CUESTIONES GENERALES

3.1 INTRODUCTION:

This section will explore the contemporary research literature on Communities of Practice and the associated CoP-facilitated processes of Learning and Innovation. The literature review is aligned with the research goals and objectives of investigating, capturing and recording the formation of CoPs and the facilitated process of Innovation and Learning within the specified organizational context, i.e. IAS officers belonging to the Karnataka and West Bengal cadre. It is important to specify the literature review section covering learning is restricted to CoP-facilitated mechanism of learning, i.e. Situated Learning and the researcher does not cover the general broader scope of organizational learning

literature.

Similar fact holds true for the section covering innovation which is restricted to CoP- facilitated mechanism of innovation, i.e. CoInvs and the researcher does not cover the general broader scope of innovation literature. The researcher clearly has set the boundaries of the literature review with respect to the specific research goals and objectives.

3.2 CURRENT RESEARCH LITERATURE ON CoPs- ‘OMINOUS START’ : The phrase ‘Community of Practice’ has often been criticized as nebulous, filled with ambiguities and the related research literature is ‘still evolving’ and ‘hardly coherent’

(Handley, 2006; Lindkvist, 2005; Mutch,2003). There are varied and diverse existing descriptions and characterizations of the concept of CoPs (Handley, 2006; Lindkvist, 2005). The field of CoPs have been significantly shaped and developed by the works of Wenger along with a whole of host of researchers, some of the important and influential ones being Lave and Wenger(1991), Wenger(1998), Wenger et al (2002) and Wenger and Snyder (2000).

Most of the works on CoPs cite heavily the canonical works of Wenger (1991; 1998) which define the CoPs along a particular definition and the studies differ to the extent of the clarity of the definition (Cox,2005; Johnson, 2001). Researchers working on the

notion of CoPs incredibly cite the canonical texts of Wenger and there are serious

divergences within that body of literature leaving the definitions of CoP fluid and difficult to grasp and have been left vague (Cox, 2005; Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2004; Johnson, 2001; Fox 2000). CoPs have not been defined precisely leaving the room open for myriad interpretations and potential stretching of the concept beyond its possible capacity (Cox, 2005; Duguid, 2005; Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2004).

The idea has been applied as evident from the landscape of the research literature in a very varied fashion to widely differing contexts. Cox (2005) argues that this ambiguity in the concept of CoPs can be perceived as one of its strengths and might be responsible for its

‘longevity’ and ‘fecundity’ which allows it to be appropriated in different contexts.

Besides most of the research literature on CoPs is confined to the specific studies or the phenomenon under research (Johnson, 2001). This makes the literature review of most of the research work on CoPs rather contextual and more embedded within the research setting.

The broad conclusions which can be drawn from the preview:

1.0 Most of the current research works on CoPs rely heavily and cite incredibly only a few handful canonical texts which are primarily the early works of the conceptual pioneers of the CoPs like that of Jean Lave & Etienne Wenger(1991). Hence the scope of available research literature is confined to these few canonical texts.

2.0 There is no absolute clarity and structure in the definition of CoPs and the scope of application of that theoretical concept. The applications of the concept have been rather laissez-faire. Conceptual boundaries of CoPs have been very fluid in terms of application and interpretation.

3.0 Interpretations of the concepts of CoPs have been contextual pertaining to the context of the research being conducted.

Against this ominous and rather dispiriting background the researcher had to make a clear decision about the roadmap for conducting of the research and the literature review. The research literature landscape did not offer any assuring notion of a reliable ‘toolkit’ to conduct the research. Fundamental challenge which lay ahead for the researcher was to arrive at clear working definitions given the ambiguity of the concept of the CoPs, clarity in the application of the concept and the serious contextual considerations for application of the notion of CoPs in the research setting of IAS officers.

Here Cox(2005) came to the rescue of the researcher with his succinct categorizing of the four predominant concepts prevalent in the research literature on CoPs and provided direction for this research:

1.0 Situated Learning – Legitimate Peripheral Participation –Lave & Wenger(1991) 2.0 Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice: toward a unified view of

working, learning and innovation – Brown & Duguid (1991)

3.0 Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Innovation – Wenger(1998) 4.0 Cultivating Communities of Practice – Wenger, McDermott & Snyder(2002)

Based on the research goals and objectives the researcher adopted primarily the 2 concepts as enumerated below:

1.0 CoP-facilitated Learning – Situated Learning Lave & Wenger(1991) 2.0 CoP-facilitated Innovation – reviewing all the relevant works

The researcher adopted the objective of the literature review to develop a succinct working definition of CoPs, conceptual clarity with respect to the associated CoP- facilitated processes of learning and innovation and to develop a conceptual framework which will function as a ‘research tool-kit’ for conducting the research study.

The aim of the literature review based on the current research literature scenario on CoPs can be stated as below:

2.0 To arrive at succinct definitions of the concepts of the ‘Communities’ and ‘Practice’ as applicable in the Communities of Practice.

3.0 Develop a theoretical framework of CoP-facilitated mechanism of learning, i.e. the Situated Learning.

4.0 Develop a theoretical framework of CoP-facilitated mechanism of innovation i.e. CoInvs.

Hence the current literature review may not be exhaustive and comparative in terms of considering different versions of the CoPs prevalent in the contemporary research literature. The relative brevity of the literature review section can be attributed to the efforts being focused towards achieving the fundamental objective, which was to develop

a crystal clear ‘conceptual framework’ for conducting the research on CoPs. 3.3 INTRODUCTION - COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE:

As the ever expanding field of management literature attempts to address newer challenges of 21stcentury business world, one of the ideas which have been sweeping through the domains of management thinking in the recent past is Communities of

Practice. Communities of Practice is a concept which was pioneered by Lave and Wenger in their path-breaking work, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation

(1991), where the very idea of Communities of Practice was launched. The same year another significant work related to CoPs by Brown and Duguid in 1991, a paper titled

“Organizational learning and communities of practice” in Organizational Science was

published. In his work in 1991 Wenger identified Communities of Practice in the realm of organizational learning where the concept arose within the context of Situated Learning. Wenger has often been regarded as the ‘guru’ of the Communities of Practice and most of the other contemporary works has been influenced by him, and he stands as a benchmark setting the standards for all subsequent publications in the field of Communities of

Practice, some of which include Wenger, McDermott & Snyder (2002), Brown & Duguid (2001) and Lindkvist (2005).

Communities of Practice were promised to be the revolution in organizational theory, as a new organizational form which will galvanize and radically transform the process of knowledge sharing, learning and change (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). Initially,

but subsequently it has made an impact on Organizational Learning, Individual Learning and Knowledge Management.