THE CENTRE FOR LABOUR MARKET STUDIES

DOCTORATE IN SOCIAL SCIENCE

MODULE 2 – OPTION 2A

FROM: CHRISTOS MANTAS

 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?

1
Table of Contents

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

2
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that communities of practice are outdated and not so relevant with modern workplace,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.

3
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 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 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

4
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 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

5
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 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 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

6
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 Who belongs? What holds it How long does

purpose? together? it last?

Community of To develop Members who Passion, As long as there

practice members’ select commitment, is interest in

capabilities; to themselves and maintaining the

build and identification group

exchange with the

knowledge group’s

expertise
Formal work To deliver a Everyone who Job Until the next

group product or reports to the requirement reorganization

service group’s and common

manager goals
Project Team To accomplish Employees The project’s Until the

a specified assigned by milestones and project has

task senior goals been completed

management
Informal group To collect and Friends and Mutual needs As long as

pass on business people have a

7
 business acquaintances reason to

information 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 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

8
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” (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.

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

9
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 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-the-job settings.” Research has shown that employees are involved in ‘teaching’ a

10
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 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

11
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-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 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.

12
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 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.

13
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.

Potential Building Engaged Active stage Adaptive

stage stage stage stage

Fundamental Connection Memory and Access and Collaboration Innovation

functions context learning and

creation generation

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 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

14
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). 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 interests of their members. Furthermore, Lesser and Storck (2001) have

studied the activities and key value outcomes of CoP practices.

15
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. 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

16
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. 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.

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,

17
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 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 much relation with today’s knowledge

18
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 specialization. Organisations

need to create flexible structures and support Communities of Practice in order to

maximize the potentials of their human capital.

19
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.

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.

20
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=70744240 [01-
06-07]

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

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.

21
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/Knowledge_Flow/Com
munities_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.

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.

22
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

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

23
Appendix A – Communities studied from Lesser and

Storck, 2001

24