Research group Vocational Education, Faculty of Education, Utrecht University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands

Transcription

1 Educational Action Research Vol. 18, No. 2, June 2010, REVIEW ARTICLE Beyond locality: the creation of public practice-based knowledge through practitioner research in professional learning communities and communities of practice. A review of three books on practitioner research and professional communities M. Enthoven and E. de Bruijn* Research group Vocational Education, Faculty of Education, Utrecht University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands Taylor REAC_A_ sgm and Francis (Received 20 August 2009; final version received 2 March 2010) / Educational Original 2010 Taylor June E.de elly.debruijn@hu.nl Bruijn & Article Francis (print)/ Action 2010 Research (online) In both the fields of educational practice and educational research the professional development of teachers was, is and is promising to remain an urgent and relevant topic. Practitioner research performed by teachers in professional learning communities and communities of practice is promising to serve their professional development. In addition, practitioner research and participation in these learning and working communities aim at explicating the locally existing tacit professional knowledge. Since practitioner research is also defined as a means to the aim of creating knowledge that is more relevant to the practice of education than the knowledge created by research institutes, we are concerned with the question of which mechanisms can be identified as enabling the production of public practicebased knowledge. Therefore we review three current books on practitioner research and professional communities. Keywords: collaborative learning; knowledge creation; practitioner research; professional learning communities; communities of practice; book review Introduction In both the fields of educational practice and educational research the professional development of teachers was, is and is promising to remain an urgent and relevant topic. Practitioner research performed by teachers in professional learning communities and communities of practice is seen as serving their professional development. In addition, practitioner research and participation in these learning and working communities are aimed at explicating locally existing tacit knowledge and, sometimes, at creating new relevant, practical knowledge that is also recognized as a legitimate knowledge source. Gibbons et al. (1994) refer to this latter form of knowledge as the results of Mode 2 knowledge production as distinguished from the results of Mode 1 knowledge production (i.e. formal, scientific knowledge). Mode 2 knowledge production is seen as providing schools with more helpful knowledge then the knowledge provided by traditional research institutes such as universities (Hargreaves 1996). Gibbons et al. (1994) argue that knowledge is not only produced in academic settings but also in other knowledge-demanding contexts. The *Corresponding author. elly.debruijn@hu.nl ISSN print/issn online 2010 Educational Action Research DOI: /

2 290 M. Enthoven and E. de Bruijn value of Mode 2 knowledge production is not defined in reference to requirements for codification, but rather in terms of its practical value, and is therefore dependent upon both context and use. Since practitioner research is defined as a means to the aim of creating knowledge that is more relevant to the practice of education than the knowledge created by research institutes (Gibbons et al. 1994; Hargreaves 1996; de Bruijn and Westerhuis 2004), we are concerned with the question of which mechanisms can be identified as enabling the production of practice-based knowledge, relevant beyond the borders of a specific context. In this article we review three books on three related topics. The first book is Networking practitioner research, by McLaughlin, Black-Hawkins, McIntyre, and Townsend (2008). The second book is Professional learning communities: divergence, depth and dilemmas, by Stoll and Seashore Louis (2007). The third book consists of two volumes both entitled Communities of practice: creating learning environments for educators; these volumes are edited by Kimble, Hildreth, and Bourdon (2008). We review the three books by drawing upon theories on professional learning and development and knowledge creation through participation in communities of practice. Theory At the heart of both of the concepts community of practice (CoP) and professional learning community (PLC) are the notions of collective learning and development in a professional community context. Wenger (1998) defines a community of practice as a group of people that shares concerns and passion about a topic. The members deepen their knowledge and expertise about this topic in a collective setting and they create knowledge together. The crucial element in these development processes in a community of practice is an ongoing interaction between its members. Stoll et al. (2006) state that there is no universal definition of a professional learning community. Summarizing the literature, they explicate the existing international consensus on the meaning of a professional learning community as: a group of people sharing and critically interrogating their practice in an ongoing, reflective, collaborative, inclusive, learning oriented, growth promoting way, operating as a collective enterprise (Stoll et al. 2006, 223). Concerning learning, Lave and Wenger (1991) describe professional learning as a process of social and personal transformation, situated in a community of practice. From their socio-cultural perspective, learning is the process of negotiating membership and participation in this community of practice. Taking their line of argument further, Lave and Wenger s (1991) perspective on learning and development has a notion of assimilation: newcomers grow into the existing community. Participants gradually absorb and are absorbed in a culture of practice (Stoll et al. 2006, 233 4). For Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), professional learning is less aimed at assimilation of newcomers and more at organizational innovation. Professional learning is the heart of organizational learning and they both are the means to the aim of innovation of organizational (production) processes. Concerning the development of knowledge, Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002, 29) describe a community as a social structure that can assume responsibility for developing and sharing knowledge. They state that communities of practice are the ideal social structure for stewarding knowledge (Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder 2002, 12). They knit organizations together and are central to a knowledge

3 Educational Action Research 291 strategy, partly because they enable organizations to combine tacit and codified knowledge. Based on their literature review, Stoll et al. (2006, 233 4) conclude that learning within PLCs: involves active deconstruction of knowledge through reflection and analysis, and its reconstruction through action in a particular context, as well as co-construction (of knowledge) through collaborative learning with peers. This proposed co-creation of knowledge seems to be related to Gibbons et al. s (1994) description of Mode 2 knowledge production. The question remains whether the results of this Mode 2 knowledge production, depending on context and use, could result in a generic practical knowledge base that has relevance beyond the borders of the specific context. In sum, two main aims of CoPs and PLCs can be identified. The first is learning in terms of the professional development of its members (thereby contributing to school s innovation, a culture of collaboration and the improvement of student outcomes). The second is the sharing and creation of knowledge. According to some authors (Stoll et al. 2006), learning and knowledge creation are natural outcomes of each other. Others, such as Riel and Polin (2004), suggest that there are different forms of CoPs and PLCs, such as practice-based, task-based and knowledge-based groups. From Riel and Polin s perspective, each form requires a specific design and strategy. The books under review all concern themselves with practical examples and analyses of practitioner research, PLCs, and CoPs. In our review we question: If and how the books describe the objectives of practitioner research, PLCs and CoPs? If knowledge creation is described as an explicit objective? If so, what kind of knowledge are they referring to (explicated local Mode 2 knowledge or generic knowledge, contributing to the existing practical knowledge base on a certain topic)? Which mechanisms can be identified as contributing to the creation of generic knowledge? By reviewing the three books that have a practical orientation, with analyses of practical experiences, we wish to gain insight concerning answers to these questions. Summary of the three books in relation to the research question Networking practitioner research, by C. McLaughlin, K. Black-Hawkins, D. McIntyre, and A. Townsend, London, Routledge, 2008, 246 pp., (pbk), ISBN: Summary Networking practitioner research contains 15 chapters divided into three parts. The structure of the book is clear. The chapters are thorough, dense discussions about relevant topics and the chapters are easy to read. The book is about ways in which schools can improve through enabling their managers and teachers to learn. The book focuses especially on research done by networks of schools and through school networking. Two main themes can be identified: critical reflections on assumed characteristics of networks in relation to their goals; and analyses of networks contributions to knowledge creation.

4 292 M. Enthoven and E. de Bruijn Part One is about identifying from the literature questions that ought to be asked about research networks of schools. Chapters Three, Four and Five critically deal with some assumed characteristics of networks. Chapter Three is focused on the characteristic of collaboration. One of the key issues concerning this theme is that effective cooperation requires many skills and experience, and that it is often (wrongly) assumed that teachers will simply be able to function effectively in networks. This is not the case and training and guidance from external sources is often necessary. The other key issue we extracted from Chapter Three is in line with one of the issues raised in Chapter Four: conflict and challenge are inevitable parts of a community and of learning and development. However, with a strong focus on trust and voluntary participation, it is often noticed that conflict and challenge are avoided for the sake of the group s atmosphere. Finally in Chapter Five it is stated that it seems doubtful whether the hypothesized need for long-term commitment for networks to make effective use of research for school development is compatible with the voluntary and flexible nature of networks. Part Two provides reviews and case studies of different existing networks in different countries. In Part Three, the questions raised in Parts One and Two about the potential value of school research networks and also about the conditions and strategies contributing to their effects are considered. Discussion on the development of knowledge After the Introduction, in Chapter Two, McIntyre raises the central question also raised in our theoretical frame, of whether teacher research should be aimed primarily at the development of new validated generic knowledge or simply at the professional development of the teachers involved (p. 17). McIntyre refers to this generic knowledge as public knowledge. Furthermore, the question is raised whether schools, if pursuing the goal of knowledge creation, will see the knowledge created as distinctively local knowledge for use only within the school, or as public knowledge likely to be useful to a wide population. Drawing upon authors such as Somekh (1994, as cited), Hargreaves (1996, as cited) and Ruthver (2005, as cited), Part One takes a stand in answering these questions by considering improvement of educational practice and contributing to public knowledge as two contrasting purposes of practitioner research and enquiry. They seem to conclude that both these purposes are not a natural outcome of each other. Illustrated by Ruthven s (2005, as cited) conclusion, McIntyre suggests that in comparison with the purpose of professional development, teacher research has a weaker record of contributing to public knowledge. McIntyre argues that the concept of Mode 2 knowledge production is not the ultimate answer to the question of how to create knowledge that is practically relevant beyond the borders of the local community. This is because the focus in Mode 2 knowledge production is too strongly on specific problems in specific contexts, rather than on general unifying principles. Therefore the problems of dissemination and validity of the Mode 2 knowledge product remain relevant. One of the solutions to this problem could be to conduct practitioner research in networks of schools, since the dissemination of the results is in the participation. The more schools that participate, the bigger the dissemination of the results. Yet, the conditions needed for teachers to be able to engage in serious research activities are not easy to meet in one school, let alone in a network of schools. Therefore, Chapter Two raises important questions, yet it does not provide the answers.

5 Educational Action Research 293 Concerning the development of knowledge, the most striking finding from the case studies is that the purpose of knowledge creation was explicated by the different cases, yet none of the cases found strategies and mechanisms to fulfill this ambition. For the sake of comparability between the reviewed books, in the continuation of our article we follow McIntyre (see Chapter Two) and refer to generic practice-based knowledge, relevant beyond the borders of a specific context, as public knowledge. Professional learning communities: divergence, depth and dilemmas, edited by L. Stoll and K. Seashore Louis, Berkshire, Open University Press, 2007, 207 pp., (pbk), ISBN: Summary Professional learning communities contains 14 chapters, contributed by significant professors, lecturers, teachers, directors, managers and researchers in the fields of education and school improvement. The 14 chapters are divided into three main parts, preceded by an introduction and closed by an afterword. The three main parts are called Divergence, Depth and Dilemmas. The book has a clear outline and it is easy to read. The practical examples are recognizable for everyone working with PLCs or CoPs inside or outside the field of education. In the introduction, PLCs are defined as professional communities where the focus is not just on individual teachers learning but: on professional learning; within the context of a cohesive group; that focuses on collective knowledge; and that occurs within an ethic of interpersonal caring that permeates the life of teachers, students and school leaders. In the Divergence part, the authors claim that, in order to serve the needs of all the students and to be able to bring about change in a fast-changing world, it is time for expanding PLCs into larger groups of stakeholders than just a group of teachers supported by leaders, and involving divergent knowledge bases. The expansion could be directed within and outside the school walls. Secondly, the authors in the Depth part conclude that the question of exactly how to organize, facilitate, support and preserve PLCs with processes and tools even within one school cannot yet be answered with our current knowledge base. Concerning this issue, the three chapters in the Depth part highlight various tools and mechanisms to stimulate the development and effects of PLCs: normalizing problems, strategies and artifacts of school leaders, social dynamics and assessment tools. The third major subject of the book is the claim that organizations need to invest in the quality of the relationships among their professionals in order to be able to organize, facilitate, support and preserve PLCs. The Dilemmas part discusses three dilemmas as challenges concerning this issue: building PLCs in high schools, building social capital in PLCs and sustainability of PLCs. Discussion on the development of knowledge Generally the book focuses on professional learning and development as the major aim of PLCs. The creation of knowledge, either situated local knowledge or public knowledge, is not explicitly mentioned as the objective of PLCs or CoPs. Neither does the book highlight teacher research as an explicit aim. The objective of professional development is both aimed at growing into the community (such as Chapter Six),

6 294 M. Enthoven and E. de Bruijn and therefore comparable with Lave and Wenger s (1991) socio-cultural perspective on PLCs; and at organizational innovation (such as Chapters 10, 11 and 12), and therefore comparable with Nonaka and Takeuchi s (1995) perspective on PLCs. Concerning our question of which mechanisms can be identified that enable the creation of public practical knowledge, Jackson and Temperley in Chapter Four of the book highlight the activity of enquiry. They describe enquiry as the process through which practitioners are able to systematically and intentionally explore information from research, experts and each other in support of local decision-making and problem-solving (p. 55), thereby contributing to their professional development. Jackson and Temperley s model of Three fields of knowledge describes the combining of Practitioner Knowledge and Public Knowledge (the knowledge from theory, research and practice) to create New Knowledge (the new knowledge that we can create together through collaborative work and enquiry). This New Knowledge could be considered public practical knowledge: a contribution to the existing practical knowledge base on a certain topic. Practitioner Knowledge could be described as situated, local knowledge. Searching for mechanisms enabling the creation of New Knowledge, the book does not provide us with concrete mechanisms that would enable a PLC to combine Practitioner Knowledge and Public Knowledge. Neither does the book provide us with concrete mechanisms to create Practitioner Knowledge. Concerning this creation of Practitioner Knowledge, we do interpret from the book three prerequisites for taking part in this creation process: The ability to have a meta-view on the specific local context and the experiences therein. The ability to critically reflect. The ability to take part in deep, sustained conversations about a certain topic on a less anecdotal and a more generic level. Yet, one of the practical dilemmas identified in Chapter Six of the book is that deep, sustained conversations among teachers about matters of teaching and learning remain uncommon, even among groups that might be seen as professional communities. Chapter Six describes the tool of normalizing problems as a practical way to go beyond the anecdotal conversation about specific contextual problems towards a more conceptual discussion about teaching as an object of collective attention and towards a meta-view on general problems and principles of teaching (p. 82). The normalizing of problems functions as a bridge to more probing investigation of teaching and learning, one of the aims of a PLC. Therefore, teachers need to treat the shared and expected (normal) character of a problem as the starting point of a detailed discussion of a variety of specific classroom instances with a certain common element on a more generic level. Although this tool is described as a tool towards professional learning, we identify the tool as also potentially contributing to the creation of Practitioner Knowledge and the creation of New Knowledge when the generic themes discussed are confronted with Public Knowledge (see Chapter Four, by Jackson and Temperley). Concerning the confrontation of Practitioner Knowledge and Public Knowledge and in line with the different forms of CoPs and PLCs described by Riel and Polin (2004), Mulford, in Chapter 12 of the book, presents his Integrated model of social capital and social professional learning communities. This model distinguishes

7 Educational Action Research 295 between a social community (trust, communication, collaboration), a professional community (a social community with a shared mission, shared norms and values), and a learning community that has the capacity for change, learning and innovation. These different forms of PLCs are sequential stages. A professional community needs intellectual stimulation to develop into a learning community that has capacity for change, learning and innovation. Mulford (Chapter 12) does not describe how and by whom this intellectual stimulation should or could take place. Neither does his model describe the potential next step that we describe as the step towards the creation of public practical knowledge (New Knowledge), where the Practitioner Knowledge is confronted with Public Knowledge. We conclude that the book presents interesting practical and conceptual reflections on working with PLCs and on their potential. Yet, we propose that when exploring and discussing dilemmas, strategies and mechanisms concerning stimulating ownership, engagement, leadership and overcoming organizational challenges, authors need to be more specific and explicit about the chosen objective of a PLC or a CoP. The book reveals that in order to create public practical knowledge that goes beyond the borders of the local community (New Knowledge), we need to choose and explicate this as an objective of the community. This aim would imply specific strategies that we still need to explore. These strategies could imply normalizing problems of practice and adding a researcher to the community to introduce the existing Public Knowledge base on a certain topic and to (help) analyze the developed Practitioner Knowledge in relation to this knowledge base. Communities of practice: creating learning environments for educators. Vols. 1 and 2, edited by C. Kimble, P. Hildreth and I. Bourdon, Charlotte, NC, Information Age Publishing, 2007, 439 pp. (Vol. 1), 425 pp. (Vol. 2), (hbk), ISBN: Summary Communities of Practice exists in two volumes. The volumes both consist of three sections. Volume 1 contains 21 individual chapters. Volume 2 contains 19 chapters. The sections are not clearly separated in the book. In contrast to the previous two books, the sections lack a separate summarizing introduction. Additionally, the sections are large, containing up to nine chapters. It takes a sharp-eyed and willing reader to keep the different sections, described in the introduction, in mind. This makes the book a little overwhelming with information and less easy and friendly to read. Furthermore, the subjects of the chapters in the sections vary widely, while at the same time not always adding new information to other chapters on a conceptual level. Volume 1 addresses issues of CoPs in professional (physical) school contexts, while Volume 2 is mainly concerned with virtual communities. In both of the introductions, concepts and traditions related to CoPs are clarified. Referring to Hildreth (1994, as cited), the authors state that the term Community of Practice can serve as an umbrella term. This umbrella term covers a range of groups that (often) grows informally around a need, has voluntary membership and is a not formally constituted group. The members of a CoP share a common purpose; they share knowledge, beliefs and suppositions (common grounds). CoPs are not static, they evolve. Relationships are the key to a CoP, and a key defining characteristic of a CoP is internal motivation.

8 296 M. Enthoven and E. de Bruijn The first section of Volume 1 consists of four chapters and provides a theoretical background on CoPs, and it explains why CoPs are important in education. The second section consists of nine chapters that focus on CoPs as environments to help educators learn, and they consider the use of CoPs in training and education. The third section consists of eight chapters and it concerns the use of CoP principles in the practice of teaching. The first section of Volume 2 consists of three chapters in which some of the motivations are introduced for encouraging the development of virtual CoPs (vcops) in educational settings, as well as reflections on some of the practical problems of doing so. The second section contains nine chapters that focus on the use of vcops for continuing professional development and as a medium for teaching. The third section contains seven chapters related to some of the emerging tools and techniques that are applicable to vcops. Discussion on the development of knowledge Both of the volumes consider communities of practice as a working strategy with professional and student learning as their major aim. For example, the second section of Volume 1 describes that CoPs can serve as support systems and professionalization strategies for part-time employees that do not have the benefits of formal development processes, and they can facilitate teachers in vocational education and training to shift their practice from the classroom to the workplace. This objective seems strongly in line with Lave and Wenger s (1991) concept of growing into the community. Or, as St Clair describes this in Chapter 2 of the first volume (p. 21), there is a core of people who are considered to be effective teachers and as a learner, your practices evolve to resemble those of the core group as you learn how to teach. Comparing the definition of a CoP presented in the introduction with the definition of a PLC presented in the former reviewed book (Professional learning communities), the main differences are that a CoP seems to have a less clearly defined focus and objective. Considering that the authors of the introduction emphasize that membership is voluntary, based on internal motivation it seems that the focus is on sharing of knowledge and ideas around topics that coincidentally are of interest to the members instead of systematically creating knowledge around a certain topic. CoPs seem less formal and less institutionalized then PLCs. Caldwell, in Chapter One of the first volume, is critical about this rather comfortable and informal approach to the sharing of professional knowledge (p. 18). He states that CoPs can have a wider impact on transformations in schools than they have had until now when the approach of CoPs is shifted towards a strategy that is central to success in the transformation of schools. One example of this more strategic way of working with CoPs is presented by St Clair in Chapter Two of the first volume. This chapter explicitly explores the field of educational research as a CoP, thereby defining educational research as a systematic process of organizing knowledge in order to improve people s learning. What ties the various efforts in educational research together is the shared commitment to improvements in practice and theory along with acceptance of a number of conventions concerning data collection and data analysis. On page 29 the author states that the emergence and continuation of CoPs can be considered good or useful only as much as their products are good or useful. Yet, the chapter does not provide us with a

9 Educational Action Research 297 definition of the different (knowledge) products produced by the various efforts in educational research. The chapter, as most chapters in the book, speaks mainly of the idea of educational research as a CoP without becoming concrete in terms of implications for strategies and mechanisms to generate a contribution to the existing public (practical) knowledge base on a certain topic. The objective of educational research within CoPs is improvements in practice and theory. Mechanisms that could contribute to these improvements are not provided by the chapter. It does provide us though with an interesting conceptual shift from the individual to the community by speaking about research capacity instead of ability. This shift seems to enable the possibility of introducing academic or experienced educational researchers to professional learning communities of teachers, thereby enlarging the research capacity of the community. Conclusion We conclude our review with summarizing remarks concerning practitioner research in networks, PLCs and CoPs. Thereby, we consider PLCs and CoPs as networks within and between schools. Their similarity concerns the intended collective instead of the individual learning and creation of knowledge. In the three books, the objectives and intended products of networks, PLCs and CoPs are rarely clearly defined and operationalized. Teacher learning and school improvement are often viewed as similar objectives where teacher learning is assumed to directly contribute to school improvement. When professional learning is defined as the objective, this learning is never operationalized into an intended product. Therefore, quoting page 92 of Networking practitioner research, it is not easy to assess precisely how far and in what ways the research work undertaken contributed to the learning of students as individuals or of their schools as institutions. When the creation of knowledge is defined as an objective, there seems to be no clear collective understanding of the sort of knowledge intended to be created or of the strategies and mechanisms potentially contributing to the creation of knowledge. As was clearly shown in the case studies of Networking practitioner research, this lack of conceptualizing, defining and operationalizing seems to contribute to the lack of insight yet available about strategies and mechanisms contributing to knowledge creation beyond the borders and even within the borders of local (school) contexts. Most of the chapters in the reviewed books emphasize the processes instead of the products concerning networks, PLCs and CoPs. Recurring characteristics of and conditions needed to create effective networks, PLCs and CoPs are (Networking practitioner research): developing and sustaining supportive and invigorating relationships; determining clear purposes and a strong commitment to the work ensuring voluntary participation; engaging and maintaining the commitment of school leaders; building effective and flexible communication strategies; learning from alternative perspectives within and beyond schools; and maintaining resources in terms of time, money and energy. Yet, it remains unclear when networks, PLCs and CoPs can be considered effective since thorough evaluations are hindered by a lack of clearly-defined and operationalized

10 298 M. Enthoven and E. de Bruijn objectives and products. Furthermore, the described characteristics and conditions make us wonder whether practitioner research, with a required emphasis on a long-term program, collective conceptual themes, critical reflection, a meta view on daily experiences and critical debate is not in contrast with the flexible, voluntary, relational character of networks, PLCs and CoPs (see also Networking practitioner research, p. 80). The same can be questioned considering the required researchers skills and abilities not naturally present in all teachers, such as the ability to critically reflect upon themes of teaching on a more conceptual level. The current practitioner research in networks, PLCs and CoPs seems to be mainly aimed at practical innovations and changes, often through teacher learning instead of through evaluations of innovations. Networks claim the objective of practical changes beyond the borders of the local school context. Never are the networks used to create public practical knowledge beyond the borders of the local school context. For the latter objective to be realized, we conclude from the three books that external research resources need to be mobilized and utilized as mentors or coaches to the networks, PLCs and CoPs (for examples of this approach in vocational education in Germany and the Netherlands, see de Bruijn and Westerhuis 2004). We would suggest that a more directive research program would form the basis of such knowledge production, which might be in conflict with the voluntary, relational characteristic of networks, PLCs and CoPs. Yet, if we truly wish to create public practical knowledge, we might have to differentiate between networks, PLCs and CoPs focused on professional learning, organizational innovation or knowledge creation. References de Bruijn, E., and A. Westerhuis, eds Research and innovation in vocational education and training. A European discussion. s-hertogenbosch: CINOP Expertisecentrum. Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage. Hargreaves, D.H Teaching as a research-based profession: Possibilities and prospects. London: Teacher Training Agency. Lave, J., and E. Wenger Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nonaka, I., and H. Takeuchi The knowledge creating company. New York: Oxford University. Riel, M., and L. Polin Learning communities: Common ground and critical differences in designing technical environments. In Designing virtual communities in the service of learning, ed. S.A. Barab, R. Kling, and J. Gray, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Stoll, L., R. Bolam, M. Wallace, and S. Thomas Professional learning communities: A review of literature. Journal of Educational Change 7, no. 4: Wenger, E Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E., R. McDermott, and W.C. Snyder Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.