Communities of Practice LO9079

kent.myers@lmco.com
Tue, 13 Aug 1996 11:08:22 -0400

Replying to LO9017 --

As a way to characterize a speech group, I'm thinking of three variables.
Mike asserts that LO is a COP, which covers the first variable:



						LO's value
						---------------
1. an ongoing relationship			COP

2. exchange pattern within the relationship	?

3. medium					maillist, plus some side talk

Mike ably describes the normal LO exchange pattern.
Individuals move to the center (post mulitple notes within one thread).
The thread may be central or peripheral to the individual's interest.
Central participation is rarely sustained.

An individual may participate from the periphery by:
- reading
- posting relatively isolated notes (no close relationship to another note,
to the thread, to other threads, and no follow up is expected)

That seems to be where the second variable has settled. The experience is
rewarding enough that many participants continue or return.

I'm considering that the ongoing relationship called COP is not one that
can sustain the exchange pattern called dialogue. (Evidently a COP can
talk about dialogue very well. Subquestion: does a COP support practice,
but not practice through the relationship?)

I don't think that the maillist medium (variable 3) prevents dialogue. I
was once on a small sociotech list that I paid for and that didn't fill my
box. It was rewarding if I kept conversation going, but it died very
quickly (or lacked any interest) as soon as I paused. In several
sustained conversations our stock of material was quickly spent and we
created things together -- i.e., dialogue. Was that group a COP? I'm not
sure. (Is a COP is "never having to say I don't know"?)

Another case: I'm a member of a mostly academic society that has an inner
core who have regular, tense, exchanges. Peripheral people like me are
definitely excluded. Yet the peripherals need to show up at conferences
to validate the efforts of the core. Significantly, this group has a
maillist that goes unused. I think that many members fear disclosing
their ignorance and being slammed, while others don't feel they could
benefit from loose talk, and still others want to avoid engaging with
those less knowledgable. Is this society a COP? If it is, it has
achieved a forbidding exchange pattern, one unlike LO, yet one that
includes some dialogue.

I'm searching for the bounds of a COP, it's unique benefits, and its
capacity for dialogue. It must have some bounds, or else it's just a nice
name for 'group'.

Kent Myers
Alexandria, VA
myersk@us.net
kent.myers@lmco.com

-- 

kent.myers@lmco.com

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>