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?
Comments
placesaver to separate out blog post
placesaverNew comment
Hi Arwen My immediate thought is that you have done the same cycle that wenger has. Remember that he coined term cop to apply to something he observed.. it was descriptive. His work helped to elucidate something he saw in dynamic flux of interactions in a workplace. It was later that the term got used instrumentally as an IT to set up etc. It became reified. If I remember his second chapter in Blackmore ok then he questions whether the concept has been overpopularised to the point it has lost its true meaning. Maybe you have gone through the shift too. That it is the becoming angle that matters most. If in that dynamic flux of interaction there emerges something you would call a cop is more incidental than the real purpose. Didn't wenger talk about stewarding governance... is that what AWARD needs to enable? Hope this helps Helen.Wenger 2010, Chapter 11
helen's comments helped.
Also re-directing me to Wenger 2010, Chapter 11 in Blackmore.
Like Gidden's concept of structure and agency, individuals constitute the CoP-web-network and the shape and feel of this impacts on what the individuals do.
Learning is a social becoming and it arises out of a learning system. So individuals choose to be in a CoP because they feel like it matters - ie they are not too divergent. Then they negotiate their own practice within that in a sense-making, identity building way. And by so doing they move the CoP along too. So we have the dynamic trajectories in a dynamic web influencing each other, constituting each other's meaning and then interacting at the boundary with other dynamic webs. That is where the societal change can happen.
p184 "the learning and innovative potential of the whole system lies in the coexistence of depth within practices and active boundaries across practices"
The practice is also about enabling this learning-becoming.
It may also be useful to think about different ways in which someone inside the AWARD alumni group or outside it could experience its identity:
identity is very important in alumni programs. I am an AWARD Fellow. "Participation in social systems is not a context or an abstraction, but the constitutive texture of an experience of the self." p186
Wenger also suggests that "the regime of competence of a community of practice translates into a regime of accountability - accountability to what the community is about, the quality of the relationship, the accumulated products of its history" p186