Hi John and all,

I don't contribute much to this list, but I do read it regularly.  You
struck a chord with me when you mentioned games and learning.  Like
Bronwyn, I blog about multiplayer games and learning, as well as
knowledge management and community.  You might like to take a look. :)

Dove Lane blog - Kaye Vivian
http://dove-lane.com

Choose the "Archives" link on the opening page, and you will go
straight to a categorized list.  I'd welcome further conversations on
gaming and the future of learning from anyone.

Best wishes,
Kaye Vivian
(New York)

Curious, I cut and pasted your link below, went to the URL and read
the thread, which includes your comment at the very end.

I came away with the opinion that the discussion there seemed to me to
miss the point.

The thread seemed to center on the issue of whether F2F interactions
result in better communities than online interactions.  Missing from
that argument was the obvious: that F2F and online interactions are
different and probably result in communities with different
characteristics.  Whether one is better than the other can be
determined only in light of purpose and that issue was not raised.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@...
www.skullworks.com


--- In com-prac@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Terrence Harper"
<charles.t.harper@...> wrote:
>
> Here is an interesting link.the question is whether we build
community more
> effectively to problem solve either face to face or online.  The
landscape
> used for the debate is multi-player gaming.
>
>
>
> I posted my opinion on the Guardian UK page (chastharper) which is
pretty
> much at the end, but do any of you have an opinion on this.
>
>
>
> Charles
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: Google Alerts [mailto:googlealerts-noreply@...]
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 5:23 PM
> To: charles.t.harper@...
> Subject: Google Alert - "communities of practice"
>
>
>
> Google News Alert for: "communities of practice"
>
> Forming
>
<http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/games/archives/2007/02/16/forming_community_in_
> online_games.html>  community in online games
> Guardian Unlimited - UK
> In the days even before the telephone, communities of practice, of
worship,
> of ritual and of experience grew out of the tap-tap-tap of telegraph
lines.
> ...
>
>   _____
>
>  This as-it-happens Google Alert is brought to you by Google.
>
> Remove
>
<http://www.google.com/alerts/remove?s=EAAAAK0vi9ry53jHFtCXTF5VxXk&hl=en>
> this alert.
> Create <http://www.google.com/alerts?hl=en>  another alert.
> Manage <http://www.google.com/alerts/manage?hl=en>  your alerts.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Fred writes: "F2F and online interactions are different and probably
result in communities with different characteristics."

It depends in part on what you mean by a community. If you mean a
group of people who trust each other enough to speak frankly, and
share a common responsibility for the good of the group, then my
question would be whether you can ever create the level of trust of a
real community unless there's some face to face meeting at some
point. Without that level of trust, what you have is a kind of
network that occasionally has some sharing and insights, but you
don't the kind of openness and mutual caring and shared
responsibility for the group that you get with a community.

Do the 518 members of com-prac form a community? It doesn't feel like
one to me. When I met some of the members last year, I certain felt
closer to them. And when I had a teleconference with some of the
members, that also helped. But when I think about all the 518 members
of com-prac, I don't feel I know enough about them to think of them
as a community. Am I mistaken?

Steve Denning
www.stevedenning.com

Steve,



What you say makes sense to me and jibes with my experience working with
both online and face-to-face groups.

I wonder if there are any references you are aware of that study or explore
this phenomenon?
If anyone else knows of any exploration regarding the difference or relative
values of F2F vs. other interaction (incl. telephone), I would love to learn
about it.



Best,

Seth



--
Seth Kahan
President
Performance Development Group, Inc.
Box 380, Glen Echo, MD 20816
V: 301/229-2221
F: 301/229-6661



Seth@...
www.SethKahan.com

-------------------------------------------------------------

Accelerating the Adoption of Strategic Change through Participation and
Engagement
Executive Strategy Consultant



From: com-prac@yahoogroups.com [mailto:com-prac@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Steve Denning
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 12:33 PM
To: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cp] "communities of practice" F2F vs online



Fred writes: "F2F and online interactions are different and probably
result in communities with different characteristics."

It depends in part on what you mean by a community. If you mean a
group of people who trust each other enough to speak frankly, and
share a common responsibility for the good of the group, then my
question would be whether you can ever create the level of trust of a
real community unless there's some face to face meeting at some
point. Without that level of trust, what you have is a kind of
network that occasionally has some sharing and insights, but you
don't the kind of openness and mutual caring and shared
responsibility for the group that you get with a community.

Do the 518 members of com-prac form a community? It doesn't feel like
one to me. When I met some of the members last year, I certain felt
closer to them. And when I had a teleconference with some of the
members, that also helped. But when I think about all the 518 members
of com-prac, I don't feel I know enough about them to think of them
as a community. Am I mistaken?

Steve Denning
www.stevedenning.com





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Seth,

I'd suggest taking a look at the collection of readings in Marleen
Huysman and Volker Wulf (eds) Social Capital and Information
Technology MIT Press. 2004. There are a few studies in that
collection that speak to the issue with original research.

Regards,

Larry Irons
http://www.skilfulminds.com

--- In com-prac@yahoogroups.com, "Seth Kahan" <Seth@...> wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
>
>
> What you say makes sense to me and jibes with my experience working
with
> both online and face-to-face groups.
>
> I wonder if there are any references you are aware of that study or
explore
> this phenomenon?
> If anyone else knows of any exploration regarding the difference or
relative
> values of F2F vs. other interaction (incl. telephone), I would love
to learn
> about it.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Seth
>
>
>
> --
> Seth Kahan
> President
> Performance Development Group, Inc.
> Box 380, Glen Echo, MD 20816
> V: 301/229-2221
> F: 301/229-6661
>
>
>
> Seth@...
> www.SethKahan.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Accelerating the Adoption of Strategic Change through Participation
and
> Engagement
> Executive Strategy Consultant
>
>
>
> From: com-prac@yahoogroups.com [mailto:com-prac@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf
> Of Steve Denning
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 12:33 PM
> To: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cp] "communities of practice" F2F vs online
>
>
>
> Fred writes: "F2F and online interactions are different and
probably
> result in communities with different characteristics."
>
> It depends in part on what you mean by a community. If you mean a
> group of people who trust each other enough to speak frankly, and
> share a common responsibility for the good of the group, then my
> question would be whether you can ever create the level of trust of
a
> real community unless there's some face to face meeting at some
> point. Without that level of trust, what you have is a kind of
> network that occasionally has some sharing and insights, but you
> don't the kind of openness and mutual caring and shared
> responsibility for the group that you get with a community.
>
> Do the 518 members of com-prac form a community? It doesn't feel
like
> one to me. When I met some of the members last year, I certain felt
> closer to them. And when I had a teleconference with some of the
> members, that also helped. But when I think about all the 518
members
> of com-prac, I don't feel I know enough about them to think of them
> as a community. Am I mistaken?
>
> Steve Denning
> www.stevedenning.com
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Seth
You might also look at the articles in the International Journal of Web
Based Communities
http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=50#objectives

Steve Denning
Discover the discipline of business narrative
and sign up for my newsletter at http://www.stevedenning.com
<http://www.stevedenning.com/>
Email: steve@...
Phone: 202 966 9392
Fax:   202 686 0591



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In my own research into Internet-mediated CoPs I found that there were
many types of relationships and associations in the groups and for some
at the core the group really was a community. I think it was Jo Cothrel
who first said you know you've got a community when people want to find
a way to be together physically. This was clearly supported in my
research. People in the different 'communities' hungered to be together
and found ways to do it even if it was only four gathering for lunch or
a hook up at an airport lounge. In the research I did looking for the
common conditions in successful IMCoPs it was evident that these group
had some formal and informal ways of being together offline and it did
not have to be the whole group that gathered. Groups might might meet at
community conferences/gatherings, meet-ups at associated events in the
field, workshops, dinners etc. My membership of CPsquare and Comprac
have caused me to be at events and places often purely to be with people
in the group. Was it the community that came first or did it become a
community for people after meeting up face-to-face? I did have a sense
of community before meeting people but it certainly strengthened it
after I did. As Steve says it clearly important and I think considering
and seizing opportunities for physical being together are a real element
in growing and sustaining a sense community.

~ Bronwyn



Steve Denning wrote:
>
> Seth
> You might also look at the articles in the International Journal of Web
> Based Communities
> http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=50#objectives
> <http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=50#objectives>
>
> Steve Denning
> Discover the discipline of business narrative
> and sign up for my newsletter at http://www.stevedenning.com
> <http://www.stevedenning.com>
> <http://www.stevedenning.com/ <http://www.stevedenning.com/>>
> Email: steve@... <mailto:steve%40stevedenning.com>
> Phone: 202 966 9392
> Fax: 202 686 0591
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Comprac members working in education are invited to the...*

CPSquare March Education Practice Group Learning Circle*

A CPsquare Education Practice Group monthly skypecast discussion.
https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/skypecast/detailed.html?id_talk=518171

March Topic: "CoP view of theory has penetrated us. We think about
theory in a different way. How do we weave theory and practice when
growing CoPs?"  This topic follows on from the February discussion of
the value of naming communities as CoPs. Questions arose about how we
might view/interpret CoP theory differently now because of our
experience in CoPs and together.

*Date: *Wednesday March 7th
*Time:* 20.30 GMT (12.30 pm PST, 3.30 pm EST,
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=3&day=7&year=2007&hou\
r=20&min=30&sec=0&p1=0
*Venue:* Linked online to the Skypecast
https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/skypecast/detailed.html?id_talk=518171
*
OR

Leave a comment* if you can't join us at:
http://www.chinswing.com/pages/discussion.aspx?id=a25faf55-1f6a-4872-87b3-8161f8\
7ab7f0

Hope you can join in and offer us feedback on this new online discourse.

Bronwyn


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In com-prac@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Denning" <steve@...> wrote:

> Do the 518 members of com-prac form a community? It doesn't feel like
> one to me. When I met some of the members last year, I certain felt
> closer to them. And when I had a teleconference with some of the
> members, that also helped. But when I think about all the 518 members
> of com-prac, I don't feel I know enough about them to think of them
> as a community. Am I mistaken?

FWIW, I think they form a community of interest.  Do I think they form
a community of practice?  Nope.

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@...
www.skullworks.com

FYI - I don't know if anyone is still using this, but my CoP
hyperlinked diagram has changed links. The new link is

www.scis.nova.edu/~johnschr/cop/index.html

Fred,



You wrote:

" FWIW, I think they form a community of interest. Do I think they form
a community of practice? Nope."



I agree with you. However I don't think it has much with the F2F vs online
thing. heck even online psychiatry and online groups for illnesses are
proven to be effective so let's drop the argument that online stuff can't
work for everybody. It's a bogus and uninformed statement and a gross
generalization (like "I can't feel a community online" -> "EVERYBODY THINKS
MY SAME THOUGHTS" -> "Communities cannot be formed online"). Did I say
ladder of inference <grin>?



However I do appreciate that the persons that feel limited online don't
venture doing stuff online.. They wouldn't know how to.



Rosanna Tarsiero, CKM

"Experience is that marvellous thing that enables you to recognize a mistake
when you make it again."

-- Franklin P. Jones



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks, Chris...

I just pointed someone to the old URL (I assume) a few days ago in the
Foundations of Communities of practice workshop.  (Would you mind posting
the OLD URL?  That would help me track down previous references -- a weird
request, I know...)

John
*
* John D. Smith ~ Voice: 503.963.8229 ~ Skype: smithjd ~
http://www.learningAlliances.net
* "Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing." -- Werner
von Braun
-----Original Message-----
From: com-prac@yahoogroups.com [mailto:com-prac@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of johnschrus
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 11:39 AM
To: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cp] CoP hyperlinked diagram

FYI - I don't know if anyone is still using this, but my CoP
hyperlinked diagram has changed links. The new link is

www.scis.nova.edu/~johnschr/cop/index.html



*-- The email forum on communities of practice --*
Yahoo! Groups Links




--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.7/713 - Release Date: 3/7/2007


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.7/713 - Release Date: 3/7/2007

Bronwyn, Steve, Seth, et.al.

This debate has always been of personal interest to me. I think most
people would agree that continuous F2F contact enhances the
relationships between people within a CoP (or any group perhaps).
However, it is not always possible to have regular F2F group meetings,
especially if people are scattered over a continent or on a global
scale. That being the case, "virtual" CoP's are the next best-thing. I
am sure that there are beliefs (if not "feelings") that virtual CoP
members sense they are part of a community, although I realise even the
meaning of community is debateable (and has been in the past on
Com-Prac).

As a tangent, is there any research to suggest that anonymity in a
virtual group actually enhances community? Are virtual worlds equivalent
to communities and are virtual identities as important in exchanging
information and giving a sense of identity to members the same as in a
"real" community". Perhaps some people can be more fully engaged in a
community of their choice if they give themselves another persona. Just
a thought.....

Regards,
Brad Hinton
Manager, Information Services
Rabobank
Level 16 Darling Park Tower 3
201 Sussex Street Sydney NSW 2000
GPO Box 4577 Sydney NSW 2001
Australia
PH: +61 (0)2 81152437
FX: +61 (0)2 80832437
Email: Brad.Hinton@...
Web: www.rabobank.com.au

________________________________

From: com-prac@yahoogroups.com [mailto:com-prac@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Bronwyn Stuckey
Sent: Wednesday, 7 March 2007 8:34 AM
To: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cp] "communities of practice" F2F vs online



In my own research into Internet-mediated CoPs I found that there were
many types of relationships and associations in the groups and for some
at the core the group really was a community. I think it was Jo Cothrel
who first said you know you've got a community when people want to find
a way to be together physically. This was clearly supported in my
research. People in the different 'communities' hungered to be together
and found ways to do it even if it was only four gathering for lunch or
a hook up at an airport lounge. In the research I did looking for the
common conditions in successful IMCoPs it was evident that these group
had some formal and informal ways of being together offline and it did
not have to be the whole group that gathered. Groups might might meet at

community conferences/gatherings, meet-ups at associated events in the
field, workshops, dinners etc. My membership of CPsquare and Comprac
have caused me to be at events and places often purely to be with people

in the group. Was it the community that came first or did it become a
community for people after meeting up face-to-face? I did have a sense
of community before meeting people but it certainly strengthened it
after I did. As Steve says it clearly important and I think considering
and seizing opportunities for physical being together are a real element

in growing and sustaining a sense community.

~ Bronwyn

Steve Denning wrote:
>
> Seth
> You might also look at the articles in the International Journal of
Web
> Based Communities
> http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=50#objectives
<http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=50#objectives>
> <http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=50#objectives
<http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=50#objectives> >
>
> Steve Denning
> Discover the discipline of business narrative
> and sign up for my newsletter at http://www.stevedenning.com
<http://www.stevedenning.com>
> <http://www.stevedenning.com <http://www.stevedenning.com> >
> <http://www.stevedenning.com/ <http://www.stevedenning.com/>
<http://www.stevedenning.com/ <http://www.stevedenning.com/> >>
> Email: steve@... <mailto:steve%40stevedenning.com>
<mailto:steve%40stevedenning.com>
> Phone: 202 966 9392
> Fax: 202 686 0591
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>





_____________________________________________________________

This email (including any attachments to it) is confidential, legally
privileged, subject to copyright and is sent for the personal attention of the
intended recipient only. If you have received this email in error, please advise
us immediately and delete it. You are notified that disclosing, copying,
distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this
information is strictly prohibited. Although we have taken reasonable
precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, we cannot accept
responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the viruses in this email or
attachments. We exclude any liability for the content of this email, or for the
consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided in
this email or its attachments, unless that information is subsequently confirmed
in writing. If this email contains an offer, that should be considered as an
invitation to treat.
_____________________________________________________________

If this e-Mail contains marketing material and you do not wish to receive such
material by e-Mail in future, please reply to this e-Mail and place the words
"Remove My Details - Electronic Messages" in the Subject Header.

The Rabobank Group
Australia: 1800 025 484
New Zealand: 0800 500 933


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Juast passing this one on to everyone. Free access to sage's journal of
human relations. Article on social capital and networks in the 2007 edition.
(see instructions below). Articles on group dynamics (yep they were talked
about before CoP  came along), and change management.
--
peter

We are please to announce that Human Relations is now publishing its 60th
volume, and celebrating by opening up access to all of its digital archive
until the end of April 2007!

  ***Register here for full Human Relations online access
<https://online.sagepub.com/cgi/register?registration=FT70784> ***

About the journal

Human Relations is a key forum for innovative ideas in the social sciences
and is one of the worldıs leading journals for the analysis of work,
organizations and management.

All issues of Human Relations are now available online, dating back to 1947.
This significant commitment opens up the defining historic and modern day
papers analyzing work, organizations and management since the journal began.

  Highlights from the archive

The Human Relations archive contains a wealth of valuable content, including
a highlighted selection below.  Access these and all other articles
instantly by registering for access.  Registration takes only moment sand
then you can browse, search and download the complete 60 years of Human
Relations!





§         Frontiers in Group Dynamics: Concept, Method and Reality in Social
Science; Social Equilibria and Social Change - Kurt Lewin Volume 1:1 (1947)



§         Overcoming Resistance to Change - Lester Coch and John R. P.
French, Jr. Volume 1:4 (1948)



§         A Theory of Group Development - Warren G. Bennis and Herbert A.
Shepard Volume 9:4 (1956)



§         Network Analysis in Organizational Settings - Noel Tichy and
Charles Fombrun Volume 32:11 (1979)



§         Strategy and the Tactics of Mediation - Deborah M. Kolb Volume
36:3 (1983)



§         At the critical moment: Conditions and prospects for critical
management studies Valerie Fournier and Chris Grey Volume 53:1 (2000)





***Register here for full Human Relations online access
<https://online.sagepub.com/cgi/register?registration=FT70784> ***

Seth:

Per your question on references that address differences between F2F and
online communities, here's three sources that may be of use:

     Allen, S., Ure, D., & Evans, S. (2003, October). Virtual communities of
practice as learning networks: Executive summary. Retrieved May 5, 2005 from
the Masie Center e-Learning Consortium Web site:
http://www.masie.com/researchgrants/2003/BY_Exec_Summary.pdf

     Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2002). Virtual
knowledge-sharing communities of practice at Caterpillar: Success factors
and barriers. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(3), 94-113.

     Hiltz, S. R.,& R. Goldman, R. (Eds.), Learning together online: Research
on asynchronous learning networks. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.

  The Allen study found that VCOP members often prefer them over other
environments including classrooms for gathering information to do their jobs
(though not necessarily for learning). The Hiltz and Goldman book summarizes
the research in higher education on virtual learning and generally finds no
significant difference in outcomes from F2F environments. The Ardichvili
article suggests that the best approach may be to build VCOPs around a core
group that already has built trust in face to face interactions.

My own research indicates that the competencies associated with success are
similar for the main types of work-related, online communities (distance
education courses, e-mentoring groups, VCOPs, and virtual teams). Or at
least the literature on these communities converges in its embrace of
constructivist principles. Either way, this suggests to me that as the
colleges turn out more seasoned distance learners the workforce will become
more adept at building effective relationships online.

Burgess Smith
Stone Country Educators



Steve,

What you say makes sense to me and jibes with my experience working with
both online and face-to-face groups.

I wonder if there are any references you are aware of that study or explore
this phenomenon?
If anyone else knows of any exploration regarding the difference or relative
values of F2F vs. other interaction (incl. telephone), I would love to learn
about it.

Best,

Seth

--
Seth Kahan
President
Performance Development Group, Inc.
Box 380, Glen Echo, MD 20816
V: 301/229-2221
F: 301/229-6661


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Steve:

I've had opportunity to moderate a few virtual teams and online courses with
extensive asynchronous dialog. Although it well may have been a function of
the particular individuals involved, the level of discourse and camaraderie
was equal to and sometimes better
than that of many F2F environments.  But these were small groups, and in
every instance it was a smaller core of people who made the effort to
connect with each other. (Usually we had a digital "sandbox" they used to
socialize outside of the regular forums.) The literature on VCOPs seems to
bear this out: in larger communities a core group with mutual trust often
provides the model for the folks on the periphery.

Burgess Smith
Stone Country Educators

   -----Original Message-----
   From: com-prac@yahoogroups.com [mailto:com-prac@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf
Of Steve Denning
   Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 12:33 PM
   To: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: [cp] "communities of practice" F2F vs online


   Fred writes: "F2F and online interactions are different and probably
   result in communities with different characteristics."

   It depends in part on what you mean by a community. If you mean a
   group of people who trust each other enough to speak frankly, and
   share a common responsibility for the good of the group, then my
   question would be whether you can ever create the level of trust of a
   real community unless there's some face to face meeting at some
   point. Without that level of trust, what you have is a kind of
   network that occasionally has some sharing and insights, but you
   don't the kind of openness and mutual caring and shared
   responsibility for the group that you get with a community.

   Do the 518 members of com-prac form a community? It doesn't feel like
   one to me. When I met some of the members last year, I certain felt
   closer to them. And when I had a teleconference with some of the
   members, that also helped. But when I think about all the 518 members
   of com-prac, I don't feel I know enough about them to think of them
   as a community. Am I mistaken?

   Steve Denning
   www.stevedenning.com






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hey All,

Some of you might be interested in having a look at this report:

Communities of Practice: Lessons from Leading Collaborative Enterprises
offers a unique opportunity for you to benchmark your own strategies and
techniques against 16 of the world's leading practitioners.

This extensive report is written by Simon Lelic, and features interviews
with indisputable thought leaders in the field, including Etienne
Wenger, Hubert Saint-Onge, Debra Wallace and Richard McDermott.

By drawing on this wealth of expertise, the findings from Ark Group
surveys and information from our series of successful CoPs events, we
are able to provide you with a comprehensive review of good practice and
lessons learnt.

Communities of Practice: Lessons from Leading Collaborative Enterprises
allows you to learn from the experiences of others, replicate what works
and sidestep avoidable mistakes. This report will help you give your
existing and future communities the best possible chance of success,
turning your organisation into a leading collaborative enterprise.



Available now as  PDF through Ark Group AUD$300 (plus GST)
Quote our ref: LS-YGd to receive 15% discount when you order (save $50)

Contact Laura Scully lscully@...
<mailto:lscully@...>  for more information

More information: http://www.arkgroupaustralia.com.au/report-cop.htm
<http://www.arkgroupaustralia.com.au/report-cop.htm>



Cheers

Laura





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi John,

Here is the information:

Old link:    http://sites.inka.de/manzanita/cop
<http://sites.inka.de/manzanita/cop>

New link:   http://www.scis.nova.edu/~johnschr/cop
<http://www.scis.nova.edu/%7Ejohnschr/cop>

Chris


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Laura, is this Simon Lelic 2004 report ?
Please can you suggest anything more recent?

--- In com-prac@yahoogroups.com, "arklscully" <lscully@...> wrote:
> Some of you might be interested in having a look at this report:
>
> Communities of Practice: Lessons from Leading Collaborative
Enterprises offers a unique opportunity for you to benchmark your own
strategies and techniques against 16 of the world's leading practitioners.
---
regards
Warren Crosbie
CoPs, folksonomies & ontologies
research in progress,
see http://tagunity.wikispaces.com/introduction

Hi,
    The following link is a good read on CoPs:

   http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/knowledge_management/km2/cop_toolkit.asp

   Regards,
    Kartik
Don Khoury <don@...> wrote:
           Hi All,

Iım looking for what would be considered the 4 or 5 definitive texts on
Communities of Practice and also what is/are the conference(s) most attended
by Com Prac consultant/practitioners.

Thank you,

Don Khoury

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






---------------------------------
Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi to you all,

This discussion reminded me of a blogpost I read (the link is here
http://ideant.typepad.com/ideant/2005/01/movable_distanc.html) and
which is piled up on my -to-blog- pile. It is called movable
distance, technology, nearness and farness. I thought it was great.

It tries to shed light on the issue of how technology is changing our
ideas about distance. I agree when they state that a lot of
judgements about communication carries with it a bias towards face-to-
face communication as the prime model for communication. "Are there
really no circumstances under which we could argue that having an IM
chat with someone in the next cubicle is preferable to having a face-
to-face conversation?" I think that is the case with the discussion
about f2f versus online communities too.

I think in the long run, we should all become a lot smarter at
choosing between the two modalities (online and face-to-face), but
currently the difficulty is that for a lot of people face-to-face is
the best, and the online is some lesser substitute. When this
paradigm will have changed, I think communities of practice will
start using the online and face-to-face mix in a much better way than
they are doing now. (sorry for generalizing, some may already be
smart enough).

Joitske

--- In com-prac@yahoogroups.com, "Rosanna Tarsiero" <rosanna@...>
wrote:
>
> Fred,
>
>
>
> You wrote:
>
> " FWIW, I think they form a community of interest. Do I think they
form
> a community of practice? Nope."
>
>
>
> I agree with you. However I don't think it has much with the F2F vs
online
> thing. heck even online psychiatry and online groups for illnesses
are
> proven to be effective so let's drop the argument that online stuff
can't
> work for everybody. It's a bogus and uninformed statement and a
gross
> generalization (like "I can't feel a community online" -
> "EVERYBODY THINKS
> MY SAME THOUGHTS" -> "Communities cannot be formed online"). Did I
say
> ladder of inference <grin>?
>
>
>
> However I do appreciate that the persons that feel limited online
don't
> venture doing stuff online.. They wouldn't know how to.
>
>
>
> Rosanna Tarsiero, CKM
>
> "Experience is that marvellous thing that enables you to recognize
a mistake
> when you make it again."
>
> -- Franklin P. Jones
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Here's a "testament to technology" in the context of "communities of
practice":

Joitske and I had never met face-to-face until we'd done "a job and a half"
and a workshop and made friends using an assortment of technologies.  Most
of the content was about communities of practice.  Some of the exchange was
through com-prac (although more of it was in the Foundations of Communities
of Practice Workshop and in CPsquare).  Off the top of my head, we used
email, phone, Skype, IM, web-boards, wikis, email lists in some kind of mix
that's partly orderly and partly chaotic.  We had different styles and
attitudes toward those technologies (I have no fear that Joitske will not
let me speak misleadingly of her experience); for example, at the beginning
I was more comfortable about picking up the phone for certain kinds of
business conversations, and she was braver and more confronting about joking
and being slightly mocking via email than I was.

Was there learning? Yep.
Was there friendship & a feeling of kinship?  Yep.
Did our identities evolve with respect to others (e.g., LPP)?  Yep.
Did our collaboration have outcomes that benefited the community around us?
Yep.

Could we have done it without the use of technologies?  Nooooo.
Does an email list like com-prac "account" or "produce" the community of
practice within which we've done the above?  Nooooo.

Did face-to-face make a difference?  Yep.
Does Joitske still needle me about infrequent posting on my blog?  Yep.
Do I still throw it in her face that she's more of a leader in communities
of practice than she admits?  Yep.

So enough of this question and answer.  Here's a statement: It's really not
helpful to ask whether a community IS or IS NOT a community of practice.
(Or at least I don't think it's a helpful question on this list.)  Let's
talk about how to help communities get stronger or deeper or broader or more
flexible.  Perhaps you want to disable or dismember a community; that's
legitimate.  But judging a community with respect to some criterion of
validity is really boring.

John
*
* John D. Smith ~ Voice: 503.963.8229 ~ Skype: smithjd ~
http://www.learningAlliances.net
* "Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing." -- Werner
von Braun

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/714 - Release Date: 3/8/2007

Dearest Joitske,



You wrote:

"I think in the long run, we should all become a lot smarter at
choosing between the two modalities (online and face-to-face), but
currently the difficulty is that for a lot of people face-to-face is
the best, and the online is some lesser substitute."



I think we "modern humans" too often make the mistake to think of our
inventions as "the newest". For example, we tend to frame the remoteness vs
f2f debate in terms of the Internet and the like, without *realizing* how
other cultures, in other times (even *thousands* years ago!) had already
invented "remoteness".



As a Roman Catholic, I am used to confess "remotely" aka without seeing the
priest's face and without him seeing mine. I can testify (and, with me, many
other Roman Catholics) how:

1)     remoteness does have a big impact in facilitating the sharing of
things a person is (or could be) ashamed of; and

2)     remoteness was NOT invented with the Internet.



Finally, and if my point isn't clear still, junior college students love to
share their secrets and "youth" experiences with their peers and dorm
roommate in the darkness, for pretty similar reason.



Rosanna Tarsiero, CKM

"Experience is that marvellous thing that enables you to recognize a mistake
when you make it again."

-- Franklin P. Jones



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Rosanne,

Thanks for these great examples! I do agree that remoteness was not
invented by the internet. But the examples you gave, are examples of
circumstances we are 'old technologies' (the confession curtain,
putting off the light). With all the new technologies (through the
internet) and people who start using them (and others not) I think it
has become much more complex how conversations evolve or might evolve
within communities of practice. A good 'designer' or facilitator
should know more about those dynamics too, as compared to the fully
f2f community. That's what I think. I've seen too often that online
facilitators call their platform the CoP; and they don't for instance
see how relationships continue through blogs, f2f corridors, other
platforms, etc.

That's probably the same mistake you make when you discuss whether
com-prac is a community of practice- you have to see it in the light
of all kind of media used (as John was also pointing out- the fact
that I post here is not because I'm a com-prac members, but because I
did the foundations workshop and met some of the people who pointed
me to com-prac. The interesting thing is that com-prac is a yahoo
public group, so it's a great, open place for others to join in too
(making the boundary very open- not counting on the jargon related
and other barriers).

Cheers, Joitske


--- In com-prac@yahoogroups.com, "Rosanna Tarsiero" <rosanna@...>
wrote:
>
> Dearest Joitske,
>
>
>
> You wrote:
>
> "I think in the long run, we should all become a lot smarter at
> choosing between the two modalities (online and face-to-face), but
> currently the difficulty is that for a lot of people face-to-face
is
> the best, and the online is some lesser substitute."
>
>
>
> I think we "modern humans" too often make the mistake to think of
our
> inventions as "the newest". For example, we tend to frame the
remoteness vs
> f2f debate in terms of the Internet and the like, without
*realizing* how
> other cultures, in other times (even *thousands* years ago!) had
already
> invented "remoteness".
>
>
>
> As a Roman Catholic, I am used to confess "remotely" aka without
seeing the
> priest's face and without him seeing mine. I can testify (and, with
me, many
> other Roman Catholics) how:
>
> 1)     remoteness does have a big impact in facilitating the
sharing of
> things a person is (or could be) ashamed of; and
>
> 2)     remoteness was NOT invented with the Internet.
>
>
>
> Finally, and if my point isn't clear still, junior college students
love to
> share their secrets and "youth" experiences with their peers and
dorm
> roommate in the darkness, for pretty similar reason.
>
>
>
> Rosanna Tarsiero, CKM
>
> "Experience is that marvellous thing that enables you to recognize
a mistake
> when you make it again."
>
> -- Franklin P. Jones
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Joitske,



You wrote:

"With all the new technologies (through the
internet) and people who start using them (and others not) I think it
has become much more complex how conversations evolve or might evolve
within communities of practice."



On the other hand, there are significant positive sides to that.



For example, in a virtual CoP, enabling or disabling the chat feature of
software allows a facilitator to "steer" the knowledge sharing component
toward personalization (or stay away from it, depending on his/her choices).
This is something that in f2f cannot be done nearly as easily or as
effectively. In a VCoP "task facilitation" too is easier: including or
taking out the wiki component of the chosen CMS steers the community toward
codification via collaborative knowledge sharing. A message board allows
exchanges to be stored and revisited. These are ALL options that in the
so-called "superior" f2f are ***absent***.



The only part some might find harder to do online is, as you've said, the
f2f one. However, I think the medium is self-selecting. The ones of us with
good understanding or preference for written language tend to gravitate
toward CMC, and thrive in such environments. Not everybody needs to be able
to do everything under the sun! The way some chose to be, for example, JDs
rather than engineers, others chose to do stuff f2f rather than online.



Messes happen when people who don't understand online dynamics insist to
implement VCoPs and in so doing VCoPs are implemented in a "f2f" way:
videoconferences, phone calls, high dependence on f2f event. The net result
is, you speak with a person for 3 days at one event, get away from the event
all so jazzed, and then can't keep on having a regular email conversation
because on the other hand there is silence and discontinuity (due to the
lack of CMC competencies). Despite the fact that I acknowledge how such
preference is a right to have, I can't understand for the life of mine how
conversation can be *halted* for 1-2 years waiting for the next f2f event!





"I've seen too often that online
facilitators call their platform the CoP; and they don't for instance
see how relationships continue through blogs, f2f corridors, other
platforms, etc."



Yes, I've seen that too. Unfortunately "CoP" has become a buzzword (pretty
much like "KM" or "story-telling"). From being an ingredient that *can*
improve practice-related exchanges, now it is stuffed into any occasion of
connection with work, even if such connection is tangential and/or has
nothing to do with developing a practice (mainly because the word "practice"
is used in pre-operational ways).




"That's probably the same mistake you make when you discuss whether
com-prac is a community of practice- you have to see it in the light
of all kind of media used"



I care to reiterate to *you* how my observations pertained the *quality* of
the interaction in com-prac and its connection with an operational concept
of practice, NOT with the media used.



As I've said already, one thing is discussing about CoPs as an interest we
(com-prac members) all have, quite another thing is discussing making (or
being) CoPs as a ***practice***. Examples of real life stuff, here, tend to
be few, most posts are endless re-re-re-re-definition of what CoPs are or
are not (and most often, it's an acritical re-hashing of whatever Etienne
said, as if he couldn't be wrong) and there is few action learning going on.
CP2, in my experience, has been even worse.



So, it's not a matter of boundaries. It's a matter of which kind of
conversation the facilitator fosters (or deters <grin>).



Rosanna Tarsiero, CKM



"Circumstances do not make a man, they reveal him."

--James Allen

   _____

From: com-prac@yahoogroups.com [mailto:com-prac@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of joitske
Sent: sabato 10 marzo 2007 8.39
To: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cp] Re: "communities of practice" F2F vs online



With all the new technologies (through the
internet) and people who start using them (and others not) I think it
has become much more complex how conversations evolve or might evolve
within communities of practice. A good 'designer' or facilitator
should know more about those dynamics too, as compared to the fully
f2f community. That's what I think. I've seen too often that online
facilitators call their platform the CoP; and they don't for instance
see how relationships continue through blogs, f2f corridors, other
platforms, etc.

That's probably the same mistake you make when you discuss whether
com-prac is a community of practice- you have to see it in the light
of all kind of media used (as John was also pointing out- the fact
that I post here is not because I'm a com-prac members, but because I
did the foundations workshop and met some of the people who pointed
me to com-prac. The interesting thing is that com-prac is a yahoo
public group, so it's a great, open place for others to join in too
(making the boundary very open- not counting on the jargon related
and other barriers).

Cheers, Joitske

--- In com-prac@yahoogroup <mailto:com-prac%40yahoogroups.com> s.com,
"Rosanna Tarsiero" <rosanna@...>
wrote:
>
> Dearest Joitske,
>
>
>
> You wrote:
>
> "I think in the long run, we should all become a lot smarter at
> choosing between the two modalities (online and face-to-face), but
> currently the difficulty is that for a lot of people face-to-face
is
> the best, and the online is some lesser substitute."
>
>
>
> I think we "modern humans" too often make the mistake to think of
our
> inventions as "the newest". For example, we tend to frame the
remoteness vs
> f2f debate in terms of the Internet and the like, without
*realizing* how
> other cultures, in other times (even *thousands* years ago!) had
already
> invented "remoteness".
>
>
>
> As a Roman Catholic, I am used to confess "remotely" aka without
seeing the
> priest's face and without him seeing mine. I can testify (and, with
me, many
> other Roman Catholics) how:
>
> 1) remoteness does have a big impact in facilitating the
sharing of
> things a person is (or could be) ashamed of; and
>
> 2) remoteness was NOT invented with the Internet.
>
>
>
> Finally, and if my point isn't clear still, junior college students
love to
> share their secrets and "youth" experiences with their peers and
dorm
> roommate in the darkness, for pretty similar reason.
>
>
>
> Rosanna Tarsiero, CKM
>
> "Experience is that marvellous thing that enables you to recognize
a mistake
> when you make it again."
>
> -- Franklin P. Jones
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Joitske

Interesting note.

Could you speculate what the conditions are that will cause this
paradigm shift?

Regards..

Roy Greenhalgh

joitske wrote:

>Hi to you all,
>
>This discussion reminded me of a blogpost I read (the link is here
>http://ideant.typepad.com/ideant/2005/01/movable_distanc.html) and
>which is piled up on my -to-blog- pile. It is called movable
>distance, technology, nearness and farness. I thought it was great.
>
>It tries to shed light on the issue of how technology is changing our
>ideas about distance. I agree when they state that a lot of
>judgements about communication carries with it a bias towards face-to-
>face communication as the prime model for communication. "Are there
>really no circumstances under which we could argue that having an IM
>chat with someone in the next cubicle is preferable to having a face-
>to-face conversation?" I think that is the case with the discussion
>about f2f versus online communities too.
>
>I think in the long run, we should all become a lot smarter at
>choosing between the two modalities (online and face-to-face), but
>currently the difficulty is that for a lot of people face-to-face is
>the best, and the online is some lesser substitute. When this
>paradigm will have changed, I think communities of practice will
>start using the online and face-to-face mix in a much better way than
>they are doing now. (sorry for generalizing, some may already be
>smart enough).
>
>Joitske
>
>--- In com-prac@yahoogroups.com, "Rosanna Tarsiero" <rosanna@...>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Fred,
>>
>>
>>
>>You wrote:
>>
>>" FWIW, I think they form a community of interest. Do I think they
>>
>>
>form
>
>
>>a community of practice? Nope."
>>
>>
>>
>>I agree with you. However I don't think it has much with the F2F vs
>>
>>
>online
>
>
>>thing. heck even online psychiatry and online groups for illnesses
>>
>>
>are
>
>
>>proven to be effective so let's drop the argument that online stuff
>>
>>
>can't
>
>
>>work for everybody. It's a bogus and uninformed statement and a
>>
>>
>gross
>
>
>>generalization (like "I can't feel a community online" -
>>"EVERYBODY THINKS
>>MY SAME THOUGHTS" -> "Communities cannot be formed online"). Did I
>>
>>
>say
>
>
>>ladder of inference <grin>?
>>
>>
>>
>>However I do appreciate that the persons that feel limited online
>>
>>
>don't
>
>
>>venture doing stuff online.. They wouldn't know how to.
>>
>>
>>
>>Rosanna Tarsiero, CKM
>>
>>"Experience is that marvellous thing that enables you to recognize
>>
>>
>a mistake
>
>
>>when you make it again."
>>
>>-- Franklin P. Jones
>>
>>
>>
>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>*-- The email forum on communities of practice --*
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

...this book:
_Encyclopedia of communities of practice in information and knowledge
management_ (2006) by Elayne Coakes and Steve Clarke?

I was considering it as an investment on professional development and would
like to have hear from any of you knowing this book (and/or just parts of
it)?

Thank you

Rosanna Tarsiero, CKM

Web 2.0 and the social networking manner in which we are using the web will
ultimately change the manner in which we collaborate to improve our
educational methods. In
<http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showStoryts.cfm?ArticleID=6937&page=2> this
article what is evident is that this model is being used not just in
commercial and information portals but in just about every one in which we
engage in computer mediated communications. What is interesting is that the
model holds its basic characteristics even when transferred to educators:

1.) Improvement information is free
2.) The worth of that information can be judged
3.) The judgment of the judges can be judged
4.) The environment is open to those who want to contribute or browse
5.) The environment is open to networking, which could mean: a.)
professional and/or intellectual collaboration, b.) socializing or c.) some
combination.

The end result is that the teachers/instructors that are mentioned in this
article (or who participate on the site) will have the opportunity to gain
access to materials and commentaries.

What is not evident is whether you will have an ongoing community with this
sort of thing. Will it be too broad for individuals to work to develop their
practice? Or will it just be enough to get the goods and go. That will
remain to be seen. The organization that started the project apparently want
to ascertain if teaching improves. Unfortunately, I am not sure that the
social networking model closes the end on this. We will not necessarily hear
from the recipients of the teaching models/curriculum.

At the end of the day, we are still dependent on the social contract that
people have with each other to be open and honest. Therefore, if the
teachers do not come back to evaluate what they take from the site and
present honestly their faults in presenting; we do not have real
improvement.

Alas though, social networking and Web 2.0 is young and perhaps, we will
wiki and collaborate a way to close the end of this dilemma. Although, a
community of practice in its purest and ideal sense is the only way to do
this.



http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showStoryts.cfm?ArticleID=6937
<http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showStoryts.cfm?ArticleID=6937&page=2>
&page=2



Charles Harper

Doctoral Student

Duquesne University

www.universeofcharles.blogspot.com
<http://www.universeofcharles.blogspot.com/>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Rosanna, I've scanned most of the Encyclopedia, and found some
chapters useful in my Tagunity research on language, CoPs, ontologies
and folksonomies.

Q. Do you have access to any university libraries that might have the
Encyclopedia?

You probably won't be surprised that the book includes many chapters
that highlight the links and overlaps between CoPs, IT, and KM etc.
It's also worth noting that Idea Group and the Idea Group Reference
have other publications with chapters on CoPs and IT related issues,
for example:

Cuel, R., Bouquet, P., & Bonifacio, M. (2006). Distributed knowledge
management. In D. G. Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of knowledge
management (pp. 122-127). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference.

Roberts, L. D., Smith, L. M., & Pollock, C. M. (2006). Psychological
sense of community in virtual communities. In S. Dasgupta (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of virtual communities and technologies (pp. 390-396).
Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference.

O'Murchu, I., Zhdanova, A. V., & Breslin, J. (2007, forthcoming).
Semantic community portals. In A. Tatnall (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
portal technologies and applications (Vol. 2006). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

Some chapters in Coakes & Clarke:

Assimakopoulos, D., & Yan, J. (2006). Social network analysis. In E.
Coakes & S. Clarke (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communities of practice in
information and knowledge management (pp. 474-480). Hershey, PA: Idea
Group.
Braun, P. (2006). Linking small business networks with innovation. In
E. Coakes & S. Clarke (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communities of practice
in information and knowledge management (pp. 346-). Hershey, PA: Idea
Group.
Cargill, B. (2006b). Leadership issues within a community of practice.
In E. Coakes & S. Clarke (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communities of
practice in information and knowledge management (pp. 320-321).
Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Cargill, B. J. (2006a). Team-work issues in virtual teams. In E.
Coakes & S. Clarke (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communities of practice in
information and knowledge management (pp. 529-530). Hershey, PA: Idea
Group.
Chau, A. (2006). The role of technology in supporting communities of
practice. In E. Coakes & S. Clarke (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communities
of practice in information and knowledge management (pp. 447-452).
Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Coakes, E., & Clarke, S. (2006). The concept of communities of
practice. In E. Coakes & S. Clarke (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communities
of practice in information and knowledge management (pp. 92-96).
Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Dotsika, F. (2006). IT perspectives on supporting communities of
practice. In E. Coakes & S. Clarke (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communities
of practice in information and knowledge management (pp. 257-263).
Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Hou Vat, K. (2006). IS design for community of practice's knowledge
challenge. In E. Coakes & S. Clarke (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
communities of practice in information and knowledge management (pp.
246-256). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Kimble, C., & Hildreth, P. (2006). Limits of communities of practice.
In E. Coakes & S. Clarke (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communities of
practice in information and knowledge management (pp. 327-). Hershey,
PA: Idea Group.
Mason, C., Castleman, T., & Parker, C. (2006). Creating value with
regional communities of SMEs. In E. Coakes & S. Clarke (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of communities of practice in information and knowledge
management (pp. 115-123). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Patrick, K., Cox, A., & Abdullah, R. (2006). Exploring the selection
of technology for enabling communities. In E. Coakes & S. Clarke
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of communities of practice in information and
knowledge management (pp. 166-176?). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Ruhi, U. (2006). A social informatics framework for sustaining virtual
communities of practice. In E. Coakes & S. Clarke (Eds.), Encyclopedia
of communities of practice in information and knowledge management
(pp. 466-473). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Smatt, C., & Wasko, M. M. (2006). Discovering communities of practice
through social network analysis. In E. Coakes & S. Clarke (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of communities of practice in information and knowledge
management (pp. 129-130). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Teigland, R., & Wasko, M. M. (2006). Knowledge exchange in electronic
networks of practice. In E. Coakes & S. Clarke (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
communities of practice in information and knowledge management (pp.
272-). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Tremblay, D.-G. (2006). Teamwork issues in virtual teams. In E. Coakes
& S. Clarke (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communities of practice in
information and knowledge management (pp. 523-528). Hershey, PA: Idea
Group.
Wasko, M. M., & Teigland, R. (2006). Distinguishing work groups,
virtual teams, and electronic networks of practice. In E. Coakes & S.
Clarke (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communities of practice in information
and knowledge management (pp. 138-140). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

See:
http://www.idea-group.com/encyclopedia/details.asp?ID=4458
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591405564/
http://www.citeulike.org/user/wcrosbie/article/311062

regards
Warren
http://www.linkedin.com/in/warrencrosbie

--- In com-prac@yahoogroups.com, "Rosanna Tarsiero" <rosanna@...> wrote:
> Encyclopedia of communities of practice in information and knowledge
management (2006) by Elayne Coakes and Steve Clarke?
>
> I was considering it as an investment on professional development
and would like to have hear from any of you knowing this book (and/or
just parts of it)?
>
> Thank you
>
> Rosanna Tarsiero, CKM

Very true, Steve.  I keep reading in various articles that structures such
as Second Life, Digg and even Ebay are web communities.  For academic
purposes, we feel the need to have to try to quantify what community means.
I think that this is like the Emperor and his clothes.  If most of the
people in a supposed community do not know each other well enough to get a
cup of coffee (or as you said."it doesn't feel like a community"), you may
not have a community, but just a wiki.



Charles



   _____

From: com-prac@yahoogroups.com [mailto:com-prac@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Steve Denning
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 12:33 PM
To: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cp] "communities of practice" F2F vs online



Fred writes: "F2F and online interactions are different and probably
result in communities with different characteristics."

It depends in part on what you mean by a community. If you mean a
group of people who trust each other enough to speak frankly, and
share a common responsibility for the good of the group, then my
question would be whether you can ever create the level of trust of a
real community unless there's some face to face meeting at some
point. Without that level of trust, what you have is a kind of
network that occasionally has some sharing and insights, but you
don't the kind of openness and mutual caring and shared
responsibility for the group that you get with a community.

Do the 518 members of com-prac form a community? It doesn't feel like
one to me. When I met some of the members last year, I certain felt
closer to them. And when I had a teleconference with some of the
members, that also helped. But when I think about all the 518 members
of com-prac, I don't feel I know enough about them to think of them
as a community. Am I mistaken?

Steve Denning
www.stevedenning.com





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]