Communicating Knowing Through Communities of Practice: Exploring Internal Communicative Processes and Differences Among CoPs

Iverson, Joel O.; McPhee, Robert D.

doi:10.1080/00909880801923738

Cited by 50 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, Iverson and McPhee (2008) applied mutual engagement, joint enterprise and shared repertoire in their ethnographic study of volunteering groups, which was helpful in identifying the specific characteristics and differences between CoPs based on how people interact ‘in practice’ rather than based on the labels that may be externally attributed to ‘possible CoPs’. What is particularly relevant to our discussion is that their research provided empirical evidence that CoPs cannot be ‘set up’ as formal teams, and that to better understand CoPs it is important to pay attention to the nuances of the lived practice.…”

Section: Conceptualizing ‘Thinking Together’mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We agree with authors who view CoPs and knowledge as a process rather than an entity that can be simply ‘set up’ ( Addicott et al, 2006 ; Corradi et al, 2010 ; Gherardi et al, 1998 ; Iverson and McPhee, 2002 ; Nicolini and Meznar, 1995 ). In order to better understand what CoPs are and how they can be cultivated in organizations, it is important to learn more about the learning processes that happen ‘in practice’ and that lead to CoP development (as seen in Gherardi et al, 1998 ; Handley et al, 2006 ; Iverson and McPhee, 2008 ; Kuhn and Jackson, 2008 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Thinking together: What makes Communities of Practice work?

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we develop the founding elements of the concept of Communities of Practice by elaborating on the learning processes happening at the heart of such communities. In particular, we provide a consistent perspective on the notions of knowledge, knowing and knowledge sharing that is compatible with the essence of this concept – that learning entails an investment of identity and a social formation of a person. We do so by drawing richly from the work of Michael Polanyi and his conception of personal knowledge, and thereby we clarify the scope of Communities of Practice and offer a number of new insights into how to make such social structures perform well in professional settings. The conceptual discussion is substantiated by findings of a qualitative empirical study in the UK National Health Service. As a result, the process of ‘thinking together’ is conceptualized as a key part of meaningful Communities of Practice where people mutually guide each other through their understandings of the same problems in their area of mutual interest, and this way indirectly share tacit knowledge. The collaborative learning process of ‘thinking together’, we argue, is what essentially brings Communities of Practice to life and not the other way round.

show abstract

Section: Conceptualizing ‘Thinking Together’mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thinking together: What makes Communities of Practice work?

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, they produce over time a shared repertoire of routines, words, tools, stories, symbols, or concepts that become part of the CoP practice [8]. Iverson and McFee [11] argue that mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire can be used to determine the existence of CoPs, distinguish between different CoPs, and evaluate communicative processes in them. However, in his later work Wenger reformulates these characteristics and presents the 'structural model' of CoPs consisting of three fundamental elements: a domain of knowledge, which defines a set of issues; a community of people who care about this domain; and the shared practice that they are developing to be effective in their domain [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care: lessons from the theory of communities of practice

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe paper combines the analytical and instrumental perspectives on communities of practice (CoPs) to reflect on potential challenges that may arise in the process of interprofessional and inter-organisational joint working within the Collaborations for Leaderships in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs)--partnerships between the universities and National Health Service (NHS) Trusts aimed at conducting applied health research and translating its findings into day-to-day clinical practice.DiscussionThe paper discusses seminal theoretical literature on CoPs as well as previous empirical research on the role of these communities in healthcare collaboration, which is organised around the following three themes: knowledge sharing within and across CoPs, CoP formation and manageability, and identity building in CoPs. It argues that the multiprofessional and multi-agency nature of the CLAHRCs operating in the traditionally demarcated organisational landscape of the NHS may present formidable obstacles to knowledge sharing between various professional groupings, formation of a shared 'collaborative' identity, and the development of new communities within the CLAHRCs. To cross multiple boundaries between various professional and organisational communities and hence enable the flow of knowledge, the CLAHRCs will have to create an effective system of 'bridges' involving knowledge brokers, boundary objects, and cross-disciplinary interactions as well as address a number of issues related to professional and organisational identification.SummaryThe CoP approach can complement traditional 'stage-of-change' theories used in the field of implementation research and provide a basis for designing theory-informed interventions and evaluations. It can help to illuminate multiple boundaries that exist between professional and organisational groups within the CLAHRCs and suggest ways of crossing those boundaries to enable knowledge transfer and organisational learning. Achieving the aims of the CLAHRCs and producing a sustainable change in the ways applied health research is conducted and implemented may be influenced by how effectively these organisations can navigate through the multiple CoPs involved and promote the development of new multiprofessional and multi-organisational communities united by shared practice and a shared sense of belonging--an assumption that needs to be explored by further empirical research.

show abstract

“…CoP theory strongly emphasizes the interactively constructed nature of engaging, sharing, and negotiating. The dynamic, procesual focus on practices makes CoP theory a situated framework for analyzing the dynamic process in knowledge creation through the communicative acts of the three elements (Iverson and McPhee, 2008). Thus, CoP theory offers a schema for analyzing knowledge as a process.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The profile of participants is listed in Table 2 Thus, the types of data can be specified as follows: (1) the fieldwork data: regular morning meetings, on-call responses, classroom training, conversation with doctors and members, and cross-boundary meetings; (2) Semi-structured interviews, including members, and doctors; (3) Reference data: training course materials, archive in on-call responds, and meeting minutes. Interview guidelines for three elements of CoPs follow Iverson and McPhee (2008), with questions like "How much contact do you have with other working members?" "What led up to that change?"…”

Section: Selection Of the Casementioning

confidence: 99%

Leadership Style and the Internal Processes in Communities of Practices

Li¹,

Su²,

Liu³

2015

ujm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Communities of Practices (CoPs) become building blocks of the knowledge economy. CoPs offer a productive solution for improving knowledge and knowledge management. This article presents the results of an empirical study that explored the impact of leadership on overall community effectiveness and knowledge creation and management. The research method employed was a multi-case study, with purposive sampling on two communities of Radiology and Anesthesia in a nonprofit healthcare organization of Taiwan. A total of 24 semi-structured interviews were taken with longitudinal non-participant observation of the routine meetings over a period of one year. The research revealed that two communities develop different leadership styles. In particular, two leadership styles are compared: shared leadership and single leadership. Shared leadership represents communities whose members are empowered to share the tasks and responsibilities of leadership. The results of the study suggest that CoP with shared leadership can nurture CoP to promote innovative learning and knowledge-sharing environment. First, shared leadership is capable of building a social setting for utilizing and articulating individuals and groups' embedded knowledge. Second, shared leadership can work together on setting learning support system entailing various types of meeting, such as regular meeting, morning meeting, and monthly meeting, make environmental influence on individual' motivation to engage in CoPs. Third, the sharing norms purposely developed by leadership overcome the power differences among members and provide chances for constructive interactions. On the other hand, a CoP that took the traditional approach of relying on a single leader has poor performance on the cohesiveness and ability to communicate. The article concludes with a discussion of some guidance for purposeful design of CoPs, implications, and future research opportunities.

show abstract

Communicating Knowing Through Communities of Practice: Exploring Internal Communicative Processes and Differences Among CoPs

Cited by 50 publications

References 29 publications

Thinking together: What makes Communities of Practice work?

Thinking together: What makes Communities of Practice work?

Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care: lessons from the theory of communities of practice

Leadership Style and the Internal Processes in Communities of Practices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About