Conceptual Tools for CoPs as Social Learning Systems: Boundaries, Identity, Trajectories and Participation

Abstract

The term boundary often has negative connotations because it conveys limitation and lack of access. But the very notion of community of practice implies the existence of boundary. Unlike the boundaries of organizational units, which are usually well defined because affiliation is officially sanctioned, the boundaries of communities of practice are usually rather fluid. They arise from different enterprises; different ways of engaging with one another; different histories, repertoires, ways of communicating, and capabilities. That these boundaries are often unspoken does not make them less significant. Sit for lunch by a group of high energy particle physicists and you know about boundary, not because they intend to exclude you, but because you cannot figure out what they are talking about. Shared practice by its very nature creates boundaries.

Editor’s Note: This chapter comprises a series of five extracts from two works by the author (Wenger, 1998; Wenger, 2000). They concern boundaries, identity, trajectories and participation. These concepts play important parts in Wenger’s Communities of Practice (CoPs) – based theory i.e. his social theory of learning. In the context of this book these extracts have been selected for scrutiny (i) because of their relevance to CoPs as social learning systems and (ii) to highlight the conceptual tools described for use in understanding and managing systemic change. Extracts 2, 3 and 4 make occasional references to ‘a community of claims processors’. This example of a community of practice is detailed at the start of Wenger’s 1998 book and is not reproduced here. Also, detailed footnotes from the original works are not given here.

Source: Extracts 1 and 5 come fromWenger (2000). Extracts 2–4 come fromWenger (1998) reproduced with permission.

The sources of these extracts are indicated at the end of each extract and in the references.