Caracterización de agentes espumantes y espumas de aleación de aluminio A356 1 Distribución de tamaño de partícula

The term Communities of Practice (CoP) goes back to work by Lave and Wenger (1991), who introduce a new theorisation of learning (Hughes, Jewson, & Unwin, 2007b). Individuals are seen as social beings and active social participation be- comes central to learning. Criticisms are directed at the focus on an institutional context of education, the role of formal education and the reliance on the teacher as expert. It is suggested that learning takes place in many situations and is situated in practice. Learning is not necessarily associated with teaching and the importance of learning outside formal education is emphasised (Hughes et al., 2007b). A major contribution of Lave and Wenger is the creation of a new theory of learning that is embedded in social practice (Fuller, 2007).

The focus of Lave and Wenger’s work from 1991 is on theorising learning and not on CoP (Fuller, 2007). Wenger (1998) extends the conceptualisation of CoP. Wenger builds on a social theory of learning that integrates the components of meaning, practice, community and identity. Learning is seen as experience, as doing, as belonging and as becoming. The background to the social theory of learning is ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ which is based on an appren- ticeship model, allowing the inexperienced newcomer to participate, grow and integrate into a community. Wenger advocates a rethinking of learning, away from the focus on formal learning contexts exemplified by classrooms, textbooks and teachers. He encourages recognition that learning takes place in everyday

contexts, as the learner engages with and contributes to the practices of commu- nities. He calls for forms of learning that encourage action, discussion, reflection and meaningful practices, all taking place in the context of a CoP. Wenger em- phasises that the concept of a CoP is integral part of daily life. Everyone belongs to multiple CoP relating to various aspects of their lives. Membership in these communities is implicit and changes over time. Wenger sees his contributions as providing explicit focus for concepts that are inherently familiar. He wants to fa- cilitate the examination and rethinking of these familiar concepts and to provide a systematic vocabulary to help formulate perceptions and to direct actions.

Moving his attention to workplace contexts, Wenger (1998) emphasises that even work that looks individual is carried out in a community context. There is always a context of practice with its rules, regulations, assumptions and views. The concept of practice emphasises the social context of work and the negotia- tions that take place in both explicit and tacit forms. Wenger describes CoP as places for both the acquisition and creation of knowledge. Newcomers gain access to the competence of a CoP by their personal experiences of engagement, facili- tating the acquisition of knowledge. CoP provide opportunities for the creation of knowledge. Their mutual engagement, joint enterprise and shared competence give the context in which new experiences and ideas can be evaluated and trans- formed into new knowledge. Learning requires engagement and imagination and becomes effective if anchored into practice. Wenger sees learning as wider than the acquisition of skills and information. He refers to the process of becoming, to the contributions of new knowledge and experiences to forming an identity. The community facilitates this learning by providing a space for identity building.

According to Wenger (1998), CoP have always existed and predate the de- sire to explicitly design contexts for learning. Where CoP already exist, one can facilitate their further development, where new CoP are desired, one can pro- vide favourable contexts and conditions. Yet, one cannot legislate a CoP into existence. Practices need to emerge in context of policies and rules of account- abilities, identities need to form around roles, allegiance to specified visions needs to develop, meaning and work practices need to evolve. CoP, and the learning associated with them, can be supported and facilitated, but not simply created. Central to this is the support of engagement, which encompasses both the support of activities and of community building.

CoP are related to but different from organisations (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). CoP arise from practice and negotiate their own enterprise. They can be closely aligned to organisational structures, events or requirements, but this is not necessarily the case. Wenger and colleagues write that CoP will develop independently from recognition through organisations. They see the voluntary engagement of members and the emergence of internal leadership as key factors for the strength of CoP. Of further importance are informality and autonomy. Despite the emphasis on independence, organisations still have a role in active and systematic cultivation of CoP. Organisations can create environments sup- portive of CoP by valuing learning, providing resources, facilitating participation and removing obstacles. Organisations can facilitate CoP by welcoming their knowledge into the organisation (Wenger et al., 2002).

CoP exist in a variety of forms (Wenger et al., 2002). Their sizes can range from a few members to hundreds or even thousands. CoP can have a life span of just a few years or be centuries old. CoP bring both short- and long-term benefits to community members and organisations. For members being at work is experienced more positively and professional development is fostered. The organisation sees improved business outcomes and develops organisational capa- bilities. In addition to tangible benefits, CoP provide intangible benefits such as improved relationships, an increased sense of belonging, and improved profes- sional confidence and identity. CoP add value when they connect the enterprise of the community with the strategy of an organisation. This is required so mem- bers see value in investing themselves in the community, and for the organisation to justify facilitation of the community. In contrast to organisational units with management structures and reporting lines, CoP are informal structures of peers, focusing on knowledge and targeting issues like competence and innovation. CoP accept different levels of participation by members. Some members will form the core of the community, some will be reasonably active, while others will only be involved on the periphery.

Since the original work by Lave and Wenger in 1991 the early concepts have been developed further by Wenger and by other researchers. CoP have become popular in many areas of business and also in academia. Despite recognition of the positive aspects of the concepts behind CoP, weaknesses and areas for fur- ther development have also been identified, for example by Fuller (2007), James

(2007) and Hughes, Jewson, and Unwin (2007a). CoP emphasise learning as par- ticipation. Participants acquire the viewpoints, the language and the processes of their community. Fuller asks how learning occurs in a CoP, how new knowledge is produced and how knowledge from outside the boundaries of a community is accessed and integrated. She goes on to question how the concepts of CoP, as developed by Wenger and colleagues, cope with the frequent changes caused by reorganisations or take-overs, characteristic for today’s work places that require a more expansive learning than proposed in CoP. The suggestion is made that focusing on one community is too limiting. Individuals who have access to mul- tiple social learning spaces have richer experiences. Also, learning should not be limited to the community setting, as formal education can make valuable con- tributions. Fuller challenges the novice versus expert concept as being presented too uniformly. She posits that multiple areas of expertise are required in today’s learning environments and individuals might be novices in some areas but experts in others. Fuller emphasises the importance of looking at a whole system with its micro, meso and macro levels. This point is supported by Hughes et al. (2007a) who point to the layers of organisations that form complex contexts for CoP.

James (2007) provides an analysis of CoP in the context of higher education. With reference to the prevalence of managerialism and the decline of collegial- ism she states that the inward focus of CoP does not match the realities of academics in higher education today. Traditionally, academics see themselves de- fined via their disciplinary communities and knowledge. While this connection is still strong, new forces linked to seeing education as commodity, new accountabil- ity and competition for students and resources, change how academic see their identity. The separation of research and teaching means that academics have to belong to separate CoP. The pressures to account for outcomes and the compe- tition between academics change the relationships within CoP. The trajectories of academics within and between communities can be complex and affect both individuals and communities.