Woke up early this morning full of ideas.I need to add a section on Discussion. The TMA went Findings -> Conclusions, bypassing Reflecting and Discussing. I am not happy at all with the conclusions I wrote. They were to "flow logically" from the findings, but how is that possible without contextualising the findings?
1 I have read a paper which inter alia discusses the overlap between the use of the terms 'practice' and 'participation' in CoP theory. (Handle et al. 2006). Sometimes it is practice as in the sense of 'practitioner' as in the Situated Learning cases of apprenticeship. Sometimes it is equate to any verb. In my TMA, i have used the first sense for my introduction and the second sense for my research. So in the introduction i talk about 'evaluators' as an example of practice. Whereas in the rest of the paper i see that as part of a 'domain of knowledge' and the practice as what people actually do. This is possibly because the 'practice' in the sense of being a "practitioner of jointly developing myself and other AWARD Alumni" is weird.
2. AWARD has a well articulated Theory of Change which attempts to identify critical change factors which are preconditions for a certain future
One precondition is that "a critical mass of women starts to self-organize, influence and lead". An alumni group can be seen as a sub-system supporting this. this precondition has been unpacked by AWARD as having preconditions of its own, which are a commitment to social change, advancement in studies and career, and taking up leadership positions. Each fellow has a road map which can be conceptualized as her own purposeful system aligned with the general movement. The strength of the model is its complexity and holistic nature and nested purposes. So each woman is on a dynamic trajectory comprising her purposeful activity within this framework AND in a relational dynamic with her community of academic practitioners AND a relational dynamic with her institute AND a relational dynamic with the structures of her country.
I am surprised I was surprised at the breadth of nested purposes expressed.
So, now what? Well, the paper Helen shared with me on seeing organizations as a dynamic and tangled web of nested goals (Vangen and Huxham 2011) is helpful for unpacking this some. it suggests that goals are multiple and can be characterised as being on dimensions of: level (network/individual), origin (internal/external), authenticity (genuine or pseudo), relevance (network-dependent or not), content (substantive or process), overtness (explicit or tacit or partially shared).
In terms of my research methodology, it means that the heuristic i chose to use is woefully simple as it implies 'One shared domain', one shared practice and one shared community - yes in a complex landscape of other interacting CoP but nonetheless as quite a simple system. It needs to be expanded to incorporate the fact that a CoP can include many concurrent complementary purposes at once.
Maybe a CoP heuristic is not helpful, not because of any failing of CoP theory, but because it is not helpful to think of this constellation as a CoP. it is a wicked constellation, a dynamic tangled web of nested goals, maybe seeing it as a CoP prematurely tames it (particularly given the wealth of literature that considers a CoP as a 'thing' to create, steward or nurture). Note here also the other paper Helen shared, which is by Robert Chia and distinguishes between a 'becoming' and a 'being' ontology. The latter sees things, structures, processes which can be managed, the former recognises that things are recognised as such in one photographic moment in a world of flux. So we may do well to consider our 'CoP' as a becoming towards the critical mass noted before.
Which brings me back to the name. Calling it a CoP reveals and conceals. One thing it conceals is the forward-looking, action-oriented, becomingness. This is accentuated by the word 'alumni'. Alumni implies backward looking, community has no sense of movement. However, 'alumni' is important for identity, meaning and social capital, so i suggest we leave that in for the time being. For the community part, how about we call it an "action network" (a la Steve Waddell) whose network theory will be discussed too? Vicki was concerned that the alumni might fix so much on the low level goals that the Dream level, WHY level goals get neglected. Maybe in the name we need to have a reminder of that too? Or will the name start to get silly then? How about...
AWARD alumni action network for rural women?