The purpose/domain/enterprise is there in spades, but at different levels which we might like to see as subsystems in a larger subsystem and that really is what the last blog post was about. The domain as empowerment of women in African agriculture.
The community is there in quite a lot of ways. Identity and meaning (reread the original Wenger 98). The feeling of being an AWARD Fellow, even when you are not doing anything. But the actual linkages and networks are fragmented and incomplete so they need building up.
Practice. This is what is patchy. When fellows were in the fellowship they knew what their practice was - it was building their capacity and leadership skills. Now they are a little unfocused and confused. They have some shared repertoire of skills and experiences: like the MOWs, and road maps and so on. But they need some tasks, objectives, a rhythm (see Wenger and Snyder again for this bit and maybe Dube)
The institutional context is pretty much what we knew: inter-institutional, low bandwith, little time.
Phase: it is in a phase that it reached a peak in the fellowship and now it is faling off. almost like starting anew except that the identity and meaning are already very strong.
CoP competence: noone met so far seems to have the convening capacity needed to facilitate the CoP. This will need to be built up strategically
I have to confess that the last three bore me. I think i included them in my initial analysis post lit review as i found the CoP literature kind of generic. But once i have applied it to a real situation it no longer seems generic, but really quite useful. These latter three parts are kind of more of interest to work than this study. Oh. I just remembered that the study is to look at the alumni through a CoP lens to sustain the positive effects of AWARD. So they are relevant to my research question. They are just less interesting to ME. I like the patterny theory bits.I am a Myers Briggs ENFJ - you know. Those nitty gritty details just don't do it for me like a good theoretical framework does.
Comments
New comment
Arwen, some random thoughts really, as I do not fully appreciate your situation. Are you conceptualising one CoP or a nest of CoPs? What are the enthusiasms your respondents have? Can people with similar enthusiasms operate joint inquiries as part of a meta inquiry?
What is needed to mediate enthusiasm?
The things you say you are ot interested in seem noen-the-less important. Who is, or could be interested in these?
Sorry if these points miss the mark
Ray
New comment
I had a look at your two blogs from this morning. There were a few things that struck me when I was reading them and mulling over afterwards....
1) You seem to be identifying issues at different levels - the level of your individual participant(s); the level of the 'nascent' community/group; the level of the enabling context (in part the responsibility of AWARD). All three of those 'levels' need to interact in order to create successful 'alumni CoP'. What I was thinking was is that these factors don't exist at a point in time, they each have a history too (B and M-ball) - for example, I was struck about your comment about the lack of 'convenor' skills at the moment and was suprised that the main AWARD programme had not developed those skills. This seems to be as much about the main AWARD fellowship prog and how it is conducted in a way that promotes 'sustainable' interaction/development as it is about what it puts in place for the 'ex-Fellows'.
2) I liked your reflection about where individuals are and what is motivating them. It seems you are immediately looking for some 'orienting concepts/frameworks' to help dig into that some more and shape your thinking about it. You and I are so much alike in that respect - go from that 'detail' to a 'shape/framework'. I wonder though at what point it is a 'limitation' to bring in other people's ways of explaining things too early on. I think there is a tension there that we both have to learn to balance.
3) I think it is interesting that you find the organisational aspects the 'least interesting' - for me I get fascinated about the 'enabling context' layer - what is it that constrains or enables.... I think that interest has come in part from our student experiences on TU811/2 compared to all the other modules. This is not about procedures or tools or software - it is about 'creating the conditions' where successful CoPs are more likely. (hence I suppose the reflection above that the conditions at a point in time are a product of their history too).
Hope these thoughts help
Helen
comment from Janet
adding this comment from my tutor here to keep everything together:
Great to hear some things are popping out.
Managed to have a quick look at your blog - my observation is not about your findings to date, but regarding your "feeling" of "boredom".
My observation is "If you know what bored looks like, you must also know what 'un-bored' looks like. The choice of what to do lies with you."
reflections on Ray
Ray - Yes, I fear the problem with this blog is it is upside down. Two blog posts ago there was the scene-setting post, and now I am getting into a bit more detail. So, if the defining factor of a CoP is its purpose/domain/enterprise/passion, then the comments from fellows seem to fall into these clusters here:
There may be melding and splitting to be done here; this is the second iteration. These are pretty hierarchical in the sense that it is difficult to make a difference at policy level till you have a certain level of credibility, visibility and academic level. However all these clustered enthusiasms are more or less aligned with the goal of improving the African ARD landscape through more attention to women.
You ask "can people with similar enthusiasms operate joint inquiries as part of that"? I guess that is the whole point. Can they? I think so. The enthusiasms are quite passionate. I think the trick will be to find a useful online space.
The things that bore me are the things that I suspected already and were confirmed. That is the level on which they bore me - on an academic level, not their actual implementation. Whereas the rich landscape of enthusiasms is fascinating.
reflections on Helen
helen - thank you. I like the image in my head now with these three interaction trajectories: the fellows, the community and the environment.That relational dynamic will be very interesting. For example some fellows really see the mother program as part of the community, and others strongly see it as part of the environment.
What do you see as convenor skills? I was thinking about a competence in 'stewarding technology for communities' as Wenger, Smith and White put it. Is that what you mean too? fellows develop their networking and advocacy skills as individuals. I see those as kind of external looking, whereas i think we need something a bit more internal looking, building those internal interactions in order to interact with the environment as a group.
about looking for orienting concepts- they just came into my head. I wasn't looking. Honest! As i am clustering the passions of the fellows, these ideas from my past reading came into my head so i thought i should get them down somewhere. But yes, of course you are right. the N in me loves a pattern, and my J pushes for early closure. So point taken. I will try to resist (a bit).
The bit about the organizational aspects, i mentioned in my reflections on Ray. The aspects i was exploring in this study were predictable. I just covered them so as to check they were what i expected and not just my assumptions. Yes, this community-type-thing is in an early phase and it is inter-institutional and none of hte fellows so far have had much experience in managing one of these. That is the bit that will come after this research project - it has to come from the fellows not me. Don't you think?
New comment
Hi Arwen
I've been thinking about what you asked about convenor skills - I'd imagine that you've read a lot more than me in the CoP literature about this.
It did however remind me of an article about a 'teacher' role in an on-line forum drawing on the OU's teaching for T306 Managing complexity (one of the U/G modules in Systems). It made me think of the convenor's role in terms of exemplar and tone setter to help encourage new understandings. Not sure if it is helpful or not (it seems a very 'disciplined' way of contributing):
Thanks Helen
I shall enjoy reading that - both for the project and as an ex-teacher of 15 years!