Communities of Practice and virtual learning communities: benefits, barriers and success factors by Pat Gannon-Leary, Northumbria University, UK & Elsa Fontainha, ISEG – Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal.
This article discusses the factors important to the development and maintenance of virtual communities of practice, or “network[s] of individuals who share a domain of interest about which they communicate online.” With the advent of Internet-based technologies the application of said technologies is widespread in areas of scholarship and learning and an examination of the benefits and barriers of forming communities around and through them is momentous. The authors emphasize the notion of practice in emerging virtual communities, and though their examples of reference in the present article are limited to online message boards, list-servs, and e-mail more generally, their points are worth considering.
The potential benefits of information communication technologies (ICTs) for learning is well known. Their ability to facilitate synchronous and asynchronous communication across geographical boundaries is probably the most oft cited benefit of their use. Through this compression of both time and space, diverse and expansive interest-based networks may form that exponentially increase the amount of knowledge present in a particular virtual community. This also increases the potential for collaboration and the harnessing of the group mind that is considerably more powerful than the solitary mind of the individual. In light of this, one of the most pressing questions has been: how do we harness this potential to create highly effective learning environments, whether in “formal” learning settings or among professionals?
Gannon-Leary and Fontainha pinpoint what I feel to be some very important areas of consideration in their discussion of virtual communities of practice. The least abstract, and perhaps most important, is simply access to and proficiency in the technology in question. As I’m sure many of you reading this are, I am frequently surprised by the differences in understanding and education when it comes to ICTs (access is a completely different issue since I live in a social field fortunate enough to have experience with more or less pervasive web and tech access – however, none of us should fool ourselves into believing this is how it is everywhere, even in our own cities). Moreover, this speaks to the larger issue of media literacy in our learning environments. I was fortunate enough to take a few classes in college in which media literacy was highlighted as an important skill. However, in my experience these classes are the exception, not the rule.
Building on this, once access and basic proficiency is established, the technology in question needs to be accepted as an effective and appropriate alternative to face-to-face (f2f) interaction, esp. when f2f interaction is difficult or impossible. The lack of para-language associated with physical interaction goes a long way in undermining the trust necessary in establishing community, virtual or physical.
This lack of physical interaction places more emphasis on the importance of alternative forms of communication. Continued interaction (i.e. practice) in establishing norms and values is necessary to help nourish and propagate the community. This also includes the importance of cross-cultural sensitivity. Since ICTs allow networks to form across international boundaries, interaction between individuals or groups of individuals from different ethnic backgrounds is common. Those interested in maintaining the integrity of their virtual communities should consider these differences and be open-minded enough to deal with collisions of cultural differences that may occur and be dedicated to reconciling them.
Next, some form of leadership is necessary in guiding the community. My opinion on this doesn’t quite correlate with Gannon-Leary and Fontainha as they seem to emphasize leadership as a (semi)permanent office, as in the position of a moderator on a message board. Not that I think moderators are completely unnecessary (nor completely necessary), but the fluidity of contemporary virtual communities lends itself to frequent changes in leadership. What I do think is equally important (as also mentioned by the authors) is a sense of purpose. They were perspicacious I feel in highlighting the importance of apprentice relationships that can form if a community is instilled with a sense of purpose and long-standing members are able to take leadership positions (if only temporarily) in order to assist in educating novices. If the community exists long enough, hopefully this relationship will prove cyclical and thus sustainable.
And finally, equally as important but more abstract, is identity. Combining the factors above an initiation process is created whereby the novice enters a community of practice and through her participation gains and contributes knowledge. Becoming and “feeling” like a member of the community, esp. if the community is enduring, is crucial in that it allows the novice to understand her surroundings by positioning her in a social field. In anthropology we talk about positional symbols which are symbols that gain meaning through their opposition, or more appropriately their relationship, with other symbols. Our identities may be understood as such. Not only is becoming a member of a virtual community of practice and developing knowledge and skills important in the identity formation of novices, but identity itself is important in becoming a member of the community and developing knowledge and skills. Both are propagated in a feedback relationship. Hence, in my opinion, the importance placed on providing profiles for users in social networks. But more specific to the current discussion, merely participating in a community of practice builds identity, and with each interaction members add new layers to how they are perceived and understood by other members.
The interaction of these factors recreates the notion of the Salon, a place of intellectual exchange where people can argue, discuss, and interact all in ways that facilitate knowledge transmission and production. Gannon-Leary and Fontainha point out that even if virtual communities do not forsee learning as their main objective, learning could be (and I argue is) generated as a side effect. I’m very hesitant to cite virtual communities or any sort of e-learning as a panacea for the shortcomings of learning and education. However, the present article of review emphasizes some areas of inquiry that I feel often go unnoticed. I’d like to continue the discussion and perhaps distill some (semi)concrete ideas on how to leverage the potential of virtual communities of practice. What are your thoughts? Am I being too optimistic? Should we forget about them and stick with traditional (offline) learning environments (i.e. lecture halls, classrooms, seminars, coffee shops)?
