New Media Cultures can be seen as an example of ‘Communities of Practice.’ Although there are tutors, I wouldn’t say their authority is as prominent in comparison with other subjects. This could be because they have their blogs too? Therefore we have more in common as we seen to be interacting and working in the same way i.e. commenting on each others blogs. We have the same shared goal in that we want to complete this unit through the posts we are making on our blogs. Our joint enterprise is us working together and defining the unit through the constantly changing world of technology. In terms of other members of the ‘community’ we can support and help each other say if one member doesn’t quite understand a certain reading and someone else does.
The social capital could be applied to the position of the tutors, however, within this status they are also giving us feedback, and commenting on our work not necessarily as tutors, but giving their opinions as a member of blogger.com. Maybe the comments and the interaction through our blogs could be seen as the ‘negotiation’ between the members in constructing the blogs? Together we are creating liability for New Media Cultures as a community.
Showing posts with label week 6. Show all posts
Showing posts with label week 6. Show all posts
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Week 6 - C of P, Organsational units, Joint Enterprise...
The differences between C of P and ‘Organisational Units’... and Joint Enterprise.
I think Wenger may have meant that ‘organisational units’ have more of a stronger hierarchy of importance. Communities of practice do maintain an element of power i.e. a teacher, but they don’t diminish other members of the group from having any power. For example, in ‘Dance Mania’ the teacher would sometimes ask for our advice, or take some of our ideas and link them in with the dance she was teaching. Therefore, talking about social capital and Lesser and Storck, the following quote links it with the effectiveness of how my C of P worked, 'change that results in greater knowledge sharing, which in turn positively influences business performance.’ (Wenger) They believe that there is a behavioural change in C of P through the ‘social capital’ – the leader which provokes positive outcomes.
I would describe ‘organisational units’ more like the positions within jobs for instance, you certain job titles and you work to uphold that title. You have different departments, department leaders, secretaries, deputies, and bosses, all which have a specific hierarchical structure which can’t necessarily be deferred from. As communities of practice are described by Wenger as ‘informal’ it could be said that ‘organisational units’ differ in that they have more formalities within its structure.
In terms of joint enterprise – because joint enterprise is resulted from all members of the community, alike mutual agreements - I wouldn’t apply this to Organisational units. I see organisational units as having existing structure, which isn’t necessarily to do with the members, but is already apparent and has to be adhered to in a particular and agreed way.
Joint enterprise is essential to a community of practice in making it work, because it entails working as a community. It “is the result of a collective process of negotiation.” (Wenger: Chap 2) therefore every member’s contribution is equally accepted as part of the community continuation. The collaboration of all members’ views etc allows the community to be defined in a particular way to “develop around things that matter to people.” (Wenger)
One last though… However… can organisational units still be communities because they still work together to attain goals, work towards targets etc…
Wenger would argue that they are not because communities of practice constantly work together, not when they are just working towards targets. What do you think?
I think Wenger may have meant that ‘organisational units’ have more of a stronger hierarchy of importance. Communities of practice do maintain an element of power i.e. a teacher, but they don’t diminish other members of the group from having any power. For example, in ‘Dance Mania’ the teacher would sometimes ask for our advice, or take some of our ideas and link them in with the dance she was teaching. Therefore, talking about social capital and Lesser and Storck, the following quote links it with the effectiveness of how my C of P worked, 'change that results in greater knowledge sharing, which in turn positively influences business performance.’ (Wenger) They believe that there is a behavioural change in C of P through the ‘social capital’ – the leader which provokes positive outcomes.
I would describe ‘organisational units’ more like the positions within jobs for instance, you certain job titles and you work to uphold that title. You have different departments, department leaders, secretaries, deputies, and bosses, all which have a specific hierarchical structure which can’t necessarily be deferred from. As communities of practice are described by Wenger as ‘informal’ it could be said that ‘organisational units’ differ in that they have more formalities within its structure.
In terms of joint enterprise – because joint enterprise is resulted from all members of the community, alike mutual agreements - I wouldn’t apply this to Organisational units. I see organisational units as having existing structure, which isn’t necessarily to do with the members, but is already apparent and has to be adhered to in a particular and agreed way.
Joint enterprise is essential to a community of practice in making it work, because it entails working as a community. It “is the result of a collective process of negotiation.” (Wenger: Chap 2) therefore every member’s contribution is equally accepted as part of the community continuation. The collaboration of all members’ views etc allows the community to be defined in a particular way to “develop around things that matter to people.” (Wenger)
One last though… However… can organisational units still be communities because they still work together to attain goals, work towards targets etc…
Wenger would argue that they are not because communities of practice constantly work together, not when they are just working towards targets. What do you think?
Week 6 - My C of P
I can apply Wenger’s ‘Communities of Practice’ to when I use to be a part of a dance club back home called ‘Dance Mania.’ The club started over ten years ago, and is still going on today. Classes were held once a week, and there were many different classes for children of all ages, teenagers, young adults and adults, with one dance teacher called Lisa. Everyone was there to learn new dance routines to prepare for two dance shows every year, one in summer, and one in February. Although everyone was there to learn, not everyone HAD to participate in the shows. It was also a change to socialise as although we were learning, I still made friends within the dance group. ‘Power’ was held with Lisa, the teacher, however if group members were struggling, had missed a week, or had newly joined fellow group members would help the others to catch up or learn the routines. Therefore this can be applied the quote from Wenger - “These practices are thus the property of a kind of community created over time by the sustained pursuit of a shared enterprise.” (Wenger: C of P)
My Community of Practice applied to the 3 characteristics of C of P by Wenger-
The domain – the interest of learning to dance/learning dance routines.
The community – one teacher, but everyone would help each other.
The practice – attending the lessons and working as a ‘team’ in preparation for two yearly shows.
My Community of Practice applied to the 3 characteristics of C of P by Wenger-
The domain – the interest of learning to dance/learning dance routines.
The community – one teacher, but everyone would help each other.
The practice – attending the lessons and working as a ‘team’ in preparation for two yearly shows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
