Communities of Practice in Practice

The idea of communities of practice isn't new and in this blog I'm not about to start to recount all the work of the theorists on this subject.  But educators are quite often involved in communities of practice.  They're often comprised of groups of teachers who have similar interests in various aspects of learning and teaching and, during community meetings, we can discuss practice, share practice and support each other in facing the challenges of being an educator in the 21st century.  

Recently though, in learning about the concepts and thinking tools devised by Pierre Bourdieu, I realised that communities of practice are in themselves little fields unto themselves where power structures can and do exist.  

("arm power symbol" by r3v || cls is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.)

Thinking back to my early studies in leadership and management I remember coming across the concept of leadership styles and one that intrigued me was the concept of charismatic leadership.  I remember thinking about how these people were charismatic, vibrant, likeable, charming and persuasive.  I remember hearing about various figues such as Winston Churchill, Oprah Winfrey and Martin Luther King who were considered to be good examples of charismatic leaders.   This came back to my mind recently when learning about social capital.  

Social capital can be described in lots of ways, but one that I came across recently was that of social capital as being the collective sum of resources that could be accessed through membership of a network.  So, with that in mind, can you imagine the kind of resource that you would have access to if you were closely connected to one of these charming, likeable, vibrant, persuasive leaders at the centre of your community.  Can you imagine the advantage (Burt, 2008) that you would have within a community if you had the ear of someone persuasive and charismatic to fight your corner?

In some situations this could be a really positive resource especially in situations of conflict where you could rely on the influence of others to get behind you and support you when things get difficult.  But equally, this could become quite sinister because, if you could get one of these charismatic leaders on side then you have the ability to spread a message widely across your network, throughout the community and beyond while being entirely one step removed from public exposure.

So, in learning about social capital, networks, communication theory and leadership/management, I always find myself asking these questions:

(a)  What is the message?

(b)  Who's message is it?

(c)  Why is the message being spread in this community?  

Working in a sector where financial budgets are tightening, structures are being revised and job roles are being rationalised, I find it quite bizarre to find communities of practice which purport supporting the learner or improving the learner experience spreading messages such as,"digital learning doesn't work". This seems jarring when my own research has uncovered a wealth of literature that is largely inconclusive with some arguing that technology is the worst thing to ever to have been brought into a classroom, while others highlight that technology is the only means by which they can access a quality education, or indeed any relationship with the world beyond their front door.  In my opinion as an educator, I think that the use of digital tools to enhance learning can work when applied in a contextually sensitive manner.  Hennington et al.'s (2011) research makes for interesting reading on that subject.

So, if that's the message, the next question I find myself asking is, who would want to spread this message and why?  If the application of technology to enhance digital learning is being discouraged, one has to ask why when the evidence is largely inconclusive?  And, given the substantial investment in digital infrastructure that occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic, government agencies are more likely to want to see such investment put to good use.  So with this in mind, it can be easy to blame the agentic resistance of the teaching body without a real consideration of what's going on.  

While training and experience may be part of the story, I have to come back to Bourdieusian thinking tool of habitus.  If the adoption of technology enhanced strategies goes against the teaching habitus of the individual, a habitus that is both inertial and resists change, then that becomes comprehensible.  Indeed, what is being experienced is not resistance, but rather a manifestation of the habitus in practice.  The same is true for our students.  Learners are not likely to place value in online learning if their habitus is entirely conditioned on the basis of classroom face to face learning.  So, any resistance to online learning can be thought of as a manifestation of collective identity.

("Scott Kelby Photowalk - Bakersfield Group - (Explored #58)" by Antiporda Productions LV, LLC is licensed under CC BY 2.0.)

The problem arises when multitple practitioners with a similar perspective (or habitus) join together in a community, then they gain social capital in the form of advantage (Burt, 2008).  So in a community of practice, care must be taken so as not to marginalise the voices of those who have a different experience.  Resistance to digital learning may be a response to what is being perceived as a prescribed/preferred habitus, a habitus that runs contrary to the values and ideals of the individual.  But when interested parties decry one prescribed habitus, they do so in favour of a preferred habitus that they themselves prescribe to others.  

Let's consider a different message.  Imagine if the message "We need your help...", was perpetuated throughout a community of practice.  When we ask the same question of, who would want to make that statement and why, that can be quite revealing too.  

Who needs help?  Is it an individual?  On a superficial level, perhaps, yes.  But, working in the education sector, the more I hear people asking for help, the more I began to realise that this isn't a one off request from a colleague who is struggling?  It's a symptom of a much larger problem.  It's a symptom of a system that is creaking under the strain of a lack of resources and a lack of government support, which results in job role slippage as individuals are struggling with a workload that is ever increasing while subsisting on a salary that is less and less reflective of their workload and responsibility.  

Just for a minute lets consider social capital as a means of accessing resources through a network.  That community or network can become a means by which to access additional man-power, effectively spreading the workload in a supportive way, a safety net of social capital if you will.  But this is a treacherous model to apply because, all it takes is the application of too great a load to one key point in the network and the safety net starts to tear.  Any engineer can attest to that.  But the same engineer will also tell you that any stress placed on the system can take the form of a point load, or a uniformly distributed load.  

("safety net" by /\ \/\/ /\ is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.)

Reeder (2023) comments that while GDP is often considered a benchmark of the prosperity of a nation, we all know that such prosperity isn't distributed evenly.  The reality is that when workload is spread across a network in order to ease the burden on individuals working within the system, there also comes a point where you have to realise that such a workload may not be spread either.  This results in strain being applied to key areas within the system.  In reality an even spread of workload would bring with it an even spread of power through the open distribution of information and knowledge.  My how the balance of power would chance if that were to happen.  

In realising the issue of power, we start to see that networks are less of a flat structure and more of a three-dimensional latticework where resources and advantage can be cultivated and leveraged as power, influencing and influenced by others via horizontally and/or vertically connections through the network.  

However, there's another question that bothers me too - what happens when you look to people in your network for advice and support, but that support isn't forthcoming?  What happens when relationships break down?  What went wrong?  Has the network broken under the load?  Or have certain points in the network realised that they need to protect themselves from breaking or being broken?  I believe that's called self-care.

References

Burt, R. S. (2008) ‘Structural Holes versus Network Closure as Social Capital’, in Lin, N., Cook, K. and Burt, R. S. (eds.) Social Capital Theory and Research [ebook reader], London, Transaction Publishers.

Hennington, A., Janz, B. and Poston, R. (2011) “I’m just burned out: Understanding Information Systems Compatibility with personal values and role-based stress in a nursing context”, Computers in Human Behaviour, Vol. 27, pp. 1238 – 1248, DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.01.004.