Online communities of practice typology revisited

Abstract

This paper outlines a typology for online communities of practice. The typology is based on findings from observations of three online communities of practice, a content analysis of messages, and a review of the existing literature. The three examples of communities of practice are of electronic discussion lists that cover topics of interest to university webmasters, librarians, and educators. This work expands on a typology that consolidated prior research and focused on online communities of practice within organizational settings (Dubé, Bourhis, and Jacob, 2006) by extending it to be inclusive of open online communities of practice that are not constrained by any organizational context. Characterizing communities of practice in this manner enables various aspects of them to be analyzed, which can illuminate ways to support the implementation of effective online communities of practice for specific purposes.

Typology on Leadership toward Creativity in Virtual Work

“…The different types of companies define alternative trajectories in the transition toward leadership creativity in virtual work. This typology extends the leadership typologies of Dubé et al (2006) and Hara, Shachaf, and Stoerger (2009).…”

“…Its characteristics include shared values with an important objective, collective intelligence, active and assertive leadership by example, transparency, shared power and responsibility, a helping culture, and empowering and coaching leadership. As leadership in this type enables power and commitment to arise from the community, it resembles emergent (Chamakiotis, 2014) or ad hoc leadership (Hara et al, 2009) that enables transient leadership opportunities for people. A leader who has a virtual mindset and understands virtuality as a networked context internalizes the concept that leadership and context are intricately intertwined (Osborn, Uhl-Bien, & Milosevic, 2014).…”

What is an online community? A new definition based around commitment, connection, reciprocity, interaction, agency, and consequences

“…However these and other elements have not been fully integrated into a general definition of OC. Nor have the various attempts to offer typologies of community (see for example Hara, Shachaf and Stoerger, 2009;Henri and Pudelko, 2003;Porter, 2004;Stanoevska-Slabeva and Schmid, 2001) provided the necessary integration. These have tended to focus more on sponsorship of community or community goals, without fully addressing the existential question: 'What is a community?'.…”

Novel readings: The history of a writing community by a partial, prejudiced, & ignorant Historian

“…Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002) proposed a maturation process for communities of practice which is divided into 'potential' (the phase of possibilities), 'coalescing' (the CoP begins its work), 'maturing' (the CoP's visibility rises), 'stewardship' (the CoP nurtures the knowledge it has built), and 'transformation' (an event creates a need for renewal, change or closure). Widely debated, the model was expanded by Hara, Shachaf and Stoerger (2009) with two further phases, 'stability' and 'disband'. This observational model of community development follows the maturation phases from the outside, looking in.…”