MODELO BOTTOM-UP

There is a whole plethora of literature on Communities of Practice in management academia and the definitions of Communities of Practice is very diverse, with

interpretations made according to the specific context and organization. Most importantly the academic literature is evolving and still there are several contesting definitions on what exactly is Community of Practice (Lindkvist 2006). For the purposes of this research work it is important to identify and adopt some relevant definitions which will play a crucial ontological role in clarifying the exact nature of Community of Practice, and this will allow this specific research work to build upon that foundation. This is important since when the researcher is looking for a community of practice within an organization, in this case the Indian Administrative Service, he will know exactly what characteristics to look for in identifying a Community of Practice.

According to Lave and Wenger (1991, p. 98):

“an activity system about which participants share understandings concerning what they

are doing and what that means in their lives and for their community. Thus they are united in both action and in the meaning that that action has, both for themselves and for the

larger collective”. The above definition will be the ‘guiding light’ of this research work

since it captures all the essential ingredients of a Community of Practice distilled from all the current definitions and understandings of the concept. It is worth being emphatic that the attributes of shared passion, meaning, understanding or a repertoire is not good enough, but a Community of Practice needs to be engaged as part of a broader activity system.

The interpretation of the ‘activity system’ within Communities of Practice according to

the researcher is that one where the individuals through their active participation ensure movement, progress for enriched domain knowledge and not executing mere routine tasks and responsibilities. Domain in a Community of Practice being defined as common knowledge shared amongst the members. In case of this particular research it would be matters and issues relating to Indian public administration. ‘Community of Practice is

about ‘something’ and not just a set of relationships’(Wenger, McDermott & Snyder,

2002). Collective and individual are gently and nicely blended through shared Meaning and Practice (what that means in their lives and for the community).

According to (Lindkvist, 2005, p. 1191):

‘CoPs as tightly knit groups that have been practicing long enough to develop into a

cohesive community with relationships of mutuality and shared understandings’. One of the lacunae of the above definition is the emphasis on practice as the source of

‘cohesiveness’ and ‘mutuality’ without any clarity as to what is meant by that except for a

abstract feeling. How do a group of individuals feel that kind of cohesiveness in the first place? Shared identity is stated by other scholars like Assimakopoulos and Yan (2005), who argue that the common practice of a community gives them ‘a knowledge domain, a shared identity and cohesiveness to sustain interactions over time’. Wenger does dwell extensively on the identity in very broad aspects of community and participation touching upon both the collective and individual (Wenger 1998).

This particular research work wishes to explore this conundrum of the source of mutuality and cohesiveness within the Community of Practice, a hidden community or a shared practice. Do people who practice long enough necessarily form a Community of Practice with its very important shared meanings and understandings? Shared practice alone will

not create ‘cohesiveness’ but need to posses more the deeper and complex realities of

shared meaning and identity (Wenger,1998; Lindkvist, 2005; Handley et al., 2006).

According to Brown and Duguid (1991) & Brown and Duguid (2001):

“CoPs emerge among people who have a mutual engagement in a joint practice around

which they share a common repertoire of knowledge. CoPs are places where problem

identification, learning and knowledge creation can take place”.

This definition focuses on the practice part of the CoPs, defining the dynamics of the Communities of Practice which are learning, knowledge creation and problem identification.

To summarize from the working definitions as to what defines Community of Practice.

COMMUNITY Shared understanding, shared meaning,

shared identity (Wenger et al.)

PRACTICE Specific knowledge creation, Learning,

Innovation

Table 4 – Elements of Communities of Practice – developed by the researcher

This research work will explore the community along the dimensions of meaning, identity and understanding, while the practice along the dimensions of individual and collective learning and innovation. A very important research objective remains to ‘see’ and ‘spot’ the latent Communities of Practice within the studied organization. (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002).

The characteristics of communities of practice

Key characteristics of a community of practice

• Sustained mutual relationships – harmonious or conflictual • Shared ways of engaging in doing things together

• The rapid flow of information and propagation of innovation

• Absence of introductory preambles, as if conversations and interactions were merely the

continuation of an ongoing process

• Very quick setup of a problem to be discussed

• Substantial overlap in participants’ descriptions of who belongs

• Knowing what others know, what they can do, and how they can contribute to an

enterprise

• Mutually defining identities

• The ability to assess the appropriateness of actions and products • Specific tools, representations, and other artifacts

• Local lore, shared stories, inside jokes, knowing laughter

• Jargon and shortcuts to communication as well as the ease of producing new ones • Certain styles recognized as displaying membership

• A shared discourse reflecting a certain perspective on the world