Social learning and COPs: Sum-up

"What advantages and disadvantages CoPs might have over other ways of operating?"
(OU, 2010, p. 136).

"as Wenger (2010b) has discussed in Chapter 11, the concept of a community of practice is well aligned with the perspective of systems traditions" (OU, 2010, p. 137).

CoPs and systems traditions (as per Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, ch. 11);
"
Wenger distinguishes what he refers to as simple and complex social systems. He argues that a CoP can be viewed as a simple social system and a complex social system can be viewed as interrelated communities of practice. The use of ‘as’ rather than ‘is’ suggests that Wenger is seeing systems and ‘interrelated communities of practice’ as constructs. His reference to dynamics and active processes such as participation and reification, and the intertwined relationship between them, appears to be highly systemic. His thinking here is clearly contextual or systemic thinking.

Wenger’s two main viewpoints at the start of the chapter are of:
. a social systems view of learning, where he develops the case for a community of
practice as a social learning system, and
. a learning view on social systems – the case for communities of practice in social learning systems.

In presenting learning as the structuring of systems through landscapes of practice, Wenger uses many systemic concepts, such as boundaries and multiple levels and scales in relation to communities of practice which he is here conceptualising as systems (simple social systems) or as subsystems (in complex social systems). He also takes a critical view of the ideas of communities of practice, contextualising them in other discourses, which is also a systemic approach. His examples of learning citizenship at the end of the chapter could certainly be seen as emphasising dimensions of being, engaging, contextualising and managing practices.
"
(OU, 2010, pp. 172-173).

A landscape of practices; "Wenger ... elaborates his idea of a [dynamic] landscape of practices ... particularly concerned with what occurs at the boundaries" (OU, 2010, p. 139; cf. Wenger, in Blackmore, 2010, chs. 8, 11); "conceptualising ... practices as a landscape" (OU, 2010, p. 140).

"This kind of integration would come from the higher level awareness – i.e. the act of drawing a boundary around these diverse practices. In effect, understanding integration through systems thinking by moving up a system level and becoming aware of the connections", consider networks and practices (OU, 2010, p. 141); "to consider our communities and practices in relation to others", as a "journey" and "identity as trajectory, multi-membership" (OU, 2010, p. 141). "[Wenger] does however strike a note of caution about wasting time and effort in boundary interactions" (OU, 2010, p. 141)

-> identity trajectory 'questions'  (cf. OU, 2010, p. 142).

[This study] as "a landscape of social learning systems praxis" (OU, 2010, p. 142, referring to Blackmore, 2010, ch. 12: 'Social learning systems and communities of practice').

Themes

Refer: Blackmore, 2010, ch. 12.

(a) Choose (or add) themes

(b) Consider what questions arise for you concerning managing systemic change when you bring together the themes. 

i.e.

(c) consider boundary potentials

(OU, 2010, p. 143; cf. OU, 2010, pp. 179-180).

Relating ‘landscapes’ to each other;

(a) Compare and contrast a ‘landscape of practices’ in the way that Wenger uses it with ‘a landscape of social learning systems praxis’ used by Blackmore (2010).

(b) What larger landscapes might both of the landscapes you discussed in part (a) be a part of?

(cf. OU, 2010, p. 174) [play with category 'errors'].

Reflection

• Past, present and future practice?
• Which aspects of your current ways of interacting with others do you think might help or hinder you in influencing and responding to systemic change?
• Do you think (or not) you could influence and respond to systemic change more effectively through changing the way you interact with others? If so, how using social learning concepts?
• Review learning outcomes.

Type of interaction	Aspect [attribute] of interaction	Helps or hinders, and why	Future aspiration and how to change interactions or rationale for no change
Process A	...

Table to assess past, present and future interactions for managing systemic change (From OU, 2010, p. 145).

"Good luck!" (OU, 2010, p. 145).

Community of practice(s): Computing profession

...

Social learning notes

[Miscellaneous notes]

Managing change in complex, systemic situations, with uncertainty and the unpredictability of human activity, requires an interactive social learning approach (OU, 2010, pp. 99-100). A social learning system is a system with an “associated purpose of learning” (OU, 2010, p. 104). The aim is to create “learning systems” for “continuing transformation” (Schön, 1973, in Blackmore, 2010, p. xi). Learning is a “fundamentally social phenomenon” (Wenger, 1998, in Blackmore, 2010, p. xi). Also, learning fundamentally involves change (Bateson, 1972, in Blackmore, 2010, p. Xiii; OU, 2010, p. 100). It is “collective learning” (OU, 2010, p. 106), to “learn our way together” (Blackmore, 2010, p. 202). Ison (2010, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 204) characterises social learning as, inter alia, the “convergence of goals … co-creation of knowledge … [and] concerted action… the emergent property of the process to transform a situation”. A learning process, cybernetic-like (Blackmore, 2010, p. 1).

Bawden (1995, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 203-4) a learning system was proposed as:

• an organised group of people
• collaborating purposefully to achieve transformations and transactions
• with appreciation of their own integrity
• a sense of emergence
• consciousness of their shared processes, levels and states of learning
• as they design and create new and responsible futures together.

Later, expanded to emphasise;

• epistemological, ethical and emotional dimensions
• the significance of world­ views and messy issues.

(Blackmore, 2010, pp. 204).

Refer: themes in http://thebrentc.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/social-learning-traditions.html.

Diagramming:

• Influence diagram (cf. OU, 2010, p. 90, Appendix A) (Indicate stronger or weaker influences by changing the thickness of the arrows).
• Work out the likely effects or “unintended consequences” (Blackmore, 2010, p. xiii) of any interventions or factors, for example using sign graph diagrams (OU, 2010, pp. 101, 102-3, A.8).  

OU (2010, pp. 94-): There may be “opportunities and constraints” in the “practitioner–context relationship”; “pervasive institutional settings” that must be considered in application of systemic ideas: (i) target driven, (ii) projectification, (iii) wrong framing, (iv) emotionally lacking (Ison, 2010, ch. 9).

Refer: Ison (2010, p. 326): “Opportunities for cultivation”.

(Ison, 2010, p. 326: “Opportunities for cultivation”)

Look at the list of opportunities to be cultivated for enhancing systems practice that is

given in Chapter 13.5.2 of Systems Practice [above]. Nominate from this list the main

opportunities that apply to your own context. Add other opportunities that may not be

on this list.

Refer: Different conceptions of client, systems practitioner and owner (Ison, 2010, p. 166, referencing Checkland). Refer: Implications [and difficulties] for practice (Ison, 2010, pp. 181-3).

Refer: ambiguity/complexity: “muddle-through” management (Ison, 2010, p. 196); self-organising and emergent (Ison, 2010, p. 197).

Ethics and emotion.

Cf. Saint Obama (OU, 2010, 169): The emotionally aware systems practitioner.

Refer: Colvin et al, In search of systemic innovation for sustainable development: A design praxis emerging from a decade of social learning inquiry

Note: Effects [on COPs] of client/service nature and formal factors [if relevant] (Gobbi, 2009, in Blackmore, 2010, ch. 10).   

Tools e.g. wiki (Polin, 2008, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 168-)- collaborative [but more possible anonymity].

“In international development, cultivating horizontal communities of practice among local practitioners presents an attractive alternative to the traditional view of the vertical transmission of knowledge from north to south.” (Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 187).

Polin: Education, social and technical networking

Polin, L. G. (2008) 'Graduate Professional Education from a Community of Practice Perspective: The Role of Social and Technical Networking', in Blackmore (ed.) Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice, London, Springer, ch. 10. [dated?]

"Social computing applications enable the use of a COP model" (albeit "hybrid"/"blended") (Polin, 2008, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 163).

Refer social learning theory (Polin, 2008, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 164-165); "sociocultural""enculturation";

In a CoP, the community can be defined as a group of people:

"whose identities are defined in large part by the roles they play and relationships they share in that group activity. The community derives its cohesion from the joint construction of a culture of daily life built upon behavioral norms, routines, and rules, and from a sense of shared purpose. Community activity also precipitates shared artifacts and ideas that support group activity and individual sense-making. A community can be multigenerational; that is, it can exist over time in the comings and goings of individuals. In short, a community differs from a mere collection of people by the strength and depth of the culture it is able to estab­lish and which in turn supports group activity and cohesion" (Riel and Polin, 2004, p. 18).

From: (Polin, 2008, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 165).

- Locating learning in professional practice, with a COP discourse [praxis] (Polin, 2008, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 165-), with "cultural historical barriers" (Polin, 2008, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 167-).

"Online"
"Web 2.0" technologies, "potentially" can "create ... divide" [for example], but [still?] have an openness,  "freedom to construct", and may make communication etc. "easier".
-> a "hybrid" of face-to-face and online (learning).
(Polin, 2008, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 167-169).

but manage the "chaos" (Polin, 2008, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 171).

Choosing between tools that "explicitly" foster collaboration values and practice, "create new participation structures" versus "reifying" existing practices (Polin, 2008, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 169).

E.g. http://www.tappedin.org

E.g.s. chat text limits discourage dominating of the conversation (Polin, 2008, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 170), "constraints" [features?] in technologies that "push the engagement into dialogue" (Polin, 2008, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 171), asynchronous [vs. synchronous e.g. chat] (Polin, 2008, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 171-172), 'hacking' tools (for example making all users a teacher role in an education tool) (Polin, 2008, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 172), vs. podcasting [etc.] (Polin, 2008, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 173-174).

Reification and participation (aka Lave and Wenger, 1991, in Polin, 2008, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 175);

• "Healthy" community engagement and challenge, in "the practice, the knowledge base and the tool sets" (Polin, 2008, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 175).

- "The COP model as a design touchstone helps us make reasoned choices [technically]". 

(Polin, 2008, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 177).

Gobbi: Learning in the Workplace

Gobbi, M. (2009) 'Learning Nursing in the Workplace Community: The Generation of Professional Capital', in Blackmore (ed.) Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice, London, Springer, ch. 9.

Limits of power

"once identification with the fear of death is removed, exercise of power through violence becomes very problematic"

(Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 190).

Wenger, E. (2010) 'Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems: the Career
of a Concept', in Blackmore (ed.) Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice, London, Springer, ch. 11.

Africa!

"The Africa rising narrative can no longer be denied."
(African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results)

Environment-related links

Selected links around environmental and related issues (aka Lessons from the Australian Landcare Movement (Woodhill));

• http://www.permaculture.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/PDC-Outline.pdf
• http://www.gaiatheory.org
• https://transitionnetwork.org/about-the-movement/
• http://earthfirstjournal.org/about/ | http://earthfirst.org.uk/
• http://www.nsalg.org.uk/allotment-info/
• http://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca
• http://indymedia.org.au//keywords/aboriginal-sovereignty-movement
• https://landcareaustralia.org.au (cf. Woodhill, 2002, in Blackmore, 2010, ch. 4)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idle_No_More
• https://farmingforhealth.wordpress.com

Refer: Sustainability, Social Learning and the Democratic Imperative: Lessons from the Australian Landcare Movement (Woodhill, 2002, in Blackmore, 2010, ch. 4).

Community of practice: Resources

From OU, TU812, 2016.

• Communities of practice – a brief introduction (Wenger, 2006)
  '… what communities of practice are and why researchers and practitioners in so many different contexts find them useful as an approach to knowing and learning.' 
• Communities of Practice - The Knowledge Network
• how communities of practice form part of a broader knowledge network associated with health services.
• Farming for Health
  (International Community of Practice)
  International group of researchers and practitioners in the field of green care, health farms and other initiatives concerning special care in green environments.
• African Community of Practice on Managing for Development Results
  Promotes learning and knowledge exchange among practitioners and organisations.

Others:

...

Communities of practice: Wenger

Refer: COP Themes.

See also: Communities of practice – a brief introduction (Wenger et al., 2006).

'Our World as a Learning System'

From: Snyder, W. M. and Wenger, E. (2000) 'Our World as a Learning System: A Communities-of-Practice Approach', in Blackmore (ed.) Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice, London, Springer, ch. 7. (T1, T2, T3)

"think globally and act locally"; local civic engagement with active stewardship at national and international levels" (Snyder and Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 108).

Design Requirements for a World Learning System (T1, T2, T3):

1. action-learning capacity [praxis]
2. cross-boundary participation
3. cross-level linkages

(Snyder and Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 108-)

"focus on the underlying learning capacity" (Snyder and Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 109).

Cultivating learning systems (Snyder and Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 109-):
Depends on "professional identity", "informal learning" and "collegial relationships"

"A community's effectiveness as a social learning system depends on its strength in all three structural dimensions"; domain passion (with sufficient "specificity", aka Snyder and Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 116), community quality, diversity and leadership (i.e. coordination and core group) and practice, from framework to methods (Snyder and Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 110) (T1, T2).

Varied dimensions of activities, "instrumental" and facilitating "presence" in members' lives (Snyder and Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 110) (T2).

i.e.;

1. complement formal structures
2. voluntary; based on passion
3. self-governing
4. (but can be organisationally "cultivated", but with an "evolutionary design process", a "two-system" result).

(Snyder and Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 110-2) (T1, T2).

For example, "the city", "re-imagined as a learning system, consists of a constellation of cross-sector groups that provide stewardship for the whole round of civic domains", feeding into higher-level practice, "fractal"-like (Snyder and Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 114); "coalescing communities of practice ... the foundation for building relationships, generating ideas, and catalysing business initiatives", growing from "networking" and "personal" development to "promote" and "knowledge transfer" (Snyder and Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 115) (T1).

Strong stewardship of civic issues ... depends on vital communities of practice"; "networking", "professional development", "shared know-how" and "advocating" (Snyder and Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 115).

Key factors / strengths; coordination, peer-to-peer learning and cross-collaboration (Snyder and Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 118)

'Process' (cf. Ayuda Urbana, Snyder and Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 119) (T1, T2);

1. Initial development of relationships and trust, face-to-face.
2. Participants share experiences.
3. Participant discussion.
4. Prioritise issues.
5. Work out tools e.g. web-based.
6. Choose coordinator.

This highlights the "importance of a skilled convener who is committed to a community-based practice approach" (Snyder and Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 120) (T1, T2).

The Fractal Structure of Large-Scale Learning Systems:

For scale;
"The principle to apply is that of a fractal structure (see Gleich, 1987; Wheatley, 1994). In such a structure, each level of substructure shares the char­acteristics of the other levels. Applying such a design principle, it is possible to preserve a small-community feeling while extending a system from the local to the international level." ... "The idea is to grow a ‘community of communities’ in which each level of sub-communities shares basic characteristics: focal issues, values, and a practice repertoire. " (Snyder and Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 120) (T1,T2,T3)

"The key insight of a fractal structure is that crucial features of communities of practice can be maintained no matter how many participants join – as long as the basic configuration, organising principles, and opportunities for local engagement are the same. "

• exponential advantages of scale
• but at the"time-scale of social relationships"; "be careful not to scale up too fast", build "trust and shared values"

(Snyder and Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 121) (T1)
i.e. "advantage of ... evolutionary" (Snyder and Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 123) (T1)

Each dimension of COP "provides opportunities for the constitution of a fractal learning system";
fractal domain sub-division, multimembership in fractal communities; "local intimacy" but interconnected; trust networks., fractal practice with "shared repertoire" of "overall learning system" but with local adaptation.
(Snyder and Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 120-1) (T1, T2, T3)

Challenges for civic learning systems: sponsorship [resourcing?], process [and admin] support, conflict resolution and collaborative inquiry (conflict and power issues), [and] need for COP framework (a "discipline of world design"), with meta-communities of practice. This is about a "transformation of civic consciousness". Also, "remaining on a learning edge", requiring COP and individual dynamics (cf. (Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 182).
(Snyder and Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 122-3) (T1, T3)

Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems

From: Wenger, E. (2010) 'Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems: the Career

of a Concept', in Blackmore (ed.) Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice, London, Springer, ch. 11. (T1, T2)

A Social Systems View on Learning: Communities of Practice as Social Learning Systems, exhibiting "characteristics of systems", a "social structure" of "participation" and "artefacts" (Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 179-).

Learning as the production of social structure: A "practice is ... produced over time by those who engage in it, regardless of constraints or functionality, a practice "has a life of its own"- it "cannot be subsumed by a design", i.e. "the property of the community" (Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 180-181).
-balanced by-
Learning as the production of identity
(Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 181-182)

A Learning View on Social Systems: Communities of Practice in (larger) Social Learning Systems
(Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 182-).

Learning as the Structuring of Systems: Landscapes of Practice
"Boundaries are interesting places"; "boundary processes require careful management"
"There is therefore a profound paradox as the heart of learning in  system of practices: the learning and innovative potential of the whole system lies in the coexistence of [local] [and individual, aka Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 181] depth within practices and active boundaries across practices."
(Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 182-4).

Modes of Identification: engagement, imagination, alignment.
(Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 184-185).

Identity in a Landscape of Practices
"Learning can be viewed as a journey through landscapes of practices. Through engagement, but also imagination and alignment, our identities come to reflect the landscape in which we live and our experience of it. Identity itself becomes a system, as it were."
(Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 185).

• Identity is a trajectory
• Identity is a nexus of multimembership
• Identity is multi-scale

(Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 185).

"Through learning,  ... communities [etc] ... become part of who we are. Identities become personalised reflections of the landscape of prac­tices. Participation in social systems is ... the constitutive texture of an experience of the self."

(Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 186).

"identity is both collective and individual" (Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 186).

Knowledgeability as the (complex) Modulation of Accountability (among multiple contexts)

Identification is ... negotiating and something others do to us. Sometimes the result is an experience of participa­tion; sometimes of non-participation." (Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 186).

"The regime of competence of a community of practice translates into a regime of accountability", that is "hard work", a "dance of the self' (Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 186-7).

i.e. "a constant interplay between practices and identities" (Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 187).

Critiques

(Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 188-).

What about Power? Conflict and context? 
Economies of Meaning: The "definition of the regime of account­ability and ... claim[s] to competence", 'invisible' power forms, and power through "reification", identification opens "vulnerability" to power, power in learning theory; inherently political; "local production implies a notion of agency in the negotiation of meaning, which even the most effective power cannot fully subsume"; the "optimistic" "crack of agency in the concrete of social structure", power as learned relations.
(Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 188-191).

Anachronistic? v. network? 
v. the needs of "modern", "dynamic structures".
Network and community as "complementary"; "identity" and "connectivity".

(Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 191-2).

A Co-opted Concept: On the Instrumental Slippery Slope?

The danger of "design intention" vs. grassroots, to be "more effective" but without "profound transformation". 

(Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 192).

"Good in theory, but difficult to apply in practice" (within traditional hierarchical organisation)

(Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 192-3).

See also: Gobbi (2009) "Professional practice" as (ontologically and epistemologically) different., "society" and "leadership". Note: Effects [on COPs] of client/service structure and formal factors [if relevant] (Gobbi, 2009, in Blackmore, 2010, ch. 10).

Towards a Social Discipline of Learning

(Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 193-).

Practice: Learning Partnerships

• "The concept of community of practice is a good place to start exploring a social dis­cipline of learning."; "simple"
• The disciplines of domain, community, practice and convening.
• There may be harmony or conflict, but overall "trust in the learning capability of a partnership".

(Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 193-194).

Learning Governance: Stewardship and Emergence

• Stewarding [directed] governance.
• Emergent [from "distributed"] governance.

(Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 194-195).

Power: [Both] Vertical and Horizontal Accountability: 

Complementary advantages and disadvantages.

Transversality processes and roles: the ability to increase the visibility and integration between vertical and horizontal structures. 

(cf. Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 195-196).

Identity: Learning Citizenship: managing memberships, brokering boundaries, convening, connecting others, facilitating transversal connections

- "challenging us to see ourselves as the learning contribution we have to offer"

(Wenger, 2010, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 196-197).

Conceptual Tools for CoPs

From: Wenger, E. (1998/2000) 'Conceptual Tools for CoPs as Social Learning Systems: Boundaries, Identity, Trajectories and Participation', in Blackmore (ed.) Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice, London, Springer, ch. 8.

Fluid boundaries, connect communities, learning at boundaries, experience and competence in tension (Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 125-127)

Dimensions of boundary effects; Coordination, Transparency, Negotiability (Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 127).

"Bridges across boundaries" (Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 127-130); brokering, boundary objects (artefacts, discourse language, processes), boundary interactions (encounters, boundary practices specialisations and peripheries).

-> Cross-Disciplinary Projects (Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 130-).

-> Landscape(s) of Practice; practice as “informal” i.e. “organic” (vs. institutional boundaries), Boundaries vs. Peripheries (Wenger, 1998, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 130-).

("Ongoing", temporal") Identity in Practice: as negotiated experience, as community membership, as learning trajectory, as nexus of multimembership, as a relation between the local and the global (Wenger, 1998, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 133-134); cf. “Reconciliation” (of engaging, accountability and repertoire) of "Nexus of Multimembership" (Wenger, 1998, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 137-); a "weaving" (Wenger, 1998, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 139)

-> (negotiated) "Paradigmatic Trajectories" (for identity), including the "history", "people" and the "story" /"narrative" (Wenger, 1998, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 135-) -> Generational Encounters (Wenger, 1998, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 136-).

Social Bridges and Private Selves;
"Multimembership is the living experience of boundaries. This creates a dual rela­ tion between identities and the landscape of practice: they reflect each other and they shape each other. In weaving multiple trajectories together..."; "Even though each element of the nexus may belong to a community, the nexus itself may not. The careful weaving of this nexus of multimembership into an identity can therefore be a very private achievement."

(Wenger, 1998, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 139).

See: Participation and Non-participation; peripherality and marginality (Wenger, 1998, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 140-);

(From Wenger, 1998, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 142).

"For communities of practice, it requires a balance between core and boundary processes," (Wenger, 2000, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 142).

References / readings

Snyder, W. M. and Wenger, E. (2000) 'Our World as a Learning System: A Communities-of-Practice Approach', in Blackmore (ed.) Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice, London, Springer, ch. 7. (T1, T2, T3)

Wenger, E. (1998/2000) 'Conceptual Tools for CoPs as Social Learning Systems: Boundaries, Identity, Trajectories and Participation', in Blackmore (ed.) Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice, London, Springer, ch. 8.

Wenger, E. (2010) 'Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems: the Career
of a Concept', in Blackmore (ed.) Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice, London, Springer, ch. 11. (T1, T2)

Communities of practice

"...shared concern, improving practice and with social learning ... developing and improving their practice in a particular domain and .. look to other people of like mind, interests or similar experience and adopt a principle of mutual support"
(facilitated beyond geography by the "development of information and communications technologies")
(a counter to the shift to a more variable working context; support through change)

(OU, 2010, pp. 123-124).

"in response to complexity, needs for different kinds of support have arisen- social, professional and personal" (Blackmore, 2010, p. 103).

"The focus of a COP is not on the organisation, but on practice"
(OU, 2010, p. 124).

"COPs are everywhere" (Wenger, 1998, in OU, 2010, p. 125).

"Community" and "network" as two types of "structuring processes"; "Community emphasises identity and network emphasises connectivity. The two usually coexist." (Wenger, 2010, in OU, 2010, p. 126).

How do COPs relate to social learning and social learning systems?

Learning as practice: Learning as social phenomenon and "practice-based"; "learning and knowing manifest in processes of co-participation in a situation" (Wenger, in OU, 2010, p. 126).

Practice is seen as "a way of talking about the shared historical and social resources, frameworks and perspectives that can sustain mutual engagement in action"; doing in "historical and social context"; "practice is always social practice" (Wenger, 1998, in OU, 2010, p. 127).

i.e. learning as practice and practice as learning.

Three dimensions of a COP;

1. Domain
2. Community
3. Practice

(Snyder and Wenger, 2010, in OU, 2010, p. 127).

exa

Cf. Other types of groups and communities (OU, 2010, p. 129).

Consider: "what advantages and disadvantages might they have for learning and managing change in your situations of concern, when compared with other ways of operating (as in OU, 2010, p. 128-129)?

Questions:

• whether and how CoPs can be purposefully created 
• how we can know if they are functioning well in relation to managing systemic change  

(OU, 2010, p. 129).

Wenger's four components for a social theory of learning;

• community (learning as belonging), 
• practice (learning as doing), 
• identity (learning as becoming)
• meaning (learning as experience). 

(Wenger, 1998, in OU, 2010, p. 133).

Wenger's fundamental dualities (processes or dimensions of design for learning);

• participation versus reification, 
• designed versus emergent, 
• identification versus negotiability 
• local versus global 

(Wenger, 1998, in OU, 2010, p. 133).

An inquiry into Cops;

• examples of COPs
• others' experiences of COPs
• own experiences of COPs
• Critical appreciation of COP theory and concepts for managing systemic change
• exploring COPs resources
• theme(s) for deeper study
• Reflecting on COPs
• Conducting the inquiry

(OU, 2010, pp. 129-).

"build up a critical appreciation of the CoPs theory and concepts through relating them to your own and other people’s experiences. You need to be able to recognise strengths and limitations of using such theory in particular contexts and in your own use of it. "; "Developing your understanding of CoPs theory and practice for the purpose of managing systemic change in your situation(s) of concern will be part of the virtuous cycle of systemic inquiry" 
(OU, 2010, p. 132).

(OU, 2010, pp. 133-134, referring to Blackmore, 2010, Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice, Springer, London).

Choosing a theme for more in-depth study

• Design for social learning as a system (chs. 7, 10, 11) [T1].
• Developing and managing relationships with other stakeholders in your situations of concern (chs. 7,9,10,11) [T2].
• Using a CoPs model and CoPs tools for improving a problematic situation (chs. 7,10) [T3].
• [Other?]

(cf. OU, 2010, pp. 135-136).

"... it is now time to get on with it."

(OU, 2010, p. 136).

'Implementing' critical social learning systems

a) Explain, using examples. See: Bawden, 2009, 'The nature of critical social learning systems', in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 94-95).
b) Develop a learning community, "facilitating institutional design of the kind that would lead to social learning".
c) Critique, for example;

• Bawden’s ‘checklist’ of systems characteristics at the end of Chapter 3.
• Woodhill’s eight principles for facilitating institutional design (Chapter 4). 
• Ison’s Table 5.2 (of two independent sets of design considerations for the design of learning systems).

"Engaging with a range of perspectives besides your own is an important part of systems practice, particularly in this context of social learning systems, where you need to think critically about the kind of interactions that lead to social learning for managing systemic change."

Note: Focus on community, cf. Communities of practice.

The case for CSLS;

"Criticality" is vital;

• the condition
• own structure and functions
• boundary judgements
  (Bawden, 2009, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 95, 94).

There is a strong theme of critique of the status quo [with perhaps questionable offerings for concrete solutions] - a "lot of 'why?' questions (OU, 2010, pp. 122-123).

(OU, 2010, pp. 121-123).

[The factors for 'best-practice' argued for- are these able to be 'created' or must they be (somehow) already developed or existing', for example willingness to dialogue?]

• 
  

Ison on social learning

From Ison, 2005, in Blackmore, 2010, ch. 5.

• A second-order R&D in which the researcher is "part of the interactions being studied" (p. 75), with "associated social learning practices of reflection, systems orientation and negotiation with self and others" (p. 75).
• "Responsibility replaces objectivity as the central ethic" (p. 75).
• Taking account of our "tradition"; the "history of our being in the world" (pp. 75-7).
• An "interactive, second-order approach";
• Emphasises "social learning as an emergent property of collaboration", with "stakeholders" as "intelligent, responsibile, [learning] agents" (p. 78).
• "For social learning to develop, stakeholders must develop shared platforms for decision making and action" (p. 78).
• Policy implications [systemic shift] (p. 78).
• Refer: "Living in language", "the role of metaphor" and "(fostering) dialogue" (in "conflict") (pp. 79-82). Refer also: six-step process for practitioner-facilitator metaphor working (McClintock, 1996, pp. 80-81).

Figure: A model of implementing soft systems methodology (SSM) (from Ison, 2005, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 76).


Figure: Design considerations [using an example project] (from Ison, 2005, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 85).

Lessons from the Australian Landcare Movement (Woodhill)

From 'Sustainability, Social Learning and the Democratic Imperative: Lessons from the Australian Landcare Movement' (Woodhill, 2002, in Blackmore, 2010, ch. 4):

• “Local level community action with an emphasis on stakeholder participation and empowerment” (Woodhill, 2002, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 58).
• “Deeper structural causes” (Woodhill, 2002, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 58).
• From the “technocentric” to a progressive-but-limited “localism” “era” on to “institutionalist” era, engaging with “meso- and macro-scales” (Woodhill, 2002, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 59).
• “Risk society”; modernised society has become reflexive, a manufactured environment of its “own internal risks” (Woodhill, 2002, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 59-), leading to a “democratic imperative” for radical, participatory, localised democracy (not satisfied by existing ideologies) [?] ...  (cf. Woodhill, 2002, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 60-61).
• Social learning: local, community participation building to wider involvement;

(Woodhill, 2002, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 62).


(cf. Woodhill, 2002, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 63-64).

• The "dangerous" idea of the ultimacy of the "fate of the market" (Woodhill, 2002, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 63).

Elements of a paradigm of social learning;

1. Philosophical reflection
2. Methodological pluralism
3. Institutional design and social practices

(Woodhill, 2002, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 64-).

Eight principles for facilitating institutional design;

1. Self-organisation
2. Cultivation of Social Capital
3. Facilitated Coordination
4. Institutional Diversity
5. Local – Global Dialectics
6. Multi-layered Democratic Participation
7. Autonomous and Integrative Knowledge Systems
8. Meta-Reflexiveness

(Woodhill, 2002, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 67-).

See: Environment-related links.

 

The Hawkesbury model: critical social learning systems

At Hawkesburg College in Australia, Bawden et al. explored rural issues experientially while studying these theoretically, in parallel.  This is an example of praxis, and developed the critical social learning tradition (CSLS). They "synthesised many systems-related ideas", demonstrating a multi-perspective approach (Blackmore, 2010, p. 35).

Key characteristics of the Hawkesbury tradition;

• "Essentially", a systemic approach (Bawden, 2009, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 39).
  (see also “deeper structural causes”, Woodhill, 2002, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 58).
• An explicit epistemology; valuing different kinds of knowledge and ways of knowing
• An ethical dimension, based on a critical focus (cf. critical theory)
• Systemic praxis; systemic being
  (Blackmore, 2010, p. 36).
• [and] "wholeness" and "complex messiness"; holistic "systemic well-being" (Blackmore, 2010, p. 97); including "wholeness through 'tensions of difference'" (Blackmore, 2010, p. 41).
• [and] "self-referential"; a learning process that appreciates itself (as well as the matter at hand); the "systemic development of systemic development" ((Bawden, 1999, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 43, 40).
• [and] "meaning as an emergent property"; from the interactions of different ways of knowing / processes of learning (Bawden, 1999, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 44-)
• [and] emphasis on social or collective learning (Bawden, 2009, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 89).
• [and] self-transformation (of our worldviews, our "epistemes" aka Foucalt) (cf. Bawden, 2009, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 95-); self-critical ability (Bawden, 2009, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 93).
• development of "systemic competencies" (Bawden, 1999, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 91); 

Key themes: learning and social.

" ... active participation in ...  learning communities, and critical reflection upon those engagements ... to see the world differently ..." (Bawden, 1999, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 39-40).

" ... facilitate the transformation of communities into learning systems .. self-referential [to] learn about their own learning." (Bawden, 1999, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 43).

The "facilitation of worldview transformation ...  for the development of systemic competencies" (Bawden, 1999, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 92).

The integrated critical learning system;

(Bawden, 1999, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 53)

Factors to consider ("çf systems' characteristics");


(Bawden, 1999, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 54)

Beliefs / tenets;


(Bawden, 2009, in Blackmore, 2010, pp. 89-90)

Three-level model;
- cognition
- meta-learning
- epistemic learning
(Bawden, 2009, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 92)

A CSLS concerns;
(i) the issue
(ii) its own "integrity and functions"
(iii) its relationship with its environment
i.e. including also "meta" and "epistemic" learning (Bawden, 2009, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 94).

Epistemic differences are most challenging to group consensus and coherence (Bawden, 2009, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 95).

"Criticality" of a CSLS includes;
- the issues at concern
- itself (reflexivity)
- its boundary judgements
- its position as sub-system within environment
- its levels of learning, meta-learning and epistemic learning
(Bawden, 2009, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 95)

Foundational decisions led to the Critical Social Learning System;

• Education should be placed in the broader concept of inclusive well-being.
• The essential pedagogy needs to embrace personal and shared experience for learning and development.
• To embrace and develop the system sciences as conceptual core.

(Bawden, 2009, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 99)

The appreciative world..

.. how we know our world, combining both perceived facts and values, especially mediated by social communication.
(Vickers, in Blackmore, 2010, ch. 2).

An appreciative system is the "iterative and reflexive process" of appreciating the (a) facts and (b) values concerning a combination of events and ideas [a situation] (see figure below).
(Blackmore, 2010, p. 96-7).


Figure: Appreciative system (based on Checkland and Cesar, in Blackmore, 2010, p. 21, as developed in OU, 2010, p. 112)

The appreciative setting is a state of an appreciative system, in time, or focus (readiness-to-see, readiness-to-value or readiness-to-do) (cf. OU, 2010, p. 171).

Cult[ure]

There is 'cult' in 'culture' easy to overlook (F. Brooks, 2017)