RAPPORT
WWW.RECORDINGACHIEVEMENT.ORG
Issue 1 (2015)
through an ongoing process of participation and
reification, where participation ‘suggests both
action and connection’ (Wenger 1998 p.55). In
particular, Wenger emphasises the “profound
connection between identity and practice”
(Wenger, 1998, p.149). Identity acts as the bridge
between agency and structure combining
individual and structural divides (Cushion and
Denstone, 2011). Practice is a total embodiment
that overcomes traditional dichotomies dividing
acting from knowing, manual from mental, or
concrete from abstract (Wenger, 1998).
Originally in the presentation of his theory,
Wenger
gave
primacy
to
‘practice’,
conceptualising meaning, community, learning,
boundary, locality and knowing all in the context
of practice (Wenger, 1998).
Identity was a
secondary focus. Interestingly, in 2000 Wenger
repositioned the central thread of his theorisation.
Now identity becomes a “key structuring element
of how we know” (p. 238). It is through our identity
that we decide what matters and what does not,
whom we identify with, whom we trust and with
whom we share our understanding.
Lave and Wenger (1991) contend that learning
and a sense of identity are inseparable in
connecting competence and experience into a
form of knowing:
“[Identity].. is not just an accumulation of
skills and information, but a process of
becoming – to become a certain person or,
conversely, to avoid becoming a certain
person”
Wenger 1998, p. 215.
Learning across boundaries requires us to engage
our identities to other ways of knowing in the
world, as we all belong to different communities
we experience ‘in
a personal way’: as we
negotiate our understanding across boundaries
we consequently develop our identities (Wenger,
2000, p. 239). It will be suggested later that a
focus on identity and modes of belonging through
engagement, imagination, and alignment could
have analytical utility for students’ reflections.
Community of Practice: Pedagogical strategy or
heuristic device?
The term ‘community of practice’ has become
shrouded with ambiguities (Cox, 2005). CoP is
used loosely in many different contexts to the
extent that it becomes almost meaningless and
loses its conceptual purchase. The lack of clarity
is unhelpful. Amin and Roberts (2006) argue for
a more heterogeneous lexicon to differentiate its
use. Alheit (1999) contends that the concepts
have been instrumentalised, exploited and reified
as a pedagogical or knowledge management
strategy (Amin and Roberts, 2006, Culver and
Trudel, 2008, Fuller et al., 2005, Wenger et al
2002, Roberts, 2006, Wenger, 2000). In relation
to reflective practice the term communities of
practice rarely gets a passing mention.
Occasionally the term is used loosely to provide a
label of convenience to group reflection (Norton
and Campbell, 2007; Knowles et al 2014).
In the original work, Lave and Wenger (1991)
promoted their theorisation as an analytical
viewpoint rather than a pedagogical strategy.
However, at the beginning of the new millennium
there was a clear shift in the articulation of
Wenger’s conceptualisation of communities of
practice, from analysis towards application. Lea
(2005) suggests that reference to CoPs has
become ubiquitous in higher education and that
most of the published literature is focused upon
design and implementation rather than critique.
She also suggests that Wenger’s (1998, 2000)
focus on the design of learning communities
moves the concepts further away from the
heuristic
qualities
of
their
original
presentation.This contention that the move
towards a pedagogical strategy diminishes the
heuristic utility of Wenger’s conceptualisation is
interesting. Lea does not suggest an ‘either- or’:
it is not the case that CoP has to be either a
pedagogical strategy or a useful heuristic. CoP
can be applied in both contexts; it just requires the
author to provide clarity in the way in which the
concepts are applied. It is possible to think with,
and write with, the concepts as a set of theoretical
constructions and consider the implications in a
reflective
and
reflexive
manner
without
essentialising or reifying the concepts.
This paper aims to strike a balance between
applying the concepts heuristically to support
thinking about the implications for work-based
learning and considering how these insights frame
implications for practice. CoP concepts are
considered to provide an alternative perspective
for students to think through, and reflect upon,
their work-based experiences. Specifically the
central concepts of engagement, imagination, and
alignment are useful to students’ reflections on
and analysis of work-based learning. Introduction
to this conceptual lens may provide opportunities
for students to develop deeper, more profound
reflections on their learning, to manage their
placement experiences, and to consider their
emerging professional identities through contacts
with industry.
Work-based learning
through the CoP lens
in
higher
education
Framing work-based learning through the lens of
CoP provides an alternative perspective for
students to consider their work placement
experiences. The concept of communities of
34