organisational Science, Vol.2, No1, pp. 40-57.

Bryant,S. Forte,A., Bruckman,A. (2005) “Becoming Wikipedian:

Transformation of Participation in a Collaborative Online

Encyclopedia” Proceedings of the 2005 international ACM SIGGROUP

conference on Supporting group work , retrieved from

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?

id=1099205&dl=GUIDE&coll=GUIDE&CFID=22378332&CFTOKEN=7074424

0 [01-06-07]

Cavafy,C. (2004) “The Canon”. Translated from the Greek by

Stratis Haviaras, Hermes Publishing

33

Cox,A. (2005) “What are communities of practice? A

comparative review of four seminal works”, Journal of Information

Science, Vol.31, No.6, pp.527-540.

Cross,R., Bogatti,P.,Parker,A. (2001) “Beyond answers:

dimensions of the advice network” Social Networks, Vol.23,

No.3, pp. 215-235.

De Long, D. and Fehey,L.(2000) “Diagnosing cultural barriers

to knowledge management”, Academy of Management Executive,

Vol.14, No.4, pp. 113-127.

Dixon,N. (2000) “Common knowledge: how companies thrive by sharing

what they know”, Harvard Business School Press

Fuller,A, Hodkinson,H., Hodkinson,P. and Unwin,L. (2005)

“Learning as peripheral participation in Communities of

Practice: a reassessment of key concepts in workplace

learning”, British Educational Research Journal, as found at the CLMS’

manual.

Fuller,A.,Unwin,L. (2003) “Learning as apprentice in the

contemporary UK workplace: creating and managing expansive

and restrictive participation”, Journal of Education and Work,

Vol.16, No.4, pp. 407- 426.

34

Gongla,P. and Rizzuto,C. (2001) “Evolving communities of

practice: IBM global services experience” IBM Systems Journal,

Vol.40, No4. pp. 842-862.

Google on communities of practice retrieved from

http://www.google.com/Top/Reference/Knowledge_Management/Kno

wledge_Flow/Communities_of_Practice/ [01-06-07]

Hart,A. and Wolff,D. (2006) “Developing local communities of

practice through local community – University partnerships”,

Planning, practice and research, Vol. 21, No.1, pp.121-138.

Hildreth P. and Kimble C. (2004) “ Knowledge networks: innovation

through communities of practice”, Hershey, PA: Idea Group

Hodkinson,P. and Hodkinson,H. (2004) “The significance of

individuals’ dispositions in workplace learning: a case

study of two teachers”, Journal of Education and work, Vol.17,

No.2, pp. 167-182.

Lave,J. and Wenger,E. (1991) “Situated Learning”, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

Lesser,E. and Storck,J. (2001) “Communities of practice and

organizational performance”, IBM Systems Journal, Vol.40, No4,

pp. 831-841.

35

Mutch, A. (2003) “Communities of Practice and Habitus: a

critique”, Organisation studies, Vol.24, No.3, pp. 383-401.

Nonaka, I (1991), “The knowledge-creating company”, Harvard

Business Review, Vol. 69, November-December, 96-104.

Ostermann,A. (2003) “Communities of Practice at work:

gender, facework and the power of habitus at an all-female

police station and feminist crisis intervention center in

Brazil”, Discourse and Society, Vol.14, No.4, pp.473-505.

Pavlin, S. (2006) “Community of practice in small research

institute”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.10, No.2,

pp.136-144.

Pillay, H. , Boultoun-Lewis, G. and Wilss, L. (2003)

“Conceptions of Work and learning at work: impressions from

older workers”, Studies in Continuing Education, Vol.25,

No.1,pp.95-111.

University of Leicester (Centre for Labour Market Studies),

(2004) ‘Manual for the Doctorate in Social Sciences – Workplace Learning –

Policy Discourse and Research Evidence’ Module 2 – Option 2A

36

Viskovic,A. (2006) “Becoming a tertiary teacher: learning in

communities of practice”, Higher Education Research and

Development, Vol.25, No.4, pp. 323-339.

Von Krongh,G., Ichijo,K. and Nonaka,I. (2000) “Enabling

knowledge creation” Oxford

Wenger E, (1998) “Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and

Identity”, Cambridge University Press.

Wenger,E. and Snyder,W. (2000) “Communities of Practice: The

organizational frontier”, Harvard Business Review, January –

February 2000, pp.139-145.

Wenger,E.,McDermott,R. and Snyder,W. (2002) “Cultivating

Communities of Practice”, Harvard Business School Press

37

Appendix A – Communities studied from Lesser

and Storck, 2001

38