This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Thompson, M. Search for Related Content

Structural and Epistemic Parameters in Communities of Practice

Judge Institute of Management, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1AG, United Kingdom

If communities of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991) are best understood as fluid social relations, enacted among a self-selected group of participants, then are they best left alone, free from "interference" by organizational managers and policymakers? Or are there ways in which organizations can provide helpful support to such communities, without constraining the delicate dynamic by which they are sustained?

This paper supports the latter position, arguing that organizations should sponsor the creation of certain loose organizational structures, around which it is hoped that communities of practice may then interact. However, some recent empirical research is presented suggesting that attempts to control group interaction by introducing too much structure are likely to result in the demise of the community itself. It is therefore proposed that there are lower and upper parameters for structural intervention in communities of practice.

It is suggested that such communities also have epistemic parameters, where participants’ willingness to express their ideas as conceptual boundary objects around which others may engage and develop ideas is a minimum requirement, but where too much inward communicative focus is likely to result in gradual loss of meaning, with a negative effect on the community. In developing this position, this paper attempts to deepen our theoretical understanding of the interrelationship between organizational structure and the epistemic activity of members of communities of practice. Several practical implications of these insights are discussed for organizations wishing to cultivate and maintain communities of practice within their own working environments.

Key Words: communities of practice; situated learning; organizational knowledge

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. D. Miller and S.-J. Lin Different Truths in Different Worlds Organization Science, January 1, 2010; 21(1): 97 - 114. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. Vaast and G. Walsham Trans-Situated Learning: Supporting a Network of Practice with an Information Infrastructure Information Systems Research, December 1, 2009; 20(4): 547 - 564. [Abstract] [PDF]

				U. M. Dholakia, V. Blazevic, C. Wiertz, and R. Algesheimer Communal Service Delivery: How Customers Benefit From Participation in Firm-Hosted Virtual P3 Communities Journal of Service Research, November 1, 2009; 12(2): 208 - 226. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Turner Networks of learning within the English wine industry J. Econ. Geogr., October 23, 2009; (2009) lbp053v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Storberg-Walker Wenger's Communities of Practice Revisited: A (Failed?) Exercise in Applied Communities of Practice Theory-Building Research Advances in Developing Human Resources, August 1, 2008; 10(4): 555 - 577. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Campbell-Hunt Complexity in practice Human Relations, May 1, 2007; 60(5): 793 - 823. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. Kuk Strategic Interaction and Knowledge Sharing in the KDE Developer Mailing List Management Science, July 1, 2006; 52(7): 1031 - 1042. [Abstract] [PDF]