Edited by Arwen Bailey, Saturday, 21 Jan 2012, 11:30
After four interviews (non transcribed just impressions)
the purpose (domain) is mainly very cohesive - to help poor farmers
the practice too is pretty cohesive - networking for project proposal development, discipline interactions, information about calls for grants, conferences, information about who is where when, helping younger women scientists, best practices regarding getting to women and farmers on the ground. conferences and f2f feature less.
It is not what i expected. I expected there to be more on the women's leadership and capacity building bit but this seems pretty secondary. I want to read again the networks book which identifies suitable network types for different needs. one reason i chose CoP is because CoP are good for capacity building. If the practice is not capacity building maybe another typology would be more helpful. Mind you, another reason for choosing CoP is because CoPs are about learning and learning seems to be very much part of practice
Community - quite a wide difference in boundaries of community suggested- from AWARD alumni only to the World. It may be linked to how they see community. Thinking about the types identified in lit review, one fellow seems to see it as an alumi community, the others more of a best practice, ideological or task based community. I need to read that again.
Competence - everyone is familar with email and they are in touch with others through email, facebook, linked in. My feeling but i don't know if it comes from them or my own bias is that they need to have the technology part as part of their daily interactions, not a place to visit.
Phase: varies - from non existent community to small existing active communities
Institutional form - of course it is between institutes the fellows work in different institutes and different countries. What surprises me is the amount of support from institutes that interviewees so far claim to have. So participation in this kind of community would be integrated in work day not extra.
emerging themes
After four interviews (non transcribed just impressions)
the purpose (domain) is mainly very cohesive - to help poor farmers
the practice too is pretty cohesive - networking for project proposal development, discipline interactions, information about calls for grants, conferences, information about who is where when, helping younger women scientists, best practices regarding getting to women and farmers on the ground. conferences and f2f feature less.
It is not what i expected. I expected there to be more on the women's leadership and capacity building bit but this seems pretty secondary. I want to read again the networks book which identifies suitable network types for different needs. one reason i chose CoP is because CoP are good for capacity building. If the practice is not capacity building maybe another typology would be more helpful. Mind you, another reason for choosing CoP is because CoPs are about learning and learning seems to be very much part of practice
Community - quite a wide difference in boundaries of community suggested- from AWARD alumni only to the World. It may be linked to how they see community. Thinking about the types identified in lit review, one fellow seems to see it as an alumi community, the others more of a best practice, ideological or task based community. I need to read that again.
Competence - everyone is familar with email and they are in touch with others through email, facebook, linked in. My feeling but i don't know if it comes from them or my own bias is that they need to have the technology part as part of their daily interactions, not a place to visit.
Phase: varies - from non existent community to small existing active communities
Institutional form - of course it is between institutes the fellows work in different institutes and different countries. What surprises me is the amount of support from institutes that interviewees so far claim to have. So participation in this kind of community would be integrated in work day not extra.